• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Common Ancestor of All Cellular Life on Earth Emerged Very Early in Planet’s History

JacksinPA said:
So? I don't see your point.

The earth was mostly water at the start. When land appeared, bacteria could concentrate in small tidal pools & link up to become the first multi-cellular organisms. Nobody had to condition anything. It just happened. That's why we're here.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was not. It was a barren rock with almost no water. It was at around 4.4 Ga that water first appeared in quantity on the surface. And it is only the appearance of this water that life became possible.

And remember, this is also all we know of Earth 2.0. What we do know is that Earth as we know of it now formed around 4.5 GA, and that is all we can use as a guide. Earth 1.0 was around 100 million years old when it was destroyed in the Theia impact. It may have had water and early life as well, but we will never know.

And even from that there are competing theories. Ranging from a hot dry period post-collision while particulates settled into the atmosphere we know today, to at least one of the 2 bodies having significant surface water that quickly converted from vapor to liquid and forming the oceans close to what it is today.

Myself, I am one that believes in the "Early Water" theory, primarily because of the geological record found in zircons. Oxygen isotopes found in zircon crystals at least 4.4 GA could have only existed in the presence of significant ground water. Of course, there is also the competing theory of an early "Hothouse Earth", with most of the surface covered with water, but the average temperature of a scorching 230f, the water only remaining liquid because of intense pressure from high atmospheric pressure.

But regardless of the surface being hot or cold, life could not develop until pressure, temperature, and atmospheric composition matched what was close enough for Extremophiles to survive.

Myself, I think the most accurate living record of the early conditions are extremophiles.
 
OldFatGuy said:
The possibilities are endless. Some have theorized the arrival of different arrivals and contributions from what we call outer space, via meteorites or other intrusive materials, inadvertent changes and mutations caused by lightening, chemical changes in the atmosphere from volcanoes and so on. Then there are the gods, angels, whatever. Why the sudden changes in intelligence that appear in our little known history? The assumption of multiple intended instances is as valid as a single natural causation. Think what you want, I prefer an open mind to other possibilities, including those of which I cannot imagine.

I prefer to believe life with all its beauty and pain is not accidental. We all make our choices.
Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you like. You can speculate all you want. But the evidence is what it is. We know evolution occurs. We know that we appear to descend from common ancestors. Until evidence of these "multiple intended instances" or angels or whatnot is presented, science just can't really make any comment on it.

In science, assumption is not valid. Common ancestor evolution never assumed anything.
 
OldFatGuy said:
You choose to believe in science. I believe science is but part of the puzzle. My choice.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want. I don't see why you got so offended by other people going with the evidence, though.
 
Deuce said:
You can believe whatever you like. You can speculate all you want. But the evidence is what it is. We know evolution occurs. We know that we appear to descend from common ancestors. Until evidence of these "multiple intended instances" or angels or whatnot is presented, science just can't really make any comment on it.

In science, assumption is not valid. Common ancestor evolution never assumed anything.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how much science is reversed and redacted every year?

You've gotten emotional and desperate. I said nothing of angels, your own interjection. Science cannot comment on what it doesn't know. That doesn't convince me to accept your claims in toto. Relax. It is all theory.
 
Deuce said:
Believe what you want. I don't see why you got so offended by other people going with the evidence, though.
Click to expand...

Who is offended? Again you are interjecting what isn't there.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Do you have any idea how much science is reversed and redacted every year?
Click to expand...
Science's ability to change based on new information is what makes it different from belief.

You've gotten emotional and desperate. I said nothing of angels, your own interjection. Science cannot comment on what it doesn't know. That doesn't convince me to accept your claims in toto. Relax. It is all theory.
Click to expand...

You did mention angels. Post 46.
 
Deuce said:
Science's ability to change based on new information is what makes it different from belief.



You did mention angels. Post 46.
Click to expand...

Beliefs change all the time, they are never static. We choose to believe in science until something more illuminating develops. Don't get me wrong. Science has accomplished wonderful things for mankind, but it is not an end all of knowledge. It is unlikely science will ever tell us who we are or why.

Yes I said angels for want of a better word. Doesn't mean I believe in them in the biblical sense. I minor transgression on my part. I forget how sensitive science worshipers have become, with their all inclusive or exclusive definitions.

Maybe you should be wondering if the gods believe in you?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Beliefs change all the time, they are never static. We choose to believe in science until something more illuminating develops. Don't get me wrong. Science has accomplished wonderful things for mankind, but it is not an end all of knowledge. It is unlikely science will ever tell us who we are or why.

Yes I said angels for want of a better word. Doesn't mean I believe in them in the biblical sense. I minor transgression on my part. I forget how sensitive science worshipers have become, with their all inclusive or exclusive definitions.

Maybe you should be wondering if the gods believe in you?
Click to expand...

God Damn but you got smart somewhere along the way...
 
Hawkeye10 said:
God Damn but you got smart somewhere along the way...
Click to expand...

One of the angels screwed up, gave me a working mind and the ability to read the opinions of many others including some of our more ridiculous philosophers. They are the best, because they include a sense of humor as they laugh at themselves. Voltaire called himself an entertainer.
 
OldFatGuy said:
One of the angels screwed up, gave me a working mind and the ability to read the opinions of many others including some of our more ridiculous philosophers. They are the best, because they include a sense of humor as they laugh at themselves. Voltaire called himself an entertainer.
Click to expand...

Curiosity is Key I have found.....I got to be quite far along before I discovered that so many have almost none....this possibility had never occurred to me.

Sense of humor too, so much of life being "Well Sir you have two choices, you either laugh or you cry, what is it going to be?"

Laughing is very often the right call, as you and I know.
 
OldFatGuy said:
The possibilities are endless. Some have theorized the arrival of different arrivals and contributions from what we call outer space, via meteorites or other intrusive materials
Click to expand...

Panspermia? Nobody really takes that seriously. And even if it is true, life still would have had to evolve from somewhere. That does nothing to resolve the issue of life forming, it simply pushes it somewhere else and does not explain it.

Nor how they ever explained how such life could survive being ejected from it's planet, survive in space for the vast times required to arrive at another habitable planet, then somehow survive re-entry.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Panspermia? Nobody really takes that seriously. And even if it is true, life still would have had to evolve from somewhere. That does nothing to resolve the issue of life forming, it simply pushes it somewhere else and does not explain it.

Nor how they ever explained how such life could survive being ejected from it's planet, survive in space for the vast times required to arrive at another habitable planet, then somehow survive re-entry.
Click to expand...

Don't ask me, ask science. Science claims all life begins with a chemical action they can't explain. What caused that action? Accident of two atoms colliding, becoming something new, or an intent we don't imagine?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Beliefs change all the time, they are never static.
Click to expand...
Beliefs aren't always static, but suggesting they are never static is just false. People often latch onto an idea and just never let it go. From religions to conspiracy theories to fake news, there's always ideas floating around that people will never let go of even when proven wrong. When Bill Nye "debated" that creationist, we got the greatest example of it all. They were asked what could change their minds. Bill said "evidence." The creationist said "nothing."

Yes I said angels for want of a better word. Doesn't mean I believe in them in the biblical sense. I minor transgression on my part. I forget how sensitive science worshipers have become, with their all inclusive or exclusive definitions.
Click to expand...
Sensitive? You mentioned them, so did I. Not sure where you're getting "sensitive" from. All I did was say there's no evidence of them existing to evaluate. Is there a problem with that statement?

Maybe you should be wondering if the gods believe in you?
Click to expand...
If there are gods, angels, spirits, demons, elves, aliens, or monsters that have objections to who I am, what I believe, or what I do, they are free to come talk to me about it. I'm open to new ideas, but "because I said so" isn't going to be compelling.
 
Deuce said:
If there are gods, angels, spirits, demons, elves, aliens, or monsters that have objections to who I am, what I believe, or what I do, they are free to come talk to me about it. I'm open to new ideas, but "because I said so" isn't going to be compelling.
Click to expand...

There are no absolutes, including the statement "there are no absolutes."

No one is objecting to who you are. This isn't personal or intended to insult you. A good friend's mother used to say "it takes many flowers to make a garden." Differences of opinion are to be celebrated. Agreement is not essential.

I strongly suggest you give author and mythologist Joe Campbell a read. https://www.jcf.org/about-joseph-campbell/

At the very least he's entertaining. At his best, he opens the horizons of thought.
 
OldFatGuy said:
There are no absolutes, including the statement "there are no absolutes."

No one is objecting to who you are. This isn't personal or intended to insult you. A good friend's mother used to say "it takes many flowers to make a garden." Differences of opinion are to be celebrated. Agreement is not essential.

I strongly suggest you give author and mythologist Joe Campbell a read. https://www.jcf.org/about-joseph-campbell/

At the very least he's entertaining. At his best, he opens the horizons of thought.
Click to expand...

You mentioned gods believing in me. I see no reason to be interested in their belief if they're unwilling to even express it to me.
 
JC Callender said:
Do you think the scientists that were previously wrong will be unhappy as well?
Click to expand...

Scientists understand that knowledge advances by new and better explanations, sometimes involving new observations. Progress does not make them unhappy, quite the opposite.
 
Deuce said:
You mentioned gods believing in me. I see no reason to be interested in their belief if they're unwilling to even express it to me.
Click to expand...

Where is your sense of humor?
 
Deuce said:
That's not a problem but it is pretty neat.
Click to expand...

The idiots of this forum banned me because I call idiots idiots. So I was not able to give you an answer. Nevertheless: Why do you use here an empty phrase? Sure it is a problem that not any automatism exists within the biological evolution which creates multicelllular organisms out protozoons.
 
Last edited:
Exquisitor said:
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I love a good rant.

Let's give birth to replicators who eat up the whole Universe and then when we emerge from the lake of fire we have to wait until the next one.
Click to expand...

Hä?

Eventually all these stars and planets and galaxies and their material coverings get eaten up by causal worms; a dictator that takes over a lead planet using the energy to make it back to paradise to tempt eve for some material sense gratification.
Click to expand...

? What about to bring everything into life, so every little flow of energy becomes part of a living entity?
 
Don't answer. I'm not here any longer.

Happy Christmas to all orthodox Christians

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom