Just joined, haven't read any postings, but evolutionists can't answer this one!

[zmweaver]

How did "life" come to be? An organism must first exist before it can reproduce or evolve. Something that does not exist cannot aspire to exist. Nothing will grow in perfect soil, full sunlight, and plenty of water without first, the organizational input of a seed. Regardless of your personal version of evolution or creation, I would not be writing this, nor would you be reading this, without first, external organizational input from somewhere and somepoint in history! Even if you believe this organizational input came from aliens, they must have got it from somewhere, at some point. My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.

[infamous]

How did "life" come to be? An organism must first exist before it can reproduce or evolve. Something that does not exist cannot aspire to exist. Nothing will grow in perfect soil, full sunlight, and plenty of water without first, the organizational input of a seed. Regardless of your personal version of evolution or creation, I would not be writing this, nor would you be reading this, without first, external organizational input from somewhere and somepoint in history! Even if you believe this organizational input came from aliens, they must have got it from somewhere, at some point. My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.

Welcome to hypography zmweaver, I'd suggest you go to our evolution forum and read up on what the members have already discussed about these issues. You will most likely find the answers your looking for at this location. Enjoy...............................

[C1ay]

Welcome to Hypography. At present I don't think anyone can answer the question, no one knows. I second infamous' recomendation though, there are plenty of existing discussions on the topic to join in on.

[Guadalupe]

My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.

 

Hi! zmweaver and welcome to hypography. Albert Einstein once said that he believed, “that God does not play dice with our universe”. I believe that Albert Einstein’s statement meant that God is the God of all knowing and all seeing, otherwise, if God were to play dice with our universe, that would mean that the God of our universe is not all knowing and all seeing, but a god, with a small “g”, of chaos and doom, a god that would gamble with our lives and with our universe by leaving it all up to chance rather than by his own will. Of course, if the creation was by chance.

[GAHD]

abiogeneis is the coined term around here, try a forum search

[skuinders]

Abiogenesis link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[Fishteacher73]

Yet another reminder that evolution and abiogenisis are NOT the same thing...

[Skippy]

Yet another reminder that evolution and abiogenisis are NOT the same thing...

But didn't abiogenesis start evolution according to evolutionists?

[zmweaver]

But didn't abiogenesis start evolution according to evolutionists?

 

That was my initial assumption as well. I think the vast majority of the population assumes that "Evolutionists" believe the existence of life is a result of pure chance. At some point, a distinction was made between "Evolutionists" that believe simple chemicals somehow became bacteria and those that don't. If an "Evolutionist" does not believe in abiogenesis, it seems a stretch to be sure humans evolved from apes. If one accepts the idea that some higher power played a hand in the existence of life, how can he discount the possibility that he was personally created by a Maker? Are concepts such as beauty, hate, after-life, guilt, and "consciousness" a result of evolution? It seems the distinct differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom are as difficult to explain in terms of evolution as abiogenesis. Also, if an evolutionist does not believe in abiogensis, doesn't that make him a creation-evolutionist on a certain level? At the very least, a creation-undecided evolutionist.

[Fishteacher73]

EVolution is more propperly called common descent. This is the theory (that has reasonable evidence) that all life forms descended from a common ancestor. Many that support evolution also support "Miller-Urey"-type of early genesis of organic molecules. Yet this is another subject. Just as cosmology and solarsystem formation are vital to the formation of the earth, they are not neccessary to study geology.

[skuinders]

EVolution is more propperly called common descent.

Actually, that is a subdivision of evolution called 'macroevolution.' The general theory of evolution is 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations,' and is strong and easily demonstrable theory.

[Fishteacher73]

Actually, that is a subdivision of evolution called 'macroevolution.' The general theory of evolution is 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations,' and is strong and easily demonstrable theory.

 

True, but I was responding to the general association that was being asserted that evolution (be it macro or micro, PE or gradualism, etc.) involved abiogenesis.

[Shapedoctor]

My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.

 

That is in no way a fact.

[Eclogite]

Once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched.

Life can exist as a result of chance: we are the proof. Belief in abiogenisis or evolution in no ways prevents belief in a creator.

[zmweaver]

Originally Posted by zmweaver

"My point is, once you accept the fact that life cannot exist as a result of chance, belief in a creator is not farfetched."

That is in no way a fact.

Shapedoctor,

My error. I unintentionally incorporated my particular viewpoint into a generalization. Replace "fact" with "possibility".

 

Life can exist as a result of chance: we are the proof. Belief in abiogenisis or evolution in no ways prevents belief in a creator.

Eclogite,

Agreed, my diction was misleading. When I wrote, "... a result of chance", I was evidently unsuccessful at contextually implying there was NO creator/external organizational-input involved in this "result of chance". Obviously, by definition, we exist as a result of chance.

[lindagarrette]

Belief in abiogenisis or evolution in no ways prevents belief in a creator.

But it sure makes it look foolish.

[Skippy]

But it sure makes it look foolish.

Foolish to who? I think it is MORE foolish to believe in your fairy tale, otherwise known as "Evolution." The theory is only provable by supposition and assumption. It has not been proved and never will be, it can't. Researchers have mixed together the chemicals they think composed the "primordial ooze" applied as much energy as they could, changed things, tried again and guess what... nothing.

 

You may not know or see the watchmaker, but you look at a watch and KNOW its parts were not tossed into a bag, shaken and poured out as a completed working watch without the watchmaker's aid. You not knowing or seeing the watchmaker doesn't mean he doesn't exist.