Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They do say non-living matter created life
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
Who had the technology to do it the first time?
Is the question you want answered where life came from?
Will you accept 'I don't know' as an answer, or do we for some reason have to have a firm belief about it?
Is the question should science be able to recreate life arising from non-life? The answer to that is no. There's no reason to assume science can replicate every event that has occurred in the universe or even just on this planet.
You haven't been paying attention here's the question one more time and this post goes out to anyone elese who will ask me to repeat the question or take it out of context to the way I ask it. I will not repeat it again.
The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No
You must have a human sperm cell and a human egg to create human life. Yes or No
This is more than one question.
You have been answered more than once about science being able to reproduce life from nothing. Once again, the answer is no.
Do you need a human sperm cell and egg to create human life? So far as I know, yes. I'm guessing you ask this question as a way to show evolution wrong; if you need a human sperm and egg cell to create a human, how did we come from some previous primate? The answer, from my layman's understanding, is that the collection of small changes (or micro-adaptations, as the creationists seem to prefer) eventually leads to enough changes to equal a change in species. As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.
I'm not even sure if 'the beginning of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question' is meant to be it's own question.
So you've been answered (again), are you satisfied yet? Or are you going to continue to claim your questions have been ignored?
As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
Who had the technology to do it the first time?
Good question.
They do say non-living matter created life
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.
What they don't get is they are making our argument for us.
They do say non-living matter created life
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.
Intelligence being capable of designing life has never been refuted, only supernatural intelligent design.
Who had the technology to do it the first time?
Good question.
He says he has me on ignore so thanks for reponding
So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.
With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.
If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.
Intelligence being capable of designing life has never been refuted, only supernatural intelligent design.
If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.
Intelligence being capable of designing life has never been refuted, only supernatural intelligent design.
ET phone home
Intelligence being capable of designing life has never been refuted, only supernatural intelligent design.
ET phone home
Uh oh the alien theory.
What if God and the Angels are those aliens.
Intelligence being capable of designing life has never been refuted, only supernatural intelligent design.
ET phone home
Uh oh the alien theory.
What if God and the Angels are those aliens.
ET phone home
Uh oh the alien theory.
What if God and the Angels are those aliens.
Don't worry, I think both are equally as unlikely.
You haven't been paying attention here's the question one more time and this post goes out to anyone elese who will ask me to repeat the question or take it out of context to the way I ask it. I will not repeat it again.
The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No
You must have a human sperm cell and a human egg to create human life. Yes or No
This is more than one question.
You have been answered more than once about science being able to reproduce life from nothing. Once again, the answer is no.
Do you need a human sperm cell and egg to create human life? So far as I know, yes. I'm guessing you ask this question as a way to show evolution wrong; if you need a human sperm and egg cell to create a human, how did we come from some previous primate? The answer, from my layman's understanding, is that the collection of small changes (or micro-adaptations, as the creationists seem to prefer) eventually leads to enough changes to equal a change in species. As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.
I'm not even sure if 'the beginning of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question' is meant to be it's own question.
So you've been answered (again), are you satisfied yet? Or are you going to continue to claim your questions have been ignored?
So what your saying is that is someone responds to a question that is answering the question?
An example of a respond to the question but not answering the question
As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.
Non human sperm cell and a human egg? What kind of crap is this? Thats not even close to answering the question.
This is more than one question.
You have been answered more than once about science being able to reproduce life from nothing. Once again, the answer is no.
Do you need a human sperm cell and egg to create human life? So far as I know, yes. I'm guessing you ask this question as a way to show evolution wrong; if you need a human sperm and egg cell to create a human, how did we come from some previous primate? The answer, from my layman's understanding, is that the collection of small changes (or micro-adaptations, as the creationists seem to prefer) eventually leads to enough changes to equal a change in species. As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.
I'm not even sure if 'the beginning of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question' is meant to be it's own question.
So you've been answered (again), are you satisfied yet? Or are you going to continue to claim your questions have been ignored?
So what your saying is that is someone responds to a question that is answering the question?
An example of a respond to the question but not answering the question
As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.
Non human sperm cell and a human egg? What kind of crap is this? Thats not even close to answering the question.
First off, are you blind? I bolded the quote from my post and your response, clearly you read what I typed and somehow took it to mean exactly the opposite.
Second, I tried to explain that from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how evolution between species is believed to work, yes, at some point non-humans would give birth to humans. So, technically, you would not have to have a human egg and sperm to create a human life. However, I think that's a gross oversimplification of things, and I am far from the best person to explain the details of evolutionary process.
Third, simply because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
Fourth, perhaps if you could form coherent sentences on a regular basis it would be easier for people to answer your ridiculous questions.
Finally, you continue to contend that people who believe in evolution believe that human life came from nothing. That's nothing but a lie. You have been told, on multiple occasions by multiple people, that it is not true, yet you keep repeating it. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is not concerned with the beginning of the universe. Evolution does not refute the possibility of a creator. One can believe that the universe was created by an intelligence and believe in evolution. One can believe that life was created by an intelligence and believe in evolution. And I have never heard or read anyone claim that in evolutionary theory, there was nothing and *poof* there was humanity.
Nothing more to say after reading thisSecond, I tried to explain that from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how evolution between species is believed to work, yes, at some point non-humans would give birth to humans.
bigreb and ywc, I have a question. Do you think that everyone has a firm belief about how life first came about?
So what your saying is that is someone responds to a question that is answering the question?
An example of a respond to the question but not answering the question
Non human sperm cell and a human egg? What kind of crap is this? Thats not even close to answering the question.
First off, are you blind? I bolded the quote from my post and your response, clearly you read what I typed and somehow took it to mean exactly the opposite.
Second, I tried to explain that from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how evolution between species is believed to work, yes, at some point non-humans would give birth to humans. So, technically, you would not have to have a human egg and sperm to create a human life. However, I think that's a gross oversimplification of things, and I am far from the best person to explain the details of evolutionary process.
Third, simply because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
Fourth, perhaps if you could form coherent sentences on a regular basis it would be easier for people to answer your ridiculous questions.
Finally, you continue to contend that people who believe in evolution believe that human life came from nothing. That's nothing but a lie. You have been told, on multiple occasions by multiple people, that it is not true, yet you keep repeating it. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is not concerned with the beginning of the universe. Evolution does not refute the possibility of a creator. One can believe that the universe was created by an intelligence and believe in evolution. One can believe that life was created by an intelligence and believe in evolution. And I have never heard or read anyone claim that in evolutionary theory, there was nothing and *poof* there was humanity.
You said non human sperm your either dumb or blind
Nothing more to say after reading thisSecond, I tried to explain that from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how evolution between species is believed to work, yes, at some point non-humans would give birth to humans.
First off, are you blind? I bolded the quote from my post and your response, clearly you read what I typed and somehow took it to mean exactly the opposite.
Second, I tried to explain that from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how evolution between species is believed to work, yes, at some point non-humans would give birth to humans. So, technically, you would not have to have a human egg and sperm to create a human life. However, I think that's a gross oversimplification of things, and I am far from the best person to explain the details of evolutionary process.
Third, simply because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
Fourth, perhaps if you could form coherent sentences on a regular basis it would be easier for people to answer your ridiculous questions.
Finally, you continue to contend that people who believe in evolution believe that human life came from nothing. That's nothing but a lie. You have been told, on multiple occasions by multiple people, that it is not true, yet you keep repeating it. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is not concerned with the beginning of the universe. Evolution does not refute the possibility of a creator. One can believe that the universe was created by an intelligence and believe in evolution. One can believe that life was created by an intelligence and believe in evolution. And I have never heard or read anyone claim that in evolutionary theory, there was nothing and *poof* there was humanity.
You said non human sperm your either dumb or blind
Nothing more to say after reading thisSecond, I tried to explain that from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how evolution between species is believed to work, yes, at some point non-humans would give birth to humans.
Rofl, the irony!
Look at what I put in bold again. I said non-human egg. Now, look at your original response. You said human egg. See the problem yet?
