Login

Join for Free!
112050 members


Big bang and Evoluion

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby skeptic » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:42 pm

Wong
On your points 5 and 6

5. My house contains living tissues
6. Therefore my house is a living thing.

Is this logic????
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:33 am

skeptic wrote:Wong
On your points 5 and 6

5. My house contains living tissues
6. Therefore my house is a living thing.

Is this logic????


You're pointless.

Your mouse have to go into the house, unless it was born inside.

The Earth has a mouse. The mouse does not come from space.
The Earth has a mouse because it was born inside.

All living thing need living tissue to start with.
Living tissue does not come from the outer space.
In another word, its origin is inside the Earth.

Teru Wong
Last edited by kk23wong on Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby skeptic » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:05 am

The origin of life is on the Earth, but the Earth itself is not living. If a mouse is actually born in my house, that does not make my house a living thing. The vast bulk of the 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes that make up the Earth are not living, either. In fact, most of it is inimical to life.

Life began 3 to 4 billion years ago. A recent theory suggests that it arose in alkaline black smokers under the sea. At that time, the sea was saturated with both CO2 and iron. The hydrogen gas emitted by alkaline black smokers would react with CO2 to make organic compounds. The oceans were acid, and reacted with the alkaline substances in the water to produce porous carbonate rock, with iron and sulphur compounds. These catalyse further reactions to produce such materials as nucleotides. The nucleotides that were trapped in the pores of carbonate rock were subject to a gradient of hydrogen ion concentration, which lab tests show cause nucleotides, and ribose sugars plus phosphate to form into RNA molecules. And so it goes.

All these reactions are inorganic. That is - non living. Life arose from a non living Earth, and the bulk of the Earth remains non living. I cannot but think that your insistence of a living Earth is religious, not scientific.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand


Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:39 am

skeptic wrote:The origin of life is on the Earth, but the Earth itself is not living. If a mouse is actually born in my house, that does not make my house a living thing. The vast bulk of the 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes that make up the Earth are not living, either. In fact, most of it is inimical to life.

Life began 3 to 4 billion years ago. A recent theory suggests that it arose in alkaline black smokers under the sea. At that time, the sea was saturated with both CO2 and iron. The hydrogen gas emitted by alkaline black smokers would react with CO2 to make organic compounds. The oceans were acid, and reacted with the alkaline substances in the water to produce porous carbonate rock, with iron and sulphur compounds. These catalyse further reactions to produce such materials as nucleotides. The nucleotides that were trapped in the pores of carbonate rock were subject to a gradient of hydrogen ion concentration, which lab tests show cause nucleotides, and ribose sugars plus phosphate to form into RNA molecules. And so it goes.

All these reactions are inorganic. That is - non living. Life arose from a non living Earth, and the bulk of the Earth remains non living. I cannot but think that your insistence of a living Earth is religious, not scientific.


A recent theory? Any approval by the public?
"The hydrogen gas emitted by alkaline black smokers would react with CO2 to make organic compounds." - Any vaild experimental result? Can they create a living compound by the method suggested by them? If not, let it goes. If they have it, make it public.

A fact does not affraid of being challenged.

Please read these lines below.

"No living tissues on the Earth come from space up to now."
"(skeptical?)"
"Living organisms on the Earth evolved and diversified in a certain period of time."
"Living organisms (animals / human beings) on the Earth (a planet) want to migrant to other planets."

Logical?

The scientists of the living organisms (human beings) on the Earth doesn't make sense anyway.
We have an Earth as a non-living object which create lives.
As all of us know, all living things need living tissues to start with.
A non-living object cannot CREATE any living tissue.

The origin is exactly the Earth.
The "Living Earth" is the only logical explanation to the system of our universe.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby robsabba » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:02 pm

kk23wong wrote: As all of us know, all living things need living tissues to start with.
A non-living object cannot CREATE any living tissue.

This is nothing more than an assertion on your part. We know that organic molecules can be created under conditions prevalent on Earth in the past and we know that organic molecules exist elsewhere in the solar system. Life is chemistry based on organic molecules.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:28 pm

robsabba wrote:
kk23wong wrote: As all of us know, all living things need living tissues to start with.
A non-living object cannot CREATE any living tissue.

This is nothing more than an assertion on your part. We know that organic molecules can be created under conditions prevalent on Earth in the past and we know that organic molecules exist elsewhere in the solar system. Life is chemistry based on organic molecules.


Organic molecules in chemistry cannot make a number of organic molecules become a living thing.
Isn't it?

You said, "Life is chemistry based on organic molecules."
Life in reality base on "living". "Living" based on active organic molecules.
Can chemistry make organic molecules become active?

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby robsabba » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:15 pm

kk23wong wrote:
robsabba wrote:
kk23wong wrote: As all of us know, all living things need living tissues to start with.
A non-living object cannot CREATE any living tissue.

This is nothing more than an assertion on your part. We know that organic molecules can be created under conditions prevalent on Earth in the past and we know that organic molecules exist elsewhere in the solar system. Life is chemistry based on organic molecules.


Organic molecules in chemistry cannot make a number of organic molecules become a living thing.
Isn't it?

You said, "Life is chemistry based on organic molecules."
Life in reality base on "living". "Living" based on active organic molecules.
Can chemistry make organic molecules become active?

Teru Wong

You are basically promoting a "vitalist" idea. It used to be thought that living beings had a "vital" essence to them that made them alive. Vitalism was, however, rejected soon after a chemist created urea (a biological organic molecule) from inorganic compounds in a test tube without the use of any enzymes or other biological molecules. There is no basic difference between living and non-living chemistry. Can a living cell be created from non-living chemicals? Scientists are getting very close to doing this. Right now, I think it is likely, though we do not know exactly how abiogenesis worked on the early Earth.
Last edited by robsabba on Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby NotColloquial » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:16 pm

Okay, Wong, so answer me this.
If the earth is "a-live"
And living things cannot come from nonliving things, where did the Earth come from?
NotColloquial
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re:

Postby robsabba » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:59 pm

NotColloquial wrote:Okay, Wong, so answer me this.
If the earth is "a-live"
And living things cannot come from nonliving things, where did the Earth come from?

That's easy... the universe, which must also be alive. :)
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: Re:

Postby canalon » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:13 pm

robsabba wrote:
NotColloquial wrote:Okay, Wong, so answer me this.
If the earth is "a-live"
And living things cannot come from nonliving things, where did the Earth come from?

That's easy... the universe, which must also be alive. :)

But then the Universe must come from somewhere, that must also be alive, No?

But is there an nd to this pile of turtles?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:32 am

canalon wrote:
robsabba wrote:
NotColloquial wrote:Okay, Wong, so answer me this.
If the earth is "a-live"
And living things cannot come from nonliving things, where did the Earth come from?

That's easy... the universe, which must also be alive. :)

But then the Universe must come from somewhere, that must also be alive, No?

But is there an nd to this pile of turtles?


1. Living things cannot be created without any living tissue.
2. Living things on the Earth has a living tissue to start with.
3. Living tissues from the outer space cannot reach the Earth.

As a result, living tissues of the Earth must come from the Earth.

The only logical explantion for the origin of lives on the Earth is that the planet herself is a living thing which still alive.

See the diagram below. It illustrated the "life cycles" of the Earth.

Image

For full size image: http://teru-wong.yolasite.com/resources/diagram.jpg

Image

For full size image: http://teru-wong.yolasite.com/resources/diagram-ocean.jpg

Be scientific. A living Earth (a supreme being created without violating the natural rules) cannot be a joke of scientists. Our arrogance may kill all of us since all living things experience the natural process of aging. To be more speific, the Earth is a living thing that may come across death (a total extinction). Control experiment are the planets nearby.

A life was born. The end must be a physical death.

Teru Wong
Last edited by kk23wong on Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Postby canalon » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:37 pm

Why is it more logical for the earth to be the first living thing than for something small on its surface?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron