25 Apr 14
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!
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is not science, but only more speculation as how something similiar to metabolism "could have formed spontaneously" yoda, yoda.
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.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is an exciting discovery. Thank you for sharing.
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.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWe 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.
This is not science, but only more speculation as how something similiar to metabolism "could have formed spontaneously" yoda, yoda.
25 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
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.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyAt the same time, those hardcore believers wanders further and further from
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.
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.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyCreating 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.
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.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by C Hessagreed
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.
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you really so dense to think life origins and evolution are one and the same?
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.
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.
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you are now saying that man can not create life from chemicals?
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.
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou 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.
So you are now saying that man can not create life from chemicals?
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, let me know when you think someone has it figured out.
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.