• 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!

Life might be older than Earth

Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
New study suggests to the possibility that life might have started before Earth's formation: Could Life Be Older Than Earth Itself?

Applying a maxim from computer science to biology raises the intriguing possibility that life existed before Earth did and may have originated outside our solar system, scientists say.
Moore's Law is the observation that computers increase exponentially in complexity, at a rate of about double the transistors per integrated circuit every two years. If you apply Moore's Law to just the last few years' rate of computational complexity and work backward, you'll get back to the 1960s, when the first microchip was, indeed, invented.
Now, two geneticists have applied Moore's Law to the rate at which life on Earth grows in complexity — and the results suggest organic life first came into existence long before Earth itself.
Click to expand...
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
I think its factual life is older then the earth.

The real question is did life here arise from a outside source, or did aboigenesis originate and start from our own chemistry here.

As it stands im running with our own chemistry here. When the enviroment was stable enough for life to arise, it did. Ive heard Neil Degrasse Tyson state they have it down to a 400,000 year window. Its my opinion water is the key. My arguement also would apply to panspermia, but I personally dont follow that path just yet.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
In other words, evolution needs more time, it needs an infinite amount of time to create the complexity of living organism. That is why evolutionists used to say the earth was infinite and fought hard against the discovery of the beginning of the universe.
 
I

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Actually MoF in other words attempting to use a formula designed to express the rate of technological design advancements to draw parallels to the process of biological evolution by natural selection may be unreliable. Who'da thunk?

Edit: Changed mechanism to formula, poor choice of words
 
Last edited:
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
dust1n said:
Infinite... I don't think so... more 4.5 billion years.
Click to expand...

There is evidence in the OP that evolution needs more time than the earth has, which tells scientists that life must have began before the earth. So your 4.5 billion years is out the window, double that and that doesn’t even give enough time to create the creatures that we see in their orderly functioning systems.
.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
InformedIgnorance said:
Actually MoF in other words attempting to use a formula designed to express the rate of technological design advancements to draw parallels to the process of biological evolution by natural selection may be unreliable. Who'da thunk?

Edit: Changed mechanism to formula, poor choice of words
Click to expand...

All I am doing is embracing sceince, now you tell me to ignore it? I can't win. :facepalm:
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Man of Faith said:
There is evidence in the OP that evolution needs more time than the earth has, which tells scientists that life must have began before the earth.
Click to expand...


No, there isn't.

So your 4.5 billion years is out the window, double that and that doesn’t even give enough time to create the creatures that we see in their orderly functioning systems.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.
 
I

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Man of Faith said:
All I am doing is embracing sceince, now you tell me to ignore it? I can't win. :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Actually I am neither telling you to embrace science not reject it; I would instead ask you to embrace critical thinking, skeptical analysis.

The scientific claims presented are attempting to use an approach designed to measure how quickly humans have been able to develop innovations within electronics in order to determine how quickly biological entities might evolve over successive generations. My suggestion would be to look at the two processes and query whether or not you think an approach designed to represent the rate of artificial invention can be used to model natural evolution.

To be fair the formula they use is different than Moors law though derivative, and both innovation and evolution are trends towards greater utility and often complexity, likewise both can experience either incremental or radical changes (the rate of change is not fixed); that stated, one is limited by human intellect while the other is limited by the changes in environment; one has an independent un-fixed innovation cycle (things can be invented whenever desired provided that the mind it capable of envisaging the design) and the other has a dependent un-fixed reproduction cycle (organisms can breed only once they reach maturity, though age of maturity might change over generations)
 
Last edited:
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
InformedIgnorance said:
Actually I am neither telling you to embrace science not reject it; I would instead ask you to embrace critical thinking, skeptical analysis.

The scientific claims presented are attempting to use an approach (tbh the formula they use is different - otherwise every two years you would be twice as biologically complex) designed to measure how quickly humans have been able to develop innovations within electronics in order to determine how quickly biological entities might evolve.

My suggestion would be to look at the two processes and query whether or not you think an approach designed to represent the rate of artificial invention can be used to model natural evolution.
Click to expand...

Critical thinking is how I came to realize that evolution is all smoke and mirrors.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
painted wolf said:
That is a terrible comparison. Evolution does not function like Moore's Law.

wa:do
Click to expand...
This is my thought as well.
I get the distinct impression they have convinced themselves that life began before the Earth and are grasping at straws in order to "prove" their belief.
 
I

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Titanic13 said:
Alien's maybe eh?
Click to expand...
Actually in the study they dismiss this based on their assertion that it would take circa 10 billion years for intelligent life to develop, therefore intelligent life is only now beginning to emerge in different parts of the universe, therefore the evidence for life on earth in the last few billion years would indicate that no intelligence life was involved in our creation, but rather that life got to earth from some other source such as a meteor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top