This is a rather basic question that I happen to find myself asking sometimes. What is your opinion? State which you think would've come first and give a good reason as to why. I don't know if there has already been a thread on this, but I apologize if there has.
By 'completely proven,' I meant that there's substantial evidence for it being correct - scientists have yet to get a life-form, but the basis of it - that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be created through chemical reactions with nonliving matter - has been proven, and that is a major step forward. Enough to make it a serious possibility. I know that it's still theory, that it's not correct - but there is serious evidence supporting abiogenesis. Enough to make it not even comparable to creationism.
I wouldn't say substantial evidence. Sure it's the best idea out there, but for me to see it as somewhat true, I need to see a life form. THAT would be the biggest part. Now amino acids are the basis of life. But I haven't seen any life coming from them yet. Amino acids are the basis of life to already living things.
And hell, yea I'd compare abiogenesis to creationism. If there were two choices, it's between both. However why can't there be both? God or an all powerful/knowing being created the first atom. First of all, we need Earth to be in the Green Circle. So this is happening millions of years after the Big Bang. In the past I have had two sides to my creationism belief. Well now I'm changing to switch things up :P
A former belief of mine was that God/powerful being created the first set of atoms, then the first element. These eventually took their course (suggesting that there should be a theory for the first atom. A good one) and created all the components for the Big Bang. Now if any theory can't support a countable amount of atoms creating the components for the Big Bang, then we have to assume that these components were created, or that the component' components were created. Big Bang occurse and millions of years later we have our Earth with amino acids, heat, etc. Then abiogenesis takes its place. There, we have to theory into the whole creation of the universe and life.
And hell, yea I'd compare abiogenesis to creationism.
I mean based on backup and evidence - abiogenesis totally knocks creationism out of the park on that one.
God or an all powerful/knowing being created the first atom.
*opinionometer starts beeping*
Like I said in another thread, the atoms would not have had to have been created.
Thing is, time and space are linked, right? And all space was super-compressed - so so was all time. So our principles of origin, causation, end - things that have to do with time would be completely nonexistent. Therefore, the Primeval Atom (which contained all other atoms) would not have to have an origin because there was no time before it decompressed into our Universe.
Uhhhhhhhhh. . .the people who've replied in this thread. *facepalm*
oh dear...it's threadsw like these that prove there WAAAAAY to many people that take life WAAAAAAY too seriously...
You miss the point entirely. If there's anyone who takes life too seriously, it isn't Estel (he's a friggin' tree) or me (the leader of the unsanity.) -_____________________-
If you are a Christian, it's quite simple, the chicken came first, it had to, the egg can't survive without a parent to keep it warm and such. And as for the rest of creation, humans were created in the adult form, so wouldn't everything else be in its mature form if it was told by God to be fruitful and multiply?
Thing is, time and space are linked, right? And all space was super-compressed - so so was all time. So our principles of origin, causation, end - things that have to do with time would be completely nonexistent. Therefore, the Primeval Atom (which contained all other atoms) would not have to have an origin because there was no time before it decompressed into our Universe.
The only problem I have with that quote is that is eternity scientifical? Did the time of the universe have a start?
The only problem I have with that quote is that is eternity scientifical? Did the time of the universe have a start?
I didn't deal with eternity - there can't be eternity if there is _no time_ and that's how the Big Bang theorizes that all matter came into existence - it was just. . .there. And a crazy as that sounds, it makes scientific sense. Matter wouldn't need an origin because there was no time for there to be an origin in.
Well duh. Creationism isn't based on proof. My quest is to as much as I can to DISPROVE evolution. Well not totally, but you get my drift.
Which is my main beef with creationism and other religious theories like it - I don't see any point in believing in them except to indulge in your faith, and I'm not religious. Of course, that could also play a part. Even when I did consider myself Christian when I was a littler kid, I still believed in the Big Bang and evolution - I've never really seen the need to be faithful when there's scientific fact/theory as an alternative. But that's just me.
