Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life

Researchers in the United Kingdom have found algae-like fossils in meteorite fragments that landed in Sri Lanka last year. This is the strongest evidence yet of cometary panspermia — that life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here, billions of years ago — and, perhaps more importantly, that there’s life elsewhere in the universe.

How would this change the conversation?

Full article: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...Extremetech%29 Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

From an article about the find.

There are other explinations, of course. One is that the fireball
was of terrestrial origin, a remnant of one of the many asteroid
impacts in Earths history that have ejected billions of tons of
rock and water into space, presumably with biological material
inside. Another is that the structures are not biological and have
a different explination.

Another article refuting the claim.

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/b...69841818264991

As usual it would seem they have jumped the gun with their claims.

There is no "debate" among educated people about the validity of evolution, even if the theory is incomplete and may have some mistakes in it.

Creationists only think they are involved in a debate. Myths and fairy tales have no place in a scientific debate and no place in a science classroom. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, fossil evidence exists of cellular life dating to about 1.2 billion years after the earth formed. There's also evidence that appears to suggest life on earth as early as about 3.8 billion years ago. Remember also that it took hundreds of millions of years for the earth to develop conditions that would support life.
And the idea that life erupted out of some primordial soup of random amino acids really doesn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny when you really consider the biology. Regardless of how many amino acids you have you need dna to form a cell. And a membrane. And other things.
The point being that it didn't take billions of years for early life to make it's appearance here.

Go do some research of your own on Macro evolution and
missing link fossils there is a ton of information out there.

You simply give credit to my argument. There is no proof whatsoever
that all that is needed is a long period of time for life to start
on this planet. Don't you see the huge gaping hole in your
argument. just a few billion years of chemical processes and
then one day bam there it is. And you would call that a scientific
explanation.

Dawkins himself says, know one knows how life started on this planet.

Your other argument seems to be because some people
with biased opinions have a belief in something then that
makes it true.

I only want them to be honest and say it's an idea we have,
instead of claiming that it's a proven fact, when clearly it is not. Originally Posted by bojulay

It's so funny that you demand proof for evolution(stuff that has been rehashed in this thread multiple times), but fail to give your own ideas the same treatment? Why are you not demanding proof of god? If you did, then you wouldn't have faith. Imagine the fire and brimstone unleashed upon those without faith!

Science is simply trying to find truth through evidence. Are you worried they'll uncover the man behind the curtain and prove the great and powerful OZ is a fraud?

Besides, you're not even on the same discussion. You're asking for proof of abiogenesis, which is still unknown. Does that mean the good guys have failed? Not in the least. Afterall, earth wasn't built in a day...or 7!

It's so funny that you demand proof for evolution, but fail to give your own ideas the same treatment? Why are you not demanding proof of god? If you did, then you wouldn't have faith. Imagine the fire and brimstone unleashed upon those without faith!

Science is simply trying to find truth through evidence. Are you worried they'll uncover the man behind the curtain and prove the great and powerful OZ is a fraud?

Besides, you're not even on the same discussion. You're asking for proof of abiogenesis, which is still unknown. Does that mean the good guys have failed? Not in the least. Afterall, earth wasn't built in a day...or 7! Originally Posted by forumguy456987

You seem to have missed my point rather badly.

I'm saying that both ideas require faith because nether can
be proven, people should study the evidences given and
come to their own conclusion.

But don't come at me with the dishonest argument that
evolution is the be all end all proven answer to the question
of the origin of life. It simply isn't.

You have brought up another dishonesty that has been perpetrated
on the gullible, the idea that abiogenesis and evolution are to be
separated and thought of as two completely different things.

A neat little dishonest trick, at first there was no such separation
of the two until they finally realized they had no clue as to the origin
of life, so here's an idea, we will make a distinction between the
two and distance ourselves from the question of abiogenesis.

The truth is that their theory of evolution as they present it is
totally dependent on the belief that life sprang up from nothing.
But that's not a very scientific idea is it.

Trying to find truth through evidence is one thing.

Having a presupposed agenda that you claim has been proven,
when it has not, is another, and also dishonest.

But as I stated before in another post, they start out with the
belief there is no God, so of course they believe they are right.

Take the possibility of God out of the equation and what else
are you left with.

You seem to have missed my point rather badly.

I'm saying that both ideas require faith because nether can
be proven, people should study the evidences given and
come to their own conclusion.

Except the very definition of faith is believing something to be true without proof. The opposite of speculation and reasoning.

But don't come at me with the dishonest argument that
evolution is the be all end all proven answer to the question
of the origin of life. It simply isn't.
All scientific theories are potentially falsifiable. And evolution is not an explanation of the origin of life, simply the path taken to get here.

You have brought up another dishonesty that has been perpetrated
on the gullible, the idea that abiogenesis and evolution are to be
separated and thought of as two completely different things.

A neat little dishonest trick, at first there was no such separation
of the two until they finally realized they had no clue as to the origin
of life, so here's an ideal we will make a distinction between the
two and distance ourselves from the question of abiogenesis.

Except that they are. Evolutionary theory is the path taken to get to where we are from simple organisms. How the VERY beginning came to be is a different discussion.

The truth is that their theory of evolution as they present it is
totally dependent on the idea that life sprang up from nothing.
But that's not a very scientific idea is it.

It tells us that complex life sprang from simple life.


Trying to find truth through evidence is one thing.

Having a presupposed agenda that you claim has been proven,
when it has not, is another, and also dishonest.

But as I stated before in another post, they start out with the
idea there is no God, so of course they believe they are right.

Take the possibility of God out of the equation and what else
are you left with.
Intelligence. Originally Posted by bojulay

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. Originally Posted by forumguy456987

What I stated is true, in the beginning there was no separation between
the two.

And yes it is very relevant, it is where the theory begins.

Trying to separate the two is like saying I'm going to drive
my car to town even though the gas tank is empty.
I have some gas in a can over there but I have to
keep the two separate.

What I stated is true, in the beginning there was no separation between
the two.

And yes it is very relevant, it is where the theory begins.

Trying to separate the two is like saying I'm going to drive
my car to town even though the gas tank is empty.
I have some gas in a can over there but I have to
keep the two separate. Originally Posted by bojulay

Nope. Wrong again. Just because two questions are in the same domain does not in any way mean that the answer to one must be intrinsically linked to the other. Typically we do not know if they are or are not until we know both answers. YOU are the one claiming without fact that they ARE the same question. It is YOUR presupposed answer.

As to the two questions being historically linked, I hate to inform you but that is the way of all knowledge. Someone has an idea. They ponder it. Others ponder it. At some point someone else realizes there are subtleties involved that divide the question in to related but different questions. At one point the whole of western civilization believed there were so few questions to be answered that all of science was one discipline, Natural Philosophy. In the early 1900s the physicists bemoaned the fact that physics was a dead discipline--WE HAD LEARNED EVERYTHING! You "argument" that because two ideas were lumped together in the past means you refuse to accept an answer for one without an answer for the other is blind stupidity. Which is what you have been demonstrating throughout this discussion.

To your seriously flawed analogy of the car and gas: are you telling me that if I do not understand how to distill gasoline from petroleum, then I can’t possible know how an engine works? That is the more equivalent argument, and obviously a flawed one. Just as yours is.

What I stated is true, in the beginning there was no separation between
the two.
Proof?

And yes it is very relevant, it is where the theory begins.
The theory begins was when life was ready to change. There was nothing, and then there was something. The definition of that point the interim is not needed, as long as it occurred. Evolution proceeds from there.

Trying to separate the two is like saying I'm going to drive
my car to town even though the gas tank is empty.
I have some gas in a can over there but I have to
keep the two separate.
The answer is put gas in the fucking tank. Where you want to figure out at what point the gas is no longer considered in the can and is now in the tank is irrelevant to gas going in the tank from the can. Originally Posted by bojulay

For the record, I was raised catholic. Went to mass every Sunday, and I still attend a non denominational church. The fellow that runs it is a great speaker and puts on a great service. He doesn't read out of the bible literally, but instead puts it in a perspective where people can question and gain some insight on living their lives and presents God more as a feeling than a being.

I think individuals believing in God isn't a bad thing for the most part. I think the organizations that use a work of fiction to twist facts and put fear in people for control of their "free will" in pursuit of power and money is absolutely evil.

If the evidence starts to point to a creator of the simplest of life or the building blocks of life, fine. But that doesn't change the evidence pointing to evolution happening. Regardless of who/what/how the very beginning happened.

Nope. Wrong again. Just because two questions are in the same domain does not in any way mean that the answer to one must be intrinsically linked to the other. Typically we do not know if they are or are not until we know both answers. YOU are the one claiming without fact that they ARE the same question. It is YOUR presupposed answer.

As to the two questions being historically linked, I hate to inform you but that is the way of all knowledge. Someone has an idea. They ponder it. Others ponder it. At some point someone else realizes there are subtleties involved that divide the question in to related but different questions. At one point the whole of western civilization believed there were so few questions to be answered that all of science was one discipline, Natural Philosophy. In the early 1900s the physicists bemoaned the fact that physics was a dead discipline--WE HAD LEARNED EVERYTHING! You "argument" that because two ideas were lumped together in the past means you refuse to accept an answer for one without an answer for the other is blind stupidity. Which is what you have been demonstrating throughout this discussion.

To your seriously flawed analogy of the car and gas: are you telling me that if I do not understand how to distill gasoline from petroleum, then I can’t possible know how an engine works? That is the more equivalent argument, and obviously a flawed one. Just as yours is. Originally Posted by Old-T

Wrong again. The good old Primordial Ooze, Lightening Strikes,
Chemical Reactions, were all part of the Theory Of Evolution
until "oops" we can't seem to reproduce the event in a lab,
even with all our scientific know how, that doesn't look very
good on our part, saaaayyy....I know, we'll just give that idea
a different title and separate the two and maybe know one
will notice.

Yeah, once they found out that even the simplest life forms
were way more complex than they had ever imagined and
they couldn't create them in a lab. What a convenient way
of dealing with that little wrench in the machine.

Wrong again. The good old Primordial Ooze, Lightening Strikes,
Chemical Reactions, were all part of the Theory Of Evolution
until "oops" we can't seem to reproduce the event in a lab,
even with all our scientific know how, that doesn't look very
good on our part, saaaayyy....I know, we'll just give that idea
a different title and separate the two and maybe know one
will notice.

Yeah, once they found out that even the simplest life forms
were way more complex than they had ever imagined and
the couldn't create them in a lab. What a convenient way
of dealing with that little wrench in the machine. Originally Posted by bojulay

Convenient ways of dealing with wrenches in the machine, huh?
Like when I ask why god allows evil in the world and I get that he gave us free will and it's our fault?
Like when we ask why people have to go through such pain and suffering to prove something to god, because it's part of his mysterious plan?
Talk about convenient.

Either way, you still haven't come up with proof for your side...any. None. Zip. Zero.

Convenient ways of dealing with wrenches in the machine, huh?
Like when I ask why god allows evil in the world and I get that he gave us free will and it's our fault?
Like when we ask why people have to go through such pain and suffering to prove something to god, because it's part of his mysterious plan?
Talk about convenient.

Either way, you still haven't come up with proof for your side...any. None. Zip. Zero. Originally Posted by forumguy456987

I can ask you why did evolution allow the same. Why didn't it
evolve us all into peace loving harmonious vegetarians that
only want to pick flowers and sing songs all day long.

Want some proof, go outside and look around for oh say 15 minutes
and pretend that you don't believe in the child's fairy tale Theory
Of Evolution while you are doing it.

The problem with that statement is that if something was designed, normally there is an end-game in mind. So the endgame for the design was to have us end up like this.
There is no endgame in evolution until extinction.

Fairy tales? Funny. And I don't even have to point out why.

The problem with that statement is that if something was designed, normally there is an end-game in mind. So the endgame for the design was to have us end up like this.
There is no endgame in evolution until extinction.

Fairy tales? Funny. And I don't even have to point out why. Originally Posted by forumguy456987

Everything from nothing, not even air (there isn't even air in a vacuum)
with no catalyst, no prime mover. The God of the evolutionist is nothing.
And to nothingness he returns. Sounds like a fairy tale to me.


And much worse than any tales of the terrible about God.

Go do some research of your own on Macro evolution and missing link fossils there is a ton of information out there.
The information that is "out there" no doubt contains a lot of bullshit arguments and phony "facts' made up by creationists. That's why I want YOU to say what you think would qualify as missing links and macroevolution. Both you and WE1911 have consistently distorted evolutionary science to suit your own twisted ends. You are undoubtedly reading the same corrupt creationist websites to get your phony positions.

You keep asserting that there MUST be thousands of "missing link" fossils out there if evolution is true. That is bullshit and we have been through the "missing link" fossil records argument before. I explained to you and WE1911 that only very rarely does the carcass of a dead animal leave behind a fossil that can survive for millions of years. The temperature, chemicals and moisture of the soil it falls into must be just right to leave behind a skeleton. The odds are probably one in every tens of millions of bodies. And the few fossils that DO survive for millions of years are hidden in the ground. It is like trying to hit the lottery. And yet you expect a complete record of EVERY incremental step from species to species as if such a thing could ever be possible.

And, worse yet, soft tissue NEVER survives - only bones. That is why we only fined skeletons, not skin or hearts, or flap in giraffes necks. Thso stupid mimic octupuses that WE1911 keeps demanding fossils of DO NOT HAVE BONES to leave a fossil behind. Worse yet, anything that might be left behind is in the sea bed at the bottom of the ocean. So how are we even going to search for it?

You simply give credit to my argument. You don't have an argument. You simply attack the evidence of evolution, but offer no evidence of something different. You simply state "Evolution can't explain everything - therefore it must be God." Somehow, in your mind, the absence of a complete answer for one theory is somehow proof of an alternate theory.

There is no proof whatsoever that all that is needed is a long period of time for life to start on this planet.
Assuming there is no "proof" yet, that still is NOT proof of intelligent design or God. Certainly not proof of the God of the Bible.

Don't you see the huge gaping hole in your argument.
Seriously? A huge gaping hole in MY argument? This from a man who believes that an invisible superman in the clouds did it all with his magic powers. Creationists are not permitted to talk about huge gaping holes in arguments. The hypocrisy is too much.

just a few billion years of chemical processes and then one day bam there it is. And you would call that a scientific explanation.

Dawkins himself says, know one knows how life started on this planet.
Again, even if true, so what? "No one knows how" is an argument that applied to all scientific theories at one time, including the theory of gravity.

Your other argument seems to be because some people with biased opinions have a belief in something then that makes it true.
That "bias" you speak of is called "science".

I only want them to be honest and say it's an idea we have, instead of claiming that it's a proven fact, when clearly it is not. Originally Posted by bojulay

No one says it is a "proven fact". The theory of evolution is a very broad set of explanations about how things occurred. It is widely acknowledged that there are gaps in the information and earlier assumptions have sometimes proved wrong. But that just enables us to refined the theory to try to get it right.

And creationism is "an idea we have" in the same way that the tooth fairy is an idea we have.

I actually touched on that subject much earlier in this thread. Like I stated before, Fred Hoyle calculated that the chances of life "spontaneously generating" on earth is about 1 to a number with 40,000 zeros behind it, or effectualy zero. He concluded that life on earth must have an extra terrestrial origin. And he postulated about the exact process article you referenced. I didn't however use the term panspermia though that is exactly the term used by Hoyle. Lest anyone take Hoyle for a crackpot, he was the person who coined the term "Big Bang" in reference to the beginning of our universe. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Actually, fossil evidence exists of cellular life dating to about 1.2 billion years after the earth formed. There's also evidence that appears to suggest life on earth as early as about 3.8 billion years ago. Remember also that it took hundreds of millions of years for the earth to develop conditions that would support life.
And the idea that life erupted out of some primordial soup of random amino acids really doesn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny when you really consider the biology. Regardless of how many amino acids you have you need dna to form a cell. And a membrane. And other things.
The point being that it didn't take billions of years for early life to make it's appearance here. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I think the panspermia idea is fascinating, but I doubt it is true.

First, even if true, it doesn't explain the origin of life on the alien planet. All it does is change the physical location of the unknown occurrence. You still have to address the question "OK, if life on earth came from microbes on a planet in the Milky Way that were transported to earth on an asteroid, then how did the microbial life get started on the alien planet"?

The odds of life being spontaneously created on the alien planet would STILL be about 1 in X, where X is a number with 40,000 zeros behind it. But then, that planet gets blown apart and the microbes on the asteroid would somehow have to survive for millions of years drifting in the ice-cold vacuum of space with no oxygen and then surviving the blast of heat when it collided with the earth's atmosphere. Those odds are probably just as small as life being crated in the first place.