Evidence of God: Physics, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 08:22 AM by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate.

Oh really?

Prove it. Show me. Show all of us.

Arrange inanimate proteins and make life for us.

Here, let me help you out. I'll open up the offer to all scientists in the world. Surely, with their combined intellect, super computers, etc., that one of them can create life, right?

Has anyone ever animated the inanimate? Ever?

If it's as simple as that don't you think that some scientist would have done it already then?

This has to be the least thought out statement you have ever made. I'm sure you meant to include, among many other variables, energy fields in to your statement but you did not.

Can you imagine pieces of coal or rock arranging together to form something that comes to life?

Absurd, right?

Now, just replace coal or rock with your protein and ask the same question.

Take a turtle vs protein; one is animate, the other is inanimate. Yet we see that both are made up of the same sub-atomic particles.

What are proteins made of? Amino Acids, which are composed of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sometimes sulfur.

So please prove your statement of how these amino acids can be arranged to animate the inanimated.

We are all waiting.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 09:10 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate.

Oh really?

Prove it. Show me. Show all of us.

Well, I don't have that sort of equipment, time, or expertise.

There are plenty of scientists working on it as of right now. We do have evidence to show that, in situations very similar to those found in the early Earth, the proteins which form RNA and DNA will form naturally. Now, we cannot perform the same test on the scale of the early Earth, we simply do not have the resources to reconvert a whole planet to its infant state. But showing that the formation of complex organic molecules which form RNA and DNA is possible in an incredibly small scale experiment in a lab is very promising.

Arrange inanimate proteins and make life for us.

Um...that wouldn't actually prove abiogenesis.

Here, let me help you out. I'll open up the offer to all scientists in the world. Surely, with their combined intellect, super computers, etc., that one of them can create life, right?

They're working on it...and not all of them are biologists. Here's the crazy thing, scientists don't direct all of their efforts towards single problems. There are some scientists working on abiogenesis, but they're hardly a majority even within biology.

Has anyone ever animated the inanimate? Ever?

Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally.

Have humans ever formed a self-sustaining, stable fusion reaction?
No?
Oh, I guess the sun doesn't exist.

If it's as simple as that don't you think that some scientist would have done it already then?

Let's see..abiogenesis is a field that started in 1924.
And who said it was simple? I'm talking about the long process, possibly over the course of many human lifetimes, in which carbon (one of the most common and the most reactive atomic element) forms into structures which eventually self-replicate and form proto-cells which eventually form life....and this would take a long, long time and it would require a lot of chances to happen. We cannot simply recreate this phenomenon in a tiny lab.

This has to be the least thought out statement you have ever made.

Far from it. It was a well thought-out statement.

I'm sure you meant to include, among many other variables, energy fields in to your statement but you did not.

"Energy fields"?
No, the principle energy source would be the sun and possibly lightning, but primarily the sun.

The field of abiogenesis is still young, especially by historical standards. Right now the research seems to point to a place where life might simply be a consequence of physical laws.

Can you imagine pieces of coal or rock arranging together to form something that comes to life?

Nope, but that's not the position I'm going for. That's a straw man. I'm talking about a point that, under the right conditions, certain organic molecules form that can go from proto-life to life.

Absurd, right?

Yes, because most rocks aren't made of carbon and coal comes from living things.

Now, just replace coal or rock with your protein and ask the same question.

Except that proteins are reactive, form naturally, and become more complex naturally. Sooooo....bad analogy.

Take a turtle vs protein; one is animate, the other is inanimate. Yet we see that both are made up of the same sub-atomic particles.

What are proteins made of? Amino Acids, which are composed of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sometimes sulfur.

So please prove your statement of how these amino acids can be arranged to animate the inanimated.

We are all waiting.

Hey look, I'm being asked to provide research and look into incredibly detailed literature...in a thread where the claim was that physics proves the existence of a deity.

My claim was that current scientific thought shows that, under the right conditions, proteins may arrange themselves into life.

YouTube Link

There's a basic explanation. I'm not an expert on the subject.
However, knowing your track record, you probably won't watch the video before you respond.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 09:17 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Robert Reynolds

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Your analogy is patently absurd.

No, it really isn't.

'Wet' is merely a description of a sensation, life is a great deal more than that.

Yes and no. Wet is a description of going from the atomic to the molecular level, life to non-life deals with self-containing systems that self-replicate.

Hell, life isn't even that complex of a concept is I can make it into a single sentence.

The fundamental forces of physics can not account for conciousness and nothing short of a miraculous or magical revision of those laws could do so.

Life exists without consciousness. Viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants, etc. None of those are conscious.

And of course the fundamental forces of physics don't account for a neurochemical phenomenon. What the hell would the weak force, strong force, gravity, and electromagnetism have to do with that? I mean, they come into play, but they're not going to account for everything. They don't account for cellular fission either, but they can be used on some level to explain it.

Consciousness is a curious question, science is working on it. You cannot simply shove a deity in that gap of knowledge.

If you believe the universe can be explained adequately by Physics, then I would suggest you haven't understood its implications.

Um...no, I'm quite sure the universe can be described by physics. Well, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. All those scientific fields.

You can explain atoms and molecules forming and grouping together via the interactions of the fundamental forces (primarily electromagnetism) but there is clearly a leap to the formation of the simplest life forms. Life is clearly not the result of 'fundamental' forces.

Um...how not? Life is a product of a bunch of organic molecules forming into a self-contained, self-replicating system, the complexity of which can increase via evolution.

reply to post by Unlucky77

You just pulled a lot of numbers from your posterior there. Please, provide the pages of evidence you'd need to back up your ridiculous numbers.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 10:26 AM by sykickvision

reply to post by Unlucky77

I've done this before, but I don't know where I put the math I used for it because it was some time ago. Also, my current form of intelligent design has a flaw apparently that is causing an extra tooth to break through in my lower back jaw causing considerable pain....so....either I'm going to have to pray for it to stop hurting and disappear or go to see a dentist for an extraction.

You can throw that argument around all you want, with the unlikelihood of life evolving. When you focus more on what we do know and what we can see and measure.

"- A parent and child share 99.5% of the same DNA.
- We share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages.
- Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees.
- Every human on earth shares 99% of their DNA with every other human.
- Identical twins share the exact same DNA - meaning their DNA is 100% identical.
- We share 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly.
- Researchers at Cambridge University are convinced that the mud worms not only share DNA with humans but that they are also our closest invertabrae relatives."

This, along with MUCH other info, awaits your discovery by using the power of google.
We can trace everything back to mere specks of life in the ocean. Lab tests have shown that by duplicating conditions found on primordial earth, complex molecules can be formed.

The evidence so far shows that all life is connected on a molecular level..sharing dna, genes, and whatnot.

The way I see it, either :
(a) Life arose by chance and evolved over time
(b) God created a tiny speck of life and let it evolve over time, and works through the laws of nature
(c) God created all life and made it seem as if it evolved over time, is an a$$hole & hides himself & tortures us
(d) The Bible is true, and the scientific community has propagated the entire assembly of evolution & fossils just to trick us and damn themselves

If a is true, then it is what it is. Deal with it.
if b is true, then god is a cool dude & we've nothing to worry about, he doesn't care either way
If c is true, then we'd better hurry up & join every religion just to be on the safe side
if d is true, then the scientists must be a tad smarter than what we give them credit for, have almost unlimited knowledge and power, and nearly supernatural abilities

On another note, if god created ANYTHING, then practically EVERYTHING we know about science is invalidated.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 10:53 AM by Robert Reynolds

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Everything in the universe is supposed to be ultimately governed by the fundamental forces. Chemistry and Bilology are not exempt, they are both fields of science that should be explicable via the laws of physics.

Anybody that has understood the universe as described by the academic subject that is Physics, and has had a spiritual experience knows that it's not only missed something out - it's missed the most essential aspect of our existance out. I doubt many 'spiritualists' believe that matter is required or the reason for our being.

Can you not see the blatant inadequacy of your description? 'Life is just a collection of self-replicating molecules' - 'Just'? - 'Self-replicating'? How does something copy itself? With all our intelligence we can't copy ourselves, but inanimate particles can?

edit on 28-11-2010 by Robert Reynolds because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 11:08 AM by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Everything in the universe is supposed to be ultimately governed by the fundamental forces. Chemistry and Bilology are not exempt, they are both fields of science that should be explicable via the laws of physics.

I never said you couldn't, I said it would be silly to use them. The language would be overly complicated and such a process as cell fission would result in several pages worth of explanation...

Anybody that has understood the universe as described by the academic subject that is Physics,

Ok, please define the universe as described by physics.

and has had a spiritual experience

And now I've been lost.
Evidence is universal, not personal. A thesis must be demonstrable to all.

knows that it's not only missed something out - it's missed the most essential aspect of our existance out.

It's missing a few things, sure, but we're working on them. Physics doesn't claim to describe everything (yet).

And the other question is whether or not consciousness is actually a thing...

I doubt many 'spiritualists' believe that matter is required or the reason for our being.

And I, being a reasonable individual, don't see that there is any reason for our being. We just are. Live with it.

Can you not see the blatant inadequacy of your description?

Nope, though what follows shows me the blatant inadequacy of your understanding of science and human sexuality.

'Life is just a collection of self-replicating molecules' - 'Just'? - 'Self-replicating'? How does something copy itself?

Reproduction.

With all our intelligence we can't copy ourselves, but inanimate particles can?

Someone needs to give you a talk about the birds and the bees....

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 01:01 PM by sykickvision

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Here's your answer.

www.talkorigins.org...

It has big words in it, and it's not a movie - there are a few picture, and it will take more than 30 seconds to read & comprehend what's being stated. But read...please read before replying. Do the thread that favor.

The mistaken assumption is that only ONE chemical reaction at a time is taking place, whereas it could potentially number into the thousands or tens of thousands - per second - per number of atoms/molecules in the entire primordial ocean.

When you figure in more correct math, and get the facts straight about expected outcomes, it makes it about as improbable as winning $10 on a scratch off lottery ticket.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 02:02 PM by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by sykickvision
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Here's your answer.

www.talkorigins.org...

It has big words in it, and it's not a movie - there are a few picture, and it will take more than 30 seconds to read & comprehend what's being stated. But read...please read before replying. Do the thread that favor.

The mistaken assumption is that only ONE chemical reaction at a time is taking place, whereas it could potentially number into the thousands or tens of thousands - per second - per number of atoms/molecules in the entire primordial ocean.

When you figure in more correct math, and get the facts straight about expected outcomes, it makes it about as improbable as winning $10 on a scratch off lottery ticket.

Talking down to me does not make you look more intelligent.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

"Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate."

I read your lies, damned lies article. I watched the pretty looking moving picture video, all six minutes sixteen seconds of it.

"Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random'." - lies article.

"The video explains current ideas as to how life 'might' have originated on Earth." - video.

Neither of these sources show an obvious "point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate."

What they did show me was that science is working on it and that how it "might" have occurred.

But it is neither obvious nor proven.

So please offer up some actual scientific proof on how proteins give rise to life.

Let me save you and the others the time, you can not.

So please do not say false, misleading points that are meant to deceive the reader.

Science may in fact prove life developed this way or science may in fact prove it has not.

But right now, as of today, this second, this moment, science has not shown how proteins have given rise to life. Period.

Argue until you're blue in the face or red from embarrassment, but science has not shown how proteins have given rise to life. Period.

So the original member being quoted should just admit he was wrong and move on.

We are all human here and make mistakes. He made one. No biggie. Admit it and move on.

p.s. Does this quote from your lies article: "Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random'."

Admit that "the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random."? - therefore - if they are not random - then they are deliberate - which shows us some sort of intelligence behind them? Just asking.

p.s.s. Maybe you should spend less time on talking down to someone and more time on answering the question I asked. Which was: Has anyone ever animated the inanimate? Ever?

Here's the members response: "Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally."

I didn't ask if nature does it, I asked if "ANYONE" has ever done it - ever.

Wow- and you talk down to me? Maybe you need to speak slower to this fella.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 02:38 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

"Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate."

I read your lies, damned lies article. I watched the pretty looking moving picture video, all six minutes sixteen seconds of it.

Ok, that sounded more than a bit creepy. Why is that a 'lies, damned lies article'?

"Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random'." - lies article.

Again, why is that a lie?

"The video explains current ideas as to how life 'might' have originated on Earth." - video.

Neither of these sources show an obvious "point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate."

...um...it does give a pretty good explanation of the process, though it doesn't mark the specific point.

What they did show me was that science is working on it and that how it "might" have occurred.

But it is neither obvious nor proven.

Well, certain aspects are obvious, and quite a few are proven. However, the science is young and needs a lot more time to develop.

So please offer up some actual scientific proof on how proteins give rise to life.

I provided an explanation. It's the most we have right now

Let me save you and the others the time, you can not.

Well, it's the best workable hypothesis we have right now. We have observed something and realized that life can arise naturally.

So please do not say false, misleading points that are meant to deceive the reader.

...um...where is any of it false? It does seem obvious to me that life can give rise to non-life. Abiogenesis is possible. Experimentation has given rise to the components of RNA and DNA.

Science may in fact prove life developed this way or science may in fact prove it has not.

Well, it's on track to prove it.

But right now, as of today, this second, this moment, science has not shown how proteins have given rise to life. Period.

The literature is still under review. We have enough evidence to make a claim that it is likely.

Argue until you're blue in the face or red from embarrassment, but science has not shown how proteins have given rise to life. Period.

And science hasn't show us that the laws of physics were laid down by a deity, but you're still arguing it.
There's a lot of evidence for abiogenesis, a lot more than there is for creationist.

So the original member being quoted should just admit he was wrong and move on.

Or I could just say that there is a level of evidence present for the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

We are all human here and make mistakes. He made one. No biggie. Admit it and move on.

As of right now there is no other scientific explanation for it.

p.s. Does this quote from your lies article: "Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random'."

Admit that "the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these 'are decidedly not random."? - therefore - if they are not random - then they are deliberate - which shows us some sort of intelligence behind them? Just asking.

...Nope...it just says that these sorts of functions are deterministic. If the situation arises they must happen.

p.s.s. Maybe you should spend less time on talking down to someone and more time on answering the question I asked. Which was: Has anyone ever animated the inanimate? Ever?

It's an incredibly irrelevant question. It's a red herring.

Here's the members response: "Just because humans can't do it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally."

I didn't ask if nature does it, I asked if "ANYONE" has ever done it - ever.

Wow- and you talk down to me? Maybe you need to speak slower to this fella.

Again, what relevance is there? So what if humans can't do it? Humans can't form stellar black holes, it doesn't stop them from happening.

reply posted on 28-11-2010 @ 04:28 PM by sykickvision

I've really come to feel as if I do not care at all what you think or believe. My whole point in this post is stating that I should have refrained from the sarcasm in the previous post, as it is most un-atheistic of me...however; I can see the reasoning behind the logic in what I believe and I don't think it's as far-fetched as what you are making it out to be. There IS the possibility that I am wrong in what I believe to be true, but there are a whole lot of people out there that are smarter than me that it doesn't seem to bother at all. I guess the reason that it doesn't bother them so much is that they know more-or-less what they will find whenever it gets down to that point. We are, after all, just a bunch of advanced monkeys trying to piece together clues that are approx 4 billion years old. What we can examine in the here & now is the evidence in the life around us. When we see inside the chicken's genes that it has the coding for teeth, and we know that chickens don't have teeth....well.....maybe they once did. When we look at a whales skeleton and see the basic bone structure in their flippers that are present in our arms....well....once again, we might think that the flipper might have once been something else. The remnants of leg bones, and the hip structure in whales clearly show that it wasn't always in an aquatic environment. Creationists have always screamed whenever gaps in the theory of evolution have surfaced - yet whenever they are filled they find new gaps. Why does your god always have to hide in a gap? If organisms were created "according to their kind" then why on earth is there so much DNA shared between organisms? Did god lack a little creativity & imagination? If science was as blind in everything else as you claim it to be in evolution, exactly how well do you fathom this planet would function? Would we ever create a vaccine for any disease? Would any computer EVER work? Would any vehicle, blender, refrigerator, television or toilet EVER function properly? If you got hit by a car and went to the hospital, would you question their judgment in their treatment of you? When you have a killer headache & reach for the tylenol, is that a leap of faith?
In 1976 my grandfather died because of a heart complication. They didn't have the knowledge, or the science to treat his condition. Does that mean they were on the wrong path? Were they doing something wrong? Truth is, they didn't know WHAT to do. Did they just give up and say that's as far as they dare go? Now, they can perform a simple surgery (relatively) and with a few meds he would have been back out mowing the grass & yelling at the neighborhood kids to stay off his lawn. They just didn't know what to do or either how to do it - but they DID figure it out.
I think there is always going to be a gap in our knowledge of the universe, at least for the next several dozen generations or so, and it will be in that gap that creationists will claim is where god resides.

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >> ^^TOP^^