Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[psyche]

You have a really dumb outlook on life to be honest. Just because you've got problems with religion and don't want to have anything to do with God doesn't mean other scientists don't or refuse the idea of God. The above article I linked to about abiogenesis was written by an extremely intelligent scientist that studies and teaches in biology, microbiology, psychology and human anatomy and he believes in God. (he also provides very informitive, unbiased information about his work) In fact many scientists around the world do, you would be suprised. Even Darwin at one point conceded that his theories were extremely improbable and that the possibility of a Creator being the reason for our existence and the existence of nature is the most likely explanation. So for you to claim that the very essence of science is completely incompatible with the concept of God or a Creator, is BULLSHIT.

Science is NOT the be all and end all of everything. If you are trying to claim it is, you need to tell us exactly where science and all it's principles and laws came from and exactly why or how it just all happens to 'work' so effectively. Exactly how and why something as infinitely complex like DNA came to exist.

Good luck explaining that. (see Dawkins' failed attempt to propose a plausible evolutionary accounting of the origin of genetic information, here)

also see why this scientist believes in God.

It is truly pathetic that you continue to follow science blindly so determinedly when clearly it does not, and will not ever have the answers to the truth of our unique existence in the universe. Learn to start thinking outside the box, and learn to appreciate the unbelievably amazing complexity of everything around us, and you will begin to appreciate life in a new way.

It is not the case that science and religion address distinct domains in a general sense. Since religion is about God and God is the source of everything, everything is in religion’s domain. However, it is the case that science can only address a specific (and incredibly important) realm of everything, namely systems. It is in the goals of the addressing of this domain that the ‘nonoverlap’ of NOMA comes in: science’s goal is to discover, describe and explain the properties of these systems. Religion’s goal is to ask what these systems might tell us about the nature of creation, God, and human purpose. This is why I believe religion must take scientific findings seriously – we cannot properly consider God’s purposes without knowing the nature of his creation in concrete ways.

When it comes to non-systematic events, however, the goals of science cannot be accomplished. Science must therefore be satisfied with merely identifying the unexplainable. The general goals of religion, however, can still be accomplished for a singularity may still point to truth and purpose.

Are faith and science compatible? Clearly the answer is ‘yes.’ It is no surprise, then, to find that those who answer ‘no’ often have non-scientific reasons for their conviction. Creationists cannot condemn evolution without speaking of the evil moral implications of a Darwinist worldview; Dawkinsians cannot condemn religion without talking about the moral evils that religious zealots have wreaked on society over the millennia. While social questions are perfectly valid for choosing one conviction over another, they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not science and faith are compatible in an intellectual sense. I suspect that neither party really cares about whether science and faith can really get along, rather that they just don’t want them to.

More

[Dr Woomanchu]

Did you read what I wrote? Ignoring your continued juvenile derogatory comments about my world view, I'll try again

I implied clearly that science doesn't have all the answers, and I noted that  there is nothing about the scientific method that precludes belief in some sort of creator. Religious scientists are far from uncommon, and it would be surprising if they were.

Almost by definition , science can't answer any questions about god(s), because if you define them scientifically they cease to be gods.

Science and religion don't use the same language, they rely on different parts of the brain, and serve completely different purposes.

My only issue, is when the belief system people use to make sense of their lives , i.e their subjective reality, be it religious, rationalist, animist or absurdist, is used  as the basis of argument against the knowledge and understanding of the scientific domain.

Science is an attempt to understand the objective reality we can perceive and measure. If it isn't perceivable or measurable then science has no comment on it.

I personally have no need to add an unseeable, unmeasurable level of reality to my life. If you, or anyone wants or needs some sort of god to help your life make sense, that's fine. Lots of people do it, and if it gives their lives a structure and meaning that allows them a happy life, then I am all for it

However I have to say that the unbridled arrogance you display in assuming that, if someone doesn't share the story you have made for yourself, then their views are deficient, unthought through and generally inferior to your personal world view, is getting very tedious.

I have lived and continue to live a happy and fulfilling life. I have almost everything I need or want, and love and am loved by a wonderful family. We're self supporting, take responsibility for our own lives and decisions and live by a moral and ethical code that is positive, generous and supportive. We're active in the community, do volunteer stuff, and I can honestly say that there is no-one on this planet I hate, and can say with a clear conscience that malice has no place in my life. I have no time for it.

Yet because I don't have some faith (belief in the absence of evidence) based construct involving some unknowable, imperceivable entity who has no effect on me at all, I am supposed to be in some way deficient?

I know where the narrowness of world view lies, and it isn't with me

[KiLL3r]

You have a really dumb outlook on life to be honest. Just because you've got problems with religion and don't want to have anything to do with God doesn't mean other scientists don't or refuse the idea of God. The above article I linked to about abiogenesis was written by an extremely intelligent scientist that studies and teaches in biology, microbiology, psychology and human anatomy and he believes in God. (he also provides very informitive, unbiased information about his work) In fact many scientists around the world do, you would be suprised. Even Darwin at one point conceded that his theories were extremely improbable and that the possibility of a Creator being the reason for our existence and the existence of nature is the most likely explanation. So for you to claim that the very essence of science is completely incompatible with the concept of God or a Creator, is BULLSHIT.

First off when you say these scientist believe in god, which god do you refer too? Zeus? Thor? Maybe none of the current gods.

Science is NOT the be all and end all of everything. If you are trying to claim it is, you need to tell us exactly where science and all it's principles and laws came from and exactly why or how it just all happens to 'work' so effectively. Exactly how and why something as infinitely complex like DNA came to exist.

No one said it is the be all end all but its still the best way of understanding the universe around us whether you like it or not.

Good luck explaining that. (see Dawkins' failed attempt to propose a plausible evolutionary accounting of the origin of genetic information, here)


also see why this scientist believes in God.

Yes darwin recounted on alot of his findings it seems. Although most of these accoutn come from religous people with an agenda.

I like the story how he repented on his dethbed, but the only one who was there at the time was a religous zealot.

It is truly pathetic that you continue to follow science blindly so determinedly when clearly it does not, and will not ever have the answers to the truth of our unique existence in the universe. Learn to start thinking outside the box, and learn to appreciate the unbelievably amazing complexity of everything around us, and you will begin to appreciate life in a new way.

Following science blindly? Do you have any proof to follow up that statement? Do you think we just take any new scientific news as gospel as so many believers do?

A scientist discovers a brand new planet which resembles earth almost exactly and the only proof is a few telescope shots he has. I wouldnt take this as 100% at the start but instead wait till other scientist can confirm his report, which gives it credibility because its not just one person seeing it.

Religion on the otherhand.

A woman in texas finds a piece of toast one day at breakfast which has a pattern that resembles the face of jesus. Rejoice! all our prayers have been answered this is definite proof of gods existence!

Or even better, a woman in mexico sees the eyes of jesus in her kitchen door and now pilgrims travel from accross the world to marvel at jesus being ingrained on her kitchen door.

Now tell me again that people who follow science are blind



Im still amazed at the arrogance you show in this thread. Maybe you should re read some of your posts and see how hypocritical you are really being.

[psyche]

Science and religion don't use the same language, they rely on different parts of the brain, and serve completely different purposes.

Possibly. Doesn't make them completely incompatible though.

Science is an attempt to understand the objective reality we can perceive and measure. If it isn't perceivable or measurable then science has no comment on it.

Fair enough.

I personally have no need to add an unseeable, unmeasurable level of reality to my life. If you, or anyone wants or needs some sort of god to help your life make sense, that's fine. Lots of people do it, and if it gives their lives a structure and meaning that allows them a happy life, then I am all for it

Good for you, I don't think it's just about finding a meaning and structure to our lives though, it's about finding the reason of the existence of everything (as futile as it might seem sometimes) If everything we know is merely an astounding coincidence, or if there is something considerably more to it. At this point in time, I think, God has the best explanations to these mysteries.

I don't like to dwell on these things too much though, because quite simply there is no way we will ever know how or why everything exists - but it is still interesting to think about.

My problem with your method of belief is, if science clearly doesn't and most likely will never have the answers to the (most significant) questions of life, why would you choose to believe as if you do have the answers? (ie. there is no God, everything's an extraordinary coincidence, we are all just biological sacks of meat ect.)

there is a quote i'm looking for about atheism that would have fitted in perfectly right here, but alas I cannot find it at the moment..


You make some good points aswell for once kill3r, i'll respond later tonight maybe..

[psyche]

Science and religion don't use the same language, they rely on different parts of the brain, and serve completely different purposes.

Possibly. Doesn't make them completely incompatible though.

Science is an attempt to understand the objective reality we can perceive and measure. If it isn't perceivable or measurable then science has no comment on it.

Fair enough.

I personally have no need to add an unseeable, unmeasurable level of reality to my life. If you, or anyone wants or needs some sort of god to help your life make sense, that's fine. Lots of people do it, and if it gives their lives a structure and meaning that allows them a happy life, then I am all for it

Good for you, I don't think it's just about finding a meaning and structure to our lives though, it's about finding the reason of the existence of everything (as futile as it might seem sometimes) If everything we know is merely an astounding coincidence, or if there is something considerably more to it. At this point in time, I think, God has the best explanations to these mysteries (that's how I see it anyway)

I don't like to dwell on these things too much though, because quite simply there is no way we will ever know how or why everything exists - but it is still interesting to think about.

My problem with your method of belief is, if science clearly doesn't and most likely will never have the answers to the (most significant) questions of life, why would you choose to believe as if you do have the answers? (ie. there is no God, everything's an extraordinary coincidence, we are all just biological sacks of meat ect.)

there is a quote i'm looking for about atheism that would have fitted in perfectly right here, but alas I cannot find it at the moment..


You make some good points aswell for once kill3r (and blackheart), i'll respond later tonight maybe..

[cnvrt02]

there is a quote i'm looking for about atheism that would have fitted in perfectly right here, but alas I cannot find it at the moment..


You make some good points aswell for once kill3r (and blackheart), i'll respond later tonight maybe..

this?

Im still amazed at the arrogance you show in this thread. Maybe you should re read some of your posts and see how hypocritical you are really being.

50$ says if you can find a christ nutter i can find a science one, to say they don't exist is just plain arrogance. ironic coming from you.

[psyche]

Haha, nope, but that's a good one too

[KiLL3r]

this?



50$ says if you can find a christ nutter i can find a science one, to say they don't exist is just plain arrogance. ironic coming from you.

lol you have no clue what atheism means do you?

replace atheism with big bang theory and it might have been right

[Simon_NZ]

I had to type this shit all over again,  so it's not as well thought out as my original post but whatever..


You probably shouldn't have bothered going to the effort of explaining the carbon dating thing, I'm not all that in it interested to be honest, I was just trying to use it as an example (probably a bad one) But working in the field of Geology, of course you are going to be adamant that the tools you use are completely accurate, or maintain that appearance when I've heard lots of evidence to the contrary (credible or not, hard to say) Mind you I don't doubt that Earth is millions of years old, the thing that gets me is how some scientists claim to know exactly how the planet was back then, exactly what the landscape/climate was and exactly how everything happened, and ALL of this information from some friggin' rocks and a few other scraps of evidence?! :eek: Come on, we all know that a lot of it is guesswork, estimation and speculation... that's the kind of thing that pisses me off is some scientists trying to force their biased beliefs and explanations on people when in reality they have very little knowledge of how everything happened.

Who is new fish?

Ok, Climate - when reconstructing past climate multi-proxy analysis is typically used. This can include tree rings, ice cores, deep sea cores, pollen records, etc. All these can be used to infer past climate. It isn't rocket science.

Past Landscape? Fission track dating, cosmogenic nuclide sampling, cores, geodesy, the list goes on. Once again, it isn't difficult stuff to understand, but if you can't be bothered then don't try. I dare say it is beyond you anyway.

[Tiwaking!]

50$ says if you can find a christ nutter i can find a science one, to say they don't exist is just plain arrogance. ironic coming from you.

You cant prove you exist, therefore you do not exist.

Conclusion: Nothing exists.

[Arnifix]

Professor denied entry to creationist propaganda film screening. His family and guest allowed to attend. Guess who his guest was?

[cobra]

replace atheism with big bang theory and it might have been right

nah - even if it was big bang theory it would still be a misrepresentation of the evidence, more chrstian propaganda without substance

cnvrt02 can you do some back ground reading and try to get an understanding of the basics

[Arnifix]

cnvrt02 can you do some back ground reading and try to get an understanding of the basics

of course he can't. he's an idiot.

[Dr Woomanchu]

My problem with your method of belief is, if science clearly doesn't and most likely will never have the answers to the (most significant) questions of life, why would you choose to believe as if you do have the answers? (ie. there is no God, everything's an extraordinary coincidence, we are all just biological sacks of meat ect.)

You're looking at it in religious terms. I don't believe I have any answers about that stuff at all.  There's a number of ideas on how things may have happened that are interesting, but in the absence of evidence they're just ideas, some more elegant than others.

You, and others have some specific ideas about answers to the questions we don't know the answers to. I don't know the right answers, but I am pretty comfortable that they aren't the ones you're proposing, because they contradict much of what we've managed to learn to date.

As I've said previously, I have no issues with this universe having been made by an entity of some sort, but it's an interesting idea, not the "truth".

As for the coincidences angle, every day mind numbingly unlikely coincidences happen. They're only coincidences until they occur, then they're just events, and I know this doesn't sit with you, but I've never seen any evidence at all that we're any more than biological sacks of meat.

I was thinking about this yesterday. I've been working all weekend and was driving back with my family, from a day working at Lake Pukaki which has awesome views of Mount Cook. We were singing along to Fat Freddies Drop with the sun setting near Cook. The view was awesome and I was filled with an intense sense of well being and happiness, and belonging.

I know where those emotions came from. I know that it's the effect of hormones and other chemicals in my body on my brain causing  a glorious feeling of rightness, safety and belonging. I was looking at the land I was born and live in, with the people I share my life and my genes with. I was in the perfect place for the organism I am and my body responded appropriately. If I bothered to look it up I could probably tell you exactly what chemicals were acting on my brain to cause the feelings I had.

Where I suspect we differ, is that knowing the reasons behind the almost mystical feelings I had about the moment were nothing more than the outcome of processes in the sack of meat that is me, in no way lessened the beauty and the joy of the moment at all.

When I look around I don't see gods handiwork, I see a fascinating and complex interaction of matter and energy that fills me with wonder. None of it looks "created" although I can see how some people might see that.

[psyche]

So where did matter and energy come from then, hmmmmm?

You look around, and nothing looks created to you? But everything WAS created. It was created by the Big Bang, aswell as whatever created The Big Bang.

Also it is not proven that human emotions and morals are solely evolutionary adaptions or are developed entirely within the brain.

[psyche]

So where did matter and energy come from then, hmmmmm?

You look around, and nothing looks created to you? But everything WAS created. It was created by the Big Bang, aswell as whatever created The Big Bang.

Also it is not proven that human emotions and morals are solely evolutionary adaptions or are developed entirely within the brain.

[psyche]

So where did matter and energy come from then, hmmmmm?

You look around, and nothing looks created to you? But everything WAS created. It was created by the Big Bang, aswell as whatever created The Big Bang.

Also it is not proven that human emotions and morals are solely evolutionary adaptions or are developed entirely within the brain.

You, and others have some specific ideas about answers to the questions we don't know the answers to. I don't know the right answers, but I am pretty comfortable that they aren't the ones you're proposing, because they contradict much of what we've managed to learn to date.

Like what? examples please.

As I've said previously, I have no issues with this universe having been made by an entity of some sort, but it's an interesting idea, not the "truth".

Oh really. So how exactly do you know it's not the "truth"? Enlighten me oh knowledgable one. The fact is, some of the greatest thinking minds in our history have concluded that the only way everything like this can really exist, can only really be explained by some supremely intelligent and higher being having purposefully designed it all.

we're talking Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, aswell as numerous other geniuses...so what do you say to that? Are you a greater and more knowledgable mind than Copernicus, Newton Darwin and Einstein?

I'm not the saying it's the truth either, but it's the most plausible explanation whether YOU like it or not.

As for the coincidences angle, every day mind numbingly unlikely coincidences happen.

Yes, but every day is a planet born, with water, mountains, trees and plant-life and an oxygen rich atmosphere, a planet within a galactic habitable zone in the universe? Protected by gas giant planets? Orbiting a life-giving sun in a nearly perfect circular motion, at not too far not too close but the perfect distance? A planet with the perfect amounts of gravity and mass, with a magnetic field, plate tectonics, ratio of liquid water and continents? A planet inside the perfect solar system, in the perfect location inside the Milky Way - it has been said that our planet is in an absolutely perfect spot in the universe for scientific discovery. If we had been just about anywhere else in the universe, we would not have had the chance to learn about and discover the universe as we do.

There's also the AMAZING "coincidence" of a full solar eclipse, which I am going to mention later on...

Just to put this into perspective, a mathematical calculation has been done to calculate how probable the "chance" of a planet like this existing outside our solar system is: it's something like 1/1000000000000 (one in a trillion)  considering there are quite likely only in the "billions" of planets in the universe, it's basically impossible.

In fact, if it indeed was all random coincidence, we would probably be in a dangerous part of the universe, our solar system and planetary conditions would be fucked, we would either be weird creatures with four eyes and six arms or we would be DEAD, but we're not - we're intelligent, complex, thinking, contemplating, discovering, consciously aware beings with the ability to discover the workings of nature and the universe itself.

but I've never seen any evidence at all that we're any more than biological sacks of meat.

I have, I have seen plenty of evidence.

but I think I'm going to ignore you from now, you seem to have formed some kind of conclusion on life, and believe that you have the answers to everything so I don't see any need to continue discussing/arguing any of these subjects with you. Not sure why you are even bothering to look at this thread in the first place tbh..

[Retardobot]

but I think I'm going to ignore you from now, you seem to have formed some kind of conclusion on life, and believe that you have the answers to everything so I don't see any need to continue discussing/arguing any of these subjects with you. Not sure why you are even bothering to look at this thread in the first place tbh..

Stop the press!

I'm convinced you are a troll. WooHoo has a lot more answers than you. You and your "i believe this and i think that, therefor it is true".

Oh, and as for your "everything on this planet is perfect for us, that must mean that it was created just for us". That's bullocks, we evolved and adapted to be able to live in these conditions. Whether we were designed and then put here or not, we still had to evolve and adapt, which has already been said more than once in this thread.

You think you could survive in the middle of the Amazon if you were just plonked there ? You would have to adapt, and evolve to your environment. And to further prove my point, this planet is not perfect for us. We have just managed to set up shop in area's that we can live in. The Sahara, The Alps and places like the the South/North Pole, you think these area's are really habitable even though this planet is so "perfectly placed" and with it's "Perfect alignment" ?

If this planet was honestly made and designed for us, for humans to survive on by some higher being then it would be easier to survive, there wouldn't be harsh, unattainable area's like i mentioned. There wouldn't be animals placed here that have the ability to destroy us so easily, there wouldn't be diseases that can wipe out whole countries.

[psyche]

Stop the press!

I'm convinced you are a troll. WooHoo has a lot more answers than you.

He does? Answers about what...?

You and your "i believe this and i think that, therefor it is true".

Lol. Grow up.

So basically, you think God should have just given us paradise to live on? He should have just handed everything to us on a silver fucking platter, that's what you are saying? So we would have no need to develop, become our own people, solve our own problems, discover and respect nature's immense power or any of those things?

I believe (yes I BELIEVE, motherfucker) there is a reason why our existence is not a perfect one, and that it was intended to be that way. I don't know why of course, I can only guess and contemplate.. I also think it is quite possible Earth was meant to be a "paradise" type place, but for whatever reason it could not be..

Of course if you are a follower of the bible, you already have the explanation of why we don't live in a paradise and why our existence is not perfect.

[psyche]

Stop the press!

I'm convinced you are a troll. WooHoo has a lot more answers than you.

He does...? Answers about what...?

You and your "i believe this and i think that, therefor it is true".

Lol. Grow up.

So basically, you think God should have just given us paradise to live on? He should have just handed everything to us on a silver fucking platter, that's what you are saying? So we would have no need to develop, become our own people, solve our own problems, discover and respect nature's immense power or any of those things?

I believe (yes BELIEVE, motherf*cker) there is a reason why our existence is not a perfect one, and that it was intended to be that way. I don't know why of course, I can only guess and contemplate.. I also think it is quite possible Earth was meant to be a "paradise" type place, but for whatever reason it could not be..

Of course if you are a follower of the bible, you already have the explanation of why we don't live in a paradise and why our existence is not perfect.

[Retardobot]

When you own a pet, whether it be a Dog, a Mouse or a freaking Giraffe, you don't take it home then put it in a ring of dirt, rocks, snow or in a 5foot pond and say "survive". You give it the best options available to keep it alive.

And that's a real good move telling me to grow up. You're trying to announce your self the winner of this argument by replying with "I'm ignoring you because i don't like your outlook"...

Be careful now, suggesting we "developed" is entering into the realms of evolution.

One last thing.

Fuck up Psyche. Don't spit out slurs and offensive one liners when someone tries to combat what you believe.

[psyche]

When you own a pet, whether it be a Dog, a Mouse or a freaking Giraffe, you don't take it home then put it in a ring of dirt, rocks, snow or in a 5foot pond and say "survive". You give it the best options available to keep it alive.

Kinda like we already have many extraordinary options and conditions on Earth to survive? Animals have been surviving on Earth long before we domesticated them into pets, btw..

Be careful now, suggesting we "developed" is entering into the realms of evolution.

For your information, the concepts of God and evolution can logically co-exist.

And that's a real good move telling me to grow up. You're trying to announce your self the winner of this argument by replying with "I'm ignoring you because i don't like your outlook"...

One last thing.

Fuck up Psyche. Don't spit out slurs and offensive one liners when someone tries to combat what you believe.

You're the one calling me a troll and having an immature rant about nothing. I'm not "declaring myself as the winner" - what the hell gives you that idea? I was merely saying that if Dr_Woohoo has personally come to the conclusion that everything is just 'matter reacting with energy'... and he has had an epiphany about life and apparently knows that there is no purpose to anything.. well then I  have no interest in continuing arguing with him - someone else might, but I don't

[cobra]

we're talking Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, aswell as numerous other geniuses...so what do you say to that? Are you a greater and more knowledgable mind than Copernicus, Newton Darwin and Einstein?

not a greater mind, but woohoo is more knowledgeable then Copernicus and Newton and probably Darwin/Einstein - we  just have more knowledge

Yes, but every day is a planet born, with water, mountains, trees and plant-life and an oxygen rich atmosphere, a planet within a galactic habitable zone in the universe? Protected by gas giant planets? Orbiting a life-giving sun in a nearly perfect circular motion, at not too far not too close but the perfect distance? A planet with the perfect amounts of gravity and mass, with a magnetic field, plate tectonics, ratio of liquid water and continents? A planet inside the perfect solar system, in the perfect location inside the Milky Way - it has been said that our planet is in an absolutely perfect spot in the universe for scientific discovery. If we had been just about anywhere else in the universe, we would not have had the chance to learn about and discover the universe as we do.

conditional probability - given that people are here what are the chances of the earth being suitable to human life? the answer is 100%

I have, I have seen plenty of evidence.

please share

but I think I'm going to ignore you from now, you seem to have formed some kind of conclusion on life, and believe that you have the answers to everything so I don't see any need to continue discussing/arguing any of these subjects with you. Not sure why you are even bothering to look at this thread in the first place tbh..

*hypocrite alert*

[psyche]

When you own a pet, whether it be a Dog, a Mouse or a freaking Giraffe, you don't take it home then put it in a ring of dirt, rocks, snow or in a 5foot pond and say "survive". You give it the best options available to keep it alive.

Kinda like we already have many extraordinary options and conditions on Earth to survive? Animals have been surviving on Earth long before we domesticated them into pets, btw..

Be careful now, suggesting we "developed" is entering into the realms of evolution.

For your information, the concepts of God and evolution can logically co-exist.

And that's a real good move telling me to grow up. You're trying to announce your self the winner of this argument by replying with "I'm ignoring you because i don't like your outlook"...

One last thing.

Fuck up Psyche. Don't spit out slurs and offensive one liners when someone tries to combat what you believe.

You're the one calling me a troll and having an immature rant about nothing. I'm not "declaring myself as the winner" - what the hell gives you that idea? I was merely saying that if Dr_Woohoo has personally come to the conclusion that everything is just 'matter reacting with energy'... and he has had an epiphany about life and apparently knows that there is no purpose to anything.. well then I  have no interest in continuing arguing with him - someone else might, but I don't

[Simon_NZ]

Yes, but every day is a planet born, with water, mountains, trees and plant-life and an oxygen rich atmosphere, a planet within a galactic habitable zone in the universe? Protected by gas giant planets? Orbiting a life-giving sun in a nearly perfect circular motion.

You're shitting me right? Our planet wasn't born with trees, plant life and an oxygen rich atmosphere.

learn2geologyandphysic.

Within the Earth Sciences the time period you are referring to is known as the Hadean, it spanned from 4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago. During this time our solar system was still forming, in a huge cloud of gas and dust around our sun known as a accretion disk. There are conflicting views on the composition of this early atmosphere - whatever the case what is common to both sides of the argument is levels of atmospheric oxygen around 1% were too low to sustain an ozone layer, without which there would have been little protection from solar radiation.

Ah, and for the record Earth is not in a perfectly circular orbit. Like the rest of the planets in our solar system Earth follows a elliptical orbit around our Sun.

Shit, at least get your BASIC facts right.