Evolution without Creation

I am not brave enough to say science will never recreate life but up till now we have not even got close.We can see life, we try to describe it, we fail miserable.It appears to have been ,how do i describe the first event,created by we know not what and it has not happened since.This to me in its self damned hard to understand.

I think that alot of these creation verses evolution discussions derive from man not wanting to accept the possibility that we are illegitimate children, in the sands of infinity.

The line between living and not living might have been blurry. There could be self replicating genomes catalyzed by much simpler mechanisms than what we now have. The real question is not so much when we would consider it true life. Rather, the question is when did it become chemically stable enough that it became amplified and preserved by a selective advantage?

I think that alot of these creation verses evolution discussions. Derive from man not wanting to accept the possibility that we are illegitimate children, in the sands of infinity.

What is life now ? it is still blurry with a definition not suitable for all.

I think that alot of these creation verses evolution discussions. Derive from man not wanting to accept the possibility that we are illegitimate children, in the sands of infinity.

This might be the worst post ever but I really find it at least sensible.
Just a simple Very simple thought.

Can evolution create out of crude matter, let's say, an IPOD?
We know that it is, highly improbable to happen.
Then how can matter come to existence and form itself to eventually have a thought?

"Ipod" and "thought as such".

Is it logical to assume that thought is just a result of an aggregate of accidents?

Life is easier to describe than to define. If we exclude viruses from the definition of what's alive, then fundamentally all cells and organisms from bacteria through humans have the same basic biological characteristics.

I don't think anyone thinks humanity is anything but "highly improbable", but over billions of years worth of possibilities, miracles will happen.

Sorry but i see such things as plant seeds..a pea is it alive or dead a seed can lie dormant for years but still carry the formula for life. When is flower dead is it when we cut it from its roots or when it fades..When is human dead when it ceases to be conscious or when its heart ceases to beat.Something we take so much for granted ,a gift of nature, we are only just scratching at the surface of understanding.

Xris, this is all life. We're discussing the difference between life and not life. A dead flower is life -- it just happens to have died. A rock is not life. A bacterial spore is life, even if it can be dormant for years. There is a whole developmental process in life from one generation to the next, and a dormant seed from a pea pod is part of that.

What is life now ? it is still blurry with a definition not suitable for all.

It is not that easy , if it was the debate would have been concluded years ago.To have the conviction it was one or tother is in my mind refusing to accept that we know nothing.I dont see creator but i see patterns continuing to be exposed and formulas for life hidden by nature.Is it so wrong to marvel and admit i just dont know?

Just in the fact that we are trying to categorize life. Is searching for some superiority over some life-FORMS. We still think in the constructs that every action must have an actor. There for there must be some creator doing all of this. Yet the only proof that we have of it is some ancient dudes staring at the sun, and writing stories. I don't think that we are worthless nor do I think that we are the center of everything. We spend our entire life on this planet looking out through our eyes. We have no point of reference coming in. So it is a billion year task to try and see the universe as a whole. It is inevitable that we would see ourselves as the center. We are always looking from the same point of view.

Excuse me i should have said what is living ? how do we describe life in the context of dead.Is a pea alive or dead?

Beauty is what it is. We should marvel at the beauty of it. Why can't the patters be the creator. Everything in existence has had a pattern to it. We keep trying to separate the pattern from the creation. If you look at every pattern, circumstance, coincidence, evolution, event, time, gravity, water, elements. put all of those into one life forum constructed with billions of symbiotic relationships. "that looks god like to me"


And it is not wrong to admit we don't know. But it is stagnant not to try and find out. Just don't forget it is beautiful.

Living vs dead is a functional distinction that can be drawn regarding living things. Elephants are living things, even though many elephants are dead. Peas are living things even if some individual peas are dead.

How many miracles do we admire before we accept that miracles are engineered. How often can we refuse to accept the facts and continue to say its a billion coincidences that led us to this point where we consider the facts.Dont start to think i believe ive found a creator,BUT i cant deny my logic that these wonderful events mystify me and i cant discount the foot prints i see.Science draws the details but it never see the beautiful landscape or wonders who painter might be.

How have you come to make this bizarre comment when viewing this thread ? I cant see what has instigated this post of yours, could you explain please?

Again, you're taking this conversation in a different direction.

ALIVE vs DEAD vs some hibernating state of life is one issue that is pertinent only to life forms.

LIFE FORM versus NOT LIFE FORM is a separate question.

If we use the word organism instead of life (where applicable), then it clarifies this. We can go back to the beginning, talk about the origins of organisms on this planet, etc, and talk about what is or is not an organism.

Organisms can be alive, dead, and have various states of dormancy. We humans have a dormant state when we're asleep. We also retain the mammalian dive reflex, which is a state of physiologic hibernation when suddenly exposed to extreme cold. It's not quite as extreme as a dessicated seed, but it's the same concept.

But even if you take a horse or a tree and cut it into 1000 tiny pieces, the question is never whether it's an organism or not.

You are correct that science does not ponder the existence of a creator, but that is not evidence for a creator.

Also, it isn't a bigger coincidence that a creator would choose a world just like this. A creator's decision to make a world like this is far more mystifying to me than just about any other manner of creation.

Forgive me if I misunderstood the topic. In some of the previous post the living or dead subject came up. The way that I interpreted it was that there was a classification of life and non-life. Which then began my tangent my apologies. I guess what I meant to say was that everything has a life to it. and that we all rely on the balanced formula. And that just because there is a formula doesn't mean there has to be someone or thing mixing it. Basically saying that life it's self is the creator and evolution is the tool that is used to create. :a-thought: