-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Primordial Soup
- Thread starter Moon
- Start date
Probably.
Thought it probably wasn't soup but fairly clear water with traces of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.
It needed to be clear to allow light through to aid the reaction.
Unless of course life started by one of the fumaroles then it would have been pretty murky soup of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.
Then heat would have been the catalyst
It needed to be clear to allow light through to aid the reaction.
Unless of course life started by one of the fumaroles then it would have been pretty murky soup of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.
Then heat would have been the catalyst
This thread was making me hungry for egg drop soup. In light of your post, now I'm just thirsty.
Moon
Well-Known Member
I just don’t see life from that list
Do you understand what elements life is composed of?
That's all life is. The components that make up life.
vulcanlogician
Active Member
Biological science has not reached a firm conclusion either way. The primordial soup idea came about due to a chemistry experiment that was able to produce amino acids (the so-called building blocks of life) from conditions meant to replicate those on early Earth.
You might want to study those experiments, OP, and figure out what exactly seems implausible about the theory rather than stating by fiat that such an origin for life is unlikely.
There are competing theories in biology. Abiogenesis remains a difficult puzzle. Since we're dealing with science, we have differing theories as to how life might have started (rather than a "doctrine" of primordial soup or something like that).
When biologists are able to make an airtight theory, everyone will know how life began. As it stands now, nobody does.
Moon
Well-Known Member
Abiogenesis seems unlikely
It actually seems the most likely. What are the alternatives...
Aliens seeded the planet? Given interstellar distances an extremely unlikely scenario
God did it? Seeing as no one has ever shown a god exists then the whole idea of god did it is pure guesswork
Or abiogenesis.
I love soup. Never tried the primordial though.
Most likely life started in a marine aquatic environment, but probably not an ocean like those we have today.
Most likely life started in a marine aquatic environment, but probably not an ocean like those we have today.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
WHY?
C'mon -- don't you believe those who figure life may have started in a "marine aquatic environment," but maybe not so kind of.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No one has seen abiogenesis either, so it's figure on either side I guess by some.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Not just life but everything else too. If it is too difficult for you, then why try? There is no real need for it.
Clear water in the beginning, not even those, just space/energy; but got progressively muddied.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And magic seems more likely?
Perhaps you do not understand the science involved. Did you ever consider that?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Why? All the elements you consist of are found in the "primordial soup" (and in pretty similar proportions).
It's like saying you don't believe that this
could have come from this
Of the evidence we have abiogenesis is a better guess than no evidence god
gnostic
The Lost One
gnostic
The Lost One
WHY?
What we do know from the chemical properties of the cells, eg biological “components” (biological macromolecules or organic compounds) such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates & lipids, and chemical composition of each of these “components, life aren’t made from silicate-based soil or the Genesis “dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7).
Nothing in the cells of human body contained silicate, hence no “dust of the ground”. There are no silicates in cells of any living organisms, including human.
Only Iron Age hill-billies - uneducated even basic biology - would believe that Adam was made from silicate-based soil.
Genesis authors are no more educated in sciences than their contemporary Babylonians, whom the Jews ripped off them, where the Babylonians believed humans were made from clay, and the “base” molecule of clay is silicate.
So sorry, @YoursTrue & @Moon , none of the cells in the human bodies are made of silt or clay soil. Genesis is less than plausible, the Adam myth is an impossible myth.