Can all life be descended from a single-celled organisim?

I am using arrogance of conclusion. They may well be delightful people.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you prove abiogenesis is a mathematical proof?

Can you prove the creation of cells?

 

We cannot as yet prove these as a Mathematical Proof but we will....it is just a matter of time.

AA

 

I take it an evolutionist is someone who accepts evolution as a likely explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. But, will happily tell you this particular "Evolutionist" does not have a God and Darwin was simply a man who observed and postulated correctly.

 

I hope you do understand that science relies on experiments. And that the stellar fusion concept is a work in progress?

I have also been thinking of the Sun. The Sun is assumed to be the father of our elements. I mean, what other body similar could shoot things this far?

So, if all elements came to us via the Sun, why so many elements? We believe we know what the Sun has in it. But notice planets. Are they a mystery to you?

I mean, the various planets are more unlike than like.

Venus may be similar in size to the Earth, but it never can be populated by humans.

Mars is virtually dead. Mercury as well. The planets should vary in size, but be composed of the same elements as Earth.

There seems more proof of GOD than merely life on Earth.

- - - Updated - - -

It is an act of faith you have in Darwin is all.

 

You don't understand.

Robert.....there have been untold Billions of stars that have lived and died for billions of years prior to our solar system coalescing.

To this day there are Stellar Factories....as this is what we call them....exiting within Nebula all over the Universe.

These elements have existed for billions of years before the Sun or Earth even did.

AA

 

I am very powerful in support for science. I for instance will discuss Sir Issac Newton when discussing Calculus. When bringing up the theory of relativity, I do not say science, I say Einstein.

Some really do not understand either abiogenesis nor evolution yet I am expected to take their instruction.

Funny how that works. Oh, they will tell me they understand, but based on what I see, they do not understand.

Darwin's work actually is very primitive yet they love to cite him.

 

This, of course, is child's play. Without even considering the vast gulf between humans and other species, one thing that makes it difficult to believe that is that no one has ever observed a single-celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular, cell-differentiated organism.

 

That is one theory.

 

They would be more persuasive were they to cite real experiments that actually do work. But sadly, they simply say science.

This is the same tactic used by the climate alarm crowd. They simply say scientists. But they claim a number yet they can't claim actual authority.

 

Because of our work in mapping out the Human Genome and the Genomes of thousands of other species we KNOW...with 100% CERTAINTY....that Evolution is a FACT.

Now Darwin understood the very basis of Evolution being the survival of the fittest based upon environment and condition but what he was not aware of was Genetic Mutation driven by Chemical Reaction driven by environment and condition.

Such Genetic Mutation occurs do to anything from UV and Cosmic Radiation to environmental toxicity and it is one of the driving forces in evolution and multiple species generation.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Not a theory.

Proven Fact.

We use Mass Spectrometers.

AA

 

Something outside of time, space, matter, which manifested the virtual reality we call the universe is just as probable as what materialistic science has theorized. Of course all that science has to do to show that its theory is probable is to create a self replicating cell, out of the elements. Crick said it was so improbable, that life had to come here from outside earth. Of course then that means life had to start somewhere else and then you run into the same problem he recognized. It is so highly improbable, that an intelligence outside of this virtual reality is more believable.

Of course if science cannot replicate the environment that allowed the creation of a self replicating cell, which has the ability to evolve, to greater complexity, the chances that it ever happened naturally is improbable. If science cannot create life, the probability that random and chance created a self replicating cell takes more faith than I am willing to give. Science must then be made up of men with such great faith. Which is hardly science.

Looks like science says, grant us one miracle and we shall explain the rest. But they depend upon a miracle.

Of course, we may not have a handle on reality. And that leads to theory, with no way to every know. But it must makes us feel better to think we know. And to assume that the human brain has the ability to know. It may not.

 

Check this out.
From your own report

That is your original.

This is what I saw.

Note in more of the report, they condition findings on MAY. MAY is not scientific. It is pretty much a guess.

 

So, why can't you prove it then?

 

MAY... lol you're grasping at straws, scientists are always cautions and if they do not have numerous studies to confirm their findings several times over... they use the word MAY

I tell you now it's a HELL of a lot more than what you have on god

 

You have faith in Darwin.

 

No really, had my Calculus teachers taught us that it could be, it may be, true ... think I would have believed in Newton?

When I studied physics, my teachers did not traffic in MAY as their explanations.

If you enjoy MAY in papers, no wonder you don't question.

I remind you decent science won't question.

Great science demands precision.

 

We have proven it.

I just detailed out how.

AA

 

Well turns out Newton wasn't 100% correct either... gravity is the bending in space time

May is a good word to use until you have absolute confirmation. And really you pick out ONE word?... out of ALL I've posted you select the word MAY and then discard EVERYTHING... thats' so typical of religious people.

 

The conflation of faith as “unevidenced belief” with faith as “justified confidence” is simply a word trick used to buttress religion.
In fact, you’ll never hear a scientist saying, “I have faith in evolution” or “I have faith in electrons.” Not only is such language alien to us, but we know full well how those words can be misused in the name of religion.

 

Some use religion as a taunt.

Some who do not accept GOD only believe that a believer in GOD is just faith.

I call it intuition.

I do notice the term MAY when one says it proves.

It connotes a lack of faith in the science.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but in teaching if one is positive, they do not say MAY as the answer. MAY stands for I am not clear. It is possible.

 

So the Scientists who carried out the research and proudly PUBLISHED their findings, used the word MAY and thus do not have faith in their own findings, the same findings they went ahead and PUBLISHED....

you are grasping at straws

 

I am truly sorry that I am not able to discuss what you just called space time.

In this persons eyes, time is a measurement of Earth. It is calculated based on things Earth does. It rotates. It has a dark and light side. The stroke of midnight varies on earth. Midnight in Berlin is not the same as Midnight in SF.

Earth has rotated.

And so far as I have learned, gravity though felt, is still not accounted for as to what specifically it is and how it works.

I am open for the discussion so long as the term MAY is not included.

By the way, I am well acquainted with the concepts of Einstein.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I am just precise.

 

[video=youtube;LoaOHvy5AcA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaOHvy5AcA[/video]

There's also a thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/science/443925-gravitational-waves-discovered-100th-anniversary-einstiens-theory-relitivity.html

 

Crick did co-discover DNA but his opinions on how life originated are just that, opinions. It was over 60 years ago btw. Lets move on to more current sources of authority for the origins of life. You seem to imply that supernatural explanations are just as probable as natural explanations. I am not sure if you understand the difference or you would not be trying to make that claim.

 

Here is how confusing this can get. Witness a site of experts. They go back and forth. Back and forth. Rocking you to sleep.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256468