Life From Dirt?

[blü 2]

It says nothing of the sort as you are misinterpreting Genesis 2:5.

Yup, Genesis 1:29 clearly states that plants had been made earlier, though just when isn't clearly stated.

 

[Valjean]

Wow, Einstein believed Jesus was a “real person”, from the details presented in the Gospels.

Thanks for posting that!

It says nothing about evolution, though…

Sir, I think you are the one misrepresenting his views, to suit your bias…

Can you post a reputable source supporting your claim that Einstein accepted common descent evolution, i.e., from a common ancestor? I wouldn’t doubt it, I’d just like to read it.

I wasn't aware Einstein was a biologist.

 

[Valjean]

You mean just like the explanation / interpretation of the abrupt appearance of unique body plans in the Cambrian explosion.

Made up to justify the bias.

Is there some extraordinary biological mystery about the Cambrian?
Is there any evidence of magic -- anywhere?

 

[shunyadragon]

Dust to dust.

matter, energy, information, conscience - I think these are the eternal building blocks of the universe, cannot be created or destroyed, changing form. Just as matter is changed by energy, I think it can also be changed with conscience. Just as I don't see a single energy source for it all, I don't see a single conscience source for it all - just another substance that forms things.

I see evidence for Quantum Mechanics information as the basis for energy and matter. Our physical existence conforms predicably to Natural Laws based on the advancing knowledge of science.

the problem with the subjective claim that there is a conscious 'Source(s)' or Consciousness beyond our physical existence is this proposal is beyond anything that can be objectively observed. The problem is similar to the belief in 'Source' called God(s).

I am a scientist and believe in God, but realize it is a subjective belief,

 

[YoursTrue]

Not immediately accurate?!?!?!? Your ignorance of science is standing up front.

Yes, based on present evidence and the fossil found ~3.5 billion years ago in the rocks formed in mid-ocean hydrothermal vents support the beginning of life in this environment at this time.
Totally devoid of any science, and made up to justify an ancient tribal agenda.

No

About "LUCA" -- Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia
It is all hypothesis so far.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you saying, you think the complexity of life is beyond logical reduction?
Because if so, then that's an admission of incredulity. A naivety, imo.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but it is not beyond truth to say that the complexity of life is beyond logical reduction.

 

[shunyadragon]

About "LUCA" -- Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia
It is all hypothesis so far.

Good source, unfortunately, you are illiterate in science and do not understand what you cite. No. it is not all hypotheses so far, Yes, our knowledge is incomplete, but, yes, the current fossil evidence found in hydrothermal vents supports LUCA. There are two estimates of the first living organism approached from different methods that come up with the same result. This is how theories and hypotheses are confirmed over time when different approaches achieve the same result. Yes virtually all science begins with proposed hypotheses making predictions and confirming from different methods.

All you appear to be able to do is cite references and ask questions and you are clueless concerning the science involved.

 

[YoursTrue]

I wasn't aware Einstein was a biologist.

One does not have to be a biologist to understand the process of supposed evolution. Are you a biologist? and even if you are, can you or any biologist say that they truly "understand" how evolution really happens? (I don't think so.) They may guess, but they don't know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good source, unfortunately, you are illiterate in science and do not understand what you cite. No. it is not all hypotheses so far, Yes, our knowledge is incomplete, but, yes, the current fossil evidence found in hydrothermal vents supports LUCA.

All you appear to be able to do is cite references and ask questions and you are clueless concerning the science involved.

Illiterate or not, Mr. Shunydragon, the fact is that no human knows how it all began or didn't begin with a substance burgeoning out to become plants and animals. Not even you.

 

[idea]

I see evidence for Quantum Mechanics information as the basis for energy and matter. Our physical existence conforms predicably to Natural Laws based on the advancing knowledge of science.

the problem with the subjective claim that there is a conscious 'Source(s)' or Consciousness beyond our physical existence is this proposal is beyond anything that can be objectively observed. The problem is similar to the belief in 'Source' called God(s).

I am a scientist and believe in God, but realize it is a subjective belief,

Brainwaves can be measured, IQ can be measured. Not beyond our experience, within ourself. We have one, have a conscience - can analyze the conscience within ourselves and within others.

information, and the entity that interprets/uses/understands the information. A book vs. the mind that reads the book.

 

[Valjean]

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but it is not beyond truth to say that the complexity of life is beyond logical reduction.

Why, when most of the mechanisms and small steps involved are observable and well understood? Complex doesn't require magic.

 

[Valjean]

Illiterate or not, Mr. Shunydragon, the fact is that no human knows how it all began or didn't begin with a substance burgeoning out to become plants and animals. Not even you.

How the universe began, or life?
Unknown doesn't equal God. We know it happened, so what's more likely: familiar, tangible physics and chemistry, or magic?

 

[Valjean]

One does not have to be a biologist to understand the process of supposed evolution. Are you a biologist? and even if you are, can you or any biologist say that they truly "understand" how evolution really happens? (I don't think so.) They may guess, but they don't know.

The major mechanisms of evolution are, in fact, well known. Most are readily reproducible, observable, and tested. Most are pretty much common sense.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are plenty of pre cambrian fossils of multicellular animals and plants. Soft bodied forms dominated before the Cambrian period. These forms do not fossilize easily so the so called "explosion" is nothing more than observational/subjective bias.

Listen, I’ve gone over this several times w/ other posters, but you are new to this site, so I’ll explain it to you….

Have you yourself examined the pre-Cambrian or the Ediacaran biota?
The Lägerstatten in which the pre-Cambrian fossils are found, have preserved the organisms extremely well! Even features of the soft -bodied animals exhibit fine preservation!

And guess what? No obvious precursors have been discovered, where phylogeny is observed.

Check the evidence for yourself.

Take care.

During the Cambrian there was a diversification of living things, including the appearance of animals with hard body parts, shells and exoskeletons. Which fossilize much more readily. Therefore easier to find.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ow look, an appeal to authority.

It seems like it is more than one fallacy.

Newton and other learned men didn't write about something, so we have no evidence of anything except they didn't write about it. Therefore, the gap answer must be it doesn't exist by default.

There could be many reasons they didn't write about it and left it for later, learned men to discern. They missed it. They dismissed it. Bias to believe blinded them. And on an on.

I see two accounts and they differ.

Most creationists see it too, but they deny the extent and meaning of it and try to rationalize the difference away to get it to fit their interpretation. The "true" interpretation that all must follow to be a "true" believer or else you just aren't. Which is another argument entirely, but intertwined. And not biblical either.

 

[Little Dragon]

And guess what? No obvious precursors have been discovered, where phylogeny is observed.

Absolute nonsense. Prove it. Show a scientific paper that supports this view. Show this evidence.

Also, take care too.

 

[Little Dragon]

Listen, I’ve gone over this several times w/ other posters, but you are new to this site, so I’ll explain it to you….

You have no explanation for this nor any other unscientifically supported claims you make on this thread. That I've noticed at least!

You sausage.

 

[Little Dragon]

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but it is not beyond truth to say that the complexity of life is beyond logical reduction.

The universe is logically reducible. If you truly think otherwise, then you are ignorant incredulous and naive. imo.
If we can reduce the universe to the first few picoseconds after the big bang, we can reduce abiogenesis too, as we did evolution via natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

The universe is logically reducible. If you truly think otherwise, then you are ignorant incredulous and naive. imo.
If we can reduce the universe to the first few picoseconds after the big bang, we can reduce abiogenesis too, as we did evolution via natural selection.

Oh, ok, so you think you can reduce the universe to the first few picoseconds...ok, have a good day, bye for now.

 

[Little Dragon]

Oh, ok, so you think you can reduce the universe to the first few picoseconds...ok, have a good day, bye for now.

"In the first few picoseconds of the Big Bang, for reasons that are not understood, the universe expanded very rapidly in a process described as "exponential inflation". During this inflationary period, the diameter of the universe increased much faster than the speed of light."

altvw104

John G. Cramer Analog Column Alternate View 104 BOOMERanG and the Sound of the Big Bang

www.npl.washington.edu