• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Ingredients for DNA found near a star

  • Thread starter Thread starter reznwerks
  • Start date Start date
R

reznwerks

Guest
"NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has discovered some of life's most basic ingredients in the dust swirling around a young star. The ingredients - gaseous precursors to DNA and protein - were detected in the star's terrestrial planet zone, a region where rocky planets such as Earth are thought to be born."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... 51220.html
 
But those are just chemicals, not life. Why don't I see any apes jumping out of those chemicals and evolving into humans? If it hasn't been observed, then we can't assume it happened. By the way, OJ was innocent.
 
observe

Frost Giant said:
If it hasn't been observed, then we can't assume it happened. .
Does this same approach apply to the bible as well?Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.
 
Why don't I see any apes jumping out of those chemicals and evolving into humans?
Because that never happened, and will never happen... unless of course you're a creationist and believe god will do that.
It's a start.
If it hasn't been observed, then we can't assume it happened.
No, we can't. Nobody observed the tree in my back yard grow from a seedling to this size, yet we can assume it happened. We can assume what the seed looked like, how it sprouted, etc.
We know how the universe works (ok, we may not know all the details, but we know enough. at least we know that cows just don't pop out of thin air, or things like that), and by gathering up all that knowledge about how the universe works, we can make a lot of assumptions. From things like murder trials, to how life originated. Not to mention we have observed a lot of the things necessary to make life from chemicals. Because after all, life is just chemicals.
 
Re: observe

reznwerks said:
Frost Giant said:
If it hasn't been observed, then we can't assume it happened. .
Does this same approach apply to the bible as well?Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.
Just because you haven't observed it doesn't mean that the argument works for the Bible as well. The whole point is that people did observe the things of the Bible and, well, wrote them down in the books that became the Bible.
 
Re: observe

Free said:
reznwerks said:
Frost Giant said:
If it hasn't been observed, then we can't assume it happened. .
Does this same approach apply to the bible as well?Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.
Just because you haven't observed it doesn't mean that the argument works for the Bible as well.
Really? Why not?

The whole point is that people did observe the things of the Bible and, well, wrote them down in the books that became the Bible.
Who observed them? Did anyone outside of the bible observe the things (miracles/ fantastic tales) mentioned in the bible? So if you can't find any outside sources to back your claim why should I and everyone else make an exception to your claim? Basically what you have is a circular arguement: The bible makes a claim and why is it true? Answer: because the bible says so.
 
Re: observe

Just because you haven't observed it doesn't mean that the argument works for the Bible as well. The whole point is that people did observe the things of the Bible and, well, wrote them down in the books that became the Bible.

So are you willing to accept any account of a miraculous event that someone puts in writing, or only those that appear in the bible?
 
Re: observe

reznwerks said:
Free said:
The whole point is that people did observe the things of the Bible and, well, wrote them down in the books that became the Bible.
Who observed them? Did anyone outside of the bible observe the things (miracles/ fantastic tales) mentioned in the bible? So if you can't find any outside sources to back your claim why should I and everyone else make an exception to your claim? Basically what you have is a circular arguement: The bible makes a claim and why is it true? Answer: because the bible says so.
Firstly, my argument isn't circular. You're simply making my argument into something it isn't, claiming I've stated something that I haven't. Secondly, what do you mean by "outside sources"? Do you mean only sources from around the time periods that the many books of the Bible were written, or would you include sources from the time of Christ onwards to the present day?

Of course I do realize that it wouldn't matter anyhow since you dismiss miracles a priori. Which is better and more rational: to simply believe what others have to say, to take them at their word since there is no basis for not doing so, or to simply dismiss what they say a priori with no basis for doing so?


Brad said:
So are you willing to accept any account of a miraculous event that someone puts in writing, or only those that appear in the bible?
I wouldn't haphazardly accept any claim to the miraculous outside of the Bible without thoroughly examining the entire context, purpose and manner within which the supposed miracle appeared.
 
Re: observe

Brad said:
So are you willing to accept any account of a miraculous event that someone puts in writing, or only those that appear in the bible?

I wouldn't haphazardly accept any claim to the miraculous outside of the Bible without thoroughly examining the entire context, purpose and manner within which the supposed miracle appeared.

"Context, purpose, amd manner" don't include evidence. So you are saying you don't need evidence? What is it, then, about the "context/purpose/manner" of the miraculous accounts of the bible that convinces you they occured?
 
Okay, so some chemicals have been found right where God put them. What does that prove? I am not even sure where the op was headed with this one. :smt017
 
Wow, so another place in the solar system has carbon based molecules, nitrogen, and oxygen, woopedydoo. I don't doubt this in the least, but it doesn't prove a thing. The complexity of a single cell is still the problem with evolution. DNA could "possibly" be formed by a combination of chemicals, but the DNA would also be easily destroyed without a protective mechanism like a nucleus and cell membrane. Not to mention that the DNA has to form perfectly in order, in matched pairs that are conducive to life of a cell.

And Christians are supposed to be the one's living by faith. :o
 
The complexity of a single cell is still the problem with evolution.
first- abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories.
second... here's what I typed some time ago, when I was debating on another forum (it's from an AP biology text book... campbell 6th edition I think... If you want I can give you the whole citing deal)
Frankly I was stunned at the amount of evidence.
oh, and keep in mind I was typing this while I was reading the book, so I'm sorry for any spelling mistakes or something. I was also typing in a hurry, and while it's perfectly coherent for me (since I was actually reading the book), I understand it may not make perfect sense, especially if you don't know things like ... oh... what introns are or something like that.
blah blah blah.... 3.8 billion years.... nitrogen.... blah blah... basically two chemists figured out that earth's early atmosphere had been a reducing (electron-adding) environment, in which organic compounds could have formed from simple molecules. The energy came form lightning and intense UV radiation (no ozone remember?). then stanley miller did that experiment where amino acids and other organic compounds were formed. hmm... they apparently also found "complex, oily hydrocarbons"...
bloody murder! "4.5 billion year old chonodrite (something from space) collected in southern austrualia in 1969 contained more than 80 amino acids" :-O modern life only uses 20 or so amino acids! (I had to learn them all... tryptophan, phenylalanine, etc.. not that I remember them anymore) "remarkably the proportions of these amino acids are similar to those produced by the miller-urey experiment"
and it says they can't possibly be contaminants from earth (the amino acids in the thing) for some chemistry reasons i don't get.
now abiotic synthesis of polymers:
"researchers have produced amino acid polymers by dripping solutions of amino acids onto hot sand, clay, or rock. The polymers formed spontaneously without the help of enzymes or ribosomes" "such molecules might have acted as weak catalysts for a variety of reactions on early earth"
protobionts:
"while miller-urey-type experiments have yielded some of the nitrogenous bases of DNA and RNA, they have not produced anything like nucleotides"
ALTHOUGH... They have! I read a ... scientific american?... article that said they had created self-replicating RNA in a lab... exclusively with the environment of old earth, and without cheating (using RNA to start with and then making it self-replicating or something like that)
"necessary conditions may have been met by protobionts, agregates of abiotically produced molecules surrounded by a membrane... structure" they "exhibit some of the properties assosiated with life including simple reproduction and metabolism as well as maintenance of internal chemical environment different from that of their surroundings"
"lab experiments demonstrate that protobionts could have formed spontaneously from abiotically produced organic compuonds. for example, small membrane-bounded droplets called liposomes can form when lipids or other organic molecules are added to water. (figure 26.4)" (shows a liposome "giving birth" to smaller liposomes, and another one having simple metabolism.)
..... "much like the lipid bilayer of a plasma membrane [...] some liposomes store energy in the form of a membrane potential, a voltage across the surface. such liposomes can discharge the volage in nerve cell-like fashion, such excitability is a characteristic of all life"
if some things come together, like the amino acids and polymers getting inside the liposome "then those droplets could have selectively taken up organic molecules from their environment"
RNA world:
first genetic material- probably RNA.
two people found RNA (which plays a central role in protein synthesis) can also carry out a number of enzyme-like catalytic functions. They called 'em ribozymes. they can make complementary pieces of RNA, if they're supplied with nucleotide building blocks. others can remove segments of themselves (self splicing introns), or can act on diff. molecules such as tRNA.
"natual selection on the molecular level has been observed operating on RNA populations in the laboratory. Unlike double-stranded DNA," "RNA molecules assume a variety of 3-D shapes" ..."the molecules thus have both a genotpe and a phenotype" "RNA molecules with certain base sequences are more stable and replicate faster and with fewer errors"
blah blah blah, families of closely related RNA, "occasionally a copying error will result in a molecule that folds into a shape that is even more stable or more adept at self-replication than the ancestral sequence."
blah blah suggested that " rna molecules may have been short virus-like sequences and these sequenes were aided in their replication by random amino acid polymers that had rudimentary catalytic capabilities", and that may have happened in protobionts.
ugh. there's more but i don't feel like typing it all out.
I'm guessing it says something about from then on, with the help of natural selection, RNA could have lost an oxygen atom and become DNA, and then ta-da you have your first cells.
there, plenty of evidence that it could have happened.
 
answers

KnarfKS said:
Wow, so another place in the solar system has carbon based molecules, nitrogen, and oxygen, woopedydoo. I don't doubt this in the least, but it doesn't prove a thing. The complexity of a single cell is still the problem with evolution. DNA could "possibly" be formed by a combination of chemicals, but the DNA would also be easily destroyed without a protective mechanism like a nucleus and cell membrane. Not to mention that the DNA has to form perfectly in order, in matched pairs that are conducive to life of a cell.

Not having all the answers does not default to evidence of God. It is OK not to know everything. We may never know everything. This still does not point to God.

And Christians are supposed to be the one's living by faith. :o
There are two kinds of faith. Blind faith and faith because there is a reason for it.
 
We may never know everything. This still does not point to God.
It doesn't point away from God either.

There are two kinds of faith. Blind faith and faith because there is a reason for it.
I don't think either athiests or Christians have blind faith. It is merely the facts we emphasize when believing in what we believe. You live in faith that there is no God with "evidence" and I live in faith that there is a God with "evidence", which neither set of evidence can be proven true. Neither one is directly observable on a even remotely large enough scale to be considered absolutely true.

Yeah, this is why I usually hate debating science with religion, we can't do it. The other thing is that evolution doesn't discount the existence of God.
 
Re: observe

Free said:
Just because you haven't observed it doesn't mean that the argument works for the Bible as well. The whole point is that people did observe the things of the Bible and, well, wrote them down in the books that became the Bible.

Really? So, there was a witness to Adam's creation? :roll:


"God creates Man, will make Woman later. Story at 10." :-D
 
Re: observe

Free said:
reznwerks said:
Free said:
The whole point is that people did observe the things of the Bible and, well, wrote them down in the books that became the Bible.
Who observed them? Did anyone outside of the bible observe the things (miracles/ fantastic tales) mentioned in the bible? So if you can't find any outside sources to back your claim why should I and everyone else make an exception to your claim? Basically what you have is a circular arguement: The bible makes a claim and why is it true? Answer: because the bible says so.
Firstly, my argument isn't circular.
Your arguement may not be circular but the bible's arguement is circular.The bible makes a claim and why is it true? Because the bible says so. That is a circular arguement.
You're simply making my argument into something it isn't, claiming I've stated something that I haven't. Secondly, what do you mean by "outside sources"?
I mean independent, first hand sources or witnessess to the fantastic events. You have none at all. There is absolutely no writings to testify, no people who wrote about anything regarding the fantastic tales told in the bible except those written about in the bible. The bible is not a textbook and we know nothing of the writers of the bible nor do we know who did the countless copyings of the bible or there accuracy or honesty.

Do you mean only sources from around the time periods that the many books of the Bible were written, or would you include sources from the time of Christ onwards to the present day?
Any writings after the supposed events can be considered hear say only as no one witnessed them. At the time of the supposed events don't you think someone should have written about something? After all Jesus had quite a following according to the bible.

Of course I do realize that it wouldn't matter anyhow since you dismiss miracles a priori.
I dismiss miracles because no one has ever proved the laws of nature have ever been broken. Things happen that are strange but that doesn't mean they are impossible or fully understood or that the laws of nature have been breached. As I said before having Jesus come back to life might be a miracle but it is certainly not greater than having the saints get out of their graves and appear to many. That is by far an even greater miracle but I fail to see how it never even gets ratings.

Which is better and more rational: to simply believe what others have to say, to take them at their word since there is no basis for not doing so, or to simply dismiss what they say a priori with no basis for doing so?
I think it is better to dismiss the matter as false unless the claim can be verified. I think it is even wiser to dismiss the claim as false if the claim is not believable and no evidence is there to validate it.Believing it because one hasn't anything better to do is lazy.


Brad said:
So are you willing to accept any account of a miraculous event that someone puts in writing, or only those that appear in the bible?
I wouldn't haphazardly accept any claim to the miraculous outside of the Bible without thoroughly examining the entire context, purpose and manner within which the supposed miracle appeared.
If you are so confident of the bible why not put it to the same test that you would expect of claims outside the bible. Surly it will hold water.
 
reznwerks said:
"NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has discovered some of life's most basic ingredients in the dust swirling around a young star. The ingredients - gaseous precursors to DNA and protein - were detected in the star's terrestrial planet zone, a region where rocky planets such as Earth are thought to be born."
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... 51220.html

Do you know what they didn't find? The all left proteins needed for life.

Do you know what they did find? The left and right proteins produced in nature that don't do squat for life.
 
Back
Top