Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[stevevw]

What is the evidence that it was the belief and prayer that caused the remission?

Well there will never be any definite evidence as it is said to be a miracle by the church. Soon after the women was diagnosed she was given a picture of Mary Mckillop with what they call a relic. This had a piece of Mary Mckillops cloths in it. The Catholics believe in this as a connection to the saint.

There was some sort of prayer that everyone had to pray for nine days and evidently many in the local church were involved. Soon after the prayers started towards the end of the nine days the women started to feel better. Soon after that when the doctor thought that she should be dead they asked sent her for an xray. That xray showed that the cancer which was terminal and inoperable had disappeared and was completely gone. The doctors had no medical explanation for what had happened.

The women was an average Aussie lady who had been a believer and non believer most of her life. Didn't seem to be someone who was in it for money or trying to make up stories. They both seemed like a nice honest couple who were not fanatical about their beliefs and were genuine ordinary people.

As i said earlier even if you dont believe it is certainly a case for people coming together and praying or focusing on a certain result and that result actually happening through their intervention.

 

[stevevw]

If evolution is about creatures adapting to the environment to survive why is it that humans are actually destroying that environment. If adaptation and survival are the foundations for evolution how can human behavior be seen as being in line with that.

Evolutionist uses examples of an animal that needed to move faster because of environmental reasons will pass down beneficial mutations that allow the group to eventually have the ability to move fast. They will then adapt and survive. Yet humans can build a car and move faster or just about make and do anything to help them adapt. At the same time this ability can also be the thing that destroys the planet and ourselves.

How is this in line with survival of the best adapted. Animals only have the natural environment to work with but we have the ability to create unnatural things that can destroy the natural environment. If we were to truly evolve and adapt shouldn't we be using these things to do everything to keep and save the environment. Animals dont seem to do things that destroy and their basic natural instincts are to survive in harmony with nature. Yet we have this ability to destroy nature. It seems like there are other forces at work that are causing use to do the very opposite of what we should be doing according to evolution.

 

[46AND2]

I realize this, I had forgotten to link one of my posts and it was made out that i do it all the time. I don,t think creationists are ashamed necessarily of the source. I think that if and when they do use them they are jumped on and rejected so they dont get much chance to use them anyway. Or at least thats my experience. I have read some of them and i dont see any problems. If you read them in conjunction with the science sites then you get different perspectives.

Some of the sites are quite good in my books. They have a very scientific approach using scientific methods of analyzing things but will looked at it from another angle. Some go into the analysis of a certain thing and to me make sense compared to what the science sites say. They are more or less talking about the same thing and break it down to show that some of the conclusions evolutionist come to are not necessarily so. This is not because they are trying ti inject God into the equation but they are doing the science themselves.

They will show the possibility that it is possible that there are other reasons involved. They will also pull apart what some evolutionist say and show that they have assumed some things and that the evidence they pro-port is not necessarily the case. Something that most science sites will never do. Like i said and have shown the evidence is not always as black and white as made out and you can make a case for both sides. If you always engross yourself in the same agreed opinion you can sometimes overlook things or be influenced to accept it when it may not be the case.

As i have said before I mostly use science sites for reference but would like to sometimes use religious based ones that have a scientific approach but never get past ist base on that one. Nor do i see others have the same opportunity on this site. When you mention Kent Hovind I haven't really seen his stuff to know what he is about. Some sites are more religious then others. But they are not all the same yet are all tarred with the same brush so they dont get a chance to be aired. Its a pity as i think they make some sense. Its funny as i believe that evolutionist can use fringe science sites that may make certain claims and they are never scrutinized as much as religious ones.

Oh merry Christmas by the way to one and all.

It isn't about whether we think you are ashamed of your source or not. It's about giving credit where credit is due, and not claiming authorship for yourself. It's simple research paper etiquette. When you post something on here unsourced, it is no different than turning in a copied paper in to school with your name on it. It doesn't even matter to me what side of the argument you are on. Had you been an evolution proponent, I'd have said the same thing. I have done so in the past to other "evolutionists."

And I wouldn't have said anything unless it had happened several times. Yes, MOST of the time you have posted your sources, but you have been addressed a couple times about this issue.

If you look at the posts by people like Loudmouth or SFS, you will see that EVERY time they quote somebody, or some paper, they reference that quote. In fact, I challenge you to find a single instance where the science supporters on here have neglected to cite the source of their quotes. It is something that science, and by extension we, take very seriously.

As for the content of your post here:

Yes, there CAN be multiple interpretations of data. However, in order for the interpretation to be legit, it has to support ALL data. If there is even one piece of data that does not fit the interpretation, then the interpretation is wrong, not merely alternate, and that one contradiction of the data needs to be addressed in order for the interpretation to become legitimate.

And despite what you think about the creationist objections to scientists interpretation supporting all the data, invariably those objections are based on misunderstanding of the science, or attempting to inject the supernatural into the interpretation, which science does not even attempt to explain...and for good reason. If we had to take all supernatural into consideration:

It might have been leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Ra, telepathy, telekinesis, astrology, etc. ad nauseum.

We would never be able to explain anything in a productive way.

 

[46AND2]

If evolution is about creatures adapting to the environment to survive why is it that humans are actually destroying that environment. If adaptation and survival are the foundations for evolution how can human behavior be seen as being in line with that.

Evolutionist uses examples of an animal that needed to move faster because of environmental reasons will pass down beneficial mutations that allow the group to eventually have the ability to move fast. They will then adapt and survive. Yet humans can build a car and move faster or just about make and do anything to help them adapt. At the same time this ability can also be the thing that destroys the planet and ourselves.

How is this in line with survival of the best adapted. Animals only have the natural environment to work with but we have the ability to create unnatural things that can destroy the natural environment. If we were to truly evolve and adapt shouldn't we be using these things to do everything to keep and save the environment. Animals dont seem to do things that destroy and their basic natural instincts are to survive in harmony with nature. Yet we have this ability to destroy nature. It seems like there are other forces at work that are causing use to do the very opposite of what we should be doing according to evolution.

Organisms adapt to their environment regardless of why the environment changes. The fact that humans change the environment unnaturally, is irrelevant. There is no specific manner in which an organism is "supposed" to adapt. It adapts in a manner DICTATED by it's environment, no matter what that environment entails. If they don't adapt, they die out.

 

[stevevw]

Not keeping tabs on you. Just know that other people have spoken to you about it before. It's fine to copy and paste, occasionally, as long as you cite your source. If you don't, its plagiarism.

No not other people, one person when i also forgot when i first was posting. I have made 440 posts since joining in November. I missed a couple at the beginning as i was new and was getting use to things. In fact from what i see i seem to have more links than most, at least one fro nearly every post i make. The last few posts haven't had any as i have been discussing different subjects to get peoples thoughts and giving my thoughts so i haven't referenced anything. I suspected a bit of bias when you first pointed it out just the way you said it. There is a difference between pointing something out politely and having a go at something. Just seems your a bit harsh and i dont think you would be doing this to those that support your side.

 

[stevevw]

Your posts are littered with the words 'that doesn't make sense to me' or some variation thereof.

It doesn't make sense to me like faith in a God wont make sense to you.

 

[stevevw]

Organisms adapt to their environment regardless of why the environment changes. The fact that humans change the environment unnaturally, is irrelevant. There is no specific manner in which an organism is "supposed" to adapt. It adapts in a manner DICTATED by it's environment, no matter what that environment entails. If they don't adapt, they die out.

Do you think that if humans keep affecting and changing an animals environment through progress that it doesn't give those creatures time to adapt and they begin to die off. What happens when they do move in and take their habitat and they have to move somewhere else. They seem to be able to adapt fairly well in a short time without having to change features. Humans do the same like living in colder climates. Yet i dont see any great changes in their features like the Eskimos growing hair to keep warmer.

It just seems humans who are supposed to be the most evolved and have evolved a brain that is capable of great thinking also have this side that is destructive. We can have a sense of self and can ask questions like who are we as opposed to animals. So even though we are the pinnacle of evolution we can also be the down fall of all living creatures and thus their survival. In some ways evolution has produced the very destroyer of the process that has created life. In nature there have been natural catastrophes that have wiped out species and at one stage almost the entire animal kingdom. We seem to be doing it ourselves without any help from nature. Almost as though there is a side to us that doesn't want to survive.

 

[46AND2]

Do you think that if humans keep affecting and changing an animals environment through progress that it doesn't give those creatures time to adapt and they begin to die off. What happens when they do move in and take their habitat and they have to move somewhere else. They seem to be able to adapt fairly well in a short time without having to change features. Humans do the same like living in colder climates. Yet i dont see any great changes in their features like the Eskimos growing hair to keep warmer.

Yes, there is ample evidence of human progress damaging the habitat of certain animals to the point of endangerment.

As to your point about not gaining features...how do you know? It's a very slow process; particularly in a large population with long generation spans.

As for Eskimos growing hair...why would they need to? They have clothes. The cold is not as strong of a selection pressure as it once was, due to artificial methods developed to combat that environment. For humans, anyway.

And so what if an animal adapts quickly to its new environment? You seem to think that with any change in environment, the organism will need to grow some kind of appendage to survive according to evolution. You are looking for macro changes in micro time periods, and, not finding any, claim it is evidence against evolution, when evolution never claimed that should happen in the first place.

It would be nice and tidy if evolution had a fast forward button we could press, but since it doesn't, we have to use other means to deduce the mechanisms.

It just seems humans who are supposed to be the most evolved and have evolved a brain that is capable of great thinking also have this side that is destructive. We can have a sense of self and can ask questions like who are we as opposed to animals. So even though we are the pinnacle of evolution we can also be the down fall of all living creatures and thus their survival. In some ways evolution has produced the very destroyer of the process that has created life. In nature there have been natural catastrophes that have wiped out species and at one stage almost the entire animal kingdom. We seem to be doing it ourselves without any help from nature. Almost as though there is a side to us that doesn't want to survive.

Most evolved? What does that even mean? I would argue that ALL life currently on earth is EQUALLY evolved, since we are still alive. There is no goal of evolution, no rush to the summit, no direction that is right or wrong, other than the one which determines if you live or die.

We are not the pinnacle of evolution anymore than today's bacteria, or ground sloth, or killer whale. Put us in their environments, would we be so successful?

The only claim of "more evolved" that we can make is in comparison to those species who went extinct.

 

[46AND2]

No not other people, one person when i also forgot when i first was posting. I have made 440 posts since joining in November. I missed a couple at the beginning as i was new and was getting use to things. In fact from what i see i seem to have more links than most, at least one fro nearly every post i make. The last few posts haven't had any as i have been discussing different subjects to get peoples thoughts and giving my thoughts so i haven't referenced anything. I suspected a bit of bias when you first pointed it out just the way you said it. There is a difference between pointing something out politely and having a go at something. Just seems your a bit harsh and i dont think you would be doing this to those that support your side.

Sorry if it seemed harsh, but frankly it's a serious issue, imo. The point is, I wasn't the first one to correct you.

Honestly, I don't understand the "getting use to things," explanation. This isn't because of forum rules. It's standard practice. Something I'm sure you were taught in grade school.

I'm not trying to be mean, and my original post was not having a go at you. It was criticism intended to convey the importance of the subject.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, there is ample evidence of human progress damaging the habitat of certain animals to the point of endangerment.

As to your point about not gaining features...how do you know? It's a very slow process; particularly in a large population with long generation spans.

We will have to see but in the end mankind maybe the only one left standing. Not because animals didn't adapt but because they never had time to as we wiped out their habitats. It seems like there is more to it than just natural selection. If evolution can produce a species that is capable of destroying the very environment it is supposed adapt to then it has defeated itself. That to me speaks of more than just a biological existence but also that we have another dimension that can knowingly destroy.

As for Eskimos growing hair...why would they need to? They have clothes. The cold is not as strong of a selection pressure as it once was, due to artificial methods developed to combat that environment. For humans, anyway.

Still it is very cold regardless and they have less hair on their bodies than say the Greeks who live in hot climates. If the Greeks can have more hair as a hereditary gene than this is showing the opposite of evolution and adaptation. As evolutionists use how a moth changes colour because of the environment or a animal develops blubber to keep warm then this shows the opposite in a lot of cases. So this sort of example of adaptation doesn't always fit as neatly as they make out.

And so what if an animal adapts quickly to its new environment? You seem to think that with any change in environment, the organism will need to grow some kind of appendage to survive according to evolution. You are looking for macro changes in micro time periods, and, not finding any, claim it is evidence against evolution, when evolution never claimed that should happen in the first place.

It would be nice and tidy if evolution had a fast forward button we could press, but since it doesn't, we have to use other means to deduce the mechanisms.

I just dont think there was this desperate need to have big macro changes so creatures could adapt and survive. Like an animal gaining or losing legs. There were others ways for it to adapt which were just variations withing the species. Their genes were capable of great variation enough to help them adapt and survive. This is seen in the ways animals and humans seem to adapt to many different environments quite well without any big changes to their features. I just dont see a creature losing its legs or one growing legs. I dont see any creature in the process of growing an extra toe or losing wings or gaining wings. I dont think scientists have found any evidence of an animal in the process of losing its lungs or gaining gills. Of humans gaining any new features apart from variation of what we already have. There are no signs of growing an extra finger or growing wings. We have always wanted to fly or swim in the ocean as the land is becoming harder and harder to live on. Yet there is not one bit of evidence that we are changing anything on a macro level not even the beginnings of something.

Most evolved? What does that even mean? I would argue that ALL life currently on earth is EQUALLY evolved, since we are still alive. There is no goal of evolution, no rush to the summit, no direction that is right or wrong, other than the one which determines if you live or die.

We are not the pinnacle of evolution anymore than today's bacteria, or ground sloth, or killer whale. Put us in their environments, would we be so successful?

The only claim of "more evolved" that we can make is in comparison to those species who went extinct.

You are not understanding what i mean. Mans brain has evolved enough to control evolution to a point. So he is capable of playing God to a point when it comes to evolution. If he chooses he can wipe out species to accommodate himself. He can also save a species and help them survive. So he has that advantage that other creatures dont. In that way he has a higher level of existence. So he can play around with the process and take control of what direction evolution takes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are not understanding what i mean. Mans brain has evolved enough to control evolution to a point. So he is capable of playing God to a point when it comes to evolution. If he chooses he can wipe out species to accommodate himself. He can also save a species and help them survive. So he has that advantage that other creatures dont. In that way he has a higher level of existence. So he can play around with the process and take control of what direction evolution takes.

But does that make man 'more evolved'? All species influence other species - every feature to avoid a predator is developed in reaction to predators. Flowers exist because of pollinators like insects.

Humans may have the brain to understand how and why it works, but we're no 'more evolved'. That would imply a linear progression towards some predetermined goal.

 

[stevevw]

But does that make man 'more evolved'? All species influence other species - every feature to avoid a predator is developed in reaction to predators. Flowers exist because of pollinators like insects.

Humans may have the brain to understand how and why it works, but we're no 'more evolved'. That would imply a linear progression towards some predetermined goal.

Probably not as far as genetics are concerned. But he has more ability than all creatures to influence things. Plus he has another dimension to him that goes beyond what animals can have a conscience. So he can know right from wrong. To me that puts him in a higher position than animals with a sense of responsibility.

But thats not the point i was making. Man has the ability to destroy the environment and other species. So he can be play God in this world when it comes who survives and who doesn't. This is not subject to natural selection. Already he is starting to experiment with our DNA and this can also change how things evolve. All this steps outside the boundaries of evolution and brings another element into the equasion.

It seems hard to believe that chemicals somehow came together to create complex life that has this sense of self and have such an advanced brain. That he can now control the very process that started it all. All this came from nothing.

 

[stevevw]

What did you God use to make everything?

God claims that he is all powerful and through him all things were made. He is the beginning and the end. This at least says that there was a creator to account for how complex life came into existence from nothing. Science cannot explain how nothing can produce something especially the vast universe and all the complexity of life. Sooner or later they will see at the very core of the atom that there are things going on that dont make sense to physics. That matter and life had to have a creator.

Already they are approaching this point with the higgs boson and dark energy. The more they discover in quantum mechanics the more they see that there are strange things going on that dont make sense according to the way we understand things. They will never understand even though they try to put an explanation to it. Nothing they can come up with will ever explain how something came from nothing. They like to say that it all came into existence as some kind of explosion but that had to have things there for that to happen. God created the universe and life and he can been seen in all creation.
John 1:3 Verse Concepts

John 1:3

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
- See more at: 64 Bible verses about God, The Creator

 

[Subduction Zone]

God claims that he is all powerful and through him all things were made. He is the beginning and the end. This at least says that there was a creator to account for how complex life came into existence from nothing. Science cannot explain how nothing can produce something especially the vast universe and all the complexity of life. Sooner or later they will see at the very core of the atom that there are things going on that dont make sense to physics. That matter and life had to have a creator.

God makes no such claim. At best the Christian Bible claims that God makes that claim. And to debunk the second part of this paragraph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

Already they are approaching this point with the higgs boson and dark energy. The more they discover in quantum mechanics the more they see that there are strange things going on that dont make sense according to the way we understand things. They will never understand even though they try to put an explanation to it. Nothing they can come up with will ever explain how something came from nothing. They like to say that it all came into existence as some kind of explosion but that had to have things there for that to happen. God created the universe and life and he can been seen in all creation.
John 1:3 Verse Concepts

John 1:3

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
- See more at: 64 Bible verses about God, The Creator

What do you mean? Scientists are finding out more and more every day. The predicted Higgs-boson has been observed. Now it is time to study and understand it.

It seems that you really should have said that science gets harder and harder for the layman to understand every day. You show this by calling their discoveries "strange goings on". Many people have trouble even understanding relativity. Quantum mechanics gives them the heebie jeebies and particle science seems to be all make believe. The problem there is with the uneducated person, not with the scientists.

Our world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

 

[EternalDragon]

What did you God use to make everything?

From the bible it appears to be....water.

 

[mzungu]

Probably not as far as genetics are concerned. But he has more ability than all creatures to influence things. Plus he has another dimension to him that goes beyond what animals can have a conscience. So he can know right from wrong. To me that puts him in a higher position than animals with a sense of responsibility.

But thats not the point i was making. Man has the ability to destroy the environment and other species. So he can be play God in this world when it comes who survives and who doesn't. This is not subject to natural selection. Already he is starting to experiment with our DNA and this can also change how things evolve. All this steps outside the boundaries of evolution and brings another element into the equasion.

It seems hard to believe that chemicals somehow came together to create complex life that has this sense of self and have such an advanced brain. That he can now control the very process that started it all. All this came from nothing.

That is totally irrelevant to ToE. You can thank your lucky stars for Evolution else the Spanish flu would have wiped out every single human on the planet.

 

[stevevw]

God makes no such claim. At best the Christian Bible claims that God makes that claim. And to debunk the second part of this paragraph:

Well OK the bible says God said that he created the heavens and the earth. But then how else can you make this claim apart from what the bible says. I am not going to tell you i heard God say he create everything am I. The bible is said to be the word of God.

Jesus said That God was the creator.
Mark 10.5
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.

Jesus also said he was the son of God and this is why he was crucified as they said he committed blasphemy in saying he was from God. So the words of Jesus are high lighted in the bible and these are the words that led him to his death. Even herod and Pontius Pilate acknowledged that jesus was claiming to be king of the Jews the promised messiah. Also there are non biblical sources that say there was a Jesus who they say was regarded as a God and was crucified and rose on the 3rd day. So at least we can say there is a good possibility that the words of Jesus were said as the bible has claimed. Especially those to do with saying he was from God and what God was like as these lead him to his death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

I will have to watch this later when i get time. In the mean time i can post another video that goes into what i am talking about. You may have seen it as i have posted it before. It is very interesting and its something they have put on TV before so they must have thought the average layman could follow it and be interested. There are 4 parts starting from newtons discovery of gravity to quantum mechanics and the theories they have for the universe. But part 4 is more about quantum mechanics i think.

The Fabric of the Cosmos 4 - Universe or Multiverse - YouTube

What do you mean? Scientists are finding out more and more every day. The predicted Higgs-boson has been observed. Now it is time to study and understand it.

Yes but in finding that they have also found a whole lot more and a lot of it is harder to predict. Their prediction was only made because they couldn't understand what was happening because the known laws of physics were being broken. So they knew something was causing this but the more they look into it the more questions come up that dont make any sense. Its like they can know there's something causing it but will never be able to explain it because it is beyond any explanation.

It seems that you really should have said that science gets harder and harder for the layman to understand every day. You show this by calling their discoveries "strange goings on". Many people have trouble even understanding relativity. Quantum mechanics gives them the heebie jeebies and particle science seems to be all make believe. The problem there is with the uneducated person, not with the scientists.

Our world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Ok its not letting me put a quote on this section so i will highlight what i have said in blue.
I am only repeating what the scientists have said. They have said that it is strange and hard to understand. They call the action of quantum entanglement, where the behavior of particles can be connected regardless of distance a spooky phenomenon. The experts are also calling it strange goings on. They have put many theories to it like worm holes and multi universe and holograms. So they also are finding it hard to understand. Yes the layman will find it even harder to comprehend. That is why i am saying that as they discover more with quantum mechanics all the known laws of physics are going out the window. Its not so much that they may work it out one day, it seems more like they may never work it out as its not conforming to any logical formula.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Probably not as far as genetics are concerned. But he has more ability than all creatures to influence things. Plus he has another dimension to him that goes beyond what animals can have a conscience. So he can know right from wrong. To me that puts him in a higher position than animals with a sense of responsibility.

Perhaps, but only insofar as we can predict the impact of our actions, and so act morally or immorally.

But thats not the point i was making. Man has the ability to destroy the environment and other species. So he can be play God in this world when it comes who survives and who doesn't. This is not subject to natural selection. Already he is starting to experiment with our DNA and this can also change how things evolve. All this steps outside the boundaries of evolution and brings another element into the equasion.

It does?

Well, evolution is the change in species due to selective inheritance of genes across generations. Prior to humans, there was only natural selection that determined inheritance. Now, there is artificial selection. Beyond that, nothing has changed.

But however we choose to label things, nothing fundamentally different exists. Humans may be able to conciously breed animals and otherwise subvert natural selection, but there's nothing more than physical processes going on. At least, not that I can see.

It seems hard to believe that chemicals somehow came together to create complex life that has this sense of self and have such an advanced brain. That he can now control the very process that started it all. All this came from nothing.

Certainly, but that doesn't make it true. I often find myself gaping at various things we discover in science and mathematics - the paradoxes of infinity, the gargantuan scale of the universe, the queer results of quantum and relativistic mechanics - yet these things are no less true. That our intuition and common sense aren't completely on board is no impediment to reality.

 

[stevevw]

Who did? Miller and Urey? Exo-planets?


The ingredients? In a nutshell: a star burns by fusing light elements (hydrogen, helium) into heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, etc). As it runs out, it gets denser and hotter, and for a time can burn these products into even heavier elements (gold, uranium, etc). This rapidly releases heat, and the star explodes (typically as a supernova).

The result is a cloud of dust strewn with all sorts of interesting elements. This cloud will coalesce into a new star and a new system of planets and moons, but this time the whole lot will be replete with these elements.

As the Earth cooled and oceans formed, then, it was awash with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, gold, iron, etc, all forged in the heart of the dying star that preceded us.

Where did the stars come from. This goes back to the same thing eventually nothing. Then they say nothing is not really nothing with dark matter and dark energy. So where did dark matter and energy come from. Same problem in the end.
Besides Ive read the story that scientist give fro all those conditions on earth wasn't as simple as that.

Maybe, maybe not. If life is indeed a product of chemistry and physics (as I believe it is), there's no rule that says scientists must be able to recreate it. It may turn out that it's so improbable that it takes billions of years and an entire universe of planets to actually do - it's possible, and give such numbers it becomes inevitable, but it wouldn't be feasible to recreate in its entirety.

Or, maybe it is re-creatable.

The good old magic ingredient Time. With time anything can happen.

Whatever the case may be, the Miller-Urey experiment still stands as a famous one. It still undeniably demonstrated that simple chemicals (abundant on early Earth) will spontaneously form complex biological chemicals, including amino acids and nucleotide bases.

Its all speculation as evolution likes to use and turn into truth. They dont know what the conditions were like on earth back then. The atmosphere of could have contained a fair amount of oxygen. Under oxidising conditions, the formation of organic compounds and their polymerisation do not occur.
Biological homochirality of sugars and amino acids remains an enigma.

Chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers.

So they use the life comes from somewhere else in the universe example which changes the old story they promoted for so long. This just goes back to the same problem where did that come from. There are many other problems all along the way such as the origin of biological membranes.

Life's asymmetry may come from space - physicsworld.com

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps, but only insofar as we can predict the impact of our actions, and so act morally or immorally.

The fact that we can do that and dont choose to do anything about it on many occasions tells me there is more than a physical element to us. Some call it a developed sense of self and others. That it stems from a natural evolution of being in groups and forming societies. But I'm not sure it is that simple an explanation. There seems to be a self destructive part to us that chooses the negative and destructive and we know that we are doing it yet do it anyway.

It does?

Well, evolution is the change in species due to selective inheritance of genes across generations. Prior to humans, there was only natural selection that determined inheritance. Now, there is artificial selection. Beyond that, nothing has changed.

But however we choose to label things, nothing fundamentally different exists. Humans may be able to conciously breed animals and otherwise subvert natural selection, but there's nothing more than physical processes going on. At least, not that I can see.

As i said i Think there's more to it than that. Also there is evidence that it is not just natural selection that determines what we pass on to the next generation.

But because man ultimately can change or take away the effects of natural selection or how genes are passed down to the next generation sort of negates all that anyway. In the end he could make it what ever he wants. He could wipe out many species, he can genetically modify crops or he may even create life in a lab and add this to the mix.

Who knows but the fact that one of the creatures that is suppose to be produced by evolution can do that suggests that it goes beyond just a physical process of biology. He may in the end destroy everything and as evolution is all about the survival of species and adaptation to the environment this is a big contradiction in the process which is a contradiction.

Certainly, but that doesn't make it true. I often find myself gaping at various things we discover in science and mathematics - the paradoxes of infinity, the gargantuan scale of the universe, the queer results of quantum and relativistic mechanics - yet these things are no less true. That our intuition and common sense aren't completely on board is no impediment to reality.[/quote]

Yes but there are processes and elements that need to come together to start and form that cell and molecule that have been shown to be impossible to occur the way they say it happened. You can't form live by an accident and chance, its impossible. The conditions they say that needed to be there are all based on speculation and an interpretation of observations which have not been proven and in many ways have been shown to not be the case according to the discoveries. They need to try and make it all fit so they will interpret it with that in mind.

The queer results of quantum mechanics is one example to me that shows that its not just a case of discovering more information to understand. Because its so beyond the normal realms of the laws of physics and is showing almost magical qualities it maybe that there can be no explanation apart from it is beyond our understanding.