# Some new possibilities how life on earth may have originated



## bullethead (Dec 8, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/filmmaker-cameron-expedition-finds-weird-deep-sea-life-215833028.html


> SAN FRANCISCO — The deepest place on the planet may also hold the clues to the origin of life on Earth.
> 
> The discovery of microbial mats — bizarre-looking, filamentlike clumps of microorganisms — living off chemicals from altered rocks 35,803 feet (10,912 meters) beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean comes from samples and video collected by an unmanned lander, part of movie director James Cameron's mission to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Researchers have speculated that a similar setup may have sparked the chemical steps that lead to life on Earth, and possibly elsewhere in the solar system.
> 
> ...


----------



## shane256 (Jan 11, 2013)

Cool stuff.... something else interesting... what if life evolved in multiple places basically simultaneously? Some in the cold seeps and some in the hot smokers


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2013)

shane256 said:


> what if life evolved in multiple places basically simultaneously? Some in the cold seeps and some in the hot smokers


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 11, 2013)

Do most Christians see these ventures into scientist explaining Biblical concepts as the "work of the Devil?" I personally don't feel that way.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do most Christians see these ventures into scientist explaining Biblical concepts as the "work of the Devil?" I personally don't feel that way.



Cool. Please elaborate.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 11, 2013)

vowell462 said:


> Cool. Please elaborate.



I don't have a struggle with explaining Biblical stories scientifically. I like to use the rainbow as an example. God said it was a sign the Earth would never be flooded again. Scientist say it is the way light is refracted off moisture. The Ark of the Covenant could be a big battery that could kill anyone who touched it. Mannah could have been lichens growing on rocks and provided by God. God could have provided and performed everything and every process on Earth by using science. Every science process could be the result of God. God could have allowed man to go to the Moon. He might have even give him the knowledge to build the spaceship to get there. God could possibly allow or instruct doctors to cure cancer or A.I.D.S. one day.  
We don't even have to get that deep into it. We can stay simple as in the creation of a baby. A couple has sex and  the woman get's pregnant. Is it a miracle or science?  It's a miracle explained scientifically. 
Some Christians don't have a problem with the "miracle of life" being explained scientifically but when we get to the "origin of life" explained scientifically, they go Ape sheet.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 11, 2013)

shane256 said:


> Cool stuff.... something else interesting... what if life evolved in multiple places basically simultaneously? Some in the cold seeps and some in the hot smokers



I can see that happening. Possibly not even simultaneously but millions of years apart. I would think you could introduce a species low on the evolutionary chain  into various worldly places and environments and it would evolve differently.

What about Devolution? Species evolve backwards into more primitive species for some strange reason. We can't explain God's reasons for these strange happenings.


----------



## shane256 (Jan 12, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about Devolution? Species evolve backwards into more primitive species for some strange reason.



Evolution would go "backwards" (it isn't backwards, it's still forwards... because time goes forwards) because those changes proved to be the better "solution" to the encountered environment. Perhaps the environment changed, stayed one way for a long time, and then changed back to the previous way. Traits more suited to the previous environment would tend to propagate.

On a tangent: I saw an interesting program a while back that said that evolution may not really be about survival of the fittest as we've thought... life/death. It's more about reproduction... what creatures were more successful in reproducing. Being able to live on nothing but air and sunlight is nice and all (just to pick a wild example of something potentially very useful), but not very useful in the long run if you can't pass the genes down to make more of you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 12, 2013)

shane256 said:


> Evolution would go "backwards" (it isn't backwards, it's still forwards... because time goes forwards) because those changes proved to be the better "solution" to the encountered environment. Perhaps the environment changed, stayed one way for a long time, and then changed back to the previous way. Traits more suited to the previous environment would tend to propagate.
> 
> On a tangent: I saw an interesting program a while back that said that evolution may not really be about survival of the fittest as we've thought... life/death. It's more about reproduction... what creatures were more successful in reproducing. Being able to live on nothing but air and sunlight is nice and all (just to pick a wild example of something potentially very useful), but not very useful in the long run if you can't pass the genes down to make more of you.



I see your point that evolution can't go backwards. Things can go more primitive but time is going forward.
I don't think evolution is all about survival of the fittest as that doesn't always happen. Interesting subject.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 16, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do most Christians see these ventures into scientist explaining Biblical concepts as the "work of the Devil?" I personally don't feel that way.



I don't feel that way either. Unfortunately scientists have a bad habit of abandoning science, and resorting to imagination. Nothing wrong with imagination, unless you are claiming it is science.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 16, 2013)

Most Christians I know view science as understanding creation.  There is no evil in learning.  To suggest such a thing completely ignores the religious roots in education.

If god took 4 billion years to create the heavens and the earth, he is no less god than if he took 7 days.  The act of creation gives him that designation.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

I'm not against scientists in any way either. They are the ones who search and search and discovery things. Medicines especially interest me. I use a lot of herbs for many types of healing that have kept me from taking so much chemical compounds. But there are things that we couldn't have lived without that scientists have discovered, polio vaccine, small pox vaccine, antibiotics, etc etc. All of which came from something that was created by God right here on this earth.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm not against scientists in any way either. They are the ones who search and search and discovery things. Medicines especially interest me. I use a lot of herbs for many types of healing that have kept me from taking so much chemical compounds. But there are things that we couldn't have lived without that scientists have discovered, polio vaccine, small pox vaccine, antibiotics, etc etc. All of which came from something that was created by God right here on this earth.




Can't argue that those things were already here, but as much as I like you....I just can't take your word about who created any of them or how you think they got here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Can't argue that those things were already here, but as much as I like you....I just can't take your word about who created any of them or how you think they got here.



I know. And I feel the same about the scientific theory of evolution. No scientist has ever created something out of nothing....I just believe that someone did though...and that person gives scientists things to work with to develop or discover something. But I certainly understand your opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> I know. And I feel the same about the scientific theory of evolution. No scientist has ever created something out of nothing....I just believe that someone did though...and that person gives scientists things to work with to develop or discover something. But I certainly understand your opinion.



Do you understand though that there is really no evidence that there was "nothing" and then something got created from it?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Do you understand though that there is really no evidence that there was "nothing" and then something got created from it?



Absolutely. If all the brilliant scientists that we have and have had can find no evidence, why would I be able to prove it? I believe by faith, not by sight.  It's impossible for me to believe that everything about our earth just happened to fall together in perfect order. The axis, the moon/tides, gravity, plants, trees, food, animals, us....just  so happened to fit together perfectly by circumstance? I believe the earth at one time was null and void, just like the other planets in our solar system.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Absolutely. If all the brilliant scientists that we have and have had can find no evidence, why would I be able to prove it? I believe by faith, not by sight.  It's impossible for me to believe that everything about our earth just happened to fall together in perfect order. The axis, the moon/tides, gravity, plants, trees, food, animals, us....just  so happened to fit together perfectly by circumstance? I believe the earth at one time was null and void, just like the other planets in our solar system.



Belief vs Fact
That seems to be the major hurdle.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Belief vs Fact
> That seems to be the major hurdle.



As in...what? I'm not following you. What fact are you talking about?

It is not a fact yet, but I believe the cancer researchers will one day find a cure for cancer. I believe that 'healing' is already here on earth and it will be discovered one day. 
Just like Jonas Salk believed he could find a cure/deterent for polio and then it became a fact. If he hadn't believed it first then he would've never brought it to fruition.  Just because I believe in something that I may not be able to prove at the moment to those who do not believe, doesn't mean it is not just an 'unknown fact' to them. Everything hasn't always been a fact, most things had to be discovered first and then it became a fact.

Anyway that's just my take on belief and fact.


----------

