Life From Dirt?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it’s more of a fantasy. Something supernatural that has never been seen.

Nope. Nothing supernatural either.

You might want to inform yourself first on the theories you are religiously hellbend on arguing against...
It would prevent you from arguing strawman after strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So demonstrate it then.

There's no pointing in explaining the evidence to you if
1. you don't understand what is and isn't evidence
and
2. you categorically refuse to let go of your strawmen concerning BB cosmology and actually learn what it really says.

Don't expect us to do your homework.
You have access to the internet. This means you have all that you need to inform yourself on the basics from proper scientific sources.

I for one would like to see atoms magically make themselves.

Not what BB cosmology is about.

And while you’re trying to confirm you’re not speaking babble also demonstrate the evolution theory by putting two couples of apes under the kind of stressed conditions in the field to show they can form a new species through their progeny.

Not how evolution works either.


What do you hope to accomplish by arguing against theories you clearly don't know anything about?

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, in those all organic compounds are non-living, but how do they provide functions that make each 'cell' living

Ok, uravip2me.

I’m gonna have to stop you there.

You are asking a very complicated question in a thread & forum, where not all of us are biologists, which would include me.

I am not saying that it cannot be answered, but I don’t think I am the right person to answer them, and even if I am capable of answering them, it would be quite long...very long...too long for me to willing to try, because I am not a biologist capable of shortening any explanations I might give.

And I am not willing to write long explanation that you will simply ignore or reject, because that would mean I have wasted my time and efforts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seems without us humans, the 2 frogs along with all the other animals would make Earth to be a Zoo.
Everything is here to support life for the 2 frogs and all other living matter and animals along with us late comers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, in those all organic compounds are non-living, but how do they provide functions that make each 'cell' living

That is far outside of my ken. The answer "I do not know." is not evidence for a God. Others may. Others may not. That is still not evidence for a God. Or that a God is needed for life. Your question is pointless.

 

[Heyo]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, in those all organic compounds are non-living, but how do they provide functions that make each 'cell' living

By implementing the different conditions we attribute to life. Lipid bilayers form the cell wall so that the cell is a separate entity from the environment, enzymes break up "food" (carbohydrates) establishing a digestive system, rna/dna provide for replication with inheritance and modification, etc.
For every condition for life there is one or more systems providing functions that meet the condition.
The ways these components could emerge from simpler chemicals have been shown for some. There are falsifiable hypothesis how others could have emerged.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Neither the God hypothesis or the Abiogenesis/Evolution hypothesis describe a fully detailed mechanism. The random approach of evolution is bunch of fuzzy dice steps, but not rational details. Fuzzy dice are cover for lack of hard data.

What both, together, do describe is a contrast between two different styles of creation. The Bible God of Creation is more deliberate and works from a plan like building telescope from a box of parts. It may look magical; poof, to the uneducated, as this box of parts becomes something useful. The god of science creation, is more like an idiot savant god who does not have a plan, but is very lucky. He staggers around like a drunk; random walking, and where he periodically falls, something useful happens; poof there are replicators.

The evidence for evolution is by no means "fuzzy." It is certainly not random. Fossil records, genetics, embryonics, and comparative anatomy all provide hard, systematic evidence that life evolves.

In other posts, I have shown how applied science comes before pure science. Experimental apparatus, which derive from applied science, is needed to prove any science theory derived from science. This data has to come first, or it is just speculation. We would not even know about cells, if we did not first have the microscope. That applied science allowed a way to witness the truth from which new science and/or proof of old science theory would emerge.

Microscopes do not violate any natural laws, yet these do not naturally appear in nature from some random approach to science using the laws of nature. Microscopes do not evolve and grow on trees or come from eggs by a series of random steps like is assumed of life. The Microscope uses natural laws, but it very appearance on earth defies the natural odds. They appeared on the earth, through conscious deliberation; observing, rational planning and execution.

One does not build a microscope by playing the lottery a thousand times; science theory of life. The microscope, shows how natural odds can be defied with reason and a plan. This can be demonstrated with applied science over and over. The God theory is actually closer to an applied science approach since it implies something, that is not from natural science, but rather leads science, using primacies than are higher than a lucky god of random falls; many magical poofs!

The problem with "watchmaker" arguments like this is that science has produced the mechanisms and processes by which life as we know could have arisen without the influence of an willful being.

The Pyramids in Egypt are still considered engineering wonders, that were built at a time before there was modern science. How did such complex construction occur without modern science? Applied science always leads and then pure science appears, as this is reverse engineered, over time. Science still cannot agree on the reverse engineering of the pyramids, that was able to deny all odds based on their science. Explanation tends to drift to Aliens from other planets, with much better tech; applied science to lead the construction.

Scientists can agree on some very likely scenarios on how the pyramids were built, which includes evidence.

If we found advanced alien technology, our knowledge of science may not be sufficient to have developed this ourself, nor would we expect the earth to eventually grow this on tress, using the god of random for all the poofs need. We would try to reverse engineer the tech to form our own simpler working applied science prototype, and from these efforts we would start to derive the science, secondary; add what is needed to explain it and make it work.The Bible takes the approach of the applied science coming first; God defies the odds, which when understood, still does not violate natural law, but advances rational science, so the god of alcohol and staggering luck can be retired. He/she is all bruised up.

What is the applied science in the Bible? It appears to me to be a collection of cultural mores, mythology, symbolism, history, and poetry.

Water is the key to life; applied science analogy. Water does not change throughout the entire story of life from Abiogenesis to now and the future. The chemical called water; H2O, is a fixed bookend variable that stays chemically the same. The organics do not stay put, but have changed from the beginning and still continue to change; new genes, proteins and structures.

This is due to the dynamic processes of chemistry, of which there are known mechanisms.

Water is like the applied science of life, with its unchanging nature, limiting itself to the same age old natural laws. The organics are always in flux and have many shapes and forms. Water loads the dice, due to its persist cohabitation and nature. Water is the vector, while the organics are the growing scalar. They work together as a team of opposites. This sort of describes the two gods of creation, with water the the deliberate side of the coin, while the organics the variable side of the coin. The goal of evolution to go where the eternal water potential leads it; loads the dice, like applied science leads pure science.

Could you reword this? I find this hard to follow.

 

[gnostic]

Do you see, @URAVIP2ME ?

By implementing the different conditions we attribute to life. Lipid bilayers form the cell wall so that the cell is a separate entity from the environment, enzymes break up "food" (carbohydrates) establishing a digestive system, rna/dna provide for replication with inheritance and modification, etc.

This above, is excellent.

I cannot give brief summarised version of the functionalities of each bio macromolecules that operate within the cell, like the way @Heyo did, above.

The points are that these molecules worked together to make cells living.

What Heyo say about enzymes, food & digestive system - the enzymes are proteins. And the enzymes & food, the processes of “breaking up the food” into energy sources - carbohydrates - which you would probably as sugars, glucoses or starches, are the energy sources that help sustain life. The process is a chemical reaction.

This “chemical reactions” you would have heard before as “metabolism”. Metabolism not only sustained life, but it also keep the cells “healthy” and “working”.

Metabolism is also responsible for growth of organisms. So metabolism have many functions.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The points are that these molecules worked together to make cells living.
What Heyo say about enzymes, food & digestive system - the enzymes are proteins. And the enzymes & food, the processes of “breaking up the food” into energy sources - carbohydrates - which you would probably as sugars, glucoses or starches, are the energy sources that help sustain life. The process is a chemical reaction.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I can agree that those 3 types of molecules do work together.
As our 'huge universe' has a purposeful design, so does our 'puny universe' (basic cell) have a purposeful design.
As to how those needed molecules make cells living to me is from a designing energy source (super natural) and not from non-living matter or source.
Again, thank you for your reply, God to me is Not only God and Creator but also Father. Father means: Life Giver.
To me God is the Life Giver to bring about all creation no matter how minute, how small.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I can agree that those 3 types of molecules do work together.
As our 'huge universe' has a purposeful design, so does our 'puny universe' (basic cell) have a purposeful design.
As to how those needed molecules make cells living to me is from a designing energy source (super natural) and not from non-living matter or source.
Again, thank you for your reply, God to me is Not only God and Creator but also Father. Father means: Life Giver.
To me God is the Life Giver to bring about all creation no matter how minute, how small.

Why believe that our universe has purposeful design? There does not appear to be any evidence for that at all.

 

[Brian2]

Why believe that our universe has purposeful design? There does not appear to be any evidence for that at all.

Even with no designer things still serve a purpose.
For a theist the purpose is given in the design, for an atheist the purpose is something determined by the evolutionary process.
So purpose is there even from your pov. All you are saying is that you do not believe the purpose was given by a designer, iow you do not believe in a designer, iow you are saying "I am an atheist".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even with no designer things still serve a purpose.
For a theist the purpose is given in the design, for an atheist the purpose is something determined by the evolutionary process.
So purpose is there even from your pov. All you are saying is that you do not believe the purpose was given by a designer, iow you do not believe in a designer, iow you are saying "I am an atheist".

The problem is that believers keep making claims that are not supported by evidence at all. As you just did.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is that believers keep making claims that are not supported by evidence at all. As you just did.

I did not know I needed to support logic with evidence.
But really we all say things that are not supported by evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not know I needed to support logic with evidence.
But really we all say things that are not supported by evidence.

You have never used logic. Where do you think that you did that?

 

[Jimmy]

Why believe that our universe has purposeful design? There does not appear to be any evidence for that at all.

Nice outlook

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice outlook

It is not an "outlook" it is what it is. People that claim to see evidence only appear to have wishful thinking at best and many of them are lying.

 

[Brian2]

You have never used logic. Where do you think that you did that?

We are talking about the following quote (from post 371). It looks logical to me all the way through even if the grammar may not be 100% correct.
Do you think I need any evidence for what I said?

Even with no designer things still serve a purpose.
For a theist the purpose is given in the design, for an atheist the purpose is something determined by the evolutionary process.
So purpose is there even from your pov. All you are saying is that you do not believe the purpose was given by a designer, iow you do not believe in a designer, iow you are saying "I am an atheist".

 

[Astrophile]

So demonstrate it then. I for one would like to see atoms magically make themselves.

If you look at Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia , you will find an explanation of how it happened. During the electroweak epoch (between about 10^-32 and 10^-12 seconds after the beginning) the universe consisted of a hot quark-gluon plasma, with interactions between W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. During this time, fermions and electroweak bosons were massless. During the subsequent quark epoch (10^-12 to 10^-5) seconds, fermions acquired mass, but energies were still too high for quarks to bind into hadrons. Production of hadrons (including protons and neutrons) began during the hadron epoch (10^-5 to 1 second).

By about ten seconds after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about a billion Kelvin, protons and neutrons were able to combine into the first atomic nuclei (hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7). The universe was still too hot for electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form atoms; this had to wait until about 370,000 years after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about 4000 K.

Isn't this a more detailed account of the origin of matter than the statement that 'God created the heaven and the earth'? Doesn't it give a better explanation of the observed abundances of the light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) and of the cosmic microwave background?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are talking about the following quote (from post 371). It looks logical to me all the way through even if the grammar may not be 100% correct.
Do you think I need any evidence for what I said?

Even with no designer things still serve a purpose.
For a theist the purpose is given in the design, for an atheist the purpose is something determined by the evolutionary process.
So purpose is there even from your pov. All you are saying is that you do not believe the purpose was given by a designer, iow you do not believe in a designer, iow you are saying "I am an atheist".

I know. you do not use logic.

"Even with no designer things still serve a purpose."

At best a red herring. We cannot even really tell because you have used terms with what appears to be your own personal definition. So off to a very bad start.

"For a theist the purpose is given in the design, for an atheist the purpose is something determined by the evolutionary process."

Just more of the same and now it is beginning to look like circular reasoning.


"So purpose is there even from your pov. All you are saying is that you do not believe the purpose was given by a designer, iow you do not believe in a designer, iow you are saying "I am an atheist"."

Unjustified conclusion since you never properly defined your terms, and a misunderstanding of what atheism is to boot. The whole post is merely handwaving and logical fallacies. As I said, you do not use logic..

 

[Jimmy]

If you look at Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia , you will find an explanation of how it happened. During the electroweak epoch (between about 10^-32 and 10^-12 seconds after the beginning) the universe consisted of a hot quark-gluon plasma, with interactions between W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons. During this time, fermions and electroweak bosons were massless. During the subsequent quark epoch (10^-12 to 10^-5) seconds, fermions acquired mass, but energies were still too high for quarks to bind into hadrons. Production of hadrons (including protons and neutrons) began during the hadron epoch (10^-5 to 1 second).

By about ten seconds after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about a billion Kelvin, protons and neutrons were able to combine into the first atomic nuclei (hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7). The universe was still too hot for electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form atoms; this had to wait until about 370,000 years after the beginning, when the temperature had fallen to about 4000 K.

Isn't this a more detailed account of the origin of matter than the statement that 'God created the heaven and the earth'? Doesn't it give a better explanation of the observed abundances of the light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) and of the cosmic microwave background?

So really hot stuff created life? Eh