Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You have an endless supply of silly statements and questions like asking me whether I think water happened or evolved and "explain water". I have to select out the silliest ones.

You mean science can't explain water? Why the ocean is salty is a silly question?
Why water freezes differently to all other liquids is not explainable?
Science knows the benefits, surely?

Were the questions too hard?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. They only need to surround other organic molecules created by the same set of chemical reactions that occur naturally under early earth conditions. Some of these organic molecules are RNA and amino acids, the molecules of life. There is a reason why life works with a specific set of 20 amino acids, a few lipids and 5 bases of RNA and DNA. Because these are the only ones that can be created by natural processes in early earth.

Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand

I am an organic chemist , so I can vouch for this set of research papers directly. If you want to know something in more detail let me know. Chemistry is something that usually happens spontaneously given the right conditions. The problem is , for a small molecule, earth is a truly gigantic place with a dizzying variety of conditions. The key is understanding which earth-like condition was it that spontaneously generated the chemistry of life.

And what happens when these membranes do trap these small fragments of RNA and amino acids? They start live, very very poorly, but live nonetheless. Again researchers have seen it happen.

Szostak Lab: Research

One question (and I think you know the answer):

Since the current belief among most scientists is that life originated in the ocean -- a tide pool, a deep sea vent, etc. -- how do these fatty acids, indeed any organic molecules, hold up in water?

 

[ArtieE]

You mean science can't explain water? Why the ocean is salty is a silly question?
Why water freezes differently to all other liquids is not explainable?
Science knows the benefits, surely?

Were the questions too hard?

And here comes five more silly questions from your inexhaustible supply. I'll just leave them to somebody else.

 

[Deeje]

So what? Why does god have to be biological in order for logic to work?

I don't think the god you believe in even exists in the first place. I'm just following your assertions to their logical conclusions, since you don't seem to be able to do so.

Since science can study biological creatures and come to conclusions about their makeup, characteristics and environment, it is past all scientific methods to measure something they don't know and can't measure or study. Pretending God doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away. Science just cannot come to terms with him because they think it makes them look unintelligent to even contemplate the possibility of his existence. They would rather look smart to each other than acknowledge what is right in front of their noses.

You don't have to believe in him.....he doesn't force anyone to do that. But the evidence for his existence is all around us. If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since science can study biological creatures and come to conclusions about their makeup, characteristics and environment, it is past all scientific methods to measure something they don't know and can't measure or study. Pretending God doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away. Science just cannot come to terms with him because they think it makes them look unintelligent to even contemplate the possibility of his existence. They would rather look smart to each other than acknowledge what is right in front of their noses.

You don't have to believe in him.....he doesn't force anyone to do that. But the evidence for his existence is all around us. If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

Well, you and I know there are other evidences, but they're not willing to even consider them!

I'm so glad to have been taught the Truth by examining all the evidence together! I know you are, too.

 

[Deeje]

It looks like you need to read it again - without just seeing the words you want to see. If you're unclear about what is being talked about, click on some links and look around - there are some good links in that article to primary sources. In fact, the part you highlighted above that you think is so funny for some reason, provided a direct link to this scientific article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7542/full/nature14262.html discussing hydrothermal activities within Enceladus with accompanying data. And if that's not enough, as any good scientific article will do, the authors have provided a list of the 53 previously conducted studies they had referenced in carrying out their analysis. Because as previously mentioned, new knowledge is often built upon earlier knowledge. Then there's a link to an article discussing last year's discovery by the Cassini orbiter of "125-mile-high geysers spraying from the south pole of Enceladus" with discussion about the available data and reasons that it is likely that there is water on Saturn's moon. Yes, Saturn's Moon Enceladus Has an Ocean
There's nothing to laugh at here and plenty to read and learn.

From your link.....what does this really say?

"Detection of sodium-salt-rich ice grains emitted from the plume of the Saturnian moon Enceladus suggests that the grains formed as frozen droplets from a liquid water reservoir that is, or has been, in contact with rock1, 2. Gravitational field measurements suggest a regional south polar subsurface ocean of about 10 kilometres thickness located beneath an ice crust 30 to 40 kilometres thick3. These findings imply rock–water interactions in regions surrounding the core of Enceladus. The resulting chemical ‘footprints’ are expected to be preserved in the liquid and subsequently transported upwards to the near-surface plume sources, where they eventually would be ejected and could be measured by a spacecraft4. Here we report an analysis of silicon-rich, nanometre-sized dust particles5, 6, 7, 8 (so-called stream particles) that stand out from the water-ice-dominated objects characteristic of Saturn. We interpret these grains as nanometre-sized SiO2 (silica) particles, initially embedded in icy grains emitted from Enceladus’ subsurface waters and released by sputter erosion in Saturn’s E ring. The composition and the limited size range (2 to 8 nanometres in radius) of stream particles indicate ongoing high-temperature (>90 °C) hydrothermal reactions associated with global-scale geothermal activity that quickly transports hydrothermal products from the ocean floor at a depth of at least 40 kilometres up to the plume of Enceladus."

And from your other link.....

"In 2005, the Cassini orbiter discovered huge, 125-mile-high geysers spraying from the south pole of Enceladus, a small and icy moon that orbits Saturn. Since then, scientists have speculated where the geysers draw from—and whether that water source might be home to some form of life. The most intriguing idea was that the geysers indicated the presence of a subsurface ocean.....Now, new data has confirmed that Enceladus does indeed have an ocean, and it's buried beneath 25 miles of ice at the south pole. The ocean appears to be about six miles deep and may be as large or larger than Lake Superior.

.....where there's water, there's lie. (interesting typo ) And the new study suggests that the ocean of Enceladus makes contact with the moon's rocky silicate core, which means that the water may soak up elements like sulfur and phosphorus that are important for life's complex chemical reactions.

"That silicate provides potentially some of the materials necessary for life," says Cornell University astronomer Jonathan Lunine, one of the study's authors. "So it makes, in fact, the interior of Enceladus a very attractive potential place to look for life."


Now how much of that is pure speculation? How much of it is scientific fact?

Realistically, what kind of "life" (or lie) are you going to find under 25 miles of ice?...providing that you could penetrate the surface of this moon to even find out? This is fairy tales masquerading as science. This kind of speculation requires more credulity than belief in an intelligent Creator IMO.

By all means, look at it with a critical eye, but for goodness sake, at least read up on the available data and inform yourself first.

Perhaps you need to follow your own advice? You apparently read what you want it to say....I read what it really says.

Honestly, I've never encountered another human being so averse to knowledge and learning. I don't get it. If we all carried on this way we'd still be living in the Bronze Age.

I am not averse to knowledge or science at all....It's accurate knowledge of true science that I am promoting. I am merely pointing out the difference between concocted speculation and verifiable facts. Supporters of evolutionary science seem to want to confuse the two....like suggesting that micro-evolution (which is only adaptation) provides a basis to believe that stretching adaptation to explain macro-evolution is a fact of science, when we can clearly see that it is just an unprovable belief.....like the existence of my Creator. We each rely on our own evidence and teachers to come to our conclusions. There is no solid "scientific" evidence for either camp. Will science ever admit this? Egos won't let them.

And that is the truth of it. Tantrums from the ToE camp will not make it otherwise.

 

[Deeje]

I am reading this through lenses that correct my perfect vision that is designed perfectly for my needs..... right...yeah...yup. Dwell on that a moment.

Now we enter the realms of what you accuse ID proponents of doing.....making comments without knowledge of the subject.
I believe that I have more knowledge about both subjects than you do, thanks to my education....not from higher schools of learning, but from the Bible itself. The Creator is also my teacher.

I too am looking through lenses that correct my imperfect vision. It is imperfect like the rest of me. Nothing functions as optimally as it should. The perfect systems with which we were created suffered extensive injury when a malicious enemy decided to throw us under a bus! This injury created malfunctions in just about every part of the body. But on examination, the Creator of life was also a gifted 'surgeon' who developed the means to correct all of them.....but it would take time and ongoing rehabilitation to achieve full recovery.

The fact that we still function, despite all this degeneration is a miracle in itself. Our bodies still operate at a basic level that keeps us reproducing and 'alive' in spite of those many malfunctions. We can use the wrong 'fuel', eating things that are making us more unhealthy by the day. We abuse our bodies by consuming substances that would be lethal in large doses and debilitating even in small ones. We no longer accept good moral practices that would prevent diseases like AIDS or other STI's. We take drugs to help with health issues that create more health issues themselves. We pollute our environment for commercial reasons and declare war on one another, adding more pollution to earth's already strained atmosphere with heinous weapons.....adding to the woes already afflicting us. How much has science contributed to this situation? Has killing off God made us better people? Has throwing away his moral laws made us happier?

The truth is, we are our own worst enemies....living a life that we were never designed to live. Why is that? So that God can prove to his children that his way is better than theirs. They couldn't be told, so an object lesson carries so much more weight in the long run.

Do we ever learn? Not so far. This is why "few" will pass the test.

 

[sayak83]

One question (and I think you know the answer):

Since the current belief among most scientists is that life originated in the ocean -- a tide pool, a deep sea vent, etc. -- how do these fatty acids, indeed any organic molecules, hold up in water?

They are quite stable in water. All these experiments are being done in water.

 

[gnostic]

I've heard this misunderstanding before. Chapter 2 is simply a recap. The couple in chapter 1 are the same as found in chapter 2. We know this because again the Bible explains itself, in Genesis 3:20. No other woman, but Eve. And yet the command to multiply was given in Genesis 1:28. So, they were the same couple.

Yes, I do know the Bible.....I've been accurately taught, thank you.

They are not the same. And Genesis 2 is not recapping anything, because Genesis 2 is contradicting the order of creation in Genesis 1.

They were not written by the same person/author.

From what scholars around the world have found, Genesis 2 is actual earlier of the 2, written at least century before Genesis 1, so how couldn't Genesis 2 recap something that was written afterward.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They are not the same. And Genesis 2 is not recapping anything, because Genesis 2 is contradicting the order of creation in Genesis 1.

They were not written by the same person/author.

From what scholars around the world have found, Genesis 2 is actual earlier of the 2, written at least century before Genesis 1, so how couldn't Genesis 2 recap something that was written afterward.

From what scholars around the world have found.....

There is no consensus. No one has "found" anything. It's all conjecture. And I'll research it....I'm sure it will enlighten both of us.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They are quite stable in water.

Not from what I've read. By themselves, they are highly soluble....hydrophobic. So are most amino acids.

["All these experiments are being done in water."]

I'd have to specifically read that, regarding single molecules. I haven't come across it, yet.

 

[sayak83]

Not from what I've read. By themselves, they are highly soluble....hydrophobic. So are most amino acids.

["All these experiments are being done in water."]

I'd have to specifically read that, regarding single molecules. I haven't come across it, yet.

Your reading is mistaken. Neither amino acids, lipids or necleotides are soluble. Lipids are indeed hydrophobic, just like oil, which is why they make spherical bubbles spontaneously. But they are all stable in water. Water is the primary medium where all these reactions ate occuring.
You are confusing polymerization with stability. In dilute solutions , RNA strands do not make long chains by linking together ( the lipids do). But that is precisely why I referred to RNA being trapped inside lipid membranes and linked research showing that RNA trapped inside such compartments and subjected to partial drying and wetting cycles do spontaneously polymerize and replication. There is a good talk on this. I will link it when I find it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Now we enter the realms of what you accuse ID proponents of doing.....making comments without knowledge of the subject.
I believe that I have more knowledge about both subjects than you do, thanks to my education....not from higher schools of learning, but from the Bible itself. The Creator is also my teacher.

And thus we have located the root of your problems here.

I too am looking through lenses that correct my imperfect vision. It is imperfect like the rest of me. Nothing functions as optimally as it should. The perfect systems with which we were created suffered extensive injury when a malicious enemy decided to throw us under a bus! This injury created malfunctions in just about every part of the body. But on examination, the Creator of life was also a gifted 'surgeon' who developed the means to correct all of them.....but it would take time and ongoing rehabilitation to achieve full recovery.

The fact that we still function, despite all this degeneration is a miracle in itself. Our bodies still operate at a basic level that keeps us reproducing and 'alive' in spite of those many malfunctions. We can use the wrong 'fuel', eating things that are making us more unhealthy by the day. We abuse our bodies by consuming substances that would be lethal in large doses and debilitating even in small ones. We no longer accept good moral practices that would prevent diseases like AIDS or other STI's. We take drugs to help with health issues that create more health issues themselves. We pollute our environment for commercial reasons and declare war on one another, adding more pollution to earth's already strained atmosphere with heinous weapons.....adding to the woes already afflicting us. How much has science contributed to this situation? Has killing off God made us better people? Has throwing away his moral laws made us happier?

The truth is, we are our own worst enemies....living a life that we were never designed to live. Why is that? So that God can prove to his children that his way is better than theirs. They couldn't be told, so an object lesson carries so much more weight in the long run.

Do we ever learn? Not so far. This is why "few" will pass the test.

So is life so perfect that it had to have been created or is it flawed? I mean it seems like no matter what we find you will curve it back around to "see isn't god great". There is no disqualification for your theory. This piece alone is great evidence that creationism is bull****.

 

[Segev Moran]

The more science learns about the process, the more incredible it becomes.

The fact something is incredible, doesn't make it supernatural.
Lightning is incredible.
A black hole is incredible.
TIME is incredible.
A Medusa is incredible.
There are so many incredible things, yet they have nothing to do with supernatural concepts.

 

[Deeje]

And thus we have located the root of your problems here.

So is life so perfect that it had to have been created or is it flawed? I mean it seems like no matter what we find you will curve it back around to "see isn't god great". There is no disqualification for your theory. This piece alone is great evidence that creationism is bull****.

Made your choice? All things considered?.....good, then that is the way it should be. Informed choice is the only one worth making.

Creation give us reasons and hope....a reason for our existence, a purpose in life and an assurance that man is not our only hope for the future. If he is, then what do we have to look forward to? Look around you at this world and tell me where you see any hope?

Evolution explains nothing about the purpose of life and it gives us nothing to look forward to. I believe that humans have an inherent need for purpose and a collective expectation that life should be way better than man has been able to achieve on his own. We cannot deny our spirituality and evolution cannot explain it.

I can't do "hopeless" and I cannot believe that the miracle of life is "just an accident". You are welcome to your position but it makes no logical sense to me.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Since science can study biological creatures and come to conclusions about their makeup, characteristics and environment, it is past all scientific methods to measure something they don't know and can't measure or study.

All modern knowledge was once a complete unknown, and we had no ability to measure or study it...
What are you talking about?

Pretending God doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away.

God is an unsubstantiated claim.

Science just cannot come to terms with him because they think it makes them look unintelligent to even contemplate the possibility of his existence.

This is false. A huge number of Scientists are personally religious. Only religious literalists have a problem with scientific discovery.

They would rather look smart to each other than acknowledge what is right in front of their noses.

Again, this is false.

Scientists and Belief

You don't have to believe in him.....he doesn't force anyone to do that. But the evidence for his existence is all around us. If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

You don't have to believe in Gorgon the Space Wizard. He doesn't force anyone to do that. But the evidence for his existence is all around us. If you need more than that, I'm sorry but that is all you are going to get.

 

[Deeje]

The fact something is incredible, doesn't make it supernatural.
Lightning is incredible.
A black hole is incredible.
TIME is incredible.

All a product of the Creator's work. All his creations are incredible. Things that science believes it can explain are deemed "natural". I see the "natural" as having "supernatural" origins.

A Medusa is incredible.

Interesting addition to your list.....

There are so many incredible things, yet they have nothing to do with supernatural concepts.

In your opinion, they have nothing to do with supernatural concepts (except maybe the last one)....whatever you think the "supernatural" is.

To me, the Creator is the most "natural" explanation there is for creation. The fact that he is powerful enough to operate outside of laws he designed to govern the earth or even the universe, is also logical in explaining his activities. You are free to reject him. He gives you that choice, but it doesn't mean he won't hold all of his intelligent creation to account. Are you a gambler?

 

[jonathan180iq]

"In 2005, the Cassini orbiter discovered huge, 125-mile-high geysers spraying from the south pole of Enceladus, a small and icy moon that orbits Saturn. Since then, scientists have speculated where the geysers draw from—and whether that water source might be home to some form of life. The most intriguing idea was that the geysers indicated the presence of a subsurface ocean.....Now, new data has confirmed that Enceladus does indeed have an ocean, and it's buried beneath 25 miles of ice at the south pole. The ocean appears to be about six miles deep and may be as large or larger than Lake Superior.

Let's take this one, since there is so much red in it and it's an area of research that I'm very familiar with.

You seem prone to look for keywords which you think support your idea that all scientific literature is nothing more than speculation. This hunt for phrasing that you do keeps your from being able to read properly and contextually. You're completely missing the point of the article because you're too busy looking for words that set you off...

Read that paragraph again with the knowledge that the first half of the paragraph explains previous hypotheses and assumptions about Enceladus, and the last half explains how some of those hypotheses and assumptions were confirmed. Try doing that without adding all of your baggage to what is being reported and see if you don't come away with a better understanding of the article.

I'll make it simpler for you:
(Hypothesize)
Giant geysers on an ice moon must mean something, right? They're erupting from the surface for some reason. What do you think that reason could be?
What do you personally think that they would indicate, if you had no other knowledge of the moon?
Your answer there would be the first half of that article.

(Test)
If you then sent a probe to skim the physical makeup of the ejecta from the geysers, and recorded the data - and you also performed a spectral analysis of the surface of the moon and recorded deep radio mapping of the interior, showing what surface cavities were filled with and confirming through direct capture and observations some of the makeup of those ejecta materials - you would begin to be able to piece together an accurate representation of the reality of the environment on Enceladus, wouldn't you?

(Conclude)
Were some of your original thoughts about Enceladus confirmed? Were some of them not supported by your observations? Did you learn anything new? Do you any other questions you could ask about the nature of the moon? Can you devise some more tests to answer those questions?

That's what the article, which you plastered with red lettering, was doing... Why you have a problem with that, I don't understand.

 

[gnostic]

There is no consensus. No one has "found" anything. It's all conjecture. And I'll research it....I'm sure it will enlighten both of us.

It is not conjectures.

It is reading Genesis 2 as it is, and reading Genesis 1 as it is, then comparing the orders of the two chapters together.

It clearly stated that there were no plants on Earth (2:5), when god created man from dust (2:7).

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground;

Do you not see "no plant of the field was yet in the earth"?

It also say the reason for there being no plants because it had not rain yet "upon earth".

Then God man:

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Follow by creation of vegetation (2:9), including those in the Garden of Eden (2:8).

19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Compare that with Genesis 1 with "every birds" being on day 5 and land animals on day 6, all being created before man and woman.

You have to be totally blind, to be not able to see the orders of creations are different. The contradictions are very apparent to me, without me fiddling them.

And they are different creation myths because they were written by two different authors.

 

[sayak83]

That's what the article, which you plastered with red lettering, was doing... Why you have a problem with that, I don't understand.

Surely you jest? The problem is clear enough after 72 pages of posting surely? Blind belief that deludes reason and clouds one's perception. Deeje is suffering from a moderately severe version of it.