Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science says otherwise. Ever hear of the Big Bang?
Yes. Science suspects that BB was the start of the Universe we now see. Science doesn't say there was no Universe before it. It is possible that the Universe has always existed in some form or other. Do you understand now?
Yes. Science suspects that BB was the start of the Universe we now see. Science doesn't say there was no Universe before it. It is possible that the Universe has always existed in some form or other. Do you understand now?
I understand speculation. I prefer to base my opinion (of the material world) on what science says. Not what it doesn't say.
Someone earlier asked for a definition of life. Here are three definitions:
Quote:
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
Quote:
the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli
Quote:
a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Looks like most definitions require the demonstration of four things:
1) metabolism
2) growth
3) reproduction
4) reaction to stimuli
While the Christian take is to fervently deny Dr. Venter's recent accomplishments, what he did prove, beyond any doubt, is that given the right simple precursors, it's possible for the amino acids (that have already assembled because they respond to simple organic chemical interaction rules) are capable of then interacting in a way that self-promoted reproduction and duplication.
That is, essentially, life, not some fully formed thinking, self-aware mouse of chimp or human or lizard. Those all came along well down the road, well proven in the geological and DNA records. Think simple reproducing cells.
Yes, Venter used a simple but non-living lipid-defied cell wall; a sort of convenient "baggie" to prove that the DNA would self-assemble within that baggie, and then it would self-boot into "existence". Careful what you insist on denying here! That simple requirement for a self-creating lipid cell wall is not going to be hard to self-create in later research.
(PS: Remember: what he's done now was fervently denied just a few years back as being impossible to accomplish. And yet... here it is! Oh, and BTW, most Christians, who severely self-limit their intake of the latest biochemical and other scientific research, are generally completely unaware of Venter's spectacular two and three-year old research results. They seem to prefer to parrot the church's abject but uninformed denials.
How intellectually classy!)
Or are you going to say that his next goals "can't be accomplished, ever!!"? Well? go ahead: say it: it will just increase the amusement value down the road!
Remember: Dr. Venter is trying all this in test tubes, one relatively batch at a time, learning and documenting as he goes, while out in the ancient primordial oceans, there were literally uncountable numbers of such "experiments" going on "24/7" for, literally, several hundred million years! Give Craig at least another few years would yah? If you actually do possess an open mind, you might be quite surprised by what he, and others who are now following his lead, might well accomplish!
Q: is your mind open to those possibilities or not?
Life is not some mystical soul-filled thing granted by a God-like entity. It's simply a process of reliable, durable biochemical repeatability that grew in complexity exactly because of that basic simplicity and durability.
It's now, officially, no big deal any more; don't try to make it one simply to justify your personal and intransigent belief in some fabulously complex and omnipotent god. That's just not necessary. Ever.
I don't know how life got its start, but I think it probably started naturally, unplanned, not directed, and not designed. I don't see why it couldn't start that way. Really nothing makes that impossible and given enough time and enough opportunities in the right environment, why not.
Perhaps cells first formed as a film of hydrophobic molecules trapped on the surface of a water droplet.
The only problem with this is { as far as I know } we have never seen this occur in nature. I could be wrong but I have never heard of this happening with or without human intervention. As a theist once put it in a debate "we never see rocks suddenly get up and come to life" Now I realize thats a BAD comparison, but I do beleive that it has some merit in the fact that we never have seen non-living material "come to life" so to speak.
The only problem with this is { as far as I know } we have never seen this occur in nature.
Just because we haven't observed it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Heck, it might be happening now I we have been looking in the wrong places. If it does happen today, it might very well be happening in the ocean.
It might be that today's conditions aren't right for it to happen. The atmosphere has changed radically over the history of the earth. Perhaps it takes the heat and chemicals released from volcanoes erupting on the ocean floor to permit it to happen. I know that I don't know. Maybe the building block chemicals are not present in the right concentrations today as they were then.
I could guess all day. The point is just because we don't see it happening today doesn't mean it didn't in the past. We may figure out what the conditions had to be and when the earth had conditions like that or where on the earth.
Half of what I just said may be wrong due to my ignorance which I readily admit. In short, I don't know. I am glad we have scientists working on discovering the answers right now. Give them time to work.
At least they are making progress, it is more than can be said for other non-scientific theories.
Why is it nonsensical??? Explain yourself! Show your work! Otherwise I will be forced to beleive that you make this claim simply because I have invoked the word God.
Its important to know that I am not a religious person. Lets say there is no God or that a God is not needed to explain the universe. Somthing that puzzles me is what exactly created or formed life itself. At no point in time has any scientist ever been able to create life from non living material, and furthermore, if a scientist were infact able to create an animate object from inanimate material, it would only strengthen the argument for a Creator God because it would prove that an inteligent mind is needed to create life
What do atheists think about this?
Simple; no gods involved. The concept of a deity or some "supernatural" entity is such an absurdity, the things that fairy tales are made of.
And we know that live has evolved in pools of acid, at volcanic vents where sulfur is the dominate element. Given time life will evolve, a proven occurrence.
The only problem with this is { as far as I know } we have never seen this occur in nature.
It took a billion years to happen here on earth. The fact that we haven't seen it happen in ~200 years that modern biology has existed isn't that surprising and proves nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's the big deal?
