How did life start ?

[mark francis]

What I know and can be supported because there is no evidence, is some silly creator did not do it.

I strongly suspect it cannot yet be proven exactly how it started but the science explanation is the most plausible. It could have come here on comets but entry heat would kill it.

It's hard for people to think the evolution of us from a single cell happened but it's not impossible. It's also not by chance we are where we are today. Evolution is a fact regardless of what a silly book says. So from that, something was bound to develop and here we are.

Our ancestry can be easily traced to common elements throughout the cosmos. That of course is evidence that stars at the edge of the universe were once a lot closer and the big bang, although very difficult for the believers and ignorant to understand, is the most likely.

The God thing is a non starter.

It is easy for myth-makers to write nonsense, but myths are not scientific.

 

[Boris Norris]

It is easy for myth-makers to write nonsense, but myths are not scientific.

Why would you be disputing science?
You believe in myths like immaculate conception and miracles which you know are nonsense. Is that easy to believe?

 

[Boris Norris]

Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible and there is no scientific support for such speculation.

It is quite possible but you being a godbotherer refuse to accept the possibility. Go away.

 

[Boris Norris]

There are two possibilities, both difficult to believe, one of which has to be true.

First possibility is that a single celled life form started out of lifeless chemicals in water, started dividing and reproducing. and gradually evolved all by itself into the myriads of complex interrelated life forms we see on Earth today.

It is the only plausible explanation.

The second is that an intelligence created the first single celled organisms, then watched over the process of evolution as they grew into more complex organisms, tweaking the process now and again until the complex and interrelated life forms we see today resulted.

Absolutely farcical.

One of the major tweaks the creator made was to send or somehow guide an asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals to become one of the dominant life forms.

There was no celestial guidance of any asteroid although it is proven one did arrive. Mammals including dinosaurs were already dominant prior to that.

Neither of those two possibilities denies evolution, of course, but they still are very difficult to believe.

But one or the other has to be true.

Unless, of course, you want to believe in magic.

Evolution is a fact and can be proven a million times. It's the Jesus junkies who are refusing to accept our ancestors. Ironically, every time they do, which mark does, it makes me think whether evolution failed them in developing a functioning brain.

 

[the annoying thing]

Abiogenesis is magic, not the Biblical account of God's creation.


Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” 13

Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both Orgel and Crick called it a miracle. Other scenarios have therefore been suggested. Hoyle and others postulate life was transplanted from outer space14 —which moves the origins problem to another time and place. The multiverse hypothesis, proposed by leading origin-of-life researcher Eugene Koonin,15 is currently in vogue—it replaces infinite time with an infinity of universes to account for the extraordinarily improbable existence of at least one life-sustaining planet (see here).

The real answer may be that abiogenesis is the creation myth of a culture with no need for God—a culture to which physicist Lee Smolin can proclaim: “there is nothing outside the universe.”16 This statement is an unsustainable myth, yet a creator is the only alternative to abiogenesis, and this undermines the mythological foundation of the faith of atheists.

The next article will continue this theme with a discussion of macroevolution, another critical part of the theory of evolution.

Your opinion is just as welcome as anyones sir .

 

[Boris Norris]

Your opinion is just as welcome as anyones sir .

It is easy for myth-makers to write nonsense, but myths are not scientific.

Here's a bit that will get up you snotty nose.

 

[mark francis]

Why would you be disputing science?
You believe in myths like immaculate conception and miracles which you know are nonsense. Is that easy to believe?

I don't dispute science, I dispute nonsensical scientific speculations that have no support in scientific fact.

 

[mark francis]

Why would you be disputing science?
You believe in myths like immaculate conception and miracles which you know are nonsense. Is that easy to believe?

You misrepresent science if you claim science supports abiogenesis speculations.



“Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled.”
― Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life

 

[mark francis]

It is quite possible but you being a godbotherer refuse to accept the possibility. Go away.

Of course I reject impossible possibilities.


“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against. Perhaps in the future we may know enough to make a considered guess, but at the present time we can only say that we cannot decide whether the origin of life on earth was an extremely unlikely event or almost a certainty—or any possibility in between these two extremes.”
― Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature

 

[mark francis]

It is the only plausible explanation.

Absolutely farcical.

There was no celestial guidance of any asteroid although it is proven one did arrive. Mammals including dinosaurs were already dominant prior to that.

Evolution is a fact and can be proven a million times. It's the Jesus junkies who are refusing to accept our ancestors. Ironically, every time they do, which mark does, it makes me think whether evolution failed them in developing a functioning brain.

 

[mark francis]

Here's a bit that will get up you snotty nose.

These are speculations from deluded minds of unbelieving rebels against God.

 

[Boris Norris]

These are speculations from deluded minds of unbelieving rebels against God.

Of course they are and your an expert on speculations.
That aside, you know it's right.

 

[Boris Norris]

He's a zoologist!!!
You should research some things.

Pierre-Paul Grassé (November 27, 1895 in Périgueux (Dordogne) – July 9, 1985) was a French zoologist, writer of over 300 publications including the influential 52-volume Traité de Zoologie. He was an expert on termites and one of the last proponents of neo-Lamarckian evolution.[1][2]

Expert on termites???
Brilliant resource.

 

[Boris Norris]

Of course I reject impossible possibilities.


“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against. Perhaps in the future we may know enough to make a considered guess, but at the present time we can only say that we cannot decide whether the origin of life on earth was an extremely unlikely event or almost a certainty—or any possibility in between these two extremes.”
― Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature

Almost a miracle?
It makes me laugh.

 

[Boris Norris]

These are speculations from deluded minds of unbelieving rebels against God.

Heres another bit about who's doing the fraud in the country.

TikTok - Make Your Day

vt.tiktok.com

Keep your mouth shut. There's plenty more embarrassing moments like this.