Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

How do you know I don't know everything? You don't know everything.

How do I know? By reading what you write. It doesn't take long to figure out when somebody doesn't know what they're talking about.

My shortcomings to observe the existence of an omnipotent being who wants me to know of his existence? It's not my shortcoming that's preventing me from knowing about this God bloke's existence - it's his.

Are we arguing creationism or Christianity here? Because if we're just arguing creationism, who says the Creator wants you to know of his existence? If we're arguing Christianity, the Bible makes it pretty clear that God wants you to come to him by faith.

So yeah, its your shortcoming. I'm sure you have more.

There are people out there who experience and feel that the Illuminati is secretly watching them. Do you understand that feeling something isn't actually evidence?

Hmm, having some difficulty reading, are we?

Originally Posted by Me

This isn't meant to serve as evidence to you, but I honestly couldn't care less about that.

We have. Amino adenosine triacid ester.

Which couldn't have been made initially without proteins and enzymes and all that other crap that only comes from life.

Still not coming from scratch.

And still not life.

Not to mention it only works in chloroform, which is a synthetic material.

So in short, it requires life to be made, requires an unnatural environment to work, and doesn't do anything to take away from:

Originally Posted by Me

I mean, we can split atoms, clone things, completely modify an organism's genome... yet we can't create life from scratch. What does that tell you?

Its not life, and not scratch.

I'd tell you to quit while you were ahead, but you lost that a LONG time ago.

[Azisien]

I have a few things to say to both sides of the argument. Plus, I love hearing what Swordchucks has to say because he's in my field AND he's a few years ahead of me.

1) Amino adenosine triacid ester is not life. It's an organic molecule, and quite a few of those have been synthesized without enzymes (high energy events can act as catalysts). But that's a far cry from life. I might be a little more forgiving in saying it's another step towards showing how other organic molecules might get catalyzed, yadda yadda, but still far cry.

2) Bacteria are the simplest life forms on Earth now. Earth's environment has changed radically over the billions of years they've been present for that period of time. All I'm getting at here is that, perhaps at one point, Earth's environment was a lot more welcoming to the probability of catalyzing such and such organic compounds until you arrived at abiogenesis. Billions of years of evolution, even if isn't rather undirected (though many changes in the environment over billions of years would have caused uncountable periods of selection pressure) have allowed even the simpliest bacteria now to build up their genomes. I remember researchers are already working on the "minimal" genome, not sure how far that's progressed, but it's a line of science to look forward to in terms of results. My final point is just that I wouldn't be surprised if the initial life forms coming out of the hypothetical abiogenesis were even simpler than E. Coli or P. fluorescens.

2b) As far as listing humanity's current scientific capabilities as an argument against replicating abiogenesis, I'm not feeling it. It could well be far more complicated than any of those listed by Swordchucks. Not only that, our prowess in some of those activities is pretty questionable anyway. I mean, atomic fission, for instance, is one hell of a common process in the universe (how many stars in the Milky Way alone?). Life, on the other hand, seems a little rarer. It could be a long (hey, maybe impossible!) journey towards replicating its creation. But then what the hell was atomic fission 300 years ago? Let's see where we are in 2307.

3) Just a tangent of speculation; while I think abiogenesis may be a cleaner explanation, panspermia has always intrigued me. Maybe Earth wasn't the best place for critical organic molecules to form (even if it was a good place for life, once it had a foothold, to form). It might seem a little crazy for these things to form somewhere else and find themselves on Earth, but we were just talking about infintesimal probabilities, so I guess we'd have to include this interpretation too! We don't know too much about environments beyond Earth, so we can't say too much on the rest of the universe's ability to catalyze life's critical enzymes.

4) And a last interpretation. That there is no God (or Gods) in the commonly accepted usage, but that we're our own Gods. Given the apparent plasticity of space and time and quantum mechanics, perhaps abiogenesis is indeed impossible. But, taking that, perhaps we seed the creation of ourselves, in the distant future (or hell, maybe soon). Cyclical, paradoxial, and wild speculation, but it's as possible our other interpretations. It also satisfies my need to find an explanation for my existence that doesn't include a "feeling" I absolutely don't feel.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

How do I know? By reading what you write. It doesn't take long to figure out when somebody doesn't know what they're talking about.

Yeah.

Some good old character assassination to support your point.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Are we arguing creationism or Christianity here? Because if we're just arguing creationism, who says the Creator wants you to know of his existence? If we're arguing Christianity, the Bible makes it pretty clear that God wants you to come to him by faith.

And in Christianity, it's also pretty clear that God is omniscient, so he's not stupid enough to try to convince people to believe in him with no evidence at all. Oh, wait.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Hmm, having some difficulty reading, are we?

It's good that the foundation of your argument is "you don't know for absolutely 100% certain that I'm wrong".

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Which couldn't have been made initially without proteins and enzymes and all that other crap that only comes from life.

That's just pure lies.

Originally Posted by This Page
To prepare their compound, Rebek and his colleagues reacted a compound derived from an ester with amino adenosine. The chemists dissolved these components in chloroform and added triethylamine, so that the reaction could occur conveniently at room temperature. In the reaction, the molecules are joined to make AATE.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Still not coming from scratch.

And still not life.

Not to mention it only works in chloroform, which is a synthetic material.

Oh, okay, so a self-replicator wasn't what we were talking about before. Jeez, move the goal posts much?

[Elminster_Amaur]

Originally Posted by Fifth '08

...Then where did the living creator come from?

I wouldn't even begin to guess at that, I'm just saying that as far as our current knowledge of life goes, it needs life to create it. Hell, I don't care where the living creator came from. All I care about is that I exist, and the world around me appears to exist most of the time, so I will do the best to live my life with what information and instinct I've been given.

As far as listing humanity's current scientific capabilities as an argument against replicating abiogenesis, I'm not feeling it. It could well be far more complicated than any of those listed by Swordchucks. Not only that, our prowess in some of those activities is pretty questionable anyway.

That's true, which is why we can only accept what we do know, and continue to test. Hell, it may turn out that life isn't even all that special, and that earth is just some other species' laboratory to see if they could prove evolution or something. I doubt it, but it would explain why here and now.

4) And a last interpretation. That there is no God (or Gods) in the commonly accepted usage, but that we're our own Gods. Given the apparent plasticity of space and time and quantum mechanics, perhaps abiogenesis is indeed impossible. But, taking that, perhaps we seed the creation of ourselves, in the distant future (or hell, maybe soon). Cyclical, paradoxial, and wild speculation, but it's as possible our other interpretations. It also satisfies my need to find an explanation for my existence that doesn't include a "feeling" I absolutely don't feel.

If time travel is possible, then I don't see why not. I've seen stranger theories in my time, especially when you bring the ability to send things through, or travel in, time. The only problem with this "self-manifestation" theory is the resultant paradox. Life had to have been slipped into the loop at some point to begin it in motion. I'm not sure that I could accept a true Wheel of Time.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Hey, dude, there's a teapot at the precise median point between the orbit of Mars and Earth that is so small that it cannot be perceived by our instruments.

You can't disprove it, so you can't draw any conclusions.

Well, if it's so small it can't be detected by current instruments, I would have to assume that it's not really a pot capable of properly holding and dispensing tea. So if we can't detect it, then there really isn't a teapot there.

[Fifthfiend]

I wouldn't even begin to guess at that, I'm just saying that as far as our current knowledge of life goes, it needs life to create it. Hell, I don't care where the living creator came from. All I care about is that I exist, and the world around me appears to exist most of the time, so I will do the best to live my life with what information and instinct I've been given.

It just seems like if you're arguing that life can't arise from non-life, which proves that life must arise from a living (intelligent!) creator, there needs to be some explanation of where the living creator itself arose.

Given the apparent plasticity of space and time and quantum mechanics, perhaps abiogenesis is indeed impossible. But, taking that, perhaps we seed the creation of ourselves, in the distant future (or hell, maybe soon).

I think Alan Moore wrote that comic.

And he's an actual wizard so you got to figure he knows what he's talking about.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Yeah.

Some good old character assassination to support your point.

Hey, you asked. Its not my fault if you don't like the answer. Besides, how else am I supposed to judge what you know?

And in Christianity, it's also pretty clear that God is omniscient, so he's not stupid enough to try to convince people to believe in him with no evidence at all. Oh, wait.

Actually there is evidence... you know, Jesus, miracles, the Bible, creation itself... its not God's fault if you either refuse to believe it or try to explain it away. Its yours. Again, your own shortcoming.

It's good that the foundation of your argument is "you don't know for absolutely 100% certain that I'm wrong".

What you said there made absolutely no sense in response to my statement. Let me explain how this went down slowly...

I said, "This [my feelings] isn't meant to serve as evidence to you, but I honestly couldn't care less about that."

Then you said "Do you understand that feeling something isn't actually evidence?" after I had just said feelings weren't evidence. I was just checking to make sure you were actually reading what I was saying, as clearly you messed up somewhere there.

However you are right about one thing. My whole point is that nobody knows everything. The really funny thing is that you keep arguing with me about it, and not making yourself look good at all.

That's just pure lies.

Rebek and his colleagues reacted a compound derived from an ester with amino adenosine.

Do me a favor and look up where adenosine comes from, would ya?

Oh, okay, so a self-replicator wasn't what we were talking about before. Jeez, move the goal posts much?

No, we talked about a self-replicator that could come about without the pre-existence of life. You haven't shown that.

Its not to say its impossible, its just that we don't know.

But in all honesty, you're kind of embarrassing the other side here. You aren't doing the "No God" train of thought any favors in your responses.

Originally Posted by Azisien

Plus, I love hearing what Swordchucks has to say because he's in my field AND he's a few years ahead of me.

Aw shucks. I love hearing what you have to say too!

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

...Then where did the living creator come from?

Again, just quoting what I've been told. I've assumed that, since God created time (This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)) that he exists in a timeless eternity, maybe even a place where cause and effect doesn't exist. Which makes absolutely no sense, but again, we're talking about a God here.

[TheSpacePope]

abiogenesis

This may hold to the theory that God is a spontaneous creation of evolution, when we shuck our mortal coils and co-alesce into an all-being.

If this is true, then the God that we worship could be the product of a previous cycle, and or there is no god and we are evolving to the point that we create him.

Or you could believe the summerians. They say that we are a genetic experiment ment to farm the earth, by some aliens called Albe jensiens.

Whatever the explanation, I get the feeling that Serenity is shouting while she is typing, and maybe so are some other people. So (not backseat modding here) For the sake of the readability of this thread, can we all take a collective breath?

Well, if it's so small it can't be detected by current instruments, I would have to assume that it's not really a pot capable of properly holding and dispensing tea. So if we can't detect it, then there really isn't a teapot there.

And here I made biscuts.

Again, just quoting what I've been told. I've assumed that, since God created time (This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)) that he exists in a timeless eternity, maybe even a place where cause and effect doesn't exist. Which makes absolutely no sense, but again, we're talking about a God here.

I've never actually heard a good explanation of eternity. But I would like the biblical side of the summerian story of tiamat, which is the planet that crashed into earth. (i think you might find it refrenced in the bible as that story about the waters above and below the firmament. I want to know if there is biblical refrence to a planetary collision. Because that would cause ample abiogenesis to begin single celled organisims. (maybe even multicelled) If a meteor can create amino acids when it impacts, can a planet?

[Fifthfiend]

not backseat modding here

Inasmuch as there's no modding in this thread, there can't really be such a thing as backseat-modding, and as such you are entirely within your rights to enjoin your fellow posters to conduct themselves in a more civilized manner, as one individual to another.

Just as I myself, purely from the perspective of a participant in the conversation with no particular rights and priviledges pertaining thereto, urge both Serenity and 'Chucks to back away from this thread, take several long, deep breaths, and then return at a time when they can comport themselves with say, 95% less open hostility.