One God?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by mathman, Jan 12, 2016.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I doubt you do. Read your own words ;"Now we have oxygen , because we had live organism to produce it which were created by God , and from there life continued to diversify", which of course is utterly wrong and prompted me to show you that Oxygen is made in dying stars. For your information, I'll repeat the quote: When a star has changed all of the hydrogen atoms into helium, it turns into a red giant and begins to convert the helium atoms into carbon atoms and oxygen atoms
    You missed the point completely. The problem is that in a lab you cannot duplicate the exact same planetary conditions and the length of time which produce the number of interactions. Hazen said so in the lecture and it sounds reasonable to me.
    He also said that we are getting close to creating self replicating molecules, which is another fundamental property of living organisms.

    I find it curious that you can imagine an omnipotent and motivated supernatural God, but you cannot imagine the size and scope of the chemical reactions taking place on a universal scale over 14.7 billion years.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Here is a small example of early surface life.

    Another evolutionary gap closed.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Why not?
  8. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    It can't be done--atleast not in our time--yet the chemistry somehow managed to do exactly that, or so we are told.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Bacause you cannot compare a laboratory petri dish with the earths petry dish.

    Hazen gave an example that a large subduction of the earth's crust can create vinegar as well as oil in the mantle underneath. You cannot compare natural processes with motivated human activities.

    But we have several *natural* formations which we can *mirror* from our own experience.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sleeping Giant mtn

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Indian Head, Witch’s Face, Building Blocks, Australian Heart
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Now you are getting the picture. The size, scope, richness of resources, and time available to Natural processes can never be duplicated in a laboratory, unless we are very lucky (and have some idea what we are trying to accomplish).

    Remember; 2 trillion,quadrillion,quadrillion,quadrillion natural *experiments* v a few hundred human lab experiments just on earth alone (and now a few more on the moon).

    In Cern we are trying to determine what happens when particles collide and create a dynamic natural chemistry and configurations. Now visualize a nebula where such events occur naturally by the trillions, every second, for 14 billion years. It all comes down to *probabilities* and not by either *certainty* or *chance*.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I agree. So, maybe it doesn't happen very often. But once would be enough. You know it took something like half a billion years after the earth formed for life to start. That's a long time and lots of "random" chemical interactions could occur in that time in the primordial oceans.

    I have a friend who used to work as a chemist. He spent months trying to make a particular chemical structure. He knew exactly what structure he wanted to make. He knew all the ingredients required. The problem was getting the process right - getting just the right steps in a sequence that would lead to making the particular structure.

    Chemistry can be very complicated. It's not (always) just a case of putting the right ingredients in a jar and shaking. Things have to happen in the right order.

    What makes you think it should be simple? Are you a chemist yourself?

    If you think that molecular biochemistry is simple, it suggests to me that you have little real appreciation of what is involved.

    Wait a minute.

    In the previous paragraph, you were marvelling at how we can map genomes, clone critters etc. And yet here you are suddenly claiming that we can't do very much at all - mainly just look at what's already there.

    I don't think you can have it both ways.

    Yes. It's still a theory. Until it is done experimentally. So what? If your argument is that we will never do it, you need to explain why you believe that. Your gut feeling isn't enough.

    I didn't claim that a plane could come into being by way of chaotic influence. Apart from anything else, the laws of thermodynamics are against that idea.

    Recall that we're talking about the formation of the simplest forms of life - just enough to get evolution up and running. We're not attempting to create a complex organism such as a human being from scratch.

    The analogy would be like asking whether we might expect a tiny part of a plane to be assembled from wind blowing through a junkyard. Oh look! The wind blew that hood off an old car, and look! Now it's curved in just the right way to form the top of part of the wing for our plane.

    That just tells me that you don't have a very good understanding of live chemistry. What you have there is not knowledge of chemistry, but just some wishful thinking.

    You keep talking about "complex organisms". But when we're talking about the formation of the very first life forms, we're not talking about "complex organisms". We're talking about the simplest organisms.

    Now, you might argue that even the simplest form of life is in fact a "complex organism". If that is your argument, you need to explain exactly what you have in mind. Do you, in fact, have a good conception of what form the simplest form of life would take? Would it be a virus? A prion? An amoeba? Or some kind of simpler replicator, perhaps?

    So it's God of the Gaps for you, is it? Every time you don't know how to explain something, it must be because God did it. I see.

    You have that backwards.

    We evolved to suit our environment. The environment is not made for our benefit.

    If you were a creature living at the bottom of the ocean near a hydrothermal vent, you might like eating sulfur and you might think that sulfur was made for your benefit.
    Write4U likes this.
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    The first requirement is a cell wall that separates the interior from the exterior. In the early years there was no free oxygen and there were oil films floating on the oceans. Some of these films were made of associted / bound molecules, not just a simple hydrocarbons. The ocean waves that "broke" must have made thousands of trillions of closed cells of various sizes each day, much like they make spherical bubbles today. Some of these cells may have been polar bi-layer films like the skin of current living cells. Some times trapped inside were more complex molecules than just water.

    Where and how it goes from there, is only guess work, but the formation of cells with complex intenal molecules was a very common event. Probably the next stage envolved selective chemical acceptance of extenal molecules inside these cells, making them larger with the waves breaking them into two parts - a primative form of "eating" for growth / numerical increase of certain types of cells. Also two different cells would occasionly merge bring more diverse abilities to the joined cell. It is believed that is how the mitochondria came to exist inside our cells and give them greater ability to make and release energy. Why could this not have happened long ago, with less complex cells?

    Put some soy or olive oil into a jar with water. Close the jar and shake, making an emulsion (and a few hundred primative cells in less than a minute). Watch them "eat" each other and grow bigger.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2016
  14. PaulJames Banned Banned

    What on Earth have you people been smoking? You're talking about chemical reactions forming life. How about something coming from, dare I write, nothing. Impossible you say? And yet, here we are!
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    ALL religions are the same in so many ways with the defining differences really making no difference at all.
    One God or a thousand gods or any number inbetween. Gods don't exist.
    Where religion misses the mark by the width of the cosmos - if you consider your religion to hold the truth with the performance of miracles for which no proof can, or need be, produced ie a 'belief' system ALL beliefs are on an equal footing.
    Science puts forward ideas, test those ideas with experiments, publishing the results, proving or disproving the idea, inviting others to repeat the experiments. Only when an idea is exactly repeatable under the same conditions EVERY time is it considered to be fact.
    Any person is welcome to take any fact and experiment to their hearts content to disprove said fact.
    Or to dream up a new idea and set out to prove it.
    Thinking something is so does not cement it as fact.
    I could say "I believe clouds are the farts of the gods"
    I am sure without providing any proof some out there would believe. Especially if I said it on a slick TV show, behind a suitable pulpit, holding an impressive thick book and using a commanding deep voice. I could also ask for money and some would be forthcoming.
    I don't believe about the clouds and I don't have any of the requirements to make believers.
    The money part sounds good though.
    origin likes this.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    This may explain a few misunderstandings in communication:
    Michael 345 likes this.

Share This Page