Beginnings of life on Earth? (1 Viewer)

[Galileo]

Has the mystery been solved? At least one group thinks so... http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html

 

[TheAristocrat]

Life began in a Honda.

 

[Galileo]

Well, ####...point me to the thread... <_<

 

[Scoresman]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

 

[sports_fan]

I always assumed life began with a chicken.

 

[skol asylum]

I always assumed life began with a chicken.

Egg

 

[Mario Kart]

I always assumed life began with a chicken.

Egg

Rooster, chicken, hen. That's perverse.

 

[BoltBacker]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

Pfft, there was no light before the dreamcast.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Somewhere out there, in a galaxy far, far away are beings living in a world much different than ours. Our lives would not exist there because it is way too hot, way too cold, doesn't have oxygen or the atmosphere that we need. But it is perfect for them. Our planet would be way too cold, way too hot or doesn't have the atmosphere for them to exist. But it is perfect for us.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Science..what a bunch of poppycock.

 

[Jayrod]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

Well when using poetry to describe something to people during the Bronze Age, the terms hydrogen sulfide and ribonucleic acid don't exactly make sense.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

Well when using poetry to describe something to people during the Bronze Age, the terms hydrogen sulfide and ribonucleic acid don't exactly make sense.

When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how people got to be here in the first place… all these things, and thousands more, were once explained by gods or spirits or mystical energies. And now all of them have natural, physical explanations.

Natural explanations, I should point out, with mountains of solid, carefully collected, replicable evidence to support them.

Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one?

As far as I am aware, exactly zero.

link

 

[joffer]

Science..what a bunch of poppycock.

so is your face

 

[Jayrod]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

Well when using poetry to describe something to people during the Bronze Age, the terms hydrogen sulfide and ribonucleic acid don't exactly make sense.

When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how people got to be here in the first place… all these things, and thousands more, were once explained by gods or spirits or mystical energies. And now all of them have natural, physical explanations.

Natural explanations, I should point out, with mountains of solid, carefully collected, replicable evidence to support them.

Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one?

As far as I am aware, exactly zero.

link

In regards to abiogenesis, the bolded phrase is completely false.

 

[tonydead]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

Well when using poetry to describe something to people during the Bronze Age, the terms hydrogen sulfide and ribonucleic acid don't exactly make sense.

When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how people got to be here in the first place… all these things, and thousands more, were once explained by gods or spirits or mystical energies. And now all of them have natural, physical explanations.

Natural explanations, I should point out, with mountains of solid, carefully collected, replicable evidence to support them.

Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one?

As far as I am aware, exactly zero.

link

In regards to abiogenesis, the bolded phrase is completely false.

Predictably you completely missed the point. :whoosh:

 

[CowboysFromHell]

wait wait wait that's not how genesis has it down.

Well when using poetry to describe something to people during the Bronze Age, the terms hydrogen sulfide and ribonucleic acid don't exactly make sense.

When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how people got to be here in the first place… all these things, and thousands more, were once explained by gods or spirits or mystical energies. And now all of them have natural, physical explanations.

Natural explanations, I should point out, with mountains of solid, carefully collected, replicable evidence to support them.

Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one?

As far as I am aware, exactly zero.

link

In regards to abiogenesis, the bolded phrase is completely false.

I don't disagree. And, that's not what she's saying. From the same article:

...yes, of course the world is full of phenomenon for which we currently don't have naturalistic explanations.

But...

Given this pattern -- thousands upon thousands upon thousands of natural explanations accurately supplanting supernatural ones, zero supernatural explanations accurately supplanting natural ones -- doesn't it seem that any given unexplained phenomenon is far more likely to have a natural explanation than a supernatural one?

Far, far more likely?

Like, several orders of magnitude more likely?

And, so, given this new research on abiogenesis (or actually, even without it), what is more likely?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Science..what a bunch of poppycock.

so is your face