It might or might not exist. It's the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. In essence, its chemical evolution, but should not be confused with evolution. It says the amino acids, also know as "the building blocks of life" can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose. So what do you think of abiogenesis?
never said that. but the principle is similar. both groups believe that their theories are right.
one group puts its argumentation on a metaphysical level and the other puts it on a physical level.
but lots of people tend to say that science provides 100% certain results on a topic. just wanted to present that it is not like that.
No, but it makes sense to have a *reason* to doubt the explanation.
well scientifically you can doubt any explanation according the beginning of the world. mostly because it is impossible to recreate the state of before the bigbang, create a bigbang and see if live will develop.
Tell me what science has to say about the creation of the very first atom.
All the atoms were always there, just compressed into the Primeval Atom. (which is NOT A REAL ATOM!!1)
Thing is, since time and space are linked, right? And all space was super-compressed - so so was all tine. 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.
Thing is, since time and space are linked, right? And all space was super-compressed - so so was all tine. 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.
I mean while it could it's very unlikely, then again so is God but something had to have not needed something to create it, as everything around us did.
Simple, eh kind of then again chemicals just randomly forming life isn't all that complicated either.
Are you kidding? Chemical processes are extremely complicated, way more complicated then Jesus coming to save the earth. Anyway, I'm tired of dragging religion and Christianity into all of my threads. I'm so tired of all you Christians and your ideas that have never nor will ever be proven. Science proves so much more than religion.
Are you kidding? Chemical processes are extremely complicated, way more complicated then Jesus coming to save the earth.
Bro (can I call you bro, wait I don't care) not at all chemical processes are complicated yes but if Jesus actually came to Earth and died for our sins that's not simple..at all.
I'm so tired of all you Christians and your ideas that have never nor will ever be proven. Science proves so much more than religion.
I'm tired of people saying that science proves everything and that act like their can't be more to this universe or even multiverse than what science has proved RIGHT NOW, in a thousand years people will look back on us and treat our science the same way we treat alchemy.
