Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did it start?
SkepticScand
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 162 (94896)
03-26-2004 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
03-25-2004 11:09 PM


Re: psychology of religion
Thanks for the link AbbyLeever,
I think it is fascinating to compare everyday observations into our evolution theory compared to our religious beliefs (like why we find some people more attractive than others (symmetry), our 4 carnivor teeth, why babychimp skulls look a lot more human than human baby skulls and so on).
I am probably a bit biased here because I have allready stated that I am an Evolutionist. I believe that the most important discoveries throughout time have been discovered during the last century. From Einsteins Relativity Theory, The M-Theory (superstring theory), genetics (Hox-genes, mapping the human genome), cosmology (hubble, Drakes Equation), C14 dating and so on.
When looking at all these discoveries and compare them up against religion passed on by our forefathers, I find it hard to believe in religion. Even Creationists must have some doubts when looking at all this...
- The best evidence that there is inteligent life out there, is that we still haven't been contacted - Calvin and Hobbes
[This message has been edited by SkepticScand, 03-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 11:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-26-2004 11:06 AM SkepticScand has replied
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 12:16 PM SkepticScand has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 32 of 162 (94897)
03-26-2004 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jackal25
03-24-2004 1:13 AM


Re: Differences
As has been stated by prior atheists - it just ends. Zippo. Gone.
Unlike other Atheists I have no wish, nor desire, for it to continue. It is an end, neat and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jackal25, posted 03-24-2004 1:13 AM Jackal25 has not replied

Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 162 (94943)
03-26-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SkepticScand
03-26-2004 5:03 AM


Re: psychology of religion
SckepticScand, I would disagree on the importance of Drake's equation. It is a completely specualtive tool, with factors that can't be observed or measured at all, at least at this time, for sure. It is useful as an illustrative tool, but not much of a scientific acheivement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SkepticScand, posted 03-26-2004 5:03 AM SkepticScand has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by SkepticScand, posted 03-26-2004 3:55 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 162 (94953)
03-26-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by SkepticScand
03-26-2004 5:03 AM


Re: psychology of religion
and thank you for your link. gets right into the teeth of the matter, eh?
I certainly have trouble understanding belief that flies in the face of factual evidence, but also think that there is something common to all faiths, all beliefs that is larger than the collecton of subatomic particles (which dance the lobster quadrille to the songs of the stars).
The best Calvin series was the snow goons ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SkepticScand, posted 03-26-2004 5:03 AM SkepticScand has not replied

SkepticScand
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 162 (94997)
03-26-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Darwin Storm
03-26-2004 11:06 AM


Re: psychology of religion
Hi Darwin Storm,
I would tend to agree with you. I don't consider Drakes Equation to be more than a formula trying to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. After all, they used his equation as a basis for the SETI project. The input you put into the formula doesn't give a final answer, but it's an interesting equation. And if they find that there have been life on Mars (even extinct bacterial life) and perhaps Europe (Jupiters moon), the equation will become more important as a speculative tool...
So you're right, the equation can not be used to prove anything scientificly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-26-2004 11:06 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 162 (104460)
04-30-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jackal25
03-23-2004 5:50 PM


Funny thing about evolution
No one can explain how the first living cell came into existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jackal25, posted 03-23-2004 5:50 PM Jackal25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 11:57 PM laserlover has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 162 (104464)
04-30-2004 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by laserlover
04-30-2004 11:38 PM


First Cell
No one can explain how the first living cell came into existence.
In any detail that's correct.
So?
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by laserlover, posted 04-30-2004 11:38 PM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 12:11 AM NosyNed has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 162 (104467)
05-01-2004 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed
04-30-2004 11:57 PM


Re: First Cell
So the point being that you must take God into consideration if you are going to examine all of the evidence am I correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 11:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 12:30 AM laserlover has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 162 (104470)
05-01-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by laserlover
05-01-2004 12:11 AM


Re: First Cell
Not really. It is just saying that we don't know the details of how the first living cell came into being yet.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 12:11 AM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 12:37 AM jar has replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 162 (104471)
05-01-2004 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
05-01-2004 12:30 AM


Re: First Cell
But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical,that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 12:30 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 12:45 AM laserlover has not replied
 Message 42 by coffee_addict, posted 05-01-2004 3:35 AM laserlover has replied
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 5:04 AM laserlover has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 162 (104473)
05-01-2004 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by laserlover
05-01-2004 12:37 AM


Re: First Cell
Did you read my signature line?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 12:37 AM laserlover has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 42 of 162 (104489)
05-01-2004 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by laserlover
05-01-2004 12:37 AM


Re: First Cell
Lazarus1 writes:
But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical,that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Somewhat off topic.
If you've had any logic class, then you would know that "proving" something always falls on the ones that claim the positive. For one thing, it is impossible to "prove" that God doesn't exist. However, it is possible to prove that God (or anything) exists simply by finding it. Therefore, the burden of "proving" its existence falls on you.
With that said, show me God and I'll admit its existence. Otherwise, it remains imaginary just like the Easter bunny and Santa.
Back to topic.
We do not know yet how the first cell came to be. There are several hypotheses that people have, but none of them have been accepted by mainstream science yet. I'll outline the most popular one, which is the four stage hypothesis.
Stage 1 Abiotic synthesis of organic monomers.
We know for a fact that organic molecules form natrually rather easily under certain condition. This was demonstrated by the Miller experiment in the early 50's. He basically created an enclosed apparatus and he put inside water, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and a whole bunch of other non-organic molecules that thought to have existed in early earth environment. He then zapped the apparatus with electricity for about 3-4 days. He then took the apparatus apart and found amino acids, monomers of proteins, ATP, and a whole bunch of other organic molecules.
Repeats of the orginal experiment by other scientists have produced all 20 amino acids necessary for life, lipids, sugars, nucleotides of monomers of DNA and RNA, and ATP.
If you want, you can try to do this experiment at home. It's quite simple.
Stage 2 Abiotic Synthesis of polymers
The miller experiment have shown that organic monomers can form quite easily naturally without any divine intervention. This stage explains how these monomers could come together and form polymers such as proteins and nucleic acids without help from biological components today like enzymes.
Scientists have been able to create such polymerization without any divine intervention by dripping solutions of organic monomers onto hot sand, rock, and clay. The heat vaporizes the water in teh solutions and the monomres naturally establish bonds that form polymers such as chains of amino acids that make up proteins.
Again, you can watch this process happening in your own home. If you have a fish tank and a heater in the fish tank, you should notice that there are some solid stuff forming slowly on the heater glass. Same process.
The hypothesis goes that water may have splashed the monomers onto hot rocks of early earth and natural processes pretty much took care of the rest.
stage 3 Self replicating molecules
The hypothesis suggests that the first replicating organic material were short strands of RNA. Laboratory experiments have shown that nucleotide monomers can naturally assemble into RNA molecules without divine intervention. This process happens without the presence of cells or enzymes. As you can imagine, the result is a pool of RNA strands. Now, what scientists have also observed is that some of these RNA strands actually self replicate without any help from anything whatsoever. Again, no divine intervention necessary.
Stage 4 Assembly of pre-cells
Again, laboratory experiments have shown that lipids can fold and establish a self-contained environment in the center from the environment.
For those of you that doesn't know what a cell structure look like, here is a brief explantion. A prokaryotic cell contains a cell wall that isolate the inside from the outside environment.
A pre-cell is pretty much very similar to this structural design. Lipids could have curved in itself and isolate a small pocket of envirnment in the center. When scientists put the pre-cells (which assembled without any help from anybody, not even God) into different solutions of salt concentrations, they found that pre-cells store energy in a form of voltage in their membrane (the cell wall equivalent). When introduced certain enzymes to the pre-cells, the precells displayed a very primitive metabolism. They absorbed substratesfrom their surroundings and release the products of the reactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All the experiments I mentioned above were performed without any prayer or divine intervention. Organic molecules naturally assembled on their own and eventually assembled themselves into pre-cells.
Hope that helps!

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 12:37 AM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 2:33 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 9:35 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 76 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 11:38 AM coffee_addict has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 162 (104491)
05-01-2004 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by laserlover
05-01-2004 12:37 AM


Agnostic
Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
I,personally, happen to agree that, with the right, carefull definition of god, the only purely logical conclusion is agnosticism.
However, I, personally, go beyound that based on the history we have of conjecturing all sorts of gods and other magical things doing all sorts of things. Over and over this has proved to be a deeply flawed way of looking at and explaining the world around us. Given that history I make the "leap of faith" that it makes some sense to go a step beyond agnosticism and adopt atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 12:37 AM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 3:38 PM NosyNed has replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 162 (104564)
05-01-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by coffee_addict
05-01-2004 3:35 AM


Re: First Cell
What you have given are nothing more than hypothesis and crude kitchen experiments all the while failing to answer the question as to where the first living cell came from.With that being demonstrated let me move on.
Proving that something exists is simple. Just show where it is.
Proving that something does not exist is not as simple as it might seem. First, you investigate all you know. After you have explored all you know, and all that anyone else knows, and found nothing, you have only one more thing to do. Investigate the unknown.
Wait a minute. How do you investigate the unknown? The answer is, you can’t. As much as you might expand your knowledge, even to the ends of every detail in the universe, you cannot escape the idea that there might be something more beyond that.
Some atheists or agnostics will use the following demonstration: God, if you exist, strike me down, now! When God does not oblige by striking them down, they rest on the proof that God does not exist.
Suppose I make an analogy: I tell you all about my friend Bob, and what a great guy he is. Since you never have met Bob, and he sounds a little eccentric to you, maybe you do not choose to believe I have a friend named Bob. Maybe you don’t think I deserve such a friend. Or maybe you think it’s out of character for me to have any friends! So you decide to put an end to my fakery by calling out to the sky, Bob, if you exist, come punch me in the nose! Since Bob does not show up, you confront me with the fact that there is no Bob, and ask me not to speak of him again.
What did you do wrong? You didn’t use the proper mode of communication to reach Bob. Had you asked me before your test, I could have told you that Bob is visiting his aunt, and gave me her number: 555-6789! You could have contacted Bob, and believed in him.
It is similar in the case of asking God to strike you down. God is willing to prove his existence to you in many ways, but asking him to upset the natural order of the world he set up is not in His usual repertoire. The way Saul was converted is a notable exception. But most of us receive some small reassurance or answer to prayer to help us on the road to faith. That’s what you should ask God for. A small sign that would seem insignificant to others, but which would be proof to you, because it came very soon after you asked for it.
Throughout the gospels, Jesus makes it clear that God fulfills our requests based on faith. Asking vainly to be struck down by God, expecting nothing to happen, is rewarded according to its measure of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by coffee_addict, posted 05-01-2004 3:35 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 2:40 PM laserlover has not replied
 Message 46 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-01-2004 2:56 PM laserlover has not replied
 Message 60 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 4:08 AM laserlover has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 162 (104565)
05-01-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by laserlover
05-01-2004 2:33 PM


But most of us receive some small reassurance or answer to prayer to help us on the road to faith. That’s what you should ask God for.
I attempted your experiment, but was unable to duplicate your results. Can you explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 2:33 PM laserlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 10:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024