# Science debunks Abiogenesis.



## RWNJ (Oct 16, 2016)

Here is a scientific discussion of the requirements for life and why a naturalistic origin is, quite simply, impossible. The more science learns about life, the more absurd it looks for a naturalistic origin.

Origin of life - creation.com


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Oct 16, 2016)

Mmmhmm.

Where did the necessary chemicals come from in the first place?


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 16, 2016)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Mmmhmm.
> 
> Where did the necessary chemicals come from in the first place?


Where did the universe come from? Science likes to pretend it has all the answers, or will at least have them in the future. The problem is that something like the origins of life and the universe cannot be experimented on, since they happened in the past. Science cannot answer these questions, and they never will. That's why they make stuff up.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 16, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Mmmhmm.
> ...


No, science does not like to pretend it has all the answers, or will at least have them in the future.  You clearly know nothing about science.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 18, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> The problem is that something like the origins of life and the universe cannot be experimented on, since they happened in the past. Science cannot answer these questions, and they never will. That's why they make stuff up.


Science cannot prove with empirical certitude how life rose, but it can make informed guesses. 

And that is different than just making things up.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 18, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that something like the origins of life and the universe cannot be experimented on, since they happened in the past. Science cannot answer these questions, and they never will. That's why they make stuff up.
> ...


That's what an informed guess is. It means they don't know. They have no way of knowing. So they make stuff up.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 18, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


No, that is not what an informed guess is, dude.

I am bailing on this discussion.

See ya.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 18, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


You don't know much about science. If they cannot do repeatable experiments on something, it's nothing but a WAG. Know what a wag is?


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 18, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Here is a scientific discussion of the requirements for life and why a naturalistic origin is, quite simply, impossible. The more science learns about life, the more absurd it looks for a naturalistic origin.
> 
> Origin of life - creation.com


 Seems like a few of you thought this was funny. Would you care to elaborate, or is mocking laughter all you've got?


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



They take what they do know, and form intelligent, informed guesses.

The entire premise of "It is too complex" is not debunking anything.  Its like that nonsense about the human eye being too complicated to have evolved.  You actually have to ignore science for that idea to work.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



You say this, and yet you claim science debunked the theory of abiogenesis.  What repeatable experiments did they do to debunk it?


----------



## SixFoot (Oct 19, 2016)

God created the Laws of Physics...

...and evolution.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

SixFoot said:


> God created the Laws of Physics...
> 
> ...and evolution.



Ok


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Do you know anything about information theory, and how it applies to living systems? DNA contains something called complex specified information. This is something that observation shows comes only from intelligent minds. Since DNA contains such information, it requires intelligence in order to exist. Nature is not capable of creating it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Do all living cells contain complex DNA?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Even viruses, the simplest form of life, have DNA.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


All non parasitic life has DNA.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


I believe that viruses contain RNA. Not DNA. Technically, they are not alive, since they cannot reproduce without a living host.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Actually it can have both depending on the type of virus.

Virus - Wikipedia


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


That's single strand DNA. As far as I know, there are no viruses that contain normal double helix DNA. In either case, they cannot survive without a host. Not sure why that's relevant. I forgot what what this topic was about anyway.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

I did not ask if all life has DNA.  I asked if they all contained the complex DNA  They do not.  Some are simpler.

But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue.  The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible.  It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> I did not ask if all life has DNA.  I asked if they all contained the complex DNA  They do not.  Some are simpler.
> 
> But the complexity of an organism's dna is not an issue.  The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible.  It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.


You really need to brush up on genetics and information theory. It's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Nature cannot create complex specified information. It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it. Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I did not ask if all life has DNA.  I asked if they all contained the complex DNA  They do not.  Some are simpler.
> ...



It certainly could have evolved.  From simpler systems to the more complex.  I am quite well versed in genetics, as well as biology.   Your theory only works if you assume that every single cell life form that ever existed is in the fossil record.   There is no way to make that claim honestly.

Complexity, without knowing what life forms preceded it, does not automatically mean intelligent design.  Which is why my first post on this thread made the point that your OP and thread title are wrong.  Science did not debunk anything.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



So science hasn't debunked abiogenesis.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I did not ask if all life has DNA.  I asked if they all contained the complex DNA  They do not.  Some are simpler.
> ...



Still waiting to see that science debunking abiogenesis.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about.   The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago.  The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago.    So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life.  The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago.   With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Then read the article. I bet you didn't even glance at it. Read it, then get back to me. Until you do, your opinion means nothing. How about trying to refute something from the article? I bet you can't do it.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about.   The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago.  The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago.    So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life.  The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago.   With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.


Science doesn't even have a plausible explanation, let alone a valid theory, for how it might have happened. No matter how hard they try, they haven't got a clue. Real science says it's highly improbable, if not impossible. Remember what I said about information theory? Nature is not capable of creating the information content of DNA. DNA is a high level language. It works just like a computer. It accepts input and produces output based on it's programming. It controls every one of the thousands and thousands of processes of the cell. Now, do you have an explanation for how this could happened without intelligent design? Didn't think so.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to remember is the extreme lengths of time we are talking about.   The earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago.  The earliest life forms we have reliably dated showed up around 3.5 billion years ago.    So roughly 1 billion years elapsed between the earth's formation and the fossil record containing life.  The dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago until 63 million years ago.   With that kind of scale of time, and planetary conditions we have never experienced, to completely dismiss abiogenesis as impossible is most unscientific.
> ...



Complex DNA does all of that.   Simpler DNA does less.   And since there is no fossil record of examinable DNA, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the structure of the earliest life forms would be.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



The article centers on how unlikely it would be for all the right ingredients and circumstances to be present to form the original life forms.   That is NOT scientific debunking of anything.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Here is what you said- referring to 'science'
_*If they cannot do repeatable experiments on something, it's nothing but a WAG.*_

The article you cite is an opinion- and does not list any repeatable experiments to disprove abiogenesis.

That is your fundamental hypocrisy- you don't apply the same standard you claim is being applied to science.

Abiogenesis is a theory- it isn't proven by science- nor is it disproven by science.

Your thread is a lie.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Are you listening to anything I say. I believe that I've mentioned information theory and how it applies to DNA. There is no natural process that can create the information content of DNA. None. And believe me, scientists have looked long and hard. Also, you must not have a firm grasp of just how complex even the simplest life is. I'm also wondering if you, or anyone has actually read the article I posted. It gave valid scientific reasons why life could  not possibly have evolved the way some scientists say it did. And not one person has referenced the article, nor have they tried to refute anything it said. That alone tells me no one has read it. So, unless someone wants to actually discuss what was in the article, I'm simply going to ignore you. Have a nice day.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Read it again. It didn't say unlikely. It said impossible. There is also the problem of Chirality to consider. DNA and proteins must be composed of either left handed or right handed amino acids. No exceptions. In order for life to exist by natural processes, you must believe that tens of thousands of amino acids of the right handedness just happened to self assemble into DNA. A statistical impossibility. You go right on believing that. LOL!


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Everything mentioned in that article is based on accepted science. And I ask again. Have you even read it? You haven't referenced it once. Can you refute anything it says?


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

And you continue to ignore my points that there is no way to know how many life forms rose and were lost in the hundreds of millions of years.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> And you continue to ignore my points that there is no way to know how many life forms rose and were lost in the hundreds of millions of years.


I ignored it because it is nothing more than an attempt to deflect the conversation. I might respond to you, if you had the guts to try to refute anything in the article. No one seems to want to do that for some strange reason. Would you like to be the first? Give us a quote from the article, then tell us why it's wrong. Can you do that? Can anyone do that? Sheesh!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I did not ask if all life has DNA.  I asked if they all contained the complex DNA  They do not.  Some are simpler.
> ...



"complex specified information"

Oh my. A William Dembski groupie. 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for William Dembski


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I did not ask if all life has DNA.  I asked if they all contained the complex DNA  They do not.  Some are simpler.
> ...



"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so. 

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110:  Complex Specified Information indicates design.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Speaking of loons, your link is a blog by some guy named Chaospet. Too funny. I'm ROFLMAO! Surely you can do better then that. How about trying to refute something from the article I linked? Can you do that? Somehow, I doubt it. LOL! You people are so pathetic.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


Let's be honest. Your article is similarly from a blog. A blog that the science community has no reason to take seriously. You are free to believe those charlatans as you wish. But you can't realistically expect anyone else should.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



I read most of it.   And while I may not have quoted it, I summarized well enough.   The conclusions are based on the claim that systems and forms are too complex to have evolved.   The only way that can be said is if you are absolutely certain which were the first life forms.   You have no way of knowing how many life forms evolved and died out in the hundreds of millions of years.  

Can you say for certain that the dna we can now see and study is the only form, as far as complexity, that has ever existed?

The fact that science documents life forms and their complexity is not scientifically debunking anything.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die.  Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



"..... becauseI say so!"


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > And you continue to ignore my points that there is no way to know how many life forms rose and were lost in the hundreds of millions of years.
> ...



Can I?   Sure.

Origin of life - creation.com

There is the entire article.    It goes into great depth about the complexity of life.   No one is arguing it is not complex.   That fact, in and of itself, does not debunk anything.  Unless you have the first life form, you cannot even begin to guess at its complexity.  

Look at the life forms that live on volcanic vents in the deep oceans.  No sunlight it its entire foodchain.  How different must those structures be?  The only way that complexity is an issue is if you know what preceded it and can see the first life form.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You're repeating yourself. I heard it the first time. Repeating it will not make you sound any more intelligent.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



The entire article can be refuted by asking you if the first cells were as complex as cells alive now?   Unless you know that to be true, pointing out the complexity of current life forms does not debunk anything.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


And where did that complexity come from? Complexity requires information. Where did the information come from? And you can't just simply claim that it's a result of chemistry. DNA contains information, yet the DNA is not the information. Information can be stored and transmitted by many mediums, including smoke signals. So. Where did the information necessary for increased complexity come from?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


You offered nothing of interest to respond to. 

_"The gawds did it" _is hardly an argument.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Science has a pretty good grasp of the minimum complexity required for life.  Scientists have found the minimum complexity of life to be about 2000 genes for a self supporting microbe, and about 400 genes for a parasitic microbe. So it is not enough that there be life's building blocks present - they must be arranged in a precise order (and all amino acids must be left-handed) in order for life to function at all. Think about that. Not only do you require the minimum number in the correct order, they must all be left handed. Do you really believe that's possible?


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity.  Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0.  2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna.  DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides.  The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive.  But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



In the length of time we are talking about?  Absolutely.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I offered plenty to respond to. You have not refuted anything I've posted. All I saw from you was the usual talking points. I can see that you are not interested in a honest discussion of the facts. Remain ignorant then. I don't really care.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

*CB102:  Mutations adding information*

*Claim CB102:*
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
*Source:*
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Classic. You're unable to respond to a single comment I've posted so you stomp your feet like a petulant child.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up. 

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


That's rich. All I've seen from you is mockery. Mostly the repetition of a single phrase..."Because I said so." You have contributed exactly nothing of value, let alone anything worth replying to. I gave you every chance. Good bye. I'll be ignoring you from now on.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The impossible does not become possible, no matter how much time you give it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible.  It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.


But the implausibility of random coincidences of astronomical proportions IS MOST CERTAINLY circumstantial proof of a Creator, dude, not to mention the Infinite Regression Fallacy.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 19, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> The article centers on how unlikely it would be for all the right ingredients and circumstances to be present to form the original life forms.   That is NOT scientific debunking of anything.


True, it is not scientific as the implied answers are genuinely beyond the scope of what science can address.

But it does fall under circumstantial reasoning and proof, you know, like the kind they use in courts to execute people or send them to jail for rape, assault and murder.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


I'm afraid the entirety of your attempt at argument is no more supported than "..... because I say so."


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


YouTube videos - despite their bright colors and flashy graphics- are not the most accurate rendition of science.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex.  I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



And yet, nothing in this gives any reason for it to be impossible.   It is very, very unlikely.  But there is nothing showing it to be impossible.

And when you are talking about the possibility of random occurances, the extreme length of time does matter.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible.  It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.
> ...



Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

Evidence that the original processes in life forms may not have been the same as current life forms.

from:  Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

"Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.

“People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn’t form by environmental chemistry alone,” says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.

But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth’s early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.

The origin of metabolism is a major gap in our understanding of the emergence of life. “If you look at many different organisms from around the world, this network of reactions always looks very similar, suggesting that it must have come into place very early on in evolution, but no one knew precisely when or how,” says Ralser."


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.



Sure it is.

How many times would a poker dealer have to give himself a "random" hand of Royal Flushes before you become convinced that he is cheating?

Dont be stupid for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt work.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.
> ...



It is not about it happening over and over.  It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Actually, education fails you. 

"The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live"

.... because I say so!


I was hoping you could provide a source for your "fact", preferably something peer reviewed which obviously excludes "facts" from the various fundamentalist Christian ministries / ID'iot creation ministries.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Normally I avoid this topic with people who think the scientific method involves having a result in mind and working to only use facts that support that preconceived notion.

Yes, scientists think they know the requirements for life.  Not long ago that included a dependence on sunlight as part of their food chain.  That is no longer true.

And there are only 4 nucleotides that make up the dna strand.  All of the information contained in dna is due to the which nucleotides are used and their positioning.

Claiming intelligent design as "scientific", when there is absolutely no scientific proof of any "creator" is not scientific.   Why not claim life was originally formed by aliens seeding planets?


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Why not claim that you have a functioning brain?...Oh, wait.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Spare me the insults.  Especially considering your posted a thread with a title claiming science debunked something, and then posted a link in which science debunked absolutely nothing.   It showed a complexity of current life forms, but nothing more.  In fact, you have offered virtually nothing more than what is in the article.

Your entire argument is still "It is so complex it must have been created by an intelligence.  It is impossible for it to have come about any other way".  And that is simply not factual.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

Did you read the link I posted about metabolism outside the cell?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> It is not about* it happening* over and over.  It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.


What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules  inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > It is not about* it happening* over and over.  It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.
> ...



A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat.  Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.


----------



## RWNJ (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat.  Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.


What do you base that on? Your sincere desire for it to be true?

Amino acids have been generated that way, but I dont think I have ever read of anything more complex developing.

I suspect that life somehow evolved in the planetoids of a first generation star that was close enough to a star for obtaining great amounts of heat and energy, but far enough away that it did not evaporate all the atmosphere and water.  That planets fragments were scattered through the universe in a cascade of nova's that spread life like a mold, not to depreciate life however.. 

Transpermia answers problems with abiogenesis much better, IMO, than the quaint notion that it had to develop on a third generation star's planet, here on Earth.


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Having more time reduces the odds, because of the additional chances the compounds have to interact.

Do you have any actual scientists saying it is impossible?  Every scientist I know (and that is quite a few) do not consider it impossible.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2016)

RWNJ said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The nonsense you parrot from your ID'iot creation ministries has long ago been debunked.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations


----------



## WinterBorn (Oct 20, 2016)

Hollie said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Interesting site.

That is game, set and match.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> Having more time reduces the odds, because of the additional chances the compounds have to interact.
> Do you have any actual scientists saying it is impossible?  Every scientist I know (and that is quite a few) do not consider it impossible.


None saying it is impossible, which we just dont have enough data to say one way or the other, as I understand it, but that it is _implausible _to not be in part explained by forces from outside our universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 20, 2016)

WinterBorn said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


Not hardly.

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia

The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang...

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[1][12]


_N_, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
_Epsilon_ (_ε_), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of thestrong nuclear force.[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[10][12]
_Omega_ (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
_Lambda_ (_λ_), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
_Q_, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
_D_, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.[12]
*Carbon and oxygen[edit]*
Further information: Triple-alpha process § Improbability and fine-tuning
An older example is the Hoyle state, the third-lowest energy state of the carbon-12 nucleus, with an energy of 7.656 MeV above the ground level. According to one calculation, if the state's energy were lower than 7.3 or greater than 7.9 MeV, insufficient carbon would exist to support life; furthermore, to explain the universe's abundance of carbon, the Hoyle state must be further tuned to a value between 7.596 and 7.716 MeV. A similar calculation, focusing on the underlying fundamental constants that give rise to various energy levels, concludes that the strong force must be tuned to a precision of at least 0.5%, and the electromagnetic force to a precision of at least 4%, to prevent either carbon production or oxygen production from dropping significantly.[16]


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 20, 2016)

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

_The *anthropic principle* (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. ...

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility._



We live in a universe that has some very specific values in order to harbor life as we scientifically know it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


No, it is proof regarding the plausibility of an event.

How many Royal  Flushes would a poker dealer have to deal himself before you concluded he was cheating?

Same goes for the existence of God. Eventually the most plausible explanation for the Universe, its order, life and Faith is the existence of God.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 22, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Wow, i gave almost the same exact response today as I did back then.

Dude, believing in God is a moral choice. There is plenty of evidence that points to Him existing, but few of them are air-tight inescapable proofs.  Goid has left yo ua choice to believe or not to believe.  You cannot believe as long as you  have  amoral revulsion in believing.

But each and every fact that sets an unlikely value for the existence of life is a 'poker hand'.  To cite the creation of the entire universe is like pointing to the whole poker game, not one hand.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 22, 2017)

I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.

End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jan 31, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.
> End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.


Lol, Matthew, most scientists are theists.

Scientists and Belief
Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. ​
Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists? - Randal Rauser
A study of 642 elite scientists limited their survey to only those born in America. Only 1.4% “listed themselves as atheists or agnostics.” But don’t conclude that the rest were avid church attenders. While over three fourths indicated affiliation with a religious body and over one half attended services two or more times per month, 38.5 % of the total number of scientists answered “no” to the question: “Do you believe in life after death?” Of course, many people who believe in God don’t believe in life after death.​


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.
> ...



Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish.  The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death.  Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.

There is nothing new under the Sun indeed...


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



The Sadducees denomination still exists?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.


The Universe is not sentient, and thus not knowing.

And we have not had the universe long enough for all possibilities to have yet occurred.

For example, Senator Al Franken has not yet found all of his lost marbles.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.
> ...



Depends on how you view God.


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Consider too that atheists are usually Jewish or at least of Jewish ancestry.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Did you know that the odds of correctly formed amino acids and proteins bumping together and forming the first cell are a number with 5,700 zeros to 1?

The number of subatomic particles in the known Universe is "only" 80 zeros, so the chances against a cell forming at ranodm is a number so large that you can say it's impossible that the cell formed from any random process, it HAD to be created

*“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore” -- Kaku*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish.  The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death.  Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.


Oh bull.

Jews are about 2% of the American population, so they cannot be the majority of American scientists in all fields of science.

Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia

Religion and Science in the United States

Religion And Science Can Coexist: Some Scientists Practice More Than The General Public

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



Panentheism is not that widespread because it is not well understood.

And if you can show me where the Universes "brain" might be, perhaps a discussion would be fruitful.

But God (as the Creator) is outside the flow of space/time, not within it.  Any definition of God that places Him within the flow of space and time is deficient, lacking His most important Eternal qualities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish.  The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death.  Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.
> ...


I would really like to see links for these two claims.

Till then I respond similarly; Bah!


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish.  The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death.  Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.
> ...



Bull. 

Try harder.  Your Jewish brothers in the media need to try harder too.  Do you really think we don't know that if you can keep the diamond trade and gold trade in your pockets, then you can't do the same with science and everything else?  Hehehe.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You're thinking of Pantheism, which is just another term for "polite atheism".

God the Creator, is synonymous with Existence. Obviously, I can no better prove my opinion as you can yours. However, I can continue earning my STEM degree and find out more as I go.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Mmmhmm.
> ...


Just like religion makes up the same stuff


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



Easy.  Most of atheism is from soviet communism, and that has been openly and admittedly under Jewish control for all of its 80 year history.  They even display a level of pride in it, like they are gods because they beat the Nazis.  Not exactly subtle.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> Try harder.  Your Jewish brothers in the media need to try harder too.  Do you really think we don't know that if you can keep the diamond trade and gold trade in your pockets, then you can't do the same with science and everything else?  Hehehe.



The number of people involved in the diamond and gold trade is not a fraction of the number of people in the various sciences.

You are speaking without knowledge.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> Easy.  Most of atheism is from soviet communism, and that has been openly and admittedly under Jewish control for all of its 80 year history.



That is an old disproven myth.

Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



Pantheism is not "polite atheism".   Pantheism believes in many gods and accepts all gods.   Pretty much the opposite of atheism.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> You're thinking of Pantheism, which is just another term for "polite atheism".
> God the Creator, is synonymous with Existence. Obviously, I can no better prove my opinion as you can yours. However, I can continue earning my STEM degree and find out more as I go.


No, I am thinking of Panentheism.

*Panentheism* (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν _pân_, "all", ἐν _en_, "in" and Θεός _Theós_, "God") is the belief that the divineinterpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space._ Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical_,[1] *panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.*​


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I have no idea.  I don't see why not.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> Pantheism is not "polite atheism".   Pantheism believes in many gods and accepts all gods.   Pretty much the opposite of atheism.


Pantheism says the Universe and all things in it or God, and thus all polytheistic systems are merely aspects of the Universal divine being.

Panentheism says that there is an Eternal Creator, but He/It has a spirit that permeates all if not most of the universe. Some identify this permiation with Life itself.

Traditional Christian monotheism says that God is entirely independent of the existence of the Universe, but the Universe itself in some form exists within and is subordinate to Him and His Will.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 1, 2017)

Almost any event has such a tiny probability of happening as to be nearly impossible. That is not a measure of anything except the extent to which probability theory can be useful. All that can be said now is that some people choose to believe what they want and other people know that they don't know.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > You're thinking of Pantheism, which is just another term for "polite atheism".
> ...



Moving on from your minor error in labeling:

The Divine and the Universe _are_ identical. Simultaneously, the Creator also exists independent of Existence.

Existence doesn't exist without the Creator, and are therefore, one in the same, and also separate, because one existed before the other.

This is easily postulated from the very idea of the Trinity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Almost any event has such a tiny probability of happening as to be nearly impossible. That is not a measure of anything except the extent to which probability theory can be useful. All that can be said now is that some people choose to believe what they want and other people know that they don't know.



A "simple" one celled creature is hardly "simple"


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I never said I coined the phrase, either.







You may feel free to blame the American education system, as this is part of the course I've been being taught for the last two months in college.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



That is Panentheism, Christian monotheism and the Trinity postulates that this universe is likely one of many, and that the universe itself has nothing to do with the existence of God himself, who existed quite well and in perfection prior to the existence of the Universe.

Unlike Panentheism, God is not contingent on the universe, if I understand that concept correctly, however the universe is contingent on God.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Almost any event has such a tiny probability of happening as to be nearly impossible. That is not a measure of anything except the extent to which probability theory can be useful. All that can be said now is that some people choose to believe what they want and other people know that they don't know.
> ...


Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?


With "proto" proteins that did not require information from DNA?


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 1, 2017)

Number one: all knowledge comes to a person through perception.
Number two: all perception is subjective.
Number three: perception is limited.
Number four: the only totally indisputable absolute is that being conscious means one exists.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



I don't care who coined the phrase.  For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Attempting to break down my thoughts on the matter more metaphorically, I see the physical realm we exist in as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. 

"Spirit" implies energy, and as we've all come to learn, all matter is merely contained energy.

God the Father having seeded Existence, or as the catalyst that caused our Universe/Multiverse.

Jesus the Son, being the bridge that connects it all.

Although, none of this has any bearing on timelines from an objective point of view, so it's also easy for me to also accept other ideas like the 14.x billion years of development, or mankind branching from primates.

Things like this and the mind-boggling concepts it represents are what push my thoughts into studies.

Coming full circle back to my original post on String Theory; it's the Math that demands God, not me.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 1, 2017)

As far as is scientifically known, the elements that make life possible were produced in the fires of the first stars. They did not pop into being at the 'big bang'. For those who want a 'God' sitting on a throne somewhere, keep that in mind. Any 'God' that exists is not like any 'God' being presented by a major religion.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?
> ...


Scientists claim that RNA filled the roll of DNA, at one time. All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Another scientific fact. Nothing physical can create itself. So, where did energy come from? Scientists tell us that it has always existed, yet they refuse to admit the possibility of a eternal God. Go figure.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> Attempting to break down my thoughts on the matter more metaphorically, I see the physical realm we exist in as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> "Spirit" implies energy, and as we've all come to learn, all matter is merely contained energy.
> 
> ...



We seem to be wrestling over semantics.

Do you believe that God exists independent of the Universe, but that the Universe cannot exist without God?

IF so you are holding to the basics of Christian views on the Trinity and its relationship to the Universe as I understand it.

If not, then you are wayward, and I hope you read more of the Orthodox view of the Trinity and Creation.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



LMAO!!   Sorry, that doesn't work either.  First you show you don't know the meaning of a word.  Then you try to blame it on the education system.  And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol.    Not even close.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> As far as is scientifically known, the elements that make life possible were produced in the fires of the first stars. They did not pop into being at the 'big bang'. For those who want a 'God' sitting on a throne somewhere, keep that in mind. Any 'God' that exists is not like any 'God' being presented by a major religion.


Think about this. God is all powerful. Why couldn't He have done things just as the scientists say they happened? He could have accelerated the process, after all. In any event, you cannot have a creation without a Creator, since nothing physical can create itself. Two choices. Everything popped into existence on it's own, or it was created. Which makes more sense?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> As far as is scientifically known, the elements that make life possible were produced in the fires of the first stars. They did not pop into being at the 'big bang'.



Big Bang - Wikipedia
The first subatomic particles to be formed included protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.​


there4eyeM said:


> For those who want a 'God' sitting on a throne somewhere, keep that in mind. Any 'God' that exists is not like any 'God' being presented by a major religion.



Well, not a God as you understand them.

In Judaism and in Christianity, I believe that the concept of God is that He exists before space/time existed and that He truly has no humanoid form, but when such is alluded to in scripture these are merely homo-morphisms and not literal descriptions of God.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Attempting to break down my thoughts on the matter more metaphorically, I see the physical realm we exist in as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
> ...



I believe God exists independent of the Universe, and that He is _also_ the Universe. He _is_ the sum of all Existence.

Giordano Bruno was ahead of his time as well.

*Giordano Bruno* (Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; Latin: _Iordanus Brunus Nolanus_; 1 January 1548 – 17 February 1600), born *Filippo Bruno*, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and cosmological theorist.[3] He is remembered for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then novel Copernican model. *He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets* and *raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own* (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). *He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".*

Not bad for a man who grew up and died before Jamestown was even founded.

Much like a Bronze Age man in the Mesopotamian desert giving a staggeringly accurate account of Creation when compared side-by-side with the theory of the Big Bang/Evolution.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Er, random molecules bumped together, er, or something


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.


Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.
> ...


True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...




Like this?

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



I think the current theories that postulate DNA arising from RNA baseit on RNA being somewhat more simple in behavior and ease of composition.

But I dont know as I am not a scientist nor a theologian; just speaking for myself.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> Like this?
> 
> Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
> 
> "Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed."


Has RNA been found in nature independent of a lab or living organism?


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



Uneducated?   From the guy who did not know the actual definition of pantheism?   That is hilarious.  

Funny, when I point out your error, you spend post after post attacking me.  No admission that you were wrong. Just attack the messenger.   And you have the gall to call me uneducated and angry?


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Like this?
> ...




Now that I have no clue on. I will be taking basic chemistry courses for electives and general studies credit, but my field will be Mathematics.

But, what little I do know on that particular subject, I feel it's a very important step in reverse-engineering the "code" that ultimately became us.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yes, I called you that, and I've been smiling as you come crawling back every time for the last word, on command.

Good boy.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Like this?
> ...


Anyone who knows anything about information theory knows that DNA could not evolve on it's own. DNA is a high level language. It has syntax and meaning. It accepts input and produces output, just like a computer. Information has nothing to do with matter or energy. It exists independently of both. Matter and energy are simply the medium that information uses. So, one mast ask oneself. Where did information come from? Information has been shown to come from a single source. Intelligence.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...


But, this poster includes the answer to his/her conundrum; "Information has been shown to come from a single source." O.K., just ad this little codicil: ", so far". We know life is. We don't know how it came about. All else is speculation from what is (more or less) known.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 1, 2017)

What's with the attack on 'Winterborn'? Can anyone objective explain this?


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



And still no admission that you were wrong. Imagine that.   

But keep dancing around pretending it is about me.  It makes I think even more amusing.


----------



## SixFoot (Feb 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



See? You physically cannot go without the last word. 

Like I said, angry little man who hasn't learned anything he can't Google in the midst of an argument.

Very generic.

This is why you get treated like a bitch.

Fear not though, I have class soon, and you have Google to pound on. The last word will finally be yours.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...



Funny thing, I did Google the definition of "pantheism" to make sure what I knew was accurate.  You are the angry one.  How dare someone correct you with facts, huh?

No junior, I am not angry.  I am amused.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 1, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> What's with the attack on 'Winterborn'? Can anyone objective explain this?



Some people get pissy when you correct them.   Lol


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...




DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Well, OK. If you want to get technical about it.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...




I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.


----------



## rdean (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Here is a scientific discussion of the requirements for life and why a naturalistic origin is, quite simply, impossible. The more science learns about life, the more absurd it looks for a naturalistic origin.
> 
> Origin of life - creation.com


Not just creation.  

"Magical" creation!


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


Of course, 'beneficial' is a human term for the result. Nature is neutral.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation. I know of none that do not have a down side. For instance, there is one that makes one immune to sickle cell anemia. However, it also causes another condition that is harmful to ones health.

Now, when I say that there is no example of adding new information, I mean just that. DNA can be rearranged, but it cannot add new information. In other words, the number of genes in DNA remain constant. Mutations destroy information. That is a scientific fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 1, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



"It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation."

No it wouldn't.

What I said was that deletions and insertions result in different combinations of nucleotides.
In laboratory experiments I have found changes in metabolism due to mutations.....ability to metabolize new sources, or no longer metabolize original ones.

Microevolution in the sense of variations occurring within an already existing species is hardly  "evolution." Darwin's theory doesn't accomplish its goal, to account for the diversity of life....but you are not telling the whole truth if you deny that such changes occur.


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 1, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However, DNA is fixed, as far as the number of chromosomes goes. That's what I meant about no new information being added.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 3, 2017)

I have a question.   Neither abiogenesis nor intelligent design can be proven.

What difference does it make which is accurate?   Does anything actually change in today's world if one or the other is false?


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 3, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> I have a question.   Neither abiogenesis nor intelligent design can be proven.
> 
> What difference does it make which is accurate?   Does anything actually change in today's world if one or the other is false?


Our existential sense of isolation would be affected by some proof of a 'Designer', but daily life would, indeed, remain daily life.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...


LOL  Another fucking idiot. Yes, nature does add and subtract genes, and even whole chromosomes. I would suggest that you take some biology courses, but know you would never do that. You are too damned proud of your ignorance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2017)

PoliticalChic said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Harmful mutations die out. Beneficial ones live on and spread through the population. Read Stephan Jay Gould.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 3, 2017)

Some interesting mutations took place to produce wheat, and just at a crucial time in human social evolution.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> ...
> 
> What you say is correct, as far as it goes. *However, DNA is fixed, as far as the number of chromosomes goes.* That's what I meant about no new information being added.


False.

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[6]Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. *Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.*[7][8]

The Evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[9][10]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere in the q21.3–q22.1 region.[11]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the q13 band, far from either end of the chromosome.[12]
According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [12]​`


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 3, 2017)

abu afak said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


*New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion*
*by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. **
Evidence for Creation

Humans and great apes differ in chromosome numbers—humans have 46 while apes have 48. The difference is claimed to be due to the “end-to-end fusion” of two small, ape-like chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor that joined in the distant past and formed human chromosome 2. This idea was first proposed by researchers who noticed that humans and chimps share similar chromosomal staining patterns when observed under a microscope.1 However, humans and chimps also have regions of their chromosomes that do not share common staining patterns.

Supposed proof for the alleged fusion came in 1991, when researchers discovered a fusion-like DNA sequence about 800 bases in length on human chromosome 2.2 However, it was unexpectedly small in size and extremely degenerate. More importantly, this new fusion-like sequence wasn’t what the researchers were expecting to find since it contained a signature never seen before. All known fusions in living animals are associated with a sequence called satellite DNA (satDNA) that fuses in one of the two following scenarios: 1) satDNA-satDNA or 2) satDNA-telomereDNA. (Telomeres are the regions at the end of chromosomes that contain thousands of repeats of the DNA sequence “TTAGG.”)3,4 The alleged fusion sequence contained a different signature, a telomere-telomere fusion, and, if real, would be the first documented case ever seen in nature.

In 2002, 614,000 bases of DNA surrounding the fusion site were fully sequenced, revealing that the alleged fusion sequence was in the middle of a gene originally classified as a pseudogene because there was not yet any known function for it.5,6 The research also showed that the genes surrounding the fusion site in the 614,000-base window did not exist on chimp chromosomes 2A or 2B—the supposed ape origins location. In genetics terminology, we call this discordant gene location a_ lack of synteny._







I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk its evolutionary claims.7 My analysis confirms that the site is located inside a gene called _DDX11L2_ on human chromosome 2. Furthermore, the alleged fusion sequence contains a functional genetic feature called a “transcription factor binding site” that is located in the first intron (non-coding region) of the gene (see illustration). Transcription factors are proteins that bind to regulatory sites in and around genes to control their function, acting like switches. The _DDX11L2_ gene has three of these areas, one of which is encoded in the alleged fusion site.

Chromosomes are double-stranded DNA molecules and contain genes on both strands that are encoded in opposite directions. Because the _DDX11L2_ gene is encoded on the reverse-oriented strand, it is read in the reverse direction (see Exon 1 arrow). Thus, the alleged fusion sequence is not read in the forward orientation typically used in literature as evidence for a fusion—rather, it is read in the reverse direction and encodes a key regulatory switch.

The supposed fusion site is actually a key part of the _DDX11L2_ gene. The gene itself is part of a complex group of RNA helicase _DDX11L_ genes that produce regulatory long non-coding RNAs. These _DDX11L2_ RNA transcripts are produced in at least 255 different cell types and tissues in humans, highlighting the genes’ ubiquitous biological function.

Functional genes like _DDX11L2_ do not arise by the mythical fusing of telomeres. The alleged fusion site is not a degenerate fusion sequence but is and, since creation, has been a functional feature in an important gene.7

_*References*_


Yunis, J. J. and O. Prakash. 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. _Science_. 215 (4539): 1525-1530.
Ijdo, J. W. et al. 1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion._ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences._ 88 (20): 9051-9055.
Tsipouri, V. et al 2008. Comparative sequence analyses reveal sites of ancestral chromosomal fusions in the Indian muntjac genome. _Genome Biology_. 9 (10): R155.
Adega, F., H. Guedes-Pinto and R. Chaves. 2009. Satellite DNA in the karyotype evolution of domestic animals—clinical considerations. _Cytogenetics and Genome Research._126 (1-2): 12-20.
Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Gene Content and Function of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in Human Chromosome 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions._ Genome Research._12 (11): 1663-1672.
Fan, Y. et al. 2002. Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes._Genome Research_. 12 (11): 1651-1662.
Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion._Answers Research Journal._ 6: 367-375.
_* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University._


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2017)

A much more factual site.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Are Mutations Harmful?


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 3, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> A much more factual site.
> 
> TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
> 
> Are Mutations Harmful?


Yeah. Right. This is from their website.
 The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

Can you find a more biased site?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> *New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion*
> *by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. **
> Eviden ce for Creation
> ...


I posted Wiki citing Real scientists/papers.
You posted *ICR/Institute for Creation Research. That's [Oxymoron] "evangelical science."
Discover ICR | The Institute for Creation Research
Foundational Principles | The Institute for Creation Research
*


> For over four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework[......]
> The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by *a transcendent Personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.*
> The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems *but was specially and SUPERNATURALLY created by the Creator.*
> 
> ...


*
That's ALL RAGING Biblical Conspiracy Garbage/Dogma/Dogdoo, NOT Science.
"Supernatural Creation" is NOT science.
Oh, when you copy an article, spare us the notes.. unless it's amazing, even to you, your garbage even has any notes: however abused.
`*


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 5, 2017)

abu afak said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > *New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion*
> ...


The article was by a PhD in genetics. He is also a published scientist. Now, would you like to try gaining a little credibility by trying to refute what he wrote?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> *The article was by a PhD in genetics. He is also a published scientist.* Now, would you like to try gaining a little credibility by trying to refute what he wrote?



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins
*#1215: Jeffrey P. Tomkins*

"The unfortunate demise of John Todd leads us to another stock creationist, *Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “research associate” at the Institute for Creation Research. *Tomkins has a PhD in genetics (Clemson University) and a master’s degree in “plant science”, and his “research” for the ICR accordingly focuses on genetics, particularly (as per 2011) on the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. He has already discovered that the similarity between humans and chimps was “merely” 86– 89% by failing to understand some rather central distinctions (he never told us what the differences were, but did claim that evolutionist attempts to sequence the genome were biased). His 2012 article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, “Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution,” promptly Failed to understand the science (detailed explanation here).

Needless to say, *Tomkins avoids serious, scientific journals for his rants, but instead likes to publish his “results” in venues such as Answers, the house journal of Answers in Genesis. *For volume 4 of that journal he published, in addition to his human-chimp difference paper, “Response to Comments on ‘How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees’,”, a response to (creationist) criticisms of said paper. He continued the confusion in volume 6.

His latest project is apparently concerned with the “concept of genetic diversity in biological adaptation.” We are still waiting for any insights.

*Diagnosis: Clueless Moron, whose understanding of central concepts in biology seems to be – willfully – more or less non-existent."*​*
LOFL, You Dishonest/Disingenuous Idiot
`*


----------



## RWNJ (Feb 6, 2017)

abu afak said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> > *The article was by a PhD in genetics. He is also a published scientist.* Now, would you like to try gaining a little credibility by trying to refute what he wrote?
> ...


Wow! A biased website is calling him a loon. And you call me dishonest? And I'm still waiting for someone to refute the article. He explained how this gene fusion is a bunch of bs. Explain how he is mistaken, or STFU!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Even *viruses, the simplest form of life*, have DNA.


 The vast majority of viruses do not have DNA but have RNA instead.
A virus does not fulfill all the requirements for life, like self-replication for example, though some define it as living because it can get a suitable host to reproduce it. It is somewhere in between living and nonliving.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 6, 2017)

Those who believe in 'God' need only ask 'God' for their answers to these questions. Those who believe in science take another route. If 'God' exists, what can the scientifically oriented discover than 'God's creation? What are you worried about?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> That's single strand DNA. As far as I know, there are no viruses that contain normal double helix DNA.


There are both single and double stranded DNA viruses.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Also, did you know that the information to create proteins is encoded in our DNA? Why is that important? Because DNA cannot exist without those same proteins that are necessary to ensure that DNA copies itself correctly, and corrects any errors. It is a complex system that could not have evolved on it's own. One of those catch 22's that atheists like to ignore.


Well actually RNA may well be the first self replicator, not DNA or self-replicating proteins.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Science doesn't even have a plausible explanation, let alone a valid theory, for how it might have happened. No matter how hard they try, they haven't got a clue. Real science says it's highly improbable, if not impossible. Remember what I said about information theory? Nature is not capable of creating the information content of DNA. DNA is a high level language. It works just like a computer. It accepts input and produces output based on it's programming. It controls every one of the thousands and thousands of processes of the cell. *Now, do you have an explanation for how this could happened without intelligent design? Didn't think so.*


Yeah, RNA.
You seem to have put all your eggs in the DNA basket, completely forgetting about RNA and its capabilities!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Did you know that the odds of correctly formed amino acids and proteins bumping together and forming the first cell are a number with 5,700 zeros to 1?


Someone else ignoring RNA.


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Something else to consider. Proteins are created by information stored in DNA. DNA cannot exist without proteins. Neither one can exist without the other. Where does that leave us?


With RNA, of course!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Scientists claim that RNA filled the roll of DNA, at one time. *All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense*.


Not quite!

As far back as the 1960s, a few of those intelligent organisms began to suspect that the first self-replicating molecules were made of RNA, a close cousin of DNA. This idea has always had a huge problem, though – there was no known way by which RNA molecules could have formed on the primordial Earth. And if RNA molecules couldn’t form spontaneously, how could self-replicating RNA molecules arise? Did some other replicator come first? If so, what was it? The answer is finally beginning to emerge.

Like you point out repeatedly when biologists first started to ponder how life arose, the question seemed baffling. In all organisms alive today, the hard work is done by proteins. Proteins can twist and fold into a wild diversity of shapes, so they can do just about anything, including acting as enzymes, substances that catalyse a huge range of chemical reactions. However, the information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA molecules. You can’t make new proteins without DNA, and you can’t make new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA?

The discovery in the 1960s that RNA could fold like a protein, albeit not into such complex structures, suggested an answer. If RNA could catalyse reactions as well as storing information, some RNA molecules might be capable of making more RNA molecules. And if that was the case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could do everything themselves.

Scientists are not only found in 1982 a RNA enzyme that could catalyse reactions like protein enzymes, but also found in 2000 that in the core of the protein making factories in cells is a RNA enzyme!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Nothing physical can create itself. So, where did energy come from? Scientists tell us that it has always existed


Actually scientists did more than just tell us, they proved with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. *Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.*


Again that is absolutely false!
Not only have scientists found many RNA enzymes they have also created some in the lab!


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A much more factual site.
> ...


Yeah, ICR.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 6, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that the odds of correctly formed amino acids and proteins bumping together and forming the first cell are a number with 5,700 zeros to 1?
> ...


Huh? 

Did you have a point?


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Yeah, learn something about RNA.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 6, 2017)

edthecynic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're still confronted by the impossible odds of RNA assembling 2,000 unique proteins into a functioning cell.  No prizes for a cell that "almost" works


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 6, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Already explained in post 177, RNA does not need proteins to replicate.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 6, 2017)

Once an event has actually happened, the difference between probability and destiny becomes impossible to discern.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 6, 2017)

edthecynic #177 said:


> Not quite!
> 
> As far back as the 1960s, a few of those intelligent organisms began to suspect that the first self-replicating molecules were made of RNA, a close cousin of DNA. This idea has always had a huge problem, though – there was no known way by which RNA molecules could have formed on the primordial Earth. And if RNA molecules couldn’t form spontaneously, how could self-replicating RNA molecules arise? Did some other replicator come first? If so, what was it? The answer is finally beginning to emerge.
> 
> ...


Pretty True, but 100% *Plagiarized.*
First life: The search for the first replicator
Post Links please.
`


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2017)

RWNJ said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > RWNJ said:
> ...



Quacks like Tomkins seem to gravitate to the fundamentalist Christian warehouses like the ICR.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Jeffrey p. Tomkins


----------

