Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 20, 2014, 07:46:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution  (Read 31750 times)
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2008, 11:53:12 AM »

LOL well I dont think anybody here is trying to make the claim that b/c we dont know why or how it happened it must be b/c God did it. i think he is pointing out the fact that nobody knows how life created which does mean that religion is a possiblity does it not? why do ppl start threads and pointless never ending arguements over God not existing? Religion is not necissarily full of uncompremising, ignorant ppl as you may seem to think. Religion will in all reality probably never be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt as new info will just be worked into the belief system. 
I have no problem with religious thinking.  I do it all the time.  It is the attendant organization that takes up the cause of religious doctrine that I have problems with. 

There will always be religion.  Science is one explanation of things.  Not THE explanation of things.  Same goes for religion in the sense that religious thinking deals with questions of purpose, meaning and the like in the face of nothing.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2008, 01:13:42 PM »

As I’ve said previously and contrary to Deicide's claim, the idea that “evolution doesn’t deal with origin” is (or, at least, was) a falsehood. Origin was addressed, when the theory of evolution was first formulated. But, the tenet behind it (spontaneous generation) was shown to be, at the very least faulty. Yet, many evolutionists (whether they admit it or not) still hold to SG as having occurred. Otherwise, they are left with the one option that don’t float their boat:


The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry”
- J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
 
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.


Thanks Mcway.  So what is the current viewpoint/teaching? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22936


Reapers...


« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2008, 09:04:10 PM »

MC while I can see your point I think that decides point is that evolution is not dependent on the origin of life, no matter how life came to be evolution still exists.

Can you do me a favour and start spelling my name right? Unless it is meant as irony?!
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
bebop396
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1452


Getbig!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2008, 10:25:00 PM »

Ive seen some info on M theory, and they seem to have some theories on the beginning of our universe....I havent heard the latest on their findings....
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25525



« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2008, 10:34:39 PM »

Can you do me a favour and start spelling my name right? Unless it is meant as irony?!
muhahahfafha its my way of getting into your head Grin...LOL no its been completely accidental my apologies
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8635


« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2008, 07:35:50 AM »

Here is a great theory with computer models that work and theoretical backing. it also has some criticisms of darwinism which is not to be confused with evolution.

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm

read this beach bum and tell me your criticisms.
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2008, 08:16:41 AM »

What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?

you are confusing abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The prevailing theory of how life began is that elements released from stars that went supernova gathered on one of the planets that is hospitable for life, such as Earth, and combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began.

It is believed the earliest signs of life appeared 600 million years after the earth formed. These life forms were possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. DNA molecules then took over as the main replicators. They began to develop inside enclosed membranes which provided a stable environment for replication: proto-cells. 100 million years passed before cells resembling prokaryotes appeared. These organisms were chemoautotrophs.

Another 900 million years passed before photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved which produced oxygen. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rose. Eventually, more complex cells began to appear: the eukaryotes. After 2 billion years, the first multicellular organisms evolved. Natural selection fueled the evolutionary radiation that occurred during the last 1 billion years. Homo sapiens (modern humans) didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago.
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17282



« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2008, 08:48:23 AM »

What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution? 

Here's a hint: the answer is not to be found on a bodybuilding message board.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2008, 09:07:16 AM »

Here is a great theory with computer models that work and theoretical backing. it also has some criticisms of darwinism which is not to be confused with evolution.

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm

read this beach bum and tell me your criticisms.

Is there a Cliff's Notes version?   Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2008, 09:11:42 AM »

you are confusing abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The prevailing theory of how life began is that elements released from stars that went supernova gathered on one of the planets that is hospitable for life, such as Earth, and combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began.

It is believed the earliest signs of life appeared 600 million years after the earth formed. These life forms were possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. DNA molecules then took over as the main replicators. They began to develop inside enclosed membranes which provided a stable environment for replication: proto-cells. 100 million years passed before cells resembling prokaryotes appeared. These organisms were chemoautotrophs.

Another 900 million years passed before photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved which produced oxygen. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rose. Eventually, more complex cells began to appear: the eukaryotes. After 2 billion years, the first multicellular organisms evolved. Natural selection fueled the evolutionary radiation that occurred during the last 1 billion years. Homo sapiens (modern humans) didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago.

So you disagree with Mcway that Darwinists/evolutionists didn't believe in spontaneous generation? 

It sounds like what you've described could never be tested if these suddenly appearing "self-reproducing RNA molecules" hung around 900 million years. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2008, 09:13:00 AM »

Here's a hint: the answer is not to be found on a bodybuilding message board.

 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2008, 10:30:46 AM »

So you disagree with Mcway that Darwinists/evolutionists didn't believe in spontaneous generation?

evolutionists may have believed in spontaneous generation a long, long time ago but not anymore.

Quote
It sounds like what you've described could never be tested if these suddenly appearing "self-reproducing RNA molecules" hung around 900 million years.

probably not. I would imagine it's very difficult to simulate a billion years on primordial Earth in a lab.
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2008, 10:54:39 AM »

So you disagree with Mcway that Darwinists/evolutionists didn't believe in spontaneous generation? 

It sounds like what you've described could never be tested if these suddenly appearing "self-reproducing RNA molecules" hung around 900 million years. 
There can never be a scientific explanation if there are no theories with scientific pretensions. 

Otherwise we might as well scrap the whole endeavor and embrace any number of creationist myths.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2008, 12:01:24 PM »

evolutionists may have believed in spontaneous generation a long, long time ago but not anymore.

probably not. I would imagine it's very difficult to simulate a billion years on primordial Earth in a lab.

What is your theory about how it all began? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #39 on: May 07, 2008, 12:02:03 PM »

There can never be a scientific explanation if there are no theories with scientific pretensions. 

Otherwise we might as well scrap the whole endeavor and embrace any number of creationist myths.

Same question to you:  how do you believe life originally began on Earth? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2008, 02:20:26 PM »

Same question to you:  how do you believe life originally began on Earth? 
Personally, I believe that we are the product of a universe that, for whatever reason, needed awareness in its makeup.  I believe it happened on the quantum level where 'spontaneous generation' takes on a new meaning. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2008, 03:41:22 PM »

Personally, I believe that we are the product of a universe that, for whatever reason, needed awareness in its makeup.  I believe it happened on the quantum level where 'spontaneous generation' takes on a new meaning. 

Thanks Decker.  Just to be clear, I'm asking about day 1 of life on earth (whenever that was).  You adopt the spontaneous generation viewpoint?   
Report to moderator   Logged
NeoSeminole
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5587


Ronnie > Dorian


« Reply #42 on: May 07, 2008, 04:16:16 PM »

What is your theory about how it all began?

I have no theory about how life began.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2008, 04:27:36 PM »

I have no theory about how life began.

What is your belief? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Hustle Man
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1352

What is the most common form of stupidity?


« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2008, 07:02:52 AM »

God always lays out the stumbling block.

You all are trying to figure out what can not be figured out with finite wisdom or understanding.

It takes infinite wisdom and intelligence to understand the how and the why of creation. It's time for you to submit and have faith in what has been revealed! Nothing more, nothing less, just believe!

John 1:1-5 says it all!

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Believe this and you will be okay!

Report to moderator   Logged

W
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2008, 07:18:47 AM »

Thanks Decker.  Just to be clear, I'm asking about day 1 of life on earth (whenever that was).  You adopt the spontaneous generation viewpoint?   
If 'spontaneous generation' means at some point on the subatomic level, the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics, then yes I believe in spontaneous generation.

If SG means presto! life appears.  No, I don't believe that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2008, 11:12:30 AM »

If 'spontaneous generation' means at some point on the subatomic level, the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics, then yes I believe in spontaneous generation.

If SG means presto! life appears.  No, I don't believe that.

But isn't "presto!" required to believe "the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics"?   
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5782


« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2008, 11:44:20 AM »

But isn't "presto!" required to believe "the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics"?   
I have no idea.  That's my guess at what happened. 

"Presto" refers to a gap where x becomes y.  I think science will be able to fill that gap mathematically some day.  It can't do it empirically.  An quantum reality can suffer the same fate as string theory for that reason.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42593

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2008, 11:47:10 AM »

I have no idea.  That's my guess at what happened. 

"Presto" refers to a gap where x becomes y.  I think science will be able to fill that gap mathematically some day.  It can't do it empirically.  An quantum reality can suffer the same fate as string theory for that reason.

O.K.  Understood.  Thanks for answering. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8635


« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2008, 04:26:16 PM »

But isn't "presto!" required to believe "the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics"?   

matter was never created, it has always been.

its obvious that something is eternal from deduction, however this could be flawed.

what i dont understand is why you would accept something without evidence. There is no evidence of a god on this planet, and everything that has been elucidated has a material, scientific explanation. The stuff we havent figured out yet more then likely does as all of history, science, and observation is on its side.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!