Atheists what is your proof?

No one said it was random.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Historically, is it not a case of; "you will try to take God out"?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Historically it is a case if trying to gain understanding. It just so happens the more understanding we gain, the less there is for god to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

gmilam,

That is from your perspective.
My perspective would be different and there is nothing
to determine either of us is right.

What did we think God did, before this enlightenment?

jan.

 

Who is this "we" you speak of? Personally I don't have a clue what you think. And I only have books to tell me what people have historically thought.

 

And what did they think?

jan.

 

As you don't sem to take anyone's word for anything, I'd advise that you do your own research.

EDIT: And weren't you the one who said science was trying to take god out? (Yes, you were - post 322) I ass/u/me you have some examples of this being the case.

 

Jesus wept. Threads like this really frustrate me. I have a friend who was open minded and logical, he went through a bad patch and started going to Joho 'meetings'.

According to him now, they are'nt teaching evolution in school, because its been 'proved' that it doesnt work, he's turned homophobic, and everytime i question him on a certain aspect, he pops 'God' into the conversation willy nilly. You just cant reason with people who are so closed minded that they only accept one answer for everything-God.

And it seems the same is true here, on this thread.

 

john smith,

What's so open-minded about the universe popping into existence?

Isn't it like a small child believing cars drive by themselves?

jan.

 

I dont put anything in the gaps. I simply say 'we dont know'.

What we do know is that there is no evidence that biological building blocks can assemble into any self-replicating organism by any random process.

 

Evolution isn't random.

 

Evolution is not 'entirely' random...but the appearance of self-replicating organsims from amino acids is hypothesized as being random.

Except its not even possible under lab conditions.

 

The appearance of what is required for evolution is hypothesized as being a random process.

 

RNA is a molecule that can self-replicate, yes in the lab.

 

When did i state that this was my opinion?

Lets go what you would probably call 'extreme' here. I recently watched a natgeo dvd on the universe and solar system etc, and they concluded that with the billions and billions of stars and other solar systems, that the chance of alien life is very probable. Did your God create 'their' world too? Because i seem to recall the christian bible being rather focused on 'our' earth.

Im saying im open minded to any possibilitys. I find it hard to believe that the bible can answer every question for you, to a significant degree.

 

And there is no evidence that RNA can assemble from amino acids and other chemicals through any random process.

 

No one has ever hypothesized that the appearance of self-replicating organisms - from anything, let alone amino acids - is or was random.

You have no idea what a "random process" is, in that context.

There is plenty of evidence that RNA can assemble without any guiding entity assembling it. Not only can, but has - look around you.

An appearance is not a process - in any of the several possible meanings of "appearance" there.

More care with language might prevent or clear up many of your confusions of thought.

 

john smith

I assumed.

That's not extreme at all.
We've been conditioned to accept that alien don't exist
unless we are told by certain sources.
The question is, why wouldn't there be life out there?

If God is the origin of the material world, then yes he created their world too.
The bible, as you said, is focused on the earth, and certain generations of people. But there are interactions with other worldly/dimentional entities.

I tend to agree.

jan.

 

It was probably a little more complex than that:

Earlier this year, for instance, lab experiments confirmed that conditions in some of the numerous pores within the vents can lead to high concentrations of large molecules. This makes the vents an ideal setting for the "RNA world" widely thought to have preceded the first cells.

If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have happened something like this:

1.
Water percolated down into newly formed rock under the seafloor, where it reacted with minerals such as olivine, producing a warm alkaline fluid rich in hydrogen, sulphides and other chemicals - a process called serpentinisation.

This hot fluid welled up at alkaline hydrothermal vents like those at the Lost City, a vent system discovered near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2000.

2.
Unlike today's seas, the early ocean was acidic and rich in dissolved iron. When upwelling hydrothermal fluids reacted with this primordial seawater, they produced carbonate rocks riddled with tiny pores and a "foam" of iron-sulphur bubbles.

3.
Inside the iron-sulphur bubbles, hydrogen reacted with carbon dioxide, forming simple organic molecules such as methane, formate and acetate. Some of these reactions were catalysed by the iron-sulphur minerals. Similar iron-sulphur catalysts are still found at the heart of many proteins today.

4.
The electrochemical gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic seawater leads to the spontaneous formation of acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate, which act just like adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the chemical that powers living cells.

These molecules drove the formation of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins – and nucleotides, the building blocks for RNA and DNA.

5.
Thermal currents and diffusion within the vent pores concentrated larger molecules like nucleotides, driving the formation of RNA and DNA – and providing an ideal setting for their evolution into the world of DNA and proteins. Evolution got under way, with sets of molecules capable of producing more of themselves starting to dominate.

6.
Fatty molecules coated the iron-sulphur froth and spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles. Some of these bubbles would have enclosed self-replicating sets of molecules – the first organic cells. The earliest protocells may have been elusive entities, though, often dissolving and reforming as they circulated within the vents.

7.
The evolution of an enzyme called pyrophosphatase, which catalyses the production of pyrophosphate, allowed the protocells to extract more energy from the gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic ocean. This ancient enzyme is still found in many bacteria and archaea, the first two branches on the tree of life.

8.
Some protocells started using ATP as well as acetyl phosphate and pyrophosphate. The production of ATP using energy from the electrochemical gradient is perfected with the evolution of the enzyme ATP synthase, found within all life today.

9.
Protocells further from the main vent axis, where the natural electrochemical gradient is weaker, started to generate their own gradient by pumping protons across their membranes, using the energy released when carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen.

This reaction yields only a small amount of energy, not enough to make ATP. By repeating the reaction and storing the energy in the form of an electrochemical gradient, however, protocells "saved up" enough energy for ATP production.

10.
Once protocells could generate their own electrochemical gradient, they were no longer tied to the vents. Cells left the vents on two separate occasions, with one exodus giving rise to bacteria and the other to archaea.​

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells.html

 

That's actually not true. And incidentally, whenever religious people try to abscond with 'current' scientific knowledge to 'prove' God exists, their positions are inevitably replaced by new scientific knowledge, and their 'proof' falls apart. It is not, and should not, be the role of religion and theology to attempt to explain anything in the physical universe. That is quite rightly the domain of science. (I just provided a couple definitions for science and theology that reinforce that statement.)

http://www.dhushara.com/book/bchtm/biocos.htm#anchor356593

(There are plenty more articles about this; there is no reason to think biochemistry is not the result of basic scientific principles.)