Which theory on the origin of life do you believe in? and why?

[necrotic freak]

---

He is the ONE...

[cromagnon]

Divine or Special Creation Theory - God created order out of chaos, and science can not disprove this theory try as they may. There is order and law in the universe which strongly suggest intelligent design.
2. Abiogenesis or Spontaneous Generation -was believed in the Dark Ages and proved to be wrong. Bugs are not created by fallen rotting logs.
3. Cosmozoic or Interplanetary Theory - The bible even speaks of this possibility, the Children of the Light and the Watchers. The whole of everything on this planet consist of space dust. Even Us.
4. Philosophical Theory of Eternity - This could have a small basis of fact if you believe in number 1.
5. Marine Theory - Well if you want to believe that you are the product of steam off of ancient lava flows, that billions of complex cell just decided to swim fly are walk. I personally do not think my ancestors were tadpoles.
6. Naturalistic or Evolutionary or Physico-Chemical Theory - If you believe in number 5 or you think you ancestors dropped out of a tree, and you want to ignore the skeletal history of all thing extinct species that just end with no missing likes to their next step up the ladder. And follow atheist who are trying every trick in the book trying to disprove God. The by all means follow the new religion of Evolution...Then you can try to make chaos out of order too....evolution has never been duplicated for a reason. It is Pseudoscience that was swallowed hook line and sinker 130 years ago by the scientific community. They would rather twist the science than admit that they just might be wrong.

I personally believe in number 1, and intense scientific research for 32 years has brought me back to the center. The more you use science to disprove God, the more science can not. There is too much evidence in intellegent design. We were not tadpoles, or grounded monkeys, we are created man. Now we may have had some genetic help along the way. There could be a little splash of #3 in our history. What do I know I am just a retired man of science.

hi james a ritired man of u science u said,.
if u have to walk a kilometer just to know the answer . its only been a few steps made.
its never a reson to go back to the center to say it cant be asnwered.

due to this lack of persistence , it would really confused people that we really are from tadpoles.

[jamesmusslewhite]

cromagnon
I as a younger man was disillusioned due to complex questions over faith. Science seemed the perfect platform to find that it was all just a lie. From the age of 14 I read everything I could about the world as it existed in the cosmos. I loved physics, astrology, biology, natural sciences. I later achieves 3 Masters degrees but stopped short of Dissertation so I never received my Doctorate. I am a retired Horticultural Biologist, and even work for NASA for 11 years in Houston, Texas. The more I tried to simulate nature, the more I began to appreciate the complexities of God's design.

I did not walk a mere kilometer to seek my answers, rather I walked decades and tried to travel with my mind to the farthest reaches of our universe .

Einstein described Relativity as thus, Mr. Smith took off in a rocket in a relative way, and returned the very next day. Relative means in a straight direction, as in a ray. The more I used science to walk away it returned me to the spot were I began my journey. I walked in so many different directions and each was merely a returning path back to the consciousness I was rebelling. In my lack of faith I found faith. I have sat in rooms with some of the greatest minds in their fields, and have spent countless nights discussing this very topic. I can tell you this.

Science can not be used to disprove God, as science by itself can not prove God. It does show an intelligent design and order to the whole of the universe. Man did not do this, but something did. Something far greater than ourselves. Faith has to be use with science to fill in the missing peices. The hardest thing to measure is faith, yet science has documented amazing things that faith has done to help the faithful defy scientific wisdom. Strongest is in the medical fields.

One can agree or disagree with me, because it is a free world. I will not judge or be judged because of my faith. I have spent too time in serious research to be swayed by those who have not done the homework, walked the journey, and used an open mind. I have, done, and did; and know what I have seen and experienced. Man was created, man and dinosaur walked the earth together. Evolution is flawed science and has been from it's conception. If you take Evolution and fuse it with Creationism, then a truer picture of life, world, and the universe emerges and questions are easily answered. That task takes complex reasoning and few have the ability to look past their predigest to accept a broader concept. Narrow-mindedness is not scientific reasoning, it is a form of anti-science because it establishes limitations. It corrupts the facts and establishes false parameters.

[yahbets]

All these are theories, since none is proven as fact or for that matter provable with absolute certainty.

Fact is, all of these, being mere theories, require some amount of FAITH to believe. Faith is not exclusively confined to the belief of a divine, supreme being. After all, faith is the element required to believe something you cannot prove.

To threaten to lock the thread on the sole basis that choice #1 exists or that one may elucidate on his belief in choice #1, can only be an unabashed and capricious attempt to ram one's persuasion on others, and an arrogant, depraved abuse of moderator prerogatives.

Creationism does not necessitate a belief in a divine being, athough, to my perception that is an inescapable conclusion. It merely requires a belief in the proposition that the world is purposely created or made by design and not a result of some random, inarbitrary accident as the other theories seem to posit.

[marv25]

To threaten to lock the thread on the sole basis that choice #1 exists or that one may elucidate on his belief in choice #1, can only be an unabashed and capricious attempt to ram one's persuasion on others, and an arrogant, depraved abuse of moderator prerogatives.

very well said.

with all due respect, i think its perfectly fine to discuss matters of faith as it is part of the thread topic. there isn't a subforum that is any more appropriate for this topic.

anyway,

i think all the theories could still boil down to #1.

[jamesmusslewhite]

yahbets

I could not agree with you more. Every hypothesis, and theory has evolved through ones faith that they could be right. Every great scientific break-through had skeptics and those that wanted to censor then because it made them uncomfortable. To censor ones Ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and faiths; only expose the censors as too narrow minded to properly engage in civilized debate. What if Anaxagoras, Plato, Socrates, Virgilius, Galileo, Gebert, Friar Bacon, Dr. Faust, Newton, John Dee, Grosseteste, Averroes, Crosse, had not prevailed over those that tried to censor them often with imprisonment or death for their beliefs. The so called intellectual elites of their times, and the ones to be proven wrong over time. Yet they were blinded by their arrogance, and insulted by their own misguided beliefs.

For the romantic heart that beats in the breast of every devoted intellectual, nothing quite matches a conflict between intemperate ignorance and heroic reason, where the persecuted man of science or philosophy makes a stand against the forces of intolerance and superstition. When all you have is your faith, when everyone else chooses to persecute you for that faith.

Evey great scientific breakthrough tramples over the bad science that layed before it. The bad science never admits their failings, rather they chose to stiffen you and your belief, in a vain attempt to hang on to their own flawed beliefs. This is not scientific belief, rather it is intellectual dishonesty. It is the actions of a closed mind, which is unable to come to terms with what they can not understand. It is wrong and has not, is not, and never will be an intelligent act. You do not need to believe, but you do not censor. You do not need to engage in a debate, but you at least allow a debate. If you can not conduct yourself with intellectual honesty, than do not use intellectual dishonesty and try to act intelligent. It is ignorance at the lowest level, and is the true definition if anti-science. Censorship is not scientific reasoning, or critical thinking; it is just plain cowardice. The last act of a limited mind.

Being in the Majority does not make you right, because through history the Majority has often stood on the wrong side of an issue.

The Devoted Intellect
Science Persecuted — Infoplease.com
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid =7
The Dinostones of Peru

[rodsky]

To threaten to lock the thread on the sole basis that choice #1 exists or that one may elucidate on his belief in choice #1, can only be an unabashed and capricious attempt to ram one's persuasion on others, and an arrogant, depraved abuse of moderator prerogatives.

The thread isn't closed yet, don't get your panties in a bunch.

-RODION

[ed168III]

ako kay, "na timingan lng jud"

[kamikaze_007]

ako kay, "na timingan lng jud"

..hahahaha..blooper!..

..i'll go for #1..

..maybe its what i feel, that i love and have faith on the existence of God..

..i guess i just have a better heart than a better brain..

[exculpter]

i bilib in everything