The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Way The World Is.

The Way The World Is.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
To SteeleRedux

Can life be traced back to raw material deposited on earth to make up DNA and RNA? Our planet just happens to allow this raw material to flourish and start the process of life on earth? Why would that last even if hypothetically it is thought to have happened?

Is our diversity spun by starting as single cell organisms (note that even those are very complex and would be hard to reach from the raw material stage), to then spread through evolutionary changes to make up the diversity that we now have? Leaps and bounds of change. Evolution can be debated for if it is justified within the scope of its field. Which is to study the differences and similarities between species. What it can not do is build a bridge to vastly different species, nor to theorize life coming from a single simple life form. At that stage it just turns into philosophy. No science backing it up. A sad fact of evolution as a whole. It has become a philosophy and a concept to base other theories on, instead of a field where more is actually learned. To much of the field has nothing to do with scientific advancement or understanding.

Is our world still around after several extinction level calamities have occurred on earth, because "life finds a way?" Why is it so rare that we can't find life anywhere outside of earth then?

All of these views on life and their influence on theories for how the world formed and became what we have today are just philosophical stances with no real merit. In fact unfortunately most of these theories get in each other's way and ignore scientific understanding as a whole in order to hold up their conclusions.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 19 August 2019 6:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Why put a fuss about God creating the world. At least there's evidence that He exists. All of the scientific theories for why Earth has life on it are missing the smoking gun of actual evidence. They are philosophy. But God is real. If you don't believe me that's fine. It doesn't matter. What you can offer though is a better hypothesis or explanation then what I've come across so far.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 19 August 2019 6:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr. Opinion.

Is the question of God only a philosphical question? Too bad He can be found then isn't it. Makes the philosophical questioning seem silly.

Regarding the world we live in. Do you have a better explaination of the world we live in then that it was created?
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 19 August 2019 6:53:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

If you are asking if we need to use philosophy to answer questions that cannot be answered by science then the answer is YES.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 19 August 2019 7:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

Have you heard of the field of abiogenesis?

“Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.”

“ earliest life on Earth existed more than 3.5 billion years ago, the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. The earliest physical evidence so far found consists of microfossils in the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt of Northern Quebec, in "banded iron formation" rocks at least 3.77 billion and possibly 4.28 billion years old. This finding suggested that there was almost instant development of life after oceans were formed. The structure of the microbes was noted to be similar to bacteria found near hydrothermal vents in the modern era, and provided support for the hypothesis that abiogenesis began near hydrothermal vents.”

“Also noteworthy is biogenic graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks from southwestern Greenland and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone from Western Australia. Evidence of early life in rocks from Akilia Island, near the Isua supracrustal belt in southwestern Greenland, dating to 3.7 billion years ago have shown biogenic carbon isotopes. In other parts of the Isua supracrustal belt, graphite inclusions trapped within garnet crystals are connected to the other elements of life: oxygen, nitrogen, and possibly phosphorus in the form of phosphate, providing further evidence for life 3.7 billion years ago. At Strelley Pool, in the Pilbararegion of Western Australia, compelling evidence of early life was found in pyrite-bearing sandstone in a fossilized beach, that showed rounded tubular cells that oxidized sulfur by photosynthesis in the absence of oxygen. Further research on zircons from Western Australia in 2015 suggested that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago.”
Wikipedia

Complex organic molecules are being discovered in space.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29368984

Your God of the gaps is sitting on a pin head yet you still persevere?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 19 August 2019 7:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion,

Hume was a Scotsman and all that entails but let's run with him for a moment.

I put it to you that NNS 'senses' his God. It may not be in the way Hume would describe senses, but it is certainly more than an idea.

He 'feels' there must be something to fill his existential 'bereftments' so to speak. Why do you think Hume was antagonistic to such notions?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 19 August 2019 7:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy