- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,366
- Reaction score
- 27,050
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Tell me how believing millions of random DNA sequences survived a harsh environment and aligned themselves in the right order to code for sequences within a membrane that also so happened to have all the right amino acid sequences lined up and stable enough to function within the presence on tRNA to code for functional proteins.
STOP! STOP! One gross misunderstanding of basic scientific principles at a time.
The First Cell
After allowing the experiment to continue for a week, the results where startling. The previously colorless solution inside the apparatus had turned red. Upon analyzing the solution, Miller found many organic molecules present, some of which couldn't be readily identified. The most important of created compounds, however, where amino acids. This, in effect, proved Oparin's theory that organic compounds could have been created in the early atmosphere. Further studies showed that some amino acids would have combined with hydrogen cyanide (HCN), which is a byproduct of volcanic activity. This combination would form purines and pyrinidines, which are used to make nucleic acids, which in turn create DNA
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deoxyribonucleic acid (en-us-Deoxyribonucleic_acid.ogg /diːˌɒksɨˌraɪbɵ.n(j)uːˈkleɪ.ɪk ˈæsɪd/ (help·info)) (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.
Seriously, what are you going on about?
Also, how the life giving energy sparked the cell into life and not destroying it. It's vastly improbable.
Life giving energy didn't spark any cell into life. Seriously kid, read up on your science. That's not what the Urrey experiment shows.
Aren't you doing the same?
No. You are attributing a process to a creator. I am explaining a process without the need for a creator or any other unprovable origins.
Yes. Really. The argument they are making is the same as yours. One based on statistics and yet this is where you fail to understand a very basic principle of nature. As many possibilities are there might be the probabilities of events happening a single way are usually 1 to 1. Example, take a glass of water. Now pour it on the floor. What do you think is the probability that the water will not fall to the ground and stay floating in the air? There's probably a chance of it but it won't happen. What will happen nearly 100% of the time is that the water will simply fall to the ground and make a mess. Take a leaf from a tree. Say the leaf fell off a branch. What is the probability that it will turn into a bird and fly away? There's probably a chance but it's highly unlikely. The same explanation is given for why life needed to exist. The atmospheric and environmental conditions lent themselves for life to happen every time, all the time. Why don't we find life on Mars? What about Pluto? If there is a creator who can engineer life on earth why can't he do it elsewhere?
From personal experience I know that God exists. From scientific truths I know a Creator exists. I have explained how Creation points to a creator and have already said that God is not a physical piece of matter/energy that we can experiment with and test. God is above matter and created it. He isn't matter and cannot be manipulated. Similarly. You can't say all life started via abiogenesis even if by some chance it is proven true. You can't prove that life started that way devoid of a creator.
This is all a subjective view of abiogenesis. It's not verifiable. You can't prove it in any way.
It does. You haven't disproven how because science and energy cannot be created nor destroyed that it doesn't point to something beyond science (God) to have created it. I look at evidence and what we know and make conclusions. I'm not arguing that complexity demands a creator. I am arguing that scientific law and order demands the need for a creator. The universe is limited. It can't create matter or energy, it also cannot destroy matter and energy. Matter and energy can change forms and are governed by laws. Rational observation has proven that energy and matter cannot be created. Thus is it also rational to believe something beyond science must have created energy and matter (God).
The amount of misinformation in this is ridiculous. You're essentially arguing FROM IGNORANCE. The scientific evidence showing that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed shows just that, that it can't be created or destroyed. You make the illogical conclusion that if it can't be explained through physical means then there must be something else. Which you call a creator. This however is not a rational conclusion by any means. It's mysticism. It's no different than a viking being unable to explain lightning and saying that Thor made it. It's an argument F.R.O.M. I.G.N.O.R.A.N.C.E.
I will not respond to this. And also, abiogenesis has not been proven.
Dude, it has. Learn some science. Please, for the love of God.