Evolution and the origin of life.

[Sir Gareth]

What theory do evolutionists generally hold to for the origin of life?

[MorningGlory]

What theory do evolutionists generally hold to for the origin of life?

Interesting question. I'd be interested in THAT answer my self.

[Sir Gareth]

i don't intend to argue about it just curious as to how darwinian 'science' would explain it.

[MorningGlory]

Evolution deals with what happened AFTER life was on the planet. "Darwinian" science doesn't deal with origins, just evolution. For the origins of life, there are theories that the planet was inseminated by bacteria from a passing meteorite, we originated from the chemicals that were in the water, etc.

Yep, I can see how those theories would make sense.....to someone from Mars, maybe.

[MorningGlory]

Evolution deals with what happened AFTER life was on the planet. "Darwinian" science doesn't deal with origins, just evolution. For the origins of life, there are theories that the planet was inseminated by bacteria from a passing meteorite, we originated from the chemicals that were in the water, etc.

Yep, I can see how those theories would make sense.....to someone from Mars, maybe.

Its more believable than a snap of the finger by a supreme being.

To someone from Mars, maybe.

[Sir Gareth]

I understand that evolution is not an origin of life theory, what i am meaning to ask is what theory of the origin of life do most evolution proponents adhere to.

[~candice~]

i don't intend to argue about it just curious as to how darwinian 'science' would explain it.

Evolution deals with what happened AFTER life was on the planet. "Darwinian" science doesn't deal with origins, just evolution. For the origins of life, there are theories that the planet was inseminated by bacteria from a passing meteorite, we originated from the chemicals that were in the water, etc.

One theory

Bacteria from a passing meteorite is not a local answer to the "origin of life" question. Where did the bacteria come from?

I understand that evolution is not an origin of life theory, what i am meaning to ask is what theory of the origin of life do most evolution proponents adhere to.

I don't know, personally I lean towards a divine intervention, but if evidence for abiogenesis accumulates to a high enough degree I'm not philosophically opposed to the point. Right now I think there's some interesting, though not wholly conclusive, evidence going for it and I don't see the need to insist that God had to work in this or that specific way. If science has taught us anything it is that God created a universe that didn't need His constant intervention to function which seems to me as much more superior to a universe that's constantly breaking down and needing His attention.

God did create a perfect world, we have man to blame for the imperfections we see today. He created a perfect world AND He is still personally involved in it to this day. Now that's a bigger God than the Deist who winds up creation and lets it go. Are you a deist? Do you acknowledge that God intervenes in a very real and powerful way on this earth today?

When we read the creation account we see more than just one divine intervention. We read "God said", "Then God said", "And then God"... a series of deliberate interventions on the process of creation.

[nebula]

I still don't understand this.

Scientists are big on "knowing" and "searching" and "finding out."

Yet when it comes to where life came from, how the inanimate became a living thing - it's like they develope a "Well we can't know so we won't even try to know" attitude.

[~candice~]

I still don't understand this.

Scientists are big on "knowing" and "searching" and "finding out."

Yet when it comes to where life came from, how the inanimate became a living thing - it's like they develope a "Well we can't know so we won't even try to know" attitude.

What? Of course they develop theories. Its just a lot harder to prove because they can't re-create it. Science deals with everything after the big bang (in other words, when "time" began). Anything before that is irrelevant so they don't deal with it. Try reading a Brief History of Time.

Anything before the big bang is irrelevant? Or perhaps they don't want to investigate the world before the big bang because it leads to uncomfortable conclusions...

[~candice~]

Anything before the big bang is irrelevant? Or perhaps they don't want to investigate the world before the big bang because it leads to uncomfortable conclusions...

No, because its scientifically impossible to study what happened before the big bang.

Why does the fact that you can't scientifically study it, make it irrelevant?