Missing link found

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I have more faith in a common ancestor than I do in any life after physical death.

pretty good amount of evidence stacking up for the later, and still after all these millenia, no real evidence of the later


religion promises life after death
by robbing life before death
 
it was late last night, I do tend to mistype sometimes,
I think most will get what I meant

just in case,

I have more faith in a common ancestor than I do in any life after physical death.

pretty good amount of evidence stacking up for the later former, and still after all these millenia, no real evidence of the latter
 
It's kind of sad that this find is somehow not obvious. I'm sure there will be debate on how much of a link Ida is since evolution must include SEVERAL links. Biblical creationists are Fundamentalists I thought. Most Christians would probably side with "God created the universe and the Bible is a fable in parts." Of course that could leave people to believe in "Christ consciousness" Oprah ideas or some contradictory point of view of science and fable. To me the Bible is a philosophy book that helps with human psychology.

I simply leave question marks where they are. So far it looks like evolution is gaining evidence and becoming more complex than Darwin's ideas now that we can see how chromosomes can change cells when they move from one cell to another. (Helps to explain large changes in life in short periods of time). Abiogenesis has different theories. The oldest life on earth we know of is bacteria 3.8 billion years ago. How it happened exactly is not completely certain. Lightning?




Those who propose evolution as the origin of life have proved nothing.


You wanna debate a chicken egg?
Throw that Rolex in the surf.
 
yes, the eye argument, so miraculous a design

how could that have happened by accident, there must be a God.


well, what a piss poor designer

a 60 year old camera will give you a clearer picture than most 60 year old human eyes.

So lets all bow down and worship Mr. Polaroid, or is it Mr. Land ?

the human eye's designer? the plan was to see clear enough to pick out a healthy mate, procreate, provide for the offspring.
Then the eye deteriorates, so we can die and become compose for the next generation.

but if some yarn spinning, sooth-sayer can convince you of some other nonsense,
perhaps you should give him 1/10 of your income and provide for him a comfortable living.



don't tell me about the eye
 
Those who think that abiogenesis is a fundamentally supernatural thing need to understand that there is no fundamental difference between living and nonliving matter.
 
The atoms which cycle through an organism are no different than those inside the sun, there is no élan vital.
 
The atoms which cycle through an organism are no different than those inside the sun, there is no élan vital.

Can you please clarify your premise "no different?" Is this a quantitative or qualitative assertion?

It seems the ways in which atoms interact is every bit as important, if not more so, than which atoms are simply present. For instance – there seems to be quite a bit of difference in the atomic structure between a stagnant pond in Michigan and a neutron star, between a child and our sun.

Also, is there any difference in your eyes between things that are biologically considered “alive” and inanimate objects such as a rock? And, if there is no difference, is there any danger in giving no value to human life (for how could life logically have value if there is no distinction between life and non-life).
 
I like Schrödinger's idea of negative entropy, life is replicating patterns that fight against the gradient of decay using energy from the environment.

As far as value given to life I think that its an interesting question, and its worth noting that you talked about the danger in not giving human life value rather than any non-human animals who are just as alive as we are.
 
I like Schrödinger's idea of negative entropy, life is replicating patterns that fight against the gradient of decay using energy from the environment.
An interesting perspective...

As far as value given to life I think that its an interesting question, and its worth noting that you talked about the danger in not giving human life value rather than any non-human animals who are just as alive as we are.

Well, I personally place human life on the far end of the "value" scale so it seemed a good place to start - for if you didn't think human life had value, then I doubt you would think the insect life has value too.
 
Back
Top Bottom