Prologos: no that is ofcourse the belief, however if for instance rna or an internal metabolism was later adaptions as some suggest the early life could have been very different from modern life.
Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared
by EndofMysteries 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LoveUniHateExams
Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared - scientists admit this, and are working hard to try to solve this puzzle.
-
prologos
Bohm, organic life cascading through different stages makes it more remarkable does it not? just starting to read "The Promise and Peril of Digital Immortality" to see the non-organic side of it. There WE are the creators. -
Viviane
Viviane: Very ample, much panties, such wow, why so anger? Everything = misrepresentation, plz no, your knowledge such science, very good, forum great benefit, such honestly, intellectual, super geniusly, rewarding talk, wow.
Goodbye dear. I've really no more time for your .... whatever issue it is you have that's causing you to chase me around and act like a fool.
-
Village Idiot
LoveUniHateExams:
"Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared"
They have a lot of answers as to how life evolved from microbes to the present. The only puzzle is how self reproducing molecules, which preceded microbes, came about.
With the evolution of life and matter itself being a proven certainty they simply have a couple pieces of the puzzle missing - for now.
-
bohm
Prologos: I think so as well. It is very strange to think about primitive life as something between a soup full of chemical reactions and something that could be said to transmit information.
Viviane: Oh no! I feel so terrible that you leave me alone; I was just getting so happified with the abuse. But don't worry, if I place a paste-it lap at the bottom of the screen which says "Everything you ever wrote is misrepresentations and lies. Take a basic science class fool" and I imagine a steamed lobster, it is as if you are still there lol.
-
Twitch
Lmao -
Viviane
So, anyway, there is no requirement of science to test every possible idea. A person may choose to go that route, but it is certainly not part of the scientific method. -
EndofMysteries
So, anyway, there is no requirement of science to test every possible idea. A person may choose to go that route, but it is certainly not part of the scientific method.
So Viviane, in Turkey there are these ancient ruins that have been uncovered, the Gobekli Tepe. Now why is it people are assuming that humans made them? Why aren't scientists coming up with theories on how natural processes made it? A bunch of earthquakes and things could have caused the stones to get carved up, and then landshift and earthquakes cause them to get filled up and buried, etc.
Anyway, how life first began, that is life on this planet, looking into intelligent life vs random as part of all possibilities then your claim that then one must look at a rhino made of pigs is a ridiculous comparison. One would consider the possiblity where any sort of intelligent life is responsible for life on this planet, whether biological alien scientists, God, a rhino of pigs, etc. Before specifics of how many broad possibilities for how life began. 1. Random from chemicals and conditions of 3.5 billion years ago and it all began on this planet. 2. Remnants from another planet/world/solar system/galaxy (water) got to this planet and started the cycle. 3. Biological intelligent life started it. 4. Life that is not biological or beyond what we know began it. etc.etc.
Anyway the scientific process doesn't mean that all hypothesis that life originates on this planet and by random chance and that is the only possibility that is considered and investigated. If that is what you believe then your as close minded as you were when you were a JW.
-
Viviane
Now why is it people are assuming that humans made them?
Because there is no other known process by which that a structure like that can occur. As soon as there is evidence suggesting otherwise, they will investigate that.
Why aren't scientists coming up with theories on how natural processes made it?
Because in all of history and observation, there is nothing to indicate that is likely or has ever happened.
A bunch of earthquakes and things could have caused the stones to get carved up, and then landshift and earthquakes cause them to get filled up and buried, etc.
Very true. It also could have been caused by your sister that you might not have even know you had traveling back in time in a TARDIS just to mess with you. But, since there is zero evidence that either of those things can, does or has ever happened, there is no investigation into it.
Anyway, how life first began, that is life on this planet, looking into intelligent life vs random as part of all possibilities then your claim that then one must look at a rhino made of pigs is a ridiculous comparison. One would consider the possiblity where any sort of intelligent life is responsible for life on this planet, whether biological alien scientists, God, a rhino of pigs, etc.
Well, first of all, it's not "random". Secondly, since there is no evidence of intelligent life outside of humans, one cannot assume what form it would take. You simply don't know. Therefore, if you claim that, to be scientific, one must look at ALL possibilities, that must be included. For all you know, God is a rhino made of pigs and that is what spirit is made of, pigs. All means all.
Anyway the scientific process doesn't mean that all hypothesis that life originates on this planet and by random chance and that is the only possibility that is considered and investigated.
No one said it did. You clearly didn't understand what you said, my response or the implications of either.
If that is what you believe then your as close minded as you were when you were a JW.
I don't believe it. Only and idiot would and only someone who doesn't understand the scientific method or basic logic would derive that from what I said.
The basic problem with "all" is that first, it's a logical impossibility. Even if you want to include only broad topics as "all", you can't ever know if there is something you don't know, therefore you can't say you've investigated "all", ever. Period. Full stop. Do not pass go.
Secondly, there are some topics that are outside investigative possibilities. You say "god may have done it and we should investigate", but there is no way to do that. God is invisible, made of undetectable stuff that no one can describe, able to perfectly hide from detection and, according to Christian scripture, will cause death just by even looking at him. It's a perfectly un-investigatable explanation. There is no way to move forward. There is no evidence that ANYTHING was every cause by an invisible undetectable intelligence made of unknown stuff.
Why should anyone investigate that?