Is Earthly life premature?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by paddoboy, Aug 1, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Why should we forget that the bible is a religious book, full of mythical fantasies, written by obscure men in an obscure age.
    As you have been told many many times, science is a discipline in continuing progress...the further we see, the more our scientific theories are reinforced and/or re-modified.
    And if Panspermia is ever shown to be evident, [which I believe in time it will]
    then your god may well have been a slime mould.
    Let me remind you though that the theory of evolution itself, is for all intents and purposes, 100% certain. Your obscure bible is not even science.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,051
    You live by laws and experiences written in the obscure book and you even don't realise.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    426
    To prove it you would have to grow plants on mars. It could take 1000s of years and be tried 1000's of times, but if it were demonstrated that as long as DNA didn't unravel evolution would eventually take place and create life suitable for a planet.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    426
    Well I guess you may be able to use them both and create some kind of plantimal....
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I live by the laws of decency, equality and respect for my fellow man, as demanded by civilized society.
    What you believe is your own concern, a shame though that that agenda, has you so much in conflict with science.
     
  9. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,051

    You don't understand that civilization did not start 200 years ago , but civilization evolved . A hint Laws of order began earlier then 2000 years BC , you can start with Hammurabi's law, then The bible expanded about 1300 years BC and so on .
    I don't know how old you are , but I have been around Scientist for long time as a chemist until retired . I just don't like to be carried away that scientific theory and interpretation are the gospel truth , they are questionable like many religions,
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,727
    I agree, we should treat the Bible as a compendium of secular information with no supernatural significance whatsoever.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I must conclude that you are totally dishonest, and only hear what you want to hear.
    You have been told many, many times that science is a discipline in progress and that all scientific theories are always open for modification or total discard.
    The theory of evolution though is as secure and sure as we could ever hope.
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,051
    Let's stop your stupid psychological analysis.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    It wouldn't be needed if you were not so obtuse and dishonest in your "dealings"with science.
    Again, you have been shown time and time again, that science is nothing like any religion, and that it is a discipline in progress, continually...yet you still carry on with your crap and stupidity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,616
    It contains a great deal of information about the views of the ancient Hebrews. Or at least the views of that faction of ancient Hebrews that compiled the Bible.

    Because the ancient Hebrews' ideas about origins don't have anything to do with modern scientific understanding of the early history of life on Earth.

    The authors of the Hebrew Bible lived in the first millenium BCE. That's two to three thousand years ago. Life seems to have appeared on Earth as early as four billion years ago. So nobody who wrote the Bible was present to watch the origin of life.

    True. I'm not convinced that life appeared as early on Earth as that evidence seems to show.

    What do you think that I want to believe?

    My point is that IF life appeared on Earth as early as some evidence appears to show, then it becomes less likely (in my opinion) that life originated on Earth (because I think that life is so complicated that there must have been a protracted lead-up to it).

    Who are you addressing? I agree with you. I don't think that "scientific information is infallible". But it is the best information that we have at the present moment about the physical world, so it isn't out-of-line to think about what that information might suggest.

    I still don't know why you responded with Bible verses to my hopefully-scientific posts about the motivation for speculations about panspermia (and yes, they are only speculations) and seemed to be attacking my remarks.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,604
    Regardless of how much knowledge there might be in the Bible, Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

    So, in answer to your question:
    Because that particular chapter is not intended to be factually informative.


    This is the biology and Genetics forum. Let's stick to science please.
     
    paddoboy likes this.

Share This Page