Pre-earth is not a bad term. I think it is fine. It does take an assumption to believe it was any different. Yes, or no?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Enough Time for Evolution?
- Thread starter Shermana
- Start date
Pre-earth is not a bad term. I think it is fine. It does take an assumption to believe it was any different. Yes, or no?
No. The belief that Earth existed for a long while already before there was life in it is a natural and necessary consequence of the study of available evidence. I don't see how you could reasonably call that an assumption.
Your right! But it is not what I said. I asked if the conditions can be proved to have been different. Of course Earth was different when it had no life on it. I would call you silly but you are a monitor.
I am silly. I have long accepted that. It is a non-issue.
Edited to add: but then, what is that assumption again?
Last edited:
It also takes an assumption to believe that you weren't poofed into existence last Thursday.
The difference is that some assumptions are reasonable and some are not.
I agree!
Thank you. I was ready to delete but there it was. I am sorry.
The assumption is the conditions were appropriate for the chemical reactions to occur, but there is no proof the conditions were any different (except there was no life).
Is that an assumption at all?
How is that different from assuming, for instance, that there was a planet that could sustain life?
Well, actually there is. Pre-life, the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere was necessarily much lower, since it was photosynthetic life that ultimately split oxygen from the carbon in carbon dioxide.
Really?
Well, yes. But she had an excellent idea that carbon dioxide was not as it is now. Good, very good! I suppose what I meant was they say the conditions were obviously well suited for the development of life. That is a leap imo.
Alceste
Vagabond
Carbon dioxide is the same as ever. She said there was no oxygen. Oxygen is the waste of plant life. The "dioxide" in carbon dioxide refers to two molecules of oxygen. Plants free those molecules and keep the carbon.
There was no oxygen because there were no plants. But there was carbon dioxide? How do you know what was there? There was carbon but no oxygen. And plants need carbon dioxide but there was no oxygen to make carbon dioxide.
There was oxygen, it just wasn't "free"; it was bound up in the carbon dioxide.
Alceste
Vagabond
We can learn a lot about the early atmosphere of earth by studying rocks. They retain trace elements of the atmosphere that existed when the rocks were formed, sealed inside.
"Free" oxygen never appeared before plants did.
Alceste
Vagabond
Exactly. I was just correcting the sentence "carbon dioxide was different", that's all.
Well, no ...
I do like that you are a man of few words. Really I do.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Imagine if we treated computers he way some treat biological evolution.
"I do not understand how it works, so it does not exist"
"I do not understand how it works, so it does not exist"