PDA

View Full Version : further proof of abiogenesis!



jf1
10-17-2008, 06:00 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!
:D

full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

Penile_Dementia
10-17-2008, 06:05 AM
Evidence of, not proof. Just to be scientifically pedantic. :D

dabbmw2002
10-17-2008, 06:13 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!
:D

full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

interesting article. I'm Christian but not a creationist, also props for disagreeing with creationists with class :rolleyes:

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 06:19 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!
:D

full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

Do you read what you post, I'm no young earth creationist but you're clearly not understanding.Quit trying to use a hypothesis as evidence, creating more amino acids is impressive but doesn't shed that much more light than the previous experiments.You're twisting there words around to make them sound matter of factly.

jf1
10-17-2008, 06:20 AM
Evidence of, not proof. Just to be scientifically pedantic. :D
evidence for abiogenesis >>> [(evidence for creation theory) = zero]

interesting article. I'm Christian but not a creationist, also props for disagreeing with creationists with class :rolleyes:
that was the bait, with a pointed barb, to draw the hokiebird into my snare... shhhhh!
:cool:

Penile_Dementia
10-17-2008, 06:22 AM
Do you read what you post, I'm no young earth creationist but you're clearly not understanding.Quit trying to use a hypothesis as evidence, creating more amino acids is impressive but doesn't shed that much more light than the previous experiments.You're twisting there words around to make them sound matter of factly.

Actually, this is observable evidence that corroborates the hypothesis of abiogenesis that little bit more.

Not sure how you're confusing the two.

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 06:28 AM
Actually, this is observable evidence that corroborates the hypothesis of abiogenesis that little bit more.

Not sure how you're confusing the two.

His "evidence" that life was created in volcanoes, which is in fact not strong evidence of anything but amino acids being created in volcanoes.Oh, and yes I'm aware of the importance amino acids in life.

jf1
10-17-2008, 06:35 AM
Do you read what you post, I'm no young earth creationist but you're clearly not understanding.Quit trying to use a hypothesis as evidence, creating more amino acids is impressive but doesn't shed that much more light than the previous experiments.You're twisting there words around to make them sound matter of factly.

what are you talking about?
these were iconic experiments done 50years ago that offered compelling evidence of abiogenesis!

when reexamined today, the evidence was even more compelling; 4 times the number of amino acids were shown to have been CREATED, by using advanced methods of detection!

what dont you understand about this as seen through your opaque creationist goggles?

911medic
10-17-2008, 06:50 AM
Yeah, that's some serious science right there


"And so each one of those volcanoes could have been a little, local prebiotic factory. And so all of that went into making the material that we refer to as the prebiotic soup."

That material could then have been washed down the flanks of volcanoes into pools or coastal bays, where the building blocks of life might have kick-started evolution.

Sorry, this doesn't prove anything other than you can make amino acids in this environment.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 06:53 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!
:D

full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm

http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202C8.gif

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 06:54 AM
what are you talking about?
these were iconic experiments done 50years ago that offered compelling evidence of abiogenesis!

when reexamined today, the evidence was even more compelling; 4 times the number of amino acids were shown to have been CREATED, by using advanced methods of detection!

what dont you understand about this as seen through your opaque creationist goggles?You've just said more evidence that life was created in volcanoes, when in fact it's not.It's evidence that life may have been born in volcanoes at best.

"What we suggest is that volcanoes belched out gases just like the ones Stanley had used, and were immediately subjected to intense volcanic lightning.

Notice how he says suggest, and not know.


I'm not really a creationist in the way you label me.

One More Time
10-17-2008, 06:58 AM
Wait....I thought we evolved from algea :rolleyes:

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 07:01 AM
Waiting for ops response......

jf1
10-17-2008, 07:02 AM
Yeah, that's some serious science right there



Sorry, this doesn't prove anything other than you can make amino acids in this environment.

LOL!
thats EXACTLY what it proves: that amino acids can be made, with heat and electricity from gases and water!

obviously you are unable to see the significance of this experiment: grade F!

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 07:04 AM
LOL!
thats EXACTLY what it proves: that amino acids can be made, with heat and electricity from gases and water!

obviously you are unable to see the significance of this experiment: grade F!

more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

Ouch, you got toasted in your own thread.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:05 AM
You've just said more evidence that life was created in volcanoes, when in fact it's not.It's evidence that life may have been born in volcanoes at best.

"What we suggest is that volcanoes belched out gases just like the ones Stanley had used, and were immediately subjected to intense volcanic lightning.

Notice how he says suggest, and not know.


I'm not really a creationist in the way you label me.



The sad thing is people are insane enough to believe that life began in a Volcano, and they say God creating us from the dust is unbelievablehttp://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202BD.gif

jf1
10-17-2008, 07:09 AM
http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202C8.gif

O HAI hank!
after your thorough and thoughtful examination of this experiment your only comment is a prefab emoticon?

i am disappointed, and slightly embarrassed for you, that you dont feel the need to discuss this groundbreaking experiment any further.

this is the beginning of life in a test tube in a very short time in the lab!
just think of a similar setup, in the vast ocean over millions of years and the results of that!

(to be continued after my run...)

jf1
10-17-2008, 07:11 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

Ouch, you got toasted in your own thread.


The sad thing is people are insane enough to believe that life began in a Volcano, and they say God creating us from the dust is unbelievablehttp://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202BD.gif

responses like this only confirm the 6th grade mentality of most creationists!
i will attempt to explain this experiment to you, VERY SLOWLY, when i return...
:rolleyes:

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 07:12 AM
responses like this only confirm the 6th grade mentality of most creationists!
i will attempt to explain this experiment to you, VERY SLOWLY, when i return...
:rolleyes:

No, you obviously can't understand your original post and my counter post, and until you can it will only waste both our time.
You stated a absolute when in fact it was nothing of the sort.

stealth_swimmer
10-17-2008, 07:16 AM
I'm not creationist, but I don't think abiogenesis conflicts with Christianity.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:17 AM
O HAI hank!
after your thorough and thoughtful examination of this experiment your only comment is a prefab emoticon?

i am disappointed, and slightly embarrassed for you, that you dont feel the need to discuss this groundbreaking experiment any further.

this is the beginning of life in a test tube in a very sort time in the lab!
just think of a similar setup, in the vast ocean over millions of years and the results of that!

(to be continued after my run...)


Yes, I deny that life came from or originated from a volcano, you think I fell of the turnip truck yeterday or something? Scientist can do all the experiments that they want to, but the answer is right in front of them. God created us humans, from the dust of the earth. I wish these Atheist Science people would stop trying to disprove creation, because they will never be able to do it. So get busy a http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202DC.gif

911medic
10-17-2008, 07:24 AM
LOL!
thats EXACTLY what it proves: that amino acids can be made, with heat and electricity from gases and water!

obviously you are unable to see the significance of this experiment: grade F!

Yeah, I don't guess my degree in microbiology adequately prepared me for the vast intelligence found on the bodybuilding forums.

I tell you what, when you get something that breathes in your primordial soup, come let me know. Ok?

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:26 AM
No, you obviously can't understand your original post and my counter post, and until you can it will only waste both our time.
You stated a absolute when in fact it was nothing of the sort.

He also said something about the conditions in the oceanhttp://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000201DD.gif You don't think he is trying to say a fish appeared, jumped on to land and became a hooved animal and then jumped back in the water do you?

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 07:28 AM
He also said something about the conditions in the oceanhttp://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000201DD.gif You don't think he is trying to say a fish appeared, jumped on to land and became a hooved animal and then jumped back in the water do you?

Lol, I'm only here to correct the obvious mistake in the ops logic.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:29 AM
I'm not creationist, but I don't think abiogenesis conflicts with Christianity.

You don't? Do you believe the Bible? Are you a believer? If so, it does conflict because God says he created us, and abiogenesis says he did not. There is clearly a conflict.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:34 AM
Lol, I'm only here to correct the obvious mistake in the ops logic.

After his run through the woods with his ax, he will be back to talk about the hooved fish laterhttp://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020063.gif

cyborgmexican
10-17-2008, 07:35 AM
this still does nothing to answer the question of how the 4 basic aminos that make up DNA were all present right next to each other and then arranged themselves into a strain of DNA.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:37 AM
this still does nothing to answer the question of how the 4 basic aminos that make up DNA were all present right next to each other and then arranged themselves into a strain of DNA.

YOu have a great point, in the lab they can have the "perfect man made conditions" I guess.http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020185.gif

MAPump
10-17-2008, 07:38 AM
Nevertheless, however significant or insignificant this experiment was it still ends up being more tangible proof for evolution then exists for creation.

Catabolic_Cal
10-17-2008, 07:39 AM
Nevertheless, however significant or insignificant this experiment was it still ends up being more tangible proof for evolution then exists for creation.22 amino acids being generated in proof for evolution?

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:41 AM
Nevertheless, however significant or insignificant this experiment was it still ends up being more tangible proof for evolution then exists for creation.

How so say you?

MAPump
10-17-2008, 07:47 AM
It's not a direct link to evolution, I'm just saying it at least is something tangible whereas creation is argument only.

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 07:51 AM
It's more than obvious life started on this planet through Abiogenesis.

If not, then it could me a meteor that brought the chemicals needed for life here on Earth.

Either way, it wasn't God. :D

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:53 AM
It's not a direct link to evolution, I'm just saying it at least is something tangible whereas creation is argument only.

Science can make anything tangible if they are allowed to set the conditions to make it work. Just saying.

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 07:54 AM
I'm not creationist, but I don't think abiogenesis conflicts with Christianity.

Stop being so ****ing stupid and saying that all the time.

Apparently you haven't read your own fairy tale book. Go back to your little corner and read it.

What part of:

"GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE" do you not get? :rolleyes:

Holy ****, some pretty stupid dumb asses in this forum.

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 07:55 AM
Science can make anything tangible if they are allowed to set the conditions to make it work. Just saying.

Are you mad you've lived a lie your entire life?

:D

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 07:58 AM
It's more than obvious life started on this planet through Abiogenesis.

If not, then it could me a meteor that brought the chemicals needed for life here on Earth.

Either way, it wasn't God. :D

This http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202B6.gifis less believable than http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000201DB.gif creating life.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:00 AM
Are you mad you've lived a lie your entire life?

:D


Son, my life has just began... Sad, No not at all, I have not had a sad day in a long time since Jesus came into my life. How about you? Now what sucka?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/0002008B.gif

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 08:06 AM
Son, my life has just began... Sad, No not at all, I have not had a sad day in a long time since Jesus came into my life. How about you? Now what sucka?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/0002008B.gif

http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/raptor-jesus.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/joeyblue/raptorjesus.jpg

http://raptorjesus.net/Pic/RaptorJesus%20(189).jpg

http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/06/26/633184526271640625.jpg

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/icelow310_2006/jesusBlueSpaceEarth.jpg

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:07 AM
http://dinosaurfanfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/raptor-jesus.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y120/joeyblue/raptorjesus.jpg

http://raptorjesus.net/Pic/RaptorJesus%20(189).jpg

http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/06/26/633184526271640625.jpg

Do you know the story and the person by the pool of Water? Oh tell us?

dabbmw2002
10-17-2008, 08:12 AM
Stop being so ****ing stupid and saying that all the time.

Apparently you haven't read your own fairy tale book. Go back to your little corner and read it.

What part of:

"GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE" do you not get? :rolleyes:

Holy ****, some pretty stupid dumb asses in this forum.

can you disagree without being a dik? If you think you made a point that people are ignoring, just move on. jeez

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 08:13 AM
can you disagree without being a dik? If you think you made a point that people are ignoring, just move on. jeez

I don't "not agree".

He's wrong and I'm right; it's a fact.

Also, add that to the fact that I know more about his "Holy Book" than he does--and I'm an Atheist.

dabbmw2002
10-17-2008, 08:18 AM
I don't "not agree".

He's wrong and I'm right; it's a fact.

Also, add that to the fact that I know more about his "Holy Book" than he does--and I'm an Atheist.


OK, let's say hypothetically you are right, and he is wrong for a fact. That justifies being a dik? The RP section has been turning into the misc the last few days.

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 08:34 AM
OK, let's say hypothetically you are right, and he is wrong for a fact. That justifies being a dik? The RP section has been turning into the misc the last few days.

He constantly says that in every thread. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

When you know for a fact that you're right, the last thing you can do is mock on stupidity. I do it all the time--just like one of my friends.

4tRpbkpNpgw

:D

S.Schrute
10-17-2008, 08:36 AM
Science can make anything tangible if they are allowed to set the conditions to make it work. Just saying.

lol...thats the ****ing point...to see if everything that has previously been attributed to magicmen in the sky can actually be explained by purely materialistic means. If it can, then you've just understood something about the world you live in.

basement iron
10-17-2008, 08:37 AM
Science, data, observations...please...you sound like my neighbor right before I burned her for being a Witch. My crops have been bountiful ever since how do you explain that?

I will make sure to do extra ritualistic chanting at Sunday school for the OP this weekend.

nonAtlas
10-17-2008, 08:40 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!


Fail! The elements do not organize themselves into cells, even if it were possible for amino acids to both exist and then form proteins, independent of intelligent design. Sorry. :)

Penile_Dementia
10-17-2008, 08:41 AM
His "evidence" that life was created in volcanoes, which is in fact not strong evidence of anything but amino acids being created in volcanoes.Oh, and yes I'm aware of the importance amino acids in life.

Ok, but there is no excuse for accusing him of trying to pass off a hypothesis as evidence. That criticism makes no sense. :confused:

Evidence = the arising of 22 amino acids, corroborating predictions made from the hypothes

Hypothesis = the speculative framework on how life arose

QuicksandATL
10-17-2008, 08:43 AM
I was really hoping for some proof not, fundie mentalitity aside, absolutely mindless speculation.

NEW THEORY: VOLCANOS USUALLY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY LIGHTNING STORM SO THIS MEANS LIFE CAME FROM THEM, BUT WE STILL HAVE AS MUCH OF A CLUE HOW THAT COULD'VE HAPPENED AS WE DID WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, LULZ.

:)

MagnumXL
10-17-2008, 09:30 AM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!
:D

full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm


I am an evolutionist. And a theist. And like C.S. Lewis, I am NOT a theistic evolutionist (God of the gaps, concept). This is a very interesting continuation of the Miller experiment. The investigator deserves credit and recognition.

However, the appearance of the full range of amino acids is one of the minor issues. The critical issue is the shape of the protein molecules that form.

First of all, these amino acids are reluctant to even combine on their own. (That is why ribosomes and transfer RNA are needed in the cells.) Second, the amino acid sequence is paramont. (That is why DNA and RNA and nucleotide sequence readers are needed by cells)

But if by chance, a meaningful amino acid sequence were to form by chance alone, even this is not adequate for even a single useful protein. There must be some device to then fold the amino-acid chain into the exactly correct shape. In living cells this is accomplished by incredible molecular machines. (This is why scientists have never been able to create meaningful proteins without first relying on pre-existing molecular machines from living cells.)

But if by chance a meaningful protein were formed and shaped correctly...you still need many other different, essential proteins which can then be joined and shaped in the correct 3-D form.

As an evolutionist I must say that even with this experiment, we are really no closer to understanding how a simple functional cell could evolve. Protein shape...not just sequence is the vital issue. And how could this happen without pre existing machines for all these individual proteins?

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 09:31 AM
lol...thats the ****ing point...to see if everything that has previously been attributed to magicmen in the sky can actually be explained by purely materialistic means. If it can, then you've just understood something about the world you live in.


That is the point?? Sorry the Science people was not there to mix all that up in a bowl to "cause" it to happen. Geesh!It never happened.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 09:34 AM
Where is Jackfast? He must have started in Tennessee and was going to run to Virginia or something

QuicksandATL
10-17-2008, 09:45 AM
I am an evolutionist. And a theist. And like C.S. Lewis, I am NOT a theistic evolutionist

wut

jf1
10-17-2008, 09:46 AM
Nevertheless, however significant or insignificant this experiment was it still ends up being more tangible proof for evolution then exists for creation.
absolutely! meaning that this PROVES that amino acids, the basic building blocks of life can be generated in an environment analogous to early earth!
there is ZERO proof for creationist theory!

22 amino acids being generated in proof for evolution?
see above...make the connection between test tube and probiotic soup and you have your proof!

Science can make anything tangible if they are allowed to set the conditions to make it work. Just saying.
not quite, science cant prove creationist theory no matter what the conditions! :rolleyes:

Fail! The elements do not organize themselves into cells, even if it were possible for amino acids to both exist and then form proteins, independent of intelligent design. Sorry. :)
far from fail! it has already been shown that amino acids, when heated will form into proteins...give these proteins a few million years and cell formation is entirely probable!

i just ran 81/2miles and i am too tired to retort any further!
perhaps one of my atheist conspirators would like to take over and lead the charge?

stealth_swimmer
10-17-2008, 09:54 AM
You don't? Do you believe the Bible? Are you a believer? If so, it does conflict because God says he created us, and abiogenesis says he did not. There is clearly a conflict.

Really? I thought the theory of abiogenesis didn't even mention God in it.

nonAtlas
10-17-2008, 09:54 AM
far from fail! it has already been shown that amino acids, when heated will form into proteins...give these proteins a few million years and cell formation is entirely probable!


Not true. You would first have to isolate merely left-handed aminos and have them line up in the right order, and this is far from the supposed natural conditons that would have existed when life would be expected to spring from death. And then even IF you did have proteins form, you have to organize cells, which is not the case in the mere presence of a few proteins. You can't separate the other chemicals whose presence means inevitable death either. You just can't have life minus the Creator.

:)

jf1
10-17-2008, 09:56 AM
But if by chance, a meaningful amino acid sequence were to form by chance alone, even this is not adequate for even a single useful protein. There must be some device to then fold the amino-acid chain into the exactly correct shape. In living cells this is accomplished by incredible molecular machines. (This is why scientists have never been able to create meaningful proteins without first relying on pre-existing molecular machines from living cells.)

But if by chance a meaningful protein were formed and shaped correctly...you still need many other different, essential proteins which can then be joined and shaped in the correct 3-D form.


this is not true! once an amino acid chain (protein) is formed molecular attractions based on charge (which is pH dependent) and or covelant bonding, assist in shaping the protein molecule.

a protein can be denatured, where the molecular attractions are broken and the protein structure is changed, and then renatured when the conditions are returned.

although complex cellular machinery is now used to produce complex proteins, this does not mean that it was always this way...


edit: dammit, i need to rest!
:p

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 10:17 AM
Really? I thought the theory of abiogenesis didn't even mention God in it.

Are you a Christian?

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 10:18 AM
Not true. You would first have to isolate merely left-handed aminos and have them line up in the right order, and this is far from the supposed natural conditons that would have existed when life would be expected to spring from death. And then even IF you did have proteins form, you have to organize cells, which is not the case in the mere presence of a few proteins. You can't separate the other chemicals whose presence means inevitable death either. You just can't have life minus the Creator.

:)

I would have to say this is one of the better points made in this thread. Good job!

Rune
10-17-2008, 10:20 AM
Cool article.

The thread in general though just makes the intellectual side of my brain want to cry in agony.

OmniPotentTitan
10-17-2008, 10:27 AM
Until a replicating cell is made in these laboratory conditions, you still have a lot of evidence to find.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 10:33 AM
Until a replicating cell is made in these laboratory conditions, you still have a lot of evidence to find.

It'll happen eventually.

stealth_swimmer
10-17-2008, 10:33 AM
Are you a Christian?

yup. :)

riptor
10-17-2008, 10:38 AM
I'm too lazy to type up a response, but here is one from PZ Meyers.


Yes, I know that Miller's reducing atmosphere is no longer considered to be an accurate representation of the ancient earth's atmosphere. However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the global atmosphere, it might still model local conditions in isolated areas.

Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition Miller used. However, the volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 10:39 AM
It'll happen eventually.


"Eventually" is the word Science throws around a lot, and BTW it wil never happen.

Rune
10-17-2008, 10:40 AM
"Eventually" is the word Science throws around a lot, and BTW it wil never happen.

Kind of like Jesus is comming back... 'eventually'. Cept' science has a better track record.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 10:41 AM
yup. :)


Do you think God created you?
What is your belief about Jesus Christ?

TheBigL
10-17-2008, 11:05 AM
Do you think God created you?
What is your belief about Jesus Christ?

enough leading, lets get to the question:
can one be christian and of the belief that abiogenesis was simply gods 'tool' for the creation of life?

riptor
10-17-2008, 11:17 AM
To the people arguing that you would have to line up the left and right amino acids and this doesn't happen by 'chance', you are wrong.

Simple peptides can amplify whether left or right handiness occurs in a mixture of left and right handed fragments. Serine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serine) can influence a specific handiness by substituting similar molecules. Once a specific handiness gets started, it will continue. Basically it is a chemical emergent property, where a few simple chemical rules can have great influence on a particular system, this system being the formation of more complex proteins.

Boffman
10-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Evidence of, not proof. Just to be scientifically pedantic. :D

I find your comment rather shallow and pedantic.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 11:23 AM
Kind of like Jesus is comming back... 'eventually'. Cept' science has a better track record.

Owned. :)

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 11:33 AM
enough leading, lets get to the question:
can one be christian and of the belief that abiogenesis was simply gods 'tool' for the creation of life?

IMO, no

911medic
10-17-2008, 11:38 AM
enough leading, lets get to the question:
can one be christian and of the belief that abiogenesis was simply gods 'tool' for the creation of life?

Absolutely. At least, I do.



Yes, I know that Miller's reducing atmosphere is no longer considered to be an accurate representation of the ancient earth's atmosphere. However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the global atmosphere, it might (doesn't that also mean "might not"?) still model local conditions in isolated (really? like where, exactly?) areas.

Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition Miller used. However, the volcanic apparatus experiment suggests (but in no way confirms, even remotely) that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been (but, could not have been) effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been (but might not have had **** to do with it)prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced (maybe, maybe not, who knows?), which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide (but, it could have as easily been another process, if it happened at all [/b], a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.

And this is supposed to convince me? Not in the least.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 11:42 AM
Owned. :)

Owned?? Son God created you and everything you see in this world, his Son was born through a virgin birth, he died and was raised from the dead for your sins, you are owned, he bought you with a price! Did I mention Jesus has already been here? He will be back again, only this time it wil be to judge!

user89489489438943
10-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Owned?? Son God created you and everything you see in this world, his Son was born through a virgin birth, he died and was raised from the dead for your sins, you are owned, he bought you wiht a price! Did I mention Jesus has already been here? He will be back again, only this time it wil be to judge!

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j174/pnstps/worfisfrustratedmz8.gif

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 11:47 AM
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j174/pnstps/worfisfrustratedmz8.gif

Inho my man, you still lurking around? Aren't you grateful that Jesus done what he done? Just think you curse him, deny him, and mock him and still he loves you. Can you name anyone else that could still love you?

Rune
10-17-2008, 11:51 AM
He will be back again, only this time it wil be to judge!

I'll put up $100 that they create a cell in a lab before that happens... naw f**k it, I'd put up all I got for that bet.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 11:54 AM
I'll put up $100 that they create a cell in a lab before that happens... naw f**k it, I'd put up all I got for that bet.

No one knows when Jesus will be back , but it is certain that he will. One day you and i will be going about our business, and all a sudden, it will happen. No use it betting on which will happen first, because they will never accomplish that in the lab, it is not possible, because God created you and I

Rune
10-17-2008, 11:56 AM
No one knows when Jesus will be back , but it is certain that he will. One day you and i will be going about our business, and all a sudden, it will happen. No use it betting on which will happen first, because they will never accomplish that in the lab, it is not possible, because God created you and I

Actually you and I emerged from the Universe, no creation - we are made from things that have already existed, nothing new. :)

Riskity
10-17-2008, 11:57 AM
Owned?? Son God created you and everything you see in this world, his Son was born through a virgin birth, he died and was raised from the dead for your sins, you are owned, he bought you with a price! Did I mention Jesus has already been here? He will be back again, only this time it wil be to judge!

I am well aware of your insane delusions. You don't need to explain them to me. :p

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 11:59 AM
Actually you and I emerged from the Universe, no creation - we are made from things that have already existed, nothing new. :)

So, you believe Adam and Eve crawled out of a volcano? hmmm.. our skin sure has gotten weaker, since lava is very, very, very, hot!http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020075.gif

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 12:02 PM
I am well aware of your insane delusions. You don't need to explain them to me. :p

This thread is over your head http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020060.gif

Rune
10-17-2008, 12:03 PM
So, you believe Adam and Eve crawled out of a volcano? hmmm.. our skin sure has gotten weaker, since lava is very, very, very, hot!http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020075.gif

Not a being, simply the chemicals that make up the instructions to build us. The volcano thing is simply a suggestion also, it is by no means the working theory.


Besides, these little guys love the heat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile

Boxman
10-17-2008, 12:06 PM
Ignoring all the childish religious posters here, and getting back to the original article, I have to say wow. This is really quite profound.

One step at a time, we are truly discovering how life began. We're solving what is perhaps the most stubborn mystery that science has ever faced.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 12:07 PM
Not a being, simply the chemicals that make up the instructions to build us. The volcano thing is simply a suggestion also, it is by no means the working theory.


Besides, these little guys love the heat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile


Do you believe somethng can be made from the dust that is on the earth?Here we go!http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020150.gif

Rune
10-17-2008, 12:08 PM
Do you believe somethng can be made from the dust that is on the earth?Here we go!http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020150.gif

Define 'dust' in this context.

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 12:16 PM
this has no negative bearing what so ever on my religious beliefs.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:17 PM
this has no negative bearing what so ever on my religious beliefs.

Not surprising, since you have a track record of ignoring everything that contradicts your insane delusions. :p

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 12:18 PM
Not surprising, since you have a track record of ignoring everything that contradicts your insane delusions. :p

i ignore nothing.

There is nothing that contradicts my "insane" beliefs.

You can try to find some tho!

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:22 PM
i ignore nothing.

There is nothing that contradicts my "insane" beliefs.

You can try to find some tho!

You ignored everyone disproving your retarded arguments.

Now you're ignoring the fact that life can begin without the need for your imaginary friend. :D

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 12:24 PM
You ignored everyone disproving your retarded arguments.

Now you're ignoring the fact that life can begin without the need for your imaginary friend. :D

Noone disproved my arguments.

Sorry. But you can try tho!

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:26 PM
Noone disproved my arguments.

Sorry. But you can try tho!

Actually many people disproved your arguments. Don't you remember us dismantling your faulty logic? You must have a selective memory to remove things that contradict your fairy-tale delusions. :D

Swanson
10-17-2008, 12:27 PM
If a scientist can create life in a lab then it proves that a scientist can create life in a lab. Nothing more, nothing less. Kinda funny how atheists totally get off at these experiments.

MagnumXL
10-17-2008, 12:27 PM
[QUOTE=jackfast1;233416921]this is not true! once an amino acid chain (protein) is formed molecular attractions based on charge (which is pH dependent) and or covelant bonding, assist in shaping the protein molecule.

a protein can be denatured, where the molecular attractions are broken and the protein structure is changed, and then renatured when the conditions are returned.

although complex cellular machinery is now used to produce complex proteins, this does not mean that it was always this way...


edit: dammit, i need to rest!
:p[/QUOT


As an evolutionist, I must say that what you are saying is contradicted by the latest research that I learned in doctoral level courses I took in molecular evolution. I respectfully disagree. What you are saying was assumed true but is only true for the simplest shapes. It NEVER works for most complicated protein molecules. Hypotheses of clay based ionic matrices being the mechanism to shape the protein molecules only work with nearly linear shapes. Respectfully disagree with your assumptions...but not with evolution.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:28 PM
If a scientist can create life in a lab then it proves that a scientist can create life in a lab. Nothing more, nothing less. Kinda funny how atheists totally get off at these experiments.

No, what it proves is that the building blocks of life can arise due to natural conditions.

Sorry, but your archaic delusions have no place in the modern world. ;)

MAPump
10-17-2008, 12:30 PM
enough leading, lets get to the question:
can one be christian and of the belief that abiogenesis was simply gods 'tool' for the creation of life?

What? You can't have it both ways! That's exactly what's going to happen too. Science will prove evolution and people will say "yeah but god made it happen" :rolleyes:

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 12:31 PM
Actually many people disproved your arguments. Don't you remember us dismantling your faulty logic? You must have a selective memory to remove things that contradict your fairy-tale delusions. :D

Nope.

You guys just like to think that b/c you can't actually refute my arguments.

Swanson
10-17-2008, 12:32 PM
No, what it proves is that the building blocks of life can arise due to natural conditions.

Sorry, but your archaic delusions have no place in the modern world. ;)

Sure. That's why you mustn't store protein powder outside because if it's hit by a lightning creatures will start developing in it. I had it a few times. Really nasty little creatures. One of it bit me in the hand.

911medic
10-17-2008, 12:33 PM
Owned. :)


Kind of like Jesus is comming back... 'eventually'. Cept' science has a better track record.

You've gotta be kidding me. Like science doesn't change it's mind all the time. Let's look at some examples of sciences track record.

The earth was flat, a scientific "fact" based on observations that appeared sound to early scholars.

Until Einstein came along the "laws" of phyics were taught virtually the same way for hundreds of years. They all thought that they were right, but, no.

Ever hear of a drug called Thalidomide?

Science still can't adequately explain gravity.

eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad, only eat the whites, nah, eat the whole thing.

coffee is bad, coffee is good, a little coffee is ok, ......

alcohol is bad, no...a little is ok....

Margarine is better than real butter....no, wait....

Low fat is the way to lose weight, no, low carbs are the way to lose weight.....

The tonsils are a useless structure and probably just a vestigial organ, oops, no wait, they do have a function after all.....

I can go on and on.

Science changes it's mind all the time depending on current knowledge and their "track record" isn't as great as you might believe.

For me, science is only God's way of allowing us to see how he did it.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:34 PM
Nope.

You guys just like to think that b/c you can't actually refute my arguments.
Yea, we did disprove them. Honestly, your arguments had so many flaws I was embarrassed for you.

All of your premises were unproven and/or wrong. You failed, and you know it. Your imaginary friend doesn't exist. ;)

Sure. That's why you mustn't store protein powder outside because if it's hit by a lightning creatures will start developing in it. I had it a few times. Really nasty little creatures. One of it bit me in the hand.

You're dumber than I thought.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:37 PM
You've gotta be kidding me. Like science doesn't change it's mind all the time. Let's look at some examples of sciences track record.

The earth was flat, a scientific "fact" based on observations that appeared sound to early scholars.

Until Einstein came along the "laws" of phyics were taught virtually the same way for hundreds of years. They all thought that they were right, but, no.

Ever hear of a drug called Thalidomide?

Science still can't adequately explain gravity.

eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad, only eat the whites, nah, eat the whole thing.

coffee is bad, coffee is good, a little coffee is ok, ......

alcohol is bad, no...a little is ok....

Margarine is better than real butter....no, wait....

Low fat is the way to lose weight, no, low carbs are the way to lose weight.....

The tonsils are a useless structure and probably just a vestigial organ, oops, no wait, they do have a function after all.....

I can go on and on.

Science changes it's mind all the time depending on current knowledge and their "track record" isn't as great as you might believe.

For me, science is only God's way of allowing us to see how he did it.

You're right, science doesn't work. That computer you're using right now came down from heaven. The car you drive was a gift from jesus.

You're retarded. Science is slowly filling up all the space your religion used to fill. Religion is the result of ignorance, science is the result of logic.

Eventually, your pathetic delusions will have no place left, but I'm sure some people will still believe in that bull****...and for the same reason anyone believes in that bull****: because they are afraid of death.

TheBigL
10-17-2008, 12:38 PM
If a scientist can create life in a lab then it proves that a scientist can create life in a lab. Nothing more, nothing less. Kinda funny how atheists totally get off at these experiments.
are you suggesting that God initially created life, but allowed life the potential to one day create itself?

Furthermore, assume that scientists creating life in a lab sufficiently proves that life can be created in certain natural environments. If so, are you suggesting that God created the universe with the potential for life to form on its own...but he decided to create "humans in his own image" anyway?

Rune
10-17-2008, 12:38 PM
You've gotta be kidding me. Like science doesn't change it's mind all the time. Let's look at some examples of sciences track record.

The earth was flat, a scientific "fact" based on observations that appeared sound to early scholars.

Until Einstein came along the "laws" of phyics were taught virtually the same way for hundreds of years. They all thought that they were right, but, no.

Ever hear of a drug called Thalidomide?

Science still can't adequately explain gravity.

eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad, only eat the whites, nah, eat the whole thing.

coffee is bad, coffee is good, a little coffee is ok, ......

alcohol is bad, no...a little is ok....

Margarine is better than real butter....no, wait....

Low fat is the way to lose weight, no, low carbs are the way to lose weight.....

The tonsils are a useless structure and probably just a vestigial organ, oops, no wait, they do have a function after all.....

I can go on and on.

Science changes it's mind all the time depending on current knowledge and their "track record" isn't as great as you might believe.

For me, science is only God's way of allowing us to see how he did it.

Says the guy typing on a machine that essentially functions on a nanoscale level, a couple thousand kilometers away. You've clearly missed my point.

Christians - claim Jesus is comming back, wait 2000 years, still claim he's comming back however long we have to wait.

Science - claim something, find new evidence, change belief to correspond with reality.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:39 PM
are you suggesting that God initially created life, but allowed life the potential to one day create itself?

Furthermore, assume that scientists creating life in a lab sufficiently proves that life can be created in certain natural environments. If so, are you suggesting that God created the universe with the potential for life to form on its own...but he decided to create "humans in his own image" anyway?

Don't talk about those things! They like to ignore those kinds of things because they compromise their delusions and belief in their imaginary friends. :D

Swanson
10-17-2008, 12:41 PM
You're dumber than I thought.

Oh really?
Then please explain it to me/us. Share with us how millions of years ago everything came into place. Please. Don't let us in darkness. Start at the very beginning where the volcanoes started breaking out on earth. This means in the beginning was a huge volcano ready to blow up and to create life. That makes sense. Now it all makes sense. Wow.

matcoon
10-17-2008, 12:41 PM
[QUOTE=jackfast1;233416921]this is not true! once an amino acid chain (protein) is formed molecular attractions based on charge (which is pH dependent) and or covelant bonding, assist in shaping the protein molecule.

a protein can be denatured, where the molecular attractions are broken and the protein structure is changed, and then renatured when the conditions are returned.

although complex cellular machinery is now used to produce complex proteins, this does not mean that it was always this way...


edit: dammit, i need to rest!
:p[/QUOT


As an evolutionist, I must say that what you are saying is contradicted by the latest research that I learned in doctoral level courses I took in molecular evolution. I respectfully disagree. What you are saying was assumed true but is only true for the simplest shapes. It NEVER works for most complicated protein molecules. Hypotheses of clay based ionic matrices being the mechanism to shape the protein molecules only work with nearly linear shapes. Respectfully disagree with your assumptions...but not with evolution.
Well i'm not sure which one of you is right or wrong, i actually think your both partly right maybe. Let me try and add some to this science part of the thread, the rest is mostly meaningless.

Proteins can and do self assemble. The sequence of amino acids on a polypetide chain (primary structure) will form bonds between each other based on the properties of their R groups forming the secondary structure. This then causes folding into complex 3D shapes based on the interactions between the amino acids (again related to the R groups) forming the tertiary sturcture.

Hydrophic R groups will tend to be in the inside of the protein and the Hydrophillic R groups on the outside. So once the polypetide chain is made the order of the amino acid sequence will cause it to form its tertiary structure.

Now, do some more complex protiens require other protiens to fold properly? I don't know, i can't remeber learning about that specifically, i wouldn't really be supprised either way. But this doesn't really matter.

If we are talking early, primitive cells i would have to imagine they would not be very complex. I would think it is likely that complex protiens wouldn't have been part of these primitive cells and only the simpler ones would be present initially.

As far as proteins being denatured and then reforming i'm not entierly sure on that. I know when you cook eggs for example, you denature the protein. Now you can let the cooked egg sit and do whatever you want to it, but the protiens won't ever renature/reform.

So i know at least some times they can't reform and from everything i remeber learning i don't remeber anything about them reforming but again i don't know for sure on that and wouldn't be too supprised either way.

TheBigL
10-17-2008, 12:42 PM
What? You can't have it both ways! That's exactly what's going to happen too. Science will prove evolution and people will say "yeah but god made it happen" :rolleyes:

I know that. I was just wondering how far hank-williams was willing to be backed up into a corner. Apparently, not so much since he thinks agreeing with this article makes someone non-christian. The more progressive christians will simply smash the square peg in the round hole.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 12:46 PM
Oh really?
Then please explain it to me/us. Share with us how millions of years ago everything came into place. Please. Don't let us in darkness. Start at the very beginning where the volcanoes started breaking out on earth. This means in the beginning was a huge volcano ready to blow up and to create life. That makes sense. Now it all makes sense. Wow.

Life arose due to natural processes on Earth. Simple. We're figuring out exactly how.

The fact that you're too dumb to understand doesn't mean your belief in an imaginary friend makes sense.


You're no different than the retards from thousands of years ago who looked up at the sky when they saw lightning and thought it was the anger of the gods. I'm the guy who said "Nah, it's probably natural, see look over there it made fire maybe it's somehow related to that" And you're like "NO, ZEUS DID IT OMG!!!"


And your delusions make absolutely no sense at all, so don't talk to me about what makes sense. You've already demonstrated you have no knowledge about biology.

911medic
10-17-2008, 12:49 PM
You're right, science doesn't work. That computer you're using right now came down from heaven. The car you drive was a gift from jesus.

You're retarded. Science is slowly filling up all the space your religion used to fill. Religion is the result of ignorance, science is the result of logic.

Eventually, your pathetic delusions will have no place left, but I'm sure some people will still believe in that bull****...and for the same reason anyone believes in that bull****: because they are afraid of death.

Wow. So eloquently stated. Let me guess, you're 17?

I never said science doesn't work, I said that it wasn't infallible. Science is not my God.

I fully expect to be attacked for my beliefs. The Bible tells me it will be so. I don't really care.

And, I don't fear death at all. I'm very comfortable that I'm saved and my soul belongs to Jesus the Christ. I still have work to do here, so I'm not ready to go anywhere today, but I certainly don't fear it. In over 20 years working as a Paramedic, I'd dare say that I'm a hell of a lot more familiar with death than you are. Are you sure YOU don't fear what may be on the other side? If you're wrong, you should be. If you're right, I have nothing to lose.

matcoon
10-17-2008, 12:55 PM
And to the people who think like this:
"You've gotta be kidding me. Like science doesn't change it's mind all the time. Let's look at some examples of sciences track record."

I don't understand wtf you are talking about. How is it a bad thing that science changes? Its supposted to change, it tries to answer things we don't already know.

You telling me that when you learn something new that not only you don't change but you shouldn't change? People need to get their heads out of their...

When science is shown to be wrong it is the first to admit it. Isn't this something that should be wanted? It takes a lot more humility to say "yeah i was wrong about this" than it does to deny things when presented with something different than what you already believe (or even "know") to be true.

I don't know about you but the only way i normally change is by learning. Education is important. If you don't learn new things then why would you or how would you ever change?

Just because your Bible was written long ago, in a time much different than this one and it doesn't have the abillity to change doesn't mean change isn't good.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 01:02 PM
Wow. So eloquently stated. Let me guess, you're 17?

I never said science doesn't work, I said that it wasn't infallible. Science is not my God.

I fully expect to be attacked for my beliefs. The Bible tells me it will be so. I don't really care.

And, I don't fear death at all. I'm very comfortable that I'm saved and my soul belongs to Jesus the Christ. I still have work to do here, so I'm not ready to go anywhere today, but I certainly don't fear it. In over 20 years working as a Paramedic, I'd dare say that I'm a hell of a lot more familiar with death than you are. Are you sure YOU don't fear what may be on the other side? If you're wrong, you should be. If you're right, I have nothing to lose.

You're 49 and you still have an imaginary friend? Grow up. Stop believing in fairy tales.

And I know, you're NOT scared of death now because your brain has formed this coping mechanism. That's the FUNCTION of religion. Thanks for proving my point, you stupid old man.

matcoon
10-17-2008, 01:04 PM
Wow. So eloquently stated. Let me guess, you're 17?

I never said science doesn't work, I said that it wasn't infallible. Science is not my God.

I fully expect to be attacked for my beliefs. The Bible tells me it will be so. I don't really care.

And, I don't fear death at all. I'm very comfortable that I'm saved and my soul belongs to Jesus the Christ. I still have work to do here, so I'm not ready to go anywhere today, but I certainly don't fear it. In over 20 years working as a Paramedic, I'd dare say that I'm a hell of a lot more familiar with death than you are. Are you sure YOU don't fear what may be on the other side? If you're wrong, you should be. If you're right, I have nothing to lose.
Wow sweet God you like to believe in. So God wants us to live in fear of what will be on the other side? If people are wrong they are just f*cked? Oh and not just f*cked one time but for the rest of eternity. Does this seem like a nice God to you?

And i hope you know the hole believe one thing or the other what have you got to lose thing doesn't work.

What if i told you a big monster lives in your closet (and he's good at hiding so you'll never find him if you look), and if you don't cluck like a chicken every night before you go to bed, that he will come out at night while your sleeping and boil you in a pot of acid?

I don't think would you believe me, you would tell me you don't believe me and your not gonna do it.

If then i said to you: "Well what if your wrong? What have you got to lose?" So i don't think the hole well what if your wrong thing works very well does it?

Mr Beer
10-17-2008, 01:14 PM
^^

And Pascal's Wager gets smashed for the millionth time.

matcoon
10-17-2008, 01:20 PM
^^

And Pascal's Wager gets smashed for the millionth time.
lol yeah i don't know why people still use that, i thought i would try to go with a little bit different approach then the tradition one's that are always seen here.

I'm almost positive i heard that from Sam Harris. There's probably a video of it on youtube still but i didn't feel like finding it atm.

kel_varnsen
10-17-2008, 01:23 PM
Nope.

You guys just like to think that b/c you can't actually refute my arguments.

you've been refuted countless times. though, seeing as you're a muslim, there is little hope of you ever realizing what is real/true and what is not....

kel_varnsen
10-17-2008, 01:25 PM
btw, abiogenesis is a fact. life is here now. it has not always been here. so it had to start somewhere and sometime. ergo, abiogenesis is a fact.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 01:30 PM
Define 'dust' in this context.


The dust from the earth

Inev
10-17-2008, 01:36 PM
Im not sure i like the whole lightening volcano idea. I mean, it isn't a bad idea to show how amino acids can take form with out any form of biological precursor, But i think it lacks the necessary concentration/lifetime for amino acids to really be available for evolution/natural selection to take hold of.

I would think that you would need a lot of concentrated amino acids and a long stable environment to foster their growth into rna/dna.

then again . . . I suppose it is possible that the amino acids were spread out over the surface of the planet where some of them were able to foster growth or reproduction of some sort.

I still vote possible but unlikely via this mechanism (as opposed to other ways abiogenesis could arise).

Inev
10-17-2008, 01:55 PM
The dust from the earth
If you dont understand an argument, how do you ever think you will make a reasonable argument against it?

Its like saying the moon is too far away to ever travel to, but not even having a clue how far away it is. Its like saying, "well, its the same size as the sun, so it has to be the same distance away!" You lack knowledge therefore you cannot come up with a reasonable argument. But this is ok, because the people who dont know any better will believe you. But your true audience will just ignore you, or maybe they will take pity on you and try to help you understand. But at any rate your argument is impotent at best.

Im not telling you this to try and further my cause, or any cause. Im telling you this so that you can form opinions which are based on facts. I hope one day maybe i can learn something from you about evolution or abiogenesis. But with such a low education level and arrogance about yourself, this day is simply not possible.

Rune
10-17-2008, 02:16 PM
The dust from the earth
Dust

1. earth or other matter in fine, dry particles.
2. a cloud of finely powdered earth or other matter in the air.
3. any finely powdered substance, as sawdust.
4. the ground; the earth's surface.
5. the substance to which something, as the dead human body, is ultimately reduced by disintegration or decay; earthly remains.

As you can see, dust is a very loosly defined term, which can be taken to mean almost anything. Necessairily though due to the nature of Earthly creatures biochemestries, we can be fairly certian that any life producing chemical processes occurs in the presence of water, so while the components of life can be in 'dust' form (just like pretty much any other material), it was not 'dust' when the magic occured.

lookingtogrow
10-17-2008, 02:39 PM
Wow. So eloquently stated. Let me guess, you're 17?

I never said science doesn't work, I said that it wasn't infallible. Science is not my God.

I fully expect to be attacked for my beliefs. The Bible tells me it will be so. I don't really care.

And, I don't fear death at all. I'm very comfortable that I'm saved and my soul belongs to Jesus the Christ. I still have work to do here, so I'm not ready to go anywhere today, but I certainly don't fear it. In over 20 years working as a Paramedic, I'd dare say that I'm a hell of a lot more familiar with death than you are. Are you sure YOU don't fear what may be on the other side? If you're wrong, you should be. If you're right, I have nothing to lose.

The reason Atheists attack Christianity so hard comes down to a simple reason...a complete lack of hope...

An Atheist is faced with a best and worst case scenario, based on the fact of being too proud and self-reliant to accept a God to serve. Their best case scenario is that if they are right, and God does not exist, then they will only cease to exist at some point. That's it...here today and gone tomorrow. That's the most they can hope for. If they are wrong, then they face the consequences of refusing God...which is eternal separation from God. It's unfortunate for them, their best case scenario isn't a very good one. It means that their life lasts only until their unknown time of death, which could be tomorrow or could be decades. The uncertainty of what life they have remaining creates a significant psychological strain. In their best case scenario, they have no ability to continue to exist beyond 100 years or so...there is no way for them to extend their lives more than a handful of years. If they are met with a disease, accident, or other cause of certain death, they have no ability to accept it in their hearts and minds...they know their time is limited to chance, which is unfair and unjust to people. The best they can hope for is that they will live as many years as possible, with as good of health as possible, and that chance doesn't knock at their door with bad news.

In their worst case scenario, where they are wrong and Christians are right, they will face an eternal separation from God. Isolation, darkness, and eternity to face their mistakes that they made (thus the term for the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"). To make matters worse, in their worst case scenario, Christians have been proven right and will be with God for eternity, where there is no more pain, hatred, etc..., which will be even the more painful for them to deal with. So, in addition to dealing with the consequences of their choice, they will live in constant bitterness over the celebration of those who have made the right choice. To borrow a misc term or two, they will be "owned" for eternity, with a big sign under the archway to Hell that says, "FAIL".

So, in the end, it doesn't surprise me that Atheists spend so much time of their perceived short lives to attack Christians. If my best case scenario was what Atheism had to offer, I would be bitter too, and if I saw people who live with hope of what is yet to come...who don't fear death, and have a purpose to live for...I would dislike those people too, and do everything to take away the hope that they have...since I wouldn't have any hope myself as an Atheist.

The scientific equation is simple...

Atheism = no hope

stealth_swimmer
10-17-2008, 02:52 PM
Do you think God created you?
What is your belief about Jesus Christ?

Yup to the first question....in that I mean that the bible is purposely vague on how we were created so that it doesn't really explain the how part in such concrete terms...and the more I learn of abiogenesis, the more it seems to be compatible with our creation.


As for the second question, I believe he died for our sins.


enough leading, lets get to the question:
can one be christian and of the belief that abiogenesis was simply gods 'tool' for the creation of life?

Yup. Exactly what I'm sayin.

jf1
10-17-2008, 03:00 PM
[QUOTE=jackfast1;233416921]this is not true! once an amino acid chain (protein) is formed molecular attractions based on charge (which is pH dependent) and or covelant bonding, assist in shaping the protein molecule.

a protein can be denatured, where the molecular attractions are broken and the protein structure is changed, and then renatured when the conditions are returned.

although complex cellular machinery is now used to produce complex proteins, this does not mean that it was always this way...


edit: dammit, i need to rest!
:p[/QUOT


As an evolutionist, I must say that what you are saying is contradicted by the latest research that I learned in doctoral level courses I took in molecular evolution. I respectfully disagree. What you are saying was assumed true but is only true for the simplest shapes. It NEVER works for most complicated protein molecules. Hypotheses of clay based ionic matrices being the mechanism to shape the protein molecules only work with nearly linear shapes. Respectfully disagree with your assumptions...but not with evolution.

this is from memory now, so bear with me, but once proteins are extruded from the ribosomes there is no intracellular machinery required to shape proteins into their three dimensional forms.

the proteins that i was working with, collegen and elastin, are perfect examples; these are highly crossliked proteins that form connectiove tissue matrices.
the crosslinking, and thus formation of these matrices is all enzymatic; an enzyme promotes an oxidative reduction of an amino group on a lysine within the protein chain that is then covelantly bonded to another amino acid, this process repeats itself until a highly specialized cross-linked protein is formed.

only one enzyme is responsible (lysl oxidase) and nothing else is needed.

thus an extremely complex molecule is produced via one repeating enzymatic reaction. quite simple really.

jf1
10-17-2008, 03:36 PM
To the people arguing that you would have to line up the left and right amino acids and this doesn't happen by 'chance', you are wrong.

Simple peptides can amplify whether left or right handiness occurs in a mixture of left and right handed fragments. Serine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serine) can influence a specific handiness by substituting similar molecules. Once a specific handiness gets started, it will continue. Basically it is a chemical emergent property, where a few simple chemical rules can have great influence on a particular system, this system being the formation of more complex proteins.

yes!
good answer and thank you!

the argument regarding D and L amino acids (which are right and left hand forms) is the type of argument put forward and quoted by people who dont know what they are talking about. (nonatlas)
it sounds good, it sounds scientific so they throw it out thinking that they have a legitimate argument when the dont understand the concept in the least!

and then, others, who also have no idea what they are talking about (hank-williams), agree with their theory because they also think it sounds good...

thanks for taking the time to answer this nonsense!
would rep , but am in severe rep debt (i suck as a football prognosticator)!

jf1
10-17-2008, 03:41 PM
[QUOTE=MagnumXL;233475301]
Well i'm not sure which one of you is right or wrong, i actually think your both partly right maybe. Let me try and add some to this science part of the thread, the rest is mostly meaningless.

Proteins can and do self assemble. The sequence of amino acids on a polypetide chain (primary structure) will form bonds between each other based on the properties of their R groups forming the secondary structure. This then causes folding into complex 3D shapes based on the interactions between the amino acids (again related to the R groups) forming the tertiary sturcture.

Hydrophic R groups will tend to be in the inside of the protein and the Hydrophillic R groups on the outside. So once the polypetide chain is made the order of the amino acid sequence will cause it to form its tertiary structure.

Now, do some more complex protiens require other protiens to fold properly? I don't know, i can't remeber learning about that specifically, i wouldn't really be supprised either way. But this doesn't really matter.

If we are talking early, primitive cells i would have to imagine they would not be very complex. I would think it is likely that complex protiens wouldn't have been part of these primitive cells and only the simpler ones would be present initially.

As far as proteins being denatured and then reforming i'm not entierly sure on that. I know when you cook eggs for example, you denature the protein. Now you can let the cooked egg sit and do whatever you want to it, but the protiens won't ever renature/reform.

So i know at least some times they can't reform and from everything i remeber learning i don't remeber anything about them reforming but again i don't know for sure on that and wouldn't be too supprised either way.

good post! as far as i know, correct on all points.
the example of an egg being fried and denatured is an extreme example.
once the proteins are heated at very high temp, they are unlikely to renature...of course extreme temperature variation would be unlikely inside a living organism...or in a controlled experiment examining protein behavior.

matcoon
10-17-2008, 03:49 PM
[QUOTE=matcoon;233481131]

good post! as far as i know, correct on all points.
the example of an egg being fried and denatured is an extreme example.
once the proteins are heated at very high temp, they are unlikely to renature...of course extreme temperature variation would be unlikely inside a living organism...or in a controlled experiment examining protein behavior.
Yeah i wanted to use an example that i knew would be true for sure. In class the other day we were talking about getting sick and how body temperature raises. Well you raise your body temp so to try and prevent the enzymes of the infectious microbes from functioninng.

Of course this can also cause problems with your own, benificial enzymes which is why a tempurature that is too high will kill you as it can perminately denature protiens or inactivate key ones needed to live.

It wasn't mentioned specifically but it would seem to me that this mechanism might very well involve a temperary inativation of your protiens/enzymes that will then be usable as body temp comes back down and the infection is gone.

Rune
10-17-2008, 03:53 PM
The reason Atheists attack Christianity so hard comes down to a simple reason...a complete lack of hope...

An Atheist is faced with a best and worst case scenario, based on the fact of being too proud and self-reliant to accept a God to serve. Their best case scenario is that if they are right, and God does not exist, then they will only cease to exist at some point. That's it...here today and gone tomorrow. That's the most they can hope for. If they are wrong, then they face the consequences of refusing God...which is eternal separation from God. It's unfortunate for them, their best case scenario isn't a very good one. It means that their life lasts only until their unknown time of death, which could be tomorrow or could be decades. The uncertainty of what life they have remaining creates a significant psychological strain. In their best case scenario, they have no ability to continue to exist beyond 100 years or so...there is no way for them to extend their lives more than a handful of years. If they are met with a disease, accident, or other cause of certain death, they have no ability to accept it in their hearts and minds...they know their time is limited to chance, which is unfair and unjust to people. The best they can hope for is that they will live as many years as possible, with as good of health as possible, and that chance doesn't knock at their door with bad news.

In their worst case scenario, where they are wrong and Christians are right, they will face an eternal separation from God. Isolation, darkness, and eternity to face their mistakes that they made (thus the term for the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"). To make matters worse, in their worst case scenario, Christians have been proven right and will be with God for eternity, where there is no more pain, hatred, etc..., which will be even the more painful for them to deal with. So, in addition to dealing with the consequences of their choice, they will live in constant bitterness over the celebration of those who have made the right choice. To borrow a misc term or two, they will be "owned" for eternity, with a big sign under the archway to Hell that says, "FAIL".

So, in the end, it doesn't surprise me that Atheists spend so much time of their perceived short lives to attack Christians. If my best case scenario was what Atheism had to offer, I would be bitter too, and if I saw people who live with hope of what is yet to come...who don't fear death, and have a purpose to live for...I would dislike those people too, and do everything to take away the hope that they have...since I wouldn't have any hope myself as an Atheist.

The scientific equation is simple...

Atheism = no hope

This is full of pure fail.

I gain a great amount of I guess you would call it gratefulness that I have what I have right now, I am far too worried about what happening in this experience I have a chance to be a part of to think about what happen after (if there is such a thing). The fact that it could all be gone tomorrow - or never have been at all, gives it all the more value to me.

If there is a God, I think he would be disappointed you wasted your gift worrying about what your prize will be, as if you didn't already have one.

jf1
10-17-2008, 03:56 PM
This is full of pure fail.

I gain a great amount of I guess you would call it gratefulness that I have what I have right now, I am far too worried about what happening in this experience I have a chance to be a part of to think about what happen after (if there is such a thing). The fact that it could all be gone tomorrow - or never have been at all, gives it all the more value to me.

If there is a God, I think he would be disappointed you wasted your gift worrying about what your prize will be, as if you didn't already have one.

wow! well said!
i have to stop gambling so i can rep you guys!

Riskity
10-17-2008, 03:59 PM
The reason Atheists attack Christianity so hard comes down to a simple reason...a complete lack of hope...

An Atheist is faced with a best and worst case scenario, based on the fact of being too proud and self-reliant to accept a God to serve. Their best case scenario is that if they are right, and God does not exist, then they will only cease to exist at some point. That's it...here today and gone tomorrow. That's the most they can hope for. If they are wrong, then they face the consequences of refusing God...which is eternal separation from God. It's unfortunate for them, their best case scenario isn't a very good one. It means that their life lasts only until their unknown time of death, which could be tomorrow or could be decades. The uncertainty of what life they have remaining creates a significant psychological strain. In their best case scenario, they have no ability to continue to exist beyond 100 years or so...there is no way for them to extend their lives more than a handful of years. If they are met with a disease, accident, or other cause of certain death, they have no ability to accept it in their hearts and minds...they know their time is limited to chance, which is unfair and unjust to people. The best they can hope for is that they will live as many years as possible, with as good of health as possible, and that chance doesn't knock at their door with bad news.

In their worst case scenario, where they are wrong and Christians are right, they will face an eternal separation from God. Isolation, darkness, and eternity to face their mistakes that they made (thus the term for the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"). To make matters worse, in their worst case scenario, Christians have been proven right and will be with God for eternity, where there is no more pain, hatred, etc..., which will be even the more painful for them to deal with. So, in addition to dealing with the consequences of their choice, they will live in constant bitterness over the celebration of those who have made the right choice. To borrow a misc term or two, they will be "owned" for eternity, with a big sign under the archway to Hell that says, "FAIL".

So, in the end, it doesn't surprise me that Atheists spend so much time of their perceived short lives to attack Christians. If my best case scenario was what Atheism had to offer, I would be bitter too, and if I saw people who live with hope of what is yet to come...who don't fear death, and have a purpose to live for...I would dislike those people too, and do everything to take away the hope that they have...since I wouldn't have any hope myself as an Atheist.

The scientific equation is simple...

Atheism = no hope

We do not "serve" a god because of our pride or self-reliance, which aren't even BAD things...we do not "serve" a god because gods don't exist. There's no reason to believe in a god.

And of course we believe that we will cease to exist some day. But we recognize that and aren't trying to comfort ourselves with false delusions like you are.

And your god is no more likely to exist than the thousands of other gods we created.

I think our best case scenario is just fine. We all only have one life to live. At least we are living it as realists, savoring every moment. You live in delusion, thinking that you'll live for eternity.

That's just a coping mechanism to deal with the knowledge that you'll die. The way you structured your post tells me that this is especially true with you.


And if your god is so evil, hateful, and vengeful that he punishes us for eternity...then he's not worth a second of my time in this life or the next. Good thing he doesn't exist.

Mr Beer
10-17-2008, 04:05 PM
I wish morons would stop posting long-ass versions of Pascal's Wager as though it was an original thought or had any validity as an argument.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 04:13 PM
I wish morons would stop posting long-ass versions of Pascal's Wager as though it was an original thought or had any validity as an argument.

Pascal's Wager fails on many levels.

But what really amazes me is that they think people can just turn switches on in their brains and start "believing" in something. That's absurd.

If you were totally pro second amendment...you couldn't just all of a sudden say "I'm going to start believing in gun control"

God doesn't make SENSE. We CAN'T believe in that bull****.

RelentlessChaos
10-17-2008, 04:14 PM
what are you talking about?
these were iconic experiments done 50years ago that offered compelling evidence of abiogenesis!

when reexamined today, the evidence was even more compelling; 4 times the number of amino acids were shown to have been CREATED, by using advanced methods of detection!

what dont you understand about this as seen through your opaque creationist goggles?

you know. I can see why one would think this sounds ridiculous(the article) and i can guess most theists will be thinking (how does that prove evolution is real) its just another experiement done to point in that direction, but they prolly wont understand that. It really doesnt sound dumb at all, after all, they are smart scientists and not fairy tale believers like theists.

Gordon Bombay
10-17-2008, 04:17 PM
Kind of like Jesus is comming back... 'eventually'. Cept' science has a better track record.

OWNED

lookingtogrow
10-17-2008, 04:29 PM
This is full of pure fail.

I gain a great amount of I guess you would call it gratefulness that I have what I have right now, I am far too worried about what happening in this experience I have a chance to be a part of to think about what happen after (if there is such a thing). The fact that it could all be gone tomorrow - or never have been at all, gives it all the more value to me.

If there is a God, I think he would be disappointed you wasted your gift worrying about what your prize will be, as if you didn't already have one.


We do not "serve" a god because of our pride or self-reliance, which aren't even BAD things...we do not "serve" a god because gods don't exist. There's no reason to believe in a god.

And of course we believe that we will cease to exist some day. But we recognize that and aren't trying to comfort ourselves with false delusions like you are.

And your god is no more likely to exist than the thousands of other gods we created.

I think our best case scenario is just fine. We all only have one life to live. At least we are living it as realists, savoring every moment. You live in delusion, thinking that you'll live for eternity.

That's just a coping mechanism to deal with the knowledge that you'll die. The way you structured your post tells me that this is especially true with you.


And if your god is so evil, hateful, and vengeful that he punishes us for eternity...then he's not worth a second of my time in this life or the next. Good thing he doesn't exist.



Rune - I am already blessed with "prizes"...my family is at the top of my list. They are the most beautiful, awesome people. I have a job, reasonable health, a place to live. My life is blessed, and I'm deeply grateful to God for all that I have. And I'm not worried about my prize...I will do my best to serve God by living the principles of Christ while I am alive.

Riskity - As for God being evil, hateful, and vengeful that he punishes people for eternity, your statement is off. People punish themselves...people reject God, not the other way around. The Bible says that God desires for all people to come to salvation...everyone. He created Hell for the Devil and the other fallen angels, not for people. But God is not going to "punish" people by forcing them to spend eternity with Him if they don't want to be with Him.

To both of you...I made my point, because what I tend to see is Atheists consistently going after Christians for their beliefs. When Christians share the Bible with others, it is because they (most of the time) are concerned about people going to Hell. There's always exceptions, but I'm talking about the majority. Most of the time, it seems the Atheists are focused on ridicule or claim of intellectual superiority...they don't seem to have a desire to help a fellow human...instead they appear to be looking for an opportunity to gloat over another. I am simply throwing out my hypothesis as to why I believe that to be the case, which is Atheism lacks hope.

My hope isn't false, nor is God...I've seen evidence throughout my life of God's providence. He's been involved in my life, and I owe all I have, including my life, to Him.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 04:44 PM
Riskity - As for God being evil, hateful, and vengeful that he punishes people for eternity, your statement is off. People punish themselves...people reject God, not the other way around. The Bible says that God desires for all people to come to salvation...everyone. He created Hell for the Devil and the other fallen angels, not for people. But God is not going to "punish" people by forcing them to spend eternity with Him if they don't want to be with Him.
That's bull****. No one in their right mind would torture themselves for eternity. Your god is the evil, vindictive bastard who made the rules, right? He's the evil hateful one.

And I find it interesting that you say your god desires for all people to come to salvation...but I am stronger than your god because I can resist his will? He's not only a hateful bastard, but he's weak!

If I can resist his will in this regard, then maybe I can also choose not to go to hell. He's weak.

And you idiot...obviously if we were before your god and he was like "Well, yea, I exist. So what will it be?" We wouldn't say "BAH! I WANT TO GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY!"

Honestly, all of your beliefs are so backwards and stupid, I really lose faith in humanity when I come across people like you.

Watching you rationalize your absurd delusions is disgusting to me.



To both of you...I made my point, because what I tend to see is Atheists consistently going after Christians for their beliefs. When Christians share the Bible with others, it is because they (most of the time) are concerned about people going to Hell. There's always exceptions, but I'm talking about the majority. Most of the time, it seems the Atheists are focused on ridicule or claim of intellectual superiority...they don't seem to have a desire to help a fellow human...instead they appear to be looking for an opportunity to gloat over another. I am simply throwing out my hypothesis as to why I believe that to be the case, which is Atheism lacks hope.

My hope isn't false, nor is God...I've seen evidence throughout my life of God's providence. He's been involved in my life, and I owe all I have, including my life, to Him.Well, this is a RELIGION DISCUSSION BOARD. You think people won't discuss ****? If you can't handle it, then GTFO.

And obviously we are intellectually superior. You literally believe in imaginary friends. You're acting like a child.

I used to be religious, just like you. I used to truly believe in god, and I "felt" the holy spirit, and I talked to god all the time, every day, and I prayed, and I was loyal and I worshiped him.

Then I realize I was talking to myself.

And like I said, we lack hope in the afterlife because there's no reason to believe in the afterlife. It's called common sense. You should try it for once in your life.

Swanson
10-17-2008, 05:06 PM
Abiogenesis is totally cool. I mean just think about it. Life simply arranges itself. Woah. That's SO cool. What an awesome idea, isn't it? I really wonder who invented this. The next thing scientists should try to figure out now to enlighten mankind is how abiogenesis came into existence. The principle of abiogenesis. Because without it there would be no life. I think we all should take some moments now and bow down to abiogenesis and say Thank you abiogenesis. Thank you for existing because without you we wouldn't exist. Abiogenesis rules. Yeah! Props to abiogenesis, you're my man.

Riskity
10-17-2008, 05:09 PM
Abiogenesis is totally cool. I mean just think about it. Life simply arranges itself. Woah. That's SO cool. What an awesome idea, isn't it? I really wonder who invented this. The next thing scientists should try to figure out now to enlighten mankind is how abiogenesis came into existence. The principle of abiogenesis. Because without it there would be no life. I think we all should take some moments now and bow down to abiogenesis and say Thank you abiogenesis. Thank you for existing because without you we wouldn't exist. Abiogenesis rules. Yeah! Props to abiogenesis, you're my man.

you're not funny, clever, or even making a valid point.

lobo9667
10-17-2008, 05:11 PM
more evidence that life was created in erupting volcanoes and electrical thunderstorms!

22 amino acids, the building blocks of life, created in laboratory experiment from water, gases and sparks.

creationists weep as their little world becomes even smaller and the biblical creation story is shown to be ignorant mythology!
:D

full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7675193.stm


so INTELLIGENT people in a lab creating favourable conditions for a reaction to happen

sounds like intelligent design.

who created the water/gases used in the experiment.


anyway last I heard evolutionists were saying life came from a meteor, now it's back to the lightning in the pile of goop theory

changes almost weekly.

Swanson
10-17-2008, 05:12 PM
you're not funny, clever, or even making a valid point.

This is not about being funny. I'm just thankful. Abiogenesis gave us life. Everything is made by it. Cows which give milk, bananas, cats to pet, dogs to protect your house, women to serve men. That's incredible.

lookingtogrow
10-17-2008, 05:15 PM
That's bull****. No one in their right mind would torture themselves for eternity. Your god is the evil, vindictive bastard who made the rules, right? He's the evil hateful one.

And I find it interesting that you say your god desires for all people to come to salvation...but I am stronger than your god because I can resist his will? He's not only a hateful bastard, but he's weak!

If I can resist his will in this regard, then maybe I can also choose not to go to hell. He's weak.

And you idiot...obviously if we were before your god and he was like "Well, yea, I exist. So what will it be?" We wouldn't say "BAH! I WANT TO GO TO HELL FOR ETERNITY!"

Honestly, all of your beliefs are so backwards and stupid, I really lose faith in humanity when I come across people like you.

Watching you rationalize your absurd delusions is disgusting to me.

Well, this is a RELIGION DISCUSSION BOARD. You think people won't discuss ****? If you can't handle it, then GTFO.

And obviously we are intellectually superior. You literally believe in imaginary friends. You're acting like a child.

I used to be religious, just like you. I used to truly believe in god, and I "felt" the holy spirit, and I talked to god all the time, every day, and I prayed, and I was loyal and I worshiped him.

Then I realize I was talking to myself.

And like I said, we lack hope in the afterlife because there's no reason to believe in the afterlife. It's called common sense. You should try it for once in your life.


You are not stronger because you can resist His Will...He gives you the choice to accept it or reject it...that same choice is to accept Him or reject Him, which is what determines where you'll spend eternity. You can choose to be with God, or alone with yourself in a place that was never intended for you. That doesn't make you stronger than Him, nor does it make Him evil and vindictive if you decide to separate yourself from Him.

As for discussing on a religious discussion board, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm here sharing my beliefs as others are...you are the one that cannot handle the discussion, judging by your outlash.

Common sense is a good thing...I agree...common sense tells me that there is more to life than these 70, 80, or 90 years. Common sense tells me that someone created our planetary system and all of us within it. I like common sense!

Swanson
10-17-2008, 05:17 PM
anyway last I heard evolutionists were saying life came from a meteor, now it's back to the lightning in the pile of goop theory
changes almost weekly.

Don't forget the poo theory. Life came from poo. Fresh,warm poo which was hit by a lightning during a thunder storm and the poo was basically lying next to a volcano who had just broken out so the fresh poo kinda melted, fused with hot lava from the volcano only to be hit by a lightning a few milliseconds after that which caused the building blocks of life to automatically form and arrange themselves in an intelligent manner. After the first step had been taken there was a huge earthquake. This earthquake totally shook the poo up which allowed to amino acids to recombine and turn into DNA. Totally fascinating process. But as you can see it was all totally coinicidental. But scientific. This theory cannot be denied and has also been reconstructed in the labratory. The only riddle right now is where the poo came from. Some scientists tend to believe that the poo has simply always existed while other argue that the poo came into existence billions of years ago.

lookingtogrow
10-17-2008, 05:26 PM
This is not about being funny. I'm just thankful. Abiogenesis gave us life. Everything is made by it. Cows which give milk, bananas, cats to pet, dogs to protect your house, women to serve men. That's incredible.

LOL

Riskity
10-17-2008, 05:35 PM
You are not stronger because you can resist His Will...He gives you the choice to accept it or reject it...that same choice is to accept Him or reject Him, which is what determines where you'll spend eternity. You can choose to be with God, or alone with yourself in a place that was never intended for you. That doesn't make you stronger than Him, nor does it make Him evil and vindictive if you decide to separate yourself from Him.

As for discussing on a religious discussion board, that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm here sharing my beliefs as others are...you are the one that cannot handle the discussion, judging by your outlash.

Common sense is a good thing...I agree...common sense tells me that there is more to life than these 70, 80, or 90 years. Common sense tells me that someone created our planetary system and all of us within it. I like common sense!

You wouldn't know common sense if it raped you in the ass.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:07 PM
If you dont understand an argument, how do you ever think you will make a reasonable argument against it?

Its like saying the moon is too far away to ever travel to, but not even having a clue how far away it is. Its like saying, "well, its the same size as the sun, so it has to be the same distance away!" You lack knowledge therefore you cannot come up with a reasonable argument. But this is ok, because the people who dont know any better will believe you. But your true audience will just ignore you, or maybe they will take pity on you and try to help you understand. But at any rate your argument is impotent at best.

Im not telling you this to try and further my cause, or any cause. Im telling you this so that you can form opinions which are based on facts. I hope one day maybe i can learn something from you about evolution or abiogenesis. But with such a low education level and arrogance about yourself, this day is simply not possible.

I fully understand the argument at hand, and is there really a need to bragg about our level of education since this is the internetz and either of us could claim a higher education? I have a reasonable argument, mine holds water just as you believe yours does. Science munipulates and you call it facts. I like Science and believe it has brought us a long way in a lot of areas, but not this area. They will work in this area until Jesus comes back, because it will never be proven and i can assure you of that.My opinions are based upon facts and I form them from faith, which means the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of thiongs not seen, sound familiar? Anyway, I am sad that the forum atheist have no hope in this life or the next, I think that is the root of the problem that drives the agenda. I do not thing I am displaying arrogance, but I am just unwaivering in my faith, just as you are, so who is being arrogant here?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000200B9.gif

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:08 PM
Dust

1. earth or other matter in fine, dry particles.
2. a cloud of finely powdered earth or other matter in the air.
3. any finely powdered substance, as sawdust.
4. the ground; the earth's surface.
5. the substance to which something, as the dead human body, is ultimately reduced by disintegration or decay; earthly remains.

As you can see, dust is a very loosly defined term, which can be taken to mean almost anything. Necessairily though due to the nature of Earthly creatures biochemestries, we can be fairly certian that any life producing chemical processes occurs in the presence of water, so while the components of life can be in 'dust' form (just like pretty much any other material), it was not 'dust' when the magic occured.

I will take number 4 please

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:12 PM
Yup to the first question....in that I mean that the bible is purposely vague on how we were created so that it doesn't really explain the how part in such concrete terms...and the more I learn of abiogenesis, the more it seems to be compatible with our creation.


As for the second question, I believe he died for our sins.



Yup. Exactly what I'm sayin.


Are you saying that God used abiogenesis to perform his creation? If so, how can one explain "God said let their be light and there was light"? God spoke it into existance, which elimates any help from outside sources. The most important thing is that what you believe and live out through Jesus is what brings Salvation to our life. If I do not believe there is a hell, but I do, that will not keep me out of Heaven, see what I am saying? Thanks for your answer.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:15 PM
you know. I can see why one would think this sounds ridiculous(the article) and i can guess most theists will be thinking (how does that prove evolution is real) its just another experiement done to point in that direction, but they prolly wont understand that. It really doesnt sound dumb at all, after all, they are smart scientists and not fairy tale believers like theists.


Are you aware that their are Christian Scientists as well?

ElMariachi
10-17-2008, 08:17 PM
this still does nothing to answer the question of how the 4 basic aminos that make up DNA were all present right next to each other and then arranged themselves into a strain of DNA.




Bingo. We had like a 3 week ranging discussion on this back in my immunology course in college. It absolutely had nothing to do with the subject matter, but was interesting nevertheless.



The key is that these are conditions that are setup in a lab, and everything is predetermined. This is evidence, but evidence of what?



You can liken this to two guys who put together a jigsaw puzzle, taking their time, in a nicely lit room to make it just right. Then, because they were able to put it together, they make the statement that if they throw half the pieces down a sewer drain, and then tell a blind man to go and find them all, that he'll be able to put the puzzle together in the same manner.

ElMariachi
10-17-2008, 08:23 PM
To the people arguing that you would have to line up the left and right amino acids and this doesn't happen by 'chance', you are wrong.

Simple peptides can amplify whether left or right handiness occurs in a mixture of left and right handed fragments. Serine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serine) can influence a specific handiness by substituting similar molecules. Once a specific handiness gets started, it will continue. Basically it is a chemical emergent property, where a few simple chemical rules can have great influence on a particular system, this system being the formation of more complex proteins.



Once again, it can happen by chance, but there is absolutely no proof that this is what happened. We know that it CAN happen, but we don't know that it DID happen and if so, HOW it happened. No experiment has been able to replicate that, only to indicate that various aminos can randomly form mildly complex arrangements on their own. This by itself is not evidence of anything. This is an example of taking evidence and trying to fit it into a predetermined conclusion without the proper proof.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:23 PM
Bingo. We had like a 3 week ranging discussion on this back in my immunology course in college. It absolutely had nothing to do with the subject matter, but was interesting nevertheless.



The key is that these are conditions that are setup in a lab, and everything is predetermined. This is evidence, but evidence of what?



You can liken this to two guys who put together a jigsaw puzzle, taking their time, in a nicely lit room to make it just right. Then, because they were able to put it together, they make the statement that if they throw half the pieces down a sewer drain, and then tell a blind man to go and find them all, that he'll be able to put the puzzle together in the same manner.


This response should end this thread, because it proves without a shadow of a doubt that the conditions were set up and everything is predetermined. Great response. Would someone please try to respond to this? Jackfast you still out running?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202D3.gif

ElMariachi
10-17-2008, 08:30 PM
This response should end this thread, because it proves without a shadow of a doubt that the conditions were set up and everything is predetermined. Great response. Would someone please try to respond to this? Jackfast you still out running?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202D3.gif




The findings are intriguing. But it is impossible to draw any conclusion from this. Anyone who profoundly claims that there is one, merely exhibits their own ignorance. Leading researchers won't even make the honest assumption that they KNOW how life started, but they point to the Miller and Benner experiments as potential possibilities, however, these could just easily be red herrings. Much more research remains to be done, because right now there are a lot of possibilities, its like we have the answers, but we don't know what the questions are, scientifically speaking.



The other issue is that there is no clear consensus on the exact environment of the earth. Miller and Urey for example were in error due to the way they setup the prebiotic environment. In the 50+ years since that experiment, the view of the potential composition of that very environment has changed enormously.





If you really want to learn, and don't mind a bit of a long read, a lifelong chemist basically analyzes the Miller-Urey experiment and it breaks it down, explaining the parts that were correct, but ultimately why it was erroneous.


http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 08:35 PM
The findings are intriguing. But it is impossible to draw any conclusion from this. Anyone who profoundly claims that there is one, merely exhibits their own ignorance. Leading researchers won't even make the honest assumption that they KNOW how life started, but they point to the Miller and Benner experiments as potential possibilities, however, these could just easily be red herrings. Much more research remains to be done, because right now there are a lot of possibilities, its like we have the answers, but we don't know what the questions are, scientifically speaking.

Am I correct in saying not even the leading Scientists do not know how life began? If so, what in the world are these people in this thread talking about then? Are they in fact supporting something that has not been proven nor been spoken? We are finding answers and do not know the questions? Would that not mean that they are lost then? I mean they do not even know the questions! Wouldn't that mean that , lets say their is a dime dropped from an airplane and it could of fell anywhere in the world and my job is to find it?

lookingtogrow
10-17-2008, 08:39 PM
I wish morons would stop posting long-ass versions of Pascal's Wager as though it was an original thought or had any validity as an argument.

What I posted had nothing to do with Pascal's wager...you obviously didn't pay attention. I'm not trying to convince someone to accept Christ because it's a no-risk deal. Far from it, because you can't do that. God can see through false intentions, so claiming to believe in what Christ did as a safety net will not work. Pascal's wager is a joke...on that we can agree.

What I said is simple...Atheism offers no hope to its followers, based on best and worst case scenarios...I will no way tell someone they should become a Christian because it offers better alternatives. If someone is to become a Christian, they should do it entirely because they believe the claims of Christianity. Anything less is false faith, and therefore false hope.

Inev
10-17-2008, 08:41 PM
I fully understand the argument at hand, and is there really a need to bragg about our level of education since this is the internetz and either of us could claim a higher education? I have a reasonable argument, mine holds water just as you believe yours does. Science munipulates and you call it facts. I like Science and believe it has brought us a long way in a lot of areas, but not this area. They will work in this area until Jesus comes back, because it will never be proven and i can assure you of that.My opinions are based upon facts and I form them from faith, which means the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of thiongs not seen, sound familiar? Anyway, I am sad that the forum atheist have no hope in this life or the next, I think that is the root of the problem that drives the agenda. I do not thing I am displaying arrogance, but I am just unwaivering in my faith, just as you are, so who is being arrogant here?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000200B9.gif

The reason i posted what i did was because i was hoping it would motivate you to educate yourself to be knowledgeable about things like abiogenesis and evolution. If you dont feel the need to because your faith has all your asnwers, then you posting in this thread is 1 of three options

1. Trollin
2. Converting
3. Attempting to educate us on how abiogenesis/evolution it is not true

(i would add educating yourself to the list, but as you have stated you have all the answers you need from your faith)

If your faith provides your answers for you. Then its safe to assume that #3 is not going to happen. This is because everyone interested in evolution believes in science and observations/tangibles to base opinions. This means you have nothing to offer anyone who doesnt use faith for all of lifes questions. So that leaves everyone here with #1 or #2. and i would think that most people would just assume have you on their ignore list if that is the case.

If you use faith as a tool for determining your opinions perhaps you need to rethink why you post on scientific matters at all. Because i dont think you are a troll, and i dont think you are trying to convert people. but if you want to do #3, you are going to need to step up your game.

That's all I'm saying.

edit: I think it is worth mentioning that many evolutions here (including myself) love to help and education. But its sort of insulting when people walk into a thread and shoot down an idea/evidence with little to no knowledge of the situation. luckily for you there are people here who are more manner than myself (such as rune).

ElMariachi
10-17-2008, 08:41 PM
Am I correct in saying not even the leading Scientists do not know how life began? If so, what in the world are these people in this thread talking about then? Are they in fact supporting something that has not been proven nor been spoken? We are finding answers and do not know the questions? Would that not mean that they are lost then? I mean they do not even know the questions! Wouldn't that mean that , lets say their is a dime dropped from an airplane and it could of fell anywhere in the world and my job is to find it?



It would be irresponsible for any scientist to claim to KNOW how life began. There are several hypotheses, such as the Panspermia Hypothesis, but once again, educated guesses that are based on very limited evidence. There are a great deal of them, and one of them might even be correct, but there is absolutely no valid proof thus far.


Here is some basic info on the Panspermia Hypothesis.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1857

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 08:48 PM
you've been refuted countless times. though, seeing as you're a muslim, there is little hope of you ever realizing what is real/true and what is not....

haven't validly been refuted once. More like ppl being unable to refute anything and then resorting to irrelevant arguments that haveno bearing on my claims (ie jmaths)

you can try tho!

Riskity
10-17-2008, 08:52 PM
haven't validly been refuted once. More like ppl being unable to refute anything and then resorting to irrelevant arguments that haveno bearing on my claims (ie jmaths)

you can try tho!

actually you have yet to prove any of your claims. we easily refuted your pathetic arguments simply by pointing out where you went wrong.

obviously, you're too brainwashed to accept this fact. ;)

Inev
10-17-2008, 08:53 PM
Am I correct in saying not even the leading Scientists do not know how life began? If so, what in the world are these people in this thread talking about then? Are they in fact supporting something that has not been proven nor been spoken? We are finding answers and do not know the questions? Would that not mean that they are lost then? I mean they do not even know the questions! Wouldn't that mean that , lets say their is a dime dropped from an airplane and it could of fell anywhere in the world and my job is to find it?

i think you could even take that further and say that no one will ever know how life on earth started (with 100% certainty). But i do think that eventually we will have at least one plausible option for how life on earth started. which it sounds like this experiment isnt doing too horrible of a job. but still a long was from complete IMO.

for a while the argument about this experiment was "AHA! you only produced 4 of the 22 necessary amino acids!" Because in life we see 22 different amino acids commonly present in life (i believe there are 21 in humans, and 26 have been discovered in the whole world. someone correct me if im wrong, it has been a while.) So if life was to start via volcano eruption + lightening life would still need to acquire the other 18 amino acids somehow. But what this shows is that the other 18 amino acids were actually present, we just couldn't see them at the time.

Doesn't prove anything, but it opens up one possibility a little further. And in this area progress is pretty slow. so its exciting when something new like this happens (imo).

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 08:57 PM
actually you have yet to prove any of your claims. we easily refuted your pathetic arguments simply by pointing out where you went wrong.

obviously, you're too brainwashed to accept this fact. ;)

i've already proven my claims.

I also posted sources from world famous physicists that back up the claims i'm making.


You on the other hand tried to bring up the second law of thermodynamics (which you don't even understand) to "refute" arguments (even tho the points you brought up had no bearing on my arguments).

ElMariachi
10-17-2008, 08:59 PM
i think you could even take that further and say that no one will ever know how life on earth started.

for a while the argument about this experiment was "AHA! you only produced 4 of the 22 necessary amino acids!" Because in life we see 22 different amino acids commonly present in life (i believe there are 21 in humans, and 26 have been discovered in the whole world. someone correct me if im wrong, it has been a while.) So if life was to start via volcano eruption + lightening life would still need to acquire the other 18 amino acids somehow. But what this shows is that the other 18 amino acids were actually present, we just couldn't see them at the time.

Doesn't prove anything, but it opens up one possibility a little further. And in this area progress is pretty slow. so its exciting when something new like this happens (imo).



I agree.

You'll never be able to say with 100% accuracy that THIS is exactly how life started. There are so many uncertainties that you'll be able to stipulate that life MIGHT have started in this fashion, and you might even be able to find evidence that it definitely could have happened in this manner, but you'll never be able to prove that it did.



The problem is that there will always be people who oppose any finding and I think that when you're dealing with a matter of this magnitude and one that is so scant on hard evidence, that there will be a lot of holes to attack in any sort of proposed origin.

Klippymitch
10-17-2008, 09:01 PM
I could argue that god's plan was so perfect that he had everything ready before the big bang even started. It was all a chain reaction after that.

Now what?

U mad brah?

Riskity
10-17-2008, 09:07 PM
i've already proven my claims.

I also posted sources from world famous physicists that back up the claims i'm making.


You on the other hand tried to bring up the second law of thermodynamics (which you don't even understand) to "refute" arguments (even tho the points you brought up had no bearing on my arguments).

You've proven nothing.

In fact, we easily proved you wrong.


And you posted sources from people whose views either had NOTHING to do with the craziness you were spouting, or completely contradicted your fairy-tales.

You fail.

hank-williams
10-17-2008, 09:19 PM
The reason i posted what i did was because i was hoping it would motivate you to educate yourself to be knowledgeable about things like abiogenesis and evolution. If you dont feel the need to because your faith has all your asnwers, then you posting in this thread is 1 of three options

1. Trollin
2. Converting
3. Attempting to educate us on how abiogenesis/evolution it is not true

(i would add educating yourself to the list, but as you have stated you have all the answers you need from your faith)

If your faith provides your answers for you. Then its safe to assume that #3 is not going to happen. This is because everyone interested in evolution believes in science and observations/tangibles to base opinions. This means you have nothing to offer anyone who doesnt use faith for all of lifes questions. So that leaves everyone here with #1 or #2. and i would think that most people would just assume have you on their ignore list if that is the case.

If you use faith as a tool for determining your opinions perhaps you need to rethink why you post on scientific matters at all. Because i dont think you are a troll, and i dont think you are trying to convert people. but if you want to do #3, you are going to need to step up your game.

That's all I'm saying.

edit: I think it is worth mentioning that many evolutions here (including myself) love to help and education. But its sort of insulting when people walk into a thread and shoot down an idea/evidence with little to no knowledge of the situation. luckily for you there are people here who are more manner than myself (such as rune).


It is a scientific matter that is attempting to discredit God and his creation ability. That is why I am in here to defend the faith, that God created the earth and the people that reside on it.

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 09:27 PM
You've proven nothing.

In fact, we easily proved you wrong.


And you posted sources from people whose views either had NOTHING to do with the craziness you were spouting, or completely contradicted your fairy-tales.

You fail.

Actually they had ALOT to do with what i was saying:

preBB universe with different physical behaviour and different laws.

preBB universe in a state of chaotic turmoil

preBB universe going from chaos to order (quite possible in a state of chaotic turmoil where necessary guiding forces would not exists).

Riskity
10-17-2008, 09:29 PM
Actually they had ALOT to do with what i was saying:

preBB universe with different physical behaviour and different laws.

preBB universe in a state of chaotic turmoil

preBB universe going from chaos to order (quite possible in a state of chaotic turmoil where necessary guiding forces would not exists).
You're boring me with the same weak arguments I've refuted time and time again.

You may stay here spouting your garbage if you choose.



I'm going to bed, I have to get up at 6:30.

Malodrax
10-17-2008, 09:32 PM
You're boring me with the same weak arguments I've refuted time and time again.

You may stay here spouting your garbage if you choose.



I'm going to bed, I have to get up at 6:30.

you haven't disproved anything! that's the funny part.

well good night.

may God guide you to the right path.

Mr Beer
10-17-2008, 09:44 PM
What I posted had nothing to do with Pascal's wager...you obviously didn't pay attention.

Yeah, I know your point, such as it was, is that all atheists are bitter people whose life lacks meaning and therefore hate Christians because they are jealous of them. It just sounded rather Pascal-y with all the best case/worst case scenario stuff.

stealth_swimmer
10-17-2008, 11:03 PM
Are you saying that God used abiogenesis to perform his creation? If so, how can one explain "God said let their be light and there was light"? God spoke it into existance, which elimates any help from outside sources. The most important thing is that what you believe and live out through Jesus is what brings Salvation to our life. If I do not believe there is a hell, but I do, that will not keep me out of Heaven, see what I am saying? Thanks for your answer.

Yeah I'm sayin I think he used abiogenesis. Has nothing to do with "outside sources" either. He spoke stuff into existence....but that doesn't mean that explains it thoroughly. I'm sayin abiogenesis is our explanation of how life came into being when he created it.

jf1
10-18-2008, 03:54 AM
so INTELLIGENT people in a lab creating favourable conditions for a reaction to happen

sounds like intelligent design.

who created the water/gases used in the experiment.


anyway last I heard evolutionists were saying life came from a meteor, now it's back to the lightning in the pile of goop theory

changes almost weekly.

its posts like this that exemplify the disconnect between intelligence and religion...
:rolleyes:

jf1
10-18-2008, 04:02 AM
It is a scientific matter that is attempting to discredit God and his creation ability. That is why I am in here to defend the faith, that God created the earth and the people that reside on it.

god would be in dire straights indeed without 'hank-williams' to defend him!
:eek:
think about this for a moment; we have the smartest people on the planet; nobel laureates etc that are firmly behind abiogenesis and evolution as the most likely means of both creation and development of life...and then we have people like hank and hokie and nonatlas telling us the way it 'really' happened is stated in a book written 2000years ago by people who knew better!
who you gonna listen to?
http://mbec.phila.gov/procurement/pix/janitor.jpg

mug
10-18-2008, 04:18 AM
You're boring me with the same weak arguments I've refuted time and time again.

You may stay here spouting your garbage if you choose.



I'm going to bed, I have to get up at 6:30.


you haven't disproved anything! that's the funny part.

well good night.

may God guide you to the right path.

I think you guys should make a separate thread and make this into a proper debate. Self proclaimed victory doesn't tell anyone who won. Let the members of this forum decide that in a separate thread that will run aside the debate. Similar to what Ruhanv & SYRIANKID did.

What do you think of that proposal ?

jf1
10-18-2008, 04:59 AM
The key is that these are conditions that are setup in a lab, and everything is predetermined. This is evidence, but evidence of what?



You can liken this to two guys who put together a jigsaw puzzle, taking their time, in a nicely lit room to make it just right. Then, because they were able to put it together, they make the statement that if they throw half the pieces down a sewer drain, and then tell a blind man to go and find them all, that he'll be able to put the puzzle together in the same manner.


This response should end this thread, because it proves without a shadow of a doubt that the conditions were set up and everything is predetermined. Great response. Would someone please try to respond to this? Jackfast you still out running?http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/000202D3.gif

hankie; of course 'conditions were set up' how else would one do the experiment?
the conditions were 'predetermined' to reflect what the conditons on our planet were pre-life; water, minerals, gases, heat, electricity...

as far as the 'mariachi' puzzle analogy: you give a blind man in a sewer a bunch of puzzle pieces and a few MILLION years and he will be able to put that puzzle together! probably wouldnt even take that long...

you are waaaaaaaaay too eager to end this thread using the slightest erroneous argument presented!

you live in a world of science. scientific inquiry and knowledge shape every aspect of our lives...yet you choose to say science is WRONG regarding these questions?
dont you see the absurdity in this?

its one thing to admit (although idiotic) "i dont care what science says, i believe in teh bible no matter what!" its another thing to try and prove science wrong when you clearly have no concept of what is even being discussed! the latter is called LYING...and isnt that frowned upon by your god?

Notts_Ben
10-18-2008, 05:12 AM
More evidence is still more evidence. Its funny how this doesn't really prove anything in the eyes of people who practice faith based religion.

ElMariachi
10-18-2008, 07:56 AM
hankie; of course 'conditions were set up' how else would one do the experiment?
the conditions were 'predetermined' to reflect what the conditons on our planet were pre-life; water, minerals, gases, heat, electricity...

as far as the 'mariachi' puzzle analogy: you give a blind man in a sewer a bunch of puzzle pieces and a few MILLION years and he will be able to put that puzzle together! probably wouldnt even take that long...

you are waaaaaaaaay too eager to end this thread using the slightest erroneous argument presented!

you live in a world of science. scientific inquiry and knowledge shape every aspect of our lives...yet you choose to say science is WRONG regarding these questions?
dont you see the absurdity in this?

its one thing to admit (although idiotic) "i dont care what science says, i believe in teh bible no matter what!" its another thing to try and prove science wrong when you clearly have no concept of what is even being discussed! the latter is called LYING...and isnt that frowned upon by your god?




I'm saying that science has no definitive answer here. To act otherwise is foolish. There are several working hypotheses, yet there is no actual evidence for any of them. Drawing any sort of conclusions from the generation of various aminos would be a bit premature. If you go on various science forums, this finding is being challenged on the basis of the same problem that plagued Miller-Urey because this is STILL Miller's sample, so its plagued with the same issues regarding composition of gases and what not.
There is an almost furious debate regarding the composition of oxygen in the atmosphere and at what point it was actually present, if it was even present in the prebiotic environment.

ElMariachi
10-18-2008, 07:59 AM
More evidence is still more evidence. Its funny how this doesn't really prove anything in the eyes of people who practice faith based religion.



The atheists are committing the same crimes that they hold theists of. They point to one single thing and use that to justify themselves. Once again, the generation of various aminos is not proof of anything. It is evidence and it isn't. It supports one of the hypotheses, but we don't know if that hypothesis is true. We still have not seen the formation of a complex protein, and that in itself is only a chunk of the puzzle, a larger chunk, but it remains to be accomplished.


The attitude of some folks in the thread would be similar to this..............I just walked down the street and saw three bricks sitting there, obviously I will conclusively determine that these 3 bricks are being used to build a skyscraper and not a hardware store.



We have a few bricks, we just don't know what the hell to do with them or what they in long-term sense actually mean.

Quinn77
10-18-2008, 09:23 AM
Yeah, that's some serious science right there



Sorry, this doesn't prove anything other than you can make amino acids in this environment.

the fact that it could happen, given the time span which our world WAS created, logically leads to it actually happening. What evidence does the opposing argument have, a book written by someone other than the prophet himelf, in a different language, and translated into greek then german and various other languages then into english? How could someone even believe anything from the bible like it is the actual word of God or for that matter even Jesus. Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is the truth.

jf1
10-18-2008, 11:49 AM
the fact that it could happen, given the time span which our world WAS created, logically leads to it actually happening. What evidence does the opposing argument have, a book written by someone other than the prophet himelf, in a different language, and translated into greek then german and various other languages then into english? How could someone even believe anything from the bible like it is the actual word of God or for that matter even Jesus. Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is the truth.

exactly!
evidence>>>>> no evidence whatsoever!

Riskity
10-18-2008, 12:20 PM
you haven't disproved anything! that's the funny part.

well good night.

may God guide you to the right path.

Actually, I easily disproved your arguments. That is not up for debate, it's a fact.

Others also disproved your weak arguments. :)

ElMariachi
10-18-2008, 12:37 PM
the fact that it could happen, given the time span which our world WAS created, logically leads to it actually happening. What evidence does the opposing argument have, a book written by someone other than the prophet himelf, in a different language, and translated into greek then german and various other languages then into english? How could someone even believe anything from the bible like it is the actual word of God or for that matter even Jesus. Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is the truth.



There are over a dozen different hypotheses of exactly how life started on earth. Because of the drastically low amount of evidence currently, we're basically digging around and trying to find a conclusion that supports the evidence and not vice versa. We don't know for sure that it "could happen", we just know that a variety of different amino's can self-generate, that is a far-cry from complex proteins and sugars and other precursors of life.



Out of several college science professors, the only thing in common about their beliefs regarding the origins of earth, was that almost every single one had a different origin that they believed in, whether it was the work of God, debris from outer space, big bang, random generation of organic compounds...........etc. Just having limited evidence that something COULD have happened, is not evidence that it DID happen. As such, I don't feel that there will ever be a clear consenus on the origins of life. No matter which hypothesis you subscribe to, it will always be full of holes.

jf1
10-18-2008, 01:57 PM
Out of several college science professors, the only thing in common about their beliefs regarding the origins of earth, was that almost every single one had a different origin that they believed in, whether it was the work of God, debris from outer space, big bang, random generation of organic compounds...........etc.

what the hell is this?
do you have some sort of reference for this 'study' or is this just more of the crap that we are accustomed to you spouting daily?

ElMariachi
10-18-2008, 02:14 PM
what the hell is this?
do you have some sort of reference for this 'study' or is this just more of the crap that we are accustomed to you spouting daily?



I'm sorry, I should have been more specific, I was switching between typing and talking on the phone, but I should have added that out of my college science professors, almost every single one had a different personal feeling on how the universe began, whether they were biologists, physicists....geologists....etc. You'll find that there are a lot of varied ideas on exactly how "it all started" and a lot of different hypotheses as well.



Bottomline, you're making this out to be a lot more than it is. Is it exciting? Absolutely. I would have loved to have switched shoes with the guy who began testing Miller's old samples. That in itself is fascinating because it is picking up clues that were left unnoticed, writing another chapter into the book, but are those clues themselves any sort of definitive evidence? Not really. There is a lot more work to be done, and perhaps a new discovery will point to another source of origin and this whole experiment will once again be forgotten about just like before, where it was basically abandoned by the scientific community at large for a few decades.

jf1
10-18-2008, 02:59 PM
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific, I was switching between typing and talking on the phone, but I should have added that out of my college science professors, almost every single one had a different personal feeling on how the universe began, whether they were biologists, physicists....geologists....etc. You'll find that there are a lot of varied ideas on exactly how "it all started" and a lot of different hypotheses as well.

you do this sort of thing all the time; throw out some opinion of yours, based on your experience, desires, or riduculously small sample size and present it as fact!
you are saying "almost every single one of my profs has a different 'feeling' on how the universe began" is complete nonsense!
in science we dont base our beliefs on 'feelings' but on DATA and evidence.
what does the preponderance of data and evidence lead us to believe?



Bottomline, you're making this out to be a lot more than it is. Is it exciting? Absolutely. I would have loved to have switched shoes with the guy who began testing Miller's old samples. That in itself is fascinating because it is picking up clues that were left unnoticed, writing another chapter into the book, but are those clues themselves any sort of definitive evidence? Not really. There is a lot more work to be done, and perhaps a new discovery will point to another source of origin and this whole experiment will once again be forgotten about just like before, where it was basically abandoned by the scientific community at large for a few decades.

if new discoveries are made, then new hypothesis will be created based on the new evidence! that is how science works!
for you to say that this is not definitive evidence and somehow unworthy because 'more work needs to be done' is ludicrous; there is always more to be done and always more to learn!

ElMariachi
10-18-2008, 03:00 PM
you do this sort of thing all the time; throw out some opinion of yours, based on your experience, desires, or riduculously small sample size and present it as fact!
you are saying "almost every single one of my profs has a different 'feeling' on how the univers began" is complete nonsense!
in science we dont base our beliefs on 'feelings' but on DATA and evidence.
what does the preponderance of data and evidence lead us to believe?



if new discoveries are made, then new hypothesis will be created based on the new evidence! that is how science works!
for you to say that this is not definitive evidence and somehow unworthy because 'more work needs to be done' is ludicrous; there is always more to be done and always more to learn!




I'm just wondering, what is your field of study? What did you actually get a degree in? Just curious. :)

hank-williams
10-18-2008, 04:54 PM
god would be in dire straights indeed without 'hank-williams' to defend him!
:eek:
think about this for a moment; we have the smartest people on the planet; nobel laureates etc that are firmly behind abiogenesis and evolution as the most likely means of both creation and development of life...and then we have people like hank and hokie and nonatlas telling us the way it 'really' happened is stated in a book written 2000years ago by people who knew better!
who you gonna listen to?
http://mbec.phila.gov/procurement/pix/janitor.jpg

Not that God needs me, but that is the problem to begin with , those with the faith just stand back and watch from the sidelines , I choose to play.Yes the way it really happened is in the Book of Genesis.If I were you I would listen to Genesis, it is the truth after all.

hank-williams
10-18-2008, 04:56 PM
hankie; of course 'conditions were set up' how else would one do the experiment?
the conditions were 'predetermined' to reflect what the conditons on our planet were pre-life; water, minerals, gases, heat, electricity...

as far as the 'mariachi' puzzle analogy: you give a blind man in a sewer a bunch of puzzle pieces and a few MILLION years and he will be able to put that puzzle together! probably wouldnt even take that long...

you are waaaaaaaaay too eager to end this thread using the slightest erroneous argument presented!

you live in a world of science. scientific inquiry and knowledge shape every aspect of our lives...yet you choose to say science is WRONG regarding these questions?
dont you see the absurdity in this?

its one thing to admit (although idiotic) "i dont care what science says, i believe in teh bible no matter what!" its another thing to try and prove science wrong when you clearly have no concept of what is even being discussed! the latter is called LYING...and isnt that frowned upon by your god?

How have I lied?

jf1
10-18-2008, 05:06 PM
How have I lied?

you are lying when you try to discredit science with falsehoods!
just admit it; no matter what evidence science provides you will deny it because it contradicts teh bible!

denying truth is basically lying!

did you like that janitor picture?
i remembered that you 'work around science'!

i also feel honored to be included in your signature...however misguided it may be!

hank-williams
10-18-2008, 05:11 PM
you are lying when you try to discredit science with falsehoods!
just admit it; no matter what evidence science provides you will deny it because it contradicts teh bible!

denying truth is basically lying!

did you like that janitor picture?
i remembered that you 'work around science'!

i also feel honored to be included in your signature...however misguided it may be!

I am not denying true Science, and if you are refering to The Bible as falsehood's then you are wrong. The Bible is truth and has no lies in it or theories in it, only solid facts. I value Science and where it has brought us, It is just not appreciated when Some Scientist that worship Darwin try to discredit the teachings of God.

Inev
10-18-2008, 08:37 PM
I am not denying true Science, and if you are refering to The Bible as falsehood's then you are wrong. The Bible is truth and has no lies in it or theories in it, only solid facts. I value Science and where it has brought us, It is just not appreciated when Some Scientist that worship Darwin try to discredit the teachings of God.

so you would define true science as observations and theories which agree with the bible.

contrary to this belief, if science is performed properly it doesn't care too much about preconceived notions about how you think the world should work.

You really gotta hash out why the bible is more reliable then observations you can see clearly demonstrated today. If you need to, buy a science book, a microscope, and a DNA analysis kit. maybe even go out and buy a telescope. you can pretty much validate most theories if you know the equations and have some basic tools. Once you do this the question would be, why would god's word contradict god's creation?

feel free to go wild

riptor
10-19-2008, 09:50 AM
Once again, it can happen by chance, but there is absolutely no proof that this is what happened. We know that it CAN happen, but we don't know that it DID happen and if so, HOW it happened. No experiment has been able to replicate that, only to indicate that various aminos can randomly form mildly complex arrangements on their own. This by itself is not evidence of anything. This is an example of taking evidence and trying to fit it into a predetermined conclusion without the proper proof.

Well if you want to argue that you can't prove anything 100%, then yeah you are correct. But what the argument is that it is impossible for left handed amino acids to form, when it can be shown that it is not. Left handiness occurs in nature, these kinds of amino acids have been found in meteorites too. There are specific reasons for this that may have influenced amino acids on earth to be more left handed.

What people do is that claim that a certain feature is impossible by natural means, so they try to insert a supernatural explanation. If a plausible natural way is shown, then those who support a supernatural explanation had better come up with some evidence.

An example would be how archeologists give plausible ways ancient peoples could have built structures like Stonehenge. Those supporting ancient astronauts or Atlanteans often say it would be impossible to build such structures, when clearly it is not. By using the tools and techniques we know ancient people had, historians can recreate their work. We don't know if that is exactly what happened, but it does show that it was possible for ancient people to build such huge structures.


http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

This site are just a bunch of Intelligent design arguments. I'll be the first to admit that I am no expert on chemistry, but the article did say some things that don't seem right. One thing they stated is that the earth always had an oxygen rich atmosphere. I would like to see some confirmation of that. Second, they use some classic arguments made to debunk the Miller-Urey experiments. Basically they claim that the conditions he used where irrelevant since the atmosphere of the early earth was probably different than the set up he used. Miller and others have actually done many more experiments, all with different types of possible atmospheric conditions. Complex organic molecules formed under a variety of conditions. It is also possible that life didn't form in the atmosphere, but deep underground, or at undersea vents. It is even possible that complex molecules were brought to earth by a comet. So it is possible that the atmospheric content was irrelevant to the formation of life on earth.

I did look over other sections of the site, and they essentially just rehash classic creationist arguments, like the so called Cambrian explosion and they claim that there are no transitional fossils. That makes me suspicious about their Miller-Urey criticism. Also, none of their board of directors are scientists. Two are engineers, one a minister, one an evangelical business man, and one a teacher. That doesn't make them automatically wrong, but I'm suspicious whenever non-scientists claim to have overthrown any major theory.

hank-williams
10-19-2008, 10:09 AM
so you would define true science as observations and theories which agree with the bible.

contrary to this belief, if science is performed properly it doesn't care too much about preconceived notions about how you think the world should work.

You really gotta hash out why the bible is more reliable then observations you can see clearly demonstrated today. If you need to, buy a science book, a microscope, and a DNA analysis kit. maybe even go out and buy a telescope. you can pretty much validate most theories if you know the equations and have some basic tools. Once you do this the question would be, why would god's word contradict god's creation?

feel free to go wild

If it is true Science it will not be in conflict with the Bible. God's word does not contradict his creation.

Inev
10-19-2008, 01:32 PM
If it is true Science it will not be in conflict with the Bible. God's word does not contradict his creation.
True science is in conflict with the bible. You just seem to shrug it off and claim that it is not actually true science. Since you are not convinced by any sort of experts or reading. i was simply suggesting that you do some experiments yourself. This would remove any evil scientist that are lying to you. Then you would have to rationalize why gods word is different from his creation.

drew101
10-19-2008, 02:27 PM
I'm not creationist, but I don't think abiogenesis conflicts with Christianity.

It does.

Either you believe that the universe a few thousand years old, or 13-15 billion years old.

drew101
10-19-2008, 02:34 PM
True science is in conflict with the bible. You just seem to shrug it off and claim that it is not actually true science. Since you are not convinced by any sort of experts or reading. i was simply suggesting that you do some experiments yourself. This would remove any evil scientist that are lying to you. Then you would have to rationalize why gods word is different from his creation.

No dude. Science does not conflict with the Bible.

The problem is not with science itself, but with some scientists and their theories.

Inev
10-20-2008, 02:44 PM
No dude. Science does not conflict with the Bible.

The problem is not with science itself, but with some scientists and their theories.

so in other words you pick and choose what science you believe based on the bible . . . Hrmmm.