1. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    03 Mar '06 19:052 edits
    I do not wish that the Atheists start smacking each other over this one.

    I quote Starrman: "Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life."


    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37005&page=21

    If that is the case for all the other Atheists, I would like to know from you, where, when, and how was life created, and who do you think did it?
  2. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    03 Mar '06 19:26
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    If that is the case for all the other Atheists, I would like to know from you, where, when, and how was life created, and who do you think did it?
    lol. Way to beg the question, deej! No-one can do it quite like you.
  3. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    03 Mar '06 19:39
    Originally posted by David C
    lol. Way to beg the question, deej! No-one can do it quite like you.
    😛
  4. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    03 Mar '06 19:50
    Originally posted by David C
    lol. Way to beg the question, deej! No-one can do it quite like you.
    I was hoping you were gonna come up with a really cool theory...😞
  5. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    03 Mar '06 19:511 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I do not wish that the Atheists start smacking each other over this one.

    I quote Starrman: [b]"Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life."


    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37005&page=21

    If that is the case for all the other A ...[text shortened]... uld like to know from you, where, when, and how was life created, and who do you think did it?[/b]
    TOE: creation? formation? whatever.

    In the following "created" means "life was planned and built from matter by some personal agent(s) either through a process or immediately." "Formed" means "arising from matter without some personal agent(s) planning or construction."

    where was life created or formed?
    If formed: the universe.
    If created: I don't know. Pick a myth or make up one of your own.

    when was life created or formed?
    If formed: on earth, fewer than 4 billion years ago. In the universe . . . (shrug).
    If created: I don't know. Pick a myth or make up one of your own.

    how was life created or formed?
    If formed: we have some ideas from abiogenesis. I am no expert in that subject.
    If created: I don't know. Pick a myth or make up one of your own.

    who created or formed life?
    If formed: no one.
    If created: some one or some ones. who? I don't know. Pick a myth or make up one of your own.
  6. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    03 Mar '06 20:06
    Originally posted by telerion
    TOE: creation? formation? whatever.

    In the following "created" means "life was planned and built from matter by some personal agent(s) either through a process or immediately." "Formed" means "arising from matter without some personal agent(s) planning or construction."

    where was life created or formed?
    If formed: the universe.
    If created: I ...[text shortened]... me one or some ones. who? I don't know. Pick a myth or make up one of your own.
    I C.
  7. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    03 Mar '06 20:31
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I was hoping you were gonna come up with a really cool theory...😞
    Wish I could help. Your question is loaded. "Who do you think did it" assumes that a) we were 'created' and b) there was a 'creator'. Most non-theists will likely refrain from engaging such a question. Just remember this: The Sun probably provided the necessary conditions for "abiogenesis" to occur.
  8. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Mar '06 21:09
    Originally posted by David C
    Wish I could help. Your question is loaded. "Who do you think did it" assumes that a) we were 'created' and b) there was a 'creator'. Most non-theists will likely refrain from engaging such a question. Just remember this: The Sun probably provided the necessary conditions for "abiogenesis" to occur.
    Probably? No other means possible?
  9. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    03 Mar '06 21:30
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Probably? No other means possible?
    Well, sure. What about a meteor/asteroid impact? This would introduce foreign chemicals or proteins into the burgeoning atmosphere. Perhaps this new property interacts with already established proteins, and with the energy of the Sun..."Life from the Dust", if you will. I'm no quantum physicist, though.
  10. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    03 Mar '06 21:52
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I do not wish that the Atheists start smacking each other over this one.

    I quote Starrman: [b]"Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life."


    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37005&page=21

    If that is the case for all the other A ...[text shortened]... uld like to know from you, where, when, and how was life created, and who do you think did it?[/b]
    Where, when and how I can tackle, although, bearing in mind it happened nearly 4 billion years ago there are, of course, assumptions. "Who did it?" is not a valid question for an athiest - nor is it necessarily a valid question per se.

    When, I shall tackle first, because it's easiest, and requires least guess work.

    'When' is sometime between 3.8 and 3.95 billion years ago. Now the interesting bit - how do we know? Easier than one might think really. Iron reduces in the presence of oxygen, and we can tell from the very oldest rocks that no oxygen was present in the atmosphere (O2) around 4 billion years ago. Around 3.8 billion years ago we start to see changes in the rock chemical composition which are indicative of (at least) localised oxygen biogenesis. Nowadays, the only way that this oxygen can be liberated from CO2 is by photosynthesis, and using the argument of parsimony, it's fair to assume the same was true then. Thus, it's apparent that photosynthesis was on the cards by 3.8 billion years ago. So why the 3.95 bya figure? Well, if we look at rocks from 3.95 bya (from Greenland / Western Oz) we can see sphericals perhaps these are fossils of early cells, but we can't be sure, of course. It's possible that these are simple chemical structures. Now the question of 'how do we know the ages of these rocks?' Well for this we require to use radioisotope decay to date the age of the rocks. Occassionally in nature atoms with extra neutrons exist. In small nucleii this situation is often stable, although in a few larger nucleii the extra neutrons destablise the nucleii causing it to break apart - this is the basis of radioactive decay (well, alpha decay at least, but that's all we're interested in for dating things that are so old). Okay, this decay happens by what we call first order kinetics - the more radioactive material there is, the faster the reaction. Thus, the amount of radioactive material in a sample decreases exponentially, not linearly. So we get our radioactive sample rock, and we measure the isotopic radio, and we compare this with a non-radioactive rock from the same rock strata. We can compare the isotopic difference between the two samples and the known decay constant (i.e. the half life of the isotope - which can be calculated, and the calculations have never been shown to be wrong, and work out how old the rock sample is. This, in itself, would not be enough to convince most scientists, but that's okay, because the same date range comes up from different rocks from different places, analysed in different labs by different investigators.

    More tomorrow (well, later actually, after breakfast) Bat-fans...
  11. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Mar '06 23:20
    Since no one except God and the angels was present at creation, all views on the origin of the universe and life must be based ultimately on faith rather than upon direct observation. Faith is the perception of reality based on the authority or veracity of God or someone else. After examing the evidence marshaled by evolutionists, one scientist oberves that the idea of life beginning spontaneously is a "matter of faith on the part of the biologist." Evolutionary science is hypothesized upon confidence in the authority and veracity of the theories of mankind that reject biblical teaching. At best, faith in mankind is tenuous.

    "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind
    And makes flesh his strength."
    Jeremiah 17:5

    Conversely, anyone who accepts the biblical teaching that the universe was created from nothing "by the word of God" also does so by faith. As the writer of Hebrews affirms, the issue is not intellect, science, or empiricism, but faith in the Word of God.

    "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."
    Hebrews 11:3

    Either we express faith in the Word of God the Creator, or we express faith in man's speculative theories that exclude God. But either way, we exercise faith.
  12. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    03 Mar '06 23:28
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Since no one except God and the angels was present at creation, all views on the origin of the universe and life must be based ultimately on faith rather than upon direct observation. Faith is the perception of reality based on the authority or veracity of God or someone else. After examing the evidence marshaled by evolutionists, one scientist oberves t ...[text shortened]... ith in man's speculative theories that exclude God. But either way, we exercise faith.
    Perhaps, but the faith in science is based upon first hand evidence. It follows logically, plainly, and with no requirement for any process that cannot be directly observed nowadays. Faith in God requires (a) belief in the unobservable, (b) an abandonment of logic (how else can one account for a 3.6 million year old human skeleton on a 10,000 year old earth?) and (c) trust in a single second hand (at best) source.
  13. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    03 Mar '06 23:35
    The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
    If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
    But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
    Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
    It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.
    All events have causes.
    There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
    If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
    If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
    Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
    A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
    Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
    Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
    An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
    Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
    An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
    An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
    This uncaused cause is supernatural.
    By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.
    This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
    This uncaused cause is God.
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    03 Mar '06 23:49
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Where, when and how I can tackle, although, bearing in mind it happened nearly 4 billion years ago there are, of course, assumptions. "Who did it?" is not a valid question for an athiest - nor is it necessarily a valid question per se.

    When, I shall tackle first, because it's easiest, and requires least guess work.

    'When' is sometime betw ...[text shortened]... nvestigators.

    More tomorrow (well, later actually, after breakfast) Bat-fans...
    Where and How.

    Very intermingled, so will be treated in a single post.

    First, one must understand the prevalent conditions. Solar output was approximately 25% less than currently. I'm no solar physicist, so I'm not really going to go into the why's or the how do we knows, but I'm instead going to focus on the more relevant points for us. Although the solar output was lower, the amount of UV-B radiation at the earth surface was far higher than it currently is. Since there was no oxygen (remember the analysis of those rocks?), there could not have been any UV-B absorbing ozone. Now UV-B is pretty harmfull stuff and will take out any biological materials that are directly exposed. This, however, is less of a problem than it sounds since UV-B is readily absorbed by water. Indeed, a cloud can absorb upto 50% of the UV-B from direct sunlight (although you can still get burned on a cloudy day). Thus, life, during it's early evolution had to occur in water. What's more, we know it had to be the sea. "How so?" I hear you cry. Well, the cellular osmotica in all living things, even us, has roughly the same osmotic composition as sea water - except at about 1/3 the strength in things that live on the land. Ocean living creatures match the external environment.
    But I can go further than that. Whilst UV-B is dangerous stuff, it seems likely that the first cells existed in relatively shallow water, probably stuck to rocks. Rocks are fantastic things for biologists - they've got heaps of great properties, but best of all they're rough and sticky. By sticky I don't mean your hand will literally adhere to it, but organic molecules definately will. And if the rock is in water, they'll adhere to the rock at higher concentrations than they are in the free water. Also, of course, rocks tend to be rough, rather than smooth, especially if we're talking recently (rapidly) cooled ignious rocks. If we add some wave action and the aforementioned organic molecules (which we know existed, because of the chemical analysis of them pesky rocks) then you get... bubbles!
    Bubbles made of oil. Or lipids, to be more precise. We all know, you drop some oil in water and what happens? I sticks together in a little ball. The reason for this is that all the oil molecules are trying to get away from the water molecules, due to their hydrophobicity. Okay, so we have our proto-cell membrane, now all we need is some RNA, and amino acids, and of course, to get them inside the cell!
    Again this is easier than you'd think. Take a good, hard look at what makes up a supernova and you'll find hydrogen cyanide and a few other nasties, but dissolve them in water and what spontaneously forms? That's right, amino acids and RNA bases. Furthermore the Miller/Urey experiments unequivocally showed that from a few basic components you can make amino acids, even within the relatively short time period of 6 weeks or so. Earth had hundreds of thousands of years. And guess, what? Even better, these RNA bases will spontaneously join up. It's been shown in the lab, and is, in fact, the basis of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, which is used in many labs today to amplify DNA. Now, all we need is some basic natural selection pressure. But to that... next time!
  15. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    03 Mar '06 23:53
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
    If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
    But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
    Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
    It woul ...[text shortened]... ural to it.
    This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
    This uncaused cause is God.
    Go look the word 'infinite' up.

    Then look up 'time'.

    You'll come, after a while, to realise that time is a property of the universe. The universe has existed for all time, because time only exists within the universe. Then you'll realise your argument doesn't make any logical sense.
Back to Top