Life out of nothing...

[Acriku]

I found this article : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0130_030130_originslife.html

It is extremely interesting, and brings new thoughts in motion.

Introduction:

Long ago, before microbial organisms first took shape as organic cells and began to colonize the biosphere, naked living processes may have commenced within the confines of hollow bubbles of deep-sea rock.

This take on the origins and early stages of biochemistry, laid out in a bold new scientific treatise, could dramatically rewrite the opening chapters of the story of life on Earth. It also implies that extraterrestrial life might exist in much greater abundance that has been traditionally presumed.

What do you guys think?

[TMA_1]

good flights of fancy. ;) hehe :)

[slaphapy]

ya, i've heard about theories about how life on earth started......

i heard about someone that thought about a way that perhaps electricity could have started it (lightning storm) so he took the same gases or chemicals or whatever that are in the atmosphere and like found some way that they may have been able to start life or something......

anyway the problem with it was that he was using what we have in our atmosphere today ... which most likely was not anything close to what there was back then.... (wasn't oxygen untill animals started converting other gases into oxogen.)

although i think it is kind of cool how scientists can even think about that stuff....

in talking about the origins of earth..... have you heard about the different theories of the origin of the moon?

some of them are really, really kool.... some are the thing about an enourmous asteroid or something hit earth knocking off chunks and one got stuck in orbit.... one is that there were possibly 2 moons from the same thing the earth was from.... and then eventually one ran into the other because they went at different speeds.... one that i dont' believe because it would be just way too hard to have happen.... is that they believe that possibly some object was going past the earth and just happened to be at the perfect distance from earth to get caught in it's orbit (impossible i think.... or at least incredibly unlikely)

[exatreide]

or when the earth was forming and it was all molten redness, a big old chunk broke off, :)

or god created it. but we can prety much count that as a flight of fantasty...

[Acriku]

Yeah I've heard of the electric shock theory or whatever it is called, I don't really have a say on it, but it doesn't seem very probable to me.

Theories on the moon are pretty interesting, dat's a big chunk'a rock! As for the last theory you mention, I don't know - many strange things have happened before, so it might be possible for that to happen, but I don't know for sure.

[slaphapy]

i just want to ask... i'm not going to judge you by your answer or anything like that... do you believe in the religious belief in the creation of the earth ... or the scientific part

i have seen one funny thing....

i have seen this little fish or something that says jesus in the middle.... (personally i do not go to church, so i don't know what exactly it is for) ... anyway i have seen anther one that is a fish with Darwin in the middle and it has feet.. it is kind of funny i think

[Acriku]

Out of those choices, the scientific part.

Yeah I saw it, too, I want it so bad! lol it is so funny.

[slaphapy]

Out of those choices, the scientific part.

what other choices can you think of???

i know my grandma believes in a mix of the two....

she believes god created the earth and the earth just evolved from there.

[Acriku]

Well I mean you could break it down more, but generally, the scientific part.

[Edric O]

Slaphapy, it's a lot more complicated than that.

I'm a devout Christian, and I believe in both God and the scientific theory of evolution. Evolution, you see, is merely God's tool, the process he used to create the living world.

Far too many people these days think that science and religion are somehow in conflict. They are NOT. As Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

i have seen this little fish or something that says jesus in the middle....

That probably refers to an early Christian symbol, the fish (ichtyus in latin). ICHTYUS is an acronym for "Iesus Christi..." ummm, I can't quite remember the rest right now...

wasn't oxygen untill animals started converting other gases into oxogen

That was plants, actually.

although i think it is kind of cool how scientists can even think about that stuff....

Never let others do your thinking for you. Analyze things yourself.

[Dude_Doc]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

My belief in one sentence...

[Acriku]

We can't all be geologists or biochemists Edric, some of us (like me) do not have the knowledge of the study to understand everything completely and analyze everything.

[slaphapy]

although i think it is kind of cool how scientists can even think about that stuff....

Never let others do your thinking for you. Analyze things yourself.

does that mean that you never get any help from anyone?? u know there were many many things that scientists had help to figure out... not everything was discovered by just one person

[SurlyPIG]

Hard to say, really. The deep sea certainly doesn't seem like the most hospitable place for life to emerge. But there is a fascenating biosphere that lives there right now. It is largely unexplored. I think we, as humans, should look to the depths of the ocean to see what more we can find out about our planet. For instance, there have been animals found that thrive of the energy produced by volcanic openings in the deep sea? Crazy stuff, eh?

Far too many people these days think that science and religion are somehow in conflict. They are NOT. As Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

I disagree. The belief in an unsenseable deity goes against the scientific principle because it is without objective, observable evidence. In that respect, it is contrary.

[Acriku]

Well religion isn't necessarily theism.

[Edric O]

I disagree. The belief in an unsenseable deity goes against the scientific principle because it is without objective, observable evidence. In that respect, it is contrary.

It might not be respecting the scientific method, but then again, neither do most things. You can't apply the scientific method to everything.

But you missed the point. What I meant was that scientific advancement, and science in general, is not opposed to religion, as some people want to think.

...unless, of course, we turn science into a cvasi-religious entity, which is what certain people do.

does that mean that you never get any help from anyone?? u know there were many many things that scientists had help to figure out... not everything was discovered by just one person

No, no. I only meant to say that in order to form an opinion or talk about a certain subject you have to understand it yourself. Don't automatically assume that everything scientists say is pure truth. Before you support a certain view or theory, you must analyze it yourself.

[Inoculator9]

I vote science and evolution.

And I once saw a big Jesus fish eating a little Darwin fish. I could determine that it was a pro-creationist logo from the other bumperstickers, lol, but it implies evolution ;D

[sneezer3]

Personly, i Don't belive evolution. Because it has to many holes in it. and to many Questions that can't be answerd.

And personly, i don't belive Evolution and Cration are compatable, for one thing it says in John chapter one "And without him was not anything made" The Bible tells how we where made in the First book of the Bible, and history though time in the old testment and new testament.

Just my humable view :)

[Inoculator9]

It is a very valid idea. It's like pressing your finger into your arm and pulling it away to find a red mark, in the same way a people presented with no trees or bush would begin walking more upright. Its action and reaction.

[Andrew]

I beleive in science, but if you think of it you could say that the bible is propaganda because god himself did not write it(or proven to me),or just a book to get people to believe in something. On the other hand you could say that science is propaganda since they could be making it up for money or fame and based on nothing that is true.(or they are just plain wrong)

*just possibilities I came up with based on no facts*

[SurlyPIG]

It might not be respecting the scientific method, but then again, neither do most things. You can't apply the scientific method to everything.

Why not? I'll admit there are some things it won't work for because we havn't the capabilities to make the necessary observations, but why can't we use the methodology for every truth-seeking aspiration in general?

But you missed the point. What I meant was that scientific advancement, and science in general, is not opposed to religion, as some people want to think.

I won't argue that...I guess some people think that we set a double standard, utilizing science when it serves us but abandoning it when it comes to other such matters.

...unless, of course, we turn science into a cvasi-religious entity, which is what certain people do.

LOL I know exactly what you mean. Some people take science way too far, to a point most religions don't even reach. Might as well start worshiping the scientific method and swear on the periodic table as far as I'm concerned. But enough about that.

That article seemed a little sketchy...there didn't seem to be much detail and nothing really jumped out at me that made it seem more special than other life-origin theories.

[Acriku]

Let's not get this into an evolution debate! Although, as a side note, Sneezer your links get funnier and funnier! :D That second one nearly split my sides, and the third was a beautiful finish, Bravo man, Bravo. Seriously, my dad had to yell at me to shut up while I laughed.

Now get back to the topic I beg of you! :)

[slaphapy]

Personly, i Don't belive evolution. Because it has to many holes in it. and to many Questions that can't be answerd.

true, evolution does have holes in it, but most of it can be proved, but there is no proof at all that god or someone created everything... all religion has is a bible or something... which is, in my opinion, just a big book of story's none of which can be proved... scientists have even tried to prove them.... i have never heard of one that was proved

[Edric O]

The historical accounts in the Bible have been proven for the most part, which is why the Old Testament is considered an amazingly accurate portrayal of the history of the Jewish people.

The part that hasn't been proven, of course, are the accounts of divine intervention, miracles, etc. But even assuming they were all true, you still cannot prove them, short of going back in time to see for yourself.

Lack of proof does not constitute proof of the contrary.

Why not? I'll admit there are some things it won't work for because we havn't the capabilities to make the necessary observations, but why can't we use the methodology for every truth-seeking aspiration in general?

You answered the question yourself - we don't have the capabilities to make the necessary observations.

I won't argue that...I guess some people think that we set a double standard, utilizing science when it serves us but abandoning it when it comes to other such matters.

Well, you don't. :) But it's getting increasingly common among the atheist community overall... Many people insist on turning it into a religion of non-religion. (which is downright sad... :( )

Might as well start worshiping the scientific method and swear on the periodic table as far as I'm concerned.

ROFL! :D Don't worry, we're getting there! ;D

Have you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation? One of the things in it is a religion of science... although that one was designed on purpose, not appeared spontaneously. But it's a very good read anyway, almost as good as Dune. ;)

Sneezer: ...no comment...

[Inoculator9]

The Foundation series was great,lol.

But as you said, the Old Testament is a very accurate history of the Jews, but the New Testament that follows it is very vague with references to things but no real descriptions.