19
   

Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 10:58 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I find it plausible that something like this would have occurred with sufficient time.

How it happened remains a mystery. You may have your own little theory, and others have another little theory which they call God... Nobody can tell for sure. There's also the idea of extra-terrestrial life landing on earth billions of years ago, which of course only pushes the mystery further back in time, but it's quite telling that scientists are considering this scenario: it tells how baffled they are by how life could possibly have appeared ex nihilo on our planet...

It is IMO important to recognize how little we actually know about some questions, and the emergence of life is one of them. Accepting that our knowledge has limits is a prerequisite to expand our knowledge. Hubris only leads to more ignorance.

In any case, you asked a question and I responded to the best of my ability: big questions remain about our origins, and the origin of the universe; these have not yet been satisfactorily answered by science; some people want easy answers and they go for the deity.

Other people who want easy answers find that a soup can plausibly create something as complex as life, given a few hundreds of millions of years... To each his own.
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 10:59 am
@Setanta,
My skin is thick, as you must be aware of by now.
And I stand by both my reasoning ability and my starting point.

It has been said that when two intelligent folks use equally reasonable arguments to come to different conclusions, the error is likely in the axioms from which they begin.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:00 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The theory is that it was "some molecule."

That's "some theory" you got there... very precise and evidence-based. Smile
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Even when we manage to discover how to create life in a bowl, that wont necessarily be the answer, it may be ONE of the POSIBLE answers.

That would be much better than what we have now, I can tell you that.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:09 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I doubt that computers such as we make them have this capability.

If you are right, and since computers as we build them have computation power, it follows that computation power is not sufficient to create consciousness... So you contradicted yourself.

I personally believe that consciousness is nothing magical and that we will one day be able to create it in machines, once we understand how it works. But of course I can't prove that. It's just my idea.

You said up-thread that you did not look forward to that. Why???

Quote:
Furthermore, if, indeed, there is no supernatural explanation for the universe or the mind, then the conclusion that the brains of higher animals achieve consciousness through some aspect of their structure is pretty much the only alternative.

That's a big "if", but I happen to agree with "some aspect of their structure". Computation power is not it though, IMO.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:17 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I would remind you that you said we don't know how RNA could have arisen, not how it did arise. Your best bet now is to retreat in to a linguistic defense, and claim that what you patently said is not what you meant. We may not know how RNA did arise, but we do know how it could have arisen.

BS
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:18 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
It has been said that when two intelligent folks use equally reasonable arguments to come to different conclusions, the error is likely in the axioms from which they begin.


Yeah, no **** . . . and after years and years, i'm sick of you insisting on your erroneous claims.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:24 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
That's pretty hilarious from someone who had to have his nose rubbed in the implications of the Cairns-Smith hypothesis, and the Miller-Urey experiments and still didn't get it.

Thanks for the laugh. My nose is A-okay... The Cairns-Smith hypothesis is just that, an hypothesis. I haven't seen any evidence supporting it. Nor am I convinced that it is anything more than a pipe dream.

But if you think that life was made of clay, you actually agree somewhat with Genesis... Now that's funny!

As I explained already, the Miller-Urey experiments produced amino-acids, which have little to do with RNA. You are being increasingly confused.

Quote:
i've seen a good many examples of you flatly not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

How yeah? Make us laugh some more: tell us what these examples were...
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 11:40 am
@Olivier5,
waaiit a minute.I don't think they even looked for nucleotides in the Miller Urey flasks. I know that, s of 2008. a bunch of guys in Inina U did a really high pprecision MSMS survey of one of the Miller flaasks and found over 25 amino acids (life only uses about 20 of them(.
Im sure theyd find nucleotides along with the amino acids .
CHONP versus CHONS are quite closely constructed. I think Miller had some POx in his flask , but if he didn't, we could add some and get nucleotides. The issue is primarily one of chemical "desire to react and couple"
Its not mentioned at all in Genesis , unless someone "force fits some wording"
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 12:13 pm
@farmerman,
I don't think so, re. Miller-Urey having produced nucleotides. If you can find proof of that, welcome.

Quote:
The issue is primarily one of chemical "desire to react and couple"

And wrap themselves the exact right way in 3D, as far as proteins are concerned... and those proteins are necessary for the reproduction of RNA/DNA, which codes for them... chicken and egg situation. It's not that simple, or we could make it happen in a lab.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 12:45 pm
@Olivier5,
You continue to ignore that pesky ittle word "could." You were the one who used it. I haven't said it did happen that way, only that it could have. You were the clown who denied that we knew how it could have happened.

If you claim to be knowledgeable about science, my advice is, don't quit your day job.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 12:53 pm
@Setanta,
And I stand by the word "could". Just because someone came up with some pipe dream about it doesn't mean it's a likely or credible explanation. After all, gods COULD exist and they COULD have created life, but that's just another pipe dream.
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 01:20 pm
@Olivier5,
All you ever have is your statements. I don't see any references from you to credible sources. and that's par for the course. As i said, Mr. Scientific Culture, don't give up your day job.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 01:35 pm
@Setanta,
This is well known stuff. If we had a credible, solid explanation for the appearance of life, rest assure that I would know it. And you would probably know it too, because it would imply that we can recreate those conditions and create life in a lab...
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 01:57 pm
From Discover Magazine:

How Did Life Start? Earth could have been just another empty chunk of rock. But something happened here, and it may have taken place on a stage of clay.

"The precise arrangement of metal ions in the clay may be capable of catalyzing specific reactions of organic molecules on the clay surface."

From a Google books passage in the book From MEMS to Bio-MEMS and Bio-NEMS: Manufacturing Techniques and Applications by Marc J. Madou, PhD, of the University of California, Irvine.

"What about proteins, DNA, and other complex organic compound? Where did they from.? In open water, hydolysis reactions owuld have broen them apart as fast as they assembled. By one hypothesis,the clay of tidal flats bound and protected newly forming polymers. CLays are rich in mineral ions that can attract amino acids or nucleotides. Once a few of these molecules bind to clay, others bond to them, forming chains that resemble proteins or nucleic acids.

By another hypothesis, biological mplecules could have formed at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. The depths of ancient seas were oxygen-poor Expreriments show that amino acids will condense into protein-like structures when heated in water."

A Google Books excerpt from Biology Today and Tomorrow with Physiology by Cecie Starr, Ms. Starr is the most prolific contemporary author of university-level biology textbooks.

"Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life’s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules."

From the abstract of Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life, by Hazen and Sverjensky. Retreived from the National Center for Biotechnology Information.
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 02:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Ipse dixit claims and arugmentum ad populum fallacies ("everybody knows that!")--that's all you've got. I have absolutely not reason to consider you an authority on any subject, and especially not a scientific subject. Once again, you're avoiding your statement that we don't know how it could have happened, and that's just plain bullshit, Mr. Scientific Culture.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 02:02 pm
@Setanta,
Yada yada yada. More vague theories. Wake me up once they actually can fabricate life in vitro...
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 02:04 pm
@Olivier5,
Well, i'll give you credit. Your performance in this thread does suggest that you're asleep. You made a bullshit claim, and not only have you done nothing to support your claim, you keep trying to pretend that you did not say what i have quoted from your post.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 02:18 pm
650 Million Years in 2 minutes
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2014 03:12 pm
@Setanta,
And you sound even more confused and angry than usual...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.17 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:25:50