do you have to guess whether the guy walking across the road or his dog has life or not?
or do you ruminate on the absence of empirical data within a reductionist paradigm to come to a conclusion?
How life on earth started?
- Thread starter albertchong1999
- Start date
or do you ruminate on the absence of empirical data within a reductionist paradigm to come to a conclusion?
The guy, the dog and the road are composed of parts of the universe. The guy & the dog are animated & the road is not, yet some of the same parts that make up the road can be found in each life form. The guy ponders his existence(life) and the dog doesn't, yet they both are equally as close to figuring it out, and who knows....the dog may have already.
A guess(opinion) and a conclusion are two different things. You always speak in conclusions.
so when distinguishing between a dead dog and a living one, we are always guessing?
if evolution theory really 100% true, then the primary and secondary school syllabus should include evolution theory to be studied. but sadly there is not the case. so evolution theory is still not solid and there is still many object the theory. you can't be 100% sure the evolution theory really make all things up. it still remain as a doubtful theory. look for example, brain consist of billions of neuron interconected with delicate connection and each have individual function. if evolution theory is firm, then the neurons connection hit the jackpot because it all run in the correct sequence. even a single flaw in the connection will significantly alter the action. it is not easily form from simple lifeform until human. human most probably form from monkey homo sapien, that kind of evolution is widely accepted and if you think we are form from simple microb, that you must hit the jackpot millions time in your life before life can be formed in this earth.
even heart, eye,hair,liver, kidney,lung,ear,veins,muscles, blood all are well designed and each must depend on each other,without it we hardly can survive.all have billions of delicate cell function and different composition.if you really study human biology and read 1563 page of human biology book like what i do, then you will know what i said, you will be amazed and ask " Holy shit, how it can be so delicate and simple to form by itself naturally" if you simply given a suitable environment and element such as hydrogen,carbon,oxygen,and other element in periodic table, life can't form by itself.
even other animal on earth and plant have special delicate functon by itself, we all life need oxygen to survive,which it should be for living cell, then you are wrong, most plant need carbon dioxide as what opposite human and animal, that is a compliment to us because all the gas can renew and replenish itself naturally without our worries. if all living organism evolute and need food and oxygen to breath, then we all died long time ago because we exhaust all oxygen without replenished, or vice versa for plant.
all water and air circulaton on earth play crucial part, rain, cloud,water forming vapour and liquid state, all work 100% well without any flaw. all living and non- living in earth is 100% perfect and done well in natural and in sequence, if some stage is disturbed, we will never make it to 2020.
simply said, it is not as simple as what you think it can form from simple lifeform in evolution theory, evolution theory is not yet confirmed and it will not confirm until year 3000. if people can ever read my message in year 3000, then they will understand me as they still not confirm evolution theory or proven it is wrong. time will tell everything.... lets wait and see. no hurry...
even heart, eye,hair,liver, kidney,lung,ear,veins,muscles, blood all are well designed and each must depend on each other,without it we hardly can survive.all have billions of delicate cell function and different composition.if you really study human biology and read 1563 page of human biology book like what i do, then you will know what i said, you will be amazed and ask " Holy shit, how it can be so delicate and simple to form by itself naturally" if you simply given a suitable environment and element such as hydrogen,carbon,oxygen,and other element in periodic table, life can't form by itself.
even other animal on earth and plant have special delicate functon by itself, we all life need oxygen to survive,which it should be for living cell, then you are wrong, most plant need carbon dioxide as what opposite human and animal, that is a compliment to us because all the gas can renew and replenish itself naturally without our worries. if all living organism evolute and need food and oxygen to breath, then we all died long time ago because we exhaust all oxygen without replenished, or vice versa for plant.
all water and air circulaton on earth play crucial part, rain, cloud,water forming vapour and liquid state, all work 100% well without any flaw. all living and non- living in earth is 100% perfect and done well in natural and in sequence, if some stage is disturbed, we will never make it to 2020.
simply said, it is not as simple as what you think it can form from simple lifeform in evolution theory, evolution theory is not yet confirmed and it will not confirm until year 3000. if people can ever read my message in year 3000, then they will understand me as they still not confirm evolution theory or proven it is wrong. time will tell everything.... lets wait and see. no hurry...
Last edited:
useless to confirm evolution theory as there is no ending and no conclusion that evolution is 100% true, for time being we should emulate alien technology, they had already invented space warping tech. that is how they travel to our earth, it is worth to discover it and hopefully we can discover it in shorter time. it is possible.
sure, all the time.
uh oh, i smell a fart, er god, coming.
only because you can't think outside the box.
i knew it, didn't i tell ya?
even the bums in the streets and serial killers?]
no thanks, i'll pass.
there cannot possibly be an intelligent, all knowing, all powerful, righteous entity, anywhere. it's a contradiction in terms.
Last edited:
i don't said god is mercy all the time, sometime god is more cruel than human.
someone said it is the test of resilient of their believer, but what i said is god will not show mercy to other people. case like tsunami victim in indonesia etc. those children born in Africa is destined to a death in every few minutes due to starving. god had written everything in His book about our daily and entire life. don't forget He can even one day make this earth's population vanished, as wrtitten down on Bible. I seldom go to church or pray but i can sense this as the truth... the truth is out there.... Beware..... He can create us and destroy us in a glimpse.
someone said it is the test of resilient of their believer, but what i said is god will not show mercy to other people. case like tsunami victim in indonesia etc. those children born in Africa is destined to a death in every few minutes due to starving. god had written everything in His book about our daily and entire life. don't forget He can even one day make this earth's population vanished, as wrtitten down on Bible. I seldom go to church or pray but i can sense this as the truth... the truth is out there.... Beware..... He can create us and destroy us in a glimpse.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Greetings Albert,
and welcome to the forum. There are several inaccuracies in your post #42.
You say
First, evolution theory is part of the syllabus in many countries. For example - In their study of science, the following should be covered: . . . variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified. (Science in the National Curriculum, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2006, Key Stage 4, 5b)
or the Council of Europe's resolution 1580.
The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:
defend and promote scientific knowledge;
strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculula.
Secondly, even if evolution was not part of the curricula this would not mean it was not a solid theory.
and welcome to the forum. There are several inaccuracies in your post #42.
You say
This is wrong on two grounds:
First, evolution theory is part of the syllabus in many countries. For example - In their study of science, the following should be covered: . . . variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified. (Science in the National Curriculum, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2006, Key Stage 4, 5b)
or the Council of Europe's resolution 1580.
The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:
defend and promote scientific knowledge;
strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculula.
Secondly, even if evolution was not part of the curricula this would not mean it was not a solid theory.
You don't understand what a theory is. No theory is ever 100% proven. A theory is a theory because it has been well validated by many independent observations and experiments and has resisted all attempts to falsify it. On this basis evolution is just about one of the most solid theories in science.
Here you are correct. You and I and everyone reading this come from a long line of winners, stretching back over 3.5 billion years. (Have you noticed how every sports tournament has a winner. Why is that?)
No they are not. They are an ad hoc, Heath Robinson, hodge-podge of contingency methods that have cobbled together something that functions, but not all that well.
Yes it can. Anyway, this is a separate question from evolution.
This would demonstrate that the living Earth is not perfect.
It is as confirmed as any theory can be, or needs to be.
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4[1] and 3.5[2] billion years ago. By 2.4 billion years ago the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6]
From Wiki
Isn't discussion of abiogenesis a valid topic in a thread entitled "How life on earth started"?
I can see good reason for it being reopened as a separate topic in the Biology forum, but stopping it's discussion in this thread prevents what might be the main discussion taking place.
From Wiki
Isn't discussion of abiogenesis a valid topic in a thread entitled "How life on earth started"?
I can see good reason for it being reopened as a separate topic in the Biology forum, but stopping it's discussion in this thread prevents what might be the main discussion taking place.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Abiogenesis and "how life started on Earth" are virtually synonymous, unless one is a creationist. However, my post was a response to Albert's one, in which he focused on evolution and made the tried and tested error of conflating evolution and abiogenesis. That is all I was pointing out.
That's because you're looking at it wrong. Instead of looking at the finished product (us) and asking what would happen if you take parts away, look at the simplest form of life (a strand of DNA) and ask what would happen if you start adding parts.albertchong1999 said:
BINGO!!!. Everyone else loses to have a single winner.
I think that would be the same for every beneficial genetic mutation or evolutionary change.
The crew of the Apollo 8 has addressed this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Ipb8-CLDM
I was referring not to your post but to this mod note from Skinwalker. Post #7.
Mod Note: discussion of abiogenesis is off-topic and will be split to a new thread. If you want to continue that line of discussion, feel free, but please don't be offended when I give it its own thread. Such a discussion is deserving of its own.
I wonder if any lunar astronaut was an atheist? I'll even go further than that, has there ever been an admitted atheist selected to be an astronaut? Are atheist astronaut wannabe's discriminated against and if there are atheistic astronauts then are they being forced to follow the religious line?
"I don't think you can be up here and look out the window as I did the first day and see the Earth from this vantage point, to look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God. To me, it's impossible--it just strengthens my faith. I wish there were words to describe what it's like." -- John Glenn, astronaut, November 1998
Yes. Many. James Irwin was an atheist until he walked on the moon in 1971. He then became an evangelical minister describing the lunar mission as a revelation. In his words, "I felt the power of God as I'd never felt it before."
No. Don't be absurd. It's the theists who are discriminated against.
the mod note of which you speak came from a different thread.
It didn't say it was from another thread.
Some people quit this thread because of it.
They thought that skinwalker had added it to your post.
It didn't leave much left to discuss.
Some people quit this thread because of it.
They thought that skinwalker had added it to your post.
It didn't leave much left to discuss.
Last edited:
i reported the post and asked skinwalker to delete the mod note.