The Theory of Evolution

[spitfire]

How's hanging from the earth's edge philosopher?

[Philosopher]

It's creationists that can't explain how life began or how life is sustained. Not the other way around.For instance, God created all living things. Right? How? No answer whatsoever to that.

Spitfire, you strike me as perhaps the most contradictory member of this forum. Unlike Vicsinad, who is a devout atheist, you claim to be an Orthodox Christian. You believe in Unction and prayer for saving souls. You believe in holy tradition and faith through love. And yet, you believe in a godless universe. The universe was a godless formation. Evolution too is a godless formation.

So my question to you is if God played no role in forming, making, or creating the universe or life, why would he play a role in prayer, unction, or any other ceremonial or belief system?

And when did God decide to enter in the lives of men when he played no role in creating man or the universe?

[Philosopher]

I posted a scenario. You may accept it or not, that's your choice.

Maybe next time you can post a link as well.

Heat from both the Sun and from Geothermal activity heated these and many other chemicals causing billions upon billions of chemical reactions to take place every second in every litre of water on the planet. Frequent lightning strikes also energised the various reactions. Under such conditions a wide variety of chemical compounds are formed, including nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, oils and carbohydrates. Because of the reducing atmosphere these are much more stable than they are in an oxygen-rich environment and so both accumulate and also participate in further reactions.

If only you were smart enough to post this earlier, instead of positing your carbon theory to explain how non-living matter became living matter, you would have actually come across a little more intelligent.

It is probably important to point out, however, that this theory has never been proven, and is entirely speculative. Like most of Darwinian theory and the Big Bang, it is based on hypotheses that cannot or have not, been proven.

Scientists have tried to replicate these and other scenarios, and have always failed.

Checkmate.

[spitfire]

Spitfire, you strike me as perhaps the most contradictory member of this forum. Unlike Vicsinad, who is a devout atheist, you claim to be an Orthodox Christian. You believe in Unction and prayer for saving souls. You believe in holy tradition and faith through love. And yet, you believe in a godless universe. The universe was a godless formation. Evolution too is a godless formation.

So my question to you is if God played no role in forming, making, or creating the universe or life, why would he play a role in prayer, unction, or any other ceremonial or belief system?

And when did God decide to enter in the lives of men when he played no role in creating man or the universe?

Philosopher, what I do or am is my bussiness.
Your need to make a caricature of the world and people in order to understand them, does not mean that I will meet this need. Period.

My explanations about how faith works, were simply made to show how confused you are even in what you claim as your religious faith. Start reading about orthodoxy first and then make claims about how it works.
To me it's just a matter of reasearch, as it is with Islam. It doesn't mean that I accept anything. I look at this or any other system of faith because I'm curious.
Above all, what I accept or not is not your bussiness. I Keep the christian orthodox ID, and I don't have to answer why. Are we clear?
If you think this is wrong, well then ex-communicate me. You won't achieve anything, but if it makes you feel good, then be my guest.

The moment of when God decided to enter man's life is not in the Christian religon. In fact, that is intelligent design, therefore rejected by Christianity. I wonder why you ask such a silly question?

Your other question is about how orthodoxy works. I suggest you read and find out why and how.

[spitfire]

If only you were smart enough to post this earlier, instead of positing your carbon theory to explain how non-living matter became living matter, you would have actually come across a little more intelligent.

It is probably important to point out, however, that this theory has never been proven, and is entirely speculative. Like most of Darwinian theory and the Big Bang, it is based on hypotheses that cannot or have not, been proven.

Scientists have tried to replicate these and other scenarios, and have always failed.

Checkmate.

If only you were a chess player... .

This has also carbon-hydrates. You are pathetic!

Scientists create micro-organisms all the time. You are pathetic plus!

[spitfire]

Scientists create "artificial life" - synthetic DNA that can self-replicate

http://io9.com/5543843/scientists-create-artificial-life---synthetic-dna-that-can-self-replicate

How to make a synthetic genome

Researchers created a synthetic genome by copying an existing one — Mycoplasma mycoides — and transplanting it into Mycoplasma capricolum. How can we be sure that the M. mycoides is synthetic? When recreating it, the team added a number of non-functional "watermarks" to the genome, making it distinct from the wild version. Once implanted, the M. mycoides genome "booted up" the recipient cells, deleting or disrupting 14 genes. The bacteria went on to function normally, meaning the transplant worked.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Venter. "This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do. We have a wide range of applications [in mind]."

"If the methods described here can be generalized, design, synthesis , assembly and transplantation of synthetic chromosomes will no longer be a barrier to the progress of synthetic biology," write the authors in the paper

So much for God... .

[Vangelovski]

Spitfire, why don't you send in your theories to that competition I posted and take the million dollars?

I think you tried to claim RNA was the beginning of life...go back to that again and see if you can expand on it rather than just slipping it in there.

[spitfire]

These are well accepted positions of science. The creation or formulation of new life is not a theory any longer. It's reality.

The million dollar competition requires a full analysis of how earth was created up to this day. You understand of course that this competion is impossible. Nobody's life span is enough to even think of the whole expansion. You will then need to test it and finally draw it with conclusions.

I offer a billion dollars instead, for anyone who can do it.

[Vangelovski]

These are well accepted positions of science. The creation or formulation of new life is not a theory any longer. It's reality.

The million dollar competition requires a full analysis of how earth was created up to this day. You understand of course that this competion is impossible. Nobody's life span is enough to even think of the whole expansion. You will then need to test it and finally draw it with conclusions.

I offer a billion dollars instead, for anyone who can do it.

You don't have a billion dollars you peasant. You don't want to enter because you haven't got a clue about what your posting.

Back to that RNA claim of yours...

[spitfire]

You don't have a billion dollars you peasant. You don't want to enter because you haven't got a clue about what your posting.

Back to that RNA claim of yours...

By the time someone finishes this project, I will have endless money.

Have you actually read what they require? It's like asking heaven and earth. A millinon dollars is actually a very small prize for the effort.

Look at this for instance:
In short, which of the four known forces of physics organized and prescribed life into existence? Was it gravity? Was it the strong or weak nuclear force? Was it the electromagnetic force? How could any combination of these natural forces or force fields program decision nodes to prescribe future utility?

[Philosopher]

So much for God... .

So let me get this straight. This project is the work of rationale minds -- intelligent design -- and it is based on the irrational and mindless acts of nature.

Wow.

[Philosopher]

If only you were a chess player... .

This has also carbon-hydrates. You are pathetic!

Scientists create micro-organisms all the time. You are pathetic plus!

I have been called many things in life, but the issue here is your inability to understand or even present a valid argument...that and the fact you never like to admit your errors.

Carbon did not and cannot change a non-living matter into living organic matter. Scientists do not how this occurred, but as your link correctly stated, it is assumed (without evidence) that lightning strikes might have been responsible.

[spitfire]

So let me get this straight. This project is the work of rationale minds -- intelligent design -- and it is based on the irrational and mindless acts of nature.

Wow.

You didn't get it straigh, nor you'll ever do.

It's not intelligent design because those who performed this are products who have been formed by the principle of evolution.

The problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't explain who created the designer.

Did you reach the end of the flat earth yet?

[spitfire]

I have been called many things in life, but the issue here is your inability to understand or even present a valid argument...that and the fact you never like to admit your errors.

Carbon did not and cannot change a non-living matter into living organic matter. Scientists do not how this occurred, but as your link correctly stated, it is assumed (without evidence) that lightning strikes might have been responsible.

Define living matter. It's chemicals basically.

Carbon is a substance. It's not a creator. It's part of what was used by the environment

[Philosopher]

Spitfire, your original argument was that carbon was responsible for transforming non-living matter to living matter. We all know this not to be true. So instead of admitting your error, you decided to double down. You provided this quote:

Heat from both the Sun and from Geothermal activity heated these and many other chemicals causing billions upon billions of chemical reactions to take place every second in every litre of water on the planet. Frequent lightning strikes also energised the various reactions. Under such conditions a wide variety of chemical compounds are formed, including nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, oils and carbohydrates. Because of the reducing atmosphere these are much more stable than they are in an oxygen-rich environment and so both accumulate and also participate in further reactions.

You highlighted in bold “carbohydrates” to prove your point. And added (as only you can do):

If only you were a chess player... .

This has also carbon-hydrates. You are pathetic!

Scientists create micro-organisms all the time. You are pathetic plus!

So let us analyze these claims. First, you claim that carbon transformed non-living matter to living matter. Then you provide a quote to support your hypothesis. But the trouble is – your citation does not support your hypothesis. The quote you provided does not state what you claim. In fact, it states the opposite. It states that “heat”, with “frequent lightning strikes” energized this primordial soup of non-living matter, and as a result of this, “a wide variety of chemical compounds are formed”, including... 'carbohydrates'.

So in effect you twisted the meaning of your citation to support your absurd and unsubstantiated hypothesis. Carbon did not transform non-living matter to living matter, but it was itself the result of non-living matter becoming living matter.

To borrow Dragan's word, you're a naughty little boy Spitfire.

You didn't get it straigh, nor you'll ever do.

It's not intelligent design because those who performed this are products who have been formed by the principle of evolution.

So let me understand. A synthetic genome is not the product of intelligent design, even though it clearly is, because the designers are themselves a product of evolution? So by this definition, there is no intelligence in the universe.

The problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't explain who created the designer.

Well considering the Creator is an infinite being, I'm afraid we do not have that problem.

Did you reach the end of the flat earth yet?

I see. So if someone challenges Darwinian orthodoxy, he or she must be a flat earther. Sound logic Spitfire.