Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

how do you make a living cell without the assistance of DNA?

I think this question can be restated as: How did the first self-replicating molecule originate?

Nobody (apart from creationisits) assumes that DNA just appeared one day in its present form, around 3.5 billion years ago.  While we may never know precise sequence of events, it's an area of active research to explore specific ways in which life might arise from inorganic matter.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Arm0r]

how do you make a living cell without the assistance of DNA?

Nobody (apart from creationisits) assumes that DNA just appeared one day in its present form, around 3.5 billion years ago. 

I hope this makes sense to you because it does to me, going to list a few facts (as I understand them) and if you can agree on them all then maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from:

1. Cells cannot reproduce without DNA

2. The first cell would mean nothing without DNA, DNA being it's only means of reproduction it would simply die and be extinct.

3. DNA holds alot of information, so this first instance of life already having this information (DNA) would be impossible, where would it get it?

4. Without DNA cells are not possible.

5. Without DNA life is not possible.


Question: How did the first DNA come about and how did the first cell come about if they actually both need eachother to be created?  (chicken or the egg seems to be very relevant here it seems)

[quadz]

Question: How did the first DNA come about and how did the first cell come about if they actually both need eachother to be created?  (chicken or the egg seems to be very relevant here it seems)

Finding a non-chicken/egg solution is what the Abiogenesis link is about.

One line of reasoning is that RNA came first:

http://www.innovations.gatech.edu/origins/

In the early 1980s it was discovered that RNA is capable of both carrying the genetic information needed to make a new molecule and catalyzing chemical reactions; the latter task is currently done primarily by proteins in living cells. So if RNA can do both its own job and that of proteins, then proteins didn't need to be present for the first RNA molecules to form and replicate. Given that DNA requires one more step to make than RNA, many scientists concluded that RNA was the first molecule of life on earth.

[Arm0r]

Aboslutely amazing, thanks for the links.    I did some reading up on RNA and experiments done to try to re-create the self replicating RNA and it's pretty amazing as well, scientist were actually able to re-create RNA using conditions that are thought to be similar if not spot on to the conditions that existed in the begining of everything biological.  The presence of self-replicating RNA with a simple experiment is indeed good proof in bolstering evolution, in fact as the generations of RNA went on they actually got better each time at replicating.

The experiment did run into one problem though that has kept it from being a "go-to" experiment when debating it, while the RNA did get better at replicating it never added new features to itself--it simply didn't have the information to do it, not even after 200+ generations of it were observed and they have yet to document any random changes (mutations) in the RNA.  But....I have to admit, they did create it...and if RNA can be created just by natural causes then I can't help but want to know more about it.   I'm trying to form educated opinions about it as I lean more, amazed by it all and hoping science will come to a conclusion when concerning it (wouldn't that be lovely!).

  but....

As a side question, what is it about the idea of a creator that makes people lean away from it?  Is it the religious implications it has or simply it not being a viable answer due to the belife that one is not needed?   Once you answer that I have one more (sorry, once the thought starts flowing the questions don't stop)....couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not why?   I know "why" is absurd to some people who think about this type of thing, "why" is looked at as an un-needed question in an already complicated field...is that how you might view the "why" question?

[quadz]

As a side question, what is it about the idea of a creator that makes people lean away from it?  Is it the religious implications it has or simply it not being a viable answer due to the belife that one is not needed?

For me, the introduction of a creator raises more questions than it answers.

A supernatural creator/designer is by definition a really, really complex entity.

Maybe such a thing exists, but it begs the question of where it came from.

When we trace backward over time on our planet, and in our universe, what we've seen is that complex things have simple beginnings.

Following the tree of life backward, complex organisms have simpler and simpler ancestors.

Tracing the timeline of the universe backward, before the the fusion reactors of the first stars ignited, we just had hydrogen, some helium, a little lithium and beryllium.

Creationists like to claim that complexity requires a designer, which is on the one hand simply wrong--we have endless examples of complexity arising from simple beginnings; and on the other hand is disingenuous, because claiming that complexity requires a designer only works when one then makes this very-complex designer exempt from this very rule!

So, yeah, one could say this super-complex supernatural designer has always existed, and is exempt from the way everything else seems to have simple beginnings.

But if we're going to say something always existed, why not just say quantum mechanics and gravity always existed.

It's a simple beginning, which is consistent with how the observable universe seems to work.

So,

couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not why?   I know "why" is absurd to some people who think about this type of thing, "why" is looked at as an un-needed question in an already complicated field...is that how you might view the "why" question?

Intuitively, it seems there will always be an unanswerable "why" question.

Essentially some variation on "why is there something rather than nothing".

We might have peeled another layer off, since as Lawrence Krauss noted, quantum mechanics does not allow empty space, and so as he put it, there's something instead of nothing because 'nothing' is unstable.

But one could just turn around and ask, ok, "why" does quantum mechanics exist?  So instead of "why is there something rather than nothing" we get "why is there a law that prevents the existence of a true vacuum"?  But it's pretty much the same question.

As a thought experiment, let's say there really is some always-existing supernatural creator/designer like the creationists claim.  And let's say we were allowed to ask it a question about its own existence, like, "why do YOU exist?"  If it really always existed, what kind of useful answer could it give?  It could say, well, I AM THAT I AM, I have always existed.  But that doesn't help the "why" question either.

So... I'm not sure "why" is meaningful when asking about first causes.


Regards,

[QwazyWabbit]

Why?

Because...   Why not?

[Tubby]

I think we're asking these questions in much the same way as people from the Dark Ages used to ask how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Our brains are constantly evolving, but they're nowhere near evolved enough (yet) to be able to comprehend the forces at play in the formation of matter, the universe, and life.

That's why religon still has such appeal for so many people. It seems to provde answers to what their still-evolving brains are as yet unable to comprehend.

Maybe we'll get there one day - but it will be through science, not religon, that we find them.

[The Dreaming Dragon]

http://videosift.com/video/We-Need-a-Christian-Dictator-since-the-ungodly-can-vote

[quadz]

In this week's San Diego Reader, some group has taken out a full page ad, entitled:

Public Notice!
The Beginning of Judgement Day and
the Resurrection will occur On May 21, 2011.

Followed by a full page of annotated bible quotes, brimming with gems of deductive reasoning like the following:

By careful study of the Bible we learn that in the year 4990 B.C. (Before Christ) God brought a flood of water and destroyed the entire earth except for eight people and the animals that were with them. They were not destroyed because God brought them into the safety of the ark. ... Seven days before the beginning of the Flood that completely covered the entire earth, God commanded Noah to warn the peoples of the world that they had seven days to get into the safety of the ark. The Holy Bible tells us that on the 17th day of the 2nd month of that year God shut the door of the ark. ...  In 2 Peter 3:8, which is quoted above, Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. Because Holy Infinite God is all-knowing, He knows the end from the beginning. He knew how sinful the world would become. Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year 2011 A.D. (our calendar).  4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7,000  Thus Holy God is showing us by the words of 2 Peter 3:8 that He wants us to know that exactly 7,000 years after He destroyed the world with water in Noah’s day, He plans to destroy the entire world forever. ... Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day. Remember, the flood waters also began on the 17th day of the 2nd month, in the year 4990 B.C.

etc. etc.

Turns out May 21st this year is a Saturday, so we're planning to invite some friends over for an Armageddon BBQ party!

[QwazyWabbit]

Interesting that they predict armageddon for the sabbath day. Shabat shalom.

[QuakeDuke]

In this week's San Diego Reader, some group has taken out a full page ad, entitled:

Public Notice!
The Beginning of Judgement Day and
the Resurrection will occur On May 21, 2011.

Never could understand Christian's fascination (preoccupation) with "The Judgment Day" and the end of time (as we know it).   Either they are ready for it (then it really makes no difference when) or they're not and then they have more to worry about than trying pin down a date.

Saddest part about the whole thing is it only reinforces the negative stereotype most have of Christians being unlearned in their own faith.  Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (re-iterated in Mark 13:32  "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.")  It's hard for me to understand what part of "no man" people can't understand....

Sad really...

QD

[|iR|Focalor]

I'd like an email address so I can ask them how they came up with the flood occurring in 4990 bce. I've read the Old Testament extensively. I must've missed that part... every single time, go figure.

[quadz]

I'd like an email address so I can ask them how they came up with the flood occurring in 4990 bce. I've read the Old Testament extensively. I must've missed that part... every single time, go figure.

Turns out they have a web site, featuring this snazzy GIF image, absolutely stunning in its painstaking craftsmanship:

Website:  www.familyradio.com/index2.html

This appears to be the full version of the wall of text in their advertisement:
www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/judgment/judgment.html

[QwazyWabbit]

I see several motivations for the professing Christian to desire to know the day and hour of judgement.

1. See, I told you so. (for those who correctly predict it)
2. The desire to know a "secret" revelation.
3. The desire to be a member of a club of "insiders". (I'm included, I'm special; you are not.)
4. The intent to have some kind of power over others.
5. Knowing the date is far enough in the future that their mortal life will be over before the judgement and they can look forward to resurrection.
6. As members of the insiders they can look upon and feel superior to others who don't hold the same ideas and "knowledge".

[|iR|Focalor]

6. As members of the insiders they can look upon and feel superior to others who don't hold the same ideas and "knowledge".

I think that probably describes just about every single conventional and unconventional religion or belief system right there, staunch atheism included.