Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

How did life begin?

January 10, 2013

To the editor: One of the anonymous commenter’s (2:44 P.M....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-13-13 11:40 AM

In the end, no one knows for sure. That's the basis for faith, and that's the basis for those little Darwin chrome thingamabobs. Testament to our lack of certainty is in the 457 posts we've had on the subject the past five months, or so.

As someone posted not too long ago: we're here, it's what we do here and now that counts, not how we got here.

Makes sense to me.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 11:23 PM

I have total respect for your father's beliefs, for your beliefs, & for everyone's beliefs. As I stated earlier, I believe in God, & I believe in Science. There is room for both.

I believe Pope Pius the ? stated that there was no conflict between evolution & the Bible or Christianity or something, as long as Christians believe God created the soul. I might get some grief on that, but I know something on that order was said.

I wouldn't attempt to get into the deep debate going on here because I wouldn't know what I was talking about. I just want to be respected as a Christian, in that I believe God to be my Creator & Jesus to be my Savior. And those Darwin fish, especially the ones with the little legs, still aren't nice.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 10:16 PM

My father was a renown geneticist. He was also an elder in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. He never thought the two were incompatible. Never.

Neither do I.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 8:01 PM

Alas, you have been mislead, Sven. Those guys who drive around with chrome "Darwin" fishes (especially the ones sporting little legs) truly are not true believers. The truth be told - they are mocking Christianity.

I don't have a fish symbol on the trunk of my car, but if I did, it would have Jesus' name in it because I am a true believer. God bless. :)

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 4:26 PM

Oh ye of little faith, Ring.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 3:25 PM

I have always felt that evolution was the proof of God. That they are not mutually exclusive arguments but, rather, conclusive proof.

There's rarely "de-evolving" in Nature, but always more and more evolving. What greater proof is there of the "hand of God"?

Little do those guys know that drive around with chrome "Darwin" fishes on the back of their trunks, that they really are True Believers.

It's just a crazy mixed up world, no?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 3:02 PM

Ring2003 - I do believe in God, my higher power. I don't have an explanation as to how everything came about, only that I believe He is responsible, & that it is a part of my faith. If you consider me naive' & shortsighted & my faith to be an easy cop-out, so be it. I am happy & fulfilled as a Christian & in how I believe.

I have never believed that lightening is God showing anger, nor that thunder was the angels bowling. My parents & grandparents used to say things like that, but they didn't believe it either.

I believe in God, & I believe in Science. There is room for both, and there is room for everyone to believe how they want & to respect how everyone else believes.

I do wish, however, that my grandkids' legos would magically put themselves away, better yet put themselves together. :) :)

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 1:10 PM

I think it is incredibly naive' and shortsighted to attribute anything you can't understand to a higher power. What an easy cop-out. "I don't know how to explain it. It must be god." Think of all the things attributed to a godly force that are now explainable due to science. Do you still think lightning is god showing anger? Using the existence of a god as the default for everything not currently explainable is a sad way for humans to feel comfortable with needing to have an answer and not wanting to work very hard to find one. Science says we don't know but let's find out.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 11:45 AM

Alien life (be it a god or gods or other living creatures) brought life here...

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-12-13 8:45 AM

My kids sometimes scatter their Legos everywhere. I have yet to see a single one of them magically put themselves away.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 10:02 PM

Dead, you've pretty much got the hang of it.

However, in your last paragraph just insert "NFL football" where you have"religion", and where you use "science", insert "ess ee ex".

Then everything will make sense and you will understand how life began.

(I can't believe this was so easy!)

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 2:19 PM

I gave a much better argument for intelligent design than MT has, that's for sure.

Science, though, is doing a much better job than either myself or MT to find answers to where we came from and how life began.

I think religion is where one applies the question of "Why?" to life's beginnings, whereas science is where one applies the questions of "How?" and "When?"

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 1:29 PM

BFTD, You just gave a strong argument for a creator. THe DNA for the yeast made by scientists didn't just form itself. It was put together by scientists, intelligent design, if you will.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 1:00 PM

MT: "Unless scientists are able to figure out a process that would enable them to put together a living cell from non-living material, the question is more philosophical than scientific. "

May 21, 2010: "For the first time ever, scientists have created actual artificial life. This real life Frankenstein is a single cell of yeast with a complete set of artificial DNA that functions and looks exactly like a natural cell of yeast. Spearheaded by Dr. Craig Venter and his team of scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute, the project has far reaching — not to mention philosophically questionable — implications."

There you are MT. Is this science enough for you yet?

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 12:57 PM

MT, perhaps you've never heard of theoretical science?

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 12:48 PM

MT: "As I said earlier, neither you nor anyone else can provide a scientific answer to the problem that the letter-writer poses."

That the point of science though MT. There are countless scientists who have already invested countless man-hours into finding this very answer. Just because they haven't found the answer yet doesn't mean it isn't there. THIS IS SCIENCE MT! They've found an incredible wealth of evidence to support the theory of evolution, and they'll found more. Or, perhaps they'll find something that will show that they were wrong about evolution, and they'll then investigate that line of logic. Again, THIS IS SCIENCE MT!

You can use all the backwards logic you want, but it won't hold up, especially considering your own religious bend.

For example: "It may be theoretically possible for piles of junk to assemble themselves into new cars, but in the real world it doesn't happen."

Let's apply this same logic to your religion, shall we? In the real wor

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 12:25 PM

I'll just sit here and play solitaire instead of getting any more involved in this. Wait! I DON'T think I'll play solitaire. I'll just lay out the cards and let nature finish the game for me!

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 11:03 AM

MT, you do clearly do not understand what is possible and what is possible, both in math and in nature. If there is any chance, however slim, then it is possible. Period.

You failed to address my question. What makes it more plausible for an intelligent being to oversee this process than for this process to occur on it's own in nature? You're arguing against the odds of one side, even using the word impossible, without acknowledging the odds of the other side.

Your play MT.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 10:38 AM

Nor, thine either, oteron.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-11-13 8:00 AM

Sven, There was not any humor bestoweth in thine creation....!

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 10:03 PM

I think ********** stands for "snow fairies" or elves or grumpy old men. Not sure.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 10:00 PM

How did life begin?

It began in New Ulm. God looked down from above...beyond...over a genie bottle, and said, "Hmm, they're a hopeless tribe there in lower central Minnesota, I should fix that, I'll give them a Baptist Church and a Catholic Church and Methodist Church and a bunch of beady-eyed German Lutherans and a few stray Jews and let them duke it out. I'll let them make up all kinds of stuff and give them guns if they truly don't agree, and just see what happens."

And, so it began, the beginning of life as Ulmites. The evolution has been slow, if not non-existent. Some worry about atrophy. It's hard to know by reading these posts if we're just stuck somewhere in limbo, or we're moving in a positive or negative direction. One thing's for sure, if Highway 14 stays the same, we will all just become*******and die of stagnation and brain rot.

And that's how it began, and they all lived semi-happily ever after.

And so forth and so on and...whatever.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 7:13 PM

I don't understand why people insist it is an either or argument. Why can't you believe in evolution and a higher power? Even in Catholic school we learned about evolution and laughed while watching "The Monkey Trials". Also, our brains are constantly evolving. If you took a brain scan of a youth today and compared it to even a 30 year old, you will see a difference in the wiring. The same goes for that 30 year old vs. 50 year old, etc.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 5:49 PM

You speak to the outlandish and prohibitive odds against the theory of evolution in regards to the creation of life MT, but what about the odds of your god actually existing and then creating us and all around us as we stand today, even in accordance with your book (10 days, etc).

What are the odds of that happening? What can you tell me to show that the odds of any god being behind this are any better than what science is telling us in the creation of life?

Thus far, MT, you've only been able to support intelligent design by knocking down the theory of evolution. What have you to actually support intelligent design, in the same manner in which you've discarded education, which would be by discussing the statistic odds of it's plausibility MT?

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 5:45 PM

MT: ". . . science deals with what is, not what might be."

T, you're telling me that science does not deal with speculation? Again, you obviously don't understand what science is or what science is about.

MT: "Things as highly unlikely as this DO NOT happen."

If thinks as unlikely as this didn't happen they wouldn't be unlikely, they'd be impossible. If there is a chance, however slim, then there is clear possibility that it can happen. MT, this is science. 0/100 odds are clearly not the same as 1/100 odds, correct? That "1" over any number, however large, means that it is possible.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web