First would have to come reproducing molecules. Organisms much later. Life probably came after very many molecular baby steps. Containing structures are easy to come by to contain whatever molecular structures happen to be there when the structures are formed. Extremely large number of different mixtures could have shelter in the structures. Etc. I just enjoy science fiction and and do not connect much of it to real possibilities. My old favorite for star travel and great battles was the Skylark series by Doc Smith with the control of inertia. Can't be done because inertia deals with net gravitational field of the Universe and gravity being a fictitious force cannot be gotten rid of by any physical means. His other Lensman series about psi stuff with ancient good and bad powerful civilizations guiding humanity again can't be done as far a ESP studies indicate.

Still water.

a lake caused by receding waters. Glacial melt. I'm sure there are more.

Thank you for the clarification that the word “muck” was employed as an objective descriptor, and was not in any way intended to evoke feelings of disgust or revulsion.

By the way, how can water be stagnant (in the sense that you are using the term) if it does not contain any previously existing forms of life?

stew? sludge? Muck was not intended as a slur just a descriptor; if it did occur this way it was definitely more than water and likely much more stagnant and thicker.

That, sir, is a negative. Assuming that a specific set of conditions will generate a form of life (self reproducing organism) is is prefectly valid (IMHO) to assume any planet with those circumstances will (or should) do so. The one thing we cannot be assured of, is there something special we do not know yet (like some electrostatic charge or amount of vulcanism needed) required for the "spark" to occur? Maybe we got distracted in the Sci Fi line of discussion, I am not saying that life would be an unusual occurance. In fact, I am betting we will find life forms on most planets where there is a source of energy (for instance Europa would have a chemical and a heat component to provide such). Look at 2001/2010, the premise was life started on earth, and then was "helped" along. There is no reason to believe or disbelieve either, as there is no evidence either way. It "could be". Or not.

Great examples. So here is how I see each side evaluating these issues. Which one is right... That's a separate question.

Tithing. To an atheist, this just looks like a forfeiture of money: at best a waste and at worst the funding of a moocher. To a Christian or Jew (I believe that Islam also supports the notion of a tithe but I'm shaky there), they see God as the ultimate giver of everything and that 1/10th has two primary purposes: expression of gratitude and funding of the needs of the religion (buildings, etc.).

Sabbath observance. To an atheist, this looks like a wasted opportunity for riches via work. To a Christian or Jew, it is a literal commandment to follow the example of God and rest on the seventh day. Some point out psychological studies which point to the need of the body for a period of R&R which coincides with a weekly schedule. Personally, I think there's benefit to having that guaranteed day off every week so I can pursue my own interests. Working seven days a week is nuts.

certain clothing. I'm going to generalize this one because Muslims aren't the only ones who have particular clothing. Priests and nuns have their particular garments, as do Mormons and Orthodox Jews. Atheists view them as a restriction on fashion. Believers view them as a symbol of devotion or covenant - a constant reminder. A religionist could just as easily point out the cult of Nike or [insert fashion diva here] as a complete waste of money, too. Now I will admit that the full hijab is the most extreme, especially when they try to use it as an excuse to prevent law enforcement or identification. While I normally defend the right to worship what one chooses (or nothing at all), rights are always a delicate balance, but I don't believe that I should have to go out of my way (or have my tax dollars used) to cater to your beliefs. If you want to insist on hiding yourself, you get to pay for the additional law enforcement needed when identity verification becomes an issue.

not using condoms. This one is mostly a Catholic thing but it's not nearly as much about the condom as it is a belief that family is central to life. This one is as much about the general morality of sexuality as anything. An atheist views sex as primarily for pleasure and only secondarily as the means of promulgating the species. A religionist places priority on family and family creation first with the pleasure as a nice side benefit. It's all about priorities.

refusing medical treatment. This one to my knowledge is almost exclusively the Jehovah's Witnesses (as far as an actual sectarian teaching), but there are cliques among many religions. This one can also include reliance on herbal remedies, acupuncture, and chiropractors. In my opinion, each has a place, but it varies with the actual malady. I know some people who swear by a monthly session with their chiropractor. I have a co-worker who is constantly burning plant oils to stave off cold/flu. Are they irrational when it works for them? And there are those who rely too much on doctors and medicine as well (commonly called hypochondriacs) and whom the doctors are more than happy to keep seeing and prescribing to. To me, this is one where I think everyone likes to focus on the extremes where a middle ground provides plenty of room for sanity and rational thought.

diet restrictions. This one is prevalent in several religions, whether it be a permanent restriction (pork for Muslims and Jews, alcohol for Mormons) or a temporary one (Lent, Ramadan). The atheist simply looks at the presence of a restriction. The religionist looks at it as a warning against certain behavior.

Have you any evidence to point to anything other than life having started on Earth? If you want to go the odds way, then there is no problem with life starting on Earth. Take your lottery. The odds just says that it is unlikely for a particular person to win but in the long run someone will win no matter how small the odds. If you do not take the Earth in the beginning as special but like the lottery having only a very small chance for life, then for that planet being the one that life started on is very small. But that is not what happened. Earth, like the lottery winner, won. So, like the lottery winner, there is 100% certainty that Earth won as was so with the lottery winner. You seem to want to say that Earth could not have won because it was somehow special in its begining and some outside influence was the cause of life there. Why not think that way for the lottery winner? Some people do just that by thanking god for the win. Are you trying to do something like that for life on Earth?

How about tithing, not working Saturdays or Sunday's (depending on the religion), wearing a burka, not using condoms, in some cases refusing medical treatment, or diet restrictions?

Essentially what I was trying to express, a huge number of coincidences and specific events have had to occur to get where we are at, or.... and that is where you can add (higher power, aliens, space farmers, space weevils, star dogs. There could be an argument for aliens getting stuck here at some point and we are just the descendants who have forgotten our origins, or as some have postulated, an alien life form came here a long time back and crafted humans from the ape beings. Either way, something along the lines of odds to winning the lottery, but people do win the lottery.

That's an interesting assertion. Can you elaborate or provide examples/specifics of where you think a "freedom" is being given up? I would also suggest we stay with principles as there are far too many religious dogmas to get distracted by delving into generalities...

Quite right. However, I would note that creationists lose freedoms in daily life by their beliefs. These may be considered trivial, maybe not, but adherence to the dogma of an omnipotent being(s) is not free of constraint.

No, this isn't going to change any minds. And why? Because of the consequences either way. If the creationists are right and God does exist, where does that leave atheists? In a world of trouble. If the atheists are right and God doesn't exist, creationists lose what, exactly? The hope of an afterlife? Looking at the two sides, I can see the appeal: on the one side you get those who hope that this life is a precursor to something better and on the other those who hope that this life is all there is. The side you choose inevitably comes down on which future you want to believe in more.

“Muck” is an emotionally loaded term that should have no place in evaluating the truth or falsity of a belief system. “Fortunate” is a value judgment that has no bearing on what types of chemical reactions are possible and whether or not they take place. “Probability” cannot be the logical basis of a belief system – the fact that we are here means that the conditions necessary for our existence are also here, and the fact that we can’t explain everything about those conditions simply means that there are some things we do not (yet) know. And finally, God vs. happenstance is a false alternative – in the past few decades, scientists have deepened their understanding of natural processes, such as the mechanisms of self-organization, that are anything but “happenstance.” Again, I recommend Stuart Kaufmann’s books The Origins of Order and At Home in the Universe for a fuller exposition of these concepts.

bah..."Just two words"

Brain tired...dealing with artists and programmers. Sorry.

Just to words, perhaps carelessly put together, to describe a process. By using it I meant to say forming naturally and then dramatically evolving over time into what we see today. I've had protracted conversations with people only to learn we were talking about two different things.

I do not doubt adaption (evolution) in humans and in all species. I do doubt that humans came from muck as a matter of remarkable fortune over a remarkably long span of time. Yes, I'd sooner believe man was placed here by God, a meteor was the catalyst for the process of mans development, another race of humans seeded this planet, or a totally alien species altered an indigenous animal on earth to facilitate its rise about animal status. All of these things are far more probable to me than happenstance by way of extraordinarily fortunate chemical interactions over X amount of time.

Define “evolutionary creation.” It’s not a construct I’m familiar with. Darwin proposed natural selection as a driver of evolution, in which species adapt to changing environments in order to survive and reproduce. Today scientists are investigating more recent theories, such as self-organization of autocatalytic sets, to explain the possible origin of biological organisms. (See Stuart Kaufmann’s books, The Origins of Order and At Home in the Universe.) None of these theories propose a concept such as “evolutionary creation.”

It is not the wellspring of all matter has attributes which are useful to rearrange into other forms than just atoms of the elements. There was matter before the first stars from existence came. However gravitating matter was produced, stars became of it and galaxies. Nucleosynthesis produced some other elements and some stars of a couple of generations exploded with the present generation creation along with the planets formed from the left overs. Then a certain range of planet types which had conditions where life might be able to exist, existed. There was a lot of stuff and conditions that needed to occur for life to exist.
I do not know how many such planets might exist in the about 160,000,000,000 light year diameter universe, but there are very roughly 100 billion galaxies of over 100 billion stars with a high percentage of them with planetary systems. That is about 10^22 stars and say that there is one suitable planet per 100 billion planet systems, that would still be 100 billion suitable planets. If the conditions of temperature, water, and perhaps clay exist, and due to the fact that Avogadro's number, 6.023 x 10^23 molecules per mole of substance is so large (that is why that little 50 mg tablet can have hundreds of thousands of molecules to treat each of the billions of cells in your body) there would be an almost certain creation of self reproducing molecules and things like hydrophobic lipids to form containers for other slop. Once life starts in not so hospitable conditions, then it is like a plague hard to stop as seen by bacteria living in very hostile environments on earth, such as miles under the sea floors, high in the atmosphere, in you highly acidic stomach and chemically active intestines, and even in pockets in granite.

Sorry, what article about man being much older. I did not see that article, just the one about life being on earth a few hundred million years earlier than previously thought. And why would man being around longer need a reevaluation of some evolutionary premise or some big deal with adjusting a time table. Scientists do such things as a matter of keeping knowledge consistent. In fact there is no such thing as evolutionary creation. Evolution is not a causative process. It is a description of what happens biologically in nature, nothing more, so put away the fear of a something that can't do anything to you and let biologists have there unifying theory.

Apologies, I should have written dying stars releasing elements in various phases of its decline. Nova's were a misnomer. Still it begs a fascinating question, where did the bacteria/virus whatever derive when the wellspring of all matter is a dying star.

My favorite character on STNG.
Well, the chicken or the egg question is the wrong question. Should be how did life begin and evolve from simple budding to complex cell division to eventual sexual reproduction with the no need to magically produce the chicken or the egg. If the chicken exists, no problem, if the egg exists, no problem. Life does not come ready made just as you were not ready made with functioning sperm or ova. The had to be created in the sense of DNA and complex chemistry did it.

Whats unreasonable about revealing a NY Times article conveying evidence that man may be much older on this earth than previously thought? Do that not cause those who believe in evolutionary creation to reevaluate their premise if for no other reason than to adjust their time table?

No!!
Are you saying that the Milky Way was produced in a nova or supernova? Only heavy elements were produced in supernovas or more recently by humans. Most of the other elements are produced in stars and if they supernova, spread the elements and produce the heavy elements to make up planets, etc.
The shuttles did not heat that much going into space so life might have been able to grow on the windows and other out of the way crannies.
You have no reason for that more likely statement. It is a 100% likely that life was on Earth fairly early and after a long long time flourished and eventually gave mankind something to argue about, which if nature had a purpose, might have been the purpose.

I can't wait till NASA or some one else lands a probe on one of the Jovian moons or Pluto with the proper analytical equipment will change everything about life as we know it.

That is if the original poster would give some reasonable stuff to begin with. Otherwise expect the unexpected comments to a post.

What premise of Darwin's evolutionary theory?

This is from Science where the study was reported?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/1...

I do not see any reference to Darwin.

Maybe this will be closer to some of the beliefs here:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/new...

Or here in the New York Time which usually reports science OK when not about climate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/sci...