Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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

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


Message 60 of 162 (104695)
05-02-2004 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by laserlover
05-01-2004 2:33 PM


Re: First Cell
First of all, I just want to be clear that I understand Lazarus1 (or the laser boy) has been suspended. I know that he can't respond.
Lazarus1 writes:
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.
This sentence alone doesn't say anything about your argument. If you want people to take you seriously next time, support your claim with more than just a simple assertion. Also, you might want to take some biology classes or read some non-religious based books on the matter. This sentence alone pretty much show just how ignorant you are of the topic being addressed.
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.
A little less preaching and a little more demonstration of human reasoning on your part will bring you farther in life. Take my word for it. One day, you will come to realize that people around you are laughing at you behind (or in front of) your back.

The Laminator

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

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


Message 62 of 162 (106119)
05-06-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Creationist024
05-06-2004 11:44 PM


Creationist024 writes:
A person said that God used evolution to create life.
Whoever said this doesn't know jack about evolution. For one thing, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the concept of abiogenesis.
If you believe in God then you must believe in the Bible.
Not necessarily. The Jews and the Muslims believe in the same God as the Judeo-Christian God. I'm pretty sure that these 2 groups do not hold the New Testament too highly.
"And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Ok...
you cannot believe both.
Why not?
Another verse, to which i apologize i cannot remember the reference states..."One cannot serve both God and mad."
I'll take your word on that.
therefore you must choose one side to stand on. There is no sitting on the fence.
Depends what you mean by "mad." Could you tell us what "mad" mean? For all we know, "mad" could be refering to the Catholic dogma.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Creationist024, posted 05-06-2004 11:44 PM Creationist024 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2004 9:52 AM coffee_addict has not replied

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


Message 158 of 162 (204538)
05-03-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Jor-el
02-04-2005 6:34 PM


Re: T o p i c !
Jor-el writes:
I know I'm a newbie around here and that I shouldn't ask impertinant questions, but if I can't use the bible as a starting point to answer questions then how can there be a discussion?
I would have no problem whatsoever with you using the bible as a reference when discussing science IFF you are willing to accept inerrancies in the bible when I point them out.
Before you answer, think about it first. Do you really want me, and others, to start pointing out every obvious error in the bible starting with the shape of the Earth and the world wind patterns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Jor-el, posted 02-04-2005 6:34 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Jor-el, posted 05-03-2005 1:25 PM coffee_addict has replied

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


Message 160 of 162 (204680)
05-03-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jor-el
05-03-2005 1:25 PM


Off topic
Jorel writes:
if one wants to look hard enough one can always find some contradictions and inerrency in the biblical texts without altering the principle intent of the message.
The thing is people don't have to look hard to find these contradictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jor-el, posted 05-03-2005 1:25 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Jor-el, posted 05-03-2005 2:37 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024