Let me get this straight about primordial goo?

Question

you want me to believe that there is no God and that every species, plant, human, bird, mammal, reptile, etc.. all came for a quarter sized amount of "primordial goo, goop, crap, piss, "
um ya, okay, that sounds FAAAAAAAAAR more realistic than God.

Answer 1

I don't want you to believe anything. I might suggest if you're open to learning something about what you're criticizing maybe crack a science book. But even that is a suggestion. It doesn't matter to me if you remain ignorant of basic science.

"quarter sized amount of "primordial goo"? Where you got that I have no idea. Again maybe try a book.

The second best reason to not teach creationism in science classrooms is how poorly creationists teach science in church.

Answer 2

While the claim evolutionist make is not quite what you have reported, the errors in their own answers were quite astonishing. Evolution from the time of the first functioning cell makes scientific sense. But the creation of that first cell... we have no true working hypothesis yet. While the proposals are random joinings of molecules, the model of a cell does not allow that to be the mechanism. The first cell had to exist with all of its complicated parts in place. It had to be ready for metabolism, including both digestion and excretion, reproduction, ability to sense and avoid danger, and communication so that once it replicated it could interact with cells similar to it. It is inconceivable that random occurrences produced the first cell in the time we have allotted. Statistics prove that, yet those numbers are ignored. Those who claim we have produced RNA in the lab should also be aware that it can only be done under extremely controlled conditions (unlike primordial earth) and that even then it is not always successful. DNA, the more stable form of protein information, has not been formed in the lab. And if you were able to synthesize RNA, what does that really mean. That is a far cry from the cell, probably as far as east is from west. :)
If God does not enter the equation, then there can be no creation.

Answer 3

Not sure where you got the term "quarter sized" from, but even given that, do you realize how many protein molecules can fit into a quarter sized sphere? Now more realistically we could expand this size up to that of a baseball field or larger and you have a hotbed of proto-life seething around.

By the way, what you've just done is called an argument from incredulity, which basically means that you don't have any facts to back your position up and hope the other party doesn't either. It is very common in creationism, but unfortunately fails 100% of the time.

Answer 4

Ahh, another attempt at belittling the opponent's argument in order to attempt to justify your own. Yet one more fallacy.

FYI, the "goo" argument is much more plausible to considering how life originated than a "god" argument. Primordial goo has lots going for it: rich source of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and calcium for amino acids and nucleic acids. Add an energy source (the sun or geothermal energy), some catalytic surfaces, and some time (a couple million years should do it), and you can easily calculate that the chances for abiogenesis are quite plausible.

On the other hand, inventing a god who just wishes it all into being is nonthing short of ridiculous.

Answer 5

Wait until you find out what the geneticists and biologists are actually talking about. It gets even more freaky.
A group in Italy actually intend to create a living cell from off the shelf chemicals. They are pretty sure of themselves. A group in England has already patented a bacteria that the built DNA for from common chemical but the used enough of another bacteria's DNA and cell machinery that they can not claim to have created a complete organism.
Scientists in the USA are putting maufactured DNA into bacteria and there are worries that it makes biological weapons possible.

Answer 6

Primordial "goo" is a gross oversimplification, shorthand to describe seas that have been, interior the 1st billion years of this planet, the two plenty warmer and chillier than our seas are on widely used now. that's shorthand for seas that held greater carbon dioxide and methane than our contemporary oceans, that's all. besides the incontrovertible fact that, there are quite a few severe environments in the international at this 2d that carry vestiges what the unique environments on the planet have been like. severe saline lakes, superheated lakes with greater carbon dioxide interior the waters than loose oxygen. Volcanic zones the place methane is thick interior the ambience. merely approximately distinctive those zones (and the deep sea trenches) have been as quickly as theory thoroughly inimical to lifestyles, and yet lifestyles there is. Cyanobacteria and different undemanding lifestyles varieties proceed to do their stuff. And technology is closer than ever to looking environments that exist and did exist which do not require risk for lifestyles's formation, yet call for it. i don't exclude the concept God (the universe) created this methodology. I merely don't think that we would desire to constrain ourselves to a literal interpretation of Genesis. besides the incontrovertible fact that a extensive proportion of scientists are atheists, yet a extensive team are theists besides. maximum Clergy world huge at the instant are not unfavorable to ideas being explored via technology. The technology/religious chop up is merely being fostered via extremists who somewhat understand neither. Google stromatolites, and get a greater useful concept of what i'm talking approximately. Edit: in accordance to scientists, there become a great number of oxygen lower back then. There merely wasn't as plenty loose oxygen, meaning the oxygen become in compounds like carbon dioxide. wager what, meaning there is two count quantity 'em 2 atoms of oxgen in each molecule.

Answer 7

This is only a stupid rebuke to criticize science to what you see as inaccurate, but accept that the only true answer is specifically your God and no other God. I have some advice, you can start by thinking more progressively to other possibilities and come up with a rational answer. On one hand you have science trying to explain the origin of life and on the other, you have "God did it." Which sounds more rational to you?

Answer 8

Actually it evolved from various compounds of amino acids, which scientists have recently demonstrated can be created from inorganic molecules without God. The "goo" contains lots of compounds, and one lucky lightning strike and you start getting proteins, enzymes, all sorts of itty bitty peices of life. A few million years later and suddenly a group of hairy primates are thinking "Hey, what if I bang these two rocks together?"....and here we are.
On the other hand, that was one hell of a lucky lightning strike.......

Answer 9

Materialism is a sin. No I don't want you to believe. Many theist do accept the Idea of Evolution. Do you think that your god is so narrow minded he couldn't have created us through evolution?

Answer 10

Going off half cocked with not enough information.

You have billions and billions of molecules bumping into each other and bam, two of them join and make a new element. You do believe in the elements right? So over the first 4 billion years some of these combine to make more complex things. Then one day the right combo happen to join and you get your first single celled organism. It of course splits to create a replica of itself and so begins life. Over the next half a billion years evolution takes place and you have our current world.
Yep, I find that way more possible than "Let there be light".