The origin of life Enigma!

[Care4all]

what did start life on earth Proletarian....I know we had all the components to "make" life here, but what again is science saying started it? I thought I had seen a program on the Universe that said in simplest terms, when we got our moon....the moon and the huge tides it brought, nearly a mile high, going violently hundreds of miles in and out, agitated things and actually began the process for more complex life....I am no science buff or major, so that is the best that i can explain some of the process....

I can admit I am dumb and don't really understand the actual process.

 

[PeterS]

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

the other mystery, is that an incomplete cell can't work. A cell is needing all his components to function - so it's quite impossible that a cell evolute by chance!

There was a time when we didn't understand gravity and thought the earth the center of the universe. Did our lack of understanding prove the earth the center of the universe? "Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy which of course begs the question of why you need fallacies to support your position. My dear sweet granny used to say: "If you have to lie to get what you want what does that say about what you want?" So what is the value of god if we have to lie to justify our belief?

 

[code1211]

what did start life on earth Proletarian....I know we had all the components to "make" life here, but what again is science saying started it? I thought I had seen a program on the Universe that said in simplest terms, when we got our moon....the moon and the huge tides it brought, nearly a mile high, going violently hundreds of miles in and out, agitated things and actually began the process for more complex life....I am no science buff or major, so that is the best that i can explain some of the process....

I can admit I am dumb and don't really understand the actual process.

I'm with you. It's fairly evident that it started somehow. Everything that is at some point, began. The "building blocks" of life seem to be there and the combination of those blocks makes sense. As we start to "see" the actual structures, the RNA then DNA and so on, it is really complex as we get to even the single sell thingys.

The very basis is so simple, it seems reminiscent of computer code which is another thing I don't understand. 0 and 1 create the whole ball game. The whole ball game can literally be a ball game. It's astonishing. It's astonishing, but not imposible. Obviously.

Life is also astonishing at the very basis or at the level we can actually see. Again, astonishing does not mean impossible. If it was likely that life would occur absent any life in the first place, we'd see it all over the Universe and we don't.

It seems likely that life exists on some other planet like ours, but there is no evidence to support that liklihood. If the conditions were not right to support life on this planet, we probably wouldn't be talking about this right now.

 

[editec]

Anybody ever see this movie?

Zeitgeist, the Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a facinating exploration of the Jesus story and how often that same story was created by religions older than Judeaism.

Some of it goes way out on a limb, especially when it discusses modern history, but I think a lot of you folks here will find it interesting, anyway.

You can watch it for free on youtube.

 

[Care4all]

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

the other mystery, is that an incomplete cell can't work. A cell is needing all his components to function - so it's quite impossible that a cell evolute by chance!

There was a time when we didn't understand gravity and thought the earth the center of the universe. Did our lack of understanding prove the earth the center of the universe? "Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy which of course begs the question of why you need fallacies to support your position. My dear sweet granny used to say: "If you have to lie to get what you want what does that say about what you want?" So what is the value of god if we have to lie to justify our belief?

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

 

[PeterS]

God also says we were made out of the dust of the earth....Stardust I presume....carbon/amino acids etc

why we are unable to create a living specie with those organic elements from earth?

Ummm, because we don't yet understand how?

 

[PeterS]

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

the other mystery, is that an incomplete cell can't work. A cell is needing all his components to function - so it's quite impossible that a cell evolute by chance!

There was a time when we didn't understand gravity and thought the earth the center of the universe. Did our lack of understanding prove the earth the center of the universe? "Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy which of course begs the question of why you need fallacies to support your position. My dear sweet granny used to say: "If you have to lie to get what you want what does that say about what you want?" So what is the value of god if we have to lie to justify our belief?

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

 

[editec]

Religion keeps many of us in check.

It makes us more useful tools and more compliant sheeple.

It's as useful a tool today, as it ever was, too.

 

[Care4all]

There was a time when we didn't understand gravity and thought the earth the center of the universe. Did our lack of understanding prove the earth the center of the universe? "Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy which of course begs the question of why you need fallacies to support your position. My dear sweet granny used to say: "If you have to lie to get what you want what does that say about what you want?" So what is the value of god if we have to lie to justify our belief?

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

It is NOT TRUE TODAY, it is not even CLOSE to being REMOTELY LIKE the Dark Ages....(Just look around you,....it ain't even a close second to those times)

There are very, very very few people who are as you speak....MOST Christians believe in Science and have Faith in God.

Even the repressive Catholic Church of the past, now supports science and it's results on most of this....

We are in the age of enlightenment....the age of revelation....not the dark ages.

52% of those working in the Sciences, believe in God....

the two are not vinegar and oil imo.

 

[Freeman]

There was a time when we didn't understand gravity and thought the earth the center of the universe. Did our lack of understanding prove the earth the center of the universe? "Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy which of course begs the question of why you need fallacies to support your position. My dear sweet granny used to say: "If you have to lie to get what you want what does that say about what you want?" So what is the value of god if we have to lie to justify our belief?

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

science was never opposed to faith and religion. it's a mistake

I'm not christian, but i know that the popes who are the cause of dark ages and irrationalism.

Faith encourage science research and you have to ask the question in the other direction: why z'atheists need to lie to justify their beliefs

darwinism was and is never a fact, it still controverted among scientists themselves

 

[PeterS]

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

It is NOT TRUE TODAY, it is not even CLOSE to being REMOTELY LIKE the Dark Ages....(Just look around you,....it ain't even a close second to those times)

There are very, very very few people who are as you speak....MOST Christians believe in Science and have Faith in God.

Even the repressive Catholic Church of the past, now supports science and it's results on most of this....

We are in the age of enlightenment....the age of revelation....not the dark ages.

52% of those working in the Sciences, believe in God....

the two are not vinegar and oil imo.

The lack of faith is very true today. Religion has nothing to do with science nor does science have anything to do with religion. Neither is a threat to the other. Those who need to suppress or disprove science in order to justify their beliefs by their actions discredit their beliefs. A belief in god can only be supported by faith. That is the fundamental grounding of Man to god. What science shows, or doesn't, is irrelevant. To ask for science to ever prove or disprove god destroys the very structure of what make god, God. It isn't science who is the destroyer of god but those who lack faith in their own beliefs...

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

science was never opposed to faith and religion. it's a mistake

I'm not christian, but i know that the popes who are the cause of dark ages and irrationalism.

Faith encourage science research and you have to ask the question in the other direction: why z'atheists need to lie to justify their beliefs

darwinism was and is never a fact, it still controverted among scientists themselves

No. With Religion you start with your answer, "God did it," and then try to find facts that in some way may justify this preconceived notion that clouds any real objective thought.

 

[PeterS]

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

science was never opposed to faith and religion. it's a mistake

I'm not christian, but i know that the popes who are the cause of dark ages and irrationalism.

Faith encourage science research and you have to ask the question in the other direction: why z'atheists need to lie to justify their beliefs

darwinism was and is never a fact, it still controverted among scientists themselves

Faith does not encourage science but a lack of it and since there exists no proof nor disproof of god any argument for or against is irrational. As for Darwinianism so long as science follows scientific method controversy means very little. Scientific practice is based on consensus. Darwinianism will be followed by science so long as the majority think that scientific method shows it to be true.

 

[Care4all]

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

It is NOT TRUE TODAY, it is not even CLOSE to being REMOTELY LIKE the Dark Ages....(Just look around you,....it ain't even a close second to those times)

There are very, very very few people who are as you speak....MOST Christians believe in Science and have Faith in God.

Even the repressive Catholic Church of the past, now supports science and it's results on most of this....

We are in the age of enlightenment....the age of revelation....not the dark ages.

52% of those working in the Sciences, believe in God....

the two are not vinegar and oil imo.

The lack of faith is very true today. Religion has nothing to do with science nor does science have anything to do with religion. Neither is a threat to the other. Those who need to suppress or disprove science in order to justify their beliefs by their actions discredit their beliefs. A belief in god can only be supported by faith. That is the fundamental grounding of Man to god. What science shows, or doesn't, is irrelevant. To ask for science to ever prove or disprove god destroys the very structure of what make god, God. It isn't science who is the destroyer of god but those who lack faith in their own beliefs...

ahhhhhhhhhhh, then I think I agree with you....!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

what did start life on earth Proletarian....I know we had all the components to "make" life here, but what again is science saying started it?

You assume an outside agent?

Life as we know it is believed to have emerged from early replicators. The details of how these arose can never be known for certain, since we cannot go backwards in time and such things leave no fossils to analyze, but there are experiments being carried out around the world to attempt to determine what scenarios would have been possible.

I can admit I am dumb and don't really understand the actual process.

Again, we can never know what did happen, only what scenarios could have played out and were most probable based on our understanding of the environment of the time. Kinda like the old problem of trying to prove scientifically that any historical figure existed

 

[Care4all]

what did start life on earth Proletarian....I know we had all the components to "make" life here, but what again is science saying started it?

You assume an outside agent?

Life as we know it is believed to have emerged from early replicators. The details of how these arose can never be known for certain, since we cannot go backwards in time and such things leave no fossils to analyze, but there are experiments being carried out around the world to attempt to determine what scenarios would have been possible.

I can admit I am dumb and don't really understand the actual process.

Again, we can never know what did happen, only what scenarios could have played out and were most probable based on our understanding of the environment of the time. Kinda like the old problem of trying to prove scientifically that any historical figure existed

I really do not need proof....my faith is enough....and yes, I KNOW how crazy this is...yes crazy...I know there are religions before judeo/christians that have similar stories....I know none of it makes sense.....

But I also know what I believe....what I think....what I feel....what I know deep inside...and this "belief in God thing" has me hook, line and sinker....on Faith alone!

 

[amrchaos]

I think that Freeman and Froggy are off on a very different track from what is being proposed and what they think is being challenged.

First off--science is not born with answers, it discoveers them. So today, no science do not have the anwer on how life begins and even the Big Bang is more of a speculative model than provable fact.

However--science has disproved and forced the admission of misunderstandings supported by Theologians than any other philosophical thought or beliefs system in all of mans recorded history!! In fact, I can understand why believers would attack anything scientific: It means more admission of wrong and misunderstanding on their part--not science part.


So please. Go ahead and doubt evolution and proclaim God did all the things you said with out describing how or what he did. Science works best under an environment of skepticism. In fact, its truths are stronger than many religious claims because it is based in skepticism.


By the way--think of evolution as a mutation made permanent due to consistant environmental conditions/situations which are not random events.
NOTE: mutatiuions in cells do occur, else half the diseases we know about would not exist.

We have to admit that the claim of mutations and genetic information formed only by CHANCE and dice game is an absurd...really absurd!

there is tens of amino acids, and the probability comes out to a staggering chance of one out of 1.28 X 10115. That is 1.28 with 115 zeroes to form a protein by chance if we consider 20 different amino acids!

Given the criteria that not only do all 100 amino acids have a specific sequence, but they are all left-handed and all bonded on the left hand, the probability that this will occur works out to one in 1.28 X 10175. This last calculation overwhelmingly demonstrates the massive problem evolution has in getting inert matter to form a protein. The statistical improbability for the next step, the formation of a single cell from all these improbable proteins, is beyond comprehension.

Please elaborate--what do you call a chance, Freeman?

 

[rikules]

in continuation of thread "just a question to atheists", as I have expected, none atheist is able to prove non existence of supreme force!

Anyway, to prove his hypothesis, Darwin was asked to give firstly an explication about the origin of life...his wild imagination inspire him about a new myth "Primordial soup" of salt, electricity and hot that emerge life

However, Pasteur remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.".

The enigma hidden by darwinists is that none is able to create life in cell, how life is appeared?

the other mystery, is that an incomplete cell can't work. A cell is needing all his components to function - so it's quite impossible that a cell evolute by chance!

Probability and the Origin of Life
For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth's early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called "abiogenesis"). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life's probability is extremely small, essentially zero.


Now let's ask what the probability is for flipping the coin twice and getting two heads in a row. It is the product of the two probabilities of getting heads both the first time and the second time. That is, P2H = ½ x ½ = ¼. Now you understand how to calculate the probability that both of two independent events will happen. It is the product of the probabilities of the two events.

Next we will calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?

Now let's ask what the probability is for flipping the coin twice and getting two heads in a row. It is the product of the two probabilities of getting heads both the first time and the second time. That is, P2H = ½ x ½ = ¼. Now you understand how to calculate the probability that both of two independent events will happen. It is the product of the probabilities of the two events.

In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier.

well of COURSE we can't prove the NONexistant of something that doesn't exist

we also can't prove that there is no santy claus or easter bunny...(who will be bringing me chocolate tomorrow! yeah fro the easter bunny!)

of course
you can't prove that there IS a god, either

 

[amrchaos]

we believed the sun was the center of the universe long before humans believed it was not....that's what the dark ages and very lengthy time, can do, I suppose...wipe out some knowledge over time....

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

science was never opposed to faith and religion. it's a mistake

I'm not christian, but i know that the popes who are the cause of dark ages and irrationalism.

Faith encourage science research and you have to ask the question in the other direction: why z'atheists need to lie to justify their beliefs

darwinism was and is never a fact, it still controverted among scientists themselves

You mean Science was dominated by religion.

That is why it took 1200 years to go from Algebra to Calculus, but during the renaissance, it took only 40 years to go from Calculus to Analysis.

By the way, what ever happened to the flat-earth Christians? Did they fall off the planet, or "re interpret" the Bible to agree with science

I see alot of "re-interpretations" coming really soon. The next 20 years is going to be extra tough on religious faiths--even fatal!!

 

[Care4all]

The dark ages were the age of religious irrationalism. And again, when we need to build our support for a god though lies what does that say about god and our beliefs? We displace the dark ages with rationalism and the age of reason. So why the need to return to irrational disillusion?

And please note, I am not trying to create an argument against god but only asking why our apparent need to lie to justify our beliefs. What ever happened to faith? The fatal flaw in religion is that those who claim to believe seem to have zero faith. This was true in the dark ages and sadly seems very true today.

science was never opposed to faith and religion. it's a mistake

I'm not christian, but i know that the popes who are the cause of dark ages and irrationalism.

Faith encourage science research and you have to ask the question in the other direction: why z'atheists need to lie to justify their beliefs

darwinism was and is never a fact, it still controverted among scientists themselves

You mean Science was dominated by religion.

That is why it took 1200 years to go from Algebra to Calculus, but during the renaissance, it took only 40 years to go from Calculus to Analysis.

By the way, what ever happened to the flat-earth Christians? Did they fall off the planet, or "re interpret" the Bible to agree with science

I see alot of "re-interpretations" coming really soon. The next 20 years is going to be extra tough on religious faiths--even fatal!!

fyi
NO WHERE from cover to cover, does it say that the earth is flat, in the Bible.

that is just what flawed humans thought.