It's not my field at all. It actually encompasses many diverse fields such as biology, chemistry, philosophy, and creationism. As far as I know, the concept currently resides in a stasis of uncertainty and debate.Montalban said:Tashah do you have any ideas about Abiogenesis? I know it's not your field of expertise.
Tashah said:It's not my field at all. It actually encompasses many diverse fields such as biology, chemistry, philosophy, and creationism. As far as I know, the concept currently resides in a stasis of uncertainty and debate.
In the realm of the space-sciences, abiogenesis may be considered part and parcel of the interstellar panspermia hypothesis. However, this stance is not embraced too dearly. All it really accomplishes in essence is a shifting of the question of an Earthly abiogenesis to a different locale. The question remains basically the same... thus making this nothing more than a circuitous path of inquiry.
Even if life forms were discovered on another planet, all it would do is confirm that the universe is essentially biophillic (predisposed towards life). It would not necessarily confer any validity on the panspermia hypothesis, nor settle the questions of abiogenesis.
But surely genetic fingerprinting techniques would help here.Tashah said:Even if life forms were discovered on another planet, all it would do is confirm that the universe is essentially biophillic (predisposed towards life). It would not necessarily confer any validity on the panspermia hypothesis, nor settle the questions of abiogenesis.
This is perhaps true. If the alien life-form is carbon-based and DNA encoded, it may be possible to crossmatch encoded snippets of alien DNA with a representative Earth exemplar. One major problem here is that all living entities on Earth possess an extensive number of extra DNA snippets that seem to serve no succinct encoding function. If a match were to be discovered exclusively within these extra DNA snippets, it would be difficult to quantify the result... as this could easily be attributed to a random mathematical event.robin said:But surely genetic fingerprinting techniques would help here.
If the life had some common genes to earth life then both probably came from a common source (panspermia) if not then the respective life forms evolved/appeared independantly.
thecelt said:well, if you all want my considered opinion, i recon the 'creationist' theory is a load of cac. lets face it, the earth was not made in 6 days. what the creationists have done is that they've taken the bible LITERALLY.
i - being a somewhat intellegent catholic - belive that the days 'represent' ages. i.e = billions of years. Hows that for an interpretation?
i believe in tranquility said:so where exactly does the bible say that earth is 10,000 years old?
i believe in tranquility said:thank you.
If it doesnt say that, then this thread should not talk about Genesis and earths "age", in the manner that this thread does.
i believe in tranquility said:genesis is not meant to be taken literally: especailly the creation myths.
kal-el said:Well if Genesis is not to be taken literally, why take any of the bible literally then? You cannot pick and choose which books to take literally, and which ones to take as fantasy. It's all or nothing.
Apostle13 said:I agree... Even as one in opposition.
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it; but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all that they have done, declares the soverign lord.
i believe in tranquility said:^actually I dont know about you but I dont take myths literally...thats just me...
i believe in tranquility said:again my friend an agreement.