How did the first living thing on earth come to life?

[doppelganger]

I've heard that the Vedas give a description on the the creation of the earth that is similar to the "big bang" theory.

Now that's interesting! Can you go into the details of the version from the Vedas that remind you of the Big Bang?

 

[pete29]

Wow, you must be billions of years old? Are you Santa Claus? I'm just joking. There are other believers here Pete. Did you see my previous post in relation to what you said?.....



I think that is sweet. Isn't that what faith is about? Don't worry, the human mind is too limited to comprehend everything that God does. I remember in high school, one of my biology texts said that scientists are unsure about how the child begins to live in the mother's womb. Yes, they can explain the formation of the foetus and how the child is sustained in the womb etc. but not how it actually BECOMES alive. Did scientists figure out that one yet? I remember when I read that, the first thing I thought was - this is where God gives life to the unborn baby.

I'm not really that old i was just trying to get those guys to lighten up unborn babies are very important to me. a few months before my youngest daughter was born we found out that she was going to be born with a serious birth defect. the doctors told my wife that they could take care of it for her i.e. abortion. i had no say in the matter even though this was my child too. fortunatly my wife chose life. my daughter is now a teenager and she has brought more happiness into our livesa than she has ever caused us grief.

 

[pete29]

Touche my friend.
I think science has done more for the explanation of creation than religion though!
Also science has prooved that global warming is very very real, yet alot of religions seem to be dismissing this as it doesn't fit with their beliefs.
Yet another case of religious ignorance holding the world back from education.

science i think can be at least partially blamed for global warming although you're right it is the driving force inany solution. i'm not aware of any religions that dismiss global warming, would you please enlighten me so i can do research.

 

[pete29]

one more small thought No one will ever prove the existance of God(that would defeat the purpose of having faith ) since God cannot be proved, any influence he had on creation can't be proved either, but to me there has to be some intelligence behind the creation of such beauty i've seen in nature. Sunrises alone can stir my faith.

 

[Hema]

Now that's interesting! Can you go into the details of the version from the Vedas that remind you of the Big Bang?

Taken from:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/conscious/consc_2.html

"In the Rig Veda, there is a sukta or a great hymn called Nasadiya Sukta. There was a potential, which looked like a universal darkness. This ubiquitous all-pervading dark potential is supposed to be the concentrated will of God, proposing to outline in His own mind the details of the creation yet to be.

This great declaration in the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda may be compared with the big bang theory of the modern physicists. There was one indescribable point, the nucleus of the would-be expanding universe. That nucleus was not in space and not in time, because space and time had not been created yet. It was a bindu, as Tantra Sastra will tell us. It is a point, but it is not a geometrical point which requires a space in order to locate itself. This is a point, neither conceivable logically, nor describable geometrically; that is why in an enigmatic manner philosophers tell us it is a centre which is everywhere, with circumference nowhere. It is as if this centre of a circle has become the circumference itself, and the whole circle is centre only. Geometrically, from the Euclidian point of view, we cannot imagine such a kind of circle. How could the periphery, the circumference, also become the centre? Therefore, this centre which is the pre-big bang condition is as indescribable and enigmatic as the dark potential of the would-be creative process presented before us by the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda in the tenth book.
Surprising indeed is what comes out of this proposition. There was no space and time before the big bang took place; therefore, there was no distance of one thing from another. So, we have come from a distanceless point, which means to say even now, at this moment, when we appear to be far, far away at a distance of inconceivable light years of distance from that point, we are still sitting in that point only. We will be flabbergasted to think like this. Even at this moment, we are sitting at the very same point where we were before the big bang took place. If we go deep into this mystery, we will realise that creation is an illusion. Otherwise, how after millions of years of the developmental process of spatial expansion and incredible distance can we still be at the same point where we started? That means creation has not taken place. Even modern physics can confirm this, to its own chagrin, though creation is not its field of enquiry.
The first verse of Manusmritti says that there was a darkness prevailing everywhere. The pre-big bang condition was darkness, we may say, because there was no sunlight at that time. Solar light manifested itself as a concentration of energy subsequent to the occurrence of the big bang, whereas prior to the occurrence of this big bang, there was an all-pervading, equally distributed energy, without any excess of concentration anywhere. When energy is equally distributed, it will all be darkness only. There will be no light. If all the stars in all the solar systems everywhere get distributed in their heat and light throughout the cosmos, there will be no light.
So, there is a point in saying that before creation, it was darkness, but it was darkness due to the excess of light. It was not really darkness. The light potential was so much that it could manifest itself as millions of shining suns and galaxies afterwards. We are accustomed to perceivable light which can be visible to the eyes. If the eyes cannot catch a particular vibration, which we call light waves, we say there is no light. Even if there is light, the eyes cannot catch that frequency, if it is too high.
Vishvarupa was shown. Bhagavan Sri Krishna showed it several times. The splash of light was such that hundreds and thousands of suns were rising, as it were, blinding the eyes of all people, and they saw darkness everywhere. Why go so far? Gaze at the sun with open eyes for a second. This we should not do, of course, always. I am just mentioning this as an illustration. If we look at the sun, that brilliance impinges on the retina of the eyes; then afterwards, when we look anywhere, we will see only pitch dark. Dark spots of sun we will see. We will not see the light of the sun; we will see darkness. Even if we gaze at the sun for some time, the force of the energy waves impinging on the eyes will be so intense that the sun also may look like a darkness. So, our idea of darkness and light is sensorially oriented. Even if we behold the light of God, we will consider it as pitch darkness.
This is a little bit of comparison between the modern physical theory of the big bang and the indescribable, incredible consequences that follow from this wonderful discovery where the subsequent spatial expansion has not in any way contradicted the abolition of this distance, which was prior to the big bang, making out thereby that we have never been born at all. We are still there in the same place where we were before the big bang took place. Thus, it means that we are immortal. Neither were we born, nor can we die, because that centre cannot be born. The expanded universe is an illusory, indescribable, enigmatic phenomena which no human being can conceive. No human being can conceive it, because human beings are involved in the very process of this incredible manifestation."​

 

[Hema]

I'm not really that old i was just trying to get those guys to lighten up unborn babies are very important to me. a few months before my youngest daughter was born we found out that she was going to be born with a serious birth defect. the doctors told my wife that they could take care of it for her i.e. abortion. i had no say in the matter even though this was my child too. fortunatly my wife chose life. my daughter is now a teenager and she has brought more happiness into our livesa than she has ever caused us grief.

That is so beautiful. Frubals for you. BTW, I was just joking about the Santa Claus thing. However, is there a possiblity that you could be the tooth fairy? I'm just joking...you don't have to answer that. Sometimes, I go off into a silliness trance.

 

[doppelganger]

Taken from:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/conscious/consc_2.html

Very cool. Thanks, Hema. Do you think human self-awareness is a sort of "Big Bang"?

 

[darkpenguin]

science i think can be at least partially blamed for global warming although you're right it is the driving force inany solution. i'm not aware of any religions that dismiss global warming, would you please enlighten me so i can do research.

Evanagelical christians such as the ones in the controversial film Jesus Camp teach their kids that global warming and evolution are not real. If you can find a copy of the film you should watch it, it's very enlightening and scary!

 

[Hema]

Very cool. Thanks, Hema. Do you think human self-awareness is a sort of "Big Bang"?

I really tried to rack my brains to think of a different way to answer this but the only way I know how is from a Hindu perspective. From a Hindu viewpoint, God is one but has both a male aspect and female aspect. The male aspect or Shiva is the cosmic consciousness and the female aspect is energy or the creative force of the universe. The human body is like a miniature of the universe and we have both of these aspects within us. There is an Indian concept called “Sphota” which signifies the sound or vibration from which the phenomenal world emanated. Sort of like the “Om” I mentioned and the “Tao” you mentioned in pervious posts. A “Sphota Vada” concept states that every essence of the universe is Sphota and that every act of creation is a duplication of the Big Bang. (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Big_Bang_Theory/id/221124) As I mentioned previously, the human body is a miniature of the universe and have both aspects of God – consciousness and creative energy. We are co-creators with God when we create thoughts of our own. Therefore, when we can create a notion of self awareness, it is also a duplication of the Big Bang according to the concept of “Sphota”.

 

[doppelganger]

As I mentioned previously, the human body is a miniature of the universe and have both aspects of God – consciousness and creative energy. We are co-creators with God when we create thoughts of our own. Therefore, when we can create a notion of self awareness, it is also a duplication of the Big Bang according to the concept of “Sphota”.

Very interesting. I've really enjoyed reading your perspective, Hema. And now I have a new symbol to work with and explore as well - Sphota. My first thought from reading your description is that it captures at least some of the sense of both "incarnation" and being "made in the image of God." I'll have to think about it for a while though.

 

[painted wolf]

there is an Evangelical movement to save the Earth from Global Warming... so its hard to stereotype.

now back to the OP once again, if you please.

wa:do

 

[pete29]

ive often found that it is silliness that keeps us sane

 

[logician]

there is an Evangelical movement to save the Earth from Global Warming... so its hard to stereotype.

now back to the OP once again, if you please.

wa:do

I would say most republicans pooh-pooh global warming.

 

[Yerda]

i'm not aware of any religions that dismiss global warming, would you please enlighten me so i can do research.

Market fundamentalism.

 

[s2a]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=710846#post710846

So "NO"..."I don't know"...or...?

 

[Flappycat]

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

According to evolution, at one time after the earth formed, there was no life whatever to be found. It was all a primordeal soup of elements that were boiling hot, etc etc. Then if I understand correctly, some elements randomly formed themselves in the proper order, lightning struck and viola - we have our first living cell/virus whatever.

My question is this, what is the theory of how the first living thing CAME TO LIFE? We are easily able to assemble elements into whatever fashion we choose in a lab but cannot make non-living material come to life right? Why can it not be replicated, it should be simple for us to assemble a cell into the proper configuration and bring it to life, right (now lets be honest, taking a formerly living cell and transferring a new nucleus aint the same thing)? Isn't this teaching spontaneous generation?

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

They don't know. It's like investigating the scene of a crime that was commited billions of years ago. There are hundreds of plausible theories, but that's part of the problem. For all they know, the first instance of life could have originated on some space rock. It could even be older than the Earth itself. If you want pithy explanations, sit in a pew for a while, and let your pastor spoonfeed you pithy explanations from dawn to dusk. Unlike your church pastor, however, scientists actually engage in this little thing called research, and they put time and effort into formulating their conclusions. Also unlike your church pastor, they're busy making it possible for your kids to eat without the government having to place restrictions on how many of them you can have, so they don't always have time to pursue what really only amounts to a matter of curiosity. What further seperates them from your church pastor is they're not going to feed you some lie or pop philosophy when they don't know the answer to something. Frankly, how dare you malign someone for trying to be truthful with you? Do you like being fed lies? All the scientists know so far is that there was a time in which there was no presence of life on Earth, and even that is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty. If you want someone who claims to get his information from an all-knowing god, either go and sit in a pew with the other cattle, or talk to someone who's smoked a few reefers.

Look, I'm sorry to sound mean, but, to truly appreciate the work that our scientists are doing, you have to understand that the quest for true understanding is really hard. It takes time and resources. If they knew, they would tell you, but the fact is that they simply do not. Like any honest and serious person, they don't claim to have the answer or solution for everything.

 

[Rough_ER]

They don't know. It's like investigating the scene of a crime that was commited billions of years ago. There are hundreds of plausible theories, but that's part of the problem. For all they know, the first instance of life could have originated on some space rock. It could even be older than the Earth itself. If you want pithy explanations, sit in a pew for a while, and let your pastor spoonfeed you pithy explanations from dawn to dusk. Unlike your church pastor, however, scientists actually engage in this little thing called research, and they put time and effort into formulating their conclusions. Also unlike your church pastor, they're busy making it possible for your kids to eat without the government having to place restrictions on how many of them you can have, so they don't always have time to pursue what really only amounts to a matter of curiosity. What further seperates them from your church pastor is they're not going to feed you some lie or pop philosophy when they don't know the answer to something. Frankly, how dare you malign someone for trying to be truthful with you? Do you like being fed lies? All the scientists know so far is that there was a time in which there was no presence of life on Earth, and even that is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty. If you want someone who claims to get his information from an all-knowing god, either go and sit in a pew with the other cattle, or talk to someone who's smoked a few reefers.

Look, I'm sorry to sound mean, but, to truly appreciate the work that our scientists are doing, you have to understand that the quest for true understanding is really hard. It takes time and resources. If they knew, they would tell you, but the fact is that they simply do not. Like any honest and serious person, they don't claim to have the answer or solution for everything.

Superb. :clap Frubals.

 

[michel]

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.

I have to say I believe that. I believe that "How life very fiest began" is all due to God. (be he God, Allah..........whatever name suits everyone).

 

[Comprehend]

They don't know. It's like investigating the scene of a crime that was commited billions of years ago. There are hundreds of plausible theories, but that's part of the problem. For all they know, the first instance of life could have originated on some space rock. It could even be older than the Earth itself. If you want pithy explanations, sit in a pew for a while, and let your pastor spoonfeed you pithy explanations from dawn to dusk. Unlike your church pastor, however, scientists actually engage in this little thing called research, and they put time and effort into formulating their conclusions. Also unlike your church pastor, they're busy making it possible for your kids to eat without the government having to place restrictions on how many of them you can have, so they don't always have time to pursue what really only amounts to a matter of curiosity. What further seperates them from your church pastor is they're not going to feed you some lie or pop philosophy when they don't know the answer to something. Frankly, how dare you malign someone for trying to be truthful with you? Do you like being fed lies? All the scientists know so far is that there was a time in which there was no presence of life on Earth, and even that is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty. If you want someone who claims to get his information from an all-knowing god, either go and sit in a pew with the other cattle, or talk to someone who's smoked a few reefers.

Look, I'm sorry to sound mean, but, to truly appreciate the work that our scientists are doing, you have to understand that the quest for true understanding is really hard. It takes time and resources. If they knew, they would tell you, but the fact is that they simply do not. Like any honest and serious person, they don't claim to have the answer or solution for everything.

It seems you know as little about my "pastor" (hint, we don't have them) as you do about the topic. Thanks for the insults and the non-information. If you really feel the burning need to launch some meaningless attack on religion, could you start your own thread next time?

If there are hundreds of plausible theories, how about you give me three different theories that scientifically explain how the first living thing came to be "alive" that don't involve spontaneous generation?

 

[Flappycat]

It seems you know as little about my "pastor" (hint, we don't have them) as you do about the topic.

I'm aware of that. It was a broad use of the term. I do understand that it would have been more courteous and perhaps wiser of me to discover what you actually call your religious leaders.

Thanks for the insults and the non-information. If you really feel the burning need to launch some meaningless attack on religion, could you start your own thread next time?

Perhaps, instead of feeling affronted when you are met with criticism, you should attempt to gain something from it that may help you to grow as a person.

If there are hundreds of plausible theories, how about you give me three different theories that scientifically explain how the first living thing came to be "alive" that don't involve spontaneous generation?

As an extension of my point, I do not feel that I am particularly qualified to answer. For all that I know, it could be an inevitable thing to happen when basic organic compounds are present in an environment hospitable to their further organization. If I were pushed to make a suggestion, one possibility is simplistic, rapidly propagating replicators that can only survive in an environment completely free of depredation by other organisms, possibly a complex sugar of some sort. The precursors to this may well have originated on some comet. Silicon-based compounds found in rocks often perform similar tricks, so I've heard. If you're genuinely curious about the subject, why don't you research it yourself? Go to the nearest reputable library, preferably one found at a university campus, and attempt to find some up-to-date literature on evolutionary science. I am specializing in a few very specific varieties of neurotransmitter in hopes of assisting in future efforts at restoring damaged areas of the brain, and I don't keep up well with other aspects of science.