# Could life be older than Earth itself?



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/could-life-older-earth-itself-175255318.html


> Applying a maxim from computer science to biology raises the intriguing possibility that life existed before Earth did and may have originated outside our solar system, scientists say.
> 
> Moore's Law is the observation that computers increase exponentially in complexity, at a rate of about double the transistors per integrated circuit every two years. If you apply Moore's Law to just the last few years' rate of computational complexity and work backward, you'll get back to the 1960s, when the first microchip was, indeed, invented.
> 
> ...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 19, 2013)

lol      making life older than Earth implies space life  (panspermia)    

moving life's origin to space just gives them a way to bypass figuring out how it could have started here.    (which they are really struggling with)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol      making life older than Earth implies space life  (panspermia)
> 
> moving life's origin to space just gives them a way to bypass figuring out how it could have started here.    (which they are really struggling with)



Maybe they are struggling with it because it started somewhere else.......oh I don't know.....like in space????


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Maybe they are struggling with it because it started somewhere else.......oh I don't know.....like in space????



Isn't earth in space?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Isn't earth in space?


Then there's that.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Isn't earth in space?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 22, 2013)

He probably meant ELSEWHERE in Space. Normally space refers to out there... not here...

I would think that widespread disasters - major illnesses, floods or meteors - would put a big blip in the exponential curve of the complexity of life... Which would mean life could be even older. Maybe...


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He probably meant ELSEWHERE in Space. Normally space refers to out there... not here...
> 
> I would think that widespread disasters - major illnesses, floods or meteors - would put a big blip in the exponential curve of the complexity of life... Which would mean life could be even older. Maybe...



Don't sweat it TripleX.....
those are the answers given when what is being talked about does not match their handbook word for word so they will try to broaden the stories to fit.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Apr 22, 2013)

I think life has probably started in many places in the universe independent of each other.  And since, it has been spread around through panspermia.  To me, life is inevitable, if there is a will, there is a way, it’s going to happen.  Just look at our earth for example.  In every single extreme environment where people look at and say, "There’s no way anything could live there!", there is and it is thriving.


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 22, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> I think life has probably started in many places in the universe independent of each other.  And since, it has been spread around through panspermia.  To me, life is inevitable, if there is a will, there is a way, it’s going to happen.  Just look at our earth for example.  In every single extreme environment where people look at and say, "There’s no way anything could live there!", there is and it is thriving.



WE ARE A PEARL ON A NEVER ENDING PEARL NECKLACE THAT EXIST OUT THERE


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> I think life has probably started in many places in the universe independent of each other.



I'm not disagreeing with you, but why do you think that?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Apr 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you, but why do you think that?



Well, I really have no good answer for that.  I just think if life can start in one place, why couldnt it start in another place to?


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> i'm not disagreeing with you, but why do you think that?



it takes sunlight and water to create BASIC FORM OF life...the sun is the closest star to us...do you see all the stars in the sky?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Apr 22, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> it takes sunlight and water to create BASIC FORM OF life...the sun is the closest star to us...do you see all the stars in the sky?



Basic form of life as we know it.  Who's to say there is not life out there that forms in other conditions?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> those are the answers given when what is being talked about does not match their handbook word for word so they will try to broaden the stories to fit.





Life being started here, or there, is really irrelevant to "who/what started it when" discussion.  It's the universe.  If a single creator created it, why does it matter to me if mine was the first planet with life, or the 1 millionth?  Discovering such is cool, but not consequential to my faith.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Life being started here, or there, is really irrelevant to "who/what started it when" discussion.  It's the universe.  If a single creator created it, why does it matter to me if mine was the first planet with life, or the 1 millionth?  Discovering such is cool, but not consequential to my faith.



JB, pertaining to this forum and a certain religion, if it was started by a creator(or no creator) in any other way other than exactly how the Bible says it happened then we can rule out yet another fable from the Bible. That is monumental.

Pertaining to general discussion, If we are the first or millionth planet to obtain life then I agree it is cool.

The major difference is many people on here believe it is only ONE way exactly as stated by the Bible, and in reality many things have been shown over and over to not be as stated in the Bible. Believers then give a "so what" and go on to spout verses as if the next verse is reliable. Or skip the Bible verses because some believers actually know the Bible is suspect, but then they still cling to some super-man in the sky starting it all anyway.

If/when it is eventually figured out that life on this planet got started from a meteor or asteroid colliding with Earth(or ANY other way besides what religion TELLS us as the Word of a God) and bringing with it life...or the right concoction to get life started here...then I hope I am around long enough to hear the latest batch of excuses from the religious followers.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 22, 2013)

I hope I am around long enough to find it possible to have an intelligent, mature conversation with an Atheist without them being condescending and insulting to my beliefs as a person. That fact of sanctimonious self gratification by them discredits most of what they would like to use as a valid counterpoint to any discussion on about any topic. The piety of their over-inflated opinions of themselves is comical at best.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Apr 22, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Then there's that.



Yea, thats adding quality content to this discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I hope I am around long enough to find it possible to have an intelligent, mature conversation with an Atheist without them being condescending and insulting to my beliefs as a person. That fact of sanctimonious self gratification by them discredits most of what they would like to use as a valid counterpoint to any discussion on about any topic. The piety of their over-inflated opinions of themselves is comical at best.



Probably won't happen as long as you personify sanctimonious self gratification by inserting wild beliefs as factual answers to intelligent questions. Being accused of piety by the Pious is quite comical. We each are having a good laugh at the others expense.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 22, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Yea, thats adding quality content to this discussion.


I would be concerned if it were a quality discussion, but when I open a thread full of insults towards one group of people, based solely on speculation that something may exist based on absolutely no proof or evidence of the same, which is originated by a group of folks that reject the concept of a diety based on "no proof or evidence of existence" and then they take a morally superior attitude slinging insults at the other group of people based on that missing evidence one has to sit back and laugh. 

You boys should stick to hog dogging. The simple irony of the basic premise of this thread breaks the very boundaries of elementary comedy.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I would be concerned if it were a quality discussion, but when I open a thread full of insults towards one group of people, based solely on speculation that something may exist based on absolutely no proof or evidence of the same, which is originated by a group of folks that reject the concept of a diety based on "no proof or evidence of existence" and then they take a morally superior attitude slinging insults at the other group of people based on that missing evidence one has to sit back and laugh.
> 
> You boys should stick to hog dogging. The simple irony of the basic premise of this thread breaks the very boundaries of elementary comedy.



Where's the Insults? Unless your talking about the ones made AFTER your post filled with Insults....


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I would be concerned if it were a quality discussion, but when I open a thread full of insults towards one group of people, based solely on speculation that something may exist based on absolutely no proof or evidence of the same, which is originated by a group of folks that reject the concept of a diety based on "no proof or evidence of existence" and then they take a morally superior attitude slinging insults at the other group of people based on that missing evidence one has to sit back and laugh.
> 
> You boys should stick to hog dogging. The simple irony of the basic premise of this thread breaks the very boundaries of elementary comedy.


So much truth in this post!


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2013)

How are thoughts of "life" (because it exists) existing elsewhere in parts of space (again,because space and planets exists that are in other destinations other than our own Earth)and coming to this planet transported by parts of other planets(which again are PROVEN to exist) be compared to the things(Gods) that have never ever never ever been proved to exist anywhere at any time?
There is no "irony" when comparing plausible possibilities from existing places to possibilities that only exist in someone's mind.

Objects from distant planets, asteroids, meteors, debris, dust, etc..from other places in our Solar System, Galaxy, Galaxies and Universe actually DO exist and they actually DO hit our planet. Bottom line is that is fact. Being that those things do happen and there is a great possibility that within this Universe there exists conditions that are similar to our planet and conditions that are vastly different that life as we know and also don't know about can also exist elsewhere. It is totally plausible that life, or the right combination of materials for life to exist of any sort, could have come to Earth from another place and when mixed with our conditions made life as we know it.
These things are actually possible because each and every component has been proven to exist.

Now if anyone has ANY proof of a God, Gods, Specific religions Deity of worship, etc...actually existing and being able to be compared as possible and plausible possibilities like the ones mentioned above are then please list them. Otherwise the loosest term of "irony" might be able to land on the surface but unable to even scratch the surface of comparing the two scenarios.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How are thoughts of "life" (because it exists) existing elsewhere in parts of space (again,because space and planets exists that are in other destinations other than our own Earth)and coming to this planet transported by parts of other planets(which again are PROVEN to exist) be compared to the things(Gods) that have never ever never ever been proved to exist anywhere at any time?
> 
> There is no "irony" when comparing plausible possibilities from existing places to possibilities that only exist in someone's mind.


Show me where life existed before the earth, and then I'll believe it. I want undeniable indisputable proof.

See how I threw plausability out the window there? You do it all the time with God.




> if anyone has ANY proof of a God, Gods, Specific religions Deity of worship, etc


Want me to bump the Willard thread for the millionth time? Cause this is about the millionth time I've heard this statement in this forum. While it's not the proof you're looking for, it is as plausible as your argument in this thread.



> actually existing and being able to be compared as possible and plausible possibilities like the ones mentioned above are then please list them. Otherwise the loosest term of "irony" might be able to land on the surface but unable to even scratch the surface of comparing the two scenarios.



I'll actually show you God if you actually show me that life existed before earth did.

You first

Ready.....set......go.......


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> JB, pertaining to this forum and a certain religion, if it was started by a creator(or no creator) in any other way other than exactly how the Bible says it happened then we can rule out yet another fable from the Bible. That is monumental.



I think I see the issue from two angles.  First, there is the "absolutist" approach to the Bible, which is often the one hammered most in here.  I am not a huge supporter of this approach, however, I do understand the premise that if you can toss one verse out, you might as well toss 'em all.  Understanding and agreeing are two very different things.  Which is to say, I am not certain anyone ever intended for certain parts to be accepted as literal telling of facts. 

Regardless of that approach, the same conclusion can be reached by those of various opinions.....that "God did it."  I do share that perspective with my absolutist friends.



bullethead said:


> Pertaining to general discussion, If we are the first or millionth planet to obtain life then I agree it is cool..





My opinion on this subject has zero basis in fact, but I like to believe a universe which can fit us in such a small corner probably has some secrets hidden around the next.  I doubt we will discover them in either of our lifetime's, but it is cool to speculate about the possibilities.



bullethead said:


> Or skip the Bible verses because some believers actually know the Bible is suspect, but then they still cling to some super-man in the sky starting it all anyway.



It's all in how you look at it, Bullet.  I don't "skip" certain verses, I try to take it as is, and see if there is a perspective outside my natural inclinations which may shed a little bit of light on certain subjects.

For instance, I was taught many, many things that "the Bible said were true," only to learn as I grew older that may have been a little twisting of the facts.....and I was left with a problem, do I accept my childhood teachings that were demonstrably false?  Or, do I accept that I may have been taught incorrectly by well-intentioned people?  Either way, I am not going to toss the whole thing because somebody may have gotten it wrong along the way.  I will continue seeking truth, same as you, only with a slightly different motive.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Show me where life existed before the earth, and then I'll believe it. I want undeniable indisputable proof.


I don't have any undeniable proof. Just basing my thoughts from the probabilities of factual places.



stringmusic said:


> See how I threw plausability out the window there? You do it all the time with God.


I do see that. The difference between each of ours is that there really are other places beyond our own planet that do exist and have been proven to exist. Same can't be said of a God let alone your God. There are degrees of Plausibility and we are far apart.





stringmusic said:


> Want me to bump the Willard thread for the millionth time? Cause this is about the millionth time I've heard this statement in this forum. While it's not the proof you're looking for, it is as plausible as your argument in this thread.


Besides you there might be another handful on this forum that is convinced the Willard article is worth bumping up. I am fairly certain that if that article meant anything at all or was in the least bit convincing it would be standard reading for the world and all scientists would just marvel at it's worth. I, nor those others much smarter than me waiting for "proof" put one iota of merit in Willard or his article.
Go ahead and bump it........maybe this time someone will read it and bring the world to a screeching halt when they see how Willard introduces a totally non existent being into totally existent places and things....yeah, that will probably work on the millionth and first try....






stringmusic said:


> I'll actually show you God if you actually show me that life existed before earth did.
> 
> You first
> 
> Ready.....set......go.......



I am not afraid to admit that I can't do what your asking. All I can say is I am more likely to believe in a more plausible scenario than yours.
Your just making things up about showing anyone God. You know you can't, you know it doesn't exist and you would have shown it every minute of every day if it did exist..........difference between us is my scenario is more likely to come true before yours. Then your gonna have to show me what you absolutely cannot.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 24, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I hope I am around long enough to find it possible to have an intelligent, mature conversation with an Atheist without them being condescending and insulting to my beliefs as a person. That fact of sanctimonious self gratification by them discredits most of what they would like to use as a valid counterpoint to any discussion on about any topic. The piety of their over-inflated opinions of themselves is comical at best.



I agree! Shouldn't they be out 'discovering' something? or better yet 'creating something out of nothing'?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 24, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> it takes sunlight and water to create BASIC FORM OF life...the sun is the closest star to us...do you see all the stars in the sky?



Who knew that?... Who created the sunlight and water.

I personally don't exclude life elsewhere....I just don't know. Until someone discovers/proves it, then none of us know. But I know there is life on this earth and I know someone created it, or got it here, or planted it here from wherever they came from.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

Just my two cents, but correct me if I'm wrong.  They took Moore's Law which describes the exponential growth in complexity of computers since their creation, computers initially built with inherent complexity and design by intelligent beings in the 1960s.  They applied the same law to human complexity and when the data emerged that we were much too complex to have evolved from primordial slime given the age of the earth, instead of coming to the rational conclusion that we, like computers were too created  with inherent complexity and design by an intelligent being.  They chose to disregard their own model and come to a conclusion that life must have begun outside of our solar system.  This is shoddy and unethical reasoning at best and sadly what passes for science in much of todays academia.  Why even have a model if you are not going to abide by its framework and instead base your conclusions on your presuppositions.  It's a farce!


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just my two cents, but correct me if I'm wrong.  They took Moore's Law which describes the exponential growth in complexity of computers since their creation, computers initially built with inherent complexity and design by intelligent beings in the 1960s.  They applied the same law to human complexity and when the data emerged that we were much too complex to have evolved from primordial slime given the age of the earth, instead of coming to the rational conclusion that we, like computers were too created  with inherent complexity and design by an intelligent being.  They chose to disregard their own model and come to a conclusion that life must have begun outside of our solar system.  This is shoddy and unethical reasoning at best and sadly what passes for science in much of todays academia.  Why even have a model if you are not going to abide by its framework and instead base your conclusions on your presuppositions.  It's a farce!


It's all for the mighty dollar. If there were no money to be made, man made global warming wouldn't exist either.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just my two cents, but correct me if I'm wrong.  They took Moore's Law which describes the exponential growth in complexity of computers since their creation, computers initially built with inherent complexity and design by intelligent beings in the 1960s.  They applied the same law to human complexity and when the data emerged that we were much too complex to have evolved from primordial slime given the age of the earth, instead of coming to the rational conclusion that we, like computers were too created  with inherent complexity and design by an intelligent being.  They chose to disregard their own model and come to a conclusion that life must have begun outside of our solar system.  This is shoddy and unethical reasoning at best and sadly what passes for science in much of todays academia.  Why even have a model if you are not going to abide by its framework and instead base your conclusions on your presuppositions.  It's a farce!



I agree with you 100% on this!  But...............  Instead of an imaginary omnipotent being in the sky creating us, I lean more towards the idea that more intelligent beings than us (aliens if you will) came here and genetically modified the very basic life forms that spread to our earth via panspermia.  Ok, let the snickers begin!

One particular bible verse comes to mind as i type this that has puzzled me since I was a kid.

"Then God said, "And now we will make human beings: they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds and all animals, domestic and wild,, large and small". Genesis 1:26


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> I agree with you 100% on this!  But...............  Instead of an imaginary omnipotent being in the sky creating us, I lean more towards the idea that more intelligent beings than us (aliens if you will) came here and genetically modified the very basic life forms that spread to our earth via panspermia.  Ok, let the snickers begin!
> 
> One particular bible verse comes to mind as i type this that has puzzled me since I was a kid.
> 
> "Then God said, "And now we will make human beings: they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds and all animals, domestic and wild,, large and small". Genesis 1:26



   should be no puzzle at all.    the new testament says that Jesus was with the Father from the beginning.   John 1:1 is a good one.   

OXYMORON of the day....    "very basic life forms"     They know there is no such thing, but they keep saying it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> One particular bible verse comes to mind as i type this that has puzzled me since I was a kid.
> 
> "Then God said, "And now we will make human beings: they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds and all animals, domestic and wild,, large and small". Genesis 1:26



The previous poster is correct in that the argument has been made that this is one of the first verses in the Bible to suggest the idea of the Trinity.


----------



## panfried0419 (May 3, 2013)

Bullethead had better pack some sunscreen and bottled water by judgment day.

But in all seriousness. One, like myself, evolution creationist aka: theistic evolutionist cannot fathom the thought of life before Earth. Not in God's intelligent design.


----------



## JABBO (May 3, 2013)

Can you give us a hint as to when this might take place? 



panfried0419 said:


> Bullethead had better pack some sunscreen and bottled water by judgment day.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> I agree with you 100% on this!  But...............  Instead of an imaginary omnipotent being in the sky creating us, I lean more towards the idea that more intelligent beings than us (aliens if you will) came here and genetically modified the very basic life forms that spread to our earth via panspermia.  Ok, let the snickers begin!



Swampstalker  I believe life's ultimate goal is find the truth as it pertains to meaning, our meaning.  I don't ridicule someone for their beliefs.  I just don't.  I believe people have valid reasons for believing what they believe.  At the same time I make no apology for what I believe, and will happily discuss and defend my beliefs.  I will also critique other beliefs in where I perceive their shortcomings are, but I refuse to castigate, denigrate, or debase another individual in doing so.  It's simply pointless and petty.  That being said, do you mind me asking why if you believe we were created by an intelligent being/s do you attribute it to Aliens instead of God.  I hope I have gotten the gist of your point correct.  If not feel free to correct me.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just my two cents, but correct me if I'm wrong.  They took Moore's Law which describes the exponential growth in complexity of computers since their creation, computers initially built with inherent complexity and design by intelligent beings in the 1960s.  They applied the same law to human complexity and when the data emerged that we were much too complex to have evolved from primordial slime given the age of the earth, instead of coming to the rational conclusion that we, like computers were too created  with inherent complexity and design by an intelligent being.  They chose to disregard their own model and come to a conclusion that life must have begun outside of our solar system.  This is shoddy and unethical reasoning at best and sadly what passes for science in much of todays academia.  Why even have a model if you are not going to abide by its framework and instead base your conclusions on your presuppositions.  It's a farce!



Science is a process of forming and testing hypotheses. The ones that are shown through testing to be erroneous are abandoned and new hypotheses are formed. That is how science works and that process is responsible for the bulk of human knowledge. Nothing unethical about it. If you want a set of beliefs that are made up by man and set in stone no matter how erroneous they may be you have to turn to religion for that.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> ...If you want a set of beliefs that are made up by man and set in stone no matter how erroneous they may be you have to turn to religion for that.



Are you serious!??   Have you seen how scientists and the media ignore evidence that contradicts evolution and follow a 'set in stone' theory that absorbs all evidence?   

Evolution is a slow process over millennia, unless it needs to be fast.

Darwin of the Gaps....    lol


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Are you serious!??   Have you seen how scientists and the media ignore evidence that contradicts evolution and follow a 'set in stone' theory that absorbs all evidence?
> 
> Evolution is a slow process over millennia, unless it needs to be fast.
> 
> Darwin of the Gaps....    lol



Yeah maybe it's a grand conspiracy between scientists and the media. I mean scientists never try to prove each other wrong.

Or... maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

These are not two possibilities of equal probability.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2013)

you have to admit though that there is no evidence that will disprove evolution....

how about.....creatures that have not changed in millions of years?   Nope....already got those.   Evolution just says they were blessed with the perfect body design.   

Rabbit found in precambrian rock?   Nope....not even that, because they would just turn around and redate the rock!  

mammals with dinosaurs?   Nope.....got 'em.    Birds with dinosaurs??????    Nope....got them too!     

Complex life from the earliest fossils.....that's what we have.   No 'simple' life.   Simple life is only hypothesized.      Researching OOL pays peoples' salaries, though.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> you have to admit though that there is no evidence that will disprove evolution....



Not true. 




BANDERSNATCH said:


> how about.....creatures that have not changed in millions of years?   Nope....already got those.   Evolution just says they were blessed with the perfect body design.



How is that a problem for the theory of evolution?




BANDERSNATCH said:


> Rabbit found in precambrian rock?   Nope....not even that, because they would just turn around and redate the rock!



They haven't been found have they? 




BANDERSNATCH said:


> mammals with dinosaurs?   Nope.....got 'em.    Birds with dinosaurs??????    Nope....got them too!



Which mammals? All mammals? If not, why not? 




BANDERSNATCH said:


> Complex life from the earliest fossils.....that's what we have.   No 'simple' life.   Simple life is only hypothesized.      Researching OOL pays peoples' salaries, though.



Define what constitutes "simple" life and then from that definition lets determine if such a thing would leave a fossil behind.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (May 3, 2013)

lol     they've got mammals with dinosaurs....matter of fact, I believe they have a fossil of a mammal that had eaten a dinosaur.   

squirrels....badgers....etc.   Numerous species of mammals...

Simple life was defined by a group of scientists back in 2006.   They found that the minimum gene set for a cell was 387.    

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/425.abstract

That 387 genes is a problem for evolutionists and Origin of Life researchers is an understatement.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol     they've got mammals with dinosaurs....matter of fact, I believe they have a fossil of a mammal that had eaten a dinosaur.
> 
> squirrels....badgers....etc.   Numerous species of mammals...



Source please? Just because your Ken Ham newsletter says it doesn't make it true. It is pretty widely accepted that there were small rodent like mammals around the same time as dinosaurs. That is no more a problem for evolution than that there were fish at that time or fish now. What I would like you to tell us is why all mammal fossils aren't found with the dinosaur fossils.




BANDERSNATCH said:


> Simple life was defined by a group of scientists back in 2006.   They found that the minimum gene set for a cell was 387.
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/425.abstract
> 
> That 387 genes is a problem for evolutionists and Origin of Life researchers is an understatement.



And you are surprised that no fossils of these have been found?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Science is a process of forming and testing hypotheses. The ones that are shown through testing to be erroneous are abandoned and new hypotheses are formed. That is how science works and that process is responsible for the bulk of human knowledge. Nothing unethical about it.


 
Science is no more ethically pristine than the personal ethics of the scientists involved in a study.  There is good science and bad science.  When a scientist goes beyond the data and draws conclusions the evidence cant support it's bad science.  I would suggests that is what happened here.



atlashunter said:


> If you want a set of beliefs that are made up by man and set in stone no matter how erroneous they may be you have to turn to religion for that.



Are you just saying that, or do you have any proof of that assertion, because if you have actual proof of that I would like to hear it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

SFD,

You can't fault a process on the basis of individuals who choose not to follow it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> SFD,
> 
> You can't fault a process on the basis of individuals who choose not to follow it.



I absolutely agree!  Please tell me you give religion the same consideration you give to science in that you don't dismiss it as folly based on its adherents inability to follow its tenents.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I absolutely agree!  Please tell me you give religion the same consideration you give to science in that you don't dismiss it as folly based on its adherents inability to follow its tenents.



Absolutely. In fact I would even go so far as praising the adherents refusal to follow tenets like stoning people for working on the sabbath or being disobedient to their parents or killing witches.


----------



## bullethead (May 3, 2013)

panfried0419 said:


> Bullethead had better pack some sunscreen and bottled water by judgment day.
> 
> But in all seriousness. One, like myself, evolution creationist aka: theistic evolutionist cannot fathom the thought of life before Earth. Not in God's intelligent design.



10-4


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 3, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Absolutely. In fact I would even go so far as praising the adherents refusal to follow tenets like stoning people for working on the sabbath or being disobedient to their parents or killing witches.



There's an axiom that goes something along the lines of this  "Throwing dirt is a sure way to lose ground".  Are the grounds for your beliefs so fragile that you have to resort to sarcasm the moment they are challenged?  Can you at least make a reasonable defense of them without denigrating another?


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There's an axiom that goes something along the lines of this  "Throwing dirt is a sure way to lose ground".  Are the grounds for your beliefs so fragile that you have to resort to sarcasm the moment they are challenged?  Can you at least make a reasonable defense of them without denigrating another?



You should consider the possibility that I was being absolutely serious. If the bible says not to kill and a christian does it anyway the blame lies with the christian. I certainly don't fault the passage that says not to murder for those who ignore it. A passage that says to kill a witch on the other hand can be faulted on its own merits and especially when a christian opts to follow it. My hats off to those who don't. So the short answer to your question is yes, I believe I'm consistent in my application of the principle. Are you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

Excuse me, but with regards to science you stated:
"You can't fault a process on the basis of individuals who fail to follow it"
I asked if you gave the same consideration to religion in which you stated:
Absolutely. In fact I would even go so far as praising the adherents refusal to follow tenets like stoning people for working on the sabbath or being disobedient to their parents or killing witches.

A five year old can pinpoint the hypocrisy between these two contradictory positions as well as the implied sarcasm, however when challenged on this you suggest "You should consider the possibility I was being absolutely serious."  I will take you at your word.  Good Day Sir and May God Bless you.


----------



## atlashunter (May 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Excuse me, but with regards to science you stated:
> "You can't fault a process on the basis of individuals who fail to follow it"
> I asked if you gave the same consideration to religion in which you stated:
> Absolutely. In fact I would even go so far as praising the adherents refusal to follow tenets like stoning people for working on the sabbath or being disobedient to their parents or killing witches.
> ...



You sure are defensive. What part of that do you think is contradictory or hypocritical? I'm judging the process, or in the case of religion the tenets on the basis of their own merit. 

Would it be hypocritical to say religion should be judged based on its tenets and not whether people stray from them and then get upset because people stray from keeping an immoral command to kill witches?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> You sure are defensive. What part of that do you think is contradictory or hypocritical? I'm judging the process, or in the case of religion the tenets on the basis of their own merit.



No Sir.  I'm not defensive.  In fact I enjoy engaging in conversation with those of other beliefs, but only if the conversation is based on mutual respect between the participants and the validity of the arguments are allowed to stand on their inherent merit.



atlashunter said:


> Would it be hypocritical to say religion should be judged based on its tenets and not whether people stray from them:



It absolutely would be hypocritical to make that statement regarding religion, when regarding science you made this statement, 


atlashunter said:


> "You can't fault a process on the basis of individuals who choose not to follow it."



Can you honestly say you don't see a contradiction here in how you apply your critique?



atlashunter said:


> and then get upset because people stray from keeping an immoral command to kill witches?



There are two suppositions in this clause I would like to address.

First, to the point that killing witches is immoral.
C.S. Lewis addressed this very point in his book "Mere Christianity" and he did a more adequate job than I could ever hope to so I would like to quote him here.

"“I conclude then, that though the difference between people’s ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, ‘Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are  You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”

Excerpt From: C. S. Lewis. “Mere Christianity.” HarperCollins. 

Your second implication in the clause "and then get upset because people stray from keeping an immoral command to kill witches?" is that the command to kill witches is in fact, immoral.  To presume immorality is to also presume there is morality.  To presume there is morality is to by definition to imply there is a moral law which also inherently implies a moral law giver, a God in other words.  
This is a big problem for many Atheist.  You see, if you truly believe there is no God then by definition you cannot even justify asking a question involving right and wrong, moral or immoral conduct because you have no foundational principle on which to justify your question.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 4, 2013)

I don't understand the need to assign morality to a supreme being.  Why must morals be handed down from on high?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't understand the need to assign morality to a supreme being.  Why must morals be handed down from on high?



Fair enough.  What's your theory on it then?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Fair enough.  What's your theory on it then?



I think basic moral law is encoded.  We know it is counterproductive to go around bashing each other's heads in.  It might happen from time to time, but it doesn't last.  Our basic instinct is to further the species.  If we constantly lie, cheat, pillage, and murder, we don't survive as a species.  I don't think every tribe or culture had a Mount Sinai moment to show them morality.  


IMO


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 4, 2013)

The problem I see with ascribing it to basically a tenant of evolution, if I understand you correctly in saying it furthers the species, is that it doesn't always act toward self preservation which is what evolution say instincts do.  For instance if I see a house on fire morality says go in and check for people whereas instinct says stay away and save yourself.  This is not an isolated example, in fact in many instances morality calls for us to put others first which runs contrary to evolutionary instincts toward self preservation.


----------



## atlashunter (May 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> First, to the point that killing witches is immoral.
> C.S. Lewis addressed this very point in his book "Mere Christianity" and he did a more adequate job than I could ever hope to so I would like to quote him here.
> 
> "“I conclude then, that though the difference between people’s ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, ‘Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are  You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.”
> ...



Of course the biblical position is that witches do indeed exist, otherwise why instruct that they are not to be permitted to live? It's progress that most Christians have seen fit to abandon at least some of the more onerous nonsense in the bible. Too bad some of them in Africa still haven't got the memo. I do fault them individually for following as Christians scriptures which tell them to do an evil deed and which you as a more enlightened Christian have found a way to ignore. But I also fault the scripture itself for it can be judged on its own merits. I reject any claim of moral superiority made by those whose supposedly infallible guide book calls for the murder of children, no matter how disobedient they may be.

Yes you can cherry pick some good common sense commands like don't steal, don't kill, don't lie (except of course when God commands otherwise). If a Christian steals or lies, I don't take it as evidence that the bible was wrong in it's commandment not to do those things. I'll readily acknowledge the good parts. The problem is, to genuinely be a moral individual and a christian you have to pick the pepper from the dung. Over the centuries Christians have become expert at that all the while proclaiming the entire pile to be dung free.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 5, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> should be no puzzle at all.    the new testament says that Jesus was with the Father from the beginning.   John 1:1 is a good one.
> 
> OXYMORON of the day....    "very basic life forms"     They know there is no such thing, but they keep saying it.



Well considering the new testament was written after Jesus died, it would only make sense for it to describe god as a triune, because after all, that's what Jesus said.  Why did God not explain the trinity to Moses on while he was on mount Siani, recording the ten commandments?


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Swampstalker  I believe life's ultimate goal is find the truth as it pertains to meaning, our meaning.  I don't ridicule someone for their beliefs.  I just don't.  I believe people have valid reasons for believing what they believe.  At the same time I make no apology for what I believe, and will happily discuss and defend my beliefs.  I will also critique other beliefs in where I perceive their shortcomings are, but I refuse to castigate, denigrate, or debase another individual in doing so.  It's simply pointless and petty.  That being said, do you mind me asking why if you believe we were created by an intelligent being/s do you attribute it to Aliens instead of God.  I hope I have gotten the gist of your point correct.  If not feel free to correct me.




Could God not be just a more intelligent being than us, and not some supreme being who lives in the sky?  The verse I quoted said that we were created in their image.  So is God a flesh and bone creature?  How are we created in his image, yet we are merely mortal, and he is all mighty?  How do you explain what the bible call the Nephilim?  Genesis 6-4 





> The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."


 
So God, was a being capable of reproduction, and his offspring mated with "daughters of men" and created hybrid creatures known as the Nephilim, who were mighty and men of renown.  Or was this also a reference to the trinity, and a part of that trinity came to earth to get a little action with the women of the earth?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 5, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Could God not be just a more intelligent being than us, and not some supreme being who lives in the sky?  The verse I quota said that we were created in their image.  So is God a flesh and bone creature?  How are we created in his image, yet we are merely mortal, and he is all mighty?  How do you explain what the bible call the Nephilim?  Genesis 6-4
> 
> So God, was a being capable of reproduction, and his offspring mated with "daughters of men" and created hybrid creatures known as the Nephilim, who were mighty and men of renown.  Or was this also a reference to the trinity, and a part of that trinity came to earth to get a little action with the women of the earth?



If the timing is right, maybe you'll get to ask him yourself.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 5, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> If the timing is right, maybe you'll get to ask him yourself.



There you go again, adding intelligent content to this conversation.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Could God not be just a more intelligent being than us, and not some supreme being who lives in the sky?



The best reply I can give to that is no, and here's why.  If he is just some ultra intelligent being that lives in the sky then he exists inside of creation and this does nothing but kick the can down the road, because the question with regards to origin then becomes "Well who made God?  
If God exists outside of creation, is eternal and is the author of creation, which is exactly as the Bible describes him, then that dilemma is solved.  



swampstalker24 said:


> The verse I quoted said that we were created in their image.  So is God a flesh and bone creature?  How are we created in his image, yet we are merely mortal, and he is all mighty?



God is not flesh and bone.  He is not human. He is a spirit, but a being just the same.  Proof of being or personality is defined as knowing, feeling and willing or acting.  He certainly meets those three criteria.  When we die we will no longer be flesh and bone but OUR spirit will continue and we will still be able to know, feel and act.



swampstalker24 said:


> How do you explain what the bible call the Nephilim?  Genesis 6-4



This is one of those things we simply don't know.  There are a lot of interpretations out there, but nobody actually knows, and I'm not ashamed to say I have no idea.



swampstalker24 said:


> So God, was a being capable of reproduction, and his offspring mated with "daughters of men" and created hybrid creatures known as the Nephilim, who were mighty and men of renown.  Or was this also a reference to the trinity, and a part of that trinity came to earth to get a little action with the women of the earth?



I don't think that is an accurate interpretation in that most if not all interpretations attribute 'sons of God' as either fallen angels or sons of Seth.  Irregardless it can be safely assumed that whatever the interpretation, it has no bearing on any fundamental Biblical doctrine.  Just my two cents


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 5, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Of course the biblical position is that witches do indeed exist, otherwise why instruct that they are not to be permitted to live? It's progress that most Christians have seen fit to abandon at least some of the more onerous nonsense in the bible. Too bad some of them in Africa still haven't got the memo. I do fault them individually for following as Christians scriptures which tell them to do an evil deed and which you as a more enlightened Christian have found a way to ignore. But I also fault the scripture itself for it can be judged on its own merits. I reject any claim of moral superiority made by those whose supposedly infallible guide book calls for the murder of children, no matter how disobedient they may be.
> 
> Yes you can cherry pick some good common sense commands like don't steal, don't kill, don't lie (except of course when God commands otherwise). If a Christian steals or lies, I don't take it as evidence that the bible was wrong in it's commandment not to do those things. I'll readily acknowledge the good parts. The problem is, to genuinely be a moral individual and a christian you have to pick the pepper from the dung. Over the centuries Christians have become expert at that all the while proclaiming the entire pile to be dung free.



You know I am truly sorry for whatever reason there is that you have such a bitterness toward Christianity.  Truth be told there has been much wrong done in the name of Christ either from ignorance or intention.  Christian means Christ-like and too many times we as Christians fail to note that the primary attribute of Christ is humility and instead of becoming Christ-like we instead seek to become God-like and look down on others.   Again, I'm sorry and forgive me, but I can't be a party to a conversation in which your sole purpose is to denigrate the only person who has ever thought enough of me that he died for me.  It would be akin to taking part in a conversation in which you were trashing a fellow Marine who jumped on a grenade to save my life.  I just can't be a part of it.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The best reply I can give to that is no, and here's why.  If he is just some ultra intelligent being that lives in the sky then he exists inside of creation and this does nothing but kick the can down the road, because the question with regards to origin then becomes "Well who made God?
> If God exists outside of creation, is eternal and is the author of creation, which is exactly as the Bible describes him, then that dilemma is solved.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I think the "then who made God" question persist in both scenarios    mentioned  above.


And if  God says were were made  like him, in his image, in what way are we like him?

Why would the bible say "sons of god"  if it really meant fallen angels, or sons of seth?  If that were the case, when the bible refers to jesus as the son of God, could it be interpreted as really meaning he was a fallen angel, or also the son of seth?  When people start interpreting parts of the bible one way, and other parts another, are they not just making interpretations to suit their own personal beliefs?  Can one hold strict, literal interpretations of one part of the bible, but simple write off other parts as hyperbole or symbolical?


----------



## atlashunter (May 5, 2013)

Sorry you think it denigrating to point out the fact that Christians follow some parts of the bible and not others. It is what it is. If anything they should be congratulated for it. Shows their sense of morality is better developed than the book they claim to get their morality from.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Well, I think the "then who made God" question persist in both scenarios    mentioned  above.
> 
> And if  God says were were made  like him, in his image, in what way are we like him?



We are thinking, feeling, acting beings with spirits



swampstalker24 said:


> Why would the bible say "sons for god"  if it really meant fallen angels, or sons seth. If that were the case, when the bible refers to jesus as the son of God, could it be interpreted as really meaning he was a fallen angel, or also the son of seth?  When people start interpreting parts of the bible one way, and other parts another, are they not just making interpretations to suit their own personal beliefs?  Can one hold strict, literal interpretations of one part of the bible, but simple write off other parts as hyperbole or symbolical?



Again I don't know.  You can find someone out there to give you a better reason I'm sure.
As far as bible interpretation there are generally accepted rules that are followed.  It's not whimsical as in accepting one part and denying another.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> God is not flesh and bone.  He is not human. He is a spirit, but a being just the same.  Proof of being or personality is defined as knowing, feeling and willing or acting.  He certainly meets those three criteria.  When we die we will no longer be flesh and bone but OUR spirit will continue and we will still be able to know, feel and act.



We have a spirit... Why don't I remember my before life spirit? Or was my "spirit" started by my mother and father on conception? Or after I was born?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 6, 2013)

There are Bible verses that suggests that we were indeed spirits before we were born.  That being said I wouldn't think anyone would say the Bible is dogmatic or even emphatic on this.  If it is true and its certainly not implausible, I have no idea why we can't remember it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 6, 2013)

I agree that if I have some immortal spirit that needs god to be saved that it's not implausible (actually 100% implied) that I had a before life... If I can't remember it but the bible says I'll know all about my afterlife, I venture to say that neither are true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I agree that if I have some immortal spirit that needs god to be saved that it's not implausible (actually 100% implied) that I had a before life... If I can't remember it but the bible says I'll know all about my afterlife, I venture to say that neither are true.



Listen, I can't go to the store and remember what my wife wanted me to get while I am there.  That doesn't mean she doesn't exist, so I have a hard time accepting your supposition that something didn't happen and isn't true just because I can't remember it.  Do you really think that's a sound argument.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 7, 2013)

It adds to the argument for me.


----------

