How did we get here?

[mzungu]

What do you believe Mzungu?

I believe that Abiogenesis will someday show us how life first began! It is inevitable and I believe that we are within decades of finding the answer!

 

[good brother]

I tend to lean towards abiogenesis, but honestly, I don't think about it too much -- the fact that I'm here now tends to take priority.

But you care about where you came from, do you not? Do you not want to solve the puzzle?

In Christ, GB

 

[mzungu]

As an "evolutionist?" As a scientist, I think it was likely abiogenesis... but I don't think panspermia can be completely ruled out.

But even with panspermia the origin of life came from Abiogenesis. The word in itself is self explanatory. Even if life originated in comets this still means that it did so through abiogenesis.

 

[mzungu]

But you care about where you came from, do you not? Do you not want to solve the puzzle?

In Christ, GB

The same place where even you believe you came from; It is called "DIRT".

 

[good brother]

As an "evolutionist?" As a scientist, I think it was likely abiogenesis

Am I correct in saying you believe that life arising from non-life is the most logical of explanations? How would that work exactly?

... but I don't think panspermia can be completely ruled out.

Panspermia would not answer the question of where did life come from, it simply throws that question into deep space in hopes that no one will take the question any farther.


Thank you.


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

The same place where even you believe you came from; It is called "DIRT".

No, I believe God made the dirt and formed us from it. You believe that the dirt had enough common sense to make us on it's own if you subscribe to abiogenesis.

 

[good brother]

But even with panspermia the origin of life came from Abiogenesis. The word in itself is self explanatory. Even if life originated in comets this still means that it did so through abiogenesis.

You are absolutely correct there, my friend.

In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

I asked "What do you believe?"

Care to enlighten us on your beliefs?

I'm not sure what belief has to do with anything, nor is it clear why you keep referring to evolution in your posts. I think what you're asking is "What do scientists say about how we got here?" If so, science has no clear answer at this point. Science assumes (as it always does when it questions nature) that natural causes led to the origin of life, but there is at present no well-supported theory about how that happened. There are lots of interesting and promising ideas about how life could have arisen naturally on earth, but also many sticking points and inconsistencies between the ideas. Fundamentally, the scientific answer is, "We don't know." And of course, there is always the possibility that scientific explanations could break down entirely.

 

[mzungu]

No, I believe God made the dirt and formed us from it. You believe that the dirt had enough common sense to make us on it's own if you subscribe to abiogenesis.

Dirt is dirt! Given the right conditions for self replicating molecules to form and the laws of Atomic theory, Chemistry, and physics will pretty well make it possible. No deities are required for this to happen! Besides all the elements are created in stars from Hydrogen through fusion, so unless you believe God is a star(s) then suffice it to say that science knows how the elements that make up our dirt were formed! Case closed!

 

[good brother]

I'm not sure what belief has to do with anything, nor is it clear why you keep referring to evolution in your posts. I think what you're asking is "What do scientists say about how we got here?"

No, I am asking what do evolutionistic believing people believe is the origin of life. You want me to say scientists but there are creation believing scientists as well as evolutionistic believing. My question is targeted towards those who belive in evolution.

If so, science has no clear answer at this point. Science assumes (as it always does when it questions nature) that natural causes led to the origin of life, but there is at present no well-supported theory about how that happened. There are lots of interesting and promising ideas about how life could have arisen naturally on earth, but also many sticking points and inconsistencies between the ideas. Fundamentally, the scientific answer is, "We don't know." And of course, there is always the possibility that scientific explanations could break down entirely.

Thank you for your honesty, it is appreciated.

 

[Belk]

I don't really have a "belief" on how life started. I don't know and am not so worried about the question that I feel the need to form a belief.

 

[Split Rock]

Am I correct in saying you believe that life arising from non-life is the most logical of explanations? How would that work exactly?

There are various hypotheses concerning the chemical evolution of life from organic molecules. These involve principles of self-assembly and chemical replication. Probably self-replicating and self catalystic RNA that utlized a lipid or protein spherical was a precurser. We do not yet have a theory that can be tested.

 

[good brother]

Dirt is dirt! Given the right conditions for self replicating molecules to form and the laws of Atomic theory, Chemistry, and physics will pretty well make it possible. No deities are required for this to happen! Besides all the elements are created in stars from Hydrogen through fusion, so unless you believe God is a star(s) then suffice it to say that science knows how the elements that make up our dirt were formed! Case closed!

Another way to say what you said above is "Given enough dirt enough time it could come up with all the biodiversity we see around us."

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

There are various hypotheses concerning the chemical evolution of life from organic molecules. These involve principles of self-assembly and chemical replication. Probably self-replicating and self catalystic RNA that utlized a lipid or protein spherical was a precurser. We do not yet have a theory that can be tested.

Where would that RNA have come from?

In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

No, I am asking what do evolutionistic believing people believe is the origin of life. You want me to say scientists but there are creation believing scientists as well as evolutionistic believing. My question is targeted towards those who belive in evolution.

Fair enough. (As you will have probably gathered, my answer is, "I don't know.")

 

[AV1611VET]

1. ToE doesn't deal with that.
2. Abiogenesis does.

No, abiogenesis doesn't.

Abiogenesis states one way we didn't get here.

A_biogenesis is a lie.

 

[Matariki]

How did we get here? THe question has been asked by many but answered by few. Creationists will tell you that we are offspring of Adam and Eve. Evolutionists will say that we evolved upward from some distant apelike hominid somewhere in the past. I want to go back further. For Creationists, the answer is easy- God made Adam and Eve. That case is closed.

But for evolutionists the answer is not so easily put forth. Evolutionists always seem to respond with something along the lines of "ToE doesn't deal with origins..." But I want to know what evolutionists actually think about the matter. Where did that supposed common ancestor come from? If all life shares this supposed CA (common ancestor), where did it come from?

I know that evolutionists first response will be "ToE doesn't deal with that..." I want to say rubbish. You must have some theory, idea, guess, or hypothosis of everything came from and how every life form got started and I would like you to share that.


(This thread is not for a regular old rehash of Creation v Evolution. I simply want to know where evolutionists believe it all started at.)



In Christ, GB

The problem I see here is the OP is confusing Evolution with Atheism. Though Atheists hold to the theory of evolution, so do some theists. Evolution does not seek to answer the question of the origins of life itself, it seeks to answer the question of progress. So the evolutionist is justified when they state that evolution does not deal with the origins of life itself.

The discussion that you are looking for is centered around Abiogensis and Cosmology. But I also need to point out that God is not the mechanism for life, he is the agent, so even we as theists also must provide an evidence based argument depending on what position we hold to eg; young earth, old earth, theistic evolution and so on.

Its not as simple as "God made Adam and Eve, case closed", not when there are opposing claims backed with some form of evidence that has been presented to the table. They all need to be investigated and weighed out. As Paul put it wisely in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

The bible is a source of historical evidence and authority on spiritual matters, but the bible does not provide enough of the required psychical evidence to support one's stance on regarding the age of the earth and universe and the fossil record. In short, the bible is not a science text book.

My advice? Start a new thread on Cosmology or Abiogenesis, otherwise you probably will end up with a rehash of Evolution vs Creationism.

 

[Elendur]

No, abiogenesis doesn't.

Abiogenesis states one way we didn't get here.

A_biogenesis is a lie.

Really?

It's a biological genesis.

Joking though don't fret about the name, because honestly names are more about the history than what it actually deals with.
Heard how you shouldn't judge the book by it's cover?

 

[Split Rock]

No, abiogenesis doesn't.

Abiogenesis states one way we didn't get here.

A_biogenesis is a lie.

Just you wait until the Great Scientist, The Anti-Christ, comes to town and PROVES Abiogenesis!!

 

[Split Rock]

Where would that RNA have come from?

In Christ, GB

The RNA obviously would have come from nucleic acids, which came from earlier precursers such as ribose, urea, etc. These would have formed naturally in the reducing conditions on the early Earth.