|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Mercy bow coo, Ringo!
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Molbiogirl:
Today's organisms use three types of energy sources: fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. None of these energy sources has been linked directly to the origin of life. A fourth energy source, ”thermosynthesis,’ free energy gain from thermal cycling, was proposed in a theoretical model for the emergence of the chemiosmotic machinery Why do they not mention ATP? Could it be because they don't want to confuse you with the facts? Those facts might just test your faith, rock your world, and send you for the counsellors chair. And that's ok... we're all in the same boat. It's good to test your faith now and then and not be afraid to consider other alternatives. No need to hide facts or motives, we're all in need of growth here. All I am asking, is for someone to tell me what did exist then. Why, if we know what exists now, can't we assume that the same processes existed then? We know how these systems work to a high degree. Why are we trying to find invisible things that there is no evidence for? The only reason, is that without those invisible qualities, extrapolated from what can be seen, we must extrapolate from what can be seen, the invisible qualities of God from actual evidence.
Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. And that is unacceptable... not because the evidence does not support it, but because then we would have to face accountablity for our immorality. It's all right there in Romans 1, written almost 2 thousand years ago. Humanity was the same then as it is now. We're only more sophisticated in our deception and technological methods of subverting the consequences of our actions. Molbiogirl:Furthermore. The polymerization was probably catalyzed. Catalyzation of this sort has been done in the lab. Did nucleotides have labs and techies intelligently guiding the process on the priordial seas? Maybe (or as you said, probably) your right (I mean 'they'). They're 'experts' you know? All you have to do is say 'nope'... and then quotemine some preist of evolutionary theory and perform miraculous signs and wonders for the world and they will follow you... they will come to your defense as well. They will silence any brazen opposition such as this. Just watch and be amazed. I know far less than you about biology, but I don't let fancy words disturb my God given ability to see philosophical absurdity 'hidden beside me in the reeds and marshes' (Credit to Isaiah for that one...). As for origins, we simply don't know, except that you... do know... I think? Is that right? Forgive me for being so specific about it, I do not wish to belittle; but I am trying to be scientific. Everyone keeps telling me that that is the only thing that counts. Leave the blind faith behind, wash in the pool and regain your sight.If not for the sake of truth or God or Christ, then for the sake of consistent logic (which is synonymous, and at one, with the others). But none of that matters if you're commited to believing what fits your presuppositions, in particular what you want life to be. It is nothing more complicated that worshipping a graven image made in your likeness. We all do it... and we must stop, because in the end, the only thing that will be left standing, is reality in it's unadulterated glory. And that is something that will kill us, unless we learn to live with it. And it is a hard process to endure. We can't do it alone, but he is mighty to save, and gives the power to endure to those who call upon Him. Sorry for preaching the truth in a board set aside for preaching a different one of the other 'theo'retical truths. Just open your mind and think about it. At the very least, let us try to hold the celebration until after the dance. I am trying to get 'The Ringo's' out (you know... that tendancy to whoop and holler, go tit for tat and play 'Yo Momma'!). So do not take my words as a rebuke, but a simple plea to you soul for transpearency. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Rob writes:
You're confused. ATP is an energy medium. ATP is no more a source of energy than a battery is a source of energy. That is, in local systems, you can consider a battery to be a source of energy, but ultimately the energy came from somewhere else. The only ways that an organism can gain energy from the environment are listed there.
Why do they not mention ATP? Could it be because they don't want to confuse you with the facts?Rob writes:
Because it doesn't make sense. Given that we know that animals alive today aren't the same as they were 300,000,000 years ago, why shouldn't we assume the same is true of metabolic processes? Anyway, this is digressing.
Why, if we know what exists now, can't we assume that the same processes existed then? Rob writes:
I wish we knew. It's a mystery. But we can make intelligent hypotheses about what could have gone on, try to replicate it or compare it to known reaction parameters to corroborate the hypotheses, and use those to make some more hypotheses. That's science. As for origins, we simply don't know, except that you... do know... Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You're suspended for a couple of days Rob. This is an interesting science thread. We do not want it cluttered up with preaching. We do not want conjectures about the motive of honest inquiry. We do not want those who know very little (see ATP as an example) messing up the information being presented by those who do know someting.
Others will refrain from any more replies to Rob here. Short suspensions will be issued.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: The source of energy for these reactions is stuff like ATP and GTP. Molbiogirl: Nope. Today's organisms use three types of energy sources: fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. None of these energy sources has been linked directly to the origin of life. A fourth energy source, ”thermosynthesis,’ free energy gain from thermal cycling, was proposed in a theoretical model for the emergence of the chemiosmotic machinery ... Pardon me, you are correct. However, my point was that those processes only convert raw energy into the form necessary for complex nucleotide synthesis. Molbiogril: Of course modern ATP synthase didn't exist back then. Nobody's claiming it did. Except you, I mean. What could I claim did exist back then, without moving into hypothetical wonderland? Are you suggesting something did exit that is not materially emperical? Whatever the answer, it appears miraculous (I'll spare you the quotes from evolutionists who agree on that point).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
My apologies to you and molbiogirl for assuming you knew what I was getting at... and even more so for leaping from a most excellent conversation into the pulpit. I was very tired and should have waited until the following day to respond. I moved from premise 'z' without sustaining premise 'a'.
However, I see no legitimate reason that the discussion cannot continue as the appropriate action was taken. Is there some fear that I am becoming effective? Because there is still much to discuss. back to the subject... Doddy: You're confused. ATP is an energy medium. ATP is no more a source of energy than a battery is a source of energy. That is, in local systems, you can consider a battery to be a source of energy, but ultimately the energy came from somewhere else. The only ways that an organism can gain energy from the environment are listed there. Of course... I assumed you would understand why I mentioned ATP. the issue is one of converting the 'raw energy' into a useable biological form. How is that done without the complex functions we see in life. Your battery analogy is flawless... but that is my whole point. How are batteries made? Not by random chemical processes. They are designed with purpose by intelligent agents. A battery doesn't just happen to provide energy to a machine. It exists for that purpose. Was or is there evidence for material life (that doesn't need these processes)? What if these originating processes are not material? Perhaps that is why they are so mystifying. Perhaps we are using the wrong tool to find them (I'm just 'theo'rizing).
[qs]Rob:Why, if we know what exists now, can't we assume that the same processes existed then? Doddy:Because it doesn't make sense. Given that we know that animals alive today aren't the same as they were 300,000,000 years ago, why shouldn't we assume the same is true of metabolic processes? Anyway, this is digressing. Uh... is there something in the fossil record that indicates other processes than those brought up by biogirl. You'd have to ask a paleontologist. Seems to me that the processes we see now, are the same processes we see as far back as the geological record allows. How do we know (as you said) that life was different then? How do we know there was even material life? Why do you say we know, when 'we' (the convention) don't know? I think it doesn't make sense to you to assume that there is some as yet unknown 'cause' beyond a material explanation for the same reason it is irrational to other evolutionists.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Wiki-evolution /Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997) This is clearly an issue of materialistic bias. And I am not suggesting that you have thought this through to the extent that Lewontin has and are therefore guilty of some deception. Science should be objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I'm just 'theo'rizing Have you so quickly forgotten our last conversation, Rob? "theo" is not the root for "theory", "theoretical", "theorizing". Only for "theology" and "theological". "Thea + Horan" is the root/etymology for "theory (etical, izing)". Your putting scare quotes around "theo" in Theory does not redefine the root. It only shows you don't listen and learn. Repeat after me: "The root of Theory is 'thea + horan'".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Have you so quickly forgotten our last conversation, Rob? How could I have forgotten that?
Main Entry: the·o·ry Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein How you cannot understand that theo is theo. That philsophical coherence is philsophical coherence is a mystery to me. Are they perfectly analogous? No! One pertains to reality in terms of a living entity. The other in terms of purely mindless material force. Both are a philosophical construct... a postulate. A theistic evolutionary view really captures this fact:
Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow ” this is what evolution is. (Wikipedia / Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky) Don't you see Kuresu... if evolutionary theory is in fact reality, then it is God. And is therfore the light of the world. If you want to argue this further Kuresu, this is not the place. Other than Anglagard's comment in your thread, as to the 'non-living attributes of theory' as opposed to 'theology and it's postulate of a living and breathing reality', I see no one other than yourself who has missed the point. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Since you find the topic so uninteresting that you can't stay on it I have indefinitely removed your access to "Origin of Life".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Rob writes:
You can have devices that run directly off the mains. So, likewise you could have primitive organisms that don't store energy. And the current batteries aren't like they used to be, and indeed soon may be replaced by fuel cells or similar. Likewise, it is unlikely that living creatures always used exactly what is present today.
Of course... I assumed you would understand why I mentioned ATP. the issue is one of converting the 'raw energy' into a useable biological form. How is that done without the complex functions we see in life. Rob writes:
That is perhaps a flaw in my aralogy, but the main point of it rests untouched. ATP, and other nucleotide triphosphates too, do indeed 'just happen' to provide energy to the cell. Or rather, energy to the cell 'just happens' to use nucleotide triphosphates. It's quite possible to have another form of energy. A battery doesn't just happen to provide energy to a machine. It exists for that purpose. We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024