Karzak the Holy

Evolution is a broader term than you seem to accept. When discussing pre organic formation of the universe, evolution, building complexity from simpler components, can be seen by the building of complex elements inside a star from less complex elements.

This is galactic evolution.

you can read about it here:

<a href="http://www.arcetri.astro.it/pubblicazioni/GenReport/Rapp1998/node9.html" target="_blank">http://www.arcetri.astro.it/pubblicazioni/GenReport/Rapp1998/node9.html</a>

Again, I am not talking about already complex pools of organic chemistry, reread my post and see if you can figure it out, tell me what confuses you, and I'll try to simplify it further.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Karzak the Holy ]</p>

NialScorva

Evolution as a word simply means change over time. Evolution used by itself as a science refers exclusively to biological change in species over time, not stellar, not abiogenesis, not anything other than populations breeding and adapting. We don't need to call it "stellar evolution" it's simply astrophysics. You don't need "geographical evolution", it's simply geology. Sometimes the word evolution is used not as the name of a science, but merely as meaning something that changes.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

CodeMason

Have you skimped on the Ritalin today? The topic of your post was "how did life evolve from nothing?", and then the substance of it was a completely different question "how did the universe evolve from nothing?" In case you hadn't noticed, the universe is not life, although it does contain happen to contain it. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the origins of life, not astrophysics or cosmogony. Perhaps you should repost it on the appropriate forum, ie, "existence of gods". Then again, your idiocy won't fly too well there either, as this lame argument has been soundly refuted a countless amount of times.

Karzak the Holy

But context is taken from the entire sentence, "life from nothing" is not the same as "life from pools of organics", that is not "nothing". My question can be further narrowed in scope by my mention of the big bang, certainly the big bang does not bring to mind abiogenesis.

I hope that clears things up, and in the future peeps can use these context clues constructively and not get confused.

Also "simply astrophysics" is too broad a term without further context. It encompasses much more than stellar evolution and doesn't really describe the beginning of the nothing to complex life chain.

I seriously hopes this clears up the confusion some peeps seems to have thrust upon them by my simple question.

Karzak the Holy

Ah, I see where you are confused, the main point common to both is "from nothing", so I assumed peeps would realize that was where my interest lies. It really doesn't matter if it is the universe, or life, since the questions focus on the "from nothing" part of the equasion, not all that follows.

So, pick one or the othe, since both togather are too confusing, start with the
"from nothing" part. Maybe you will even realize that the answer to both will be substantually the same.

Theophage

So....has it dawned on you that you worded your question poorly yet?

By definition, a poorly worded question is one that is not understood. Look around you, did we understand what you'd meant?

Thank you for playing, please try again...

Edited to add:

There is no "nothing" for something to come from. And I don't think anyone here is claiming that anything came from a "nothing". "Nothing", by defintion, cannot exist...

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Orpheous99

Who created god?

Writer@Large

Then perhaps the more pertinent question is:


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Do you know anything about the Big Bang theory?



--W@L

Writer@Large

You obviously have a point. Make it so we can get on with our lives.

--W@L

phlebas

Do you mean "what caused the big bang"?