Mort-Hog Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Chemicals developing into organisms is nothing new or 'controversial'. The only thing is that it takes a very long time. No, the only problem really comes when you study life on Earth, in that it all seems to have happened much too fast. Instead of taking hundreds of millions of years, it seems to have only taken dozens of millions of years. The only explanation for this is that life on Earth did not start from scratch. There is a theory floating around that life arrived on Earth from a comet hitting the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 This thread is moving futher and further away from its original topic... But since the Big Bang is much, much more exciting than the original topic, I'll go with that tendency. I would like to add that every single prediction that quantum physics has made has been backed up by observation. In explaining the Universe, quantum physics is going to play a significant part. String theory is a radical and unusual field, some decree it as meta-physics. It's been around since the 70s but only recently has really been taken seriously, and could have important implications. The thing about string theory is that it isn't strictly speaking "physics". All fields of science are to explain and understand this Universe and this Universe only. Once you start discussing elements outside of this Universe, you are no longer dealing with science. Then you're into the realm of philosophy. Or meta-physics, if you wish. This is why many people don't consider string theory very seriously, in that it will always remain a theory, at least for the forseeable future. There is no way to detect or measure the 'strings'. You don't need string theory to explain the Big Bang though. M-theory can give many answers, but gives many more questions in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Mort-Hog No, the only problem really comes when you study life on Earth, in that it all seems to have happened much too fast. Instead of taking hundreds of millions of years, it seems to have only taken dozens of millions of years. In the other thread I asked for citations because I wanted to be able to quote those sources in the future... this time I'm asking for sources or citations becuase that's a contention I've not read. Richard Dawkins (1976, p 11; 2003, p 98), arguably one of the more prolific writers and researchers in evolutionary theory contends and demonstrates quite readily that the protolife on the planet was in its multicellular stages at thousands of millions of years ago and that amphibians were present at around 500 million years ago. True enough, the "Cambrian explosion" occured from 550 mya (Schiermeier, 2003) with the beginnings of complex life forms to the amphibians of 500 mya, making that only "a few dozen million" years, but it was nearly 4 billion years in the making prior to the oxygen/calcium "bloom" of the Cambrian. Prokaryotes, a type of bacteria were present at around 3.5 billion years ago (Altermann & Kazmierczak, 2003) according to the fossil records preserved in craton rocks in areas like Western Australia. Since the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, it took a billion years for things to settle and chemistry to mix enough to create cyanobacteria and probably eukaryotes (both prokaryotes) then another 3 billion years to reach the complex life forms of the cambrian. I'd say that this is indicative that the process isn't quick. Certainly not the culmination of a few dozen million years of chemistry Originally posted by Mort-Hog There is a theory floating around that life arrived on Earth from a comet hitting the planet. Its actually more speculation than theory, since the supporting hypotheses haven't been tested. Altermann, Wladyslaw; Kazmierczak, Józef (November 2003). Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth. Research in Microbiology. 154:9, pp 611-617. Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford; Oxford University Press ____________ (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. New York; Houghton-Mifflin. Schiermeier, Quirin (31 July 2003). Palaeobiology: Setting the record straight. Nature 424, pp 482 - 483. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Ah, yes, I stand corrected. I imagined someone would call up on the numbers I gave, they were only a rough estimate without research. I'm no biologist, so I only have vague knowledge of this but I figured it was an interesting theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughnutslayer Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I think that, no matter how much creation is explained, there is still the question: But where did that come from? But, on the contrary, it's always fun to find out what you can. I honestly think that, however life, the universe and everything else evovled, it is really a combination of different theories held by religious people and scientific people alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I really don't think "religious" people have anything much to offer the scientific community. Not Christians, anyway. Christians always seem to be 50 to 150 years in the past. When science showed the world was round, Christians threw it down. When science showed the sun was the centre of the solar system, Christains threw it down. Judaism and Islam are similar too. One interesting thing, though... The Qu'ran does go into detail about how a human embryo works and how mountains are formed, these are passages that have only been understood relatively recently. The Qu'ran explained this 1300 years ago! What is to say the Qu'ran doesn't explain even more advanced technology and it is only to try and understand the passages? But anyway, that one is a bit dubious. I think philosophers have a lot to offer science, or at least the theoretical physicists. When it comes to the more abstract concepts of physics, science and philosophy become one, even though philosophy has sort of been branded a liberal hippy anti-science of sorts. Buddhist philosophy teaches that the Universe is made up of positive and negative furies and that reactions occur when these are out of alignment. Not dissimilar from the modern concept of "charge", of electro-magnetism. Philosophy is also useful when we start meandering away from science into meta-physics and start discussing multiple universes, existance before the big bang and after the big crunch. But religion isn't. The study of philosophy teaches you to open your mind and think in a new way entirely. Religion teaches you to close your mind and adopt traditional principles without question and recreate outdated values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Originally posted by Mort-Hog I would like to add that every single prediction that quantum physics has made has been backed up by observation. In explaining the Universe, quantum physics is going to play a significant part. What I meant to say was simply that I have no chance of subjecting my source to a critical examination, and I thought it only fair to tell this. My sincere apology for any misunderstanding. Also, you'll want to read up on the definition of 'theory'. I understand perfectly what you are saying, but I've seen the 'it's only a theory' -line used so many times by creationists that I've become a little oversensitive to misuse of that particular word. I think that, no matter how much creation is explained, there is still the question: But where did that come from? But, on the contrary, it's always fun to find out what you can. I honestly think that, however life, the universe and everything else evovled, it is really a combination of different theories held by religious people and scientific people alike. As far as I can tell, this has already been smacked down pretty well, but I'll rub a little salt in the wound: - It's off-topic. Creationist bull**** has no place in this thread. - Even if some of the passages in some religious document are correct, they are worthless as sources. One interesting thing, though... The Qu'ran does go into detail about how a human embryo works and how mountains are formed, these are passages that have only been understood relatively recently. The Qu'ran explained this 1300 years ago! I call that a lucky guess. If you look at the Qu'ran - as well as any other religious text, there is so much information in it (most of it contradictory), that it would be odd indeed if at least some of it was not right. I think philosophers have a lot to offer science, or at least the theoretical physicists. I would like to point out that historically the inspiration has flowed from Physics into Philosophy, not the other way around. Philosophy is also useful when we start meandering away from science into meta-physics and start discussing multiple universes, existance before the big bang and after the big crunch. Is it just me or are you stating the obvious here: Philosophy is useful when we discuss philosophical questions. But religion isn't. The study of philosophy teaches you to open your mind and think in a new way entirely. Religion teaches you to close your mind and adopt traditional principles without question and recreate outdated values. Damn! That was my line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I'd like to remind all members, posters, and readers that this thread is about evolution, not creation or religion. From here on out, discussions of religion will be moved to the appropriate thread or simply deleted without warning. -Cheers, Skin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.