What is your opinion/belief concerning the origin of all life?

My opinion is that we cannot know. It’s fun to wonder about, but I don’t see a definitive answer becoming clear in the foreseeable future.

@augustlan But that’s a cop out answer. What do you believe? At least guess! xD

I believe our forefathers were humans, not some amoeba!

I believe in the standard scientific account, i.e. that there was some sort of ‘primordial’ soup and the first genetic material was formed randomly in a chemical reaction between proteins. From there onwards I also believe Darwin’s account of evolution through natural selection.

@discover yes, of course your forefathers were humans, but humans haven’t always existed, have they? And they didn’t suddenly spring up from nowhere. The mountain of evidence to support life developing through natural selection is overwhelming.

Sorry, I just realised I’ve brought up the topic of evolution. IMO and belief, you cannot divorce the origin of life from the concept of evolution.

@davidshoukry Where did the primoridal soup come from? You haven’t even taken a guess at an answer yet.

I believe that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. So, at this point, there are two generally agreed upon possibilities: a) life sprang forth from a more-or-less random sequence of events that, given the infinite possibilities of time would have eventually happened somewhere (if not many places) vs. B) that some supreme being, of incomprehendable power and himself of a completely unknown and unknowable origin created life as his personal plaything. I think, given these options, that A is the most likely, and until we could begin to theorize about the origin of B, it is the only solution worth serious consideration.

Of course, this does not dismiss theology – it merely holds it to the same standard as all other scientific knowledge we have gathered. I would happily admit that option B is worthy of more consideration if it could pass all tests of the basics of the scientific method as A does.

@Maverick “life sprang forth from a more-or-less random sequence of events ”

That’s science? o.O

Life exists for no known purpose.

There may not be a clear dividing line between life and non-life. I am not knowledgeable on this, but it is not too hard to imagine that before there was life, there were groups of chemicals that created one another’s components and perhaps catalyzed one another. This certainly would not happen often, but once accomplished, these chemical reactions would perpetuate themselves. As a next stage, these chemical conglomerates might have evolved to be able to grab components from unrelated molecules and incorporate them into copies of themselves. At some still later stage, the chemicals would organize into some sort of structure with a protective wall around them and we would have something vaguely resembling an organism. Still later on, there would be DNA or RNA molecules providing instructions for reproduction. This is of course all speculation, but if we imagine life occurring in stages rather than all at once, its occurence seems much more likely.

@NaturalMineralWater I was generalizing for the sake of skipping the novel-sized answer. Of course that assumes that you have a basic knowledge of science, which perhaps was an inappropriate assumption. We know that all events without sufficient understanding appear random. It is this randomness that we seek to explain through science. Of course, in theological circles they call this randomness a “miracle” and then try to prevent anyone from attempting to understand or explain it.

@Maverick…We know that all events without sufficient understanding appear random.

We understand that a microwave oven works by emitting microwaves that excite the water molecules in food. This causes friction, friction causes heat and the food gets cooked.

We can tell by the above that we understand how that happens.

We don’t understand why microwaves excite water molecules.

Doesn’t following this line of your logic imply that microwave ovens are random?l

We’re now getting the idea that organic molecules may be relatively common in those regions of the universe undergoing star formation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd3af09e-fa39-11dd-9daa-000077b07658.html

So with such discoveries in progress, which may change our views of the specifics of how life first formed, I can’t as yet justify having a strong opinion regarding where, when, or how in this solar system (or any other) autocatalysis kicked off, thus enabling life to evolve. Also waiting to see what information we glean from Mars.

Fascinating topic and I sincerely hope I live long enough to see science add many more pieces to the puzzle.

@Maverick Not sure what I did to upset you but now you’re slamming me in multiple questions. I apologize for whatever it is I did. I just don’t know why you talk about 2 without having counted 1… if you know what I mean…. and then continue counting and counting without having ever taken that first step.. oye… I enjoy this question.. it always brings on the entertainment. =)

@NaturalMineralWater chill it! I’m not in a position to make an informed scientific judgement about how matter came from no matter (i.e. where the primordial soup came from) so I can’t ‘guess’. As for your remark about

“life sprang forth from a more-or-less random sequence of events ”
That’s science? o.O

The job of science is to observe and explain the physical world. That does not preclude life having started out with a series of random events. The further procedure of evolution is based on random genetic events happening, and this can be observed.

In your original question you asked for people’s opinions and beliefs to the origins of life, so not sure why you’re slamming people when they actually give this answer!

@NaturalMineralWater – yes, a random sequence of events is pretty much how we’ve come to exist, and we can thanks science for developing this theory.

I’ve been reading “A Briefer History of Time” by Stephen Hawking. I highly recommend it to anyone with a desire for understanding. It describes, to the best of how science knows to date, how the universe as we now know it has come to be: the big bang, a point of time long ago where all the matter in the universe was compacted into a very small, very hot ball (technically infinite size and infinite heat), which then exploded outwards, sending out a storm of protons and neutrons and electrons maybe, which due to the immense heat of the universe and speed of movement, made it very easy for these to combine and form elements, mostly hydrogen. Over time, areas of space became more dense (two hydrogen atoms get closer, then they draw a third, et cetera) and eventually this created planets, galaxies, and all the other items occupying our universe.

Humans weren’t formed like this. But the first organic creatures likely formed in a very similar manner. Please read this wikipedia article for more information about how life could have come to be without any type of creator or designer. To summarize: amino acids, which are essentially the building blocks of organic life, occur naturally due to chemical reactions, similar to how we saw the universe’s contents being created. This is how one of the first living things likely came to be, and this was about 3.5 billion years ago (about 15 billion years after the big bang). 3 billion years is more than enough time for evolution via natural selection to occur so as to cause all of life as we know it to develop.

Of course, all this leads to one big question: why does the universe exist (or does it even need a reason)? How did the universe start (or did it even start)? This will likely be one of the last questions science can develop a true answer for. Consider that in the past hundred years our entire understanding of time, the universe, and existence was shaken up thanks to Einstein (such as the space-time fabric). Maybe the universe is beyond time.

@Blondesjon – your example is flawed, because while you may not know why radiation causes water molecules to move, science has explained it fully. It’s called dipole rotation. Why does this happen? It happens because we’ve observed it happening, and thus conclude it is a result of the laws of physics and matter.

In fact, your example is a great one to show one element of how religions became pervasive. Ignorance (lack of knowledge or understanding) in previous centuries was very common as we did not have our level of scientific understanding. Amongst others, the following questions would have been commonly asked: Why does the sun come up? Why do foods stay more preserved when not exposed to air? Why do we exist and where did we come from? The answer of “God” for all of these questions is a simple answer that removes the mental burden of these questions from people, thus letting the person live their life without wondering where humanity came from. It’s also a source for comfort, believing that your son Billy is now in heaven waiting for you, as opposed to accepting that Billy no longer exists in any form and neither will you once you die.

@NaturalMineralWater – I think god put “it” there. By “it” I mean what ever the components for “the big bang” were.

And I think you asked this question with an agenda. I believe you will keep asking “but what put that their” because you believe in god, religion and the bible.

I still think it would be interesting to find out that life began as a result of multidimensional ripples caused by the successful completion of tests at CERN or Fermilab.

Explain that paradox.

@fireside – won’t explain, because it’s not a paradox, because it didn’t happen that way :)

Not yet.
: P

I simply asked this question out of curiosity. To me it seems foolish to think that something divine did NOT happen at some point in order to create this first element.. whatever label you wish to throw on it. I did not intend to slam anybody .. I’m just a sarcastic, whimsical kinda guy.. so I truly am sorry if I came across the wrong way to anybody. I just like to know what people think about stuff.

@Bri_L I don’t have an agenda. I’m just fascinated by these types of topics and how people can take the same evidence (or lack of evidence) and draw different conclusions.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m no great debater. I haven’t memorized all the fallacies or mastered the rebuttal. I just enjoy discussing it.. just as if we had all sat down for coffee in the local shop. I’m no great scientist.. I’m even weak in the basics. So when I asked if that was science.. I was truly questioning.. not mocking. Blah blah blah.. other stuff… next question.

why would you people who can’t explain this “natural soup” but still believe God put it here, not just believe what God says?! AND the ONLY definitive answer that
leaves no speculation…creation. it seems easier to me to believe this than to believe some mysterious chemicals (origin unknown) mixed (and it it just so happens they were the exact chemicals needed to CREATE life!) and formed a life form that happened to need oxygen to survive and ALL the other things necessary to sustain life. BESIDES the fact that this theory is NOT finished…does it not take more faith to believe in science (who comes to notice every couple years that the more they THINK they know, the less they know about anything) than to believe simply that God (who some of you believe in ANYWAY) created us. it’s
that simple. if you take nothing from this..at least admit that criticizing Christians or creationists for faith based belief is a useless argument because science takes JUST as much faith…if not MORE!

@futurelaker88 I can only speak for myself, but “what God says” went through the same “people” or “humans” with faults and free will who’s opinions and scientific efforts you are discounting now. Only what “God says” was recorded way, way, way, way long ago by people who couldn’t make moveable type. So, I is quite easy for me to say “there has to be an almighty something to create something out of nothing” but not to believe that “what God says” is the way it was.

@futurelaker88 – one question then. Who created the creator? Where did he/she come from?

@bri_L do u think that if God is after all, Godand was choosing to have his accounts recorded, he could make sure people got it right? im genuinely asking. and you should look into the dead sea scrolls. they were thousan year old copies of the bible that were found in Egypt i believe. we compared them with the bible we have today, and the CONTENT was exactly the same. yes words changed over time to keep with the language, but NOTHING in terms of content or information was altered at ALL. so i trust that we have accurate copies of the book.

@futurelaker88 Nope. I believe he gave us free will.

@dynmicduo – glad u ask, the bible also has an answer for that. the answer is that God did not have a creator but simply ALWAYS existed. now If he is God..this is east to accept! i WANT a God that is beyond my earthly comprehension. the fact that our minds cannot imagine this, separates us from Him

@dynamicduo I have no idea, but I am prepared to accept that I can’t and won’t.

i too believe he gave us free will. but i also believe He knows what he’s doing. and if the bible is our evidence and instruction manual to live for Him, he’s not gonna mess it up

@futurelaker88 I respect that. I also disagree with it.

I’m just going to wade in here and deposit my 2 cents.

I believe that what happened was some divine being said, “I wonder what’ll happen if I do this,” and that’s how the universe started. And, while I am not Christian, I do agree with futurelaker in one respect. That being (whether it is the Christian god or not) is incomprehensible. Maybe it was born in some way, maybe, within our definition of time, it has always existed. We cannot know that.

lol well thank you. also i feel like I should say (even tho it’s obvious) some of of you are saying “i think..” or “i believe” or “well i don’t believe…” my side is not MY oppinion. it’s the largesr belief on the planet which has been studied by some of the greatest minds on this planet and derived from the most widespread and popular book EVERY year to this day. i say none of this to brag..i promise. but only to show that there are a lot of people on this side. a LOT. and some of the smartest men on this planet hold this view. so i have backup. it’s not just “my idea”

They use books filled with stories (about a world that wasn’t completely explored or known) that were passed by word of mouth before they were ever recorded, even then by hand, then copied by hand before they were put into moveable type. Then the whole practice and religion was managed by men for men who changed and interpreted the rules and sponsoring things like the crusades, and pledge drives so that they would raise enough money that the lord wouldn’t take them.

@futurelaker88: I understand where you’re coming from, but let’s remember that some of the greatest minds that ever lived have thought the world was flat and that women and black people were inherently inferior. Just because lots of people agree doesn’t mean it’s right.

I find it amusing that the main argument I have seen against evolution and the Big Bang Theory is: “Well how did that all get there?!” In that case, how did God get there. And don’t give me “He was always there, end of story” because that logic applies to the scientific theory as well.

I believe only a completely closed minded person can believe that only one or the other occurred. The fact of the matter is, there is just as likely a chance that God existed before the universe as there is an unknown pile of mass having existed.

Having said that, I have looked through both theories, with the knowledge that either one could be true, and I find the scientific approach to more possible.

Now to allude to futurelaker’s latest response: lol well thank you. also i feel like I should say (even tho it’s obvious) some of of you are saying “i think..” or “i believe” or “well i don’t believe…” my side is not MY oppinion. it’s the largesr belief on the planet which has been studied by some of the greatest minds on this planet and derived from the most widespread and popular book EVERY year to this day. i say none of this to brag..i promise.

I’m sorry, when did I miss the memo that stated that God wasn’t a belief? In fact, isn’t it considered to practice faith when attending church? And last I checked, faith is nothing more than believing in something you know not to be true, but do so because you want it to be true.

I commend you for believing in something as devoutly as you do, but stop contradicting yourself so much and look up some fallacies before trying to make an argument.

@EnzoX24 I have to agree. And I am a catholic christian. But you and katawaGrey stated it great.

i can’t argue with people that make no sense. typing becomes too monotonous when i have to answer to every stupid claim over and over again. “faith is believing in something you know not to be true?” if that’s where your mind is at. i refuse to continue. i can only imagine what your response to other things i say might be.

the people you refer to as belivibg the earth was flat were the SCIENTIStS of the time! the bible refers to the earth as round right in it! this you only prove my point! science is always changing and never “sure”

“just because lots of people agree doesn’t make it right” doesn’t that refute science just as much as Christianity?

@Bri_L im confused as to how a christian is siding with the statements of those above when they mock your own belief in a way that does not even make sense.

@futurelaker88 :

That was a mistake on my part. It should have read “Faith is something you do not know to be true”

And no, the people saying the Earth was flat were not scientists, but common people who couldn’t grasp the size the Earth would need to be in order to be spherical. If I do remember correctly, was Galileo not imprisoned by the church for claiming the Earth was not the center of the universe? And are there not people who still claim the Earth is 6,000 years old, when carbon dating has found rocks that are billions of years old?

But I don’t believe in the word of the Bible, so you using it to justify my existence has no relevance to me! Those words mean nothing to me. Literally nothing. Neither does the Koran or any other religious text. I believe in what I can see and taste and understand with my own senses, not what some old book that claims to be the word of God (and you DO know that the bible has been translated over and over and over again so as to make its contents likely not the same as the original, right?).

Thanks @EnzoX24 for taking the words from my mouth.

And @futurelaker88: I will note that many times I feel the exact same way you do now when trying to talk about science to religious people who fall back on the bible as their proof. “I can’t argue with people that make no sense” is my thought at that time too. Science is sense. Science is formulating a theory and evaluating our world as it relates to that theory. You can prove science just as much as shilolo can prove science. But none of us can prove religion, no one can prove that God exists (and I will not entertain the thought of me needing to show proof that God doesn’t exist – the burden is on you to find proof to support your theory, not on me to disprove yours). Faith by definition is believing in something without proof. But this is another discussion altogether, and I don’t feel like we should keep having this discussion in @NaturalMineralWater‘s thread unless permitted.

i stopped trusting in carbon dating after they found a coke can at the 75 billion year mark. and still…the bible says the earth is round. so Christians have never been surprised by this. whoever believed it was flat were not the Christians, or trusting the scientists. thank you for clearing that up about faith. lol i was like “woah”

Carbon dating never place a coke can at the 75 billion year mark. It was a Pepsi cap found in ancient ruins. It in no way shape or form discredits carbon dating.

@dynamic – you obviously didn’t read everything because i answered some of those things already. AND you only believe in tangable evidence? really? that’s interesting. show me the number 2. show me the ACTUAL number 2. not a representation, or your interpretation. i want to smell and taste and touch the number 2 right now. can’t do it? why? it exists…I’m positive. ok how about that thought u his had. prove they you thought it. let me SEE your thought so i can examine it. what!?! i can’t? wait. then it CANNOT be possible that your thought ever existed. right?

just because something is not tangable does not mean it is impossible to exist

@futurelaker88 – I am not going to continue to argue with you, because your response shows that you have no desire to understand my position or thoughts, but to simply keep preaching your agenda. Good day to you.

isn’t that what you’re doing? lol iunderstand your arguments. i do. i just want to reply with mine. as do you. convenient time to leave don’t you think? right when u were forced to admit tangable evidence is not always necessary. ok. ttyl

it also seems to me that YOU are the one not willing to learn. everytime you bring up an
argument, and i provide an answer, u completely ignore it. (dead sea scrolls, bible claiming the earth is round, tangeable evidence, etc.) these are your BIG arguments and when u discover they have an answer u just move along and ignore the fact that your claim is wrong. how about “wow, the bible claimed the earth to be round? i didn’t know that let me check up in that” or “woah!!! the dead sea scrolls MATCHED our modern translations!!! holy crap, maybe the bible is more accurate than i thought!” no, u just ignore it and then TELL me im not interested in learning. lol

@futurelaker88 the reason people are frustrated trying to discuss this with you is that 98% of what you say is complete crap. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls did not match modern translations of the bible – this is what you used as “proof” that a god exisists by saying that only a supreme being could ensure his exact words were duplicated through time—an extremely tenuous assumption in the first place. The Dead Sea Scrolls matched one (of 3) ancient translations that we had, but even that was not 100%. There were massive changes in wording and meaning in Exodus, for example. So, do you see how you refute your own arguements? Do you see how people would not want to bother pointing out the flaws in your arguements when they are so obvious and you are so determined that your dogma is correct?

Soooo. After reading all this, I stand by my opinion…we don’t know and we won’t anytime soon. If someone were to hold a gun to my head and force me to choose, I choose big bang, random primordial soup, ta-da life.

I am not siding with them because they are not mocking what I believe.

I am just open to a different interpretation than you are. I have a different belief regarding the bible than you do.

Aliens.

If god is beyond human perception and capabilities why is god a he? In this sense, god can’t even give birth. So much for a creator.

I only know as far as the firs amoeba. Which in turn came from Hydrogen molecules to start with. I don’t know what came before Hydrogen.

My belief is that we’re all here, even though it should be impossible. Life is a paradox no matter how you choose to look at it. The very first thing, whatever it was… Just there? Nah. Something has to come from something else. It’s a never-ending cycle and there will never be an answer, because the question will always be, “But where did that come from, then?”.

@DrasticDreamer – not to get into a whole thing again lol…but christians are perfectly content with the fact that God “is, was, and always will be.” we dont have the problem of “where did THAT come from then?” im not saying this to prove anything or start an argument, im just saying, if you believe in God, that question is answered. and very easily and well.

i.e. i NEVER wonder how life started. The bible accounts for all aspects. and im perfectly content with its answers. id rather be content then wondering why im here every night and what the purpose of my life is. and i can honestly say hand to God (no pun intended) i NEVER think about those things or question my belief.

I actually like what KatawaGrey pointed out.

If we assume time to be a dimension much like the three we move within, and assume that God is timeless, thus outside of the dimension of time, then it make sense to say that God has existed since the beginning of time.

@fireside: Lurve for saying that in way better terms than I did. :)

@fireside – which is exactly what christians do. God is outside of time in the way WE think of time. our time was created by him, and is only a measurement of worldly time. God is not restricted to a 24 hour day and 60 second minutes

@futurelaker88 and @fireside: Have either of you read Slaughterhouse 5?

no im sad to say i have not. should i consider giving it a go?

@dynamicduo…I’m not trying to argue here but how does simply observing a phenomenon answer “why”?

For example: If you saw Person A kill Person B with a gun you would know how Person A was killed. Are you trying to say that because you observed the act you also know why?

@KatawaGrey – I haven’t read it either.

@futurelaker88 – I agree, and I think that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that science will someday find more answers about those dimensions beyond the visible.

@fireside and @futurelaker88: It just has some interesting discussions about the concept of time and how it can be perceived differently. And, yes, you should both read it because it is an amazing book. :)

@futurelaker88 – So based on this:
our time was created by him, and is only a measurement of worldly time. God is not restricted to a 24 hour day and 60 second minutes

Do you think it is possible that carbon dating and the theories on the age of the world could have some truth to them?

Ok.. after reading all that.. can we simplify this into the following? Or is it some kind of straw man fallacy.. this is just what it boils down to for me.

1. Either you BELIEVE that something came from random events.. a primordial soup.
OR
2. You BELIEVE God always was and He created us.
OR
3. You BELIEVE that either could be true.. you just don’t know.
OR
4. You don’t really care either way, you just like to argue.

Personally I’m a combination of 2–4.

Just a quick point. Several posters refer to carbon dating as a means of determining the age of the earth.

Carbon dating is not used for ageing the earth as its half life is far too short (can only age things younger than 60,000 years), and it is only used for ageing what was once living matter.To age the earth you need to use parent daughter isotopes with far longer half lives, like for instance, uranium-lead or rubidium-strontium.

some people have been trying to combine 1+2, in other words seeing God as the cook who boiled the primordial soup. Or perhaps the recipe ;)

@Jack79 – Isn’t that what we’re trying to do now at CERN and Fermilab – concoct a recipe that will give us glimpses into the Big Bang?

I believe god created the initial “stuff” at what ever rudimentary level it started at. Like what Jack79 said.

Ok, so using a combination of those 4 choices we can make up a large majority of the population. Interesting.. but perhaps that’s just SOME countries large majority. What of others?

My Mom and my Dad bumped uglies one night, a little over forty-eight years ago and nine months later, nine pounds, 11 ounces of screaming ME came out. Before that, who cares? This is one of those discussions that leads nowhere, IMHO.

@futurelaker88

Just because you claim no one is listening.
Dead Sea Scrolls: Not to belabor this one, because it’s already been mentioned. But these in no way validate the bible. They only relate to the old testament (only half of the bible not whole) And they are not an account of ALL of old testament, just bits and pieces. And no the stories were not always consistent, some stories were completely different. So we ignored you because it was painfully obvious to us that you had not actually done your research about the scrolls, and had just regurgitated what someone had told you.

Bible Claiming Earth is Round: Yes parts of the bible can be interpreted as claiming the earth is round. Other parts of the same bible can be interpreted to say quite the opposite. There are christians to this day who believe in a flat earth thanks to their “biblical evidence”.
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
We again ignored you because you had obviously not though your logic through all the way. (ie. If the bible clearly claimed a round earth, you would not be able to interpret a flat earth from the same text)

Tangible Evidence: Evidence does not need to be physically tangible by our clumsy human form. Evidence needs to be testable. We have many instruments that allow us to “see” things that we would otherwise not be able to. Sure we are not experiencing the evidence ourselves, but we have a clear understanding of how the instruments experience the evidence and can make scientific discoveries based on that.

I also fail to see why having two eggs in front of me, and calling that concept “two” isn’t “tangible”? Sure I’m not a mathematician but I don’t see a problem with this. And I can assume that higher level math just abstracts that concept to symbols on paper, or functions in a computer.

Please point out the other points you have made you feel people are ignoring. I will personally make the effort to answer them to the best of my ability.

One final note, you said:
“i NEVER wonder how life started. The bible accounts for all aspects. and im perfectly content with its answers. id rather be content then wondering why im here every night and what the purpose of my life is. and i can honestly say hand to God (no pun intended) i NEVER think about those things or question my belief.”

And if everyone thought this way, we would make no progress as a species.

@noon – EVERYTHING you just said either was false or didn’t even touch anything i said. it SEEMED to be clever and dismiss my arguments, but if you read clearly what i said and understand the POINT of it, your points are pointless, weird, and some are just plain leaving out the main thing because there is no answer (the verse where the bible claims the earth is round isn’t even there in your response! you just leave it out!) then people think “wow he was destoyed!” but in reality not even close. the number two thing. you said you are fine with calling two eggs “two.” well…what!?! it’s not! it’s two OF them. it’s representing two. but two eggs does not let me examine the NUMBER two and see how it evolved and smells and feels. so that argument is gone. u say my attitude about not wondering where life started would get us nowhere. again lol, the reason why i don’t wonder is (at least according to Christianity) because i KNOW and have no doubt! that was the while point! you answered it in a way that SOUNDS cool, but it makes no sense. Obviously what you said is correct, but my point was that i do not lay in bed at night scared or depressed because i don’t even know why im here or where i came from. so THAT point Is nonrelevant as well. the dead sea scrolls were only from the old testament – true, and once again…yea? they could be one VERSE and i would be happy. as long as it matched, which it did. look it up, there are countless books and sites where Christians use these very documents to support the accracy of modern bibles. HOW could they do so if it didn’t match?! you tell me. and if you’re going to say “because they are stubborn conservative people who will not give up their faith,” i happen to see that in scientists when they find RED, LIVING blood tissue on a dinosaur fossil that is supposedly 64 MILLION years old! they have even admitted that it is impossible. they are confused out of their minds!
you know what answers their problem? the bible

@futurelaker88 – removed by me, you were writing your next post as I was asking you about it. Thanks.

Dead sea scrolls its not even 4 minutes long. PLEASE watch!

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=289c1e129096b47c3e96

and i would also say read this…

The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls should never be underestimated. They answer one of the most critical questions of life: How do we know the Bible we have today has been passed down to us accurately — and is its message trustworthy?

Until these texts became available, the oldest Hebrew Old Testament text in existence dated back to A.D. 800. No original manuscripts of the Bible exist today, so the next best thing is to go back to the oldest copies that would be closest to the originals. The Dead Sea Scrolls allow for that because they are 800–1,000 years older than previously known manuscripts.

What the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts clearly demonstrate is that through about a thousand years there was essentially no significant alteration in the text. The scribes who transcribed the text of the Bible were so meticulous — they had such high standards of accuracy, counting every word and every letter of every word, dotting each “i” and crossing each “t,” so to speak — that one may be absolutely certain the Old Testament text available to scholars today is in essence the same as the originals. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an incontrovertible archaeological confirmation that this is the case.

The evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is equally strong with only approximately a 250-year gap between the original manuscripts and the copies currently available. “If you are still concerned about the gap of, say, 250 years,” writes Erwin Lutzer of the Moody Bible Church of Chicago, “remember we can independently confirm the text of the New Testament by (1) papyri manuscripts that were discovered in Egypt, dated as early as A.D. 125, containing fragments of the New Testament. Also (2) extensive quotations of the New Testament occur in the writings of the early Church Fathers, as further proof that the New Testament writings were known to them, possessing the same content as we have today.”

Interestingly, the oldest manuscripts available of Plato and Aristotle only date back to 1600 A.D. and there is no great debate or question over their reliability — proving that sometimes the skepticism over the Bible is more an issue of the heart than an issue of the evidence. (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/090119)

AND THIS FOR THE FLAT EARTH ISSUE

The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says.

Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical.”

Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus’s defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.

But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science.

The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for “circle” can also mean a “sphere”).

Also, Luke 17:34–36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

@Bri_L – Sorry for being unclear, sometimes my adrenaline forces me to write so fast and forget to clarify certain things :/ I know that dead sea scrolls were only old testament and only fragments, BUT i am willing to trust that if THOSE fragments withstood the test of time and were translated accurately, then so were the others. what are the chances that the ONE set of documents that date back to the actual biblical times are the ONE set that DID match what we have? why didnt we just find a document that was completely different and shattered all validity of the bible?

@futurelaker88 – What are your thoughts on The Gospel of Judas?

@futurelaker88 No apologies needed my friend. I understand. This is an emotional topic. For me too.

I watched that video. Very cool. I totally see why that is exciting.

@fireside – this was the quickest thing i could find because this brings up an entire new side to another debate lol. but check this out

http://www.tektonics.org/garagesale.html

and thanks a lot! yea to me this stuff is so incredible! glad you enjoyed it!

Ok, so if I follow your line of thinking:

-The Torah (Old Testament) is true because we found manuscripts which can be carbon dated from around 150 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. (a full 1500 years after the time of Moses)

-The New Testament is true because “The evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is equally strong with only approximately a 250-year gap between the original manuscripts and the copies currently available.”

-But the Gospel of Judas must be fake because it is dated to have been written around 130 – 180 AD and thus is not closely related to the events?

i did enjoy the video, though. just fyi, Qumran is in Israel, not Egypt

@fireside – im not saying those are the only reasons why i believe these are true. lol this is what i dont like about fluther. new people come in and instantly question things that they shouldnt without reading EVERYTHING. i mentioned the documents above, and someone refuted them saying they did NOT match at all and i didnt know what i was talking about. so that was my response to THEM! its not just a general statement for anyone to see and jump on…unless of course you know WHY its there and have an answer to that. all the info above was for @Noon because of the reasons listed above. and thanks for watching the video. and the Egypt thing i knew i wasnt sure on. i believe i even said “i believe its in Egypt” i wasnt sure, but thanks!

Oh, ok. gotcha.

How about this conversation you backed away from then?

@futurelaker88 – So based on this:
our time was created by him, and is only a measurement of worldly time. God is not restricted to a 24 hour day and 60 second minutes

Do you think it is possible that carbon dating and the theories on the age of the world could have some truth to them?
—

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God and Jesus, but I think you should be sure you’re not contradicting yourself

@fireside – im sorry, im confused here. if i backed away from something it was because i didnt see it im sure, and im not quite sure what you are saying i backed away from, nor how my statement you quoted would allow for carbon dating to be true?

im genuinely asking, im not understanding your question i dont think

@fireside – on a side note, i do think that carbon dating MUST have SOME truth to it. im aware the science can test their equipment on things we know are certain, but when it comes to 64 million years, therefore contradicting biblical knowledge, i would have to say, “well something is wrong here.” does that make any sense? especially if you look at the mistakes science makes but is unaware of them until years later :/

All I was pointing out was the common understanding that God wasn’t limited by Man’s concepts of time. So, wouldn’t it be okay to believe that when the Bible says 6 days, it could be an indication of God’s time, not Man’s time?

After all, Man wasn’t even created until the end, so why would it be Man’s concept of time that was used?

I never really understood how the age of the Earth was derived from the Bible, is it counting the number of generations in the Old Testament? Or is it somewhere else?

@fireside – the hebrew word for “day” in genesis is the same word refers to a 24 hour day

and the age of the earth is not stated in the bible, so as long as scientific knowledge does not contradict “time periods” of existence of people in relation to cities or rulers etc. im fine with it

@fireside
Again I’m going to try to find each of your points, and talk towards each of them. Considering your self disclosed problem with writing under the influence of “adrenalin”, this is harder task than it sounds.

Claiming what I said to be false:
Could you please point out my false statements? You exact quote was “EVERYTHING you just said either was false or didn’t even touch anything i said.” Also later you say “Obviously what you said is correct, but my point was that i do not lay in bed at night scared or depressed because i don’t even know why im here or where i came from.” Which actually conflicts with what you said before. By the way, the fact that I don’t know why i’m here, or came from (nor does anyone for that matter) does not keep me up at night. I don’t think that really has to do with anything, but just though I would make that clear.

Me not using bible verses that prove a round earth:
You are correct. I didn’t quote verses that “prove” a round earth, mostly because it was not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to make the point that one can’t claim the bible says the earth is round if there are passages that support round, and passages that support flat. It was clear that you already knew the passages that support round, so I provided passages that support flat. I’m not a logistition but I think the logical argument would go something like this.
1. If the bible decidedly states a round earth, there would be no passage that could be interpreted as a description of a flat earth.
2. There are passages of the bible that that could be interpreted as describing a flat earth.
3. The based on 1 and 2 the bible does NOT decidedly state a round earth.

The number two thing:
I’m sorry if I’m still lost on this. To quote you:
“the number two thing. you said you are fine with calling two eggs “two.” well…what!?! it’s not! it’s two OF them. it’s representing two. but two eggs does not let me examine the NUMBER two and see how it evolved and smells and feels.”

So how do you get the concept of two when you say the phrase “two OF them”. Yes it’s two of them, we have understood the concept of two as the amount OF something. I don’t see how I can’t say “two” but you can say “two OF them”. Number do not evolve, smell or feel. Not really sure why they have to for us to be able to manipulate them. Numbers may be ultimately an abstract concept, but it is one that is testable and falsifiable, and it has passed quite well.

Dead Sea Scrolls: Yes, you will find many a christian book and site using the Dead Sea Scrolls as proof of the validity of the bible. You will also find many a site that will claim the opposite. So yes, there are parts of the DSS that relate back to the modern old testament (not bible) and there are parts that tell similar stories but radically different. I recommend going to sites and book written by biblical scholars. These people view texts as history, and have no agenda when it comes to proving one religion over another. Biblical scholars have shown the genesis story to be different in the DSS. Also vast differences between Samuel, Exodus, and Jeremiah. There are several pages that appear in the DSS that don’t appear in the Old Testament, and visa versa. In your DSS research I recommend you look at those chapters, as well as studies that talk about Cave 4. Cave 4 (also known as Qumran 4) is usually overlooked by literalists as it contains the most changes.

Ok going to try to wind down and touch on your living tissue in a dinosaur fossil, and carbon dating a coke can.
Coke Can: Already stated before, carbon dating only works on organic material (ie. plants, animals, stuff that consumed carbon when it was alive) Coke can did not consume carbon during it’s life time. Therefore can not be radiocarbon dated, EVER.

Blood Tissue in Dinosaur fossil:
Read
And This
First of all there was never “living” tissue. There was soft, life like tissue. And the findings are currently inconclusive. Some are testing to see if it really is fresh blood material, and if it is then we may not understand the fossilization and decomposition process as well as we might have thought. Some have replicated the test and came back with iron rich slime that dates to around 1960. The best part is that all the scientists involved haven’t decided anything yet. They are running tests, and printing articles. The only people who have taken this slim bit of information and turned it into a story supporting a young earth are, those who believe in a young earth. Keep in mind the scientist who found this “tissue” is an evangelical christian herself, and she has yet to come out and make a statement about what her findings mean. She is a scientist enough to continue testing.

Excuse my unwillingness to go back and spell check, and typo check. Hopefully I’ve been clear enough.

@Noon – Me? lol, i think you meant @futurelaker88

@fireside way to dodge you coward! just kidding.

@fireside – he did mean me. lol but i dont have energy for this thread anymore. theres still misunderstandings up top. but i think if you just read everything ive written already carefully, all the answers are mixed around and im out of energy to keep typing them

@fireside
My apologies, totally trusted fluther’s autofill after one letter, should have been paying attention ;-)

@futurelaker88

I’m sorry. I took the time to read your posts. I took the time to respond to each point I thought you were making. I took the time to make my response orderly and organized (to the best of my ability). I’m sorry you could not take the time to at least copy and paste the points of yours I was obviously (to you) missing, that you had already typed out above. I’m more than willing to have a more organized discussion in private if you are interested.

Wasting your life arguing about the origin of life…........

Black holes, the “Big Bang” theories family tree doesn’t branch.

Science says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed (aside from what happens in a black hole, which science is at a loss to explain other than the guesses provided by quantum physics…which are all guesses anyway). Hence, we have the “Big Bang” theory.

The “catch 22” on the scientific aspect is that:

• Science can look back as far as a few moments after the Big Bang (sorry all you ultra-bible thumping-science-is-the-devil types out there…something actually did explode and cause the universe to expand into existence). However, science is dumbfounded as to what actually did explode and why.

So, here we’ll start with what I call, the “Theory of Reoccurrence Universalism”**. It all begins with our friend, the black hole.

Your general run-of-the-mill black hole is a thing (as described in the link), a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, including light, can escape its pull. At the center of a black hole is what is known as a singularity. Simpley put, the singularity is the center point of a black hole. Many theories try to describe what the singularity is, but they are nothing more than guesses. The singularity is so dense, that the gravitational pull1 is so great that not even light can escape. Talk about one heck of a rollercoaster ride. Black holes are scattered far and wide; not only in our own galaxy, but in other galaxies and throughout the whole of the universe between galaxies, in open space.

How big is the singularity? Who really knows? Quantum physics2 tries to explain (but seeing as how quantum physics is more guesswork than actual solid fact), but does a poor job of it. The singularity itself could be as big as a supergiant, ancient star or a touch smaller than as atom. One thing we can agree on is that their weight exceeds anything we can comprehend. Remember, physics falls apart (like everything else) when it hits the event horizon.

Next on our list is super massive black holes. These are normally found at the center of most all galaxies, including our own. These are the equivalent of standard blackholes, shooting up steroids, drinking protien shakes and lifting weights. When it comes to size (or better yet, gravitational pull), they are the kings of the known universe…or maybe just princes waiting to become the king of all gravitational forces.
Now we look far ahead into the future. The Andromeda Galaxy (the sister of our Milky Way Galaxy) is heading right for us. Both the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies have a supermassive blackhole at their heart. Once these two galaxies collide, the two supermassive black holes will merge to form…what? A supermassive blackhole that even quantum physics will have a hard time guessing it’s gravitational pull, not to mentions its initial size of the singularity.

Now let’s look eons ahead. Many other galaxies will have collided by now, creating quite a few of the “extreme” super massive black holes. Eons pass and instead of giant galaxies, all that is left are these black holes (they would have devoured everything around them; adding to their mass). Slowly (in galactic terms), these black holes would still be traveling through space; through their travels, they would have devoured the occasional star, asteroids, stellar gasses, comets, other smaller black holes, etc. Over many eons all that would be left, would be these “extreme” super massive black holes. These creatures would be of a scale that physics, quantum physics and all of stellar science would have a problem defining, much less theorizing what is going on in such a massively dense core.

Think about this; these “extreme” super massive black holes could be so dense that the gamma radiation jets, gas jets, etc, (seen being shot out of the accretion discs around black holes) would actually bend back into the black hole due to the extreme gravitational pull. Singularities with such pull could, quite possibly, start migrating towards one another (with such a gravitational pull, great distances may no longer be an issue). As the eons pass, these E.S.M.B.H. (“extreme” super massive black holes), they would migrate towards one another, ingesting anything and everything that was left in the known universe; until they meet and join. Then there would be a single black hole that contained the mass of the entire known universe. Could this super-mass, this E.S.M.B.H. have the gravitational pull to stop the expansion of the universe? What if this is the “Big Crunch” science had predicted for our universe? In the end, all that is left is this super dense, absolute gravitational force. With nothing left to devour, the singularity would start feeding on itself; crushing itself smaller and smaller, possibly down to a size smaller than that of an atom, and finally reaching its own critical mass.

If this were to become unstable enough to generate an explosion, one could only imagine how powerful it would be. A point, smaller than an atom that contains the mass of the entire universe, exploding out; breaking the gravitational bonds that have held it for so long; would this not explain the “Big Bang” theory? But that leads us to the biggest question; how many times has this happened in the past? How many more times will this happen? This is where I propose that this has happened many times before and will happen many more times in the future.

To those in the scientific community, this is one idea that should have crossed someone’s mind in the past. This should have been discussed and brought to the forefront. If it has been discussed in the past, why was it disregarded? If it was put in the discard pile, why? Does quantum physics fail when the densities of black holes become so great?

This is what I call the Theory of Reoccurrence Universalism. The universe has gone through the “Big Bang” and “Big Crunch” many times before; all because of black holes.

As Steven Hawking stated in his book; the universe was created from a singularity, but he has a problem with the Equation of everything. Standard physics and quantum mechanics don’t exactly like each other.

To do this, we would have to make another scientific law (i.e. something in motion tends to stay in motion).

So what do we do here? Maybe, someone should make the scientific law: Matter and mass does not determine the size of an object.

Using that as a scientific law could possibly bridge the gap between the whole of quantum mechanics and standard scientific law.

This is a text version of my original theory. If you would like the original with the links that are embedded, let me know.

@Bad_Wolf Welcome to Fluther!

@Bad_Wolf: I’m sorry, I’m too tired and head-achy to read your long post but i just wanted to say welcome to fluther and it’s nice to see another Whoovian on board!

@Bad Wolf – all that stuff (im sure) is as impressive as it is long. but i must admit i stopped reading after you said “we have all the answers after the initial explosion, but science is stumped and dumbfounded as to how and why” idk, is it just me or does NONE of the other stuff matter if Part 1-A is missing?! all the other stuff is great I’m sure but I’d be more impressed if they had that first step than everything thereafter. at least Christians have the whole story, right? they know exactly how AND why! science laughs them off and says “well we don’t know HOW it happened, but it coulnt be THAT!” until science has found the base for it’s entire theory and the starting point, I’ll remain an unbeliever. it seems to take more faith to believe this method than it does to simply believe, well God made it! also much more satisfying as well to know i’m not a useless pile of mass with no purpose. i think if you held a baby (your own) and looked into it’s eyes and saw it look back and grab your finger, i mean i could cry just WRITING that, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt (all masculinity and “scientific method” aside)...there’s more than molocules and cells in your arms. again just let me stress that part one is ALL that really matters! how can we be expected to believe all of this complex reasoning when the FIRST question a kindergarden student would ask after hearing a simplified version would be “what exploded and how did THAT get there?” and you have no answer to give him.

First, if you had read the whole thing, It does go towards the answer to the question.

Second, I’m an ordained minister, I know God made everything; the point is that God didn’t say how he made everything, that’s why science is always looking for the starting point.

What I pointed out is a possible starting point; a possible explanation to it all…nothing is written in stone, just a starting point.

Thanks to those who have welcomed me, yes…a Whoovian, I like that. I’m sorry it’s so long, but the question asked requires a long,descriptive answer.

Oh, and I have 3 kids…God put us here to live, love life, love each other and to believe.

hey there @Bad_Wolf – welcome to Fluther. Don’t let everyone turn you off of long answers. There are more than a few, some even on this thread who have whipped them out at one time or another.

It doesn’t put me off. :)
I just find it funny how some people can come back with such opinions to an answer they haven’t fully read.
I mean the question is, “What is your opinion/belief concerning the origin of all life?”...Let’s try it like @futurelaker88 would read the question….” What is your opinion” and then he answers it knowing not what opinion it’s asking for.

@Bad_Wolf – i dont understand what your last post says concerning me, and i appologize for not reading your entire post, maybe i did misinterpret what you intended to say, but from what i DID read, it seemed to be from an opposing side of christianity. I appologize for not reading the entire post and i usually dont do that, this particular time, it was late and i was laying in my bed and i checked my fluther on my phone and this question came up with new activity (and i answered on this post MONTHS ago) so i just answered without planning. sorry, no hard feelings.

It’s no hard feelings, @futurelaker88. My original posting was to wiki and they denied it, even though I had all my links in order and everything. Though, I also had the religious links in with it too.
To be fair, it is long and anyone with a headache or stressed would just skim over it. The whole rant simply answers Hawking’s question on how it all started. It’s for us, as individuals and what we understand as creation to get out of it what we can about the creation of where we come from. I didn’t answer the question of where life came from, I just gave the starting point…it’s for you to try to figure it out for yourselves.

I read this entire thread and it was very interesting. I would like to be able to answer the original question and respond to the ideas and opinions of the posters (and I do have quite a few noteworthy things to contribute), but at this point I am not in the position to be able to argue anything persuasively. I dont have all the facts. However, I am working on that problem right now. The internet has all the information I could possibly need to be able to draw some reasonable conclusions. But to be able to answer these sorts of questions effectively, I would have to spend many more days researching on an incredibly wide range of topics. I do, however, believe that the the information neccessary to at least satisfy the questioner is currently available. By the end of my studying I should be ready to tackle lifes big questions. Now its just a matter of sorting through all the information and making sense out of it. Which for me means a lot more study. When I do feel confident enough to agrue my beliefs from an informed perspective, I will then return to these sorts of debates and let my opinions be known. Until then, Im perfectly comfortable just reading and absorbing information. Sorry I cant help you with all of your questions right now. But know that I am working hard and that the solution is on the horizon.