Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Dad. This thread is about abiogenesis. GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS. If God had anything to do with abiogenesis whatsoever, then it wouldn't be abiogenesis.
Take your smeg somewhere else.
Fatty acids have been OBSERVED to form lipids, when certain Ph conditions are met. There's no "could" about it. They DO.
It's simple chemistry, that over time became much more complex chemistry. Life is still just chemistry.
As for them being invented... you're saying ribonucleic acid (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) are "invented"? Don't go there. Just don't. You'll loose what little dignity you had left.
Or are you saying that the lipids that they formed in are "invented"? Because fatty acids are pretty common throughout the universe, at least in this general area. And those fatty acids have been OBSERVED (There's that word again, look it up if you don't get what it means.) to form lipids.
I suggest you look up the work of Dr Jack Szostak, before commenting further, and making yourself look even more like a clown.
Well, we are talking about the God of the bible. Not one in a Sears catalog.
No... you are talking about the God in the Bible... I'm talking about the One who transcends it.
And that God created man from the dust of the earth, and took woman from the man, and all inside a week. Perhaps you should replace the word worship, with believe, and you will get a clue as to what it's about.
No, I think I'll stick with the right words, thank you... I've read the Harry Potter books, and the most I can say about my "relationship" with JK Rowling is, "I've read the books."
Is your relationship with God any different?
__________________ "If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!' But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door, And no one had the guts to leave the temple!" -- The Who
Well, that depends on who is calling what bizarre. If the discussion moves beyond the known, then it might seem bizarre to the causally superficial, appearance view of what is going on.
Fine. The OP doesn't move beyond the known, so why then are you?
However, it is important in looking at comets, and what they bring, to know where they originated, and be able to evidence that, if you want to make sweeping claims.
Fine. I don't want to make sweeping claims.
If the claims also involve [snipe conjectiure]
I'm not interestedi n your godless what iffing, dad. Stick to the claims in the OP article.
You can't just expect to tell alternate creation stories, and not show us the details.
Likewise, you can't just reject the details, because you disagree with what you imagine to be the associated sweeping claims.
Well, have you caught a comet, and seen these acids in there?
ROFL. Page 14, and you have yet to read the OP article? Why am I not surprised. Yes, dad, a comet was in fact caught, and the acids were measured in it.
Or do you merely speculate?
No speculation; simple collection and measurement. Had you read the OP article, you wouldn't be asking this...
[qote]How often have we observed a comet wafting in life? Or, even the materials needed to create it, and seen it created? Think about it. Never! Seems to me it is an excercise in imagination, and godless what iffing only.[/quote]
Then kindly stop your godless what iffing, dad. Rather than read the OP, you conjure up in your imagination what you think it might contain, and then argue against your own imagination, instead of what is plainly stated. Sorry, but I don't see any room for rational discussion; you and your imagination are too busy arguing with each other
[snip dad's further argument with his imagination]
Fine. The OP doesn't move beyond the known, so why then are you?
Fine. I don't want to make sweeping claims.
I'm not interestedi n your godless what iffing, dad. Stick to the claims in the OP article.
Likewise, you can't just reject the details, because you disagree with what you imagine to be the associated sweeping claims.
ROFL. Page 14, and you have yet to read the OP article? Why am I not surprised. Yes, dad, a comet was in fact caught, and the acids were measured in it.
No speculation; simple collection and measurement. Had you read the OP article, you wouldn't be asking this...
How often have we observed a comet wafting in life? Or, even the materials needed to create it, and seen it created? Think about it. Never! Seems to me it is an excercise in imagination, and godless what iffing only.
Then kindly stop your godless what iffing, dad. Rather than read the OP, you conjure up in your imagination what you think it might contain, and then argue against your own imagination, instead of what is plainly stated. Sorry, but I don't see any room for rational discussion; you and your imagination are too busy arguing with each other
[snip dad's further argument with his imagination]
OK, you're right. That much is apparently known.
The what iffing is still the thrust of the claim, of course, however. What if it was a comet not originating from earth to begin with...what if there were billions of years to mix together acids and whatever else is needed, and then life all evolved from that little freak...what if..blah blah.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Oh, Mother nature? Zeus? Does it have a name? I was talking about Jesus. He has a name.
Funny.. so was I. The difference is, I think Jesus is more than what the Bible portrays Him as... you think he's less.
__________________ "If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'Nothing's that simple!' But you've been told many times before,
Messiahs pointed to the door, And no one had the guts to leave the temple!" -- The Who
Linear Mode
