re: Faith in "Science" = "man made religion" (Evolution related)

quote:

---

What do you claim is the difference between "evolved from" and "arose from"?

---

quote:

---

ev·o·lu·tion

---

1.

quote:

---

the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection

---

2.

quote:

---

the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion,

---

You might not know this, but the same word can have different definitions.

And again, you keep ignoring the fact that there IS evidence for abiogenesis.

He is probably one of those people who thinks the big bang is part of the theory of evolution too.

quote:

---

some people have blind faith that it did.

---

life exists, we cant explain how just yet,
therefore, sky daddy miracles...thats your argument.

quote:

---

life exists, we cant explain how just yet,
therefore, sky daddy miracles...thats your argument.

---

I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all. That means something else was responsible for the creation of life and I know it wasn't me or any other human being. What you want to call the creator is your business.

quote:

---

I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all.

---

You're right, it doesn't. Every scientist alive agrees with you.

quote:

---

There isn't a biologist alive who believes life evolved from non-life. Not a single one.

---

This statement is humorous, but I will say that you have honed your skills somewhat in your discussion of this topic

quote:

---

Finding some amino acids in old jars isn't evidence that life was created from non-life.

---

Of course not, but it shows that it is possible which you deny. It refutes your point that abiogenesis CANNOT occur. It can.

The first organisms were self-replicating iron-rich clays which fixed carbon dioxide into oxalic and other dicarboxylic acids. This system of replicating clays and their metabolic phenotype then evolved into the sulfide rich region of the hotspring acquiring the ability to fix nitrogen. Finally phosphate was incorporated into the evolving system which allowed the synthesis of nucleotides and phospholipids. If biosynthesis recapitulates biopoiesis, then the synthesis of amino acids preceded the synthesis of the purine and pyrimidine bases. Furthermore the polymerization of the amino acid thioesters into polypeptides preceded the directed polymerization of amino acid esters by polynucleotides.

What is Hartman actually saying here......chemical evolution or is it something else

quote:

---

I just find it unbelievable that life could evolve from non-life. It makes no sense at all.

---

quote:

---

You're right, it doesn't. Every scientist alive agrees with you.

---

What about what this site says?

BTW, notice that the word "evolution" is used.

quote:

---

How did life begin? What was the origin of the first carbon-based life on earth?
Scientists are proposing various theories for a natural origin of life by a process of abiogenesis (a non-biological production of life) that can be viewed as a chemical evolution from non-life to life. {note: Another meaning of chemical evolution is the natural process, occurring in stars, that forms the nuclei of larger atoms (Li, C, N, O,...) from the smaller nuclei of H and He. }

Scientists usually propose a four-stage process of formation for the first life:
1A. formation of small organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acid bases,…),
1B. and these combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, lipids,…),
2A. which self-organized, by a variety of interactions, into a semi-alive system
2B. that gradually transformed into a more sophisticated form, a living organism.

• Loren Haarsma & Terry Gray (2003) briefly outline a possible process for a natural origin of life.

---

LINK

If what you say is true then what's your response to this quote by Nobel laureate George Wald?

quote:

---

“The only alternative” to spontaneous generation is “to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position” (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). Life was either created, or it evolved from non-life. Since every scientific observation known to man has demonstrated that physical life never comes from non-life, and cannot do so, the only logical conclusion is that life was created supernaturally.

---

LINK