Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Apr '14 10:04
    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-metabolism-early-oceans-life.html

    This is NOT evolution RJ, this is the separate study of how life started on Earth.

    Yes, you don't need to reply GODDIDIT. We get that part.
  2. 25 Apr '14 10:16
    an interesting link. The finding strongly suggests that the kind of metabolism of the kind of complexity that is assumed to only exist in life may have actually predated the origin of life and evolved through the chemical conditions that prevailed in the worlds earliest oceans. That presents an interesting and, to me, a surprising hypothesis, that the complex metabolism required for life was already there for life before life began!
  3. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    25 Apr '14 12:00
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-metabolism-early-oceans-life.html

    This is NOT evolution RJ, this is the separate study of how life started on Earth.

    Yes, you don't need to reply GODDIDIT. We get that part.
    This is not science, but only more speculation as how something similiar to metabolism "could have formed spontaneously" yoda, yoda.
  4. 25 Apr '14 13:37
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    This is [...] speculation as how something similiar to metabolism "could have formed spontaneously" yoda, yoda.
    As opposed to an immaterial mind wishing it into existence out of nothing. Yeah, I'll go with
    science, thank you.
  5. 25 Apr '14 13:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-metabolism-early-oceans-life.html

    This is NOT evolution RJ, this is the separate study of how life started on Earth.

    Yes, you don't need to reply GODDIDIT. We get that part.
    This is an exciting discovery. Thank you for sharing.
  6. 25 Apr '14 17:59
    Originally posted by C Hess
    As opposed to an immaterial mind wishing it into existence out of nothing. Yeah, I'll go with
    science, thank you.
    LOL

    what could be more speculative and unscientific than saying goddidit?
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Apr '14 18:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    This is not science, but only more speculation as how something similiar to metabolism "could have formed spontaneously" yoda, yoda.
    We are going to speculate ourselves into a complete understanding of life origins in spite of you and your buddies objections. You will all be dead and gone in a few decades and science will win once again.
  8. 25 Apr '14 18:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We are going to speculate ourselves into a complete understanding of life origins in spite of you and your buddies objections. You will all be dead and gone in a few decades and science will win once again.
    I am optimistic that you are right and that science will win in the long term eventually. I also think Creationists are, or at least will be, a dieing breed. Creationism is facing extinction as it gets forever more bruised by new science facts and scientific achievements such as creating life from none life.
  9. 25 Apr '14 18:31
    Originally posted by humy
    I am optimistic that you are right and that science will win in the long term eventually. I also think Creationists are, or at least will be, a dieing breed. Creationism is facing extinction as it gets forever more bruised by new science facts and scientific achievements such as creating life from none life.
    At the same time, those hardcore believers wanders further and further from
    rational thought, and they'll just keep on brainwashing their children "jebus
    camp"-style.

    I don't think it's wise to just sit around hoping creationism dies out with
    them. As much as I'd like to, I don't think ignoring creationists is going to do
    much good. There's a whole new generation growing up that knows next to
    nothing about real science. It's a duty (I feel) for anyone informed to
    constantly refute ill-educated minds in the public forum.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    25 Apr '14 20:30
    Originally posted by humy
    I am optimistic that you are right and that science will win in the long term eventually. I also think Creationists are, or at least will be, a dieing breed. Creationism is facing extinction as it gets forever more bruised by new science facts and scientific achievements such as creating life from none life.
    Creating life from none life? That would not be evidence for evolution. That would be evidence for Creation. There is no need to say, NUMBNUTS, on that one.
  11. 25 Apr '14 20:43
    Originally posted by C Hess
    At the same time, those hardcore believers wanders further and further from
    rational thought, and they'll just keep on brainwashing their children "jebus
    camp"-style.

    I don't think it's wise to just sit around hoping creationism dies out with
    them. As much as I'd like to, I don't think ignoring creationists is going to do
    much good. There's a whole ...[text shortened]... duty (I feel) for anyone informed to
    constantly refute ill-educated minds in the public forum.
    agreed
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 Apr '14 12:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Creating life from none life? That would not be evidence for evolution. That would be evidence for Creation. There is no need to say, NUMBNUTS, on that one.
    Are you really so dense to think life origins and evolution are one and the same?

    We have told you several times they are separate disciplines.

    For instance, this study, if you even bothered to read it, talks about chemistry stuff, not even cells or life at that point, it is NOT evolution, it is only the development of chemistry that can lead to life.

    It would NOT be evidence for creation since chemistry like that can happen anywhere there is sufficient energy resources and water and minerals.
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Apr '14 13:40
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Are you really so dense to think life origins and evolution are one and the same?

    We have told you several times they are separate disciplines.

    For instance, this study, if you even bothered to read it, talks about chemistry stuff, not even cells or life at that point, it is NOT evolution, it is only the development of chemistry that can lead to lif ...[text shortened]... istry like that can happen anywhere there is sufficient energy resources and water and minerals.
    So you are now saying that man can not create life from chemicals?
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 Apr '14 15:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So you are now saying that man can not create life from chemicals?
    You are confirming the bone density in your head. I said and you know full well, life origin is a totally separate scientific discipline, completely different subject than evolution. Especially this piece which talks about chemistry before life even began.
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    26 Apr '14 20:59
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You are confirming the bone density in your head. I said and you know full well, life origin is a totally separate scientific discipline, completely different subject than evolution. Especially this piece which talks about chemistry before life even began.
    Well, let me know when you think someone has it figured out.