In follow-up work to Miller and Urey’s groundbreaking study look at the synthesis of organic compounds in a primordial environment, it was shown that RNA monomeric bases could form under conditions similar to those of a prehistoric Earth. More recent work has shown how such individual bases, floating in a water environment, could link together into chains. […] A critical question that remained unanswered, though, was how the ancient RNA enzymes could survive.
Now researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the United Kingdom think they have cracked that puzzle. By placing RNA inside liquid pockets of water encased inside cooling ice, they found that RNA enzymes could function and at the same time escape degradation.
[…]
Thus the origin of life on Earth might not have been in a deep-sea vent or open ocean, but in a cold muddy puddle in the icy north or south, which contained a mix of water and organic byproducts of freed carbon from the Earth’s crust.
[…]
Over time this life form could have built up an arsenal of useful chemicals — evolution at its most basic microscopic form. The most critical developments would have been the creation of a protective phospholipid bilayer, the creation of protein enzymes to offer faster catalysis, and last, but not least, the switch to the more chemically stable DNA. Once a self-replicating RNA-lifeform gained these adaptations, it would at last have been ready to venture into warmer climates and begin to survive and reproduce, capturing the sun’s power to fix energy in carbon-based molecules.From there a long evolutionary road lay ahead, eventually reaching man and our zoological peers in the modern world.
Looks like no ‘creator’ needed after all. Just chemical reactions, evolution and vast, hard for humans to comprehend stretches of time. Parallels Stephen Hawking’s book that shows one wasn’t needed to have created the universe either.
These religious arguments are boing and dumb. They all boil down to some believer begging the question with some variant of “A complex universe proves that god exists, because only god could create it.”
Bla bla bla always precedes bla bla, so even if bla bla bla bla then it’s only reasonable that bla bla bla occured bla bla bla. Any thinking bla bla would bla bla bla. You see? Simple, you bla bla blas. What else would you like explained now that you have had reality explained to you?
There is also de-evolution as proved by some of the posts here.
and certain religious and political beliefs.
I met a border collie puppy this morning. That’s proof enough for me that there is a GOD..
You’re all quite mad if you think that science and religion is an either/or proposition. It’s philosophically ignorant, poor theology, and frankly bad science. Though Dawkins spent a fair amount of his book trying to refute the need for god, he simply hasn’t proved one way or another that it does or doesn’t exist. He can’t. On the other hand, biblical literalists moronically deconstruct hundreds of years of biblical commentary by scholars after the age of reason that rationalize Genesis as an allegory for the formation of the world, wait for it, by scientific means. Genesis isn’t a play by play, it’s a metaphor for the birth of the universe. I get the need for religion, it makes sense, but struggling to disprove evolution makes me doubt your faith more than your intelligence. It seems that if the bible isn’t word for word true, your worldview would unwind.
Thomas said,
#79
[There is a vast difference between “I don’t know what happened before the universe existed” and “A supernatural being existed before the universe existed”. One statement is simply stating they have no answer while the other is making a specific claim.]
My point is not that “I don’t know what happened before the universe existed” as that should be fairly obvious. My point is that there can’t be any evidence for universal non-existence. There can only be presumed universal non-existence.
Or to put it another way, is it likely that you are going to produce a witness or artifact that predates the universe?
Maybe we should get to know the universe a bit better before concocting grandiose theories that encompass the totality of its being?
Or do we feel compelled to have a creation myth because all the other sages have creation myths?
#47
The Epicurus Logic Trap:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
and that is why I am anti-Theist.
So you base your findings on an unsourced quote that has been placed on the Internet?
Well that is as well reasoned as any theist’s idea.
Good to know.
Cursor_
Cursor==pure ad hominem and stupid too? Nice combo.
The logic trap stands on its own regardless of source or attribution.
One of your dumbest posts.
I look forward to your continuing contributions though as they can only be far better.
@ #63 While true it is debatable as to whether it is a new lifeform, it cannot be denied that a life was created.
@ #68, nice to see that you admit we have delved into gods territory.
@ #79 Your argument only holds water so long as you ignore the intertwined relationship between space and time in that before the universe was created there was no before, or then or now for that matter. Maybe you are correct, but given our vastly limited understanding of said relationship I am going to guess probably not. But hey, makes more sense than something getting bored and popping it all into existence.
I met a border collie puppy this morning. That’s proof enough for me that there is a GOD..
#86
I thought I was the only dyslexic in the room
That’s proof enough that there is a DOG
Of course evolutionary biology always ignores the basic laws of physics. Like the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases. So how would chemical compounds, that assembled by accident, get more complex? That’s anti-Entropy. Said compounds would have to leach or borrow complexity from their environment, in order to become much more complex themselves. And it better NOT take millions of years. Because entropy isn’t going to wait around to destroy any tiny advantages they’ve acquired.
Now of course if a “God” were at work, to tip the odds in favor of overcoming entropy. Then that might work. But purely randomly. Those compounds could beat the odds on their own. Proving that biologist make lousy mathematicians.
#97 Pope Alfred
“a real lack of evidence for the theory in either the fossil record, or the laboratory”
The best evidence these days in favor of evolution is the astonishing detail in the DNA record.
Reductio ad absurdum
Alfred, read all of Chapter 6 from the Origin of the Species, not just the 1/2 sentence ID moron’s always misquote. That should keep your lips moving for the better part of a week. Remember the library closes at 9.
You still haven’t read the whole chapter, have you? Come on, you can do it. There’s cookie in it for you. I promise. Maybe some milk too.
Alfred, you really are lazy, aren’t you? I bet every page in your Book of Genesis is covered with chicken grease.
Gosh darn it, that’s the problem with America today. Kids like Alfred can’t read beyond a Grade 6 level. No wonder there is a booming businesses in extended warranties.
dyslexic atheists don’t believe in Dogs
The true nature of God will never be known until death. God could very easily have put all these building blocks here and science and evolution are the studies of how He did it and it came to be what you see today. No one knows. If believers are wrong then no harm no foul, they’ll just die and that’ll be the end. If the militant atheists here that have to belittle and bemoan people for merely believing and living a good life are wrong…..
I prefer to hedge my bets. I’m covered either way. You atheists, only have a 50/50 shot. Good luck with that
The_Tick said,
”’
@ #79 Your argument only holds water so long as you ignore the intertwined relationship between space and time in that before the universe was created there was no before, or then or now for that matter….
”’
Try to identify what relationship must hold between non-existent time and non-existent space. You’ll fail, but in the effort might stumble over the crux of my argument.
I’ll speak slowly, ok? I don’t need to argue for Darwin because he does it so well himself. He uses the eyeball example as straw man argument for irreducible complexity and then argues against it for several pages.
Get off your fat lazy ass and read the whole thing, or suck it up princess and quote somebody else.
The bible is about 1900 pages of fox news sound bites that can be understood by goat herders who would make your average card carrying taliban look a rhodes scholar. It’s tough to switch to prose after that, isn’t it?
# 94 Alfred Persson said,
[#81 If everyone God created chose good, or all chose evil, then its clear they are robots not having free will at all. …]
So, if God only creates one man any choice he makes is unanimous and hence proof of his being a mindless robot. But if God makes another identical man and a different choice is made, then suddenly we have proof of free will for both. But what if both men have good reason to make the first choice? Does that make them mindless robots again?
Remind me again what was so great about free will that God provided it knowing the consequences?
I mean, I’m not sure how grateful I should be for a gift that the giver will resent my ever using.
I understand now. Fox News is your bible, not the actual bible. I picked Fox because I didn’t think you were a MTV kind of kid.
BTW, it’s not an “ad hominem”, it’s a god damn insult. Don’t kiss people’s asses when they’re crapping on your face.
This guy Alfred P. is like a faucet that’s stuck in the “on” position…
(typical of a lot of religiously fixated folks I’ve the tedious misfortune to meet)
#80 God’s Omniscience doesn’t affect your free will, that He knows what you will choose before you do, doesn’t predetermine what your choice will be.
Completely wrong. Free will implies that the choice is not known ahead of time. Suppose we are at a crossroad and you are trying to determine which direction you will go. Suppose I then tell you I know exactly which direction you will go, when you will go and exactly why you will chose to go that way even accounting for informing you of this. No choice you think you will make will would not already be known ahead of time. You are no longer making a choice but rather just executing that choice which you were known to make. Where is the free part of free will when every decision, action, thought or deed is known? It is the equivalent of a pawn on a chessboard thinking they have the choice to go forward or attack a piece diagonally when every move it will make is known before it began. Just as the pawn has no real power to choose for itself, even if it thinks it has, free will cannot exist where there is a being that knows how every decision will play out. Free will cannot coexist with an omniscient being. The very concepts are in opposition to each other.
#115
That’s called Pascal’s Wager. http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Pascal%27s_Wager
http://tinyurl.com/598rv4
Obviously, some REALLY INTELLIGENT LIFE visited Earth a long time ago, and then left, but not before leaving a steaming pile of ALIEN CRAP, from whick life on earth developed !!! So as we can see, S**T HAPPENS !!!
#108
“Reductio ad ridiculoso” is more like it.
(expect more name-calling and trashing…they often resort to that when their so-called “logic” runs out)
#128
Again, will is an illusion if this being is omniscient. It knows what you want and what actions you will take before you take them. Thus there is no choice but only the illusion of choice. Being omniscient means there does not exist a piece of information that is not known to your deity. Putting aside from the impossibility of this notion with respect to physics, it means that the universe is 100% deterministic and your deity knows the exact path of every atom from the Big Bang through the end of the universe. That means every action you take is known from the outset before you make it. The existence of omniscience logically requires that the universe be entirely deterministic and that contradicts the notion that we control the choices we make. Instead, we are simply a piece in a game where every move we make in the game and the outcome are known before we start. Thus, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. So, again I ask is your being omniscient?
I believe this indicates our choices are free, that no calculation can predict with 100% certainty what men will choose.
You are stating that your being is not omniscient by stating that it cannot predict with 100% certainty what men will choose. Is that the case? If so, you are also stating that your deity has limits in its abilities.
Sorry but this doesn’t violate anything but people’s faith that believe in a purely literal interpretation of the Bible. And let’s face it, those people have problems with everything except, perhaps, giving to the rich and taking from the poor. That shows you how twisted their logic is as that’s opposite of what Christ espoused. But I digress.
Hey, if a personification of God is what you want, then fine, you can have problems with this.
God made us to use our brains and if this shows us how life could have evolved, great! We humans are doing exactly what God wanted in this.
And I am a Christian.
#131 – you don’t understand the definition or implications of omniscient. Omniscience and free will don’t violate one another by definition unless you actually believe omniscient means knowing all that will happen or to simplify it for some knowing everything which is too literal an interpretation of the term as used by the Bible. Earlier Christians than you had problems with this and ended thinking everything was predetermined. Which of course violated free-will. Silly that. Silly them.
Thomas–seems to me the issue of free will conflicting/negating omniscience goes deeper than has been expressed because god not only knows, HE MADE IT THIS WAY. He is the author of all things. He knew the choices that would be made before time and space began. He made time and space and he made the choice.
The religious/Alfie retort of “he knows but he doesn’t control” is an excellent example of rhetoric trying to hide the truth.
Augustine had a better response? “God averts his knowledge.” What kind of test is it to created “everything” including two people, a predecessor snake, and a pomegranate KNOWING Adam will eat, and then get Angry, or before that “asking” Eve where Adam is? And then punishing human kind for all eternity thereafter?
Make any sense? – No. The Epicurus FAIL.
To my earlier point, free will could have been constructed more lovingly, where the decision is freely made to not eat the apple because humans IN THE VERY DAILY CONTACT WITH GOD loved him so much, they would not want to do it. But god did not make us that way. We can’t fly either.
Silly to create a god you can’t understand, and what we do understand reveals him to be a tyrant.
Yea, Verily.
For those making up their own definition as the situation requires, may I suggest the dictionary as a touchstone of your argumentarium?
Definition of OMNISCIENT
1
: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2
: possessed of universal or complete knowledge
Nudge: infinite is a long walk.
#132
At no time did I ever say that omniscience *determines* choice. I’m saying the very concept of choice cannot be reconciled with the notion of omniscience.
These two statements contradict each other:
1. God remains omniscient.
2. no calculation can predict with 100% certainty what men will choose.
Either your deity can predict with 100% certainty what men will choose or it is not omniscience. It cannot be both. Which is it?