Scientific proof of God/superior being!!??

I think all sides of this subject have much to ponder on. I will never use my subject of mastery as any overruling or arrogant approach on any subject. But rather I choose to NOT conform to the ideals placed upon this human race by the "rulers" of the subject at hand. I am going out on a limb here but I believe..... God is NOT confusing but intricate, now we will need to debate "Webster". Science is just damn confusing!

Thank u all for your views i realize that my theory was inacurate much thnx to masterp in pointing out most of it. Sry i was gone so long i've been at church and school this morning thnx again lol ironically my church youth group went to a graveyard

[edit on 18-10-2004 by IQkid]

Originally posted by browha
Manypeople usethe design argument for an argument for God, but read about Hume's Dialogues concerning the Teological Argument, and you'll see it ismore plausible that the universe was created by a vegetable, in a way, than God.

Actually, if you were to re-read Hume's Dialogues, you would see that what was said is that what is known of the world resembles a vegetable more than an animal. It was an argument against parallel between human body/mind and God body/mind (God's body being the world and his mind being his spirit).

Which says nothing about God's creation of the world. Indeed, neither Philo, Cleanthes, nor Demea denied his creation of the world. Their conversation concerned man's understanding of God nature.

Furthermore, as the last line indicates that of the three, Hume's own views favored Cleanthes, which was the character that proposed this parallel.

I feel that it was Cleanthes' refusal to consider infinite nature as well as his refusal to apply theorectical reason which limitted his arguments. If such a refusal were applied to math and science, our understanding of those topics would be extremely limtted. Although, I am certain that many non-math majors would rejoice if they no longer had to take calculus.

I know, itis an argument from absurdity, reducito absurdo I believe?
Argument from contradiction..

Where did the first quark come from? The first atom? The first living cell? Ponderous but valid questions. Science has barely scratched the surface. If mankind knows anything, its that we know almost nothing. Is there a God? The truth is science and its practitioners do not know the answer to that question. How did existence come into being? The answer to that is clearly beyond our capability at this point in time. It is a testament to mankind�s arrogance that any of us claim to have the answers! Science has barley scratched the surface. Both science and religion seek the same answers. Which is right, evolution or creation? The Bible simply states that man was created from the dust. Is that really that much different than the theory of evolution? No, its not! Instead of finding common ground we are reduced to fist pounding, name calling and red faced anger when all we really want is answers. Our opinions regarding science and religion are based on personal experience and knowledge gained through education. What is regarded as truth today was often thought of as scientific heresy in the past. New ideas have always been dismissed, often violently, as being the product of a lack of knowledge or even insanity. Wisdom comes with knowing that we know almost nothing of our universe. Science has yet to even put a scratch in the surface. Science may someday come face to face with God and realize that those of faith have had the answers all along. Religion may someday find that the law of nature and science is God. As for me, I�m �just another Bozo on the bus�.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Where did the first quark come from? The first atom? The first living cell?

This statement is really quite relevant, especially with respect to the first living cell. Adaptation absolutely occurs in living beings. This is undeniable. Evolution is alleged to be the product of adaptation large populations subjected to natural selection. Natural selection absolutely exists also. Adaptation or evolution occurs on the microscale, as organisms change in response to their environment. There is considerable evidence in support of macroevolution as well.

In my mind the real issue lies in the origins of the first cell. There is truly no satisfactory answer to this question. There is plenty of speculation re: this question, especially with respect to highly reactive atmospheres and the formation of basic organic compounds. While it is undeniable that organic molecules can originate abiotically, it is a far stretch to synthesis a mish mash of isomeric organic compounds and get a usable organic molecule. Futhermore adding heat and reactivity to organics doesn't create order. Anyone who's ever barbequed can tell you this: When you heat and make organics more reactive all you get is a tarry mess.

While the cell represents an ordered environment, biological information is actually completely random. What I mean is the same processes that drive order formation in nature are not capable of creating biological information. For example, as things crystallize order is introduced, but it comes at the cost of randomness. Crystallization, which results in ordered repeating sets is a great example of natural forces creating order from randomness.

In my mind it is precisely this paradox that makes it so difficult for me to grasp current theories of cellular evolution. Also in my mind, the origins of the first cell is really what's at issue. Adaptation undeniably exists, thus so must evolution, but does this deny the presence or possibility of a creator?

I'd be interested to hear some theories regarding 'genesis' of the first cell.
There are some fundamental things that need to be considered:

1. stereospecifity-nearly all biological molecules are stereospecific
2. Function- Biomolecules all have a particular function
3. Ability to recreate copies of itself with some degree of reliability
4. Sequestration-Cells are isolated from there environment, any theory of cellular evolution must account for the sequestration of biomolecules and chemical reactions away from the external environment.
5. Energy-Cellular reactions require energy from the environment in order to maintain their ordered state.

Let me know what you think....

Matt.



[edit on 19-10-2004 by mattison0922]

We are like an amoeba in an ocean. To the amoeba the ocean, its universe, is infinite. But, it is not. It is all a matter of perspective. I recall when the Hubble telescope was first launched the scientific community was fairly certain as to the age of the universe and hoped to be able to see its beginnings. They of course were wrong. It now appears the universe is far older than first theorized. I suspect as telescopes become more and more powerful we will find the much sought after look at the beginning of all things will never materialize. There may not be a �beginning�, but only a before and after.

Now all I need is a good joint and a guest cameo on �Revenge of the Nerds 5�.

So... none of the evolution people care to address the question regarding the first 'cell?'

Originally posted by Blaine91555
It is a testament to mankind�s arrogance that any of us claim to have the answers!

Science does not claim to have the answers on those subjects. The closest it has on the creation of existence question is the theory of inflation, which is a well supported theory that has yet to be refuted. Perhaps its arrogant of mankind to think that they will be able to figure these things out, but it would also be a testament to man's ignorance to reject science simply because it hasn't answered everything. Besides, the biblicalists 'explanation' is merely that 'goddidit', which really is just a cop-out.

Science has barley scratched the surface. Both science and religion seek the same answers.

Science and religion seek completely different answers. Actually, one could even say that religion wants answers, whereas science just tries to get more and more questions. But the usual dichotomy given between science and religion is that science answers 'how' (2 parts this, three parts that, interacting under these conditions with these laws operating on them, etc etc) while religion asks 'why'. They are mutually exlcusive I'd say. At the very least there is nothing that science can say about religious statements, becuase they operate without any sort of rules or logic at all. Religion in the taj mahal is different than religion in the vatican, but both were designd by architects who were working with the same laws of physics.

Which is right, evolution or creation? The Bible simply states that man was created from the dust. Is that really that much different than the theory of evolution? No, its not!

Yes, its entirely different. Biology has come to realize that man came from primitive apes, not de novo out of dust. Creationism, insofar as it makes claims, has been shown to be utterly and completely wrong.

Wisdom comes with knowing that we know almost nothing of our universe.

Indeed. The visibile spectrum is an insignificantly small portion of all electromagnetic radiation. Even matter and energy are a minority in the universe, what with anti matter and dark matter and dark energy out there. Heck dark energy is thought on its own to occupy a larger percentage of 'the universe' than normal matter and energy no?

Science has yet to even put a scratch in the surface. Science may someday come face to face with God and realize that those of faith have had the answers all along.

Then again, it may not. Really only one way to tell eh? Even assuming that this sort of thing is possible. Besides, what would that even mean, that religion had it right? What religion, and how did it have 'it' right? Biblical literalism? Man, I hope its not right, because it implies that god is a trickster, in fact an evil god, if for no other reason than that he made man logical and rational and knew designed the universe in such a way that the only rational conclusions about it were the the stuff in say genesis couldn't have happened. IOW a god that covered up everything and deceived everyone, for no particular reason.

Anyway, science and religion can't really be mixed, they operate on two completely different levels and with completely different methods. One doesn't perform rational empricial experiments to decide which competeing statements of faith are more accurate, and in science one can't state a conclusion and not support it but rather just beleive it.

mattison0922, on abiogenesis texts, here are some:

Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of
long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature,
381, 59-61.

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, and Bartel DP. (1995 Jul 21). Structurally
complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA
sequences. Science , 269, 364-70.

Hager AJ, and Szostak JW. (1997 Aug). Isolation of novel ribozymes
that ligate AMP-activated RNA substrates Chem Biol , 4, 607-17.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1997 Aug). Surprising fidelity of
template-directed chemical ligation of oligonucleotides [In Process
Citation] Chem Biol , 4, 595-605.

Lazcano A, and Miller SL. (1996 Jun 14). The origin and early
evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time.
Cell , 85, 793-8.

Deamer, David and Ferris, Jim, 1999. The origins and early evolution
of life. [the table of contents of the journal Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere and related information

the above is from www.chemistry.ucsc.edu...

if you want whole books on the subject try
Cairns-Smith, A.G., Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. (1995,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-39828-2.) or his other book
called "genetic takeover"

and also Chemical Evolution: Self-Organization of the Macromolecules
of Life: Proceedings of the Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution
and the Origin of Life 25-29 October 199
by Julian Chela Flores (Editor), Mohindra Chadha (Editor), Alicia
Negron-Mendoza (Editor), Tairo Oshima (Editor)

and i seem to recall a book title "autcatalytic rna" that might prove
relevant.

Now, of course, I do not contend that these texts have solved the problem of abiogenesis, but they do address many of the relevant issues. Its actually a relatively general list that I've brought up in other places, so i just cut and pasted it here.

Cairns-smith with his 'genetic take over' brings up an interesting source of sterospecificty in organic comopounds, as its been found that some minerals are 'chiral' and may have been able to influence organic 'precursors'.

On function, I am not sure what you mean, how does function represent a problem? If one is talking about a 'population' of replicating molecules, then various functions could become relevant, such as merely being better at replicating themselves, or making more efficient use of energy sources and the like.

On replication, I think everyone will agree that most precursor chemicals being looked at have issues there. There is definitly the propensity to replicate amoung chemicals tho, heck prions in a primitive sense do this, and aren't considered alive.

As far as energy, I don't see why this would be a problem, and I know you have some insight onto this, so I'd like to see why its a problem. Batchs of chemicals can release energy, uncontrolled of course, but uncontrolled chemicals are the starting material here anyway.

I am surprised to see the issue of 'sequestration' put up. Micelles demonstrate that internal and external environments can certainly be formed, and they plainly don't require divine intervention. They're all the more interesting since they are so similar to cell boundaries too.

But, agian, having said that, I wouldn't and neither would anyone else pretend that abiogenesis has been answered in any detail, but the trend of research seems to suggest that a solution is slowly being arrived at. If nothing else, many of the requisite tasks have been shown to occur naturally, which in itself suggests that there is no need to seek supernatural explanations.

Which brings up a good point. What exactly would the details be of supernatural abiogensis? I mean, if some god assembled life, well, did he peice together a set of bacteria ad hoc? Or did he influence improbable chemical reactions in some spread of slime? Are we talking miracles here, or 'design at a distance' type stuff?

I was rummaging thru some stuff and thought that this page was interesting too, in so far as addressing chirality in biomolecules.
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by Nygdan

mattison0922, on abiogenesis texts, here are some:

Nygdan, I commend you on your efforts in this thread... This is what I like to see! I will address your comments on individual basis as soon as I look at the info you've posted. Thanks for your efforts here.

Matt.

There are 2 arguments I usually try to avoid - God and Politics.
But this one caught my eye, as well as some other Political arguments.
I love science in all of its discoveries and like to tie in the scientific ideas out there w/ my own on creation of all 'life'. An example: "God spoke, and there was life..." (not verbatim obviously) - now account into that the fact that everything vibrates to a certain frequency or resonance (sorry if I'm inaccurate, I'm only me) - there is a 'sound' to everything. That sound formulates into math, the "Laws of Physics"- at least for our dimension. Leaving out the other dimensions for now, suppose God in its purest form simply wanted to expand itself and made a sound, starting off the Big Bang...It would merely take the 'sound' of the Big Bang to get everything started, as well as the process of evolution for us mere mortals.
As for the proof?? I just have an example, or maybe 3...
What would keep someone who is passed out drunk behind the wheel from crashing into the car that they are pacing on a two way street? Luck?
What would keep that same person, passed out again, from crashing into ANOTHER car on a totally different occasion? Luck again?
That same person, passed out again, different occasion, headed for the opposing side of a highway w/ a good sized median in the middle....Luck, well, maybe the grass felt different than the road to this passed out individual.
Luck has nothing to do w/ anything in our lives or this world. What's meant to be WILL be.
Oh, and I keep mentioning 'this' dimension because I saw an interview w/ an astrophysicist that was explaining his (and several others) new theory on there being 10 dimensions w/ one chaos dimension.
Like I said, I love science and dislike organized religion. It is possible that we came from apes, but there are still HUGE gaps in that theory let alone the many THEORIES (just like mine) that the scientific community tries to state as fact. I do believe in a Higher Power and am blessed to be able to see its proof everyday. So when science can explain everything in existence, the other 90% of our brains will have already been activated.

The conservation of energy my young enlightened friend is in reference to the earth, not the universe, though it would make sense.

So the energy left in the dead body is then consumed by micro organisms and so the circle of life. Do you get what I'm saying? Read a biology textbook, it will have more info on this.

Originally posted by IQkid
Id' like to know if anyone can counter this in any way so that I know how to make it better, or if its just impossible to prove... So here it is.

We all know that according to the conservation of mass or w/e it's called it is impossible to create or destroy energy. We also know that it takes energy to keep people alive. Therefor when sombody dies that energy must go somewhere. As long as someone hasn't been "dead" too long they can be revived with that heart shocking thing. Meaning that their conciousness is still there but lifesigns are not visable. However when someone is completly dead it is not possibly to revive them by meens of any energy type we know of(heat electricity kinetic light ext...). Therefore it must be an energy i will identify as life energy. Since energy cannot be distroyed it must go somewhere proving
#1 there is an afterlife
#2 this energy is being given and taken by a superior being, or is going into an alternate/or parallel dimension
because if it did stay here and was basically just floating around it could go through a dead body and they would come back to life.

I would greatly appreciate all views, and ideas on my theory. thnx

This is all interesting I haven't heard it. I however have 2 problems.

1 You said it is scientifically proven energy can not be destroyed. I see an inherant problem while yes energy is indestructable and can only be manipulated. It is proven also things not shielded will either permiate the object filling it with an amount of energy that the object seems to be made of energy. The other issue would be release where in the energy passes thru with some loss of quantity due to transferance as it passes thru.

and that brings me to

2 When an object has the abilitly to absorb into it down to the mulecular
level energy then in effect it should have the same or close to the same resistance to damage, should this be the case the human body should be more durable, I mean if you bump your head for example and a small laceration that elsewhere in the body would not be life threatening will kill you unless treated. So in that I find a conundrum.

Now as for where the sole goes it is hinted to in the following types of religious belief.

1 My belief is that the body remains in the grave and the sole goes to heaven as indicated by Jesus who said "I go forth to be with my father and to prepare a place for you, If this was not true why would I say it. Until the rapture where in the dead in Christ bodies are called from the grave and made anew with no illness or deformaty. Then your sole shall reoccupy it. This is noted by the following exserpt from a verse of the bible.

Jesus shall desend from the clouds and those who are dead in Christ shall be raised first , and we who are of Christ and are alive and remain shall ascend up and meet with them together in the sky.

2 Buddist say that the energy is held briefly outside the body until a new vessel is born to carry it.

3 Native american indians have a coupld of views one being that your animal guide shall descend and help you transford to the form of your animal essence usually its the same animal as the guide.....Some tribes believe that you spirit roams the earth as an avenging spirit protecting the tribe from injustice or evil spirits.

There are many many more but I common thought is you sould ends up in a place of post life existance with all your experiences and knowledge in tact some even say that these very elements will define wether you go to a good place or a hell or pergatoial place to be punished

Dualism as a philosophical convention has probably been in use since the beginnings of time. It entails the separation of the subject in consideration into two distinct and completely separate objects. In a broad sense, it is a philosophy that divides all of life into opposites - two entities of conflicting natures. It can be seen in such examples as God/good vs. Satan/evil and light vs. dark

From a historical-philosophical standpoint, Plato was perhaps the first great dualist. He divided everything into their separate categories and believed that that was the only way of looking at the world. His primary division was into the realms of being and becoming, which can also be reflected as knowledge and opinion. However, even before Plato the Zoroastrians believed in an ethical dualism whose influence is still seen today.

Despite Zoroaster's supposed assertions that the Supreme Deity is one, known as Ahura Mazda, Zoroastrianism soon incorporated a dualistic system of deities who were engaged in an eternal struggle for the souls of man. The Zoroastrians believed in distinct deities of good and evil, who today can be represented by the God and Satan figures of modern mythology. Zoroastrian thought has left an indelible influence on Western culture in this categorical process of assigning all things a place as either good or evil.

Under the tutelage of Ren� Descartes, dualism received new life during the seventeenth century in his and his followers' absolute conceptions of mind and matter as separate entities wholly unrelated. In the twentieth century Bergson, McDougall, and others have continued the dualistic presence in philosophy, helping it too retain an academic face as well as its conventional one in the minds of millions of Westerners.

I once thought that there were neat distinctions in life, fine lines that divided all things. Black and white, hot and cold, objectivity and subjectivity - these all were of completely separate and opposite orientations, not to be confused. I once thought in terms of eternal dualisms, battling it out: good would triumph over evil, reason over emotion, and objectivity over subjectivity. But that myth has been proven to be not quite as simple as it once did. Life is, in the reality that I see now, a holistic spectrum - like the light spectrum - that admits of no division but that assigned to it by the individual person.

Throughout the years, the West has learned to look at all things in life in this fashion. Everything is "Us vs. Them," one side or another. Perhaps this was due to Plato and Descartes' respective insistences that the universe is dualistic in nature, or, perhaps viewing life in such a manner is part of the natural innocence of the unspoiled mind.

Let us take the example of Ren� Descartes, whose famous declaration "Cogito ergo sum" is supposed to be the height of rational, objective thinking. Descartes believed that, by relying on his own thought, and only his own thought, he could determine what was real. Thus do we call him a Rational Philosopher. However, in his attempts to detach himself from the world, he took the subjective leap of assuming his own existence, assuming that he thinks at all. I therefore believe his rational process, aside from being backward, to be tinged with his personal, subjective viewpoint on the subject. Ambrose Bierce sums up the position well when he, in his Devil's Dictionary, says "The dictum might be improved, however, thus: Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - 'I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.'" It is not the use of rationality itself that is in question, rather, it is the idea that one can be completely objective, free from the subjectivity of self. Indeed, all things are seen through the veneers of the self, the awareness and experiences that make up the individual's mind and what that person chooses to see and hear.

To analyze the subject further, one can apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to all aspects of life. This Principle teaches us that, by our looking at something, our evaluation of the thing, we affect the system. This theory is also supported by the new and growing science of Chaos. Thus, the lesson goes that the observer distinctly affects the observed - you cannot remove said person from the system!

We also once thought that conscientiousness was completely distinct from our exterior reality, the aforementioned Cartesian belief. However, with the quantum "proof" of the non-locality of the electron (cf. Bell's Theorem), we can se that one of the most dynamic views of the universe (quantum mechanics) forces us to understand the universe as a conscious system where information in one locality is "known" in another with an apparent propagation time greater than that of the speed of light.

As we once thought that energy and matter were distinct things (before Einstein's E=mc2), new rigors of science and philosophy are slowly showing us that the separateness that we once believed in was simply a result of the blinders that we are, even now, still removing. We are today realizing the flaws of the dualistic model which has, till recently, served its purpose, but now is being replaced with a more holistic, more complete model of science and knowledge. The dualistic model is outmoded, outdated. Except for the convenience of comprehending seemingly contrasting positions, with the understanding of such being only a model and subject to the constraints of all artificial constructs, we must now move to replace dualism in our worldview with a holism that better accounts for the life and knowledge around us.

Originally posted by Nygdan
the theory of inflation, which is a well supported theory that has yet to be refuted.

While widely accepted, inflation is not without its opponents. What do you mean by �has yet to be refuted?� The theory has been refuted, however, inflation is the currently accepted theory. But it is NOT the only theory out there.

Yes, its entirely different. Biology has come to realize that man came from primitive apes, not de novo out of dust. Creationism, insofar as it makes claims, has been shown to be utterly and completely wrong.

Nygdan, you�ve ignored the fundamental arguments presented to me in your post. The abiotic theories state that life arose de novo out of dust, the components of the prebiotic atmosphere. While creationism may claim man came from dust (I can�t confirm this as I am not religious) so does the abiotic theory of life.

, what with anti matter and dark matter and dark energy out there. Heck dark energy is thought on its own to occupy a larger percentage of 'the universe' than normal matter and energy no?

Nygdan, is this not a faith issue also? Dark matter is postulated because the currently available equations suggest that it exists. There is no irrefutable evidence that these undetectable forms of mass/energy exist. Please correct me if I am wrong. Please do not direct me to either Brian Greene, or Stephen Hawking, as I have read their most recent works.

With respect to the specific references you cited:

Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of
long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces [see comments] Nature,
381, 59-61.

I haven�t been able to access this yet. I will update when I do.

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, and Bartel DP. (1995 Jul 21). Structurally
complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA
sequences. Science , 269, 364-70.

Hager AJ, and Szostak JW. (1997 Aug). Isolation of novel ribozymes
that ligate AMP-activated RNA substrates Chem Biol , 4, 607-17.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1997 Aug). Surprising fidelity of
template-directed chemical ligation of oligonucleotides [In Process
Citation] Chem Biol , 4, 595-605.

In my opinion these references are not relevant to the question at hand. No biochemist will deny that RNA molecules are biologically active, however whether or not they are ancient is debatable. Furthermore they are biologically synthesized molecules. While the Cairns-Smith article �may� provide evidence that �chiral� minerals may have been able to influence organic precursors. ANY organic chemist will tell you from experience that if you mix �precursors� together in a reactive environment you will get a mix of stereoisomers. Furthermore the only synthesis known in the universe that produce stereospecific compounds from non-stereospecific compounds is biological synthesis. Please correct me if I am wrong. Despite the Cairns-Smith 'evidence,' experience has shown otherwise. There is no evidence of de novo poly RNA synthesis anywhere. There certainly is much SPECULATION about the existence of the RNA world before the DNA protein world, but speculation is not confirmation. And other than the fact that RNA is �active� there is no hard evidence for this RNA world. Furthermore the very activity of RNA argues against it being able to form coherent repeating ordered polynucleotides. ANY organic chemist familiar with phosphoramidite synthesis of polynucleotides will tell you that DNA synthesis is substantially easier than RNA synthesis. Because it is less reactive.

Lazcano A, and Miller SL. (1996 Jun 14). The origin and early
evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time.
Cell , 85, 793-8.

Nygdan, I have to wonder if you even read this article. It actually refutes many of the theories you�ve brought up here. For example, they point out that despite promising experiments there is no evidence to support the theory proposed by Cairns-Smith.

Furthermore, the proposal of Cairns-Smith is that the genetic information is 'stored' in crystal lattice of minerals. It implies that genetic information results from template direction by the crystal lattice. This is not possible. Crystal lattices are regular, repeating structures. As discussed in my original post re: this topic regular, repeating, non-random things such as crystals are absolutely not capable of storing or generating biological information. Repeating patterns in genomes, etc. signal NON-CODING information explicitly. Biological information arises from RANDOM order in polynucleotides. A series of repeated DNA sequence or non-random sequence is often referred to as �junk DNA,' however this term is not appropriate as non-coding does not = junk.

Deamer, David and Ferris, Jim, 1999. The origins and early evolution
of life. [the table of contents of the journal Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere and related information

Have you read this?

On function, I am not sure what you mean, how does function represent a problem? If one is talking about a 'population' of replicating molecules, then various functions could become relevant, such as merely being better at replicating themselves, or making more efficient use of energy sources and the like.

Function presents a problem only in what is the pressure to keep this molecule around. In general, there must be some sort of pressure for this molecule to persist. But your statement that �various functions could become relevant� is true, or a replicating molecule can evolve a function. It seems to me that the biggest issues with respect to this are how a molecule that exists in such a reactive environment is able have any specific function to persist in such an environment where bonds are constantly being broken and reformed.

On replication, I think everyone will agree that most precursor chemicals being looked at have issues there. There is definitly the propensity to replicate amoung chemicals tho, heck prions in a primitive sense do this, and aren't considered alive.

Prions are a horrible analogy. Prions are by not a primitive or precursure molecule. These are biomolecules that are identical or nearly identical interacting with one another. There is no replication going on. Prions don�t synthesize other prions. Prions form new prions from existing specific proteins that are capable of becoming prions. Prions don�t create prions de novo.

As far as energy, I don't see why this would be a problem, and I know you have some insight onto this, so I'd like to see why its a problem. Batchs of chemicals can release energy, uncontrolled of course, but uncontrolled chemicals are the starting material here anyway.

In my opinion, the problem with this is that molecules that are the same or similar will need an energy source that is the more or less the same. The Cell ref. you provided me with speaks very clearly about the energy crisis that could ensue if primitive cells were forced to rely on chemicals for their energy.

I am surprised to see the issue of 'sequestration' put up. Micelles demonstrate that internal and external environments can certainly be formed, and they plainly don't require divine intervention. They're all the more interesting since they are so similar to cell boundaries too.

Problems with micelles include: Micelle formation requires that the micelle forming molecules be similar in size and chemical makeup. Again mish mash organic synthesis does not result in homogeneity of nearly any kind. Furthermore micelles are a somewhat poor analogy to cellular membranes. While they do sequester, they sequester life giving water from their interior. I don�t think anyone will debate the necessity of water for life. Micelles are essentially anhydrous environments. The structure that you are thinking of, the bilayer, has an aqueous environment inside. The problem here is that requirements for bilayer formation are even more stringent than micelle formation. Bilayer formation requires even more homogeneity of lipid species. Micelles, at least initially, were nearly exclusively formed from biological sources also. For those of you who don't know, your 99 and 44/100% pure Ivory soap, is actually 99 and 44/100% sodium tallowate, or beef fat. The remaining 0.56% is NaOH, commonly called lye. The reason this is relevant is because Ivory soap makes micelles, also known as bubbles. If you really wish to pursue the sequestration issue, please search for refs. regarding mineral based sequestration. These are more realistic, but not without their problems and will be fun to discuss.

many of the requisite tasks have been shown to occur naturally,

completely untrue. Which requisite tasks? The progressive order from disorder, the stereoexclusive synthesis of biomolecules, what specifically?

Which brings up a good point. What exactly would the details be of supernatural abiogensis? I mean, if some god assembled life, well, did he peice together a set of bacteria ad hoc? Or did he influence improbable chemical reactions in some spread of slime? Are we talking miracles here, or 'design at a distance' type stuff?

Not being a religious person myself, I can�t really say, but if there is a supernatural creator, I would say that yes, the influence of improbable chemical reactions could be something. Or how about big bang theory, How about the infinite compression of both matter and energy down to the Planck length, which mathematically is a singularity and can�t be reconciled. Maybe the creator is responsible for reconciling that. Maybe God is responsible for recombination (cosmological, not genetic) occuring in the manner that it did. Why would the �creator� not use any and all available means to craft his work, including those within the realms of measurable scientific phenomena?


[edit on 22-10-2004 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922
The theory [inflation] has been refuted

I am not aware of this, where has it been refuted?

you�ve ignored the fundamental arguments

I don't think I've ignored it. Perhaps I haven't understood it then. The general idea advanced by science isn't that these primitive organisms, more primitive perhaps that bacteria, formed out of dirt and clay de novo. Even at the ''pre-biotic' level, as long as replication is involved then natural selection can act, so even there things will be 'built up' over time. The creationist idea however is that man, a whole man, was moulded out of clay or actual dust.

Nygdan, is this[dark matter/energy] not a faith issue also?

I do not think its a matter of faith. The existence of dark matter and dark energy is hypothesised to explain certain experimental results. Its existence hasn't been irrefutably demonstrated, but then again what has been irrefutabley demonstrated? the mechanics of electron orbits has changed over time, and they can't be observed directly, but that doesn't mean that electrons don't exist.

Please do not direct me to either Brian Greene, or Stephnen Hawking, as I have read their most recent works.

I've actually never read anything by either one. Do you recommend any of their stuff?

In my opinion these references are not relevant to the question at hand.

Like I said its a generalized list, not a specific one. I only intend it as a source of references that deal with some of the problems in abiogenesis, and to show that progress has been made. I haven't read most of the stuff on the list. I am moderately familiar with Cairns-smith, and less so with Ferris and Orgell. I think that they are relevant, however. they show that these components can have surprising functions, particularly in taking nucleotides and stringing them together. Of course, it asks the question, where did they come from in the first place. But if there was an answer on that I think most of us would be arguing that abiogenesis had been solved, which is not what I am saying.

While the Cairns-Smith article �may� provide evidence that �chiral� minerals may have been able to influence organic precursors.

The usual gist of the arguement for CS is that there are minerals that are optically active and there are minerals that preferentially bind to nucleotides. CS also advocated, as you mention elsewhere, the 'solid state' genome. I agree, its fairly special pleading. But insofar as crystals being invariant, if there are errors introduced when they are being built, and there certainly are, its a question of if those errors in the crystal structure can be replicated themselves. Any crystal thats growing is going to be influenced by its current structure, so perhaps that can provide a basis for a mineral equivalent of mutations. Its an interesting idea, but I'll agree that most people aren't too excited to do research on taking it any further.

Despite the Cairns-Smith evidence, experience has shown otherwise. There is no evidence of de novo poly RNA synthesis anywhere.

Agreed, and I don't claim that there is. If there was, we problably wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Lazcano A, and Miller SL] I have to wonder if you even read this article. It actually refutes many of the theories you�ve brought up here.

To re-iterate, no I haven't, nor have I read the Ferris, Deamer paper. These articles have come up in other discussion tho, and the've usually been explained to me in this way.

On function, I am not sure what you mean, how does function represent a problem? If one is talking about a 'population' of replicating molecules, then various functions could become relevant, such as merely being better at replicating themselves, or making more efficient use of energy sources and the like.

Function presents a problem only in what is the pressure to keep this molecule around. In general, there must be some sort of pressure for this molecule to persist. But your statement that �various functions could become relevant� is true, or a replicating molecule can evolve a function. It seems to me that the two biggest issues with respect to this are how a molecule that exists in such a reactive environment is how any specific function is able to persist in such an environment where bonds are constantly being broken and reformed.

Prions are a horrible analogy.[...] Prions don�t create prions de novo.

Yes, however they do replicate, they are non living replicators that seem to cause normal proteins to change into a prion. In a sense they are similiar to viruses. No one had really expected proteins to be replicators in this way, and similarly no one had suspected that something like ribozymes exist.

Problems with micelles .

There doesn't appear to be any natural limit on this sort of thing, so why require divine intervention?

If you really wish to pursue the sequestration issue, please search for refs. regarding mineral based sequestration.

I'll have to research it, thanks.

Which requisite tasks?

The formation of long chains of nucleotides, replicating structures that have functions, the formation of cell like structure, nucleotides being able to influence the formation of other nucleotides, the issue of chirality. Together, they mean nothing, becuase they haven't been show to happen today in nature or in probably primitive atmosphere/oceanic conditions. However, they do show that these processes don't require divine intervention. Not all the answers have been reached on the subject, and lots of the answers that are had are held on pretty shaky grounds. But the research seems to suggest that these things can occur naturally, rather than have to occur supernaturally.

if there is a supernatural creator, I would say that yes, the influence of improbable chemical reactions could be something.

But if thats how it happened then one would be able to find evidence of it. One would be able to figure out the unlikely but possible pathways and explain it in a way that doesn't reference supernatural activity. If, say, after many more years of abiogenetic research, there was not much progress from today, or even if the most promising areas of today were rejected, then I'd say that, while one couldn't scientifically say it was evidence of supernatural "ad hoc" creation, that one perhaps wouldn't be too irrational to think it suggested that. What I mean is, science can't possibly say 'this is where a god is required to act'. It can only say 'no answer as of yet'. There's lots of promising research on this issue tho, and I think it would be unreasonable to say that because a definitive solution hasn't been found yet, that that means it had to be a result of divine intervention.

Why would the �creator� not use any available means to craft his work?

Why would the creator use anything resembling the current scientific theories to create? Why leave evidence that supports inflation theory? Why go thru any of it if the creator wanted humans to find out that it did it? I think that giving up on researching these matters in a scientific manner at any point is a 'bad' idea, and that failure to figure something out doesn't mean it can't be figured out.

Nygdan,

I appreciate the time you've taken to address some of the issues in my post. I will address them all formally tonight, perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime please permit me to clarify or request further clarification with respect to some of your points.

The creationist idea however is that man, a whole man, was moulded out of clay or actual dust.

Point taken. I am forgetting the title of this thread and going of on my own tangent.

Please do not direct me to either Brian Greene, or Stephnen Hawking, as I have read their most recent works.

I've actually never read anything by either one. Do you recommend any of their stuff?

Brian Greene, authored "The Elegant Universe," and "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" both of which I would recommend. I would also recommend "The Universe in a Nut Shell," by Hawking.

Prions are a horrible analogy.[...] Prions don�t create prions de novo.

Yes, however they do replicate, they are non living replicators that seem to cause normal proteins to change into a prion. In a sense they are similiar to viruses. No one had really expected proteins to be replicators in this way, and similarly no one had suspected that something like ribozymes exist.

Nygdan, I can't give in to you on this one. While prions are 'non-living' they are the products of living things. These are not abiotic molecules influencing other abiotics. They are derived from a living source. I personally would not describe them as similar to viruses, but this is merely semantics. However, the analogy to viruses is germane due to the fact that viruses while 'non-living' (and some virologists WILL take issue with this) absolutely depend on living cells for the perpetuation. I think my biggest issue is the labeling of prions as replicators. I will go only as far as to acknowledge them as nucleators... that is they nucleate formation of additional prions in a manner that would be most analogous to crystal formation in nature.

Problems with micelles .

There doesn't appear to be any natural limit on this sort of thing, so why require divine intervention?

Nygdan, I am not sure what you mean by this statement. I addressed several specific problems with sequestration based on micelles. I didn't include any requirement for divine intervention. I merely pointed out micelle based sequestration of primitive cellular components presents a host of specific issues, some of which I addressed.

If you really wish to pursue the sequestration issue, please search for refs. regarding mineral based sequestration.

I'll have to research it, thanks.

I think you'll find some stuff that is very interesting, especially if you consider in the context of life, or at least evidence of life deep within the earth. Furthermore, this theory provides the perfect set up for the Cairns-Smith type reactions discussed in this thread.

Which requisite tasks?

The formation of long chains of nucleotides, replicating structures that have functions, the formation of cell like structure,

Could you reference some of this stuff? I can search myself, but if you've got the refs. in hand it would make my life easier.

if there is a supernatural creator, I would say that yes, the influence of improbable chemical reactions could be something.

But if thats how it happened then one would be able to find evidence of it.

Why? Why does the influence of chemical reactions have to have evidence? Or taken from another perspective. Is the presence of things that we can't produce, and have no evidence of being able to produce by currently available technologies, (which have the advantage of being directed relative to nature) not evidence of divine intervention (and I'm not claiming this, but there are those who will)? For example, how can we explain the evolution of stereospecific organic biomolecules in a world where organic chemical reactions almost invariably produce compounds that are not stereospecific? We can make claims and speculation, but there is no hard evidence to support them.

If, say, after many more years of abiogenetic research, there was not much progress from today, or even if the most promising areas of today were rejected, then I'd say that, while one couldn't scientifically say it was evidence of supernatural "ad hoc" creation, that one perhaps wouldn't be too irrational to think it suggested that.

I agree. The question is then when have we come this point? If we can't explain things such as stereospecifity, then is it irrational to talk of some 'supernatural creator.' The question is WHEN does this suddenly become okay?

What I mean is, science can't possibly say 'this is where a god is required to act'. It can only say 'no answer as of yet'. There's lots of promising research on this issue tho, and I think it would be unreasonable to say that because a definitive solution hasn't been found yet, that that means it had to be a result of divine intervention.

Again, agreed. And I don't think I've done this. I have just pointed out inconsistencies in the existing evidence that leave, IMO, huge holes in the story. And again, we are using speculation to explain things we don't understand, and as much as I hate to admit it: It's more or less the same thing that my damned Mormon in laws do with their faith. While I do agree that the synthesis of human beings de novo from dust is unlikely in the extreme, I am equally willing to acknowledge the unlikely formation of primitive cells based on current theories. You know my background, and must have some concept of the degree to which evolution has been forced into my brain, and for me to question some of the predominant theories is significant.

Why would the creator use anything resembling the current scientific theories to create? Why leave evidence that supports inflation theory? Why go thru any of it if the creator wanted humans to find out that it did it? I think that giving up on researching these matters in a scientific manner at any point is a 'bad' idea, and that failure to figure something out doesn't mean it can't be figured out.

Nygdan, I must not have been clear enough. For example I wasn't claiming God used an ABI 384 oligonucleotide synthesizer to create polynucleotides, or God performs platinum catalyzed hydrogenation of fatty acid chains. I was merely pointing out that because we understand DNA on a number of levels doesn't mean that it isn't divinely inspired, and it certainly doesn't mean it is. Again, because inflation theory exists and may be true, and may be a consequence of the big bang, doesn't eliminate divine inspiration either. The particular events during recombination, the distribution of matter in the universe, could be divinely inspired, and no one can 'prove' otherwise. Maybe God populated the earth with the organic molecules necessary to 'nucleate' life by sending asteroids enriched in specific stereoisomers crashing into the earth, knowing that once a 'critical mass' of organics was reached life would 'happen.' My point is that science has not eliminated God's role in creation in eyes of many people, and actually no matter what is accomplished, it never will for many. I wish to reiterate that inflation theory, molecular biology, physics, and mathematics do not necessarily exclude God from the equation, unless you are strict in your spiritual beliefs and follow and believe the specific religious doctrines of the majority of currently popular religions. While I realize most peoples faith is based in some religion, generally one of the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, the title of this post was concerned with evidence of God, and not in any particular religious context. If the thread was concerned with truth surrounding Genesis specifically, then I'd have to agree with you.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by mattison0922
The theory [inflation] has been refuted

I am not aware of this, where has it been refuted?

Nygdan, I feel that I addressed everything I wanted to in your most recent post, with the exception of the inflation issue. I will post the info here, but do not wish to engage in debate re: inflation in this thread. That is for another thread.
Plasma physicist Wal Thornhill states: �Forget the glossy astronomy books and magazines � the Big Bang is pure fiction.'
The main piece of evidence for the big bang and an expanding universe is the redshift. This refers to the fact that light from distant galaxies shows a shift towards less energetic (redder) wavelengths, which indicates that it is losing energy. Big bang proponents interpret this to mean that space is expanding and all galaxies are flying apart at immense speed. But NOT everybody agrees.
G. de Purucker rejected the theory of an expanding universe or expanding space as �little short of being a scientific pipe-dream or fairy-tale�, and suggested that the redshift might be caused by light losing energy during its long voyage through the ether of space. This is known as the 'tired-light theory.' Tired light theories are supported by several scientists, including Tom Van Flandern and Paul LaViolette, who have shown that it fits the data far better than the expanding-universe hypothesis. Furthermore, if redshifts were caused mainly by velocity they ought to show a continuous range of values, but instead they show periodicities, being multiples of certain basic units. Most big bang proponents have ignored this conundrum. The entire edifice of the big-bang theory is therefore built on a single unwarranted assumption � that galaxy redshifts are primarily caused by recession velocities.
Mainstream astronomers believe that because quasars normally have very high redshifts, they must be situated near the edge of the observable universe, and are rushing away from us at velocities approaching the speed of light. If they were really as far away as their redshifts imply, some quasars would be radiating a thousand times more energy than an entire galaxy, even though they are only as big as our solar system. This has led to the belief that they must be powered by monstrous �black holes�.
The reasoning behind these conclusions is flawed. Not only is the redshift not a reliable measure of velocity; it is not a reliable measure of distance either, for there is abundant evidence that galaxies at the same distance can have vastly different redshifts. A galaxy�s redshift appears to depend partly on its age, for active, low-redshift galaxies are sometimes surrounded by high-redshift galaxies (often quasars) that have apparently been ejected from them; pairs of these embryo-galaxies often line up on either side of the parent galaxy and are connected to it by luminous bridges or jets of matter. The redshifts of galaxies and stars appear to decrease as they get older.

References:
Science heading for a big bang�, www.holoscience.com/news/science_bang.htm.
G. de Purucker, Esoteric Teachings, San Diego, CA: Point Loma Publications, 1987, 3:28-30; G. de Purucker, Fountain-Source of Occultism, Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press (TUP), 1974, pp. 80-1; G. de Purucker, The Esoteric Tradition, TUP, 2nd ed., 1973, pp. 435-8fn.
Paul LaViolette, Genesis of the Cosmos: The ancient science of continuous creation, Rochester, VE: Bear and Company, 2004, pp. 280-3, 288-95 (etheric.com...); Tom Van Flandern, �Did the universe have a beginning?�, Meta Research Bulletin, 3:3, 1994 (www.metaresearch.org).
Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, cosmology and academic science, Montreal, Quebec: Apeiron, 1998, pp. 195-223 (www.haltonarp.com).
�Exploding the big bang�, ourworld.compuserve.com...; Arp, Seeing Red.

For more information re: alternatives to the big bang, please see Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened," and Mitchell's "Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality." Both books are not without their critics. For an example please see: www.astro.ucla.edu... for criticism of Lerner's work in particular.

Enjoy.
Matt

If it is a god, something that is showned as being man like, then no wonder he made such a mess when he or it created man.Why did it take the shape of man when he came, such a lowly creature as shown in what we know of our history.
Go, multiply, he or it would have said. There are so many of us that, the way it's going, we will drown in our own excrement or it will destroy through the bacterias that come from it. It has started even in modern states or countries.
People go in hospital for treatments of many sorts but many come out worse and die from these bacterias, yes, excrements.
How or when will people wake up to the danger. Weapons of mass destruction, indeed, it's "#" and no bull.
Need proof, study the stats. 300 deaths in one modern hospital from C Difficile. SARS was nothing in comparison.

If it is a god, something that is showned as being man like, then no wonder he made such a mess when he or it created man.Why did it take the shape of man when he came, such a lowly creature as shown in what we know of our history.
Go, multiply, he or it would have said. There are so many of us that, the way it's going, we will drown in our own excrement or it will destroy through the bacterias that come from it. It has started even in modern states or countries.
People go in hospital for treatments of many sorts but many come out worse and die from these bacterias, yes, excrements.
How or when will people wake up to the danger. Weapons of mass destruction, indeed, it's "#" and no bull.
Need proof, study the stats. 300 deaths in one modern hospital from C Difficile. SARS was nothing in comparison.