| Life existed in its present form since the beginning | 5% | 5% - 9 | ||||
| Life evolved guided by God or a supreme being | 21% | 21% - 33 | ||||
| Life evolved through Natural Selection | 64% | 64% - 98 | ||||
| Other | 8% | 8% - 13 | ||||
| Total: 153 | ||||||
I'm sure you can provide proof of that statement, correct?david363 wrote:
there is no such thing as god, if u believe so then you are mentally insane
I believe what you'll find is a book that has been written and interpreted so many times over it is not even close to the original writing.CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. If you want half cooked theories walk into a library and take out a book called 'The Bible'. It's full of some pretty tall tales. Worth a read and a laugh. Recommended. There's all sorts of bullshit in it like people being raised from the dead, seas being parted, water turning into wine, etc. It also apparently states that the earth was created in 6 days - and if you read it you'll notice that it was actually created in the dark!! It's a real hoot.IsaacLeavitt wrote:
"natural selection" is great and all, but does it explain exactly how life started in the beginning? no, it doesn't. don't be deceived by Darwin's half cooked "theory". take a good look, Darwinism doesn't have much to stand on anymore...ATG wrote:
For me, it's hard to argue against natural selection.
I recommend you check out topal63 answer to that in Science vs religion. In a nut shell you can empirically prove that NOTHING exists. Kinda hard to do that....GATOR591957 wrote:
I'm sure you can provide proof of that statement, correct?david363 wrote:
there is no such thing as god, if u believe so then you are mentally insane
Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment or Juan Oro's experiments? Ever heard of amino acids, RNA, DNA, etc.?IsaacLeavitt wrote:
"natural selection" is great and all, but does it explain exactly how life started in the beginning? no, it doesn't. don't be deceived by Darwin's half cooked "theory". take a good look, Darwinism doesn't have much to stand on anymore...ATG wrote:
For me, it's hard to argue against natural selection.
Last edited by E1_ned (2007-01-19 13:34:26)
Last edited by voodoodolphins (2007-01-20 21:10:23)
Last edited by Spark (2007-01-20 21:02:04)
That makes no sense at all. How would the virus replicate when they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host? an what should happen if 2 or more virus meet each other?Spark wrote:
My theory is that the first life was in fact NOT alive (in a normal sense) as it was a virus. That's because viruses are ridiculously simple and lifelss in itself. However, if a few of these viruses accidentally met each other and became alive...
The virus dies (though technically it cant die because it was never alive in the first place). No-one said the first life had to actually reproduce, but everyone (including scientists) assume the first life to be the first to reproduce - though it may have been the millionth or billionth life form. What should happen when two or more virus meets? The same way that if two amino acids meet, they 'discover' the ability to do something new. Perhaps after thousands of such collisions one finally learns to reproduce, and you have the first bacterium.voodoodolphins wrote:
That makes no sense at all. How would the virus replicate when they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host? an what should happen if 2 or more virus meet each other?Spark wrote:
My theory is that the first life was in fact NOT alive (in a normal sense) as it was a virus. That's because viruses are ridiculously simple and lifelss in itself. However, if a few of these viruses accidentally met each other and became alive...
Which is why practically every species discovered in the last half century and every scientific test involving mutation, genetics and resistance (which covers most of biological tests) proves it AND requires it.IsaacLeavitt wrote:
"natural selection" is great and all, but does it explain exactly how life started in the beginning? no, it doesn't. don't be deceived by Darwin's half cooked "theory". take a good look, Darwinism doesn't have much to stand on anymore...ATG wrote:
For me, it's hard to argue against natural selection.
I just don't get where you come up with that theory. All evidence points in the direction that virus is a bi product of a living organism, that is, they originate from part of a cell or they have been a cell them selves before they "evolved" into a virus that we know today.Spark wrote:
No-one said the first life had to actually reproduce, but everyone (including scientists) assume the first life to be the first to reproduce - though it may have been the millionth or billionth life form. What should happen when two or more virus meets? The same way that if two amino acids meet, they 'discover' the ability to do something new. Perhaps after thousands of such collisions one finally learns to reproduce, and you have the first bacterium.
The only reason I said virus is because they are much simpler than any bacterium
Both concepts, yours and Spark's are quite correct, except for the part of a virus not being alive. Although they can't reproduce by themselves, they can replicate infecting other organisms cells. Science is uncertain of them being living beings or non-living particles. But my point is, if you can kill them, they must be alive.topal63 wrote:
I agree... a virus, or even like a virus - NOT. That is a retro-grade possibly only after life has actually become quite complex.voodoodolphins wrote:
I just don't get where you come up with that theory. All evidence points in the direction that virus is a bi product of a living organism, that is, they originate from part of a cell or they have been a cell them selves before they "evolved" into a virus that we know today.Spark wrote:
No-one said the first life had to actually reproduce, but everyone (including scientists) assume the first life to be the first to reproduce - though it may have been the millionth or billionth life form. What should happen when two or more virus meets? The same way that if two amino acids meet, they 'discover' the ability to do something new. Perhaps after thousands of such collisions one finally learns to reproduce, and you have the first bacterium.
The only reason I said virus is because they are much simpler than any bacterium
But I understand what Spark is saying, a virus is not really like life is, its hard to call it alive in a traditional sense. It can be dried out, frozen, etc; & exist in that state for years even, its more like a chemical that can be life-like rather than alive.
I think he is inferring that context, an idea ( it's sort of like this - as a conception) not the something strictly technical (that it was a virus, as we know them).
And on that idea YES, like a virus today NOT, like a chemical that we would not traditionally call alive - YES.
But it had to always be able to self-replicate at some level - else forget it - future life over and out - done! It had to be a self-replicating chemical reaction always (what has changed are the biological triggers, timing, what is replicating... polymers replaced by RNA, RNA replaced by DNA, DNA then utilizes RNA as we have today).
why post a link to that in this thread?Kmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61601
I'm guessing you do not understand the correlation between the string theory and Dark Matter.voodoodolphins wrote:
why post a link to that in this thread?Kmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61601
I didn't read it, just clicked on the link and saw astronomy and thought that was a weird link. But I would properly not understand it no, but I could also post some of my research and see what you understand of it...we all got our interestKmarion wrote:
I'm guessing you do not understand the correlation between the string theory and Dark Matter.voodoodolphins wrote:
why post a link to that in this thread?Kmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61601
Last edited by voodoodolphins (2007-01-22 18:41:48)
So you wouldn't say that the origins of the universe and the Earth are directly related to the origin of life on Earth?topal63 wrote:
I am biting... I am guessing neither do you - not really.Kmarion wrote:
I'm guessing you do not understand the correlation between the string theory and Dark Matter.voodoodolphins wrote:
why post a link to that in this thread?
So OK, Mr. Smarty-pants. Irregardless of any relationship of String-theory (mythmatics) to Dark Matter (a non-empirically tested idea as of yet; it is an invention of mind; a pure-hypothetical; because the Standard-Model cannot account for the shape of Universe; based upon gravity; so and therefor there must be matter we can't see - Dark-matter). But so what, whatever, please make the CORRECT correlation - what does your post DIRECTLY have to do with "evolution" and the "origins of life" here on Planet Earth.
Ha ha! That was hilarious!!!!!CameronPoe wrote:
Life existed in its present form since the beginning. The sexual intercourse Adam and Eve's children had to engage in with each other in order to propagate the human race led to the genetic diveristy between humans in different parts of the world that we see today. Hooray for in-breeding!
Pteradactyl skeletons are a test of faith.
In fact anything that casts doubt on religious teachings is a test of faith.