Promises and Secrets
A website for those not afraid to examine their beliefs, compare them to the real world, and make sure they fit.
How did life start?
VIEWPOINT
God created life.
FACT
Life exists.
VIEWPOINT
What do you think?
BLUE VIEWPOINT
God created life.
I believe in miracles. Not miracles on demand, as though God is a genie that we can rub the right way and get what we want, but miracles that He can perform that we cannot. Life is one of those miracles. Many say that I am foolish to believe in miracles because of the necessity to believe in a supernatural being that can accomplish them.
Any person who believes that nothing exploded billions of years ago and because of a lot of chemicals sitting around in puddles being struck by lightning at just the right temperature with just the right timing caused life to "happen" is believing in more of a miracle than I do. I have several questions for that person. The only qualification for the answer is that you provide an explanation that is reasonable.
Non-organic became organic?
First, organic material is required for life. You say that carbon and other materials were present to allow that to "happen". Can you describe the process by which things transformed from a bunch of non-living matter into a living organism? Once it "came to life", how long could it live without food? And, by the way, how is it living if it needs food to survive? I mean, was it "born" with a full stomach (without even a way to get a stomach)? If you say it didn't need food, then why do we now? If you say there was plenty of food, how would this living thing absorb the food? That process is amazing all by itself. Can you even present a coherent scenario by which it could possibly happen? If you can't, then it is an opinion. If it is an opinion, then don't teach it as fact. If you do teach it, don't stop me from teaching my view. And, most of all, don't use my taxes to teach this baloney to our kids.
Instantly two sexes?
Let's say that you found a way to explain how this series of accidents happened in a way that solved all these problems. Unless the non-life-to-life process created more than one (a blue one and a pink one, by the way), how did it become more than one hungry piece of life that would eventually run out of food? Reproduction, whether pink/blue or cell division, is not merely mind-over-matter, or luck-over-probability. It is a very specific process that requires a specific set of steps to occur in a controlled environment that allows the duplicating of at least the critical portions of the original organism.
If this does not happen, and life was indeed an accident of nature (wait, can't be an accident of nature, there was no nature at the time), then you would wind up with a different organism and we would indeed have a world full of the transitions that Darwin insisted should be everywhere. So, we are left with the premise that the original "life-thing" was complete with an ingestion system, digestive system, nutrient distribution system, and a fully functional reproduction system capable of duplication of the original organism structure. The only thing missing is the name of the Creator and the name He gave to His creation - Adam.
Naw, that ain't life
Even when the whole world wondered at the "discovery of life" in a test tube, we discovered that the discovery was ridiculously crude and contained elements that were contrary to life. The test tube experiments produced both left- and right-handed proteins (amino acids). Living organisms contain only L-amino acids (left-handed only). This is kind of like saying that I created life in a bowl of sulfuric acid - it was there but didn't survive. Actually, it was more like saying that I created a piece of material that looked like a hair that , with enough of them, might have kept the life warm if I had created it in the first place.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at glenjjr@gmail.com and give us your view.
YELLOW VIEWPOINT
How did life get started? - Opposing View
Tell us your side.
