Thread: Who gives a f**** about fundies?

Originally Posted by Xei

What the hell?

No it isn't. I don't even know what you're talking about, the first set of chemical reactions won't have been organic at all, they would probably have been something like the burning of hydrogen after the first generation of stars had created oxygen.

The first set of reactions didn't need to 'do' anything to 'become' a set of reactions. There is no problem here...

I’m talking about the first set of chemical reactions on early earth. Chemical reactions are driven if there is an input of energy right? Case in point, simple chemical reactions can only go so far by themselves. Some form of energy is needed to drive unfavorable reactions, or to aid in driving favorable reactions. The only reason chemical reactions occur is to rearrange themselves into a lower energetic state. In the case of nuclear reactions, unstable atoms decay into a more stable state. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is highly conducive to these transitional states of reactions.

If your answer is stating that the first set of reactions didn't need to 'do' anything to 'become' a set of reactions, then you have a serious misunderstanding of Thermodynamics and Bioenergetics.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Perhaps life began out as individual nucleotides. Ones that would come together and build on themselves over time and form complex life-forms. Though we certainly don't know for sure, all it would take to create an amino acid from these bases is the correct set of reactions.

I think you’re missing my point, adenosine-derived nucleotide, contains high-energy phosphate bonds and is used to transport energy to cells for biochemical processes, including muscle contraction and enzymatic metabolism, through its hydrolysis to adenosine diphosphate (ADP). We know for a fact that the change from free monomers to polymers involves a case in decrease in entropy (increase in order) and is endergonic and this is why origin of life researchers pre-activate their monomers. So polymer formation goes in the wrong direction and is thus a non-spontaneous process. Therefore, some sort of process or mechanism must be present in order for such an uphill process to occur. Another example, cells couple endergonic reactions with exergonic reactions, using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as a energy intermediate. What was the prebiotic mechanism, which allowed for the first reactions of the initial process?

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Have you heard of Viroids? These are little infectious strings of RNA that attack plants. In comparison to DNA, they are quite small. I say they are proof for the above statement.

I’ll say they are not proof because it’s not a free-living organism mainly because it fails to meet the criteria for independent life. I didn’t know people still used Viroids to support abiogenesis, it’s been thrown out on so many occasions, it’s old news.

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

In the end it comes to the fact that people believe into something, cause different people find different things more logical, more probable, or were under different influence. I think that discussing weither your right or wrong for being a fan of Man U or Man City would be the same as any religious discussion.

Very good point.

I’m talking about the first set of chemical reactions on early earth. Chemical reactions are driven if there is an input of energy right? Case in point, simple chemical reactions can only go so far by themselves. Some form of energy is needed to drive unfavorable reactions, or to aid in driving favorable reactions. The only reason chemical reactions occur is to rearrange themselves into a lower energetic state. In the case of nuclear reactions, unstable atoms decay into a more stable state. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is highly conducive to these transitional states of reactions.

If your answer is stating that the first set of reactions didn't need to 'do' anything to 'become' a set of reactions, then you have a serious misunderstanding of Thermodynamics and Bioenergetics.

If something is already a set of chemical reactions, it doesn't need to do anything to 'become' a set of chemicals, because it already is. I can't believe you really didn't understand that.

And your point about chemical reactions makes no sense at all and seems to indicate several fundamental misunderstandings about chemistry and physics. Many chemical reactions involve an increase in energy state. Nuclear reactions, too; how do you think uranium got energy in the first place which is released by fission? Answer: lighter nuclei were fused together in stars in a nuclear reaction which raised the energy level.

Not all reactions need a constantly supply of energy to keep going; for example, burning is self-sustaining. And even then it's a moot point: primordial reactions would have energy supplied by heat, even if they weren't exothermic.

Originally Posted by mysterious dreamer

That's true, but only when you know it happened. Not when you assume and theorise about the beggining of universe or life.

Remeber you stated this:

So how did so many one in a bajillion chances happened?

In other words: If we assume it is correct, how did something so improbable happen?
If it is correct the probability is 1/1. So your argument against it using probability is invalid.

Originally Posted by Xei

primordial reactions would have energy supplied by heat, even if they weren't exothermic.

That's a new one I have not heard that one before. Whats the origin of this heat? Besides, it seems Ne-yo is referring to organic compounds, it just seems pretty obvious because the reaction stablization of in-organic compounds is a pretty moot point.

Matter contains energy.

When you have a reaction such as Nuclear Fusion some of the matter you have is converted into energy, i.e. Heat.

This energy can interact with other molecules simply, i.e. Ultraviolet Radiation destroying Organic Compounds (Note: An organic compound is any compound that contains carbon...), or on a more complex scale, i.e. Photosynthesis storing energy in Glucose.

The amount energy in the universe is a constant. Whether in the form of heat or matter, it has all always been here, and it is never going away.

Actually, organic compounds that Ne-Yo is probably thinking about (Amino Acids) are pretty common in our own solar system-- Meteorites are rich with them, and there are 90 known amino acids, only 20 of which are found naturally on earth.

I'm not sure what Ne-Yo's point was, anyway. Atoms interact, organic molecules interact, organisms exist, and it all seems to make a lot of sense.

The only reason I can think of why he seems so adamant about some sort of starting process is his preconception of a deity that started everything.

The universe wasn't caused, it is

That's a new one I have not heard that one before. Whats the origin of this heat? Besides, it seems Ne-yo is referring to organic compounds, it just seems pretty obvious because the reaction stablization of in-organic compounds is a pretty moot point.

-_-

It's thought that life originated from hydrothermal vents. I won't bother explaining where the energy is there.

The other main source of energy on Earth is the sun. This is what powers the anabolic reactions which gave rise to almost all life on Earth.

The second thing you said didn't make any discernible sense.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I think you’re missing my point, adenosine-derived nucleotide, contains high-energy phosphate bonds and is used to transport energy to cells for biochemical processes, including muscle contraction and enzymatic metabolism, through its hydrolysis to adenosine diphosphate (ADP). We know for a fact that the change from free monomers to polymers involves a case in decrease in entropy (increase in order) and is endergonic and this is why origin of life researchers pre-activate their monomers. So polymer formation goes in the wrong direction and is thus a non-spontaneous process. Therefore, some sort of process or mechanism must be present in order for such an uphill process to occur. Another example, cells couple endergonic reactions with exergonic reactions, using adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as a energy intermediate. What was the prebiotic mechanism, which allowed for the first reactions of the initial process?

I don't even know why you included most of that paragraph. It seems you are asking me how certain cellular protocols, which seemingly depend on each other came to be. In that case, it all falls along the lines of evolution. My comment about Viroids is relevant to this because it is evidence that a non-living particle which is made up of amino acids has changed and evolved to attack plant cells.

Most likely, it goes like this:

Amino acids group together and become larger, forming RNA and DNA. They change and, because of their structure, cause certain elements/compounds to react to them in very specific ways. If this aids the process of replication they will eventually become more complex, automatically conducting certain protocols based on the arrangement of amino acids within its structure.

If you're looking for an exact process, you're not going to find it. Still makes more sense than God.

He sounds like somebody who's learned biology from Youtube... ATP doesn't transport energy to cells; energy gets to cells in the form of glucose and oxygen, delivered via the blood. You know, like, respiration?

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Besides, it seems Ne-yo is referring to organic compounds, it just seems pretty obvious because the reaction stablization of in-organic compounds is a pretty moot point.

Thank you Shadow, I assumed that it was obvious but I guess I gave waaaayyy to much credit. Time for the basics buddy.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

This energy can interact with other molecules simply, i.e. Ultraviolet Radiation destroying Organic Compounds (Note: An organic compound is any compound that contains carbon...), or on a more complex scale, i.e. Photosynthesis storing energy in Glucose.

That's very good. This will be quite useful later.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Actually, organic compounds that Ne-Yo is probably thinking about (Amino Acids) are pretty common in our own solar system-- Meteorites are rich with them, and there are 90 known amino acids, only 20 of which are found naturally on earth.

So in other words somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying a replicator and this seems logical to you? I do like your style Rox, let’s shift the abiogenesis problems to Meteorites and tread as closely to Panspermia as utterly possible. However I do agree with you in one area, it’s a fact that Amino Acids are in extreme abundance on Meteorites, but just as bricks alone don’t make a house, it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. I’ll let you marinate on that one for a brief moment.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

The universe wasn't caused, it is

And the Universe wasn’t “always” either. It began!

Originally Posted by Xei

-_-

It's thought that life originated from hydrothermal vents. I won't bother explaining where the energy is there.

I don’t blame you, I wouldn’t try to explain that one either, because the explanations for it is highly ridiculous and you must have a strong philosophical faith to even remotely believe in it. How exactly can compounds like cytosine adenine, uracil, and guanine form in hydrothermal vents, when they would ultimately be destroyed in such an environment?

Originally Posted by Xei

The other main source of energy on Earth is the sun. This is what powers the anabolic reactions which gave rise to almost all life on Earth.

That’s another weak point. Don't worry I'll explain. UV light is highly toxic to life hence; UV is commonly used in hospitals to kill micro-organisms. How can amino acids stabilize when the intensity of long wavelengths exceeds that of the constructive short ones, and the quantum efficiency of destruction of amino acids is four to five magnitudes higher than that of construction?
And I haven’t even touched the additional problems that are included pertaining an oxidizing atmosphere. Also take a lesson from your collegues.

Originally Posted by A Roxxar

This energy can interact with other molecules simply, i.e. Ultraviolet Radiation destroying Organic Compounds (Note: An organic compound is any compound that contains carbon...), or on a more complex scale, i.e. Photosynthesis storing energy in Glucose.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Amino acids group together and become larger, forming RNA and DNA. They change and, because of their structure, cause certain elements/compounds to react to them in very specific ways. If this aids the process of replication they will eventually become more complex, automatically conducting certain protocols based on the arrangement of amino acids within its structure.

Still no answer. I’ve been asking you what is the mechanism that guided the amino acids grouping together and changing because it obviously didn’t happen automatically.

Now with regards to Viroids, the simplest form of life requires millions of parts at the atomic level, and the higher life forms require trillions. Furthermore, the many macromolecules necessary for life are constructed of even smaller parts called elements. That particular kind of life requires a certain minimum number of parts which is well documented; the only debate now is how many millions of functionally integrated parts are necessary? I ask this because the minimum number may not produce an organism that can survive long enough to effectively reproduce. That’s why viruses and bacteria has been ruled out of the OOL study.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

If you're looking for an exact process, you're not going to find it. Still makes more sense than God.

Well it's a wonder why you have such a strong belief in this crap. Especially considering any answers are becoming more and more elusive.

Originally Posted by Xei

He sounds like somebody who's learned biology from Youtube... ATP doesn't transport energy to cells; energy gets to cells in the form of glucose and oxygen, delivered via the blood. You know, like, respiration?

I wasn’t being funny when I told you that you have a serious misunderstanding of bioenergetics, I was trying to educate you. So much for freebies.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookATP.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

Originally Posted by Wikipedia.org

Adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) is a multifunctional nucleotide, and is most important in cell biology as a coenyzme that is the "molecular unit of currency" of intracellular energy transfer. In this role, ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism. It is produced as an energy source during the processes of photosynthesis and cellular respiration and consumed by many enzymes and a multitude of cellular processes including biosynthetic reactions, motility.

You don't need a magical deity on a cloud to explain the origin of life

but the extreme opposite is just as ignorant, that life just happened completely random, with no intention what so ever from any living thing, in fact it won't be millions of years later - till any living thing is conscious? and yet they some how evolved into millions of life forms in the time being...all without the intent, all without thought, all without even knowing they are alive, though they show the characteristics of trying to overcome death.......that was just dna programming??? or a, THOUGHTLESS, RANDOM, MINDLESS chemical reaction???? how on earth is that even remotely logical???

yet thats exactly what science class teaches

I like the work of elisabet sahtouris

theres no point in arguing with materialists. they are afraid just like fundies. they have a NEED to believe the process of life is entirely outside of intent, thought, and consciousness. because consciousness scares them.

but if you aren't so closed minded, elisabet's writing might welcome a new perspective of things. a story of how life forms itself. not a random process. not necessarily God. But life..forming...itself. and how our own evolution might play out.

im not saying she's right, but a different perspective is always refreshing

http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/

and for fun

http://www.moonblends.com/page/dna

The only random thing about evolution is the mutations that occur for natural selection to take effect on.

The only unlikely thing about the origin of life is a replicator forming spontaneously from thermal noise. Fortunately, in a universe containing trillions of galaxies, each containing trillions of stars and planets, each planet containing billions upon trillions (upon 10^23) of possible sites for such a reaction to occur - in such a universe, "unlikely" is pretty good odds over 10 billion years...

I wasn’t being funny when I told you that you have a serious misunderstanding of bioenergetics, I was trying to educate you. So much for freebies.

No I don't. I was right. You were wrong. ATP doesn't transport energy to cells. Glucose is taken to cells via the blood. Inside the cell, glucose is used via several reactions to make ATP. The ATP is then used inside the cell.

I don’t blame you, I wouldn’t try to explain that one either, because the explanations for it is highly ridiculous and you must have a strong philosophical faith to even remotely believe in it. How exactly can compounds like cytosine adenine, uracil, and guanine form in hydrothermal vents, when they would ultimately be destroyed in such an environment?

Here's a clue then; the energy around hydrothermal vents is the THERMAL energy which spouts straight out of them.

And why do you think nucleotides would break down exactly?

That’s another weak point. Don't worry I'll explain. UV light is highly toxic to life hence; UV is commonly used in hospitals to kill micro-organisms. How can amino acids stabilize when the intensity of long wavelengths exceeds that of the constructive short ones, and the quantum efficiency of destruction of amino acids is four to five magnitudes higher than that of construction?

UV light is absorbed by a few inches of water. I don't think it's going to pose much of a problem to organisms at the bottom of the sea.

Do you really pretend to know nothing about the history of the atmosphere, or life? Life started in the oceans. Plants evolved. Plants photosynthesise which gives off oxygen. This is why there is lots of oxygen in the atmosphere nowadays. Thus the ozone layer was created, blocking out the vast majority of UV and making life above water possible. Only then did organisms venture out of the seas.

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/protein.htm

Nobody really knows exactly how the first "replicators" were formed. We can speculate that the conditions were right for reactions to take place that would cause amino acids to group together to a state in which the product could replicate. Besides, we don't actually know if the chances of replicators forming or amino acids grouping together are really all that small.

Well it's a wonder why you have such a strong belief in this crap. Especially considering any answers are becoming more and more elusive.

Ok Ne-Yo (or should I call you "The One"?), if you're so all-knowing why don't you enlighten us as to what your beliefs on the origin of life are? I'm sure we could all greatly benefit from your wisdom.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

why add god?

Why not say the universe as a whole is timeless and is the beginning?

Timelessness doesn't have a beginning, nor does it have an end and therefore no period of duration. It is forever.

Why add God - who added God? I believe "God" is more a subjective reference to Reality, whereas "the Universe" is usually just a blind objective reference to "every object". The Universe can be said to be totally in God, and God totally in the Universe.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And the Universe wasn’t “always” either. It began!

It began according to what? How can time exist at all?

Originally Posted by Xei

No I don't. I was right. You were wrong. ATP doesn't transport energy to cells. Glucose is taken to cells via the blood. Inside the cell, glucose is used via several reactions to make ATP. The ATP is then used inside the cell.

Okay, so you mentioned that ATP is then used inside the cell right? What’s the ATP function inside the cell? Since you so conveniently left that information out.

Originally Posted by Xei

Here's a clue then; the energy around hydrothermal vents is the THERMAL energy which spouts straight out of them.

And why do you think nucleotides would break down exactly?

I’m referring to bases, however you would not have a system of a base to make a covalent bond to nucleosides in order to form DNA and RNA base pairs without having a stabilized compound sequence. Why would these chemicals break down you ask? Because most bio-chemicals decompose rather rapidly at temperatures of 100 degrees C (e.g., half-lives are 73min for ribose, 21 days for cytosine, and 204 days for adenine). So if we focus on a hypothetical hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time unless the OOL took place extremely rapidly (<100yr.) 100 years is far to short a window of time for life-chemistry to start.

Originally Posted by Xei

UV light is absorbed by a few inches of water. I don't think it's going to pose much of a problem to organisms at the bottom of the sea.

Do you really pretend to know nothing about the history of the atmosphere, or life? Life started in the oceans. Plants evolved. Plants photosynthesise which gives off oxygen. This is why there is lots of oxygen in the atmosphere nowadays. Thus the ozone layer was created, blocking out the vast majority of UV and making life above water possible. Only then did organisms venture out of the seas.

You say life started in the ocean as if it were a fact..lol, you don’t know, no one knows for sure, however we can make a logical account for the structural integrity of certain compounds that would make the possibility of certain environments more acceptable or not for OOL. Furthermore, there is no geological evidence for the physical setting of the origin of life because there are no unmetamorphosed rocks from that period. Prebiotic chemistry points to a low-temperature origin, mainly because of what I mentioned up there regarding compound stability.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/protein.htm

Nobody really knows exactly how the first "replicators" were formed. We can speculate that the conditions were right for reactions to take place that would cause amino acids to group together to a state in which the product could replicate. Besides, we don't actually know if the chances of replicators forming or amino acids grouping together are really all that small.

The link you provided was a very good read thanks for that.

I’ll agree, you’re right no one really knows and I’m definitely not claiming to know, however if we step back and look at it from outside, there’s not really that much difference with you or I. I have faith in the unseen and the unknown and you have faith in the same thing.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Ok Ne-Yo (or should I call you "The One"?), if you're so all-knowing why don't you enlighten us as to what your beliefs on the origin of life are? I'm sure we could all greatly benefit from your wisdom.

I wish I was as wise as my dear ole’ Ojichan but I have a very long way to go. I’ll say this; life itself insists that the probability of life’s chance at origin simply defies all calculation. An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us in the year 2009 could only perceive with intellect that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be some kind of miracle.

Okay, so you mentioned that ATP is then used inside the cell right? What’s the ATP function inside the cell? Since you so conveniently left that information out.

Seriously what the hell are you talking about? Why would I 'conviently leave information out'? This isn't a debate, this is extremely well established biochemistry. :l

ATP is used as the universal energy intermediate, or 'currency'. It is used to do physical work in the cell via the removal of phosphate groups from the compound in an exothermic reaction. A good example of work is active transport via channel proteins in order to mantain the osmotic properties of the cell, which surprisingly uses about 50&#37; of the energy we consume.

I’m referring to bases, however you would not have a system of a base to make a covalent bond to nucleosides in order to form DNA and RNA base pairs without having a stabilized compound sequence. Why would these chemicals break down you ask? Because most bio-chemicals decompose rather rapidly at temperatures of 100 degrees C (e.g., half-lives are 73min for ribose, 21 days for cytosine, and 204 days for adenine). So if we focus on a hypothetical hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time unless the OOL took place extremely rapidly (<100yr.) 100 years is far to short a window of time for life-chemistry to start.

Look up chemical equilibria.

And I can't see any reason that the compounds would need to remain in high temperatures anyway. These reactions were thought to take place in the solution surrounding the vents, which is of course not as hot as the vents themselves.

You say life started in the ocean as if it were a fact..lol, you don’t know, no one knows for sure, however we can make a logical account for the structural integrity of certain compounds that would make the possibility of certain environments more acceptable or not for OOL. Furthermore, there is no geological evidence for the physical setting of the origin of life because there are no unmetamorphosed rocks from that period. Prebiotic chemistry points to a low-temperature origin, mainly because of what I mentioned up there regarding compound stability.

The oldest fossils from the ocean are hundreds of millions of years older than the oldest fossils from land.

And the whole argument about UV prohibiting any life was completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The link you provided was a very good read thanks for that.

I’ll agree, you’re right no one really knows and I’m definitely not claiming to know, however if we step back and look at it from outside, there’s not really that much difference with you or I. I have faith in the unseen and the unknown and you have faith in the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I wish I was as wise as my dear ole’ Ojichan but I have a very long way to go. I’ll say this; life itself insists that the probability of life’s chance at origin simply defies all calculation. An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us in the year 2009 could only perceive with intellect that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be some kind of miracle.

There is quite a difference in you and I. You believe a fully-sentient all-knowing about even the most intricate details of the properties of matter created all life on Earth and demands us to kneel down and worship him for no reason. If we don't, we'll go to hell and burn for all eternity...but he loves us and is omnipotent and could end our suffering, but won't do it for some reason. I believe all life on Earth came from logical, scientific source that is yet unknown, but is speculated.

...Unless of course you don't actually believe in God, but believe in some other bullshit. Since you never actually used the word God, I am only assuming.

For the record: that link was posted mostly for the paragraph about polypeptides and fancy graphics.

Originally Posted by Xei

ATP is used as the universal energy intermediate, or 'currency'. It is used to do physical work in the cell via the removal of phosphate groups from the compound in an exothermic reaction. A good example of work is active transport via channel proteins in order to mantain the osmotic properties of the cell, which surprisingly uses about 50&#37; of the energy we consume.

All you did here was reiterate what I mentioned earlier regarding ATP, so why the hell are you arguing with me regarding its function?

Originally Posted by Xei

Look up chemical equilibria.

What does chemical equilibrium have to do with the stabilization of compounds in an environment where temperatures exceed 380 degrees Celsius?

Originally Posted by Xei

And I can't see any reason that the compounds would need to remain in high temperatures anyway. These reactions were thought to take place in the solution surrounding the vents, which is of course not as hot as the vents themselves.

You said it right (“thought to have taken place”) it’s all speculation nothing more, no empirical evidence for nothing regarding abiogenesis. It’s nothing more than a series of bounced ideas of a scientist fantasy regarding OOL. At the end of the day it’s the same story. No one knows for sure if we had a highly reducing atmosphere or les reducing atmosphere on early Earth. No one has ever created a self-replicating ribozyme. Even if RNA self-replicating molecules were in abundance 3.6 billion years ago there is no supporting evidence to back it up. Furthermore, no one has even ever seen a ribozyme capable of any form of catalytic action that is not very specific in its sequence and thus unlike even closely related sequences. No one has ever seen a ribozyme able to undertake chemical action without a suite of enzymes in attendance. No one has ever seen anything like it!

Originally Posted by Xei

The oldest fossils from the ocean are hundreds of millions of years older than the oldest fossils from land.

It doesn't matter it's not from Prebiotic Earth cir.

Originally Posted by Xei

And the whole argument about UV prohibiting any life was completely wrong.

I like how you completely avoided elaborating on exactly what is wrong with my UV argument.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

There is quite a difference in you and I. You believe a fully-sentient all-knowing about even the most intricate details of the properties of matter created all life on Earth and demands us to kneel down and worship him for no reason. If we don't, we'll go to hell and burn for all eternity...but he loves us and is omnipotent and could end our suffering, but won't do it for some reason. I believe all life on Earth came from logical, scientific source that is yet unknown, but is speculated.

...Unless of course you don't actually believe in God, but believe in some other bullshit. Since you never actually used the word God, I am only assuming.

I think it’s pretty clear and obvious that I believe in intelligent creation rather than some lucky chance within the realm of insurmountable probabilities originating life from nothing. However all that other stuff you’ve mentioned regarding suffering and hell is just plain wrong and you really do not have a clear understanding of the scriptures. Furthermore, I didn't need to use anything in relation God or the scriptures as I'm arguing against the credibility of abiogenesis. I know where I come from, you don't, I was trying to help you out. Like I said earlier you have your Belief and I have mind and YES they are both beliefs rather you're willing to aknowledge and accept that or not.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I like how you completely avoided elaborating on exactly what is wrong with my UV argument.

Hmm? UV is absorbed by a few inches of water - therefore the statement that UV makes a natural origin of life impossible is patently false. We don't need to know for sure that life started in the oceans to conclude that it could have.
On that note, we don't have to know for sure how life began to know that it is possible without a creator god. What use is a god-of-the-gaps? The gaps are just going to get smaller :/

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Hmm? UV is absorbed by a few inches of water - therefore the statement that UV makes a natural origin of life impossible is patently false. We don't need to know for sure that life started in the oceans to conclude that it could have.
On that note, we don't have to know for sure how life began to know that it is possible without a creator god. What use is a god-of-the-gaps? The gaps are just going to get smaller :/

and yet you're faced with another problem considering water is a tremendously destructive force at the cell and molecular level. Not to mention, protein synthesis is not postulated to exist in the dilute watery environment of the early earth. Come to think of it, this problem has led most origin of life researchers to conclude that proteins and other large polymers were constructed in dry environments like clay or sand. The fact of the matter is this, abiogenesis is quickly running out of options. The only other road available for this dumb-ass hypothesis is Panspermia/exogenesis. Everytime you people postulate a particular environment for abiogensis some other natural factor on Earth always cancels it out. Why is that????

The gaps can get smaller I haven't seen any gaps get bigger to start with regarding creation, one things for sure, it will never cancel out God, on the other hand the gaps between abiogenesis and evolution and within evolution are steadily increasing. I guess you must have a extremely strong sense of faith that one day, just one day, they will find the answers. Right now it's leaning more to the areas of lucky chances and the stuff that dreams are made of.

I think it’s pretty clear and obvious that I believe in intelligent creation rather than some lucky chance within the realm of insurmountable probabilities originating life from nothing. However all that other stuff you’ve mentioned regarding suffering and hell is just plain wrong and you really do not have a clear understanding of the scriptures. Furthermore, I didn't need to use anything in relation God or the scriptures as I'm arguing against the credibility of abiogenesis. I know where I come from, you don't, I was trying to help you out. Like I said earlier you have your Belief and I have mind and YES they are both beliefs rather you're willing to aknowledge and accept that or not.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

and yet you're faced with another problem considering water is a tremendously destructive force at the cell and molecular level. Not to mention, protein synthesis is not postulated to exist in the dilute watery environment of the early earth. Come to think of it, this problem has led most origin of life researchers to conclude that proteins and other large polymers were constructed in dry environments like clay or sand. The fact of the matter is this, abiogenesis is quickly running out of options. The only other road available for this dumb-ass hypothesis is Panspermia/exogenesis. Everytime you people postulate a particular environment for abiogensis some other natural factor on Earth always cancels it out. Why is that????

The gaps can get smaller I haven't seen any gaps get bigger to start with regarding creation, one things for sure, it will never cancel out God, on the other hand the gaps between abiogenesis and evolution and within evolution are steadily increasing. I guess you must have a extremely strong sense of faith that one day, just one day, they will find the answers. Right now it's leaning more to the areas of lucky chances and the stuff that dreams are made of.

Have you ever heard that quote about how people who have belief in God severely lack imagination?

Hate to break it to ya, but God cancels out himself. People use arguments like these to support their theories about God, but the fact is that god is, by all logical reasons, an improbability. You people are using logic to argue for creationism, but there is no logic in God. None at all.

They haven't found the origin of life yet, but there are an immense amount of factors to consider...like meteors and shit.

This argument has reached critical mass and has passed beyond the realm of reason into the realm of flying spaghetti monster. I have said all that can be said about things that cannot technically be disproven. I take my leave.

And for Science's sake, Ne-yo, the eye rolling smiley is not going to help support your argument.

logic is a product of only one side of our brain, the left. the left side is also considered the masculine side, so guys tend to think logic is everything. emotions become the anti-thesis of logic, and according to logic, logically emotions hold no truth.

but the left brain has a very limited view of reality. because it has to define everything and put everything in neat little boxes when the defined boxes themselves are illusions.

logic can't see the entire picture at once, only the defined boxes put in some sort of logical order based on what the limited left brain thinks as logic

what about the right brain? what does the right brain have to say about God?

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Have you ever heard that quote about how people who have belief in God severely lack imagination?

No I can't say that I have, but I have heard the opposite, some guy posted it in the mathematics/science subform regarding a astrophysicist explaining this concept of lack of imagination because of pre-programmed thought concepts. I'll find the video and post it later, it's actually good stuff.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Hate to break it to ya, but God cancels out himself. People use arguments like these to support their theories about God, but the fact is that god is, by all logical reasons, an improbability. You people are using logic to argue for creationism, but there is no logic in God. None at all.

Trying to support logical reasoning regarding rather or not probability would or would not cancel out God as an intelligent designer/creator or God cancels himself out, falls under the law of non-contradiction. However without logic (the law of non-contradiction) there could be no such thing or concept of true or false statements in the first place. That particular law is self-evident or axiomatic and draws the line between true and false. So you can’t say that God cancels himself out without having a firm belief in that system and upon which the system depends for consistency and coherence. Once you have defined rejected statements as logical and true (i.e., God cancels himself out) you must then assume “truth” in the very principle that you seek to deny (truth in GOD). However if you assume that something is true to say that it is false, you haven’t got a very good case, now have you?

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

They haven't found the origin of life yet, but there are an immense amount of factors to consider...like meteors and shit.

Looking in the areas of meteorites doesn't give an explaination for the OOL problem because you still stuck with trying to figure out where did life come from. Panspermia doesn't answer any questions it just throws the issue elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

This argument has reached critical mass and has passed beyond the realm of reason into the realm of flying spaghetti monster. I have said all that can be said about things that cannot technically be disproven. I take my leave.

Hate that you feel that way, because I was actually having fun discussing this with you.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

And for Science's sake, Ne-yo, the eye rolling smiley is not going to help support your argument.

LOL.. I like this one better anyway.

Originally Posted by juroara

logic is a product of only one side of our brain, the left. the left side is also considered the masculine side, so guys tend to think logic is everything. emotions become the anti-thesis of logic, and according to logic, logically emotions hold no truth.

but the left brain has a very limited view of reality. because it has to define everything and put everything in neat little boxes when the defined boxes themselves are illusions.

logic can't see the entire picture at once, only the defined boxes put in some sort of logical order based on what the limited left brain thinks as logic

what about the right brain? what does the right brain have to say about God?

juroara I've watched quite a few of your posts and I must say I think you're very deep and highly intellectual, these people need to recognize. That is a very good and profound question you've presented. I like to see someone answer it.