How life on earth started?

do u found out non-life material evolved to life matter today? i bet you will never done it without the added soul. raw material will never have emotion.. like robot or computer..
why scientist still can't produce vaccine for HIV virus instead of lagging almost 27 years when HIV existed on 1981? i need genius medical team to solve this global crisis issue.. millions still suffer from it.
 
albertchong1999 said:
do u found out non-life material evolved to life matter today?
Click to expand...

Actually a few years back I saw an interesting experiment. A scientist took the current best guess as to the early amosphere and subjected it to a shock wave equivelant to that of a meteor impact. The result was the gasses were transformed into not only amino acids, but also peptides. The conclution was that the earlier bomardment of earth, including the one from the formation of the moon, could easily create a soup from which life could begin.

ou will never done it without the added soul.
Click to expand...

What soul? You talk about something for which you have not the least evidence.

raw material will never have emotion.
Click to expand...

You seem to be mistaken, though it does take a while before it evolves enough to have emotions.

why scientist still can't produce vaccine for HIV virus
Click to expand...

Not every virus can be vaccinated against, like the common cold. The flu vaccine is actually just a best guess they make each year and it only reduces the course of the disease, which just isn't good enough in the case of a fatal disease like HIV.

Tell me. Why hasn't god done anything about it?
 
swarm said:
Actually a few years back I saw an interesting experiment. A scientist took the current best guess as to the early amosphere and subjected it to a shock wave equivelant to that of a meteor impact. The result was the gasses were transformed into not only amino acids, but also peptides. The conclution was that the earlier bomardment of earth, including the one from the formation of the moon, could easily create a soup from which life could begin.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that this experiment has now been thrown out because there are different understandings on the nature of the earth's early atmosphere, plus a host of issues that make the formation of such amino acids impossible
 
swivel said:
Why do the aliens require a creator, but the creator is immune? Couldn't the aliens have "always been"? Couldn't the universe have "always been"? Whatever excuse you make for your creator, we can apply to any other primal cause.

There are two problems with an eternal creator:

1. The ability to create the universe and everything in it means that you are "simplifying" the creative process by positing something that is greater, and more complex, than the thing you are trying to explain away. In other words: your god is more unlikely than the universe for which you are seeking an origin.

2. An eternal creator could never arrive at the moment at which it creates the universe. If it could, then the length of time it existed before creation must be measurable, hence the creator is not eternal.

The only logical explanations are these two:

1. The universe has always existed and our desire for primal cause is flawed.

2. The universe came out of nothing, ex nihilo, and our concept of cause and effect is flawed.
Click to expand...
For as long as you fail to include other important premises and definitions of the nature of god and his universe(s) your supposition makes perfectly good sense
 
albertchong1999 said:
and you can't simply transform a non-life material to life material on its own.
Click to expand...

You seem to think life is more complicated than it really is. All of biology is just expanded chemistry. And all of chemistry is just expanded physics.

Everything that led from the aggregation of this planet to my typing this response was inevitable chemical reactions. You can't make a corner of this universe moist and warm without getting life of some kind. It is just self-replicating chemical chains.

And your appeals to a soul discredit everything else you say. There is no such thing as a "soul". Go spend some time with people who have had brain trauma, or are suffering through Alzheimer's. A sharp rap to your noggin will change the way you treat your family, but your are supposed to be guided by an immaterial force? Not buying it, sir.
 
swivel said:
You seem to think life is more complicated than it really is. All of biology is just expanded chemistry. And all of chemistry is just expanded physics.
Click to expand...
since the very moment physics moves into biology it hits a brick wall, there seems to be some flaw with your perfect equation
:eek:
 
lightgigantic said:
I think you will find that this experiment has now been thrown out because there are different understandings on the nature of the earth's early atmosphere, plus a host of issues that make the formation of such amino acids impossible
Click to expand...

No you are thinking of the 1950's experiment which was made with the best guess of its day and used high voltage as the energy source. The experiement I saw was using current data.
 
A look at the formation of life
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1664691

Hydrothermal vents: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/bp/pdf/chap5/BP0523.PDF

Production of peptide-like compounds in the early terrestrial planets:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=24346b307b1b4be9ea30d445c76a4438

Impact Delivery of Prebiotic Organic Matter to Planetary Surfaces
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0457w75g59k12875/

Icy comets crashing into a young Earthmay have brought the basic ingredients for life
http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...ermore+National+Laboratory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

More general:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3112_origins.html
 
none, i repeat none, of those links provide any lab results that life was created from the elements naturaly.

lots of "may haves", "probablys", and "maybes" though.
 
swarm said:
Actually a few years back I saw an interesting experiment. A scientist took the current best guess as to the early amosphere and subjected it to a shock wave equivelant to that of a meteor impact. The result was the gasses were transformed into not only amino acids, but also peptides. The conclution was that the earlier bomardment of earth, including the one from the formation of the moon, could easily create a soup from which life could begin.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal. When creationists like albert and general idiots like OIM post nonsense, or even worse, badly distorted facts, then I go for the jugular. Just because you are on the same side of the discussion as me does not make you exempt. I have two points to make about you talking rubbish. I stand ready to be corrected on the first one - and to apologise - when you produce an appropriate citation. Indeed, I really hope you can do and that I have to eat humble pie, but I fear not.

The experiment you are refering to did not generate a shock wave in a pseudo-atmosphere, but fired amino acid samples at high velocity into a solid object. The amino acids placed not only survived impact, but linked up to form peptides.

There is no way in hell that any organics survived the collision that led to the formation of the moon. Prove me wrong - citations welcomed.
 
The likeliest scenario for the inception of organic life is that the volcanic earth, bombarded by ice meteors, formed massive oceans, and had all of the necessary elements of life in those oceans except one: phosphorus compounds, which were abundant in the upper atmosphere; lightning strikes and other phenomena brought phosphorous compounds down, which became the essential compound in nucleic acids. This gradually developed into protein compounds and DNA, which developed viscous surroundings and membranes to protect them from the environment, and most importantly, reproductive capability.
Thus were the first single-celled organisms, which evolved into increasingly complex forms of life to survive the rapidly, and violently, changing environment of the Cambrian Era.

Evolution is fact. Whether such processes are "guided" by a divine entity or not is up to you to decide. Regardless, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
I'm in an inquisitive mood lately so here goes.....

If the Sun were to suddenly be extinguished and the solar system became a frozen wasteland with us included, then could some life on Earth survive for an extremely long period of time in a suspended state?

Don't know how to work religion into this so I'll just wonder if God feels cold at times.:D
 
Demanding that the first events of life formation be reproduced in a lab is ridiculous. It demonstrates a startling ignorance of scope and statistics.

Early Earth was one giant laboratory. With every single range of toxicity, temperature, wetness, acidity, chalkiness, etc... Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of individual petri dishes. Each one had thousands upon thousands upon thousands of individual trials. We are talking about experimental data that would require scientific notation to even discuss.

But the biggest advantage that Early Earth had was a complete lack of competition. You had so many potential downhill chemical reactions lying in wait, and no predators. The first chemical reactions that resembled life would have found nothing but food and brethren.

These advantages, and the massive scales on which they were played, make life look nothing like a miracle. It makes it a foregone conclusion. Complex life will begin on any warm and wet planet in the universe, no doubt about it. Especially, as Sarkus has shown with his links, the preponderance of complex building-blocks that exist in the void.

I recommend "Vital Dust" to anyone genuinely curious about how life began. Also, The Teaching Company has an excellent lecture series on how life got started with some of the latest findings, such as an experiment that showed the beginnings of chemical life in ice, rather than one requiring heat and impacts!
 
swivel said:
Demanding that the first events of life formation be reproduced in a lab is ridiculous. It demonstrates a startling ignorance of scope and statistics.

Early Earth was one giant laboratory. With every single range of toxicity, temperature, wetness, acidity, chalkiness, etc... Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of individual petri dishes. Each one had thousands upon thousands upon thousands of individual trials. We are talking about experimental data that would require scientific notation to even discuss.

But the biggest advantage that Early Earth had was a complete lack of competition. You had so many potential downhill chemical reactions lying in wait, and no predators. The first chemical reactions that resembled life would have found nothing but food and brethren.

These advantages, and the massive scales on which they were played, make life look nothing like a miracle. It makes it a foregone conclusion. Complex life will begin on any warm and wet planet in the universe, no doubt about it. Especially, as Sarkus has shown with his links, the preponderance of complex building-blocks that exist in the void.

I recommend "Vital Dust" to anyone genuinely curious about how life began. Also, The Teaching Company has an excellent lecture series on how life got started with some of the latest findings, such as an experiment that showed the beginnings of chemical life in ice, rather than one requiring heat and impacts!
Click to expand...
so in short, empiricism is grossly inadequate as a tool to answer this question, yet there is value in listening to an empirical rendition of it?
:m::eek:
 
albertchong1999 said:
Do u ever thinking how the life on earth exist? do u think it is so coincident it happened from big bang theory or volcanic activity found on earth?asteriod strike and lighting caused life to exist? the accidental combination of all element together to form DNA and human? millions lifes on earth born from single cell molecule?

the life on earth is too complicated to happen in chances. even nowadays scientist can't even create a single cell molecule given all the element and resource. Even single cell molecule has a very complicated function itself,needless to say other higher primates.. human anatomy has millions of individual function. there is no coincident.

there are 2 answer. one is GOD that create us. Or other options is from alien create us, but there must be some one that create alien in the first place. in other word there must a creator behind us that create human and life on earth. no need to argue, it is definite answer. no need to waste resource to search for answer.

even God has planned your entire life. He hold your lifetime diary, life, death, good or bad luck he had written down even before you are born! believe me or not? think about it.
Click to expand...


Excluding the pre-destination aspects that many apply to the concept of God and creation. I see creation as a very viable answer even it is not directly provable. Ultimately the answer of the original condition of the universe has the same problem. It's beyond our perview to answer definitively with emperical evidence as a creator would be aswell.

The creator concept reaches into a place that is undefinable by physics time or space, just as the origins of the universe must. To even answer the question means one...God must communicate with us or....we must become more than what we are in this existence of 3 Dimensions and attempt to redefine matter and energy to transcend to the state that existed before the universe was.

For all intents and purposees....that might as well be magic.
 
swivel said:
There are two problems with an eternal creator:

1. The ability to create the universe and everything in it means that you are "simplifying" the creative process by positing something that is greater, and more complex, than the thing you are trying to explain away. In other words: your god is more unlikely than the universe for which you are seeking an origin.

2. An eternal creator could never arrive at the moment at which it creates the universe. If it could, then the length of time it existed before creation must be measurable, hence the creator is not eternal.
Click to expand...

I am confused about number 1. How does the ability to create go hand in hand with simplifying?

Also the definition of God, or at least concerning the creation, would say that God is outside of time. So you can exist before something and still be eternal.

His son,

Blair M. Smith <><
 
Warrior61 said:
Also the definition of God, or at least concerning the creation, would say that God is outside of time. So you can exist before something and still be eternal.

His son,

Blair M. Smith <><
Click to expand...

This "outside of time" claim really has no meaning and is a pure strawman, constructed by the religious to throw off those that argue against their baseless and superstitious claims.

"Outside of time" itself is a claim, to which the claimant has a burden to produce evidence for. Show us that which can be demonstrated to exist "outside of time," please. Claims like this are speculative at best and, when asserted firmly, are pseudo-intellectual. In addition, this certainly doesn't describe the Christian god, to which you are clearly a devotee based upon your avatar. This is because this particular god is described by Christian mythology as interacting with humans, causing changes in the daily lives of humans, demanding actions and intentions from humanity, and all manner of interaction with the physical universe around us.

Such behavior of agency and causation would require that one, even a god, be a member of "time." Moreover, a "timeless" entity would not find it necessary to change the course of events to begin with since these events are all happening at once, already happened, and have never happened to the entity outside of time. Further, if the Christian god were "perfect" (as Christian apologists are fond of reminding each other), then he would know that humanity and the universe, being his creations, cannot be flawed and require no change.

If there is a god in the universe, it isn't the one invented by those that call themselves "Christian."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top