The SETI group now feels that life on Earth may have started when passing comet seeded our planet with life giving microbes.

 

Fred Adams in his book Origins of Existence says that life began underneath the Earth. I mean how else could live exist on a planet being bombarded with space debris.

 

 

Classical evolutionists point to the see and say Cradle of Life.

 

Theists point to the ultimate underlying power and say...God.

(For you math buffs that would be God = unknown Variable.)

 

So when and how did life first begin on mother life. Did our beginnings rise on Earth on or off and briefly...how?

Does it matter?

Are you kidding...? I get a rush just thinking about it.

Whether life on Earth originated on or came here from somewhere else just adds needless complexity to how life came about.

MaxCathedral said in post #3 :

Are you kidding...? I get a rush just thinking about it.

I am not kidding.

 

Seriously - what difference does it make?

fafalone said in post #4 :

Whether life on Earth originated on or came here from somewhere else just adds needless complexity to how life came about.

 

As compared to what?

YO momma

"Is a SnowBlower"

 

dronezero said in post #6 :

 

As compared to what?

 

no one was making any comparisons?

simply stated, Where life began is irrelevent in this instance, it`s a sidetrack to the more important question of HOW it began

work on the rest after

The question "how" means doing some hard work and actual study.

 

"Why" on the other hand is a big invitation to people who like to make things up.

lol, too true!

though my opinion as to `WHY` is simply that it was inevitable. given the unimaginable length of time for it to occur in.

"Why" people don't like that, they think it's boring.

Also, the big numbers give them belief/computational problems.

I recon "Why" is the greatest question in Science. however, as stated, it IS often subject to abuse

 

"HOW" to me Implies that you want to Build it (does to me anyway, I love HOW also)

 

and when has Mankind not EVER avoided hard work if it was at all possible, nature of the beast, as you said, too much maths/computation, I recon that`s how Religion was born! lazyness and control of the masses. BUT I`ll not go there as it`ll start some stuff again

HOW usually leads to WHY, but it takes longer and requires more effort. Not to mention merit.

depending on context of use, the pair are like a venn diagram, they have a good overlap, almost to 100% in circumstances, but yer right, no matter what comes 1`st, the other will lead on shortly after.

Potentially they can have an infinitely small overlap too.

 

For instance I might be able to rationalise launching kittens into a steel blade fan in order to prove "why" fans are dangerous

 

However as an experiment into the "how" of fan danger this is unlikely to be considered a merit-filled method

in that case, I`m pleased we`ve sorted that one out, I like Kittens

 

but razor fans are cool too???? I think I`ll stick to throwing vegatables at them for salad though

 

paper clips and small teenagers are fun to throw at them too when you`re feeling particularly bored

my input is always most unappreciated by the masses...i however, am a strong believer that in the beginning God...and He just did it His way...the how of it, the when of it, and the why of it...all of it...science is science...God is God...facts are facts

The Pope...is of the opinion...that life....was created....through evolution.....the question is not did God have a hand in it, but how it happened. There was no pixie dust sprinkled on the planet, something triggered the creation of life in a empirical way, not in an arcane method.

aunt pam said in post #17 :

science is science...God is God...facts are facts

Indeed.