Biological life discovered outside of Earth: How do religions react? (Buddha, Egyptian)
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.
You have ignored previous comments about the unique life forms that evolved in the vicinity of black smokers. This study indicates how protocells develop.
So, Vizio, if you ever again say abiogensis does not exist and cannot exist, I will remind you of this post.
It.....does....not.....exist. It never has, and it never will. It's never been observed. It has been attempted to be "proven" among highly contrived circumstances....but hasn't.
In any event, even if you want to believe in the fairy tale of abiogenesis.....it says NOTHING about where matter even comes from.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,912,587 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
It.....does....not.....exist. It never has, and it never will. It's never been observed. It has been attempted to be "proven" among highly contrived circumstances....but hasn't.
In any event, even if you want to believe in the fairy tale of abiogenesis.....it says NOTHING about where matter even comes from.
You seem to be, once again, denying the science. There is plenty of evidence that abiogenesis can occur, including the studies I gave you. Are you denying that science and what it showed?
Again, you disregard the evidence of what has been found in the life forms of the black smokers.
You have ignored previous comments about the unique life forms that evolved in the vicinity of black smokers. This study indicates how protocells develop.
So, Vizio, if you ever again say abiogensis does not exist and cannot exist, I will remind you of this post.
From the article cupper3 linked,
Quote:
There is one big problem, however. "For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from," Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans.
A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate. "Given the data, one might well conclude that any organics in the ocean would have been totally degraded, rather than forming the basis of modern metabolism," says Jack Szostak, who studies the origin of life at Harvard. "I would conclude that metabolism had to evolve, within cells, one reaction and one catalyst at a time."
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,912,587 times
Reputation: 4561
Let's be honest, the comment above is not by the author of the study.
In addition, another scientist says:
Quote:
But Ralser disagrees. In his opinion, whether the reaction is catalysed by an enzyme or by a molecule in the Archean Ocean leads to the same result; "every chemical reaction is in principle reversible, whether an enzyme or a simple molecule is the catalyst," he says.
Talk about not understanding context.
And you totally ignored the first link.
Quote:
The reaction sequences of central metabolism, glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway provide essential precursors for nucleic acids, amino acids and lipids. However, their evolutionary origins are not yet understood. Here, we provide evidence that their structure could have been fundamentally shaped by the general chemical environments in earth's earliest oceans. We reconstructed potential scenarios for oceans of the prebiotic Archean based on the composition of early sediments. We report that the resultant reaction milieu catalyses the interconversion of metabolites that in modern organisms constitute glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway. The 29 observed reactions include the formation and/or interconversion of glucose, pyruvate, the nucleic acid precursor ribose‐5‐phosphate and the amino acid precursor erythrose‐4‐phosphate, antedating reactions sequences similar to that used by the metabolic pathways. Moreover, the Archean ocean mimetic increased the stability of the phosphorylated intermediates and accelerated the rate of intermediate reactions and pyruvate production. The catalytic capacity of the reconstructed ocean milieu was attributable to its metal content. The reactions were particularly sensitive to ferrous iron Fe(II), which is understood to have had high concentrations in the Archean oceans. These observations reveal that reaction sequences that constitute central carbon metabolism could have been constrained by the iron‐rich oceanic environment of the early Archean. The origin of metabolism could thus date back to the prebiotic world.
Ah yes, here we go again, trodding down the same path so well-worn that it might as well be paved with asphalt complete with road markings, signs, rest stops, strip malls, and motels.
And to what path do I refer?
Why, to the path that atheists and science folks end up getting lured down by apologetics and creationists again ... and again ... and again. It's like watching a really bad horror movie, the kind that makes you scream at your television, "No, dammit, don't go back in the house! NOooooooOOOooO!"
Except she doesn't listen and goes back into the house anyway, the results of which always being, shall we say, predictable.
Only here, the atheists, the science folks, they keep allowing themselves to be put on the defensive, giving credence to the Christian belief (erroneous though it is) that the default explanation for all unknowns is God, and it is up to science to prove otherwise. Thus, you all spend so much time and effort dutifully stacking up your arguments with research, links, sometimes lengthy posts, and tons of evidence - just so the creationists can knock 'em down with a simple, "Nuh uh. Prove it." And when you do, they'll essentially say, "Nuh uh" to that and demand that you prove that your proof is accurate. And you do ... and they'll demand that you prove that your proof of your proof is accurate ... and so on ad nauseum ad infinitum until the dreaded infinite regression occurs. Pretty soon they'll be asking you to prove the sky is blue and water is wet.
But of course, when it comes to proving the accuracy of their holy books, much less the existence of their gods, why, that's when there's a veritible cricket concert.
Yet they expect us to assume that magic and superstition are the default explanations for anything that science hasn't figured out yet - as if we've reached the pinnacle of human knowledge right now, right this moment, so that anything not discovered or answered as of 3am this morning will NEVER be discovered or answered. Damn. I guess I'll never figure out why Max, my cat, will only eat Friskies. Oh wait, I guess it's because God wants him to only eat Friskies. Duh. I had a brain fart there for a minute and almost forgot that all unanswered questions are now the result of God, magic, the paranormal, and superstition.
Yep, I know sometimes you just gotta keep clubbing your way at these people's heads, but it sure would be nice if we could get some actual evidence for the existence of gods without them resorting to holy books and images of the Virgin Mary on a piece of day-old pizza.
Sure would be nice to see these kinds of discussions pushing religion to justify itself to science instead of it always being the other way around.
But the idea that a bunch of chemicals randomly mixed and sparked life (with no mention of how said chemicals got here in the first place) DOES make sense? As I said....atheists have their fairy tales.
It not only does make sense, it has substantiation, which the god claim does not. But see what you are doing? Once again you are shifting from the corner to dodge the point by making a parallel point.
1) You claimed that we are unwilling to consider a creator
2) I showed that this claim is simply false
3) Rather than retract the claim you dodge by shifting to a snide comment about evolution.
Again YOU claimed that atheists simply do not care about origins, and are wholly unwilling to consider the possibility of a creator. BOTH of these claims are just part of your MO of wantonly misrepresenting atheists and simply dodging those misrepresentations when you are openly called out on them.
Yep, I know sometimes you just gotta keep clubbing your way at these people's heads, but it sure would be nice if we could get some actual evidence for the existence of gods without them resorting to holy books and images of the Virgin Mary on a piece of day-old pizza.
Interesting choice of metaphor for an atheist, given the past history of atheist governments.
And I thoroughly trounced your "atheist government" argument. Sorry.
Covering your ears with you hands, closing your eyes, and shouting "LALALALALALALALAAA!" isn't really considered "trouncing" my argument, Shirina. And you've no need to apologize to me unless you're admitting you're wrong.
Covering your ears with you hands, closing your eyes, and shouting "LALALALALALALALAAA!" isn't really considered "trouncing" my argument, Shirina. And you've no need to apologize to me unless you're admitting you're wrong.
LOL! My post is still sitting there unrefuted to the best of my knowledge. My apology was a bit of satire.
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.
