Darwin's original tome on evolution "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection"

[Dok]

Well, I'm not a scientist. I guess sunlight had an important role in the creation of life, as it still is one of the building blocks of life. The origins of free o2 on earth can be explained by mutations in the early primitive lifeforms, leading to photosynthesis. If I don't remember wrong, UV light from the sun makes ozone colliding with O2 in the atmosphere. At this point Im just reasoning. I bet you would get much better answers if you asked a person with an relevant education. In my opinion they are great questions!

o2 its slef is toxix to any early life form that would have formed. It would have died instantly. Smae with UV light, would have sterilied the Earth if there was no Ozone layer, if there was an Ozone layer, that would mean there was o2, which would have killed anything that formed.

[Dok]

you've been very good in "disproving" other peoples opinions on how life DIDN'T start, but have yet to prove your view on its origins. lets hear it doktor. 

dosnt matter what i believe, as my opinions are widley known here.

[Jackson Holly]

Djævlen:

the earth being seeded by aliens is as just a valid answer at this point.

the earth being seeded brought-to-life by aliens a superior intelligence is just as valid answer at this point.

 .... fixed.   

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dok, I believe Djævlen and klompfot are being very sensible and receptive to the notion that the worn-out, bogus, old 19th century elitist social engineering 'evolutionary' theory may not be THE answer ... a DUMB universe?   Uh uh! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Check this out from Carlee's fun thread:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=150823.msg965111#msg965111

Is "cymatics" incidental?

Is the geometry of life coincidental?

Is Coincidence GOD?

[klompfot]

o2 its slef is toxix to any early life form that would have formed. It would have died instantly. Smae with UV light, would have sterilied the Earth if there was no Ozone layer, if there was an Ozone layer, that would mean there was o2, which would have killed anything that formed.

the first steps of origins of life, was the formation of organic bindngs, like amino acides. These relatively big molecules could only have been formed in a atmosphere without oxygen, like you said! With radiation different gasses couldt react with water vapor and form more complexe molecules. Studying the oldest precambrian rocks, we have found out that we most likely had a atmosphere without oxygen the first 2 billion years of the earths history, 2,5 billion years ago.

[klompfot]

Because we (humans) don't have all the answers, does it necessary mean that it is unlikely?

It only explains the horizon of our understanding.

[Dok]

the first steps of origins of life, was the formation of organic bindngs, like amino acides. These relatively big molecules could only have been formed in a atmosphere without oxygen, like you said! With radiation different gasses couldt react with water vapor and form more complexe molecules. Studying the oldest precambrian rocks, we have found out that we most likely had a atmosphere without oxygen the first 2 billion years of the earths history, 2,5 billion years ago.

http://www.icr.org/article/ancient-oxygen-rich-rocks-confound/

o2 was always there, even if it wasnt the solar radiation would have sterilized ALL life on Earth. Its a catch 22, no way around it.

[klompfot]

http://www.icr.org/article/ancient-oxygen-rich-rocks-confound/

o2 was always there, even if it wasnt the solar radiation would have sterilized ALL life on Earth. Its a catch 22, no way around it.

And thats probably why we have religion modern science can't explain everything at this point, and maybe never will.

I'm just curious...and Im not trying to offend you. I can see you also are refering to material dealing with conditions billions of years ago. People may interpret the bible differently, but doesn't some christians believe that the earth and life itself was created some thousand years ago? I may be wrong.

[Dok]

And thats probably why we have religion modern science can't explain everything at this point, and maybe never will.

I'm just curious...and Im not trying to offend you. I can see you also are refering to material dealing with conditions billions of years ago. People may interpret the bible differently, but doesn't some christians believe that the earth and life itself was created some thousand years ago? I may be wrong.

maybe, but thats not what the Bible says, any ways, lets keep it to the Science. Science says there was o2 at the time.

[klompfot]

maybe, but thats not what the Bible says, any ways, lets keep it to the Science. Science says there was o2 at the time.

Precambrium is the 4 first billion years of the earth. That we had an oxygen rich atmosphere after approx 2 billion years, does not seem to interfer with the scientifical explanation of the beginning of life, according to the sources i am reading from at this point http://www.nhm.uio.no/fagene/geologi/fossiler/faktablader/blad_x01.htm (University of Oslo)
Just like you said, there are found red oxydized rock from that time, pointing to that the atmosphere was rich with oxygene.

[DAVIDE MTL]

So because the world is complex and fits your definition of beauty, it must have been created? If I dropped a drop of paint on the floor, and found the pattern beautiful, it must have been the work of a divine being?

And by the way...I did not know this forum was for religious people only. I am not religious, and up till this point i thought most people in this forum was fighting together against tyranny and corruption, sharing information and views, regardless of beliefs.

your paint argument doesn't make sense, my point has nothing to do with religion, it's either you believe we are here by accident or we were created...we are together trying to fight tyranny you are correct but if you do your research on Darwin you will find it was all part of the elite's agenda....someone posted a couple of good articles here on that

[klompfot]

Iwas just reading these lines from your source:
The results from these rocks have even more implications: “To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth's history than previously thought.”2 Now, the evolutionary story must be amended yet again. This stands in stark contrast to the biblical record, which came from God Himself and remains changeless.

They don's say life in the scientific explanation was not possible as has been preseted earlier. Just that these organisms that could not have lived in an oxygen rich atmosphere must have lived much earlier.

The article rather seem to triumph over that science have had to change its story and adjust the dates, and that the bible has been right all along without adjustment. Not so strange, since no bible I have read has mentioned the dates of early microbic life, oxygen in the early atmosphere, or no oxidation of old rocks. How can the bible be taken in comparison in this matter?

[Dok]

Precambrium is the 4 first billion years of the earth. That we had an oxygen rich atmosphere after approx 2 billion years, does not seem to interfer with the scientifical explanation of the beginning of life, according to the sources i am reading from at this point http://www.nhm.uio.no/fagene/geologi/fossiler/faktablader/blad_x01.htm (University of Oslo)
Just like you said, there are found red oxydized rock from that time, pointing to that the atmosphere was rich with oxygene.

You'll find sites that say there was no O2, the problem there is, is that it dosent line up with the evidence, and ther you are stuck with the stirilization problem and no water to make soup. 

[klompfot]

your paint argument doesn't make sense, my point has nothing to do with religion, it's either you believe we are here by accident or we were created...we are together trying to fight tyranny you are correct but if you do your research on Darwin you will find it was all part of the elite's agenda....someone posted a couple of good articles here on that

I understand. In that case I agree with you. Its either or. People have different reasons to believe what they believe, I that I respect.

About darwin, I'm not so sure. I don't know if his theory is used as it were originally, og if science hav updated the science since. In my opinion, there had has to be a great scientific conspiracy to keep alive his claims today, if they where false..again, I know there are many bad apples in science, and conspiracies does indeed happen so I cant rule it out completely.

About his connections to the elite, and NWO stuff, i don't know, but would like to review such info, if available. I do know, his theories on evolution where gravely misused, and turned into socialdarwinism, which im quite aware is some evil shit.  

[Dok]

Iwas just reading these lines from your source:
The results from these rocks have even more implications: “To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth's history than previously thought.”2 Now, the evolutionary story must be amended yet again. This stands in stark contrast to the biblical record, which came from God Himself and remains changeless.

They don's say life in the scientific explanation was not possible as has been preseted earlier. Just that these organisms that could not have lived in an oxygen rich atmosphere must have lived much earlier.

The article rather seem to triumph over that science have had to change its story and adjust the dates, and that the bible has been right all along without adjustment. Not so strange, since no bible I have read has mentioned the dates of early microbic life, oxygen in the early atmosphere, or no oxidation of old rocks. How can the bible be taken in comparison in this matter?

For starters quote,

This stands in stark contrast to the biblical record, which came from God Himself and remains changeless.

Which is the point that article is making, suffice it to say, My point is if there was no o2 in the atmosphere the planet would have been fried by the solar radiation, no o2 means no ozone layer, no ozone layer NO life. If there was o2 in the atmosphere than you have the same dilema, the o2 itself would have instantly of killed any and all emerging life.

[klompfot]

You'll find sites that say there was no O2, the problem there is, is that it dosent line up with the evidence, and ther you are stuck with the stirilization problem and no water to make soup. 

This is tricky business, but i think this is fascinating. We can say that the people saying we had no o2 was wrong, then. about the dangerous uv's I don't know, but i guess there are some sources of information on the internet. Can we use the expression sterilization? Did the organisms at that time have reproductive organs, or were they primitive bacteria and such? I think I have read that they was pimitive prokaryote cells (cells with no nucleus). I don't know the effects of uv's on these cells at this point. I'm about to hit the sack, as it is almost night time here...but i would like to find out more on this at some other time.

[klompfot]

For starters quote,

Which is the point that article is making, suffice it to say, My point is if there was no o2 in the atmosphere the planet would have been fried by the solar radiation, no o2 means no ozone layer, no ozone layer NO life. If there was o2 in the atmosphere than you have the same dilema, the o2 itself would have instantly of killed any and all emerging life.

yet, here we are

we have to get to the bottom of this.

[N.E.P.]

Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&ei=X--fS7mXKdSalAem2t3-DQ&q=+intelligent+design&hl=en&view=3&emb=1&client=firefox-a#

A thoughtful and well presented argument for a turn away from the dry/rationalist argument that the miracle of life is a "nothing but" - scientifically explained foregone conclusion. Their is "intelligence" behind the design.

[goforward]

I understand. In that case I agree with you. Its either or. People have different reasons to believe what they believe, I that I respect.

About darwin, I'm not so sure. I don't know if his theory is used as it were originally, og if science hav updated the science since. In my opinion, there had has to be a great scientific conspiracy to keep alive his claims today, if they where false..again, I know there are many bad apples in science, and conspiracies does indeed happen so I cant rule it out completely.

About his connections to the elite, and NWO stuff, i don't know, but would like to review such info, if available. I do know, his theories on evolution where gravely misused, and turned into socialdarwinism, which im quite aware is some evil shit.  

http://www.henrymakow.com/was_darwin_an_instrument_of_th.html

"Thus, with the concept of the "survival of the fittest", Darwinism became the central pillar for new theories such as "Marxist-Leninist dialectical materialism" theory which introduces class war; Freud which posits sexuality as the central motivation of the "human machine" and all the perversions this entails; Fascism, Nazism and Zionism as forms of absolute totalitarianism and criminal behavior; Feminism as gender war with destruction of the familial entity, depopulation,  and control over the education of children who are educated by brainwashed individuals under the control of governments, in turn infiltrated and controlled by secret societies.
This is in accordance with the agenda of the Illuminati, who pursue the destruction of Christian civilization and the enslavement of humanity. Thus, Darwinism, the central pillar of the "modern theories" which alters minds, attitudes and actions of the people, is still necessary to these Illuminati predators. This is the only plausible explanation for why the public debate of Darwin's scientific findings  is forbidden."