The God of Science

spidergoat said:
That is not evidence for God. There are likely to be trillions and trillions of planets in the universe, and life would only arise in those few suitable for it to arise. All life forms would find themselves on a planet uniquely suited for life!
Click to expand...

I never said it was a direct evidence, secondly what you said is obvious, but all natural vectors must be present with the required direction and magnitude- simultaneously- Secondly this discussion assumes that planets that are 'few suitable for life' are also a result of the natural vectors- and so for these planets to form, and then all the elements required for life and molecules are formed must have the required direction and magnitude of the natural vectors. If a 'suitable' planet is formed but later none of the conditions are fulfilled that can create the RNA molecule then the planet is worthless in terms of life arising. From the Big Bang, to the creation of the planet, to the presence of water, to the creation of an appropriate atmosphere, to the availability of elemental molecules for life, to the creation of RNA, to the closeness of organic material, to the closeness of proteins, to the creation of the cell, to the protection of the cell everything must occur with a succession of natural vectors with the right magnitude and direction.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Last edited:
That assumes there are only a limited set of factors that contribute to the arising of only one kind of life. There could be a broad range of conditions that lead to life, and life may occur in many different forms besides the kind we are familiar with.
 
spidergoat said:
That assumes there are only a limited set of factors that contribute to the arising of only one kind of life. There could be a broad range of conditions that lead to life, and life may occur in many different forms besides the kind we are familiar with.
Click to expand...

Hmm... That is true, it is an assumption. But the observable fact is life even at the most basal level is extremely complex. So sure our life may not be the only way, but we would assume that the other ways are very similar. Secondly if there is another 'life' it would also have a succession of steps that must be met- and so the succession of events to occur would still be required.


Even Dawkins said in an interview that life could potentially evolve differently from us but the essentials would be very very similar, for example the central storage should be something similar to DNA and RNA- You may be able to find it on youtube, I don't remember what the video is called- but he mentions it. It would have to be dynamic- for example we have a system where we can basically get infinite amount of diversity because of the proteins. From a small gene we can get so many products after processing.

By the way do you have any alternate method of creating life without anything that makes up a cell?

Peace be unto you ;)
 
spidergoat said:
What makes up the modern cell may not be a requirement for life. It is thought that primitive cells were just small pores in rock in which certain chemicals could concentrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html
Click to expand...

Actually the rock wouldn't be 'life' or a common ancestor but rather one of the needed factors that could allow life to form- Not that the rock itself was life- it simply allows conditions for life.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
The rock was the early cell wall. This theory shows how the line between living and non-living becomes blurred if you go back far enough in time.
 
spidergoat said:
The rock was the early cell wall. This theory shows how the line between living and non-living becomes blurred if you go back far enough in time.
Click to expand...

Not that it was the early cell wall, but simply that a cell wall was not needed in such conditions. They did mention that that the early molecules 'escaped' from here 'not once but twice'- for this to be successful an actual cell wall would be necessary to form so that all the molecules can stay together and not get destroyed by the changing pH of the environment- I'm sure the rock itself didn't 'escape' because it is grounded.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
The rock divots, I believe SG is saying, were like structural support for the weak-walled progenitor cells. This doesn't completely explain where the wastes went, but maybe they trickled down if the cells were sticky and lodged in a crack or something.
 
The energy from food, he said, is used to pump positively charged hydrogen ions, or protons, through a membrane. As protons accumulate on one side, an electrochemical gradient builds up across the membrane. Given the chance, the protons will flow back across, releasing energy that can be harnessed to assemble ATP molecules. In energy terms, the process is analogous to filling a raised tank with buckets of water, then using the water to drive a waterwheel.

is that a battery?
 
786 said:
But the observable fact is life even at the most basal level is extremely complex.
Click to expand...
That is an unwarranted presumption, not an observation.

All the life we have observed so far is the end product of billions of years of refinement and compounded sophistication, capable of maintaining its existence in a densely inhabited world of similarly complex and effective entities. It is far from the "basal level" of life, whatever that might be.
 
iceaura said:
That is an unwarranted presumption, not an observation.

All the life we have observed so far is the end product of billions of years of refinement and compounded sophistication, capable of maintaining its existence in a densely inhabited world of similarly complex and effective entities. It is far from the "basal level" of life, whatever that might be.
Click to expand...

Even a unicellular organism is very complex....... and a cell in itself is quite complex too, the way information is stored is quite complex, how its copied is quite complex, how it translates is also quite complex. The most 'primitive' life-form we know of is highly complex- Of course not as complex as the more recent species but complex none-the-less. Relatively speaking the 'primitive' organism aren't as complex as other advanced forms- but that is comparing life to life. But when you just look at life, even the most primitive- the way it functions is without a doubt very complex. I don't know how many researchers are still researching e. coli- not so complex compared to humans but complex enough that we have spent so much time on it but still haven't been able to learn everything about it.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Last edited:
GeoffP said:
?? It was a stand-in cell wall, 786. That's what SG is saying.
Click to expand...

I know what he was saying..... But I was simply clarifying that an actual cell wall was needed for the molecules to 'escape'.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Which they evolved, thus bridging the gap between living and non-living things. This is a plausable explanation for abiogenesis that doesn't need a God.
 
786 said:
But when you just look at life, even the most primitive- the way it functions is without a doubt very complex.
Click to expand...
There aren't any examples of the most primitive ways life functions, still hanging around after billions of years, for us to look at.

Every living being we can observe is the product of billions of years of refinement and sophistication. The primitive ones vanished long ago.

Probably, life does not need cells, for example. In the absence of timed reproduction pressure, risk of predation, need to identify other beings, etc, there seems to be no reason a sort of living cycle could not be established in an open circuit of intermittently available and widely distributed factors.
 
spidergoat said:
Which they evolved, thus bridging the gap between living and non-living things. This is a plausable explanation for abiogenesis that doesn't need a God.
Click to expand...

Only thing we know is that the conditions would be right, they need to do actual experiments to see how it would work- And I don't think this would change anything about the idea of God creating life or not-

There are still problems, for example the synthesis of cytosine, I don't think there has been observation of how cytosine would form in the conditions that are present- Secondly as we know it life's proteins are all left-handed (or was it right, damn)- This rock would put all of them in the same concentrated area, in other words you will have a theoretically equal concentration of left and right proteins, that'll screw up everything really.

Also a self-replicating RNA with cytosine is really hard to imagine because it has a major role in the stability and replication of RNA- Just saying because some scientists have suggested that the first RNA couldn't have had cytosine simply because they can't imagine how cytosine can form in the natural environment that existed because of its properties and lifespan too.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
iceaura said:
There aren't any examples of the most primitive ways life functions, still hanging around after billions of years, for us to look at.

Every living being we can observe is the product of billions of years of refinement and sophistication. The primitive ones vanished long ago.

Probably, life does not need cells, for example. In the absence of timed reproduction pressure, risk of predation, need to identify other beings, etc, there seems to be no reason a sort of living cycle could not be established in an open circuit of intermittently available and widely distributed factors.
Click to expand...

I was talking about 'observed' life - you can talk hypothetical stuff but as far as we know about life so far it is complex at even the basal level- how that complexity came from simplicity is another question.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Why are you trying to find a spirtual deffinition of One in your physical reality?

So many misinterpretations in so many different subjects - it'd be nice if people didn't need to question others on their path, but I was once a truth seeker that only trusted physical evidence too, and until you find new knowledge elsewhere, you will never understand the spirtual side of things.

It goes both ways, some are in touch with their spirtual side, but don't understand the 2 sides of life (spirtuality and physical reality) and they therefor shut down to science and evidence.
What most fail to recognize is both can coexist - they are the 2 oppisite sides of the same thing!

Those that only trust logic and need physical evidence to find truth, they will never understand the spirtual guidance religion can offer unless they experience a life changing situation. And those that only trust faith and disregard physical evidence as unimportant, they will never understand the difference between our physical realm and the spirtual realm until they can think of science equally to spirituality.

But to those that look for knowledge in all places, they can find balance in both sides of life.

God is not a science question - science is all about the physical.
I don't even use the name God in my spirituality, because there have been too many misinterpretations that I rather just use the word One. To my soul One is everything, but my mind and body have different deffinitions of what One is! I generally try to use the name God as a symbol but I avoid using Gods name in a physical sense unless its meant to be takin metephorically.

We live in a cycle, not in a line - science is too worried about the beginning and the end of things, but science has much to learn - we think we know alot, but we don't even understand our own universe yet, and the likeliness of multi-universes is becoming more and more the most logical idea that science is exploring! I feel it is very likely that many different universes make up something bigger than we can imagine, and many of those different 'mega-universes' likely make up something even bigger than that, and so forth!
But we can see much smaller life the more we anylaze as well! Many living parts make us whole, and each vital organ has many living parts that make it function, and as we take a microscope to that life we find many living parts make that one part of life function within the vital organ that makes us whole, etc...
Both sides of the scale are part of the cycle, and as long as we search for a straight line, science will never have enough answers to make complete sense of the physical, because the more we learn, the bigger (and smaller) everything becomes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top