Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 9:41am

Can life only arise from carbon based molecules ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-o...

"Chemistry is one of the better understood areas of science. We know that you just can't get certain atoms to stick together in sufficient number and complexity to give you large molecules like carbon can. You can't get around it. And you just can't get other types of liquids to dissolve as many different kinds of chemicals as you can with water. There's something like half a dozen different properties of both water and carbon that are optimal for life. Nothing else comes close. Silicon falls far short of carbon.

Permalink Reply by Reggie on August 14, 2010 at 12:19pm

Not only that assumption, but the flawed assumption that the plante myust be Earth-like around a Sun like star in the so called "habitable zone". These are all speculations based on what we know about the only life we know about. What if we find microbial life on a Jovian moon?

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on August 14, 2010 at 10:20pm

unless, of course, a transcendent, supernatural Being built that home. But that possibility points toward, rather than away from, belief in the biblical Creator.

Bull crap.

Permalink Reply by willailla on August 13, 2010 at 11:35pm

1. Assumption: “The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.”

The creation of something from nothing is clearly a religious assumption, not a scientific
one.

2. Begging the question: “The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet.”

What makes you think life is only finely tuned on our planet? The laws of physics are the
same throughout the observable universe. Since life exists on earth, the odds of it not
existing elsewhere would be incalculable.

3. Assumption: “Information is always created by a mind.

But if that is true from where did god get his information? If you are going to use logic you
can’t ignore it when it contradicts your belief. Information about DNA will gradually come
from scientific research. For more info see:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46321/12-007Spring200...
h--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/12-007Spring2003/1F79BCAA-CDF6-403B-9CB
6-2A68C8BADA80/0/Lec04.pdf [Theories on the Origins of Life]

4. Assumption: “Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of
the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.”

Why do you call what you do not understand ‘god’? And what proof do you have that your
supposed creator of the universe is the god of the bible?

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 1:34am

The creation of something from nothing is clearly a religious assumption, not a scientific
one.

its a philosophical one.

But if that is true from where did god get his information?

i don't know. Does this mean, Gods existence is less probable ? it doesnt follow. It doesnt contradict my belief.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

I don' have any proofs. But there is plenty of evidence that makes it reasonable to believe, the creator of the universe is the God of the bible.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 9:43am

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you actually should inform Science immediately.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 1:38pm

Dawkins begins with following question :

Let’s now think how we might use it to ask whether the information content of genomes increases in evolution.

Before answering this question, he might explain , how the first information in the Genome of the first cell got there in the first place.

We, like all other animals, are descended from an ancestor which, were it available for our study today, we’d classify as a bacterium.

this is a unproven assertion.

So perhaps, during the billions of years of evolution since that ancestor lived, the information capacity of our genome has gone up about three orders of magnitude (powers of ten) — about a thousandfold.

one more unproven assertion.

Scientific evidence does not lead to the direction of confirming this assertion.

http://www.reasons.org/LongTermEvolutionExperimentEvidencefortheEvo...

A few years ago molecular biologists sequenced the entire genome of E. coli for the first time. At that time this was a daunting technical achievement. In recent years these sequencing techniques have become increasingly accessible. And this accessibility has made it possible for Lenski's team to sequence the genomes of E. coli samples frozen periodically over the course of the last twenty years. Specifically, they sequenced the genomes of cells at 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and 40,000. The genome sequence of the original cell served as a reference point for the researchers to identify genetic changes that have taken place over the course of the LTEE as E. coli evolved.

This study provided a rare opportunity for researchers to compare genetic alterations to changes in the fitness of E. coli.

Changes in the "genetic letters" that constitute DNA create diversity within a population of organisms and serve as the source of the heritable variation from which natural selection "chooses."

This recognition has led to the emergence of molecular evolution, a companion to Darwin's theory. This paradigm seeks to understand how DNA molecules evolve with the idea that changes in the DNA sequence mirror changes in the organism.

Around 40,000 generations, the researchers uncovered a sudden burst of neutral mutations. Again, this was not as it should be. According to molecular evolutionary theory, neutral mutations should accrue at a constant rate, not in bursts.

These discrepancies between observed genome changes and those predicted by molecular evolution are cause for concern.

more tomorrow......

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 2:53pm

Evidently the total information capacity of genomes is very variable across the living kingdoms, and it must have changed greatly in evolution, presumably in both directions.

It must have ??? more baseless assertions.

New genes arise through various kinds of duplication.

Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/doe...

The majority of gene duplications are meiotic or mitotic aberrations, resulting in malformations or diseases. Plants can tolerate duplications, especially polyploidy, better than animals due to differences in their styles of reproduction. To maintain genomic stability, all cells have built-in mechanisms to silence duplicated genes, after which they become subject to degenerative mutations.

Clusters of identical genes need complicated mechanisms to prevent diversification in order for them to work in unison. Likewise, gene families whose members perform distinct functions are maintained by purifying selection. While duplication may alter the number of members in gene families, it is not their ultimate origin. Current models explaining the preservation and neofunctionalization of duplicated genes encounter obstacles one way or the other.

This is well illustrated by haemoglobin, the complex protein molecule that transports oxygen in the blood.

Furthermore, it has been found that, "the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection"8. Another study showed that duplicated genes are not very free to mutate around at all, that there is strong selection pressure on them7. This supports the statement by Conery and Lynch that the actual mechanisms by which gene duplication contributes to evolution are not very well understood:
"However, it is unclear how duplicate genes successfully navigate an evolutionary trajectory from an initial state of complete redundancy, wherein one copy is likely to be expendable, to a stable situation in which both copies are maintained by natural selection. Nor is it clear how often these events occur."7
The bottom line is that the gene duplication explanation still leaves the details to the dice, and this pathway definitely hasn't been experimentally verified. In this explanation for the origin of bloodclotting, all the NAS has done is to find protein similarities, and then inferred a vague ancestral pathway of gene creation. This explanation for the origin of real evolutionary novelty lacks a reliable mechanism and is little better than hand waving. Furthermore, it does not solve the problems of irreducible complexity.

for further answers, read :

http://www.discovery.org/a/4278

A RESPONSE TO DR. DAWKINS' "THE INFORMATION CHALLENGE"

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on August 14, 2010 at 10:24pm

It must have ??? more baseless assertions.
You would know. Religion, the Bible, and claiming gods exist are the kings of baseless assertions.

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 14, 2010 at 11:55pm

It is pretty funny, isn't it? The "problem" of irreducible complexity is such a joke! We can think of how eyesight can be improved for starters (why can't we see as well as eagles), so it's not exactly in "perfect" form the way it is. But we can also point to examples of eyesight that are much more "reduced"... from organisms that only see pinpricks of light to organisms that cannot perceive the color range we can.

And the flagellum? Do we really have to rehash these same arguments over and over and over again?

Permalink Reply by willailla on August 14, 2010 at 2:14pm

Angelo,

I find it interesting that you try to defend the Bible by using science but are not capable of using the Bible to prove anything. Doesn't it strike you as rather odd that 'your' all knowing god cannot supply you with convincing arguments for his existence?

"I don' [sic] have any proofs. But there is plenty of evidence that makes it reasonable to believe, the creator of the universe is the God of the bible."

But, as you say, you haven't any proof.

Angelo, please, go out, get drunk, and get laid. You're wound too tight.

Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on August 15, 2010 at 1:29am

Meh. I'd rather get drunk. Getting laid carries too many risks. Or maybe Angelo can plop a handful of dust on the floor and ask God to create another human. And then from that human God can pull his ribs to create a hot female for him.

But of course if she's anything like Eve, she'll be as dumb as a box of. . . Bibles. XDD

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 18
• Next ›
• Page