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-10-13 9:08 AM

I interpret it as saying we were 'created' by a supreme being (God) as opposed to just "happening" by chance (evolution) of some raw chemicals finding each other. I have read that this random possibility (evolution as creation) is so rare that the odds for all the right elements to get together to create us would make a number so larte that it would reach from here beyond the other words, impossible.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 9:35 AM

Until your hiker in the Northern Minnesota woods finds a "manufactured by" tag on this rusting tractor that says "made by God" intelligent design has no legimiticy in any scientific discussion. The other serious flaw with your example is your hiker displayed a fundamental bias in his conclusion that the tractor came from a factory when there was not a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

People can believe whatever they choose. They can also base these beliefs on whatever pieces of information they choose. Not a single piece of this information has to be based on any facts, however. That is the one thing that separates religion from science.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 10:26 AM


You can believe whatever you want - flat earth, UFO's, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy....

When you assert the Tooth Fairy as a legitimate explanation in the field of oral science or dentistry many people will take exception to the validity of your claims.

Genetic adaptations have been observed in science and with no evidence of the introduction of an outside designer. If intelligent design is indeed plausible why has it never been observed ?

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 12:05 PM

No, my point is you and the letter writer can believe whatever you like no matter how baseless it is. Nice try though, Michael.

I'm also waiting for you to provide proof of intelligent design. If it is to be held up as a plausible alternative it needs to be verifiable.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 1:55 PM

My reason for posting was not to provide proof of the first dna string. That notion was only proposed by you. Like I have repeatedly stated you can choose to believe whatever you want. You can conclude based on a broad inference that life must of began due to some intelligent designer. What you cannot do however is accept this notion as science because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest it is in any way true.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 2:09 PM

Please, guys, don't argue. I can PROVE evolution. I need a new lawnmower, so I'll scrape up all the metal parts I can find, throw them in a pile and just wait for 'evolution' to take over...just like that tractor. I might not get that new lawnmower next year, but if I wait a few million years it just might put itself together.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 2:33 PM

OK...I know that "lawnmower" thing sounds ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than the miracle of the human body just "happening" by chance. Ever since I was kid I've laughed at evolution, and it had as much to do with common sense as it did with believing in God's creations. Face it. Science just won't accept God.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-10-13 4:50 PM

MT: ". . . evidence indicates that such an occurrence is so highly unlikely that it is, in effect, impossible?"

MT, obviously you don't understand science. Highly unlikely happens ALL THE TIME IN SCIENCE. You say that you religious people call these things miracles? Guess what? Scientists also use the word miracle! Yes, there are scientists who regard life as a miracle MT! They understand the absurd odds that are involved in the creation of life, and they respect those odds.

The difference, though, between religion and science is that scientists are shackled to the burden of proof. This is why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Educate yourself 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 »


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 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 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 10:03 PM

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

4 Agrees | 3 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-11-13 10:38 AM

Nor, thine either, oteron.

1 Agrees | 1 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 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 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 12:57 PM

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

6 Agrees | 5 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 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 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 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-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-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 »

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