There goes the god theory.

[mark francis]

Wrong, and you just failed a 6th grade science quiz.

The single common ancestor theory was proposed by Darwin and Darwinians have been coming up with more debatable speculations in support for that theory ever since. Nothing has ever been proven to support the idea that life started in that manner.

Studies that seem to confirm clearly do not irrefutably confirm.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

Creationism is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," says the author of a new study of the statistical probability of a universal common ancestor.

www.nationalgeographic.com

PUBLISHED MAY 14, 2010
All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.
The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Views based upon statistical analyses are not irrefutable scientific facts.

All present-day life arose from a single ancestor

A major tenet of evolutionary theory — that all life stems from a common source — passes a statistical test.

www.sciencenews.org

By Tina Hesman Saey
MAY 12, 2010 AT 2:57 PM
One isn’t such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A hypothetical first cell is not a universally accepted irrefutable first cell.

All present-day life arose from a single ancestor

A major tenet of evolutionary theory — that all life stems from a common source — passes a statistical test.

www.sciencenews.org

We find that the “last universal common ancestor” – a hypothetical very early single cell from which all life on Earth descended – existed prior to the “late heavy bombardment”.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Opinions, thoughts, speculations, guesses, conclusions, computer models, and theories are not to be accepted as scientific facts.

The origin of life on Earth, explained

The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. To find out if we are alone in the galaxy, we will need to better understand what geochemical conditions nurtured the first life forms. Several seminal experiments in this topic have been conducted at the University of...

news.uchicago.edu

Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Scientists think that by 4.3 billion years ago, Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. The oldest known fossils, however, are only 3.7 billion years old. During that 600 million-year window, life may have emerged repeatedly, only to be snuffed out by catastrophic collisions with asteroids and comets.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As it stands, secular scientists continue to wrestle with various opinions, speculations, conclusions and other aspects of the common ancestor theory, yet nothing is proved, and the debates are not settled.

Was the universal common ancestry proved? - Nature

Arising from D. L. Theobald , 219–222 (2010)10.1038/nature09014 ; Theobald reply The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin1. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered...

www.nature.com

The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin1. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences. Theobald2 recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald2 is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection3 giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses.

 

[mark francis]

We live in a very interesting time.

As the "horizon" of our universe expands, new (to us) galaxies will come into view.

But only for a while. Those newest galaxies will redshift and dim and disappear from view. Then the galaxies we have know for a century will do the same thing. Eventually, there will be no galaxies in the sky to look at.

Then eventually, the same thing will happen with all the stars.

Theorists have not explained how trillions of stars in millions of galaxies could have accidentally big banged themselves into their ordered places without help from the Master designer and universal First Cause.

 

[mark francis]

No he didn't. Like Hitchens, they never leave unscathed.
Dawkins has shyt more brains than him.

Professing himself to be wise Dawkins has shown himself to be a fool.

 

[Boris Norris]

Professing himself to be wise Dawkins has shown himself to be a fool.

Dawkins a fool??? .
Coming from an old semi lucid god botherer, that claim with shatter the earth with vibrations globally.

 

[mark francis]

Professing himself to be wise Dawkins has shown himself to be a fool.

Dawkins admitted he believes some intelligent being or beings may have seeded life on earth in the beginning, but he adamantly refuses to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible. That makes him a fool.

 

[Tripoli]

This is your point to make, not mine.

Why do you ask? Why should anyone care about that question?

So a simple question has rendered your dumb theory as less than dust, you need to explain how genes formed from nothing in Darwin's muddy phosphoric pond, and you can't. In fact no one can which is why the abiogenesis theory has been replaced with transpermia, then that theory was replaced with the newest theory of simulation which requires a creator

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Blind faith in the unscientific possibility of chemicals arranging themselves by accident with no plan or power to form initial life on earth is silly.

Ockham can excuse blind faith in silly unscientific assumptions and speculations, but Ockham cannot remove the stain of stupidity from such silliness.

Transubstantiation is a human concept derived from very bad understandings and interpretations of the Bible.

It is convincing enough to be made official Church doctrine.

Over a billion years or so, somewhere on the Earth or perhaps some other planet, organic critters were created, and from them, all other critters evolved.

If something cannot be created out of nothing, how was God created?
True silliness is assuming that such a complex things as God has always existed.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

Nothing has ever been proven to support the idea that life started in that manner.

A stupid lie, obviously. Every 9bservation ever made and every shred of evidence ever collected shows common ancestry.

Funny thing is, you know you are lying.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

So a simple question has rendered your dumb theory as less than dust, you need to explain how genes formed from nothing in Darwin's muddy phosphoric pond, and you can't. In fact no one can which is why the abiogenesis theory has been replaced with transpermia, then that theory was replaced with the newest theory of simulation which requires a creator

Your useless question accomplished nothing and can be ignored. You made no case and no point. You're not really used to having honest discussions with educated people, are you?

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

Theorists have not explained how trillions of stars in millions of galaxies could have accidentally big banged themselves into their ordered places without help from the Master designer and universal First Cause.

Yes they have. You are just ignorant of the explanation.

 

[Tripoli]

Your useless question accomplished nothing and can be ignored. You made no case and no point. You're not really used to having honest discussions with educated people, are you?

Says the low IQ schizoid who sincerely and in full scale delusional manner; believes that he can prove how life began by insulting the people who are laughing at his inbred behavior patterns on the internet.

Fact, Steven Hawking wrote in his golden book that nothing can escape a black hole. not even light. Then he wrote that black holes evaporate due to escaping radiation.

Fact Einstein wrote that the universe was not expanding, which according to you means that he was wrong about everything

Fact you have the IQ of the inbred Whittakers and can merely repeat what you heard over there and try to make it your own

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Darwin said nothing about the origins of life, he dealt with natural selection.
No one who claims that an omnipotent deity created the universe tells us what created said deity.
But they all seem to insist that nothing exists that was not created.

It makes more sense to me to assume that life created itself. A specific combination of elements in a specific situation did this one or more times and all life evolved from there.

 

[Tripoli]

Darwin said nothing about the origins of life, he dealt with natural selection.
No one who claims that an omnipotent deity created the universe tells us what created said deity.
But they all seem to insist that nothing exists that was not created.

It makes more sense to me to assume that life created itself. A specific combination of elements in a specific situation did this one or more times and all life evolved from there.

Wrong as you clearly have not read Darwin's letters to Hooker. Most groundhogs have not.

Did life evolve in a `warm little pond'?​

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Perhaps life did begin in a warm little pond. We will never know. We can try simulating such a pond, and I imagine that eventually we will find out what can create living single celled organisms.

Again, if everything that exists was created, then what or who created God?

 

[Tripoli]

Perhaps life did begin in a warm little pond. We will never know. We can try simulating such a pond, and I imagine that eventually we will find out what can create living single celled organisms.

Again, if everything that exists was created, then what or who created God?

Those experiments were done already, all failed

What created God can't be answered until we know what God is, and the government and the church are both hiding this as the answer will destroy God and perhaps all of humanity