Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[Codger_64]

No, could you send me a link?

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articl...life-discovered-meteorite-algae-sri-lanka.htm

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-astrobiologists-meteorite-space-algae.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/06/nasa-scientist-evidence-extraterrestrial-life

As usual, there is some desention. But might this indicate the possibility of that pan-sperm theory if true?

 

[stabman]

The fence edge is razored, no one can park there and stay happy, agnostics must enjoy the dilemma.

No dilemma, and I'm quite happy. It ain't a fence...it's more of a pleasant meadow.
How does that work? Like this:

"What about the important theological/existential questions about the underpinnings of life? What do you have to say to that? Huh?"
"I don't care."

Ah, breathe that easy breath, free of stress.

 

[Coad]

Willseeyoulater, possibly slime formed in shallow pools. Slowly it took on charectoristics of life. Sub life. Absorption of nutrients, growth. And slowly it changed until it held all the charectoristics of life. Not so far fetched

 

[Codger_64]

The primordial ooze theory? Or is it a theory. Maybe hypothosis. Reading sci-fi... I've come across an interesting propositon (or is it an idea?) that while we know that all life is carbon based, what if on some other astral body it is silicon based? Or arsenic based?

 

[Coad]

Everything that we, and all other life, on earth can be found on earth. If you keep mixing under the correct conditions well presto.

 

[Coad]

Well codger, if your space moss turns out to be true ill have to move my primortal oze to a different planet.

 

[Dan57]

Intense heat, intense gravity, pressure and outward momentum that is still being measured in the expansion of the observed universe meaning I believe there was a singularity or explosion of some sort that left us with echoes we can study. How does a totally sterile field get the first mold spore or bacterium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

how do bacterium organize into cooperating battalions and organize their battalions into primitive multi celled creature? What changes mineral and elements into self regenerating life? And how does that life mutate into kingdoms, phylum, orders, families and species? Mold and fungi are so much not like animals, as plants are so much so again. Sea creatures like coral and anemones are not plants, not animals. Such a range of life with similar goals to continue and perpetuate but each set on such different chassis if you will.

Go back to Abiogenesis for the "minerals and elements" part of your question. Everything else is covered under evolution.

Willseeyoulater, possibly slime formed in shallow pools. Slowly it took on charectoristics of life. Sub life. Absorption of nutrients, growth. And slowly it changed until it held all the charectoristics of life. Not so far fetched

Everything that we, and all other life, on earth can be found on earth. If you keep mixing under the correct conditions well presto.

While some parts of this are somewhat correct, I think that overall, it's a horrible summary.

 

[Codger_64]

If it were true, it would be reproducable in a lab, would it not? A finite number of inert compounds combined in a finite set of circumstances. Presto? Life from nothing?

 

[Coad]

Dan 57 feel free to sum it up simply in a better way. If you are going to Critisize, then offer the correction in your own words. I love to learn.

 

[Coad]

Codger, yes absolutely reproducable. Given the right recipe so to speek. But the world and a vast amount of time is a big act to follow. I believe that there is a group that has been trying to do this recently.

 

[Coad]

Codger, I think presto sub life would be more accurate.

 

[liamstrain]

bio-chemical abiogenesis hypotheses are testable in a lab, and so far, nobody has really figured it out (they've done some interesting things with electricity and basic elements making core compounds, pre-cursors to amino acids, but not much of note yet).

So, Science doesn't know yet. But, that we don't know doesn't mean we just give up and say "well, clearly it took a god to do this." - we just don't know.

But it's worth re-iterating that abiogenesis and evolution are separate. Evolution explains everything that happens after life kicks off. We're still working on the before part.


That all life we know of on earth is carbon based isn't really surprising. Carbon is one of the most plentiful and readily reactive elements, happily bonding with whatever is nearby. It's like having a huge box of blue legos lying around, and much less of just about every other color. That blue is going to end up in everything somehow.

Interestingly, We have found some bacteria that under certain conditions can use arsenic in place of phosphorous in its proteins, but that's still under examination.

 

[willseeyalater]

Stabman, I am glad you are happy and would defend your right to it. I just don't see there to be much room in that middle ground. Enjoy your meadow. I mean you no ill in my fence metaphor.

 

[willseeyalater]

Dan 57, thanks for the links. Yes, I have studied the various ideas that have been tossed about. Abiogenesis is one large parcel of swampland real estate for sale which I will have to pass on, I don't enjoy the view. You can buy my piece and have first chance at the Brooklyn Bridge if it ever comes up for sale again. Deity or no deity seems like the simple reduction to me after you get through reading it all. Agnostics may continue to romp in their meadows, it doesn't bother me that they didn't hear the question. Evolution is a fact, species adapt to factors of selection by environment or other circumstances such as intent by choice of a trait for a purpose as in agriculture or the best fence jumper gets to breed the female in estrous in a survival of the fittest scenario. Still I think and believe that the initiator is supernatural deity, religion is just the multitude of ways humans describe that. Those who opt out as atheists I certainly respect and agree to not agree with in that regard. Live well, pay your taxes, feed your dependents and teach them to do the same no matter what you believe about deity and we can be neighbors just fine. I don't need to change anyone's mind to enjoy what I have been given.

 

[willseeyalater]

bio-chemical abiogenesis hypotheses are testable in a lab, and so far, nobody has really figured it out (they've done some interesting things with electricity and basic elements making core compounds, pre-cursors to amino acids, but not much of note yet).

So, Science doesn't know yet. But, that we don't know doesn't mean we just give up and say "well, clearly it took a god to do this." - we just don't know. .

Maybe you don't intend it but you write as though Science were a prescient entity. I think you refer to a collective body of work in which ideas are proposed and challenged according to agreed upon rules but you personify it in a way that is like a tip of your cards to deists or theists. So is it Science , the neo-deity or science, the tool by which we learn things?

 

[Raymond1000]

What are you guys talking about?

How can you discuss evolution and religion without including the way Izanagi-no-Mikoto and Izanami-no-Mikoto used a spear to pull our islands from the ocean? That’s real religion! As long as evolution doesn’t give due diligence to Izanagi-no-Mikoto and Izanami-no-Mikoto, it’s just some dumb theory.

Put it another way. Christianity is not religion. Christianity is a religion. One of many. Genesis is not the creation story. Genesis is a creation story. One of many.

 

[liamstrain]

Maybe you don't intend it but you write as though Science were a prescient entity. I think you refer to a collective body of work in which ideas are proposed and challenged according to agreed upon rules but you personify it in a way that is like a tip of your cards to deists or theists. So is it Science , the neo-deity or science, the tool by which we learn things?

Science as in the collective body of work and methodology. There is no "neo-deity Science" - that's a deliberate attempt to try to turn evidence based methodology into something it is not. A strawman to try to re-characterize science as a faith, with all of a faith's attendent flaws.

 

[willseeyalater]

Yes, then science is 'us' as in humanity and what we know collectively and what we don't know is couched with a 'yet' and we can wonder and keep studying(science), which any creator deity should be fine with, or just keep adding zeroes to the probabilities until deists or theists walk away and leave the atheists to their happy calculations of infinite chances of the origin of origins. Science is how we know things but to believe things which we don't know yet takes faith. Don't be scared of the word, we just have different faiths, flaws and all. Respect for yours at all times and in return as well, yes?

 

[Coad]

No science is a collection of facts and guidlines for finding new fact. Faith is believing with no facts. An edjucated geuss is nothing like faith. Saying science is faith is a very old worn out theist way of tryingto pull itself up, and be viewed as relevant in the modern world.

 

[willseeyalater]

No respect?