~Challenge for evolutionists~

I'm sorry, my sleepy brain and I commited a mistake in my previous post: that hypothesis is called Panspermia, not Pandermia. No wonder you couldn't find anything about it! =P Regarding your last sentence, well, I rather like a personal adaptation of an old saying: when faced with a problem, pray as if a god existed if you want to, but work as if there was none.

Isn't it interesting how Darwinian evolutionists think they can just start right in the middle without question? All of sudden out of nowhere we have things evolving all over the place. Where's their starting point?

OK, Fargale...now I see your point. But, 'panspermia' also assumes that some form of "life-seeds" already existed in the Universe...and randomly populated potentially 'habitable' places (WikipediA). I don't necessarily disagree that panspermia (or exogenesis (q.v.) played a part in the process; these sound plausible enough. But, still these don't explain where that original "seed" came from. I know it's impossible to really answer these questions with our current knowledge, and I suspect that may be why we Creationists lean the way we do...(toward a Supreme or Superior Intelligence, Force, Creator); because no matter how far back we actually CAN prove, there's always going to be the question: "But how did THAT get here?"...whether dealing with evolution OR Creationism. Mankind will NEVER figure it ALL out, on that I think we can agree?

Life is full of 'loaded questions'. A 'loaded question' presupposes a specific answer. These do not. These can be answered in any way the answerer chooses. There are no presuppositions. I agree Atheists & scientific folks are not afraid to admit they can't answer everything. There's little choice, actually. RE: your questions about "how God came to be": This is one of those things I admit to not having an answer to; "and why I believe in him despite so much conflicting evidence"...I don't know what 'conflicting evidence' you refer to, but if you'll post some links or references, it may help. Thanks for the feedback. First, 'how God came to be' is one of those things I admit to not having answers to.

Sorry for the 'overlap' in previous post. Pls disregard last couple of lines.

You're basically reproducing the "Irreducible Complexity" argument, using different words. But since there never was any conclusive proof of a system that could no be created via evolution, that argument is void. Many have tried, and are still trying - see Michael Behe - but until they can prove that, the argument lacks its proverbial leg to stand on.

Greetings, Fargale! Welcome again. Don't know if you've seen, but I've 'withdrawn' the first question because I may have erroneously 'assumed' evolutionist theories and/or evidence went farther back than the single ancestor that started all life on earth. My bad. I know better than to 'assume', but... That said, thanks for another post. Yes, the "Irreducible Complexity" theory. Darwin was not able to 'see' or understand the sophistication with which even one-celled organisms (indeed, all living cells) lived. Not that this theory serves to disprove (or even try to disprove) evolution, though. It's just an argument in support of the true intracacies science continues to discover in Nature. I looked at some info on Michael Behe. WikipediA says he's one of the ones who are trying to push Intelligent Design education in schools. So far, looks like he's losing that battle. Thx again for your post.

Well.....I didn't know myLot was disallowing Christian beliefs to be discussed. Nobody is "forcing" anything, as I'm sure the 'intelligent people at mylot' will agree. I'm simply expressing my personal opinions and beliefs, just as many others are doing here at mylot, and many in the same way as I am...with Christian beliefs. Why is it OK to spread Darwinist theories? After all, Darwin himself said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modificatiions, my theory would absolutely break down." You see, Darwin wasn't even aware that "every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines." (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html) And I say..."only people who understand what HOPE really IS will fall for Creationism. "I DO thank you for your opinion and post.

OK....suits me. I just thought evolutionists might have some thoughts or data on it. I know there are several hypotheses on the origins of life, and I've looked at those with great interest. They sound plausible enough, and even sound like they can still fit either theory being discussed here. Thanks for the post.

Thanks for your post, Thomas73, and welcome. Of course, I heartily disagree that the discussion is "flawed from the start". Indeed, it only asks 2 simple questions, that DO involve 'evolution', because in order to embrace current evolutionary theories, one must make the 'assumption' that SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW, the original source of LIFE as we know it began. See WikipediA explanation of the 'theory of evolution' and 'natural selection'. It states there that "All known species are descended from a single ancestor through this process of divergence" (referring to 'natural selection). I'm only trying to find out what evolutionists' research may have uncovered about what that "single ancestor" might have been, and where it might have originated...and, if possible, some of the 'steps of evolution' which led to what we know today. After all, to accept the theory that 'natural selection' ultimately resulted in what we see and know to exist today from ONE 'single ancestor', seems just as 'iffy' as accepting an Intelligence beyond anything we can imagine has designed it all. I fully understand that experts in the respective fields of research are feverishly seeking and "fine-tuning", as you say. I'm not sure, though, why you say that "none of the (valid hypotheses for origin of life on Earth) hypotheses involve any external help". If 'natural selection' theory depends on that ONE single ancestor, that sounds like "outside help", until the origin of that has been determined. Or...did that "ONE single ancestor" begin in that "puff of smoke" you mention? But...this is not really supposed to be a debate for or against evolution or Creationism...though I'm sure it's difficult to not have that float to the top. RE: the cleaning lady.....I'm sure you've heard about the janitor who, while watching CEO's and other 'experts' attempt to figure out a way to lower a huge machine into a deep pit, when there was inadequate headroom or outside access for crane assistance...? As all the 'experts' scratched their collective heads and tried to figure out the mathematics and physics to resolve this, the janitor walked over and calmly suggested they fill the pit with ice, slide the machine over the ice, and let it 'melt' to the floor while being supported and 'guided' from above. Supposedly, a true story, and mission accomplished. It's not only the experts who discover or understand important things. I do apreciate your candid post.

First off I did not say both questions had nothing to do with evolution, but rather just the first one had nothing to do with evolution. I also never eluded to scientists creating life forms, just that they had managed to get the chemicals to form the base proteins and enzimes required to create life, is specifically stated that they did not become RNA or DNA, which in my mind was saying that life was NOT created.

Perhaps I didn't clarify some things. My error in pluralizing the word 'question'...you're right...you did only mention the first one as having 'nothing at all to do with evolution in any way'. Didn't mean to confuse the issue that way. Re: 'laboratory life-forms'...I know you didn't say they had accomplished that...that's why I said that you had "alluded to" that in your post. Again, maybe the words weren't clear...sorry if that's the case.

Thanks for your input... Of course, I disagree that the question(s) have nothing to do with evolution. Here's why: Evolution, as we know, is the core theory which deals with the 'biological adaptations of species to their environments', through 'natural selection' and other sub-processes (see WikipediA explanation for more). Although mankind has only been on earth for about 4.3% of earth's life, other species have come and gone in the 4.6 billion years earth has been here. Evolution attempts to explain how life "evolved" on earth, and how life has adapted through the billions of years since, to become what we know as 'humankind' (and, of course, all life around us has also 'evolved' along with us). I do not disagree with these theories, nor am I trying to 'besmirch' them. I just happen to believe in Creationism as well. You're right about these being "unanswerable". I knew that before I started the discussion, but thought it would at least bring about a healthy exchange of ideas! I also remember experiments to 'create-life', and some information on this can be found at: http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2006/01/29/creating-new-life-forms-in-laboratory/ As far as I can understand, 'organic compounds' have been chemically created, but I don't believe these qualify as 'true-life-forms', as you alluded to also. Can't say I 'expect' anyone to actually "answer" these questions, anyway. I'm just looking for ideas and thoughts of others. Thanks for your post.

I'm not sure that we can as comfortably state that you are either for or against with much force. You only need to go as far as Inherit the Wind to see how the very non-literalist approach to the bible allows for some grey areas. I guess that in the fanatical frenzy around ID we tend to lose sight of those Christians who are genuinely trying to find a way to balance belief and science.

Thanks for the posts. I don't quite agree that we cannot believe in both...but that's ok. We can 'agree to disagree' on that one. Thx again.

Thanks for your posts... You may be right! I added a comment at the end, that I've "withdrawn" the first question, as that seemed to get a lot of folks confused; some even upset, and that was not my intent, for sure! Sorry for the confusion. Thx again.

Ah, well..... Seems like many are telling me my first question cannot be associated with evolution, so I officially WITHDRAW question #1, to make the discussion a little more palatable. Sorry for any offenses,misconceptions or confusion. Now, then...where were we? Oh, question #2, yes.

Thanks for the post and comments. There's a lot we can't understand (like what you say about the entire universe coming from something the size of a grapefruit!---what a grapefruit!!!). That's why it's easier for me to believe in a 'higher-authority', a 'superior intelligence', yes, "God". Thx again.

"I believe that we came from monkeys...". LOL!! A living proof of those who take evolution by BLIND FAITH. I bet that many evolutionists will disagree with you on this.

Thanks for the post and informative data. I, too, believe in evolution as part of the 'growth' of species in adapting to their environments. Thx again.