«Home

How Did Life Really Start?

I mean there had to be mature life forms, at least a pair that propagated. Lets examine the schools of thought and really see what is logical and what is not.

One school says that life started with a single cell under certain conditions. Another school says that an intelligent and very powerful being created life.

The theory of evolution advocates that certain molecules just happened to fit together under certain conditions and somehow a cell was formed. This cell over time somehow developed the method to become multi-cellular which was its way of adapting to its environment. So the key word here is gradual development without any outside control. in other words life came about naturally on its own through natural forces.

Lest I forget the required elements that brought the cell together actually came from a universal explosion, or big bang.

The other argument is that an intelligent Being created fully grown or mature life forms that were equipped to make other life forms.

Which one of those arguments require stronger faith to believe in? What are the chances that life could have come forth from an explosion?

And even their own teaching on Thermodynamics counter the very argument of the TOE, because the 2nd law states that matter moves from a state of order to disorder within a closed system, although it matters not if its closed or open. Things degenerate. Just as the very bible teaches. Sin is causing this part of the universe to age including humans. Living matter as well as non-living matter are rusting and degenerating.

Can the TOE account for the degeneration of matter? Can it account for the degeneration of morals and social values? What has become of the gradual development among life forms? can the TOE account for the increased spate of diseases that is wreaking havoc on human life?

What next evolutionists?

Avatar
Newbie
39 answers

What side effects are you talking about?

Does insulin have any side effects for diabetics? Even using natural proteins inappropriately is bound to cause toxicology.

That is why science moves from hypothesis to verification then conclusion. We're getting there. Ascribing it to some heavenly magician isn't the way to go.

0
Avatar
Newbie

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.

I will comment on this later. I am a bit sleepy.  Adios Tudor!

0
Avatar
Newbie

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.

According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you?

0
Avatar
Newbie

That they've failed so far

doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins?

0
Avatar
Newbie

That depends on how much you are able to correlate both the bible and science. For example. At one stage science once taught that the earth was flat, and the bible said it was round by mentioning the circle of the earth in the book of Isaiah.

Where did the bible get the knowledge that the earth was round, and at a time when men didn't know it was? Long before science forwarded the idea that air had weight, the bible said it did.

There was also a time when bible critics challenged certain names mentioned in the bible, yet archeology which is a science has confirmed to the critics' embarrassment, that such names did exist in certain geographical regions.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Using the bible as a science textbook is a very dangerous thing

0
Avatar
Newbie

You don't understand how DNA proved you the theory of evolution and you claim that you studied natural and life sciences ? Stop lying men

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Tudor

Don't confuse the proteins. And do not overlook the fact that our cells do not make synthetic proteins. There are synthetic amino-acids that can be isolated in a lab, or what we call D-isomers, but they cannot be used by the body to make real natural proteins that function in the cells.

Bear in mind that the attempt so far, as it relates to making synthetic proteins, has not gone beyond that. So in the context of cellular processes which are countless, don't expect synthetic proteins to function as natural proteins would do. 

Besides, since scientists tend to associate natural forces with how the first cell began, and since natural forces could not have produced D-isomers that can only be separated in a lab, then your reference to synthetic proteins is irrellevant, and void.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Try religion? I studied religion and theology. I also studied the natural and life sciences. I am not seeing much of a challenge from you at all. How come?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have done labs in which I had to make amino acids by degenerating proteins. Normally you come up with two kinds of amino-acids in a lab. Certain biomolecules exist as mirror images of themselves, and are grouped into being left and right molecules. In nature the left ones make proteins.

So if I were to isolate the D-isomers and find a way to make them bind I'd probably be able to make synthetic proteins.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What does the mapping of the human genome have to do with DNA molecules being used to prove true the TOE? You have posed 2 separate questions. Why not go ahead and explain to the fora what is it you're trying to prove. Only then can I respond to you.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Have you ever heard of the mapping of the humane genome ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

By Bobbyaf originally

Let me correct the above statement in bold. I meant protein instead of amino acids. Amino acids are not made by DNA or RNA molecules, but are found naturally in the foods we eat, and are used in protein synthesis.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What part of the theory was backed up by it? Be more specific please.

0
Avatar
Newbie

So the DNA evidence which has backed up the theory of evolution is false ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I concur.

what I do despise is the attempt by anyone to hide under the cloud of science as an alternative to God. Science is a trial and error mechanism through which human knowledge is harnessed. . . its not a dogmatic pillar any anti-Christ can hold on to.

simply put. . TOE is FALSE.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No! No! Noetic. Remember science put simply, is a body of derived and acceptable knowledge. Something is either a fact or it is not, but to derive at such, a series of investigations have to be done in order to verify such.

However the data put forth by the advocates of the TOE are mere assumptive in nature. They themselves have been saying that science has proven this or that, when in actuality its just plain theory, and one that will never be proven correct.

0
Avatar
Newbie

you should be more concerned with ur intellectual handicap

0
Avatar
Newbie

do u kwow how IGNORANT science is?

0
Avatar
Newbie

We are not delusional so don't expect us to come with some crackpot theory about how life evolved on earth. In science l trust !

0
Avatar
Newbie

They (evolutionists) like every one else agree that TOE is false and unprovable. They have repeatedly made concessions in agreeing that creationism is true.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is utter nonsense. When did this ever become a competition for originality?

0
Avatar
Newbie

As you posit that the first microscopic life form must have arisen from some pre-biotic soup, can you please tie that in with Loius Pastuer's experiments which showed that life can only come from pre-existing life?

You atheists make the religious fanatics look brilliant, cos you never advance any thoughts of your own, you ONLY seek to discredit the thoughts of others.

That's not very original.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What a disgusting joke!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Should l cry or should l laugh ? What kind of disgusting joke is this ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I am not sure they have an answer. They know they can no longer rely on the TOE which is becoming a laughing stock among its former advocates. If you read some of the original articles put together by the original converts of the TOE, and even those who taught it, you will realize the clauses that were placed in the articles or books themselves.

You begin to understand the kind of deception that these people are capable of producing. The more they dig into the truths of science, the more they discover that the TOE is the biggest lie that was ever made up, and this lie was covered up using so-called science.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yet we know that amino acids could not have been made without DNA, as well as RNA. With the level of structure that exists within the DNA molecule, one wonders if in the very first primitive cell according to the TOE, that chance alone could have assembled such order and symmetry.

The very structure of a protein molecule itself, in its simplest of forms is so damn complex that one really wonders about primitive elements coming together by chance to form them. Protein folding alone is enough to baffle today's scientists, which in itself involves an array of other cellular mechanisms that cannot operate by chance. It is becoming more and more obvious that cells seem to be programmed.

The question is what or who programmed them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

what lies did moses tell?

is there any reason to believe otherwise?

why not answer the thread topic? how did life begin?

0
Avatar
Newbie

For us to understand how life began we have to understand how amino acids the building blocks of life as we know it were formed. I would urge you to watch this clip from Carl Sagan's cosmos series :

0
Avatar
Newbie

I very much want to stick to the question posed in the heading of this thread but first have to divert somewhat and say nasty things to you atheists.

You suck! And you show extreme levels of ignorance. And you have no 'Christ' (read 'love', if you may) for others! How else could it be that you would harangue a person who shows their limitation of knowledge and has only read one single book, especially if such people live in societies where one single book is all they have been encouraged to read? You bloody atheist, so called "Mr and Mrs Read More Than One Single Book"! Have you not read it written that "One must forgive those who know not what it is that they say", or "do"? If it is true that your brain is washed much better than those who have not washed theirs at all, then let it show, please!

Now, back to the question:

What evidence can show (suggest, would be more accurate), is the age of the earth. The oldest minerals found in it are said to be 4.404 billion years old (+/- 1%). Of course, if I were to accept some book as being infallible I would say bollocks; after all, my Book says "let there be" was said on the October 23, 4004 BC, some 6013 years ago. And if this is what I chose to believe, how can anything pre-exist this date? I however ought to note though that no matter how much I insist a thing to be so does not make it so, and if I were to ignore all opposing evidence, well more knowledgeable people should get to say to themselves, "let us forgive buda, for he has not got a clue!" Or if they are atheists like some of you are, I guess it will be, "buda! You are silly!" But the way I see it is the more ignorant amongst are those who would go further than put their own view across and insist that their myth, or scientific theory, is truer.

I guess it must be understood that in my ignorance, I have much more to lose if my own belief is not accepted by those who would oppose mine than the mere correction of my error. My belief is knowledge ordained unto me by the Almighty, I would have you know, and God's word is infallible. If what my God says is not true, then even my God would have to be untrue! Forget that some people came to my nation to tell me my own ideology is false and theirs is superior just before they enslaved my thinking with their own. Its not as if they said and did all this for their own good. They did it to force my hell bound soul into heaven where they had determined that it belonged. What I haven't yet figured out is how being shipped thousand of miles across the God created seas, chained in the hold of their ships, to work on their land with next to no benefits or remuneration, had my mothers and sisters Molested, and all of us sold off to the next slavemaster whenever it suited them fits into the wordings of the so called infallible God written book or into the whole scheme of things. But I guess like my ignorance about the creation of the earth, some things are beyond knowledge, or rather, my knowledge! The evidence is out there though, and as is written, the truth will set one free. So seek it, I say.

As to you atheists!!! One must forgive those who know not what it is that they are saying. Believe me, some people are burning in hell already.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Does neotic have any evidence to show that moses wrote the book of genesis. . . ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Basically everything from his mouth were all lies, weren't they?

0
Avatar
Newbie

what lie did he tell?

0
Avatar
Newbie

blah blah blah. , , . moses was not a LYING evolutionist. . , . . .or was he?

0
Avatar
Newbie

We're past mid day here. . .sleep tight man.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Anyway I hear you loud and clear. Have to get some shut eye now. Lata,

0
Avatar
Newbie

That I cannot answer the question now doesn't mean it won't be found tomorrow. I'm sure moses was oblivious of that 2nd law of thermodynamics you made mention of during his time. Besides, why are you haranguinig me about TOE, is it my father who made the postulation?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ever occurred to you why you can't answer those questions? When you get the chance take a look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics as advocated and accepted by modern scientists, and try and fit that into the theory of evolution, which basically teaches that life is on the upward path. Life progresses towards being better equipped to adopt to its surroundings.

Yet we are seeing the very opposite. Al we see is death and chaos.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If I knew the answer to you question i'd be king of the world. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.