• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Well according to this PHD and Articulett earlier I was right . They say all life (according to science) did come from one cell.


What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)?
Anthony M. Poole
An ActionBioscience.org original article


"So how do we know that all life has evolved from a single cell? The answer is written in the language of the genetic code (image A).
The genetic code spells out DNA.

* The genetic code is the language in which most genes are written into DNA.
* Such genes are recipes for making proteins.
* Proteins are what make the cell tick, doing everything from making DNA to digesting the food we eat and extracting the nutrients.
* Incredibly, the exact same code is used in humans and bacteria, so a gene from a human being can be put into a bacterium, and the bacterium will make the human protein — this is how insulin is made.

The genetic code is universal for all life.

That the genetic code is universal to all life tells us that everything is related."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html
Click to expand...


What we learn from this science is that ALL life of Earth was derived from a single source. The source of said initiation is up for debate.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please present scientific evidence that life derives from non-life.
Click to expand...
1. Shortly after the Big Bang, there was no life. Indeed, there were no atoms with which to construct life.

2. Now, some 13 billion years later, atoms of over 100 elements are known, and we find ourselves on a planet which is teeming with life.

3. This life either came from outside the universe, or a non-living universe gave rise to life.

4. The simplest hypothesis is that life, like the atoms of which it is composed, came from our universe.

5. This is scientific evidence that life can arise from non-life.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I guess you didn't understand that what you quoted was nothing more than speculation not accepted by the scientific community.
Click to expand...
Since reputable scientists are pursuing this as a research topic, at least some of the scientific community has not rejected it.

The idea that there was a single cell is also speculation at this point. As more evidence accumulates, I'm sure a consensus will be reached. At this point, the issue is hardly settled.
 
bokonon said:
1. Shortly after the Big Bang, there was no life. Indeed, there were no atoms with which to construct life.
Click to expand...

Please present evidence that there was a Big Bang and that there was no life prior.



See, you are using speculation to confirm speculation.
 
bokonon said:
Since reputable scientists are pursuing this as a research topic, at least some of the scientific community has not rejected it.

The idea that there was a single cell is also speculation at this point. As more evidence accumulates, I'm sure a consensus will be reached. At this point, the issue is hardly settled.
Click to expand...

You are confirming that science is at this point only dealing in speculation concerning the origin of life on Earth.

Thank you for your honesty.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please present evidence that there was a Big Bang and that there was no life prior.

See, you are using speculation to confirm speculation.
Click to expand...

I'm using commonly accepted scientific theory, for which the evidence can be weighed.

You asked for it, you got it, stop moving the goalposts.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are confirming that science is at this point only dealing in speculation concerning the origin of life on Earth.

Thank you for your honesty.
Click to expand...
Yes, I accept that this is still speculative, as do the scientists studying the question.
 
A reminder:
Upchurch said:
Actually, it's neither. Time, or rather spacetime, is best described by a multidimensional manifold on which we perceive a local metric that breaks down to three space dimensions and one time dimension.

Insofar as the local metric goes, and assuming one does not encounter some rather extreme gravitational conditions, "time" can be approximated as being linear.

What does "circular time" mean anyway?


What do you mean by "spontaneously"? I don't think anyone is claiming that life "initiated" without a preceding series of causes and effects.
Click to expand...

Upchurch said:
Jerome, I have to apologize. You asked for evidence that time is linear and not circular. All I did was explain that it was neither.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence that time is not circular. If you could physically see it, you would be literally looking at the Big Bang, the origin point of spacetime. While spacetime may not be strictly linear, it does have a starting point. Circles, on the other hand, do not have starting points.

I hope you've enjoyed this new* information as much as you said you would.


* if can refer to something 60+ years old as "new", that is.
Click to expand...
So, yeah, in that there is no "prior" to the Big Bang, it is safe to say that there was no life "then".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom