It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
So how did them "Inanimate RNA molecules" came to be before they became "autocatalytic RNA molecules" then?

Thru natural chemical processes.

?
it says in the link that >

Text ......Scientists have long suspected that the first forms of life carried their biological information not in DNA but in RNA, its close chemical cousin. Though DNA is better known because of its storage of genetic information, RNA performs many of the trickiest operations in living cells. RNA seems to have delegated the chore of data storage to the chemically more stable DNA eons ago. If the first forms of life were based on RNA, then the issue is to explain how the first RNA molecules were formed.

For more than 20 years researchers have been working on this problem. The building blocks of RNA, known as nucleotides, each consist of a chemical base, a sugar molecule called ribose and a phosphate group. Chemists quickly found plausible natural ways for each of these constituents to form from natural chemicals. But there was no natural way for them all to join together.

The spontaneous appearance of such nucleotides on the primitive earth “would have been a near miracle,” two leading researchers, Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel, wrote in 1999. Others were so despairing that they believed some other molecule must have preceded RNA and started looking for a pre-RNA world.

The miracle seems now to have been explained. In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.

Instead of making the starting chemicals form a sugar and a base, they mixed them in a different order, in which the chemicals naturally formed a compound that is half-sugar and half-base. When another half-sugar and half-base are added, the RNA nucleotide called ribocytidine phosphate emerges.

A second nucleotide is created if ultraviolet light is shined on the mixture. Dr. Sutherland said he had not yet found natural ways to generate the other two types of nucleotides found in RNA molecules, but synthesis of the first two was thought to be harder to achieve.

If all four nucleotides formed naturally, they would zip together easily to form an RNA molecule with a backbone of alternating sugar and phosphate groups. The bases attached to the sugar constitute a four-letter alphabet in which biological information can be represented.

“My assumption is that we are here on this planet as a fundamental consequence of organic chemistry,” Dr. Sutherland said. “So it must be chemistry that wants to work.”

The reactions he has described look convincing to most other chemists. “The chemistry is very robust — all the yields are good and the chemistry is simple,” said Dr. Joyce, an expert on the chemical origin of life at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

In Dr. Sutherland’s reconstruction, phosphate plays a critical role not only as an ingredient but also as a catalyst and in regulating acidity. Dr. Joyce said he was so impressed by the role of phosphate that “this makes me think of myself not as a carbon-based life form but as a phosphate-based life form.”

Dr. Sutherland’s proposal has not convinced everyone.

.

Thank you for the link ..........a really fascinating info...although it ]has not convinced everyone....anyway 'all is love''
but ..where was love... then ?.....half and half that..that...there was like love involved at first to get to the point of living...!


.....................Dr. Joyce said he was so impressed by the role of phosphate that “this makes me think of myself not as a carbon-based life form but as a phosphate-based life form.”

www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp...
According to this unique interpretation, the Kojiki`s episode recounting the generation of heaven and earth is not a description of the unfolding of the entire cosmos, but rather a depiction of the generation of our own solar system alone.


edit on 24-4-2012 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


THE 7 RISHIS - AULD LANG SYNE - Dreams of the Great Earth ...
www.greatdreams.com/sacred/rishis.htm
...These work out into human expression via the Lords of the twelve signs and ... Seven stars of the Great Bear are the originating Sources of the seven ...... DREAMS AND VISIONS OF THE GARDEN AND HARVEST TO COME …

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 24-4-2012 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



Izanami no Mikoto Shinto Goddess of Creation
81

Izanami and Izanagi Create Onogoroshima
jhangora.hubpages.com...
edit on 24-4-2012 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2012 by nii900 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

I'll be short -

Just as I suspected -all of the links you've provided show the same thing. A variation of the Miller / Urey experiment.

And on thing is clear NO Life was created from inanimate materials. All they've accomplish was an ingenious way of synthesizing and manipulating existing (RNA) materials like the RIBOZYMES - to self-assemble and self-replicate - just like other chemical reactions. And then assumed that this might have been the way how life got its start -


“in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts.”


Unfortunately not all agree.

For example, commenting on the experiment done by the Sullivan team, the article said:


Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”


In addition the article also pointed out some of the serious problems faced by such "chemical reactions". It stated that:


A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist. Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists as “original syn,” referring to a chemical operation that can affect a molecule’s handedness.


In other words there are pitfalls that must be overcomed first for life to have spontaneously arisen then evolved. Just to cite two here:

1) Earth's atmosphere must contain the necessary gases in right proportions to start the chain reactions. As mentioned the presence of a "cyano-acetylene" in the atmosphere "is quickly destroyed by other chemicals" and "its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”

2) When amino acids are formed at random they come in two forms that are chemically the same - one is a “right-handed” molecule and the other a “left-handed” molecule. In addition they are all mixed together, in about equal numbers of each kind. BUT In LIVING organisms only “left-handed” amino acids are used. Scientist has been baffled about this phenomenon.

Unfortunately as the article stated:


Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation.


Then there's also the problem of:


how to enclose the primitive RNA molecules in some kind of membrane as the precursor to the first living cell.


And so far no one knows how to get to this very important stage.

As one noted author of the book " The Origin of Life" Professor J. D. Bernal said:


‘What we lack still, as mentioned earlier, is a plausible model for the origin of fats.” (Page 145)
.

Which means thatwithout the fats - no membrane - without the membrane, no living organisms.


Thus it remains one of the biggest problems facing the believers of this unproven theory known as abiogenesis theory.

www.nytimes.com...

I can go on and on but the result will still be the same - man CAN NOT create LIFE from NON-LIVING -INANIMATE things!!

Only someone who - to quote your own words - is

mentally challenged


will believe such a thing. Do you believe such a thing?

tc

later dude..



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
And on thing is clear NO Life was created from inanimate materials. All they've accomplish was an ingenious way of synthesizing and manipulating existing (RNA) materials like the RIBOZYMES - to self-assemble and self-replicate - just like other chemical reactions. And then assumed that this might have been the way how life got its start -

That's the whole point. To see how complex things need to be in order to become autocatalytic. Turns out, not very complex. All that was needed in this case was 4 RNA strands of ca. 50 nt length each. If you read the whole thing, you must have noticed that their next plan was to try it with even shorter pieces? Either way, they already showed that from short pieces of RNA rise autocatalytic molecules (RNA life). Then the other experiment showed how the material, i.e. the RNA pieces, could also form naturally. That's it. Their aim was not to prove abiogenesis, but to show that it's possible. And that they did. Anyway, I'm very impressed you manage to be critical about the material, now how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?

edit on 24-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?


Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?


Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle


A creationist holding their religion to the same impossible standards they falsely hold science to? That'll be the day
This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion, despite it being explained several times and probably has never been to an actual school. Another victim of bad parenting and home schooling. Break the system, EMC2, don't blindly believe something because your parents or Kent Hovind says so.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?


Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle


A creationist holding their religion to the same impossible standards they falsely hold science to? That'll be the day
This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion, despite it being explained several times and probably has never been to an actual school. Another victim of bad parenting and home schooling. Break the system, EMC2, don't blindly believe something because your parents or Kent Hovind says so.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





never been to an actual school....Break the system, EMC2, don't blindly believe something because your parents or Kent Hovind says so.


huh, break the system?? "never been to an actual school"???


Kent Hovind who????? sorry I don't know the person.




This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion,


who?? meh???


made me laugh there Barcs...thanks.


tc



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
And on thing is clear NO Life was created from inanimate materials. All they've accomplish was an ingenious way of synthesizing and manipulating existing (RNA) materials like the RIBOZYMES - to self-assemble and self-replicate - just like other chemical reactions. And then assumed that this might have been the way how life got its start -

That's the whole point. To see how complex things need to be in order to become autocatalytic. Turns out, not very complex. All that was needed in this case was 4 RNA strands of ca. 50 nt length each. If you read the whole thing, you must have noticed that their next plan was to try it with even shorter pieces? Either way, they already showed that from short pieces of RNA rise autocatalytic molecules (RNA life). Then the other experiment showed how the material, i.e. the RNA pieces, could also form naturally. That's it. Their aim was not to prove abiogenesis, but to show that it's possible. And that they did. Anyway, I'm very impressed you manage to be critical about the material, now how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?

edit on 24-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


so you really believe that man can create life from non-living things Dr. Frankenstein?

well more power to you because I don't have such faith as yours.

tc.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





how about you apply the same level of criticism to whatever book you consider holy?


Yeah, chances of that happening are about as high as seeing a pig fly through the sky like an eagle


well take care.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




This guy doesn't even understand the differences between science and religion, despite it being explained several times and probably has never been to an actual school. Another victim of bad parenting and home schooling. Break the system, EMC2,


So Barcs in case you missed the class, here's another factoid about the Fine-Tuned Universe.

The Mathematical laws governing the universe, specifically Kepler's THIRD LAW:

Where it states that the CUBE of a planet's DISTANCE (call it "a") is IDENTICAL to the SQUARE of the planet's orbital Period (call it "P").

That is - if: a = distance in a.u., P = orbital Period then the equation is --> a^3 = P^2.

with me so far professor Barcs? Good!

Now let's apply this equation to the third Planet orbiting the sun, the planet EARTH.

But first let's establish the facts in case you doubt me:

If I remember this correctly, when I was in my HS science class, I learned that the Earth is 92.95 million miles (mean) from the Sun. And that it orbits the Sun 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds in one year. Do you agree? I hope so.

Now if we express the earth's distance in 'astronomical unit' as 1 a.u. and the earth's ONE year orbit as 1P 'orbital Period' -

the equation a^3=P^2 --> becomes --> 1^3 = 1^2 --> 1=1

Which confirms that the CUBE of a planet's DISTANCE (a) is IDENTICAL to the SQUARE of the planet's orbital Period (P). Agree?

No, you don't agree? Oh my, OK then, let's try another planet:

The planet Mercury

if a = 0.3871 a.u. and P = 0.24 year (87.97 days)

then a^3 = 0.3871^3 = 0.05.

and P^2 = 0.24 ^2 = 0.05

Thus for Mercury: a^3 = P^2 --> 0.05 = 0.05.

Here's another:

The planet URANUS

a = 19.2258 a.u. while P = 84.30 years

a = 19.2258^3 = 7,106.4

P = 84.30^2 = 7,106.4

Thus for Uranus: a^3 = P^2 = 7,106.4

Correct? Agree? I hope so.

But what does these examples tell us?

Is it by accident and blind chance that they came out precisely as predicted by Kepler?

Or is this evidence of Fine-Tuning?

What say you?

I know for sure you will say it's a dumb question because you don't believe that such concept is possible.

Just like the concept of a fine-tuned system will NOT and CAN NOT fine-tune itself unless someone fine-tune it.

So to you a concept of someone fine-tuning the Universe is dumb.

But to me it make sense, in fact it's the ONLY logical answer.

If it takes very smart human mathematicians/scientist to work out some of the MOST ADVANCED mathematics of the Fine-Tune Universe, how much more so IS required for a GREATER MATHEMATICHIAN to put the mathematics in system in the first place?

To say otherwise is closing ones mind to the facts.



Here's the rest if you still doubt it:

Venus:

a = 0.72 a.u.
P = 0.61 year

Mars:
a = 1.52 a.u.
P = 1.88 years

Jupiter:
a = 5.2 a.u.
P = 11.86 years

Saturn:
a = 9.5388 a.u.
P = 29.46

Neptune:
a = 30.05757 a.u.
P = 164.79 years

Pluto: (dwarf planet?)
a = 39.48265 a.u. (mean)
P = 248.09 years

class dismiss..

tc.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
so you really believe that man can create life from non-living things Dr. Frankenstein?

I believe these scientists are not lying about the experiment they did, in which RNA life arose from short stretches of RNA.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I understand the calculations, but what does that have to do with a creator or fine tuning? Obviously a planet's orbit around the sun is directly proportionate to the gravitational pull of the sun and distance from the sun. It makes logical sense.

You're essentially using the same formula that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

1. State scientific or mathematical fact.
2. Compare it with something using equivocation / false association.
3. Make wild assumption based on the facts that really has nothing to do with them.

How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?
edit on 26-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I understand the calculations, but what does that have to do with a creator or fine tuning? Obviously a planet's orbit around the sun is directly proportionate to the gravitational pull of the sun and distance from the sun. It makes logical sense.

You're essentially using the same formula that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

1. State scientific or mathematical fact.
2. Compare it with something using equivocation / false association.
3. Make wild assumption based on the facts that really has nothing to do with them.

How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?
edit on 26-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Reason why you can't see why a Master Tuner is needed in order to fine tune a system - any system - is your lack of logic and common sense.

Sure you understand the calculations - but that just about it - your knowledge can't go any further because you don't have the thinking ability to logically think things through.

The only answer you've got is either it evolve or we doooon't knowwww!

Yet simple logic and common sense shows to all who wants to see the truth.

too bad and too sad.

tc



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
so you really believe that man can create life from non-living things Dr. Frankenstein?

I believe these scientists are not lying about the experiment they did, in which RNA life arose from short stretches of RNA.


Sure they are not lying but what about you?

For instance, you said



RNA life arose from short stretches of RNA.


where did they say that they created life?

Can you please point it to me?

And do you actually believe that RNA is alive - that it's LIFE?

Or is it just a building block for life - ingredient for life?

Like what the title of the article said:


Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life


know what I mean?

tc



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
where did they say that they created life?

Can you please point it to me?

And do you actually believe that RNA is alive - that it's LIFE?

Or is it just a building block for life - ingredient for life?

Like what the title of the article said:


Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life


know what I mean?

tc

The only way to define life so that it includes bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and excludes autocatalytic RNA, is to insist that life has to be DNA-based or cellular, but how would you back that up? Who are you to claim that life needs to be that. I doubt very much that would you e.g. argue that your God has DNA or cells just like us? You're right, they didn't write anywhere that they created life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't exactly what happened, i.e. they created primitive RNA life very similar to hypothesized early RNA world life.
edit on 26-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





They create the environment for the experiment based on earth back when they believe first life started...


'n I thought science was based on "objective evidence" - so now you're admitting that the scientists based their experiment on "BELIEF"?

Hmmmm.... interesting.



...and given that we have ZERO evidence that the environment back then was influenced by some "intelligence", as long as they recreate the environment correctly...no...no fine tuner required.


How do you know that it wasn't, you we're not there, were you? And where are you basing this conclusion from? I say "BELIEF" because you were not there just like you favorite evolutionists.



So unless you can provide objective evidence that the environment back then was the result of some "intelligence", a successful experiment like that is in fact a strong indication that life can in fact arise through natural forces without any magic guidance.


Plenty of evidence, problem is you lack logic and common sense, so they will not make sense to you.

But I'll give it a try.

A while back I asked you this question - what will happen if you accidentally combine three atoms of oxygen?

You never provided an answer so let's give it a try again.

tc



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





The only way to define life so that it includes bacteria, archaea, and eukarya, and excludes autocatalytic RNA, is to insist that life has to be DNA-based or cellular, but how would you back that up? Who are you to claim that life needs to be that. I doubt very much that would you e.g. argue that your God has DNA or cells just like us? You're right, they didn't write anywhere that they created life, but that doesn't mean that it isn't exactly what happened, i.e. they created primitive RNA life very similar to hypothesized early RNA world life.


Why can't you just answer a simple question - Is RNA a living thing?

Stop dancing around it.

To me - it is not, it is one of the ingredients for life. It's NOT life!

It's one of the parts that makes up a cell just like the heart is part that makes up a human body. But a body that is NOT breathing - taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide - is dead - inanimate.

No man can animate a dead body unless you have the ability to give life to it.

So back to my simple Q: Is the Autocatalytic RNA that scientists synthesize in the lab a living thing?

tc.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Why can't you just answer a simple question - Is RNA a living thing?

Because there is no universally accepted definition of life.


Originally posted by edmc^2
Is the Autocatalytic RNA that scientists synthesize in the lab a living thing?

In my opinion, yes. It can reproduce itself and evolve under natural selection.


Originally posted by edmc^2
But a body that is NOT breathing - taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide - is dead - inanimate.

Really? Stuff needs to breath oxygen to be considered life in your books? Your definition of life excludes like 99.99% of life on Earth. Are you seriously arguing that e.g. bacteria are not alive?
edit on 27-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Reason why you can't see why a Master Tuner is needed in order to fine tune a system - any system - is your lack of logic and common sense.

Sure you understand the calculations - but that just about it - your knowledge can't go any further because you don't have the thinking ability to logically think things through.

Are you seriously just going to keep repeating this without showing my physical evidence? Do you understand what constitutes as logic? Obviously you don't, because common sense indicates that you follow logic, and since there is no evidence of any fine tuner or fine tuning process, the claim is unfounded, and can logically be ruled out until evidence is provided that stems beyond your own personal opinion.


The only answer you've got is either it evolve or we doooon't knowwww!

If I don't know the answer, I admit it. I don't pretend to know something for a fact that has no evidence behind it.

You still haven't posted objective evidence that shows a creator, designer or fine tuner is necessary for the universe to become what it is. Nothing you have written suggests that those things cannot arise naturally or didn't arise naturally. You are merely speculating and then insulting people's intelligence when they call you out on it.

I will say it again:


How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?


Please answer the questions, and don't resort to saying some nonsense like, "You aren't smart enough to notice it". Give me the evidence or admit its faith. It's not that hard.
edit on 27-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





How do you know that the planet's orbits are fine tuned by an external force and not just the result of the sun's gravity? Where do you see the fine tuning that can't happen naturally?


Please answer the questions, and don't resort to saying some nonsense like, "You aren't smart enough to notice it". Give me the evidence or admit its faith. It's not that hard.



Like I said - to a logical person this is a very easy question but to a close minded person - it's an impossible task to answer.


To prove my point -

the answer to your question is in the INFORMATION locked in the system itself. From the micro (DNA) to the macro (universe) - they contain so much information that we see - calculate and decipher - INFORMATION that are both FUNCTIONAL and with PURPOSE.

The CAUSE and the EFFECT.

Of course since there's no such thing as INFORMATION - let alone a purposeful one, thus to you my answer will not make much sense at all.

tc.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Why can't you just answer a simple question - Is RNA a living thing?

Because there is no universally accepted definition of life.


Originally posted by edmc^2
Is the Autocatalytic RNA that scientists synthesize in the lab a living thing?

In my opinion, yes. It can reproduce itself and evolve under natural selection.


Originally posted by edmc^2
But a body that is NOT breathing - taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide - is dead - inanimate.

Really? Stuff needs to breath oxygen to be considered life in your books? Your definition of life excludes like 99.99% of life on Earth. Are you seriously arguing that e.g. bacteria are not alive?
edit on 27-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Of course bacteria is alive but my question is with the RNA - is it alive to you?

You said:




In my opinion, yes. It can reproduce itself and evolve under natural selection.


Q:
so you're criteria is - if it "can reproduce itself and evolve under natural selection" it's alive?

tc.

edit on 30-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: Q



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join