Life's lucky 'kick start'

BBC News ^ | October 13, 2003 | Dr David Whitehouse

[AntiGuv]

Ping!

[Semper Paratus]

Too many events had to happen in just the right circumstance, time and sequence.

[Question_Assumptions]

Wow! The author managed to write that article without mentioning Global Warming even once.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[pgyanke]

The timing of such events has implications for the search for intelligent life in space, he says.

I submit that they wouldn't know intelligent life if it came up and bit them in glutes. Why is it so much more plausible to believe that life is just a cosmic boo boo than to believe that we actually have a purpose ordained by our Creator?

[AntiGuv]

Because of the singular dearth of independent evidence of a Creator, combined with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicating a universal order contrary to that of any literal metaphysical tradition.

[Bigh4u2]

"He also adds that there is an intriguing implication from his research which suggests that had the conditions been only slightly different, the Cambrian Explosion could have occurred two billion years earlier."

Or life could have started 6000 years ago as the bible indicates.


Sure is a lot of 'guess work' in 'tried and true' science.

[asformeandformyhouse]

"We believe that there was a change in the environment - a slow cooling of the system - that caused positive feedback that allowed the conditions for complex life," Dr von Bloh told BBC News Online.

Sounds like religion to me. Consider the number of times this article has the words "may be", "might have" or "could" in it( 7 ). But if one happens to 'believe' differently than this esteemed Doctor, they'd be considered an ignorant, backward fundamentalist.

[Bigh4u2]

"Because of the singular dearth of independent evidence of a Creator, combined with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicating a universal order contrary to that of any literal metaphysical tradition. "

Nice line.

Meaningless.

But a nice line all the same.

[AntiGuv]

Sure is a lot of 'guess work' in 'tried and true' science.

Yes, that is the case with all the sciences. However, when 0% of empirical evidence suggests life rising 6000 years ago, while 100% of empirical evidence suggests life arose millions, if not billions, of years ago, the guessing process becomes much easier.

[AntiGuv]

Until such point is my statement becomes shown as less meaningful than whatever response, I'm more than content with its meaning.

[woofie]

Life did not really start until Hostess developed the twinkie

[pgyanke]

Oh, really? Look around you! Do you think this is all some big accident? Do you think that the millions in history who have been touched personally by their Creator are simply delusional? Do you think miracles that demonstrate God's sovereignty over His creation don't happen? Do you find it odd that we are all searching for the infinite, though some find disparate answers to the same questions?

In order to disprove God, you have to disregard history itself. In order to prove God, you have only to listen to eye witness testimony and the geological proof of events which corroborate their accounts.

To believe these scientists, you have to take their word on events they did not witness to explain what they admit they don't understand. They seem very quick to say what the historical record isn't but they will never be able to give a definitive alternative that doesn't include either God or "luck".

You are free to choose who to believe. I'll side with God.

[Right Wing Professor]

But if one happens to 'believe' differently than this esteemed Doctor, they'd be considered an ignorant, backward fundamentalist.

The early history of life is still an area of research where there's a great deal of uncertainty. In such a situation, it's reasonable that there be a plethora of competing, speculative hypotheses. The difference between this and religion is that religion seldom admits uncertainty that might be resolved later by human inquiry. It either dictates the truth, or it claims the truth is some mystery beyond human understanding.

I personally don't believe this hypothesis. I am most certainly not a fundamentalist.

[Bigh4u2]

It's not so much WHAT you say, as HOW you say it.

[AntiGuv]

Do you think this is all some big accident?

More likely than not, yes.

Do you think that the millions in history who have been touched personally by their Creator are simply delusional?

Yes.

Do you think miracles that demonstrate God's sovereignty over His creation don't happen?

Yes.

Do you find it odd that we are all searching for the infinite, though some find disparate answers to the same questions?

No.

[AntiGuv]

It's not so much WHAT you say, as HOW you say it.

Why so? I am not a telepath..

[Bigh4u2]

"It either dictates the truth, or it claims the truth is some mystery beyond human understanding."

Which has been proven out to be correct.

Hence the 'uncertainty' in scientific exploration.

If science were 'certain' of it's stated claims, then many parts of the Bible wouldn't be a 'mystery', but merely a story of proven or unproven events.

[pgyanke]

The early history of life is still an area of research where there's a great deal of uncertainty.

There's uncertainty primarily because people are uncertain about the truth that's been told to them. Research the historical record of many early civilizations and you find strikingly similar themes. In some, you find geneological recording of lineage to creation itself.

The uncertainty we experience through time is from those who cut off their nose to spite their faces. The Bible has NEVER BEEN PROVED INACCURATE. There are some instances of timing that have been called into question but the geological and archeological records we've found through the years have corroborated Biblical accounts... despite the naysayers. God created the world in six days. Later in the Bible we read that a day for God can be 1,000 years. The real issue isn't the timing but the source. The point of the creation story isn't an exact reasoning of just how long it took but to give credit where credit is due.

Instead of working so hard to prove new ideas correct to change the historical record, it would be interesting to see how much we could learn by just examining the world around us and drawing conclusions.