[Tj3]

Yes. It's been argued that if the first cell appeared today, it would be gobbled up by another cell or animal in seconds or minutes, having no defenses whatever against voracious modern life.

It would not be the "first cell" is something else ate it.

[Smoked]

OP maybe you can explain the following?

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

You argue Evolution vs. Origin... Evolution has no beginning. SO... hmm

[asking]

You argue Evolution vs. Origin...Evolution has no beginning. SO......hmm

That's easy. I don't have to know where my pizza delivery guy was born or who is parents were to know that he just drove from the pizza store to my house in a Jeep Cherokee and got here at 7:13 pm.

Knowing that evolution happened doesn't depend on knowing the very first step in the process.

Saying that you have to know every single step in a process to know whether it happened would mean I can't drink my coffee because it might not exist.:)

[Smoked]

That's easy. I don't have to know where my pizza delivery guy was born or who is parents were to know that he just drove from the pizza store to my house in a Jeep Cherokee and got here at 7:13 pm.

Knowing that evolution happened doesn't depend on knowing the very first step in the process.

Saying that you have to know every single step in a process to know whether it happened would mean I can't drink my coffee because it might not exist.:)

LOL... well keep in mind that most of the most zealous religious people would agree that micro evolution exists. But, if that was the topic we would talk about that. He wants to know how it all started, or at least that is what I get from his post. Hence my response. Thank you for the pizza analogy though. Circular arguments are tried and true evolution defense. Err...

[michealb]

In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality

I don't think this means what you think this mean.
The way you have it worded it would mean that if there is any evidence contrary of a theory the theory would be abandoned or changed. Which is true but it also means that all current theories have no conflicts with current evidence. Which is also true but that's the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue. Of course this quote also points out flaws in religion by impling that science changes in the face of reality(evidence) where religion regardless of reality stays the same and refuses to change even though they are clearly wrong. It's not a fundie quote in other words.

[michealb]

Behe is a biochemist.


Do you know what biochemists do? Do you also know that he is not a creationist?

Behe is an ID proponent. Which is soft core creationism. He even admitted in court that his work didn't work in the standard framework of science and he had to make up new rules to make his experiments work and then didn't allow the same lax rules for evolution studies and he admitted his work was religious in nature. Next...

Behe versus ribonuclease; the origin and evolution of protein-protein binding sites - The Panda's Thumb

[Smoked]

I put it in my sig as a joke actually.. a weak attempt at a joke I suppose. It stems from a conversation that was months ago. So to clear up any confusion, it's a joke. Lost on most it seems. Just like the joke that is being played on people who believe in Evolution as the explanation of life. Make sure you read that very carefully, because I didn't say evolution doesn't exist. But, to use evolution as an explanation of the origins of the earth, man and all it's creatures is a flawed theory.

[michealb]

I'll tell you what I'll agree with all of you that say evolution is a flawed theory if you can give me on provable example of the super natural. Anything will work ghost, demons, angels, the devil, god. I'll even include bigfoot, the lochness monster and aliens that visit earth in to that group. Show just one provable instance of a supernatural occurrence and I will no long rule it out. If you can't show even on example how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Smoked]

I will do the same when you can prove anything beyond micro evolution.

I have my faith, written proof in the bible. Historical events that back the time lines and subject matter. If you are so vein that you can explain away the complexity of life with something that has more holes in it then swiss cheese the so be it.

The argument was was "orgin vs. evolution"... Last I checked evolution could not explain any origin. Its not a matter of does it exists. Like I have said more then once, most educated people with religion would agree that micro evolution exists. But, nowhere can it explain the beginning. Which is the topic at hand.

For evolution to work you have to have the key components for life to have sprung out of the "primordial sludge"... Evolutionist theorize that life was brought about in a atmosphere with no oxygen. No oxygen=no life bottom line. Something had to intervene. Maybe that is all the proof you should need.

Just a question but, why do you assume I need your validation? I am the majority my friend. When you look at the polls of the people who believe in a higher power you would be the minority. That is why we don't take you seriously. No matter how hard you shake your fist when you hear the truth... just saying.

Let me leave you with,
Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!
Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

bottom line...

[asking]

I'll tell you what I'll agree with all of you that say evolution is a flawed theory if you can give me on provable example of the super natural. Anything will work ghost, demons, angels, the devil, god. I'll even include bigfoot, the lochness monster and aliens that visit earth in to that group. Show just one provable instance of a supernatural occurence and I will no long rule it out. If you can show even on example how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

What? I wouldn't agree to this. :) The reality of evolution is not dependent on the reality of big foot or flying spaghetti monsters. Anyway, if any of these things could be proved, they wouldn't be supernatural.

What's that quote? "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And by technology, I'm here including natural technologies like DNA and flight. Anything we don't understand YET often looks supernatural or magical, until we understand it, and then all of sudden it's, "Oh, yeah. I should have thought of that. I COULD have thought of that if I'd just had a few more minutes..."

[michealb]

I have my faith, written proof in the bible.

Why the bible and not the Koran?

It's because your parent or someone close to you was a Christian and influenced you early in your life.

It's why Christian parents generally have Christian kids.
It's why Muslim parents generally have Muslim kids.
It's why racist parents generally have racist kids.
It's why homophobic parents generally have homophobic kids.
Spotting the pattern yet?

It's only through education and exposure to new ideas that this pattern gets broken.

[asking]

Last I checked evolution could not explain any origin.

Why would you say that? Evolution explains the origin of species.

That's what it's supposed to explain. It's not about the origin of the universe, for heaven's sake. By itself, evolution is not intended to explain the origin of the first cell, although biology more generally does. If you want to believe that God created the first cell and then everything evolved from that, do so.

Evolution is about the origin of new species. As it happens, evolution also explains the origin of higher taxa--genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains. The story of evolution is written in the fossil record; each layer of sediment is like a page from a book--the story of life on Earth. The family tree can be further documented through studies of genetic relatedness. Just as we look at genes to find out who a child's father or mother is, we can figure out how related different animals and plants are to one another and use that to construct a literal family tree. (It isn't just like a family tree, it is a family tree.)

[Smoked]

Why the bible and not the Koran?

It's because your parent or someone close to you was a Christian and influenced you early in your life.

It's why Christian parents generally have Christian kids.
It's why Muslim parents generally have Muslim kids.
It's why racist parents generally have racist kids.
It's why homophobic parents generally have homophobic kids.
Spotting the pattern yet?

It's only through education and exposure to new ideas that this pattern gets broken.

Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing about it.

[asking]

Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing bout it.

You are saying the people who raised you were atheists? Who taught you about God and at what age? I'm interested...

[Tj3]

Knowing that evolution happened doesn't depend on knowing the very first step in the process.

Evolution is much different than pizza delivery. Now, since you cannot even come up with a feasible process by which the very first step occurred consider that the whole theory falls apart with the weakest link - if any single link has no feasible way of happening, then the whole theory falls apart, because alternatives to the rest of the theory exist which can explain the first step.

[michealb]

So if we claim that god made the first cell but then evolution happened then you would consider evolution a complete valid theory? Odd...

[Tj3]

So if we claim that god made the first cell but then evolution happened then you would consider evolution a complete valid theory? odd...

At least you would have tried to find a feasible answer. I would have other questions from a scientific perspective on the rest of your process, though.

[michealb]

Funny then, my parents did not and do not believe in anything. I see a lot of generalizing bout it.

For every rule there is an exception. You do agree though that most children follow their parents traits good or bad, right.

[asking]

Evolution is much different than pizza delivery. Now, since you cannot even come up with a feasible process by which the very first step occurred consider that the whole theory falls apart with the weakest link - if any single link has no feasible way of happening, then the whole theory falls apart, because alternatives to the rest of the theory exist which can explain the first step.

And you are arguing that it's scientifically easier to account for the creation of an invisible, entirely undetectable, all powerful God than a single mushy cell?

[michealb]

At least you would have tried to find a feasible answer. I would have other questions from a scientific perspective on the rest of your process, though.

How is claiming god did it a feasible answer how do you prove that? I might as well said I did it.
They are trying to find a feasible answer though to where the first cell came from the reason we don't teach that though is because we don't have any good evidence for it yet. Here is one hypothesis about how life came about though and no god required.
YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy