Or if God isn't required to maintain the Universe in existence, then he
isn't needed at all.

They also cannot demonstrate that the Earth used to be
as they claim. The reality is, that the Earth has
always had oxygen and you cannot get life to form with,
nor without oxygen present.

There is a god deal of evidence that it was life that created the free
oxygen in the air that we now breath, and that before life there was no
free oxygen on earth. In fact the free oxygen that we now breathe is
maintained by plant life, and quickly would disappear if all plant life
stopped producing it.

Also, there are several forms of micro-organisms that can exist without
oxygem, Indeed, some of them die in the presence of oxygen.
The "Pastor" may know something oabout religion, but he knows remarkably
little about science, and much of that is wrong.

Actually, it takes more than just reproduction and most
scientists don't consider viruses to be life.

That is overstating the case. Most scientists put it on the margin,
though closer to life than prions. It is a very limited form of life,
but it can reproduce itself if in a suitable environment. And what more
than reproduction does it take to constitute "life" according to Pastor
Dave?

In article <93sj519uom34v5q8ar8e6k67cg1gsshdnh@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:27:19 -0400, while wishing I
would go away, Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> said:

westprog wrote:

The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.

That's an incredible leap of faith. Fossil records show micro evolution.
That's fine. Until science shows life springing from non life, the
only other reasonable explanation would be the intervention of a designer.

The only reasonable position to take when science does not know is that
we do not know. Science is quite comfortable with being ignorant about
things that we are ignorant about. It is only religions that have to
make up stories to fill in that emptiness.

They also cannot demonstrate that the Earth used to be
as they claim. The reality is, that the Earth has
always had oxygen and you cannot get life to form with,
nor without oxygen present.

There is a god deal of evidence that it was life that created the free
oxygen in the air that we now breath, and that before life there was no
free oxygen on earth. In fact the free oxygen that we now breathe is
maintained by plant life, and quickly would disappear if all plant life
stopped producing it.

Also, there are several forms of micro-organisms that can exist without
oxygem, Indeed, some of them die in the presence of oxygen.

The "Pastor" may know something oabout religion, but he knows remarkably
little about science, and much of that is wrong.

From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from
non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter
all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.

Then what is at stake here, is the definition of a living thing. I view
a virus as a living organism, even if it is suspended or dormant.
Anything that may reproduce is living. Processes you may be alluding to
such as photosynthesis, occur from life. Plants are living. However,
life is not produced in such a process, only sugar, thereupon ATP.

Actually, it takes more than just reproduction and most
scientists don't consider viruses to be life.

That is overstating the case. Most scientists put it on the margin,
though closer to life than prions. It is a very limited form of life,
but it can reproduce itself if in a suitable environment. And what more
than reproduction does it take to constitute "life" according to Pastor
Dave?

From the religious/philosophical point of view, it seems to be unnecessary
for God to create a universe, and then to come back to tinker with it
later.
I can't understand religious people explaining how God would find it
impossible to create a universe where life arises spontaneously. God does
difficult things, that's why they pay him the big bucks. If I were
designing
a universe, I'd make it as self-sufficient as possible, because that's
good
workmanship. Having to come back a few billion years after the big bang
would be an afterthought - a bit sloppy.

Religious people would only accept the concept of spontaneity, if it
contained the qualifier that God provided the elements and basics for
this to occur, and it was part of the design...

That would be to compromise and tell them that their
fantasy is correct. God did not just fire off the Big
bang and then everything happened by itself. The point
is, that life cannot arise from non-living matter,
regardless of whether or not God caused the Big Bang.
And why would an intelligent God cause the Big Bang and
then hope for the best?

If your god could not create during that big bang the universe he\she\it
wanted, it is not much of a god.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:27:19 -0400, while wishing I
would go away, Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> said:

westprog wrote:

The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can clearly
see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a little
bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace. Go
back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form of
life that we can imagine.

That's an incredible leap of faith. Fossil records show micro evolution.
That's fine. Until science shows life springing from non life, the
only other reasonable explanation would be the intervention of a designer.

They also cannot demonstrate that the Earth used to be
as they claim. The reality is, that the Earth has
always had oxygen and you cannot get life to form with,
nor without oxygen present.

Please rephrase that. As it stands this last comment is contradictory.

From the point of view of the sceptic, there are plenty of physical
processes that could allow life to be spontaneously created from non-living
matter. Living things convert air, water and sunlight into living matter all
the time, so we know it's possible. The boundaries are not as sharp as one
might suppose. At the level of a virus, it isn't obvious whether we are
dealing with a living thing.

Then what is at stake here, is the definition of a living thing. I view
a virus as a living organism, even if it is suspended or dormant.
Anything that may reproduce is living. Processes you may be alluding to
such as photosynthesis, occur from life. Plants are living. However,
life is not produced in such a process, only sugar, thereupon ATP.

Actually, it takes more than just reproduction and most
scientists don't consider viruses to be life.

How do you know that? Have you surveyed all scientists in order to
obtain that belief? I note that you haven't asked me. You ought to.
Science is my profession.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

The point is, that life cannot arise from non-living matter,
regardless of whether or not God caused the Big Bang.

Are you not putting limits on your God, who is, according to the book,
without limits?

And why would an intelligent God cause the Big Bang and
then hope for the best?

Perhaps this intelligent God knew what he was doing?

And why would an intelligent God cause the Big Bang and
then hope for the best?

Perhaps this intelligent God knew what he was doing?

"Chuckie R. Cash" <chuckie.r@cash.flow> wrote in message
news:9ktn519g3v2at26s922og8mmi0ugg9m8vi@4ax.com...

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:38:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:

...

The point is, that life cannot arise from non-living matter,
regardless of whether or not God caused the Big Bang.

Are you not putting limits on your God, who is, according to the book,
without limits?

Looks like heresy to me. In a more civilised age the inquisition would have
something to say about those who put human limits on God.

And why would an intelligent God cause the Big Bang and
then hope for the best?

Perhaps this intelligent God knew what he was doing?

Perhaps God is smarter than some humans can imagine.

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:arjk511jc46k7sdfs13sbqql0d9q59526o@4ax.com...

Scríobh Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>:

westprog wrote:

The reason to suppose that life arose from non-life is that we can

clearly

see from the fossil record that at one point there was life, and a

little

bit earlier there wasn't - or at least, none that has left any trace.

Go

back a bit further and we have a planet that couldn't support any form

of

life that we can imagine.

That's an incredible leap of faith. Fossil records show micro evolution.

Fossil records show evidence of evolution, full stop. The only
distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is scale. Enough
microchanges, and you end up with macrochanges. All it takes is time.

And the intermediate forms continue to be discovered on a regular basis.

That's fine. Until science shows life springing from non life, the
only other reasonable explanation would be the intervention of a

designer.

What's reasonable about inventing a magic puff of smoke? The
reasonable explanation is the parsimonious one, that life arose
through natural processes we do not yet fully understand.

I do not want to insult your puff of smoke. You believe in yours, I'll
believe in mine. Just don't kid yourself that there is evidence for
your puff of smoke.

That God allowed life to arise in a universe should not present a leap of
faith for most Christians. If it does, then when someone creates life in a
lab there will be a lot of people abandoning their churches.

Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in news:arjk511jc46k7sdfs13sbqql0d9q59526o@
4ax.com:

What about crystals? They reproduce.

I think you'll find that crystals "grow". I don't think you'll find them
reproducing.