the source of life

I have an interesting assertion concerning the phenomenon of life.First, I would like to give attention to the observational control that it is necessary for organic life to produce life. Not having laid claim to the impossibility of spontaneous self-generating organic bio genesis, but the observational rule is dependent on an organic source for life, requiring something living to produce and give life.Then, earths sole bearing of organic life in the known universe. It is the observational control that earth houses the only organic life in the known space. Again, not having claimed impossibility to the contrary.The trouble with bio genesis is identifying the substantial variables. If organic life is capable of spontaneous generation, then we would see it today, assuming, and certainly on other planets, spawning from non living materials. Looking at earths homing scenarios, we arrive to one of three conclusions:

The trouble with the observations is, in the realm of spontaneous generation and adaptation or "evolution" it would require that organic life generate from 'lifeless' matter or energy (non organic or intelligent functioning) again. The suggestion would require observation as to substantiate the supposed. That is to say, life does not generate from lifeless matter or energy today. Why would it years ago?, and supposing, the observational universe does not hold claim to spontaneous generation anywhere. Not intelligent life, nor animal life, nor plant life, nor bacteria, nor organic life of any fashion. Including, the earths position setting to fit life. The circumstances fitting on the earth to maintain just such a delicate and meticulous balance of climate, atmosphere and solar distance is so particular on an astronomical level, the "crack" of life's survival is ridiculous. The oceans keeping such a gentle tide with the shore, the slightest gravitational interference would be catastrophic. My guess is that scientists, especially those that favor evolution, are looking desperately for life on other planets. My guess is they wont find it.Not minding that even if such life exists, that wouldn't prove one thing or another, but lack thereof gives testimony to providence and supernatural intercession.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs and broke the list items out of the paragraph.Edited by the overmind, : No reason given.Edited by homunculus, : lack of appreciation for illustration.
lets be sure to skip the point of topic and go straight for the monotonous. i did not certify the comment, i pulled it out of my back side to illustrate earths unstable ecosystem and thin astronomical contingency.

"capital letters done"

Keep in mind that I am not asserting this as a variable. I claim that provision is required. Because in 6,000 years, the only thing that has been observed is life producing life (I.E. mating), sources for all happenings and effects being caused.Spontaneous Generation has never happened. Look the universe over for life self generating. It never happens. Our universe does not suggest the supernatural, it guarantees it.

Yes, life can flourish in just about every place on the earth. But, as stated in the providential law, it is limited to the earth. my assertion is comparing the rationality of supernatural intercession with spontaneous generation.As per the argument, I noted that life on earth exists on a delicate balance of global position, climate and atmospheric gases.the atmosphere is 'all too conveniently' some 75 - 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1 - 3% carbon dioxide as well as other gasses in the atmosphere represent the ideal figures necessary for the survival of living beings, consequently separating earth's ecosystem from the vacuum of space.earths global position sets about 90 million miles from the sun, according to the "experts". earth's solar distance measures max difference of about 5 million miles. astronomically speaking, 5 million miles isn't an extreme range of distance, considering the sometimes visible Mar's average distance of 140 million miles to the sun. Differing range of 50 million miles to earth.Back to the point at hand, earth houses life on a plain of pain staking balances. In addition to the much needed conditions for life on earth, according to evolution, life would have needed to spontaneously generate, as per the conditions or nigh.The problem with spontaneous generation, again, is that it has never been observed or had evidential facts documented. Since there is no other life in 'observable space', we can safely assume that, according to evolution, spontaneous generation would've had to have taken place due to earth's global specific environs.Sadly, No such spontaneous generation observed or evidence documented, again. Thus, making spontaneous generation entirely speculation, which happens to be a founding principle of Evolution. This principle, as well as the rest of them (not confusing Evolution with 'adaptation' or 'science of immutable change over time', I like to separate the weeds from the crop), is entirely speculation.Finally, until life does spontaneously generate, either on this planet or on another, I'm ruling that 'living' organic provision is required, which ultimately, not only suggests the supernatural, it requires it.

Hi, I appreciate the esteemed reply. First, I would like to bring to surface that the asset of this thread is that 'organic life coming from non life' or, if it is OK, 'spontaneous generation', has never been observed or documented as evidence. Evolutionists suggestions may indeed hold weight in Evolutionary science, but in universal science, only observable facts may be subject to validation. same goes with Creation.Secondly, I respect your resourceful application of the geologic column, however, I would like to note that it is commonly believed by Creationists, like myself, that the geologic column is entirely speculation. Allow me to brief;Charles Lyell's book (wrote in 1833, before Darwin's "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life") "principles of geology", where the geologic column originated, elaborates on the geologic column being layers in the earth that hold testament to Evolutionary science. He claims The layers of earth were formed by millions of years of Climate change, erosion, erratic weather patterns, etc. He had no way of knowing that!He construed layers in the earth, which can form rather quickly (it's true, consider a lake, or something where erosion or water is involved, heavier rocks and solid earth goes to the bottom, dirt and lighter soils to the top, eh?) with Evolutionary/Atheistic standpoint of 'old earth' philosophy.As well, the bones and fossils he found during his high budget excavations were in obvious assortments and duly categorized. Meaning, he found the bones in common groups and obviously in different layers. Showing, of course, different time zones, but assumed the number of years.His belief that the earth is millions of years old and presumption of Evolution, combined with natural forming layers in the earth and random assortment of bones and fossils in the earth created the geologic column. Note: Charles lyell is not identified as the contingency for physical science. I discredit his work for my health.As to suggest believing in 'abiogenesis' or life originally coming from non living matter or energy into the primordial soup into the amoebae, that's fine. amino acids and nucleic acids into proteins and conjoining with polymers and a "spark" to begin reproduction, it can be explained, but it cannot be observed or accounted for. Beyond that, it is trivial to say more.Finally, when I say "observable universe", I mean, "observable universe". I am aware of polar ice caps on moons and planets that arise interests of "maybe there was life on this planet" or "maybe there will be life on that moon". I have uncovered the veil of monotonous circular reasoning in the realm of Evolution, i understand that i will convince no one. I rest upon the principle of providential generation.

Does it matter? The earth came first so i suspect you are right. doesn't change a thing.

First, bacteria would constitute organic life. I'm not aware of any such bacteria in the 'observable universe', outside of earth.Concerning, "how we would know if a protein of replicating amino acids existed in known space?"We wouldn't, until it began to adapt and change to fit the environment extremities and continue reproducing into visible colonies of organisms.

Concerning, again, Earth's previous "special chemical environment" that was capable of producing life, It is a suggestion that helps to explain but, again, there is nothing substantial about this presupposed environment. It really is a speculation.Since the lord created the physical universe, that would suggest he created science. Under that supposition, we could have been placed in an infinite number of scenario's that resulted in existence. As well, It would have been possible for the lord to have fused polymers with proteins of amino acids and prokaryotes, but even that process is presupposed in Evolutionary science.Concerning the word "organic": I have taken note that Organic is used referring to 'living' things in common speech. I'm not sure as to the empirical foundations to which this word was used as rule, but, webster's and wikipedia offer stances.Webster's source; Organic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-WebsterWikipedia's source; Organic - WikipediaThe only confusion in this word's usage is the application of fundamental life. reference to Wiki's organic matter or material. "Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism; is capable of decay, or the product of decay; or is composed of organic compounds. The definition of organic matter varies upon the subject it is being used for." (Like Evolutionary science/abiogenisis where it incorporates inanimate material.)I would like to add that Evolutionary science, no matter how pleasant, cannot inherently dictate a terminologies application. I'm really glad they went through the trouble to remind us that they are sure of themselves.Concerning methane on mars, yea, and there are methane on lots of other planets and moons.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

It did not take me long to realize that I am amidst my Evolutionists friends, once I received the first reply. I appreciate your support in this forum and look forward to learning a great deal. Before moving on, I would like to assess a couple of points.1) Concerning the "1 mile to burn/1 mile to freeze".
Upon reading my reason for edit, you'll learn that I, haphazardly, threw that in there as a thin 'ILLUSTRATION' (not that I didn't already mention that in the assert "figurative to illustrate") to give an idea of how, I believe, small and feeble this world is, on a astronomical level and how unstable our biosphere is. But to appease the crowd, it is edited out.2) Concerning the "puddle of water" and the "supportive replies". That puddle of water thing is a really poor way of saying I'm solely suggesting creation by stubbornly outlawing all other possibilities.
While it is obviously true I believe in creation, it is not true that that is the only option I permitted.

quote:

---

1) Earths global positioning, bio climatic temperatures and atmosphere allows life window of opportune growth and generation.

​

2) Through continuous adaptation and 'evolution' life became fitted for survival on the planet and continued to regenerate and means of infestation. or

​

3) Meaningful providence; we were placed here by design for a super natural reasoning.

---

Finally, I understand the lot of you don't dig creation, that's fine. But I would request, for what it's worth, consideration for what I'm saying. I said only that life producing life is all that has been observed. That is a very unbiased, although I am biased for creation, neutral and immutable assertion, Saying the contrary is strictly speculation, no matter the favor.

First, thank you for remaining civil in this debate friendly forum without use of immature language.It is true that once upon a time, concerning the physical realm, life had not existed. Point being, I believe, god then interceded and created life. If "spontaneous generation" does not satisfy, then perhaps we can call it, "autopoiesis" and "allopoiesis". autopoiesis being self creating, as you say. allopoisis being to create, as I say, referring to god of course. Better point that out now before there are six different replies telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.Edited by homunculus, : No reason given.

Here is where I decide to go out on a limb and say that I understand that the idea of god turns your stomachs, but something tells me that until i say, "there is no god, there is only evolution" you people will continue to fling feces at me. Sorry, I still say the only thing we have seen is life producing life. Don't forget everything having a source.

RAZD, when i look back 3,600,000,000 years ago?4,000,000,000 years ago?4,400,000,000 years ago? I see a bunch of numbers. Listen very closely, all of you. these numbers, ... we're pulled from someone's back side. I choose to believe, with the right to change my mind and not placing dollars to donuts on it, that the earth is around 6,000 years old. Not only does no one have 'evidence' to "debunk" the other, but neither theories have the 'evidence' to prove themselves.And, spontaneous generation or 'autopoiesis', in this text, applies to non organic material producing life without fundamental aid, therefore maggots and bacteria, however disgusting do not apply as they obviously spawn from organic fester, though I'm sure if the maggots are placed there or if the bacteria first spawns them. clever! but off point.

aaahhh ... The joy of the protuberant finger waver. Let's see, I would like to ask you to not use immature speech on a debate friendly, uncensored forum. Thanks.As you haven't said one thing valid so far except Bu****it, I will do everyone the favor of not responding to you with reason to my argument. Rather, I will assert that Even though Evolutionists don't have a shred of evidence to back up their principles (which, ironically is the absence of principle), they still become frustrated (I.E. Taz) to a point of nearly giving themselves a stroke.I say I don't understand, when really I do. As I had said before, if I had stated on here that everything came from nothing or created itself (I.E. the big bang THEORY) or if I said that life originated from nothing or created itself (abiogenesis, or whatever name it be tagged for the season), I would be lucky to get a single reply, probably an agreement. But because I said we have only seen life produce life, suggesting the possibility of a god, it's like a black man walked in the middle of a kkk convention with a white girl. You people have went bonkers. Does the idea of a supernatural creator really crawl on you that much?

Thank you for this intelligent supplication! I really respect someone going out to actually gather information on behalf of what they believe or think. I'll remember this post for future reference!

Huntard, previously I made mention of my very own providential law. No, you certainly will not acknowledge it, but, I reserve the right to change my relational terms so that they make sense to me, like Evolutionists do.you see, Evolutionists regularly invent new terminologies and rules, to systematically dismiss the very proposal of creation. well, I thought I should give it a try.The Providential Law is my way of saying that:1) all life is produced from life or living/once living, organic matter.2) everything has a source, the source it came and the source it will return.3) every happening is originated / every effect has a cause.