Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

reply to post by Cataclysm

Also, let me remind everyone what is happening here. Some people here, after having lived on this planet in most cases probably less than two decades, argue that they have absolute knowledge that a very specific God not only created the Universe, but also influenced it later by e.g. creating man from dirt and woman from a bone.

Then there are other people who base their view of the Universe on the accumulated works of some of the most intelligent people of generations over the past centuries and decades. Very few of them claim to know what happened in the beginning. On the origins of man on the other hand, they can be almost certain, that no unnatural interference had to occur at any point of our long 3.7 biotic evolution here. The certainty is somewhat lower for the pre-biotic phase, but it's ever increasing. Right now one possibility is that our very origin is not from dirt, but from RNA molecules on the ocean floor in proximity to a hydrothermal vent.

p.s.

Of course, in many cases the absolute side also claims knowledge of talking snakes, flying camels, global floods, the living dead, etc. which definitely are not results of artistic creativity because like in the Internet, everything in books is true too. They know it's true because they were told it's true. It's the book of God because it says that it's the book of God. That's totally not circular reasoning. This absolute knowledge they have, and it's not questioned. All things scientific that are on the contrary however, for those things extraordinary evidence is demanded. No double standards

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by Barcs

 

People aren't claiming that abiogenesis is 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You believe abiogenesis has been proven... what? 10%? 25%? 1%?

And, this "evidence" supporting abiogenesis of which you speak, tell us what it is... be specific.

Do you have a back-up option (just in case abiogenesis is never proven)? In other words, if science can't demonstrate that inorganic matter can produce organic matter, how did life begin? Do you have an opinion on that? Or, are you going on blind faith? Putting all your eggs in one abiogenesis basket, so to speak?

www.wired.com...

Can you put a percentage on how much that is? They don't have the full story, but they have a piece of it. What percentage proven do you consider a creator? I can tell you that the experiment mentioned in the article by itself is more evidence than there is for a designer or design process.

I don't need a backup theory. I just don't deal with absolutes. Abiogenesis might just be one piece of the ultimate puzzle. Panspermia could be another. Could be a large amount of occurrences coming together at the perfect time. I'm not getting judged for eternity for which theory I enjoy the most, but I certainly won't have the audacity to claim I know the answer for sure.

reply to post by rhinoceros

The ones I mentioned a few posts ago (especially stuff related to auto-catalytic RNA molecules).

Did you include a source in your post? I've gone back 5 pages and have been unable to find it. Would you re-post the source? Or, give me the page it's on.

reply to post by Cataclysm

page 51

link I gave

Especially relevant bit:

In publications and preliminary data we have demonstrated that the Azoarcus ribozyme, 198 nucleotides in length, can be fragmented into four pieces that can spontaneously self-assemble into a covalently-contiguous molecule through recombination reactions. These assemblages can self-replicate because they can autocatalytically catalyze further self-assembly reactions. In the current proposal we will extend this methodology by exploring whether smaller and more random fragments in a pool of oligomers can accomplish the same task.

They demonstrated that self-replicating RNA molecules can spontaneously form from RNA oligomers. In this case, there were just 4 oligomers of about 50 nt length each. Even these exact oligomers are rather likely to first form spontaneously given enough time, but their ongoing experiments attempt to push this even further. Nonetheless, they have demonstrated that pre-biotic RNA life can spontaneously form from RNA molecules. From this point on, these molecules are subjects to evolution (i.e. nature selects the ones that compete more efficiently for the available resources)..

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Cataclysm

 

Also, let me remind everyone what is happening here. Some people here, after having lived on this planet in most cases probably less than two decades, argue that they have absolute knowledge that a very specific God not only created the Universe, but also influenced it later by e.g. creating man from dirt and woman from a bone.

Then there are other people who base their view of the Universe on the accumulated works of some of the most intelligent people of generations over the past centuries and decades. Very few of them claim to know what happened in the beginning. On the origins of man on the other hand, they can be almost certain, that no unnatural interference had to occur at any point of our long 3.7 biotic evolution here. The certainty is somewhat lower for the pre-biotic phase, but it's ever increasing. Right now one possibility is that our very origin is not from dirt, but from RNA molecules on the ocean floor in proximity to a hydrothermal vent.

p.s.

Of course, in many cases the absolute side also claims knowledge of talking snakes, flying camels, global floods, the living dead, etc. which definitely are not results of artistic creativity because like in the Internet, everything in books is true too. They know it's true because they were told it's true. It's the book of God because it says that it's the book of God. That's totally not circular reasoning. This absolute knowledge they have, and it's not questioned. All things scientific that are on the contrary however, for those things extraordinary evidence is demanded. No double standards

edit on 3-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

I agree with some of your comments in this post, particularily as they relate to the absurdity of certain doctrines expoused by many of the religious fundalmentalists. But, I respond here because your post purports to be in reply to something that I posted.

At no time have I even mentioned "god" or anything of a religious nature in this thread. My focus was to keep the discussion soley on scientific issues.

Thus, I find your comments directed to me (or to my posts) rude, condesending and wholly without any factual basis.

reply to [url= by Cataclysm[/url]


But that is the crux of your posts on this issue isn't it?

Or do you dispute Abiogenesis or Evolution purely on a scientific basis?

Do you dispute other scientific theories? or is it just those two?

Is it then sheer coincidence that those two scientific theories flat out refute a certain collection of religious scribbles that also contain things such as unicorns and people living inside giant fishes for extended amounts of time?

reply to post by Cataclysm


No offense, but you are promoting intelligent design. Don't be surprised if people say you believe in god. It's comical as the way you ignored my post about the evidence behind abiogenesis, then ask Rhino to source something, that I also posted similar evidence for. Just face it. The hard evidence is not there for ID, creation, god, whatever you wanna call it. ZERO objective evidence.

If you don't want people making assumptions about your beliefs, you should clear the air and tell us what you do believe so we know how to address your posts. At least 90% of the ID promoters in here believe in god. Are you in the alien crowd or the god crowd? There's really only 2 options if you are looking for a designer of DNA, and therefor all life on earth, unless you wanna say a race of extra dimensional beings did it. That would kind of make them gods however.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Cataclysm

 

No offense, but you are promoting intelligent design. Don't be surprised if people say you believe in god. It's comical as the way you ignored my post about the evidence behind abiogenesis, then ask Rhino to source something, that I also posted similar evidence for. Just face it. The hard evidence is not there for ID, creation, god, whatever you wanna call it. ZERO objective evidence.

If you don't want people making assumptions about your beliefs, you should clear the air and tell us what you do believe so we know how to address your posts. At least 90% of the ID promoters in here believe in god. Are you in the alien crowd or the god crowd? There's really only 2 options if you are looking for a designer of DNA, and therefor all life on earth, unless you wanna say a race of extra dimensional beings did it. That would kind of make them gods however.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I think it was multidimensional beings ( hey, if you're gonna shoot, shoot high)

I'll just leave this here..

Skeptic’s Objection to Information Theory #1: “DNA is Not a Code”

My first post! Yeah!


Gee, I thought Watson and Crick got a Nobel Prize for discovering and deciphering a code! Here is their write up from the National Institute of Health, Library of medicine...

The National Library of Medicine, “The Francis Crick Papers;Defining the Genetic Coding Problem, 1954-1957″

Here is some exerpts:
“James Watson and Francis Crick’s insight that genetic information is embedded in the physical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) made possible a new understanding of heredity at the molecular level and opened up new avenues of research into the genetic control of essential biological processes, most importantly the synthesis of proteins. Watson and Crick were the first to realize that the seemingly random sequence of the four bases in DNA formed a code which specified the order of the twenty amino acids that make up most proteins

Before their discovery of the double helix, the term genetic code had no meaning; afterwards, deciphering the code–putting together the dictionary by which the four-letter nucleic acid language is translated into the twenty-letter protein language–became the most urgent and ambitious undertaking of biologists throughout the world, an effort that defined the classical age of molecular biology."

profiles.nlm.nih.gov...


DNA is a code and the implications are staggaring!


.