Origin of species is traced to pond life

The Times of London ^ | TUESDAY DECEMBER 18 2001 | BY MARK HENDERSON, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

[LuvItOrLeaveIt]

What archeological study shows the world was created in six days?

Excellent point. I also love to point out that much of the archeological evidence shows that the Trojan war occurred as described in The Iliad, or that many of the conflicts described in Celtic myths occured as well.

[sheltonmac]

The discovery suggests that the single-celled creatures represent a vital staging post in evolution and that all animal life on Earth descended from something very like them.

And these single-celled creatures evolved from......?

[pcl]

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point...

Do you believe in perpetual motion too?

[r9etb]

In what way is it insupportable? I'm very open-minded to evidence and logical argument.

The statement in question: "On the other hand, divinities are unsupported by evidence and they explain nothing at all."

First: Please support your statement that "divinities are unsupported by evidence."

Second: The claim that "divinities explain nothing at all" is obviously false. For example, if a Creator exists, then we can explain the existence of His creation.

[pcl]

Information scientists are the ones causing the biggest hurdles for evolutionists to overcome.

Information scientists are the very ones explaining the mechanics of eveolution. Read The Touchstone of LIFE. I gave a link to it earlier in this thread.

[medved]

That was good. I notice that nobody even attempted to refute it.

There's no refutation for any of the things noted on that post. You either believe in things like mathematics, probability, and logic, or you believe in evolutionism. Evolutionism isn't compatible with the others.

[CharlieDarwin]

Strangely though, it doesn't make you wonder who designed the designer.
Why not?

First things first. If you want to take back the chain of causation beyond a "designer," creator or what you will, be my guest.
It's just that a "still, small voice" is telling me you don't even want to take that first step.

You didn't answer his/her question; made ad hominem attack instead. No further commentary based on logic and reason?

[Cleburne]

Well, I did not invent a supernatural bearded guy (I wouldn't have done the bearded thing). I do not agree with you that the observable things of the universe fail to support an Intelligent Creator-on the contrary, it seems (to me anyhow) that with every new discovery the evidence is built upon. In Darwin's day, I could understand how evolution would seem a very reasonable theory, as he knew nothing of genetics (though it was being pioneered during his time), he had but a small grasp upon geology, a limited view of the vastness and complexity of the cosmos, and a pitifully simple view of the mechanics of life on the cellular level. However, I do not see a world, especialy that wonderful thing we call life, as being capable of arising from nothing through esentialy blind chance. The greatest sticklers I see for evolution are the problems of the origin of matter, space, time, and the origin of life. One may concede that once the building blocks are assembled, it might proceed on its one, ie planets developing, life evolving and leaping over great obstacles. I do not see evolution, at least in a paltry few hundred millin years, arising life to the status is at now, but I suppose it is possible-but then again, quite a few things could be possible. At anyrate, I do not find your arguments against a creator particularly holding: the evidence points to one, it is more reasonable than floundering about for explenations to vainly support your pre-arrived position, namely, an evolutionary origin for everthing.

[pcl]

And these single-celled creatures evolved from......?

Billions of years of the molecules organizing themselves by probablistic chance.

[Junior]

...being an idiot hurts for life. Ask some of the evolutionists about it.

A bit like the pot calling the kettle black, hmmm? While you will never come out and say exactly what you believe in (as you probably -- and rightly -- figure you'd be laughed off this forum), from the lengthy amount of time you've been posting on these threads I've come to the conclusion you believe man is the result of genetic tampering by some godlike being(s) at a time when Earth orbited Saturn.

So, who's the idiot? The fellow who studies the fossil record, the genetic evidence, geology, astronomy, chemistry and physics and determines that evolution is the theory which best fits the facts; or is it the fellow who concocts a hairbrained fantasy about aliens breeding people in the orbit of Saturn?

[Cleburne]

On the other hand, divinities are unsupported by evidence and they explain nothing at all

Unsupported by evidence? I could think of a few things...

It is interesting ot note that some dismiss divinity on one ground, namely, where did God come from? Is this not akin to your charge of dismissing all science becuase of one or two (though in actuallity one could find an almost unlimited supply of inprovable things sciecne will never be able to definately answer) unanswerable questions? You likely diagree, so please explain how the two differ so dramaticaly.

[sheltonmac]

"Billions of years of the molecules organizing themselves by probablistic chance."

Spontaneous generation, in other words. I didn't think that was scientific fact. Have we demonstrated that it is possible to get life from non-living matter?

I like your choice of words, "organizing themselves by probablistic chance." I wish my desk could get organized by chance, but I'd be willing to bet that if I came back billions of years later it would still be messy.

[week 71]

Information scientists are the very ones explaining the mechanics of eveolution. Read The Touchstone of LIFE. I gave a link to it earlier in this thread.

Thankyou for the link I'll check it out. My mind is by no means closed, just skeptical of sloppy science; BTW of which creation scientists seem to be the most guilty.

[Cleburne]

On the one hand, current theory states (unless it has changed lately), cells had but a mere 4 billion years to develop, and considering that earth was supposedly a very hostile place for the first couple billion years, you have a goodly bit of time sliced off. Then we must face the massive hurdles of "molecules organizing into cells", not only in a hostile environment (the first cells probably would not have had the time to develop the more complex defences of some micro-organisms of today), but with a handful of base chemicals that would first have to be organized into the correct acids and compounds, then would have to formulate themselves into workable structures, then a grand leap over the ditch, assemble into actuall working living units, all without any direction at all (so please don't give me the life in the lab story), and in a very volatile environment. Of course, we could just petition to get the erly earth's environment changed: would you like a warm pond, frozen icepack, volcanoe rim...? Or maybe we could appeal to life arriving on an asteriod (never mind we would still have to explain where that came from-eh, maybe a nice warm pond full of the right "stuff"). I'm sure that, using your imagination, one could come up with all sorts of ideas to support himself. We mustn't consider any alternatives...

[Cleburne]

Some have said "life" has been developed in the laboratory, though it probably wouldn't be considered such-rather a glob of animmo acids and other materials. However, I imagine scientist may one day engineer a cell in the lab, but it would not support evolution: for it would not prove that life could originate by unguided chance.

And spontaneous generation has been re-accepted by many scientists, but only as a "one time shot". And you always thought it was just a silly superstition...gotta go, there's flies forming in my supper.

[dubyagee]

I like your choice of words, "organizing themselves by probablistic chance." I wish my desk could get organized by chance, but I'd be willing to bet that if I came back billions of years later it would still be messy.

My bet is it would be dust or a rock maybe, but I can guarantee it would not be a living organism. (you need a sludge pond for that, haven't you heard?) ; * )

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Easy. Being an 18-year-old male and giving up front row seats at a Britney Spears concert.

That would only hurt for a few weeks or a month or two; being an idiot hurts for life. Ask some of the evolutionists about it.

Ouch.

Actually I am a theistic evolutionist, but that's not the reason I'm an idiot. And it only hurts when things happen that I don't like, as when the clearing house for my credit union decides my checking account has been closed and all my checks are returned as "unauthorized". But that's a different thread.

[f.Christian]

But I am content to say "right now, I just don't know".

50 posted on 12/18/01 7:09 PM Pacific by OWK

...interesting!

[sheltonmac]

I wonder which came first? The pond or the scum?

[week 71]

I like your choice of words, "organizing themselves by probablistic chance."

Philosopher RC Sproul quotes Paul Janet in one of his books.."..chance is a word void of sense, invented by our ignorance." He goes on to argue that chance is a nonentity and can therefor do nothing, but rather chance is a term used to decribe mathmatical probability. I agree with him and I assume you, that chance can do nothing and to say it can comes from a lack of understanding what the word means.