-
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!
What does the fossil record say?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
wilsoncole
Active Member
Don't hand me that piece of baloney! It is ALL about the origin of life.
There is no "regardless" when it comes to life. It MUST be addressed if it is to progress. That is why one of evolution's leading proponents saw the need to include it in his book "The Selfish Gene."
Richard Dawkins "speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an organic soup, but still lifeless.
Then, according to Dawkins description, a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accidenta molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must, nevertheless, have happened. Similar molecules clustered together (I wonder where THEY came from), and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.
At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins comment in the preface to his book: This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. (You are trying to do the same thing here) Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was. (Creation pp. 38,39 "Could Life Originate by Chance?" published by JWs)
Your attempt at avoidance is most unsatisfactory.
'
In the same vein, you can build no structure with no foundation.
You cannot escape the need for an explanation of the origin of life, especially when you accept the ToE's version of "simple" unicellular organisms obtaining incredible complexity without intelligent intervention.
Your position leaves much to be desired.
I know you're going to tell me this is not the place for it, (seems like no place is) but this is just as good a place as any.
How did that first cell originate? Huh?
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
You're misunderstanding. There are hypotheses on the origin of life, and biologists like Dr. Dawkins are among those researching it, but that is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory assumes that life exists and is capable of genetic reproduction, then it explains why genetic reproduction lead to the diversity in life that we see today.
The current most popular explaination for the origin of life is abiogenesis, which Dr Dawkins is describing in the text you quoted.
The current most popular explaination for the origin of life is abiogenesis, which Dr Dawkins is describing in the text you quoted.
waitasec
Veteran Member
we know where they come from...and we'll find out how. my question to you is; why are you fighting the quest? i don't get it.
it seems you are saying god is the answer and the search should just stop...why?
do you call that progress?
you already know this but maybe you should review it again....
Amino acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atmosphere
The order of elements by volume-fraction (which is approximately molecular mole-fraction) in the atmosphere is nitrogen (78.1%), oxygen (20.9%), argon (0.96%), followed by (in uncertain order) carbon and hydrogen because water vapor and carbon dioxide, which represent most of these two elements in the air, are variable components. Sulfur, phosphorus, and all other elements are present in significantly lower proportions.
Human body
Main article: Chemical makeup of the human body
By mass, human cells consist of 65-90% water (H2O), and a significant portion is composed of carbon-containing organic molecules. Oxygen therefore contributes a majority of a human body's mass, followed by carbon. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. The very common elements aluminum and silicon are conspicuously rare in the human body.
Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carbon is stored on our planet in the following major sinks (Figure 9r-1 and Table 9r-1): (1) as organic molecules in living and dead organisms found in the biosphere; (2) as the gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; (3) as organic matter in soils; (4) in the lithosphere as fossil fuels and sedimentary rock deposits such as limestone, dolomite and chalk; and (5) in the oceans as dissolved atmospheric carbon dioxide and as calcium carbonate shells in marine organisms.
9(r) The Carbon Cycle
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
waitasec
Veteran Member
outhouse
Atheistically
wilsoncole
Active Member
It is not nearly good enough.
We need to know how things began, not so much how they changed.
"The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex.
"The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning," say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. "Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. .　.　. so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation."5 And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.
"The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning," say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. "Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. .　.　. so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation."5 And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.
The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are:
(1)　the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and
(2)　a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of "simple" molecules necessary for life.
(3)　From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4)　combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter
(5)　they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves.
Are these steps in accord with the available facts? (Creation pp. 39-40 "Could Life Originate by Chance?")
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
You are telling me what I already know. Mankind came from the earth.
Does not even touch the problem.
Pasteur proved that life only comes from life.
You expect me to believe that all these elements and chemicals suddenly lived?
How did dead chemicals come to life?
Scripture says:
"And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
What do YOU say?
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
First you would have to define life.... for example is a virus alive? What about a prion or viroid?
wa:do
wa:do
wilsoncole
Active Member
Before I comment on this video, let me get it straight:
Is there anything factual here, or just suppositions accompanied by fancy visual images?
Are you endorsing the conclusions in it and will you defend them?
Just want to know.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
Funny how you have been reduced to the role of an assassin.
You are unable to participate in any discussion because they are too difficult for you to comprehend.
All you can do is snipe from behind the rock where you live and hide.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
Oneatatime
Huh?
The nitrogen and carbon cycle both demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between elements found in organic or non-organic states. As I type this atoms of these elements are moving back and forth between organic and non-organic systems and so are essentially going from life to non-life and back again. Life and non-life are just labels which are relic from the days when vitalism was taken seriously and while these labels have use in defining subject areas they don't represent a actual fundamental dividing line in chemistry. Living organisms are complex chemical machines that arise through natural processes; an emergent property of the universe along with that which is considered non-living.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So Wilson, what did you think of Newhopes "source" of "scientific" information?
From the same site...
Amill
Apikoros
So then creation has no foundation either? Because we can't observably determine how god began.
waitasec
Veteran Member
great, if you say it is god because you believe it's god...good for you
for me that's not good enough.
i'll ask you again...
we know where they come from...and we'll find out how. my question to you is; why are you fighting the quest? i don't get it.
it seems you are saying god is the answer and the search should just stop...why?
do you call that progress?