English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-14 08:09:18 · 27 answers · asked by The Angry Stick Man 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

why can't anyone just answer the question?

evolution and big bang = neither theory deals with the formation of life,

2007-05-14 08:15:19 · update #1

abiogenesis is not a solid theory, have you studied it?

2007-05-14 08:16:08 · update #2

27 answers

Why is the burden of proof placed on 2.4% of the population?

Theists can't prove it, either, they just know what they believe.

2007-05-14 08:11:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9 0

How does how the planet was created teach you altruism, wisdom and compassion? Isn't the fact that all things arise due to causes and conditions, are changing and IMPERMANENT enough? Surely this short life of ours should warn you that it's far better to cultivate those things I'm always hollering about NOW instead of worrying about something already DONE with? If you're a scientist worried about using theories to improve the planet or somesuch then you'd not be HERE asking, so that's not your reasoning, so the other case is that you're using it to pick over people's beliefs, which is a moot point at best... worry about your own life and beliefs.

_()_

2007-05-14 08:36:35 · answer #2 · answered by vinslave 7 · 0 0

There are tenuous theories regarding abiogenesis, but nothing has been proven in regards to how life actually began.

TalkOrigins has a lot of resources on abiogenetic research, including the history of abiogenetic theories and the most modern speculations. The link is below.

EDIT:
You are correct. There really are no "theories" of abiogenesis. There is a major lack of evidence (as one would expect), and these concepts should properly be termed "hypotheses". I normally try to maintain that distinction. Thanks for the catch.

These hypotheses aren't solid, as you point out, but some of them are very compelling.

2007-05-14 08:15:34 · answer #3 · answered by marbledog 6 · 0 0

I'm so tired of answering this question here.

Believe it or not, we can survive without KNOWING everything. Humans created God so they'd have something to watch over them, someone to look to for their history, someone who created everything.

Personally, I feel the big bang theory makes much more logical sense than God molding it all and saying VOILA, LIFE! Besides, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe, but the gradual growing of it over time. This is from talkorigins.org:

"The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.

"The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this. But people often argue that the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of energy (which is essentially the first law of thermodynamics).

"There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, as already pointed out, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the BBT actually addresses. Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe; we simply do not know. Finally, it is not clear that one can sensibly talk about time "before the Big Bang". "Time" is an integral part of our universe (hence the GR term "spacetime") - so it is not clear how exactly one would characterize the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved."

Hope that helps.

2007-05-14 08:14:41 · answer #4 · answered by Rogue Scrapbooker 6 · 0 0

See the theories of the Big Band and Evolution.

2007-05-14 08:13:31 · answer #5 · answered by Alan 7 · 1 0

Yet another person who doesn't understand what a theory is.

The list is getting longer by the day. Believe what you will but know that calling it a theory does not undermine it, since everything in science is a theory, but I expect you believe in most of it.

2007-05-14 08:15:17 · answer #6 · answered by tom 5 · 0 0

Abiogenesis? Not even a theory, merely a couple of interesting hypothesis. Then again, we don't have a book that claims it knows it all. There is no shame in not knowing something yet.

2007-05-14 08:13:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Science

2007-05-14 08:12:51 · answer #8 · answered by Sarah 2 · 2 0

No they can not "prove" how, nor can anyone else, be they a religion or a science.
Religions have beliefs and sciences have theories. How life happens to be is irresolvable. I vote for the flying spaghetti monster.

2007-05-18 05:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by dakina1 3 · 0 0

Not yet. But it will happen sometime within the next few decades. Once life began, evolution took over and caused the panoply of life that we see today.

2007-05-14 08:16:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Abiogenesis is a sound and convincing theory and it doesn't have any competing theories.

2007-05-14 08:15:15 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers