Origin of Life

[Skieski]

Please, DO NOT justify yourself by stating "God has always existed. God is timeless". Just don't.

Christians live by the bible, the bible says he is omnipresent. It isn't a justification, it is what He is. To say a mortal made everything is quite silly. Telling Christians to not say what they believe doesn't make things easier.

Considering that some of the believers in this thread are trying to justify God's existence with some sort of rational argument, I am simply asking them to leave ANY irrational, completely faith based ones out of the way.
As a matter of fact, the only reason this discussion is on-going is because the believers decided to get logic and reason involved. If not, it would have ended this way:
"The Bible states that God created everything in 7 days. This is true and what really happened because I believe on it. The religious Christian based side of this argument is now over"

It has not ended that way. Therefore, reason still has some ground here. Let's keep it that way, specially considering that no debate is possible when only blind faith is involved, and this IS the debate forum.

[Holy]

Considering that some of the believers in this thread are trying to justify God's existence with some sort of rational argument, I am simply asking them to leave ANY irrational, completely faith based ones out of the way.
As a matter of fact, the only reason this discussion is on-going is because the believers decided to get logic and reason involved. If not, it would have ended this way:
"The Bible states that God created everything in 7 days. This is true and what really happened because I believe on it. The religious Christian based side of this argument is now over"

It has not ended that way. Therefore, reason still has some ground here. Let's keep it that way, specially considering that no debate is possible when only blind faith is involved, and this IS the debate forum.

Firstly, you can cut the whole blind faith routine. I have my reasons for what I believe as do you, I didn't randomly decide to go Christian one day.

If you are taking Creation into account, you must use the bible as it is the source of the idea. It tells you about God. As Paul says that 1 day is 1000 years and 1000 years is 1 day to God. So saying the Christian argument is limited to the earth being created in 7 days is not accurate. It is still possible to logically interpret creation as well as lines from the bible.

My main argument is that DNA couldn't have formed from chemical pools in nature without aid. It's extremely unlikely even in perfect lab conditions so alternate origin of life theories must be made.

[Skieski]

Considering that some of the believers in this thread are trying to justify God's existence with some sort of rational argument, I am simply asking them to leave ANY irrational, completely faith based ones out of the way.
As a matter of fact, the only reason this discussion is on-going is because the believers decided to get logic and reason involved. If not, it would have ended this way:
"The Bible states that God created everything in 7 days. This is true and what really happened because I believe on it. The religious Christian based side of this argument is now over"

It has not ended that way. Therefore, reason still has some ground here. Let's keep it that way, specially considering that no debate is possible when only blind faith is involved, and this IS the debate forum.

Firstly, you can cut the whole blind faith routine. I have my reasons for what I believe as do you, I didn't randomly decide to go Christian one day.

If you are taking Creation into account, you must use the bible as it is the source of the idea. It tells you about God. As Paul says that 1 day is 1000 years and 1000 years is 1 day to God. So saying the Christian argument is limited to the earth being created in 7 days is not accurate. It is still possible to logically interpret creation as well as lines from the bible.

My main argument is that DNA couldn't have formed from chemical pools in nature without aid. It's extremely unlikely even in perfect lab conditions so alternate origin of life theories must be made.

I never said that you randomly turned to Christianity. I merely stated that your reasons for choosing it were not based on proof, in evidence, but on faith. If you would like to prove me wrong by showing me any concise, scientifically viable proof of God's existence, I am all ears. I apologize if the word "blind" caused you to misinterpret what I was trying to convey.

I was generalizing when I used the 7 days creation story. I understand what you mean.

Your argument against the theoretically DNA creation is, in my opinion, flawed. As Jorgen already stated, scientists cannot yet ACCURATELY know just what exactly where the conditions back then. The earth might have been a burning (not literally) at temperatures that could never be achieved by modern technology. Specific, complicate and unique chemical interactions could have taken place which we know nothing about. You cannot dismiss this theory on the grounds that if did not work on modern experiments, therefore its highly unlikely. Even if we knew everything about that time, the odds of us being able to replicate the conditions using modern equipment...yeah.

[crypto]

Science has not yet found the answer, therefore God.

trollface.jpg

[Ghast]

Science has not yet found the answer, therefore God.

.jpg

Christians have not yet found God, therefore science.

 

[crypto]

Except that God is not the logical default. Having said that, I do kind of dig the idea of botched irrationality, therefore rationality.

Oh, frogface.jpg.

trollface.jpg

[krolin]

Some one has probably already said this but just to make sure big bang=/= abiogenesis, abiogenesis =/= evolution, abiogenesis=/= spontaneous generation. Also the big bang does have evidence, look up Cosmic microwave backround radiation which was predicted by the big bang model before it was discovered(the sign of a good hypothesis).

[crypto]

Y'all just got fucking owned by krolin.

[Ghast]

and hypotheses will remain theory until proven otherwise. Albeit substantial evidence, unless we can somehow serendipitously discover a way to recreate the big bang, it makes about as much sense as the Lockness monster masturbating.

[Loken]

I believe in the development or random biological compunds that slowly evolved into a living sentient race, which oddly enough is be quite common
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6091116
here's a paper by Cambridge stating that complex organic structures are formed inside unburnt nebulae, believed that these gathered onto larger masses such as asteroids and meteors and then fell to earth later on during its forming

[krolin]

and hypotheses will remain theory until proven otherwise. Albeit substantial evidence, unless we can somehow serendipitously discover a way to recreate the big bang, it makes about as much sense as the Lockness monster masturbating.

>.> i may have misunderstood but it sounds to me like you just said a theory and hypothesis are the same thing. science doesn't go hypothesis/theory>law or even hypothesis>theory>law.

To my understanding the big bang is just a hypothesis at this point but one with quite a bit of evidence. I'm sure all those scientists who have  an education in theoretical physics and papers published about the big bang are wrong but you here on the internet know exactly what you are talking about. Also just to preempt what always happen when i say this, sorry if you see this as an ad hominem, I don't think you're stupid but I'm kind of tired of the internet "expert".

[Jorgen]

and hypotheses will remain theory until proven otherwise. Albeit substantial evidence, unless we can somehow serendipitously discover a way to recreate the big bang, it makes about as much sense as the Lockness monster masturbating.

>.> i may have misunderstood but it sounds to me like you just said a theory and hypothesis are the same thing. science doesn't go hypothesis/theory>law or even hypothesis>theory>law.

To my understanding the big bang is just a hypothesis at this point but one with quite a bit of evidence. I'm sure all those scientists who have  an education in theoretical physics and papers published about the big bang are wrong but you here on the internet know exactly what you are talking about. Also just to preempt what always happen when i say this, sorry if you see this as an ad hominem, I don't think you're stupid but I'm kind of tired of the internet "expert".

Krolin is back I see

[myLord]

I heard a quote from some scientist that basically said that information does not come from matter, information must come from information, that comes from information, that ultimately comes from an intelligence (cells cannot make a human).  Also, I heard another quote that said that during a mutation (like the ones in evolution) information is lost, not gained, meaning that a mess of cells cannot magically gain information that tells them to form a human.

Sorry for not being able to give the quotes directly from a source, I saw them in a video in Bible class and forgot to write them down but I do remember what they said.

Also, crypto, I don't think I've received an answer from you yet about what you think about http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss5.htm#Delicate Rings

And a section taken out of it for those that don't want to click the link..

_____________________________________________


The rings of Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia, along with pebbles of various sizes. Scientists are trying to figure out how such a delicate substance as ammonia, which should rather quickly vaporize off into space, could be formed into these equally delicate rings. How could those rings—and Saturn inside them—have been accidentally formed from gas, collisions, or some other such chance occurrence? But, the fact that they exist directs our attention to several age problems:

"The theory that explained how Saturn's rings could persist through 4.6 billion years of solar system evolution also explained why Saturn was the only planet that could have a ring.

"Then those theories had to be revised to account for the rings of Uranus. The revisions implied that Jupiter would not have a ring. Now Jupiter has been found to have a ring, and we have to invent a theory to explain it . .

"Dust and grain-sized particles can be fueled out as major constituents of the ring [of Jupiter]. The intense radiation in Jupiter's magnetic field would sweep them out . . No theory has yet been developed that explains how all three of these planets could have rings for so long."—*Bradford Smith, quoted in Mark Tippetts, "Voyager Scientists on Dilemma's Horns," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1979, p. 185.

And then there are its 17 moons which never collide with the rings. The farthest out is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite Saturn and its rings. How could that happen? How could it continue without self-destructing?

"Saturn, a planet of nearly one hundred times the mass of our earth, has millions of amazing and fragile solid bodies in orbit in the form of its familiar relatively thin rings. According to the spectrum measurements by Dr. G.P. Kuiper of the University of Arizona, these rings are composed mainly of solid ammonia. Since solid ammonia has much higher vapor pressure than ice, for instance, it is questionable whether the ammonia could have survived for the supposed life of the planet of some 4.5 billion years.

"The eminent astronomer, Dr. H. Alfven has stated that it is unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn, and that probably the rings were formed at the same time as Saturn itself. He points out that it is doubtful that such a fragile ring-like structure could survive the tremendous tidal forces (gravitational, as well as other forces) acting on it if its age is actually, as generally believed, 4.5 billion years old. Many scientists agree with Dr. Alfven that it is indeed unlikely that any force acting today could have caused the ring structure of Saturn."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 73.\

_____________________________________________

[crypto]

Sorry, myLord, I haven't been keeping up with this thread.

I haven't looked closely at the stuff on that link and I'm really not a science guy, but I'm loath to place my trust in discoveries that evidently haven't been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

[Zukuto]

I found a picture a couple months ago that I saved; it was about life, and what the afterlife is like. If you have the time, read this, because it's absolutely mind blowing(in my experience at least)

Go here -> http://i.imgur.com/w8lwt.jpg