Where did the water come from?? Good question, where did the Sun come from, where did the stars come from, where did the EARTH come from.. just because you dont know the complete entire history about something doesn't mean you dont understand things about it.. but to answer your question, the thousands of comets, meteors and proto-planets that aggregated into Earth..

Yea from standing on Earth it's an open system, but from the Space Station, its a closed system. This is an irrelevant point to argue because every scientific experiment is done in a controlled environment, if it's not, then the results are unreliable. And just FYI, negating irrelevant factors in certain tests has never hurt the scientific process before, everything is tested and re-tested multiple times with different variables in an controlled environment. and even with different chemicals and different simulated atmospheres, the Miller-Urey experiment still works so your rant is without point.

Again, my only response to all your ongoing blabber about the environment is two fold.. 1) No one ever said that LIFE was apparent in Early Earth, just the building blocks for life, it is assumed that as soon as conditions became acceptable for something alive to form, only then did life start to flourish, before that things were a constant tug-of-war between the aggregation of the first living particles and the hellish environment they were trying to "live" in. 2) Agian, please read up on extremophiles and then come back around and tell me that things couldn't "live" in other-than-normal conditions.

....And I suppose creationism is perfect, no wholes or weaknesses whatsoever.......

Yeah, I thought you would say that. Sigh...you sound like my eighth grade textbook. Anyways, let me ask you another question: where did those comets/meteors/proto-planets come from? Now, before you answer, tell me, where did that come from? At the end your reply will be that everything came from nothing. If you believe in Evolution, which I can see that you do, then you believe that everything in the universe and the universe came from nothing. But back to the topic, you still cannot prove that there was a sufficient amount of water to block the sun's rays. Even under water the sun's rays can penetrate animals. Not only that, but we are talking about a planet that does not have must land and the majority of it in magma.

I repeat again, Earth is an open system. With respect to matter, Earth is an open system since small debris from space constantly add matter to Earth; with respect to energy Earth is obviously an open system since energy is gained from the sun -- also distant stars- and heat that leaves our body. So I think it would be naive to say that Earth is a closed system when things enter in and out of our planet. Did you know that every experiment after Miller have still failed? But let me ask you something: do you think that the Earth at the time when the first supposed organism arose from non-living material was controlled? You think that it had no interference with its environment whatsoever? I would like to imagine it could be in a perfect world but guess what? The world is not perfect my friend.

And again, you still do not have all the essential building blocks for life. After hundreds of more experiments Miller and other scientists can only come up with 13-14 amino acids which is bad for Evolution since you need 20 in order to make life. Oh and you failed to respond to the problems that this experiment faces.

Woh, wait a minute there. Who said anything about Creation? Did I ever mention it in the discussion we are having? You should stop assuming or you might get yourself in a real dilema.

-- you need to read up on accrection, the term "nothing" needs to be used vary loosely in your statement because the objects you speak of weren't flying around space, but the matter they were made of was in an accretion disk post Big Bang.. The rest of the chain of reaction is simply gravity.



-- we simply aren't going to agree on this issue, bottom line is no the Earth wasn't a controlled environment, but the life that was on here could survive in the conditions.. all animals on Earth didn't die in the past mass extinctions.. Why? because life finds ways to survive and live on; and an unusable environment for one life form is simply an opportunity to thrive for another. Can you explain that?? Evolution can, it's survival of the fittest and most adapted to it's envirionment. *Edit I would also like to read up on Earth being a Open or Closed System, because among PROFESSIONAL scientists, Earth as a whole, is considered a closed system. Although once inside the atmosphere it can be considered a collection of Open-Related Systems, from the aspect of a cosmological observer, Earth is a closed system.



--I would love to read whatever it is that you read, because there have been MULTIPLE re-runs of the Miller-Urey experiment and ALL and produced the amino acids that Miller identified. Also, ALL of them have produced MORE than what he originally found. The same type of test has also been done with various chemicals, and PH balances for the water, and no matter what logical combination of materials used, the experiment always produces amino acids. The numbers vary with the chemicals used, but the great part is that as the chemicals vary, so do the amino acids. so while one experiment only yeilds 1-23 amino acids (depending on the chemicals), in your glorious OPEN Earth, the indtroduction of new chemicals brings new amino acids. And again, I would love to point out that with our current understanding "life" takes 20-22 amino acids. However that is just as often debated as the issue we are discussing, simply put, because some single cell organisms live in lab environments and only have 13-16 amino acids. So please dont put your foot down and say "LIFE takes 20+ amino acids to exist" when that fact itself is uncertain. I always love how some people take one factor for 100% granted and use that to challenge something else. OH and you fail to admit that this experiment does have it's successes. I never said that it was perfect, but when there are only a couple holes that can't be explained, usually your right. Example of that being how the pyramids where built. Do we know 100% EXACTLY how it happend? No, but we have a 99% guess.



-- yea, so that means that you are just the type of person who goes around blowing the wistle on everyone elses Beliefs and telling us how ignorant and wrong we are, but you have none of your own, or won't discuss them publicly.

This post was edited by Topher_Laid on Oct 19 2009 03:58pm

theres a good chance we will get hit by a giant metor that will knock us off are axis before then also might happen within the next year or maybe in 2012 lol

actually, due to the relationship bewteen the orbits of Earth and Jupiter, and Jupiter's very large mass and gravity; we are, moderately, safe here on Earth. There are very few "windows" that an object would have to fit into in order to pass Jupiter. The object has to have just the right path, mass and velocity to make it past Jupiter and into the inter planets without either falling into Jupiter or being flung off into space again.. However, the bad news is, if a meteor or asteroid should make it past Jupiter and enter the inner planets, the chances are that it will be massive enough to be a global-killer.

You know what they say... live everyday like its your last. I personally think i'm pretty safe for the next 100 years and then I won't mind if i die... 120 years old is a good way to go

Don't worry about it, you'll be dead long before you'll see that day.

Right, and where did that "disk" come from? Your answer, without anything supernatural, would be nothing. You may say that it was caused by some sort of vacuum but then again that is something. In the end your answer will either be I do not know or it came from nothing.

Right, but life already existed. We are talking about the introduction of life. Comparing life today and the beginning of life is a bad move since it is uncomparable. You are saying that life existed before life which does not make sense. And again, survival of the fittest has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are discussing about the beginning of life.
All you say is that Scientists say the Earth is a closed system, who these scienstists are I do not know, and do not give me a reason as to why the Earth is a closed system. I just proved the Earth is an open system and yet you keep negating it. You worry me a lot.

Again, the main element that causes the problem is oxygen. Even if you have different chemicals other than amonia or CH3, oxygen will always be the number one problem for these experiments. Not only that, but we again get back to a controlled experiment in a closed system. You still fail to consider this.
And again we go into lab environments. Do you not realize that the environment plays an important role in the creation or living of an organism? So what if some organisms only have 13-16 amino acids? They live in a controlled environment where factors in the real world would cause major problems to them. This experiment has no successes. It created some amino acids in a toxic "soup", in a controlled experiment, away from the natural environment, with major problems.

Wow, you sure do like to assume a lot. I have my beliefs and my beliefs have no importance to the discussion we are having. If it did then I would say what I believed in it, but I fail to mention it since the topic will be swayed back and forth and what you believe in and in what I believe in and the discussion will not get anywhere. I am not under the gun here, you are.

.. yes, and just like a child, if you ask enough why is the sky blue questions eventually the answer is I dont know or nothing. That is the nature of everything so your statment is meaningless.



You missed my point.. my point was is life can survive in every envirionment imaginable (except a vaccum), and thorugh globe-wide catastrophies, why is it so far fetched to think that life sprang out of early Earth environment??




... ahhhh actually you didnt prove shit.. you pointed something out, but the Earth is considered to be a closed system. I dont know how many times I have to inform you that your wrong, atleast about that... I dont give 2 shits about your view-point when real scientists say that Earth is a closed system. if you would like to discuss the semantics of that, I'd be happy to. But I think this situation has boiled down to an immovable object meeting an unwaivering force.. we are going back and forth to nowhere..



No I did consider it and gave you a bonefide rebuttle. simply put there was no oxygen in the Early Earth atmosphere, and early organisms respirated carbon-dioxide



I dont understand where you get the idea that you wrote the guidelines to life.. YES these are LAB organisms, but the FACT is that they CAN live! This means that another organism that was adapted to it's environment could have lived with less than 20 amnio acids. that is the POINT, and you can't argue that because they DO live. And to neglect that fact and just say "aww yea but they could only live in a lab" is simply retarded.



I am not under any gun, just setting the record straigght so there is no confusion on shit. Im not the one here walking around with the all-mighty attitude. I just find it amusing that you are so quick to judge and inform me of how wrong I am.

Lol, there's no way in hell we'll ever see the sun turn into a red giant, we'll be long long long gone before that happens =P Personally, I think human kind will kill itself with the ''oh so'' technology.