Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Darth Omar said:
There are a lot of people smarter than you or me who would disagree with that.
Click to expand...
You get two people to describe what 'red' means, and you will get a disagreement. This is true among scientists as well. The reason? 'Red' is a subjective term.
Darth Omar said:
The idea that life is emergent from non-life is little different from a religious dogma at this point.
Click to expand...
Correct. The Theory of Abiogenesis is a nonscientific theory. It is not falsifiable. We can't go back to see what actually happened.
That theory remains the circular argument it started as. It has extending arguments from it. It is a religion. That really is the best definition of what 'religion' means.
Darth Omar said:
Biological life is impossible separate from biological information. That is a fact, actually.
Click to expand...
By definition.
Darth Omar said:
Fundamentally, the origin of life is a problem of the origin of biological information.
Click to expand...
So it is the same question. How did life arrive on Earth? Did it originate here, or was it brought here by some kind of intelligence?

As far as the universe goes, nothing requires life to have any beginning at all. it simply is...like the universe itself. It may have always existed, and always will, just like the universe itself may have no beginning at all, and no end. This is the Theory of the Continuum. I believe it makes more sense than the Theory of the Big Bang.
 
BartenderElite said:
Some in the scientific community think that life may have originated much more than one time. The early planet was bombarded and there was constant destruction - life could have originated dozens or hundreds of times.

It doesn't have to be some magical, mystical thing. We can't recreate it because the lengths of time for such experimentation are prohibitive, but all life really requires is the ability to replicate.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard of this variant of the Theory of Abiogenesis. It too is the same nonscientific theory. It is a sect, if you will, if the same religion.
 
AProudLefty said:
What information problem? The complexity of information developing just right?
Click to expand...

I believe is referring not to the RNA or the DNA that is in every cell, but the code the RNA or DNA form. The sequencing of these chemical strands forms a code, much like the binary codes in a computer. As far as anyone can determine, a sequence of three molecules is enough to form a 'bit' in this code. Thus, this 'bit' can store more than the values of 0 or 1. Snippets of this code are used to form various proteins and other molecules for the cell.

It is NOT known how the cell chooses to use that particular snippet.
It is NOT known how the snippet developed in the first place.
It is NOT known how the reading mechanism developed in the cell.
It is NOT known how the power supply for the whole thing (how the cell eats) get transferred to the reading mechanism or what triggers the reading mechanism.
It is NOT known how the reading mechanism gets turned into a copy mechanism for when the time comes for the cell to divide.
While it is known the copy mechanism is imperfect, dropping bits off the end of the strand, it is NOT known how the strand end is rebuilt. This strand end is essentially NOP instructions, they don't do anything for the cell, but they do provide a buffer for the copying mechanism to screw up in. This buffer is shortened by a couple of bits every time the cell divides. Some, but not all cells, can rebuild this structure in the DNA (or RNA). The copy mechanism is also imperfect, sometimes making mistakes (a mutation).

Define 'life' is even trickier. Is it something that can reproduce on it's own? If so, a virus is not 'life', since it requires a host cell to hijack it's copying mechanism in order for the virus to reproduce. A virus cannot produce it's own molecules nor reproduce on its own.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
I believe is referring not to the RNA or the DNA that is in every cell, but the code the RNA or DNA form. The sequencing of these chemical strands forms a code, much like the binary codes in a computer. As far as anyone can determine, a sequence of three molecules is enough to form a 'bit' in this code. Thus, this 'bit' can store more than the values of 0 or 1. Snippets of this code are used to form various proteins and other molecules for the cell.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's pretty awesome.
 
Into the Night said:
You get two people to describe what 'red' means, and you will get a disagreement. This is true among scientists as well. The reason? 'Red' is a subjective term.

Correct. The Theory of Abiogenesis is a nonscientific theory. It is not falsifiable. We can't go back to see what actually happened.
That theory remains the circular argument it started as. It has extending arguments from it. It is a religion. That really is the best definition of what 'religion' means.

By definition.

So it is the same question. How did life arrive on Earth? Did it originate here, or was it brought here by some kind of intelligence?

As far as the universe goes, nothing requires life to have any beginning at all. it simply is...like the universe itself. It may have always existed, and always will, just like the universe itself may have no beginning at all, and no end. This is the Theory of the Continuum. I believe it makes more sense than the Theory of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Why does God need to be created then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top