Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It was unfortunate enough to have a harmful mutation.Here's the last question. It's a "why" question so I won't be surprised to see a variety of answers. It's also obviously an essay question, so knock yourselves out. Thanks.
Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?
Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?
Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?
Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?
The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure.
The problem is in Darwins time, they thought that a cell was as sophisticated as a ping pong.
Hello Dysert.I'd like to ask the atheists here a few questions, one at a time, and get your responses to them. I have no "agenda" or big buildup to a "gotcha" at the end, I would just like your responses to each of the questions in this thread if you don't mind. I won't be arguing/debating what you say; they're just questions. Ok? Let's start...
Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?
Here's the last question. It's a "why" question so I won't be surprised to see a variety of answers. It's also obviously an essay question, so knock yourselves out. Thanks.
Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?
Here's the last question. It's a "why" question so I won't be surprised to see a variety of answers. It's also obviously an essay question, so knock yourselves out. Thanks.
Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?
These are all questions for biologists, not for atheists. A Christian biologist would be better able to answer them than an atheist with no biological qualifications.
Unfortunately, I don't have a forum of biologists that I can ask.It might be educational when dysert sees that the answers given by atheists happen to match those given by biologists who also happen to be Christians.
Hello Dysert.
Given that the scientific understanding of the origin of the universe was the Big Bang. The universe
in the first instance was a sterile environment, life definitely cannot occur in any sterile environment.
There seems to be a serious flaw in the scientific explanation.
Unfortunately, I don't have a forum of biologists that I can ask.
Unfortunately, I don't have a forum of biologists that I can ask.
Question 4: After evolving for hundreds of millions of years, why does a life form start to degenerate just after birth only to destroy itself in a short period of time?
If you call a simple replicator (e.g. a molecule that can copy itself) a 'living entity', then yes. But there's a considerable distance between the earliest replicating molecules and what the man on the Clapham omnibus might call a 'living entity' that they gave rise to. The boundaries and definition of life are debatable and uncertain, for example, the hoary old question - are viruses alive?Question 1: Do you believe that there was a chance merging of organic materials necessary at just the right time, circumstance, and environment to produce a living entity?
No; some homeostatic processes are sufficiently complex, flexible, and adaptable that some might say the process itself is 'clever' or 'has some intelligence' (just as they might say that a car's control system is intelligent enough to counter a skid, or can intelligently follow the car in front), but there's no intelligent entity in control.Question 2: Do you believe in the existence of some form of intelligence that controls homeostasis in organisms?
That's not quite what was said - which was "a chance merging", not "a chance of merging"... Meaning that the merging was a chance event.I'll go further, and state than anyone who answers 'no' to that question is demonstrably wrong, because of the way you phrased it. "a chance". Anyone who says there is not 'a chance' of this being the case is saying it absolutely definitely did not happen.
That's not a coherent question; there is no 'spark' of life. Simple homeostasis probably would not have developed until the replicator was encapsulated in a vesicle, to constitute a primitive cell with an internal environment to be regulated; but it's not clear at what stage this would occur - there are a number of competing hypotheses.Question 3: Do you believe that following the initial spark of life, that homeostasis took over from there?
Lol! It's moved on a fair bit from there. There are deep rock hypotheses, clay hypotheses, oceanic vent hypotheses, ocean spume hypotheses, etc., etc. There's whole areas of study into RNA replicators ('RNA World') and their precursors ('Pre-RNA World'). Self-assembly of RNA chains and other polynucleotides has been demonstrated; there's all kinds of stuff going on.The theory of abiogenesis is ongoing. The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure. Next method: Bashing 2 rocks together in hopes a worm will form.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?