Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jul 11, 2011.
Sorry guys. There is no premordial soup.
Pick another one.
Can we go for alien seeding on the next one guys? Pllleeeaaassseee.
Of course there IS no primordial soup. There however WAS. Atleast its a theory, 140 year old one. One with which tests have been carried out under conditions we think were present some 3.5 billion years ago.
Miller?Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And we could be Aliens in the sense of Exogenesis/Panspermia. Which is basically saying that the first source of life came from a meteorite containing life.
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he said spermia
let me guess... your preacher told you so?
learn to differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis, then get back to me.
Naw science channel
this im aware of. There have several other tests done more recently that the conclusion draws from
An id rather get back to u now. Because without a starting point there is no process to claim.
The starting point is a planets creation. The planet is here. Therefore there is a starting point.
We only need 20 amino acids to form all life on planet earth. Under Millers experiment he found 5, back in the 50s, when they found some old sealed untested samples from back then, they retested the samples using modern technology and found 20 more. And when they changed the composition to closer resemble what we think it is now after 50 years we get even more amino acids. That one meteorite in particular has been found to contain over 100.
Saying there was no Soup is like saying there are no oceans. As thats all it basically was. No scientists is saying it was a massive oozing soup. Just that in the Ocean there were accumulations of the building blocks of life concentrated most likely around geothermal vents.
not much better..
nonsense. you can say without a starting point the process would have never existed in order for us to study it, but this is an obvious and ultimately meaningless point. just because we don't know exactly how life started (abiogenesis) doesn't prevent us from studying how the struggle for survival coupled with adaptability affects living organisms over the long term once life already exists.(evolution)
and of course all of this is ignoring the fact that you haven't offered any actual substance to the claim that abiogenesis is an impossibility but have simply asserted it as an axiomatic fact
Ill find the link.
Lemme ask a question if science at some point in the future can artificially create a form of life ie bacteria would that prove life could begin without an intelligent source of creation?
they can already do that
Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com
it doesn't prove the that life can arise on it's own through natural processes, no. that's a completely different scenario from life being synthesized in a lab. what i would think is needed in order to definitively prove abiogenesis is an exact knowledge of the conditions and materials necessary for life to arise, preferably with the ability to replicate that scenario.
what came first the egg or the chicken
old question easily solved. Cause at no time have I ever heard it said the Chicken or the Chickens' Egg. Meaning reptiles/dinosaurs were dropping eggs millions of years before the Chicken evolved.
What soup did God come from?
.... Its pretty clear. Is it which came first, The Chicken Or The Egg?
Or, The Chicken Or The Chicken Egg?
Its always the first one. Always. Therefore The Egg which is a birth system used by Dinosaurs which we believe were precursors to birds existed millions of years before the chicken.
the chicken came first, 7 Simple Questions You Won't Believe Science Just Answered | Cracked.com
Separate names with a comma.