abiogenesis could not have happened.

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Abiogenesis happened. God willed it. (For any of you troubled by the religious implications, feel free to leave the God part out.)

Everyone hop on board, we're gonna ride the middle ground! WOO!!!!!

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by XenoFish

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Faith is not blind, but God is Eternal, without beginning and without  ending. Science does not hold the keys to unlock the true nature of everything.

Sooooo......Where did god come from? And if god came from somewhere, where was that? If god exist who or what created god? Then who or what created the thing that created god? 

[Rlyeh]

4 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

 if natural science is incapable of proof, where's the logic in eliminating God ? there is no logic in eliminating God 

Matter of fact; it is illogical to eliminate that God is the creator of all creation.

You've described a god of gaps. There is no evidence of this god let alone the fictional creation myth.

[Essan]

What exactly is god?       You need to specify exactly what a god is in order to demonstrate that it may (or may not) have been involved in the creation of life on one or more of the 200 trillion odd planets on which life more than likely exists in the current universe*.

God might just mean a random lightning strike on a pool of bubbling chemical froth....  


* of course, we do currently only have evidence of life existing on one planet.    But there are millions of galaxies we have yet to have examined ..... 

[danielost]

53 minutes ago, Essan said:

What exactly is god?       You need to specify exactly what a god is in order to demonstrate that it may (or may not) have been involved in the creation of life on one or more of the 200 trillion odd planets on which life more than likely exists in the current universe*.

God might just mean a random lightning strike on a pool of bubbling chemical froth....  


* of course, we do currently only have evidence of life existing on one planet.    But there are millions of galaxies we have yet to have examined ..... 

if a random lightening strike started life how come it only happened once.  genetically speaking all life on earth is related.

[aquatus1]

11 hours ago, danielost said:

you said the inside repeals water.  which means as it closed it would force the bubble out of it.  also bubbles are formed when air is interduced to the soap under the right pressure again no water.

No, Daniel.  I said:

23 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

So, now you have "patches" of lipids floating around, one side that is pro-water, and the other side which is anti-water.  Sooner or later, two of these patches meet up.  The side that loves water is largely ambivalent about it, but the sides that hate water, for the first time, have found something that is not water, and they grab on to it strongly, and don't let go (like two pieces of tape sticking together).  So, now you have a double-layer patch of lipids, with the outside fatty layer forming a "skin", and the inside formed of a bunch of anti-water molecules all firmly holdings hands.  That's what's called a "phospholipid bilayer".

I even included a picture.  Here, I'll post another another one; they are really easy to find, because this is a really well-known phenomena. Notice the two ("bi") layers, with the water-positive skin on the outside surface AND on the inside surface, as well as the water-hating tails all hunched together inside, commiserating with each other about how much they hate water.  Any water inside the bi-layer would get expelled, but the bi-layer is not the inside the cell; the bi-layer is the wall of the cell, the cell membrane, so to speak.

This isn't "theoretical", in the casual use of the word, either.  We can literally see it:

The dark outer rim is one of the bi-layers, followed by the narrow line, which are the water-repellent tails of those lipids, followed by a second dark inner rim, after which is the inside of the cell.

I also said:

12 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

 In the same way that a flat surface of glycerol of a bubble wand will collapse into itself and form a bubble with air inside when you blow on it, so would a flat surface of glycerol in water collapse into itself, trapping water inside.

If the bubble is formed in air with air, it will have air inside.  If it is formed in water with water, it will have water inside.  Yes, you have to blow on a bubble wand, but then, the bubble wand itself is a heavy artificial plastic reinforcing ring that keeps the glycerol sheet expanded, instead of letting it collapse.  When you blow air into it, it doesn't form a bubble because of magic; it forms a bubble because that is what happens when a glycerol sheet collapses into itself due to the pressure of the surrounding element, be it air or water.  Just like a pile of gravel forms into a pyramid if you dump it on the ground due to the pressure of gravity.  Things collapse into the state of least resistance to force.  That's physics.

Incidentally, for those who are following this for the educational benefits, this is what a modern cell wall looks like:

You still have the original phospholipid bilayer, but now it has imbedded proteins, which act as portals, mechanically (chemically) shuttling resources in and out of the cell, while still maintaining the integrity of the cell wall.

[aquatus1]

2 hours ago, danielost said:

if a random lightening strike started life how come it only happened once.  genetically speaking all life on earth is related.

No one said it only happened once.  It could have happened once, several times, or even none, meaning that particular theory is incorrect (after all, there were many sources of energy in the early days, not just lightning).

Incidentally, not all genetic life on Earth is as closely related as one would think.  The octopus, in particular, has such a divergent genetic sequence that it may have been a unique form of life that developed in conjunction with our genetic ancestors.  The octopus might well have originated in a separate event than the rest of life on Earth.

[+Hammerclaw]

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Sooooo......Where did god come from? And if god came from somewhere, where was that? If god exist who or what created god? Then who or what created the thing that created god? 

Where did the Universe come from? Are there other Universes there? How many? Where is there? Why is here, here? Why is there anything? Why do such tiny specks of gristle and protoplasm crawling around in the slime coating a lump of matter hurtling through the infinity of space have the intellectual capacity to even ask the questions? See? You can boggle the mind without even mentioning God.

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Where did the Universe come from? Are there other Universes there? How many? Where is there? Why is here, here? Why is there anything? Why do such tiny specks of gristle and protoplasm crawling around in the slime coating a lump of matter hurtling through the infinity of space have the intellectual capacity to even ask the questions? See? You can boggle the mind without even mentioning God.

Wow...that's amazing. Pure genius. Who would've every thought to ask those question? Really makes you think.

[+Hammerclaw]

29 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Wow...that's amazing. Pure genius. Who would've every thought to ask those question? Really makes you think.

Oh, no; I bow before the master. " Where did God come from?" Deep, dude; really deep.

[XenoFish]

I salute you Captain Obvious.

[aquatus1]

Fascinating exchange from the both of you, truly.

Now, let's hop back on topic, shall we?

[Essan]

5 hours ago, danielost said:

if a random lightening strike started life how come it only happened once.  genetically speaking all life on earth is related.

Who says it did?

In Pre-Cambrian times there were forms of life on Earth totally different and unrelated to any that exist today. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota

But the point is, of all of the trillions of planets on which life could evolve, it could have been just one random lightning strike on just one planet that started it.   Though I dont actually believe that.   I think life is endemic across the universe.

 

[danielost]

3 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

No one said it only happened once.  It could have happened once, several times, or even none, meaning that particular theory is incorrect (after all, there were many sources of energy in the early days, not just lightning).

Incidentally, not all genetic life on Earth is as closely related as one would think.  The octopus, in particular, has such a divergent genetic sequence that it may have been a unique form of life that developed in conjunction with our genetic ancestors.  The octopus might well have originated in a separate event than the rest of life on Earth.

all life on earth is50% related to one another.  including the octopus.

[aquatus1]

That's not even close to being true. 

At least you aren't arguing against the existence of bubbles.  That's a step forward, I suppose.

Edited August 18, 2016 by aquatus1

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

 if natural science is incapable of proof, where's the logic in eliminating God ? there is no logic in eliminating God 

Matter of fact; it is illogical to eliminate that God is the creator of all creation.

Science does not seek to eliminate god.  I'm sure that it will include god if it ever finds a case where god is an essential part of the solution.  But so far, god has not been needed.  All problems encountered to date can be solved without invoking god.

10 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

Faith is not blind, but God is Eternal, without beginning and without  ending. Science does not hold the keys to unlock the true nature of everything.

You just said that life is not immortal.  That's what I believe, too.  It had a beginning and presumably, will one day have an end.

And I agree that science does not hold the keys to all knowledge.  There's even a proof of that:  "I am lying."  Is that true or false?  If true, the statement can be believed and thus, I am lying.  But if I am lying, the statement cannot be believed and I am telling the truth.  Logic and reason (science) cannot resolve the issue, thus demonstrating that there is truth that is inaccessible to reason.

All things considered, science has a pretty good grasp of the physical.  If one should find a conflict between science and religion, then it is in the realm of the physical and one should believe science, as metaphysics cannot present any evidence.  There is, of course, a caveat:  science may make a new discovery or reexamine old discoveries and reach a different conclusion, so you may have to revise your estimation of what religion tells you.  That's been going on since at least Galileo, the church has lots of practice changing its mind.

Doug

[ellapenella]

as if it hasn't found a case already.

 No, you said life is not immortal. I never said that.you did. I would never say that. I know better than to say that.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

See, I get that you may not understand the things about life that I understand. with you it's what you can see hear and touch in a solid form of matter compound. But there's another life that you for whatever reason can't touch and know that it's there, that's weird to me how people can't understand that our Spirit exist our soul is real. I am an infinite  being , of the most high and mighty  one and only true God the creator  and Father of all life .

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ellapennella

[Doug1029]

18 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

See, I get that you may not understand the things about life that I understand. with you it's what you can see hear and touch in a solid form of matter compound. But there's another life that you for whatever reason can't touch and know that it's there, that's weird to me how people can't understand that our Spirit exist our soul is real. I am an infinite  being , of the most high and mighty  one and only true God the creator  and Father of all life .

I have nothing against your belief in god or what you believe intuitively.  But I am more interested in Truth.  Science and reason is the best approach to this for the physical universe.  Science has nothing to say about god or metaphysics because reason does not apply to them.  If you wish to study them, you need another means of determining what is true.  I have no idea what that other means might be.

Doug

[ellapenella]

12 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have nothing against your belief in god or what you believe intuitively.  But I am more interested in Truth.  Science and reason is the best approach to this for the physical universe.  Science has nothing to say about god or metaphysics because reason does not apply to them.  If you wish to study them, you need another means of determining what is true.  I have no idea what that other means might be.

Doug

but , the truth that you're seeking , in all truth , you will never find in science. if you really wanted to find that truth of God you're searching in the wrong direction.

[ellapenella]

the science of understanding forms of matter will forever exist until your release you last breath. I get that science is exciting, discovery but I also know something else and I'm not the only one who knows that there's a discovery of God . what about the scientist that say science provides that reason of belief?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Ellapennella

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎15‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 6:38 PM, danielost said:

I am putting this here so god can enter the picture.

abiogenesis could not have happened.  those  of you who would have us believe that life just spontainasly (spch) began.  would have us believe that if you throw all the parts to a computer into a pile, you would get a computer.  further those parts would have to build themselves and the computer would program itself to become a mac. or p.c..  that is what you want us to believe.  that life started by itself after all the dna came together to program that life and all life forms came from that first cell.

Well all the correct components coming together in just the right way to start off life is improbable, astronomically improbable. Its more likely I can will the Euro millions a million weeks in a row. But does that mean God needed to have created it or not? I would argue we have our consciousness and it creates everything it needs to prop up the illusion of our existence.

[Doug1029]

Just now, Ellapennella said:

but , the truth that you're seeking , in all truth , you will never find in science. if you really wanted to find that truth of God you're searching in the wrong direction.

Maybe so.  But at least for me, religion falls a bit short.

And science:  a living cell; a mushroom twenty feet tall; two single-stemmed trees over 9500 years old; a 15,000 year-old creosote bush; a tree so old it is called "Methuselah," an aspen clone that could well be a million years old; rocks that were here before a living thing existsed, a memory of storms that now survive only in the rings of trees.  I have seen real miracles.  Religion's claims of the miraculous pale into insignificance beside the glory of Nature.

Doug

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

the science of understanding forms of matter will forever exist until your release you last breath. I get that science is exciting, discovery but I also know something else and I'm not the only one who knows that there's a discovery of God . what about the scientist that say science provides that reason of belief?

My boss is one of those people.  He reconciles science with belief in the Bible by believing that there are times when the Laws of Nature do not apply.  That, of course, is an assumption as he has no evidence whatever for it, but as you say, not everything is amenable to science.

Doug

[Doug1029]

8 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

the science of understanding forms of matter will forever exist until your release you last breath. I get that science is exciting, discovery but I also know something else and I'm not the only one who knows that there's a discovery of God . what about the scientist that say science provides that reason of belief?

Have you ever made a discovery?  Spent months combing through the literature to make sure no one else has made it before, spent weeks checking to make sure you did it right and then:  for a few minutes you are the only one on earth who knows.  And you say scientists don't understand religion!

Doug