<< In re"Creation (Genesis) and evolution have _absolutely_nothing_ to do with each other. Since we're talking about how life started, it's about Genesis vs. Biogenesis, i.e., the creation of life by some supernatural power vs. lifeless materials forming the basic elements life exists out of (e.g., amino-acids), from which the first life-forms (being simply bacteria) were formed."
evolution -"Organic evolution as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms." Encyclopedia.com
evolution -"Organic evolution conceives of life as having begun as a simple, primordial protoplasmic mass from which arose, through time, all subsequent living forms." TelexExternal LinkInternal LinkInventory Cache
"Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Creation "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" Genesis 1:20 >>
That definition of 'evolution' is flawed and incorrect. The (proper) definition given by the Oxford Dictionary (tenth edition) is: "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms, especially by natural selection."
I've reduced any 'explanation' for the formation of life given by religions to mere superstition by use of logic.
For example, Maetryx told us that there are people who believe that there's reason to believe, or who are convinced, that a supernatural force/being/whatever is somehow responsible for the formation of life.
However, there are millions of theists on this planet, who all share one thing (together with some atheists, I must add): blind faith. Denying the truth even if sufficient evidence is presented.
With all we know at this moment, we can only come to two conclusions:
- Evolution is an undeniable fact. All species on this single planet share 95% of their DNA, which can hardly be called a coincidence. Add to that the fact that these spieces all contain (traces of) rudimentary organs and body-parts.
- Biogenesis is the most likely way for life to have formed. When presented with the choice between biogenesis and genesis, and one would look at the available evidence, it's clear that genesis belongs (for now) to the realm of fantasy. It's so fantastic that it can hardly be called a theory, while biogenesis is supported by decades of research in chemistry and other areas of science.
The 'theory' of 'Genesis' in its current state is not science and its supporters will have to spend much more time on it to make it scientifically acceptable. It appears that such 'genesis'-stories are a trademark of religions, and religions are, as may be obvious, as far from objectivity and reliability as possible.