The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution

[Dos Equis]

what a classic getbig comeback.

Reserved specifically for dumb comments.   

[Necrosis]

Why isn't it a correct question? 

At the end of the day, it sounds like you have a faith-based belief in how life originated.  It definitely isn't scientific, which requires:  (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.

This isn't a criticism of you or anyone else.     

wha.. it contains all of those, we can observe self catalytic molecules, we can conduct the experiments in the lab, we can form hypothesis based on all of this, we can test it.

No faith about it. math,experimentation, chemistry,biochemistry all go into it. Just because something happened in the past doesnt mean you cant find evidence for it.

you just want it to be like that, and if faith is the best charge you can level then your position is pretty weak dont you think?

[Dos Equis]

wha.. it contains all of those, we can observe self catalytic molecules, we can conduct the experiments in the lab, we can form hypothesis based on all of this, we can test it.

No faith about it. math,experimentation, chemistry,biochemistry all go into it. Just because something happened in the past doesnt mean you cant find evidence for it.

you just want it to be like that, and if faith is the best charge you can level then your position is pretty weak dont you think?

O Rly?  When have we replicated the creation of life in a lab? 

We're not talking about my position.  We're talking about the position of those we believe in the big bang, spontaneous generation, etc. 

[big L dawg]

Reserved specifically for dumb comments.   

How so?you're questioning the origin of necrosis beliefs from the autocatalytic theory.But it's a dumb comment if I do the same about the origin of your beliefs originating from a book?

[Dos Equis]

How so?you're questioning the origin of necrosis beliefs from the autocatalytic theory.But it's a dumb comment if I do the same about the origin of your beliefs originating from a book?

You don't need to question my beliefs, because I've clearly stated that my belief in the origin of life is based on faith.  I think what I said earlier in this thread, a long time ago, bears repeating:

I don't have a theory.  I have a belief.  I believe God created the heavens and earth.  But that's not why I created this thread.  I wanted to hear from people like you. 

It seems as though folks like you, Decker, etc. cannot talk about the origins of life from a scientific standpoint without mentioning God, Christianity, religion, etc. in the next breath (in a negative light).  I'm asking specifically about non-ID/God/religion-related theories/beliefs about the origins of life on earth.

Decker said he has no idea and I respect that.  What is your theory and/or belief about the origins of life on earth?       

Did you have something to add or are you limited to one-liners that criticize God, the Bible, religion, etc.? 

[big L dawg]

You don't need to question my beliefs, because I've clearly stated that my belief in the origin of life is based on faith.  I think what I said earlier in this thread, a long time ago, bears repeating:


Did you have something to add or are you limited to one-liners that criticize God, the Bible, religion, etc.? 

I didn't question your beliefs.I asked the origin of your beliefs.(from a book?).And as far as adding something I realized along time ago It's just spinning your wheels with regards to any kind of rational debate with certain people(won't name any names).

[Dos Equis]

I didn't question your beliefs.I asked the origin of your beliefs.(from a book?).And as far as adding something I realized along time ago It's just spinning your wheels with regards to any kind of rational debate with certain people(won't name any names).

Your question was obviously rhetorical (and sarcastic), because I've made no secret that my belief in the origin of life is faith based. 

But this thread isn't about my beliefs, or the origin of my beliefs (which I've clearly stated on several occasions).  It's about the scientifically based belief in the origin of life on earth.  Do you have one? 

[big L dawg]

Your question was obviously rhetorical (and sarcastic), because I've made no secret that my belief in the origin of life is faith based. 

But this thread isn't about my beliefs, or the origin of my beliefs (which I've clearly stated on several occasions).  It's about the scientifically based belief in the origin of life on earth.  Do you have one? 

no.

[Necrosis]

O Rly?  When have we replicated the creation of life in a lab? 

We're not talking about my position.  We're talking about the position of those we believe in the big bang, spontaneous generation, etc. 

so now i believe in spontaneous generation?

we have created most of the necessary ingredients, we have found a mechanism that works and is observable. It could be wrong, im open to that, however it has repeatable falsifiable evidence behind it.

[Dos Equis]

so now i believe in spontaneous generation?

we have created most of the necessary ingredients, we have found a mechanism that works and is observable. It could be wrong, im open to that, however it has repeatable falsifiable evidence behind it.

I don't know what you believe.  I made a general comment. 

We have not created life in a lab.  We have never observed the creation of life in a lab.  We have never successfully tested whatever theories there are that exist regarding the beginning of life on earth.  I have yet to hear a scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of life on earth (on day 1).

[Joel_A]

I don't know what you believe.  I made a general comment. 

We have not created life in a lab.  We have never observed the creation of life in a lab.  We have never successfully tested whatever theories there are that exist regarding the beginning of life on earth.  I have yet to hear a scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of life on earth (on day 1).

You're looking for something that is 100% absolute, which does not exist anywhere in the universe. We know gravity is here but how does it actually work? Newton himself couldn't figure it out. Almost 200 years went by before Einstein solved how gravity really works (spacetime), and even so, it is still just a theory. Who the hell would've figured gravity would bend even light?

Point is, Necrosis has been saying all along that there are countless of studies and evidence that suggest how life on earth came about. But since no one could go back in time (yet) to actually record it, what else can you go by but evidence? Meanwhile, the bible tells you everything was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. I know its a literal translation, but that's where you lose me. I can interpret it so differently than anyone else. Even if I 'had Christ in my life' I really doubt I'd still interpret it the same way you do or any other Christian for that matter.

[Dos Equis]

You're looking for something that is 100% absolute, which does not exist anywhere in the universe. We know gravity is here but how does it actually work? Newton himself couldn't figure it out. Almost 200 years went by before Einstein solved how gravity really works (spacetime), and even so, it is still just a theory. Who the hell would've figured gravity would bend even light?

Point is, Necrosis has been saying all along that there are countless of studies and evidence that suggest how life on earth came about. But since no one could go back in time (yet) to actually record it, what else can you go by but evidence? Meanwhile, the bible tells you everything was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. I know its a literal translation, but that's where you lose me. I can interpret it so differently than anyone else. Even if I 'had Christ in my life' I really doubt I'd still interpret it the same way you do or any other Christian for that matter.

lol.  As I've said many times, it's funny how people who embrace the "goo to you" type theories are just incapable of discussing the origins of life without talking about God, the Bible, etc. (in a negative light). 

We absolutely know gravity exists.  That's not something we need to question at all.  My point is (unless someone can show me otherwise) we have no way of scientifically proving, testing, etc. the origins of life on earth.  That's a pretty big "puka" (hole).  It requires faith.  But people seem afraid to use that word.  Just like the gaping holes in the evolution theory (e.g., no proof of macroevolution and the absence of transitional fossils), the theory of the origins of life on earth from a non-religious standpoint has a huge hole.  Its sort of like starting a book after skipping the first few chapters. 

[Joel_A]

lol.  As I've said many times, it's funny how people who embrace the "goo to you" type theories are just incapable of discussing the origins of life without talking about God, the Bible, etc. (in a negative light). 

We absolutely know gravity exists.  That's not something we need to question at all.  My point is (unless someone can show me otherwise) we have no way of scientifically proving, testing, etc. the origins of life on earth.  That's a pretty big "puka" (hole).  It requires faith.  But people seem afraid to use that word.  Just like the gaping holes in the evolution theory (e.g., no proof of macroevolution and the absence of transitional fossils), the theory of the origins of life on earth from a non-religious standpoint has a huge hole.  Its sort of like starting a book after skipping the first few chapters. 

When you break something, anything down to the quantum level, nothing is absolute. You can touch something and feel certain you're touching it, but the reality is there is a fraction of space in between you and the object you're touching.

Anyway, sorry if I'm straying from the topic. It is really beyond me to tell you the truth. I just hope I'm still alive when someone finally figures it out.

[Necrosis]

I don't know what you believe.  I made a general comment. 

We have not created life in a lab.  We have never observed the creation of life in a lab.  We have never successfully tested whatever theories there are that exist regarding the beginning of life on earth.  I have yet to hear a scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of life on earth (on day 1).

abiogenesis has a ton of research

what do you consider life?

[Joel_A]

I, personally, am leaning towards the idea of extremophiles being our "ancestors." It makes sense to me because no other organisms can survive during the earth's early years.

[Government_Controlled]

Meanwhile, the bible tells you everything was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago.

Not necessarily. I've seen this claim before, however, I can't see where the Bible is stating this notion as absolute. Do you have the specific location where this assertion would be? I would like to ponder it if it is saying this. Thanks in advance.



GC/DEA_AGENT

[Necrosis]

lol.  As I've said many times, it's funny how people who embrace the "goo to you" type theories are just incapable of discussing the origins of life without talking about God, the Bible, etc. (in a negative light). 

We absolutely know gravity exists.  That's not something we need to question at all.  My point is (unless someone can show me otherwise) we have no way of scientifically proving, testing, etc. the origins of life on earth.  That's a pretty big "puka" (hole).  It requires faith.  But people seem afraid to use that word.  Just like the gaping holes in the evolution theory (e.g., no proof of macroevolution and the absence of transitional fossils), the theory of the origins of life on earth from a non-religious standpoint has a huge hole.  Its sort of like starting a book after skipping the first few chapters. 

if i provide you papers showing observed macroevolution and intact "transitional fossils" will you then stop spewing lies and rhetoric, or are you so close minded that you will try and change the facts etc..

you dont even know the mathmatics behind gravity the how of gravity, just like you dont evolution, both are widely accepted facts in science.

by the way gravity is probably wrong in its mechanism.. still doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist.

[Joel_A]

Not necessarily. I've seen this claim before, however, I can't see where the Bible is stating this notion as absolute. Do you have the specific location where this assertion would be? I would like to ponder it if it is saying this. Thanks in advance.



GC/DEA_AGENT

Someone did the painstaking task of tracing back the time of the creation through people in the bible. Of course it's not absolute but if you take the bible literally (like a lot of Christians do) then the Earth really is 6000 years old.

[Government_Controlled]

Someone did the painstaking task of tracing back the time of the creation through people in the bible. Of course it's not absolute but if you take the bible literally (like a lot of Christians do) then the Earth really is 6000 years old.

I think I see where those Christians are skewed in there view of that account. The Bible is teaching that man is around 6000 years old, however, it's not indicating that the earth is 6000 years old. When God created the earth, He did this first, the other creations came later. Man was created later on. The animals, insects, vegetation,etc. were all created before man. Therefore, the Bible leaves open earth being older than man. So then, the Christians that I know  believe just that. We have a written record from the conception of man's beginning, and this record confirms that man is around 6000 years old. Hope this helps.



GC/DEA_AGENT

[Government_Controlled]

by the way gravity is probably wrong in its mechanism.. still doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist.

This makes a good point about the existence of God. You obviously agree that there are things that exist that cannot be seen with the naked eye or advanced devices?. Same with God, just because we can't see Him, doesn't mean He's nonexistent.

What's your take on this notion regarding evolution? What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red one's -- no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? If the answer is no, then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup evolution?



GC/DEA_AGENT

[Dos Equis]

if i provide you papers showing observed macroevolution and intact "transitional fossils" will you then stop spewing lies and rhetoric, or are you so close minded that you will try and change the facts etc..

you dont even know the mathmatics behind gravity the how of gravity, just like you dont evolution, both are widely accepted facts in science.

by the way gravity is probably wrong in its mechanism.. still doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist.

Actually, show me the entire missing fossil record showing the transition from one species to another, including all of the mistakes during the supposed macroevolutionary process.  Will this be another getbig.com exclusive?   

Gravity is fact.  Take any item off your desk and let it go.  Macroevolution is widely accepted as fact, but is full of gaping holes. 

[Necrosis]

Actually, show me the entire missing fossil record showing the transition from one species to another, including all of the mistakes during the supposed macroevolutionary process.  Will this be another getbig.com exclusive?   

Gravity is fact.  Take any item off your desk and let it go.  Macroevolution is widely accepted as fact, but is full of gaping holes. 

all i need is one transitional fossil, why do need the whole fossil record. If i prove macroevolution of one species along with the other evidence for evolution proves it. 100 Examples are good enough.

no holes, what holes?

[Dos Equis]

all i need is one transitional fossil, why do need the whole fossil record. If i prove macroevolution of one species along with the other evidence for evolution proves it. 100 Examples are good enough.

no holes, what holes?

You need an entire fossil record, because one fossil proves nothing.  Just like if you unearthed the bones of Siamese twins 10,000 years from now it wouldn't prove that humans once had two heads. 

Billions of holes.  I'll update this thread one of these days with more info from the book.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0

[Necrosis]

You need an entire fossil record, because one fossil proves nothing.  Just like if you unearthed the bones of Siamese twins 10,000 years from now it wouldn't prove that humans once had two heads. 

Billions of holes.  I'll update this thread one of these days with more info from the book.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0

no it proves that humans can have two heads , however, the other skulls of humans and the study of anatomy allows us to make inferences, your simplistic view is entirely inccorect. We know the structure of the human skeleton and possible deformities, we also know homology of tons of other animals, which are quite similar.

You do not need the entire fossil record because, one, that is impossible, two we could already have every fossil as fossils are hard to come by, and the corroborating evidence confounds the fossil record.

we have hundreds of transitional fossils, clear exmaples of macroevolution etc..

let me geuss the guy who wrote this book is religious?

[Oldschool Flip]

Fossils are hard to find. And there aren't many people looking for them. Heck, America's Most Wanted depicts criminals each week to MILLIONS of people each week, and we haven't gotten these guys rounded up with all that help yet. I can guarantee you that we don't have millions of people searching for fossils in the world. So the fossils are there I'm sure, it's just going to take time to find them.