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.
#136
You beat me to it. Here is another definition from the Random House dictionary:
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Said another, if a being is omniscient, there there does not exist a piece of information it does not know. That either means it knows every decision, desire and action we will every make or it doesn’t. Can’t be both.
For those not reading the preceding dredge:
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?”
Same issues exist with “evil” or the Devil. God made the devil knowing he would revolt, but he blames the devil? The devil is second only to god, almost even. Hoomans can’t tell god from devil–or most of the other angels ranked in some 17 or 21 or however many archs of “power?”
Thats a lot of buracracy just to watch Adam eat an apple that god already knew.
You’d think small government conservatives would be against this?–or they image their own intellect as omniscient when it comes to god like morality?
Ha, ha. Silly Hoomans.
Maybe Randy Neuman captures the mystagogic better: God’s Song
Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:
Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
‘Cause he thinks that’s where I’ll be
That’s why I love mankind
I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That’s why I love mankind
The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, “Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won’t take care of us
Won’t you please, please let us be?”
And the Lord said
And the Lord said
I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That’s why I love mankind
You really need me
That’s why I love mankind
Has Alfred proven God’s existence yet? He’s good a pretending to debunk by using an english translation of a wildly contradictory book, but he has yet to give proof.
And read up on the eye. LOTS of examples of primitive eyes, and modern ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
LOL, wiki for your evidence? nice
142, jman,
Well cited. What is your refutation then?
The Bible?
LOL
I have finally begun to understand Pope Alfred a little. The Devil’s Dictionary, as always, comes to the rescue:
“In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.”
or
“REASON, v.t. To weight probabilities in the scales of desire.”
or maybe
“RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.”
Alfred Persson said,
”’
Being Free is a wonderful gift, being a slave is not pleasant. However, look at it from God’s perspective, what is better. A room full of robots that praise you, or full of people who enjoy life with you.
”’
The supreme being does not need eternal flattery and yet knowingly creates a situation where billions will suffer infinite agony so that He might enjoy it better.
Needless harm is a pretty reliable definition of evil.
Perhaps you have unwittingly accepted a theological argument that defames God?
Alfie==more “rhetoric?” This time of the worst sort. Thomas was a bit garbled in his word choice but still crystal clear in what was meant.
You chose to remain confused.
I predicted that last week, and I don’t claim omniscience==your analysis is just that transparent.
Ha, ha. Stoopid Human.
Can god *know*, when man has free will?
Can god create boulder so large he cannot lift it?
Can god teach Alfred logic or reasoning?
#145
Now you are really grasping. “Already Know” is exactly equivalent to “Predict with 100% certainty”. Again I ask, how do you reconcile these two contradictory statements you made:
1. God remains omniscient.
2. no calculation can predict with 100% certainty what men will choose.
(can also be stated as “no calculation can know what men will choose.”
Which is it? Either your deity knows what men will do before they do it or it is not omniscient and therefore has limits. Can’t be both.
jman said,
”’
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
”’
You argument depends on the presumption of life-after-death which is in itself a denial of the reality of death. Now you might argue that your physical body can be recreated and so you will be able see, hear, feel, think and remember yourself again. But this could be done now and in fact any number of duplicates could be made now. In what sense would any of them be you?
There is in fact not a shred of evidence for life after death worthy to be so called.
As for this “If believers are wrong then no harm no foul, they’ll just die and that’ll be the end.” That doesn’t wash post 9/11.
Do you ever consider that you could have been doing something of value with the time you’ve wasted in your efforts to evade the eternal torture?
Have you ever considered the practical consequence of embracing a dogma that imagines that God is OK with eternal torture? Does Abu Ghraib come to mind?
It would be nice if you had the courage to do some critical thinking in regard to that faith that gives you so much comfort in the idea that you, at least, will be spared the effects of divine sadism.
I cannot believe he actually answered me when I was clearly being sarcastic.
So your infinite, all powerful, all knowing god has a limitation? Thanks for clearing that up.
“Much to the dismay of you loons, God preserved me.” Alcohol is good at preservation please drink some more. It helps to ensure your delusional state is maintained.
#151
Once again: “Predict with 100% certainty” = “Know exactly what will happen”
These two concepts are exactly synonymous. Any attempt to argue the difference is sophistry.
God’s omniscience is NOT a product of prediction, if it were, then God cannot be Omniscient.
I never said that your deity *results* from (is the product of) prediction. I’m saying that IF your deity IS omniscient, then the very concept of free will is a contradiction. It cannot exist. You cannot have free will and an omniscient being. Furthermore, you have not reconciled your contradictory statements:
1. God remains omniscient.
2. no calculation can predict with 100% certainty what men will choose.
(can also be stated as “no calculation can know what men will choose.)
Does your deity know with 100% certainty every action and thought every person will ever have from birth through death or is it impossible to know that?
Then God has incomplete knowledge until He predicts the future of whatever entity is in view.
If you believe this, then by definition your deity is not omniscient and therefore has limits which from what we understand of your views, is a contradiction.
No matter how you reconcile your contradictory statements, your own beliefs will be contradicted in some way. Either you continue to believe your deity is omniscient in which case free will is an illusion or you continue to believe in free will in which case your belief in your deity’s omniscience and therefore unlimited power is broken. Take your pick.
Actually I don’t really care about the argument at this point I just think your delusional.
Or to put it another way. Ask a scientist a very profound question on his science and he will be silent. Ask a religious person a simple question on his religion and he will be frenzied.
It is rather nice that you prove the point so well without my assistance.
Keep going your doing so well.
Since you grant me the last word I will take it. An intelligent person would have realized my entire intent was to tweak your nose and get you to respond in a Pavlovian, manner as you did. I was neither popular nor unpopular in high school, in fact I very rarely think about high school and have never attended a reunion simply because it had so little impact on my future endeavors. Those individuals who dwell on the aspects of primary school life fail to recognize the world has passed them by. I generally don’t get involved in these little religion vs science mishmashes (neither argument, nor discussion provide an adequate description of what goes on). One because, I do have a degrees in biological sciences including a pH D in molecular biology (the G.I. Bill is a wonderful thing).
Two because the majority of people simply lack any real understanding of science and the scientific method. It’s not that they are stupid they just don’t have the background training in the subject. Three they tend to degenerate in name calling and pointedly sarcastic comments on both sides. I have no need to attempt to change the minds of those who believe in god, I find it curious that they would feel the need to change mine. I do hope you realize that if you respond to my comment that you will negate your argument and reinforce my previous comments. I have a dog to walk before dark so I bid you a good night. Sleep well, I know that I will.
Damn you dark matter! Damn you dark energy! Damn you…whatever is unknown out there in the universe. It is God that created all, not you!
And that’s 7 days, not billions of years…get it straight! And no it’s not some thousand years like people in Texas would like to believe either…even though they do select books for our nation’s kids (FCK!)…anyhow…NO!
# 151 Alfred Persson said
[#146 Not at all. Omniscient God knew billions would share life with Him in love.
He also knew there a wicked minority of creatures would hate Him without cause, as they love evil.
The greater good was to endure the few wicked loons, so that billions of beautiful children of God be born.]
That doesn’t answer my point which is still valid even if only ONE soul is eternally tormented.
Should we tolerate even a little evil in a supposedly perfect moral theory?
No.
Alfred, you have a prodigious talent for rejecting a proposition for flaws trivial or imagined. Why don’t you aim that critical faculty where it would do the most good, at the Bible? You could have a field-day.
#162
Let’s go through the logic:
1. To be omniscient means there does not exist a piece of information that is not known. I.e., everything is known.
2. If everything is known, that means the exact position and path of every atom in the universe is known from the inception of the universe until the universe ends. It means we cannot even imagine a piece of information that is not already known by your deity.
3. If everything is known, that means that every decision, thought and deed of every being from the beginning of the universe until its end is also known.
Is it prediction when you know the outcome? Is it prediction when you know what will happen in a movie you have already watched? Yes it is, but it is a prediction with 100% certainty. “Predict with 100% certainty” = “Know it will happen”. If you are getting hung up on the phrase “Prediction with 100% certainty” then simply replace it with “know”.
These two statements are in direct opposition to each other:
[God]He is a learning god.
My God is omniscient, He needn’t predict anything to know what is and will be.
If your deity is omniscient, then by definition there is nothing it does not already know. There is nothing to learn. Your deity cannot be a learning deity and be omniscient at the same time. Again, omniscience means there cannot exist even one tiny bit of information that is not already known to your deity.
To be omniscient, your deity must already know what you think, will do and what decisions you will make from the time your born until your death and it must have known this information at the inception of the universe. Thus the contradiction to free will.
So, we’re back to your reconciliation of your contradiction. Either your deity is omniscient or free will exists. The concepts are mutually exclusive.
#157 Pope Alfred
“I never pass up answering a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Pro 26:5 NKJ)”
Finally, you are beginning to understand! This is precisely why so many people respond to your nonsense.
Socrates was wise because he “knew that he knew nothing”.
You are a fool because you think that you know everything.
Alfred, you have yet to successfully respond to
#146.
It’s no fun arguing with someone who can’t figure out when he has lost the argument.
You know, you only have to find one flaw in the Bible to prove it is not the product of a perfect being, let alone the living word of God.
It could have been the talking animals or the prediction that one third of the stars in the sky will fall to the ground or the idea that God tried to kill Moses but failed or tried to give victory to the Hebrews but could not because the enemy had chariots of iron. I prefer to point out the moral absurdities as they are more telling.
The science in the Bible is wrong.
The history in the Bible is wrong.
The math in the Bible is wrong.
The philosophy in the Bible is wrong.
The morality in the Bible is absurd.
The religion in the Bible is a slight refinement of Devil worship.
But I’m glad this has all escaped your notice, since you seem to take such joy from your faith.
So Alfred you statement that I get the last word was false. You do realize that you confirm my previous statements. My response was neither frenzied nor passionate, simply a listing of observations. I felt no need to attack your “beliefs” yet you must continue your assault. Your response to my last word then and now marks your as both a troll and a liar. You may have the last word, as I suspect your vitriol may override your self control.
“I’m astounded by people who want to ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.”
#183
The problem is that you do not fully grasp the scope of omniscience. Let’s think about this in reverse. To establish something is not omniscient we would need only to find one piece of information that was not known. “What will my exact thoughts and actions be next Thursday at precisely 11:22 PM?” If your deity does not know that, it isn’t omniscient. Thus, to be omniscient, your deity must know everything at every point in time from the beginning of the universe until its end and it had to know this before the universe was created. Billions of years ago, it had to know what I’d be doing next Thursday or else we can devise a statement about information not known by your deity and thus establish that it is not omniscient.
As I said with the movie analogy, there is no predication. Your deity knew how the entire movie of the universe would play out, in exacting detail, before it was ever created if it is omniscient. Thus, free will does not exist because your every decision was already known at the outset of the universe. The very concept of omniscience is an anathema to free will.
#24 “You imply Bertrand Russell’s infinite regression argument, that regression to something greater never stops at God.”
There’s no evidence at all to indicate that any god exists, whether greater or lesser. “Holy books” don’t count, as they are just opinions that someone wrote, and provide no direct proof of any deity.
#182 Pope Alfred
“#179 Incorrect, they are hoping to win an argument.”
No, I’m afraid that it is you who are incorrect. You see, most of us realize that what you regard as an argument cannot be *won* by either side.
This is because hypotheses such as god, satan, heaven, hell, judgment day and so on cannot be falsified. Consequently, what remains is a matter of opinion or belief – on both sides.
This is why your statements of *certainty* concerning any of these concepts can be safely ignored. We can acknowledge your belief in them at the same time as logically refuting that you can have any proof.