Origin of Life (page 35)

cofty

the 'atheistic counterpart to jehovahs witnesses' makes as many assertions that evidence from science does not support - Ruby

Who is this straw-man and what does it have to do with the topic?

the science in cofty's op actually supports vidqun's view - Ruby

You could not be more wrong. Literally it would be impossible to be more wrong.

From previous experience you did not understand a single sentence in Lane's book. I doubt if you did more than speed-read the first few pages.

Cofty do you believe in the possibility of aliens.Disclosure is not far away.Lets face it if humans exist why not other life forms from other planets - Automant

I think that bacterial life is probably very common. It is far less likely that complex multicellular life exists elsewhere.

Well having read the thread, and as Viv pointed out a great debate is helped by the right questions being asked. So whilst my questions are maybe the wrong questions for a great debate,for a poster at my level:-

a) would most agree that the origin of life began over 3 billion years ago?

b) if so then would we agree direct evidence for the origin of life impossible?

C) However according to the O.P I would be incorrect in assuming the first cause of life had to be living. Not sure I fully understood the explanation though.

cofty

a) would most agree that the origin of life began over 3 billion years ago?

Newly discovered stromatolites in Greenland have been dated to 3.7 billions years ago. Since these are evidence of the diversity of life at that period it proves that life began around 4 billion years ago. That's just a few hundred million years after the formation of planet earth.

It suggests that life is not a random event. It is probably inevitable on a geologically active planet.

b) if so then would we agree direct evidence for the origin of life impossible?

It depends on what you mean by "direct evidence". I think it will be shown step-by-step how life can emerge from geochemistry through unguided naturalistic means.

C) However am I correct in assuming the first cause of life had to be living?

No. Absolutely not. There is a continuum from geochemistry to biochemistry.

John_Mann

The Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution regarding the human body and its animal soul (kind of a BIOS). And believes God directly created a soul in one of these human bodies in some point in history.

If that's new for you, it's not for catholics.

"... if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). "

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

The Rebel

So Cofty by your answers to my questions, are you not saying that our modern understanding about the origin of life should be labeled" Science"? If so then can you understand the problem for many is that then, science has ripped apart societies past understandings and perceived reality of the " origin of life" and " God"?

I think this is why so many of your posts create such controversy, science wipes the floor with so many God arguments. Now I am not saying your answers are often to blant and direct, but I am saying if the universe and origin of life has been created by God, then in my opinion believers should come up with some different questions. This would lead to some constructive but less personal debates.

Only my opinion, but the jump from a beliver to agnostic, or athiest is a lot of change to a personality, and myself included not easy to address on an Internet forum. But I do feel it important to say the changing landscape in my worldview can only come by people speaking their truth. As for the O.P and the origin of life. I think on accuracy states I would agree the earth is over 3 billions years old, and was not created by God. Personally I also with my limited research believe direct evidence for the origin of life impossible.

cofty

Dont you think you should thoroughly investigate the evidence before you declare something impossible?

What do you mean by "direct evidence"?

cofty

John Mann. The idea that the first "real human" lived just 6000 years ago is risible.

What is this thing you call a soul?

Does the bible not say that animals are also souls? Anyway this thread is about origin of life.

Viviane

viv, I'm picking up on vidiqun's comments, so you will need to see what he said. You will also so need to, as I have already said, to keep in mind that I am making my claims in the spirit of metaphor and that cofty can laugh about this. otherwise forget it.

Ah, so you really have absolutely nothing.

yes - you have some work to do then

And you thought you were being clever while having nothing.

The Rebel

Cofty, " don't you think you should thoroughly investigate the evidence before you declare something impossible?

Well to be fair Cofty, you sound like a bully who beats kids up at school. How can I or even you thoroughly investigate all the evidence on the subject "origin of life?" Are you even slightly aware of the term " thoroughly" Apparently so, therefore please clarify how you have thoroughly investigated this subject to declare opposing views impossible?

Caedes

Does the catholic church still subscribe to a young earth timeline?

I enjoyed the link in John Mann's post, to paraphrase 'shit, evolution is true, bollocks, it's incompatible with our view of the creation of man! waffle waffle...!'

Origin of Life

Share this