EARTH: A COCAKAMAMIE STORY

[betsy]

Here's the documentary from EARTH: MAKING OF A PLANET

Set the time to begin at 14:57, and turn the caption option on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L129f9MVZ70


"It's impossible to know how or when, but somehow these chemicals come together to create ...........life."

Let's run that again: It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how or when. But somehow these chemicals came together to create life.

In other words, they're saying, it's impossible to know how....but we're saying this is how it happened anyway.

Edited June 2, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Another documentary is saying the same thing on that particular issue.

Set the time to begin at 32:27 and turn the caption option on.

The chemical elements essential for life - hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen - were now in place. What was needed was a way of combining them. PERHAPS, the energy came from lightning. WHATEVER it was....
--------------------------
Earth: Making of a Planet talks about chimneys under the ocean, and Expelled's given documentary speculates about lightning...but both clearly stated that no one knows.

This is a glaring evidence that what they're passing off as a "fact" - a farcical fact - as to how life started, is nothing more than a.....mythical so-called history of our planet.

If they admit that it's impossible to know how life started.....then it's not only unreasonable - but also irresponsible - to dismiss that life could've been CREATED. Thus that means Intelligent Design shouldn't be off the table. In fact, ID has more legitimacy to be on the table compared to that other cockamamie version.

If all they can come up with is to admit, "Whatever caused it...." and "It's impossible to know how and when...." then Intelligent Design is more plausible than their fantasy since the complexity of everything indeed suggest of Design. Edited June 2, 2013 by betsy

[WWWTT]

Delete

Edited June 2, 2013 by WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Really? Throwing Ben Stein out there again?

[Canuckistani]

Ben Stein thinks life is not a set of chemical reactions? Or is Ben going on aout we don't know when or how? If the latter, well he's undercut any argument to claiming it required an intelligence right there - we don't know.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Canuckistani

[GostHacked]

Ben Stein thinks life is not a set of chemical reactions? Or is Ben going on aout we don't know when or how? If the latter, well he's undercut any argument to claiming it required an intelligence right there - we don't know.

Ben is right though. He has let us know that there is no intelligence required to believe in creationism.

[jbg]

In other words, they're saying, it's impossible to know how....but we're saying this is how it happened anyway.

Certainly, it happened sometime. Whether it was divine intervention or not in another story entirely.

[The_Squid]

Creationist nonsense.

We have never seen any scientific evidence for any natural process to occur other than by natural means. None. Zilch. We keep finding all sorts of evidence to refute the biblical accounts that were written by people who didn't even know the earth revolves around the sun, which is why it is the opposite in the biblical account.

So given the lack of evidence for anything supernatural, what's more likely: a natural process for abiogenesis, or someone's god or gods clapping their hands and bringing it all into being in 6 days, on the back of a turtle, a clam dropped by a raven, or whatever the myth of that particular culture was thousands of years ago?

[The_Squid]

I didn't realize jbg was resurrecting a dead and buried thread....

[monty16]

If you talk to a modern day catholic you will find that they are in the process of updating their beliefs to fit in with scientific facts. Some of the more enlightened ones now believe that jesus was a mortal man! What's left after that becomes the popular position of catholics. Soutern Baptist Youn Earth Creationists?

[Gumby]

That's rich..... a creationist calling science a cockamamie story. How about we call a spade a spade, and by that I mean you are spewing poisonous and revisionist fantasy fit for the dark ages and nothing else. I resent the implication that my belief is cockamamie, and I reply in kind by stating my sincere sadness at your profound and dogmatic zealotry.. Hopefully the age of religious fantasy is nearly over, and your disease with it.

[Mighty AC]

Oh so you resent the implication that your belief is cockamamie yet you have no problem calling creationist beliefs fantasy and a disease? Why are your unproven theories any different? The THEORY of evolution is based on historical science not observational science. Let me know when you have talked to someone that has observed life just accidentally beginning and then changing into the complex forms we have today. Your evolutionist belief system has more holes than swiss cheese. You don't even know how life, the universe and everything began, yet you pretend to know that we are all evolved sea scum. Give me a break!

If you are interested in theories backed up by the strongest evidences available you should start reading about intelligent design my friend. It's science without all the assumptions, hand waving and guesswork associated with evolution.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[The_Squid]

Oh so you resent the implication that your belief is cockamamie yet you have no problem calling creationist beliefs fantasy and a disease? Why are your unproven theories any different? The THEORY of evolution is based on historical science not observational science. Let me know when you have talked to someone that has observed life just accidentally beginning and then changing into the complex forms we have today. Your evolutionist belief system has more holes than swiss cheese. You don't even know how life, the universe and everything began, yet you pretend to know that we are all evolved sea scum. Give me a break!

If you are interested in theories backed up by the strongest evidences available you should start reading about intelligent design my friend. It's science without all the assumptions, hand waving and guesswork associated with evolution.

OK, who hacked AC's account?????

[overthere]

OK, who hacked AC's account?????

I see the Virtual Hand of God here.

[Gumby]

You call my beliefs cockamamie, and insist that the theory of evolution is full of holes and hand waving. No Problem. I call your beliefs absolute fantasy, with no basis in reality whatsoever given my personal experience and tangible evidence gathered to date. No problem. I would restate that in each of our cases the onus is on us to provide credible evidence to bolster our belief. In my case, the evidence is gathered by all of our best scientific efforts. In your case, tangible evidence is as yet non-existent. While neither is proven, I remain unconvinced that the deity in question is of your definition.

I respect your right to believe what you have read, but I do not respect what you have read in that it goes against reason in my view. The preponderance of evidence leads me to believe in something different at this time.

The theory of Intelligent Design, in my view, is the more likely one to be proven correct in that there may well have been genetic manipulation of Earth species by unknown parties, much as we are capable of genetic manipulation now.

The idea of "little green men" adding engineered lifeforms to our planet is absolutely credible and probable in my view. We verge on that capability ourselves, and to claim that we as Earth-based humans are the only iteration of life capable of such science is also quite arrogant and ignorant of the known realities of the cosmos. I would submit that I personally find Intelligent Design to be the most credible of all current theories, but I reserve judgement on who or what did the designing. I apologize for my heated response earlier, at the time i felt that the word "cockamamie" was a direct insult to my personal beliefs, and I responded in kind. I will leave it at that.

[Wilber]

Who created the "little green men" then?

[Gumby]

No clue. There is no evidence to indicate. You guys feel free to fight amongst yourselves as to who has the bigger more omnipotent deity, while us mere mortals attempt to use accumulated knowledge rather than fear and dogma to at least try to figure it out.

[Wilber]

No clue. There is no evidence to indicate. You guys feel free to fight amongst yourselves as to who has the bigger more omnipotent deity, while us mere mortals attempt to use accumulated knowledge rather than fear and dogma to at least try to figure it out.

No clue either. We could be the result of engineering by some other species and they by another and they by another ad infinitum, but what piece of engineering started it in the first place. I doubt it though, only because as Sagan put it, we are a small planet orbiting a fairly mundane star in the corner of our galaxy. Why would anyone come here in the first place? Also, the incredible variety of life, past and present makes the idea of intelligent design a non starter unless evolution was included in that design.

One mortals opinion.

[Mighty AC]

OK, who hacked AC's account?????

The lord works in mysterious ways.

[Mighty AC]

You call my beliefs cockamamie, and insist that the theory of evolution is full of holes and hand waving. No Problem. I call your beliefs absolute fantasy, with no basis in reality whatsoever given my personal experience and tangible evidence gathered to date.

Why are your beliefs any more correct than religious beliefs? Do you have tangible evidence of life being created from nothing? Or anything being created from nothing? Do you have any evidence of evolution creating a new species? And not just a new species in your made up scientific nomenclature sense, but a new organism that is genetically different enough that it can no longer breed with ancestor populations.

The theory of Intelligent Design, in my view, is the more likely one to be proven correct in that there may well have been genetic manipulation of Earth species by unknown parties, much as we are capable of genetic manipulation now.

Now we're getting somewhere. The idea of outside intelligence seeding life on earth is on the right track. Odd though that you accept an alien species as the potential creator but not a god. There is no evidence of either and gods solve the problem of life creation.

You place a lot of faith in science, but don't the writers of your belief system frequently make up stories to fill in the gaps? Take dark matter for instance. "Hey our energy calculations are off, so let's give a name to some energy we can't see so they are correct again."

[cybercoma]

Why are your beliefs any more correct than religious beliefs?

Really? Scientific evidence is the exact same thing as faith-based belief now?

[cybercoma]

Seriously, people who don't even understand how science works then go on to dismiss it as though it's the exact same as religious belief should be mocked and humiliated for the absurdity of those claims.

[kimmy]

Mighty! Are you ok? Have you suffered a blow to the head recently?

I have to say that the "ancient aliens" theory for the origin of life on earth bugs me even more than the premise that an almighty god created us. Because first off it leaves us wondering why we find no evidence that ancient aliens were ever here, how they got here, why they came here, and so on. And secondly because it merely shifts the question to being about the origin of ancient aliens. It doesn't resolve the original question about the origin of life, and opens up a whole new set of questions as well. Not only is it not a useful theory, it is actually anti-useful.

-k

[Mighty AC]

Seriously, people who don't even understand how science works then go on to dismiss it as though it's the exact same as religious belief should be mocked and humiliated for the absurdity of those claims.

Now there is the anger you new atheist types are famous for. Someone comes along and simply points out the holes in your little THEORY and boom you immediately start throwing stones.

We can all enjoy and appreciate the work of observational science as we have this discussion on the internet, but how can you seriously subscribe to one man's THEORY when no observations were made? You evolutionists are relying on assumptions about what happened in the past not evidences. Why would anyone of sound mind completely discount the greatest book of answers we have without any solid, observed evidences?

[Mighty AC]

It doesn't resolve the original question about the origin of life, and opens up a whole new set of questions as well. Not only is it not a useful theory, it is actually anti-useful.

Exactly!! However, if we simply replace aliens with God it all works out. We already have an account of how God created life the universe and everything and since he exists outside of space time we don't need to explain his creation. God has always been and always will be.

Yet, the scientific community refuses to explore all the possibilities and simply dismisses supernatural explanations out of hand. I suspect that like the so called climate experts they need to keep this charade alive to protect their jobs.