Creation vs. Evolution: take 139486

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Hah, ok. You might want to read that. Better yet, I'll make it easy for you.
Here's a direct quote from that site you posted:

"...Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. The experiment also produced a substance which, to most life, would be a "toxic carcinogenic"[4] substance. However, these compounds, which include formaldehyde and cyanide are "necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including Amino Acids".[5]"

Now tell me how life could come about with nothing to staple it together like DNA or RNA?

And mind you, RNA remains dormant until it finds a host to feed off of.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Inanimate matter has no pulse.
Inanimate matter is dust and ash.
Ok, now, without a God or higher power, how exactly can this inanimate matter going to draw breath?
Dust evolves without divine help?

So tell me how inanimate matter can draw a breath.

How is this relevant to evolution?

 

[gluadys]

Inanimate matter has no pulse.
Inanimate matter is dust and ash.
Ok, now, without a God or higher power, how exactly can this inanimate matter going to draw breath?
Dust evolves without divine help?

So tell me how inanimate matter can draw a breath.

Maybe you haven't noticed that you are in the Theistic Evolution sub-forum. TEs don't say nature acts without divine help.

 

[gluadys]

How would that gas take form?
Unless it would be an ice cube with a pulse or something, I don't see how that experiment would work.

Go into it in further detail.
What came about from these "experiments"?

Amino acids. For further detail see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

 

[Theogonia]

Maybe you haven't noticed that you are in the Theistic Evolution sub-forum. TEs don't say nature acts without divine help.

Actually I don't believe God had much of any hand in the creation, I believe it pretty much just set the events in motion that led to the creation/evolution of life.

 

[gluadys]

It was discredited that abiogenesis happens consistently, not that it never happens.

You know how when meat starts to spoil, maggots and flies start to gather on it? Well, before science explains what happens, people used to think that these things just appeared out of the decaying meat.

To find out whether this was true or not, a scientist did an experiment. He kept some meat in sealed jars, some meat in jars with a lid that lets air through but nothing else, and one piece of meat left open. Only the open piece had flies on it. He proved that these flies and maggots were not coming from the meat itself but rather from the environment. We now of course know that flies come and lay their eggs or whatever on the meat.

That is not abiogenesis. That is spontaneous generation. And Pasteur did show that it never happens, not that it happens inconsistently.

The point is, it's been disproven that abiogenesis happens like this on a regular basis like people once thought, not that abiogenesis never happened. Most scientists believe in evolution and it is assumed that abiogenesis occured sometime in Earth's early history.

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was the idea that worms, rats, maggots, flies, whatever spontaneously appeared in manure, rotting hay, meat, etc. with no eggs, no birth from a parent. When this was discredited, it was still thought that micro-organisms could spontaneously generate. But Pasteur disproved that too, showing that micro-organisms only got into wine or beakers of liquid through contamination.

Spontaneous generation does not happen. All living things today are produced by other living things.

Abiogenesis is not living things just popping into existence. It is, hypothetically, a series of chemical processes that produce organic materials that eventually self-organize into living cells. It is not proposed that this happens today, but that it may have happened in the very different conditions of early earth.

 

[gluadys]

Hah, ok. You might want to read that. Better yet, I'll make it easy for you.
Here's a direct quote from that site you posted:

"...Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. The experiment also produced a substance which, to most life, would be a "toxic carcinogenic"[4] substance. However, these compounds, which include formaldehyde and cyanide are "necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including Amino Acids".[5]"

Now tell me how life could come about with nothing to staple it together like DNA or RNA?

And mind you, RNA remains dormant until it finds a host to feed off of.

I think you are confusing RNA with a virus.

In any case, abiogenesis is a subject that is being researched. We don't have all the answers yet. But you might be surprised by all that has been found out so far.

Besides the Urey-Miller experiments you might like to check out "proto-cells" and "RNA world".

 

[gluadys]

Actually I don't believe God had much of any hand in the creation, I believe it pretty much just set the events in motion that led to the creation/evolution of life.

There are different conceptions of how God interacts with nature at any time--creation being only one example. The point is TEs are not atheists. So we are not claiming it happened without God.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

I did my term paper in high school on RNA strands. So, I'll take some quotes straight out of my term paper:

RNA is ribonucleic acid, a close cousin of deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA. RNA is a polymer of ribonucleoside-phosphates. It's backbone is comprised of alternating ribose and phosphate groups. Ribose is a five carbon sugar that is found in a puranose, or five-membered ring, form in RNA. The phosphate groups link consecutive ribose groups and each bear one negative charge. Each monomer also has a nitrogenous base for a side chain. The four commonly found side chains in RNA are adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil. Several other bases are occasionaly found in RNAs including: thymine, pseudouridine and methylated cytosine and guanine.
Inside of cells, there are three major types of RNA: messenger RNA (mRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA). There are a number of other types of RNA present in smaller quanitites as well, including small nuclear RNA (snRNA), small nucleolar RNA (snoRNA) and the 4.5S signal recognition particle (SRP) RNA. Novel species of RNA continue to be identified.



And, the majority of life that is supported by RNA strands are level 3 virus's or higher according to the CDCP.

 

[gluadys]

And, the majority of life that is supported by RNA strands are level 3 virus's or higher according to the CDCP.

And was it in this context that you said: "RNA remains dormant until it finds a host to feed off of"?

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Yes, it is.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, it is.

OK. That makes sense now.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Great...

 

[preston08]

Didn't many scientists give up on the big bang theory in favour of some kind of multiverse theory?

I have no basis for this, I just remember hearing something like it.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Didn't many scientists give up on the big bang theory in favour of some kind of multiverse theory?

I have no basis for this, I just remember hearing something like it.

They are two different beasts. The Big Bang theory is still accepted as the best explanation for the origins of the Universe. (Although the term "Big Bang" is a bit misleading)

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

It was discredited that abiogenesis happens consistently, not that it never happens.

You know how when meat starts to spoil, maggots and flies start to gather on it? Well, before science explains what happens, people used to think that these things just appeared out of the decaying meat.

To find out whether this was true or not, a scientist did an experiment. He kept some meat in sealed jars, some meat in jars with a lid that lets air through but nothing else, and one piece of meat left open. Only the open piece had flies on it. He proved that these flies and maggots were not coming from the meat itself but rather from the environment. We now of course know that flies come and lay their eggs or whatever on the meat.

The point is, it's been disproven that abiogenesis happens like this on a regular basis like people once thought, not that abiogenesis never happened. Most scientists believe in evolution and it is assumed that abiogenesis occured sometime in Earth's early history.

Yes, it was ASSUMED that abiogenesis started evolution, and never confirmed.

It's a lot like us having faith in our Lord God, and believing the bible when we say the world was created in 6 days.

So, what's any different about Christians having faith in God, and Theists having faith in abiogenesis and/or evolution?

 

[MrSnow]

ALL christians accept abiogenesis. God formed life from non-life. A particular cluster of atoms composed something that was not alive. Then, they composed something that WAS alive. Life from non-life. But we, as christians, will acknowledge that this non-life to life transition was caused by God.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

Exactly, hence not scientific abiogenesis.

 

[Theogonia]

Yes, it was ASSUMED that abiogenesis started evolution, and never confirmed.

It's a lot like us having faith in our Lord God, and believing the bible when we say the world was created in 6 days.

So, what's any different about Christians having faith in God, and Theists having faith in abiogenesis and/or evolution?

What do you say when it is shown that the word translated into "day" means an age or indefinite amount of time?

Also a massive LOL, there is evidence for evolution, and abiogenesis.

That is not faith, as faith doesn't suffer with "trivial" things such as evidence.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Exactly, hence not scientific abiogenesis.

Why couldn't God have used scientific abiogenesis, i.e. abiogenesis that follows the laws of nature that He authored?