Originally posted by Thundar
I'd really like to get a serious and educated opionion from you regarding how DNA could have evolved. The floor is now yours.
If you have billions of years and a huge amount of space with tons of chemicals and electrical activity as well as the right temperature eventually, somewhere, the conditions will be right or create DNA in a chemical reaction.
Now the floor is yours to answer this.
Demonstrate quantifiable evidence for the creation of the universe by God.
Originally posted by Thundar
A DNA strand isn't an example of design? It doesn't show intelligence in its complexity? I'd really like for you or AngryManatee to explain how DNA evolved, with no force guiding it. Please do this for us when you get done answering the other questions.And also please take note that the structure of DNA is much more complex than that of any man made machines(note: key phrase here is "man made"😉
I feel that the level of complexity in organisms explains it enough.
Atoms
Proteins- which have been successfully replicated using inorganice substance and simulating early earth conditions.
Viruses- majority contain RNA while the few (more complex) have DNA.
Prokaryotes- First came about some 3.5 billion years ago, based on fossil evidence. Ring-shaped single strand DNA lacking the proteins found in Eukaryotic DNA.
Eukaryotes- 2.2-1.7 billion years ago(1.7-1.3 bya, or about 30 million human generations ago. Think about that, and think about the number of generations of prokaryotes that exist just in a human lifetime, which is about equal to 1.8million, and then think about the number of mutations that they go through in order to better adapt to their enviroment). Have a nucleus, Double Helix DNA.
It only makes sense that after all this time we'd have complex organisms like we do. It doesn't take Intelligent design to create something complex that is adapted to a changing environment. It takes environmental pressures and the mutations inbetween generations to cope with those pressures.
And with that, I'm done arguing about this, because it's only going to go back and forth like a pong game between two supercomputers. You can be entitled to your opinion that scientists really don't perform science (despite all the marvelous luxuries thanks to what they do), and I'll stick to my own opinion of science based on my scientific pursuits, and my "bias" that creation scientists don't perform proper science due to their inclusion of unexplainable phenomena into their data. And do not believe that this view is anti-religion, because as I've stated before, there are scientists out there who do have religious beliefs who are at the forefront of scientific pursuits (Francis Collins), who are as professional as any other scientist that might not have religious beliefs.
That is all.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not believe that it is an impossibility.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Chemically it is impossible with the accepted conditions of Earth at that time. Amino acids were formed in laboratory under favourable conditions using electricity it is true, however, the conditions are not equivalent to what Earth was supposedly like back then.
Theories aside. That's a bit of a loaded statement, don't you think?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Chemically it is impossible with the accepted conditions of Earth at that time. Amino acids were formed in laboratory under favourable conditions using electricity it is true, however, the conditions are not equivalent to what Earth was supposedly like back then.
I think we do not know enough about what the Earth was like back then. However, I do not believe that it is impossible for life to come from supposed non life, I do not believe in non life. All the universe is alive at some level; I call that God. A hydrogen atom in a rock is no different then a hydrogen atom inside a living being. At that level there is no life, or is it, there is no non life?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A hydrogen atom in a rock is no different then a hydrogen atom inside a living being. At that level there is no life, or is it, there is no non life?
I always liked this analogy...
complexity:consciousness::mass:gravity
In other words: a hydrogen atom has gravity but at a level far below the threshold of our perception. You want to notice gravity? You need celestial-sized masses.
On the same token: a hydrogen atom has consciousness but at a level far below the threshold of our perception. You want to notice consciousness? You need bio-scale complexity.
Originally posted by Mindship
I always liked this analogy...
complexity:consciousness::mass:gravityIn other words: a hydrogen atom has gravity but at a level far below the threshold of our perception. You want to notice gravity? You need celestial-sized masses.
On the same token: a hydrogen atom has consciousness but at a level far below the threshold of our perception. You want to notice consciousness? You need bio-scale complexity.
I see it very simple: either everything is alive or everything is not alive, what's the difference? 😉
Originally posted by AngryManatee
I feel that the level of complexity in organisms explains it enough.
Atoms
Proteins- which have been successfully replicated using inorganice substance and simulating early earth conditions.
Viruses- majority contain RNA while the few (more complex) have DNA.
Prokaryotes- First came about some 3.5 billion years ago, based on fossil evidence. Ring-shaped single strand DNA lacking the proteins found in Eukaryotic DNA.
Eukaryotes- 2.2-1.7 billion years ago(1.7-1.3 bya, or about 30 million human generations ago. Think about that, and think about the number of generations of prokaryotes that exist just in a human lifetime, which is about equal to 1.8million, and then think about the number of mutations that they go through in order to better adapt to their enviroment). Have a nucleus, Double Helix DNA.It only makes sense that after all this time we'd have complex organisms like we do. It doesn't take Intelligent design to create something complex that is adapted to a changing environment. It takes environmental pressures and the mutations inbetween generations to cope with those pressures.
And with that, I'm done arguing about this, because it's only going to go back and forth like a pong game between two supercomputers. You can be entitled to your opinion that scientists really don't perform science (despite all the marvelous luxuries thanks to what they do), and I'll stick to my own opinion of science based on my scientific pursuits, and my "bias" that creation scientists don't perform proper science due to their inclusion of unexplainable phenomena into their data. And do not believe that this view is anti-religion, because as I've stated before, there are scientists out there who do have religious beliefs who are at the forefront of scientific pursuits (Francis Collins), who are as professional as any other scientist that might not have religious beliefs.
That is all.
How on earth would the level of complexity of anything, allude to it being randomly created? Just from a practical perspective what you're alluding to makes little sense and is extremely illogical.
Comparitively speaking lets take your whole computer analogy into play, and look at just what it takes to build a standard mother board, excluding some components/parts, and including only those needed to allow primary funcionality of the device:
-circuitoard(which all the other components of the computer connect to)
-video card(used for processing visuals)
-sound card(used for processing sound),
-IDE hard drive(storage device)
-RAM
-CPU
Take into account that I'm not even listing all of the other periphals which make up a computer(i.e., CD Drive, Fans, connection ports, etc), many of which are necessary to keep it running.
That being stated, based on your rationale, the level of complexity within a computer should lead one to the conclusion of randomness being involved in its creation, and that the computer at some point created itself. Does that really make sense to you? To me it doesn't and quite frankly, I find such a philosophical view on creation extremely obsurd.
I hate to oversimplify things, but when looking at it from a philsophical and practical perspective, one can really see the serious flaws in evolutionary theory. I'm open to new ideas, I'm open to people presenting their opinions despite how flawed or invalid they maybe, but if one really is really pursuing truth..then it makes sense for them to begin from a logical philosophical stance.
To me, stating that "something came from nothing, because its complex" is an extremely illogical philosophical stance, not even looking at the argument from a strict micro-biological level(i.e. DNA, RNA, etc), particularly when one disregards the practical and logical knowledge of how the world around us works, and substitutes it with their own convoluted and non-sensical religious philosophy.
Originally posted by Thundar
How on earth would the level of complexity of anything, allude to it being randomly created? Just from a practical perspective what you're alluding to makes little sense and is extremely illogical.Comparitively speaking lets take your whole computer analogy into play, and look at just what it takes to build a standard mother board, excluding some components/parts, and including only those needed to allow primary funcionality of the device:
-circuitoard(which all the other components of the computer connect to)
-video card(used for processing visuals)
-sound card(used for processing sound),
-IDE hard drive(storage device)
-RAM
-CPUTake into account that I'm not even listing all of the other periphals which make up a computer(i.e., CD Drive, Fans, connection ports, etc), many of which are necessary to keep it running.
That being stated, based on your rationale, the level of complexity within a computer should lead one to the conclusion of randomness being involved in its creation, and that the computer at some point created itself. Does that really make sense to you? To me it doesn't and quite frankly, I find such a philosophical view on creation extremely obsurd.
I hate to oversimplify things, but when looking at it from a philsophical and practical perspective, one can really see the serious flaws in evolutionary theory. I'm open to new ideas, I'm open to people presenting their opinions despite how flawed or invalid they maybe, but if one really is really pursuing truth..then it makes sense for them to begin from a logical philosophical stance.
To me, stating that "something came from nothing, because its complex" is an extremely illogical philosophical stance, not even looking at the argument from a strict micro-biological level(i.e. DNA, RNA, etc), particularly when one disregards the practical and logical knowledge of how the world around us works, and substitutes it with their own convoluted and non-sensical religious philosophy.
No, a computer would never build its self. If nature build a computer it would be far more complex and beautiful, like the brain. A computer is too crude to have evolved.
Originally posted by Thundar
To me, stating that "something came from nothing, because its complex" is an extremely illogical philosophical stance, not even looking at the argument from a strict micro-biological level(i.e. DNA, RNA, etc), particularly when one disregards the practical and logical knowledge of how the world around us works, and substitutes it with their own convoluted and non-sensical religious philosophy.
How is it less sensible than saying "God did it"?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Both from one sentence try to remain consistent. (or atleast give me the evidence I've been asking for)
Look up the word consistent. Then look up the word synonymous. Then look up the word connotation.
The arguments were consistent with one another, however, only one them possesed a logical premise.(hint: it wasn't yours)
Originally posted by Thundar
Look up the word consistent. Then look up the word synonymous. Then look up the word connotation.The arguments were consistent with one another, however, only one them possesed a logical premise.(hint: it wasn't yours)
Then study Philosophy 101, because the term logical applies to inferences, not premises. Premises are either true or false.
Originally posted by Thundar
Look up the word consistent. Then look up the word synonymous. Then look up the word connotation.The arguments were consistent with one another, however, only one them possesed a logical premise.(hint: it wasn't yours)
If they are identical, as per the first statement, one cannot be more anything than the other. (you are still avoiding my request for proof of creation)