Creation Talk, Origins, Species, and General Discussion

Do you Believe in creation.

We were created by God in his image
7
24%
We Were created by many Gods
1
3%
We are a computer simulation
2
7%
We are engineered by aliens
7
24%
We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it
7
24%
We have no way of ever knowing
0
No votes
We have no way of knowing, but only for now
4
14%
I do not really care
0
No votes
Gundum style
1
3%
 
Total votes : 29
Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 11:04 pm » by Constabul


Bleever wrote:Hey Const..science is a subject i have been more interested in.

I found this interesting, With the recent understanding of genetics and coding of DNA scientists now understand we seem to 'coded'. Since the 1950's when Watson and Crick first illuminated the chemical structure and information bearing properties of DNA, biologists have come to understand that living things, as much as today's high tech devices, depend upon digital information - information that, in the case of LIFE, is stored in a four character chemical code embedded within the twisting, figure of a double helix From this factual based info, the phrase 'information revolutions' was coined . - please do not confuse this with revolutions of human discovery or invention but revolutions involving dramatic increases in the information present within the living world itself.

Scientists now know that building a living organism requires information, and building a fundamentally new form of life from a simpler form of life requires an 'IMMENSE' amount of 'NEW' information. Scientists (or perhaps educated or emotionally based atheists) attempting to explain the origin of life must NOW explain how both information rich molecules and the cell's (keep in mind we also understand we have 6 feet of DNA code within each living cell, we are made up of over trillions and trillions of them - this is surely a feat only by God, and removes the 'Chance' component entirely) information processing system arose? Are we to understand it arose from 'nothing'??

I was hoping (sincerely) you might be able to shed light on this subject?

Would your view be more like Theistic Evolution?

God essentially began creation and the pulled back from working directly in creation to work instead through the natural process of evolution. The only exception here is God involving himself directly again in the making of the human spirit. This view accepts the hypothesis of evolution but seeks to insert God as the creator of matter and overseer of the evolutionary process.

The problem I run into here is in Genesis 1 - each species had 'offspring according to its kind".

Before we go too far off in this topic, do you believe in a eternal Creator of some sort?

EDIT---> For instance I believe you can create a rational argument for the existence of a eternal Creator without the worldview of Christianity. However, as far as I can tell, you cannot put together a rational argument for the existence of no Creator.


This is a starter, Replies to comments will flow from here.
Thanks Bleever for giving life to the idea of another discussion on these topics.

Hope many will join in, and put their opinions up for review. Hopefully tho we can stick to core topic.
Origin of life.
Origin of species.

The relevance of Darwin in the modern world of science. Would be another worth discussing. Since he is often the crust of the subject matter for those generally arguing on both sides.

Tho general discussion of any sort along the Creation realm is fine.
:cheers:
More to follow..
Image
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostSat Aug 10, 2013 11:43 pm » by Bleever


Thanks Const...let's see where this one goes. You know I began to ponder more and more, that how is it some people (like my mother-n-law) refuse to believe in a Creator. For the sake of this thread, and EVERYONE here knows I am a Christian God first type of guy, we can agree to set aside the belief of a religious God head.

Based on what I see as almost daily evidence that we were put here on this blue rock by design.

For instance I believe you can create a rational argument for the existence of a eternal Creator without the worldview of Christianity. However, as far as I can tell, you cannot put together a rational argument for the existence of no Creator.

I read a quote recently by an astronomer, Fred Hoyle, "claimed the probability of life arising on earth (by purely NATURAL means, without special DIVINE aid) is less than the probability that a flight worthy Boeing 747 would be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard."

Stephan Hawking - "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous. I think there are clearly (religious) implications"....furthermore..."It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just a way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us". (we could go on and on and even quote Darwin here, but lets cut to the chase).

So for this discussion we can welcome all, but do we have a resident Atheist who wishes to argue a rational argument for their belief?

I feel we must ask ourselves, how the eff did we get here, and why. Because this aint random, we are designed by and programmed by a Creator.
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:59 am

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:06 am » by Constabul


Quick reply to the last questions first.

Would your view be more like Theistic Evolution? No my view would not be at this point. Tho further explanation is needed i believe.

I think it is a decent step process for people of creation belief to be able to start to adapt an involve the scientific realm into their theological belief.
There are issues present for those of the christian persuasion in using this. Ultimately it is untrue by the teachings of the bible. An this hurdle means, abandoning what it teaches, to following a subjective version unique to your own life. Most occurrences in the past like this have just been called denominations. Tho while the changes of, you do not have to pay for repentance of sin, or you can read your own bible were big steps, and a big deal in the past. It is something completely different then humans are a branch of hominid, and that creation force made it all. Ergo we are made of the same things the stars are.

To have the generic belief there is some creation force unseen at work, which started the events in motion to get use where we are.. I tend to put more thought into, but once you start trying to name that force, and attribute actions, of a character.. like say jesus to this force. It loses any an all credibility of being approached in a scientific way or discussion.


Do you believe in a eternal Creator of some sort?
the way i think of it is, I do not feel the need for one. Nor do i, due to lack of understanding feel the need to impose one for my own sake of ego. The term eternal is another bit i would have a problem with. I'm sure you have seen the discussions on infinite regress. Throwing the word eternal does not put a finite period to an infinite conundrum. It is sposed to be of infinite proportions, yet finite in its own existence.. meaning the source of itself.

People are claiming the unlikely nature of chemicals forming and the proper environment to give way to single cell organisms yet want a fairytale origin of their creator. I personally run into logical issues with this.
Do I believe in one, No, not as conceptualized by vary creative humans. DO I think there is no creator?
I think this is a good point to clarify. Creation describes a process, Creator describes a 'person' (loose term) doing the creation process. Can there be one without the other? Science endeavors, to answer this question. My needs do not demand an answer at this moment. We know more about it today then we did twenty years ago, or 200, or 2000 years ago. (BY our own recorded history. Not what my thoughts of it all are.)

My thoughts are. I Know, I know Nothing.
In that life is a learning process. No one book, or books for that matter are going to give me the answers i seek. No person who claimed to live 2000 ish years ago is telling me anything. They are long dead. You only have your faith in what is written, was even said. Which has less to do with living or life, than many realize.
I'm classified by theological reasoning, as agnostic. My philosophy of life is loosely rooted in taoism. But to practice the Tao, Is not following the way of Tao, In my humble opinion. So while being familiar with it. I live life as it happens.


In the other thread I mentioned, The only easy, short answers are the ones that really do not answer anything.



This being said, now will go over some science, and how in my opinion they apply as best i can. I'm a slow responder when trying to convey information. So :cheers:
Last edited by Constabul on Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image

Conspirator
Posts: 1544
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:18 pm

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:09 am » by Doogle


Bleever wrote:Thanks Const...let's see where this one goes. You know I began to ponder more and more, that how is it some people (like my mother-n-law) refuse to believe in a Creator. For the sake of this thread, and EVERYONE here knows I am a Christian God first type of guy, we can agree to set aside the belief of a religious God head.

Based on what I see as almost daily evidence that we were put here on this blue rock by design.

For instance I believe you can create a rational argument for the existence of a eternal Creator without the worldview of Christianity. However, as far as I can tell, you cannot put together a rational argument for the existence of no Creator.

I read a quote recently by an astronomer, Fred Hoyle, "claimed the probability of life arising on earth (by purely NATURAL means, without special DIVINE aid) is less than the probability that a flight worthy Boeing 747 would be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard."




Stephan Hawking - "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous. I think there are clearly (religious) implications"....furthermore..."It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just a way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us". (we could go on and on and even quote Darwin here, but lets cut to the chase).

So for this discussion we can welcome all, but do we have a resident Atheist who wishes to argue a rational argument for their belief?

I feel we must ask ourselves, how the eff did we get here, and why. Because this aint random, we are designed by and programmed by a Creator.



Sorry Bleever, but I am going to regress back to elementary level, purely for directness.
Who created the creator? You see, some say the evidence apparently points to a creator, so surely said creator must follow the same laws. No?
Last edited by Doogle on Sun Aug 11, 2013 12:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:30 am » by Bleever


I think we are boldly faced with a Deistic worldly view based on space time theorems telling us there must be an agent beyond space and time that is responsible for bringing into existence this universe of space time matter, and energy.

This transcendent agent is not an impersonal entity that created space, time and the laws of physics it must be a personal being.

If it is a personal relationship, this would be a worldly game changer. If this deity is non personal, then why? Why all this?
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:32 am » by Noentry


Resurrected protein's clue to origins of life

Image
The earliest life would have survived at more than 100 C

New reconstructions of ancient proteins have provided clues to the habitat and origins of life on Earth.

The resurrected protein is thought to have existed almost four billion years ago in single-celled organisms linked to the earliest ancestor of all life.

The protein survives in the extreme environments of high acidity and temperature expected on early Earth and, intriguingly, also Mars.

Spanish and US scientists reported their study in the journal Structure.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor formed on Mars and transferred to Earth”

Professor Jose Sanchez-Ruiz Granada University

Gene sequences in a protein called thioredoxin, taken from a wide variety of modern organisms, were analysed and placed in an evolutionary context - locating them on a molecular-scale tree of life - to chart their progression from their primordial forms.

First, computer analysis was used to determine how modern genetic sequences developed from original codes, so the ancient DNA sequences in the protein from as far back as four billion years ago could be determined.
Ancestral code

They then used modern bacteria to convert the ancient gene sequences into a chemically active protein that could be measured to determine its molecular structure and the properties of the ancient protein.

The thioredoxin protein is an enzyme which can break sulphur bonds in other molecules and has a number of metabolic functions in cells. It is shared by almost all life on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to complex animals including humans, indicating that the ultimate single-celled ancestor of all life on Earth would also have had the gene.

Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: "A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.

"If our ancestral sequences were incorrectly inferred by having a single mistake, that could have led to a dead gene. Instead, our approach created biochemically active proteins that fold up into three dimensional structures that look like modern protein structures, thus validating our approach."
Thioredoxin of the earliest bacterium Protein folding has survived billions of years

The group used molecular clocks to date the evolutionary branches back in time and linked them to geological changes in Earth's environment.

Changes in the protein's length appeared to occur in fits and starts, with its helix structure suddenly lengthening at the point that cells started to develop a nucleus (the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote), paving the way for higher life.

The results suggest that biological systems might evolve at the molecular level in discrete jumps rather than along continuous pathways, as has been suggested from studies of the evolution of species.
Hell on Earth

The group studied how well the ancient thioredoxin coped with heat, and found that it survived temperatures of more than 110 C, as well as being stable in acidic environments.

"We have looked at a number of gene families now, and for all of them, we find the most ancient proteins are the most thermally stable. From this, we conclude that ancient life lived in a hot environment," Prof Gaucher told the BBC.

The early Earth was a hostile environment for life. It was hellish, and the first geological eon on Earth is termed the "Hadean" after Hades, the ancient Greek god of the underworld. Before four billion years ago it is thought that Earth suffered heavy bombardment from meteorites. It is likely that any atmosphere that survived was hot and possibly acidic four billion years ago.

The ancient protein's properties indicate that it may have been adapted to that environment. It shares features with "extremophiles" - bacteria found today in extreme environments like hot springs and even at depth within Earth's crustal rocks.

It may be that the only life that survived that heavy bombardment were the forms that could cope with high temperatures and energies, like this ancient protein.
Alien resurrection?

Another intriguing possibility, although not discussed in this study. is that the ancient protein came to Earth having formed at an earlier time on another planet.

In particular, recent evidence from Nasa's Curiosity rover suggests that Mars may well have been a more conducive place for life to develop than Earth during the first 500 million years of the Solar System, before four billion years ago.

Many Martian meteorites have landed on Earth, with our planet acting like a local gravitational vacuum cleaner.

"Four billion years ago Mars was a much a safer place than Earth. Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor (the first life) formed on Mars and transferred to Earth," commented Prof Sanchez-Ruiz
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23591470


Origin of life is about the right blend of elements and water.
God is no longer needed to explain our origins all we need do is learn.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:12 am
Location: The loving arms of Christ Jesus

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:42 am » by Bleever


Noentry wrote:Resurrected protein's clue to origins of life

Image
The earliest life would have survived at more than 100 C

New reconstructions of ancient proteins have provided clues to the habitat and origins of life on Earth.

The resurrected protein is thought to have existed almost four billion years ago in single-celled organisms linked to the earliest ancestor of all life.

The protein survives in the extreme environments of high acidity and temperature expected on early Earth and, intriguingly, also Mars.

Spanish and US scientists reported their study in the journal Structure.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor formed on Mars and transferred to Earth”

Professor Jose Sanchez-Ruiz Granada University

Gene sequences in a protein called thioredoxin, taken from a wide variety of modern organisms, were analysed and placed in an evolutionary context - locating them on a molecular-scale tree of life - to chart their progression from their primordial forms.

First, computer analysis was used to determine how modern genetic sequences developed from original codes, so the ancient DNA sequences in the protein from as far back as four billion years ago could be determined.
Ancestral code

They then used modern bacteria to convert the ancient gene sequences into a chemically active protein that could be measured to determine its molecular structure and the properties of the ancient protein.

The thioredoxin protein is an enzyme which can break sulphur bonds in other molecules and has a number of metabolic functions in cells. It is shared by almost all life on Earth, from the simplest bacteria to complex animals including humans, indicating that the ultimate single-celled ancestor of all life on Earth would also have had the gene.

Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: "A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.

"If our ancestral sequences were incorrectly inferred by having a single mistake, that could have led to a dead gene. Instead, our approach created biochemically active proteins that fold up into three dimensional structures that look like modern protein structures, thus validating our approach."
Thioredoxin of the earliest bacterium Protein folding has survived billions of years

The group used molecular clocks to date the evolutionary branches back in time and linked them to geological changes in Earth's environment.

Changes in the protein's length appeared to occur in fits and starts, with its helix structure suddenly lengthening at the point that cells started to develop a nucleus (the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote), paving the way for higher life.

The results suggest that biological systems might evolve at the molecular level in discrete jumps rather than along continuous pathways, as has been suggested from studies of the evolution of species.
Hell on Earth

The group studied how well the ancient thioredoxin coped with heat, and found that it survived temperatures of more than 110 C, as well as being stable in acidic environments.

"We have looked at a number of gene families now, and for all of them, we find the most ancient proteins are the most thermally stable. From this, we conclude that ancient life lived in a hot environment," Prof Gaucher told the BBC.

The early Earth was a hostile environment for life. It was hellish, and the first geological eon on Earth is termed the "Hadean" after Hades, the ancient Greek god of the underworld. Before four billion years ago it is thought that Earth suffered heavy bombardment from meteorites. It is likely that any atmosphere that survived was hot and possibly acidic four billion years ago.

The ancient protein's properties indicate that it may have been adapted to that environment. It shares features with "extremophiles" - bacteria found today in extreme environments like hot springs and even at depth within Earth's crustal rocks.

It may be that the only life that survived that heavy bombardment were the forms that could cope with high temperatures and energies, like this ancient protein.
Alien resurrection?

Another intriguing possibility, although not discussed in this study. is that the ancient protein came to Earth having formed at an earlier time on another planet.

In particular, recent evidence from Nasa's Curiosity rover suggests that Mars may well have been a more conducive place for life to develop than Earth during the first 500 million years of the Solar System, before four billion years ago.

Many Martian meteorites have landed on Earth, with our planet acting like a local gravitational vacuum cleaner.

"Four billion years ago Mars was a much a safer place than Earth. Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor (the first life) formed on Mars and transferred to Earth," commented Prof Sanchez-Ruiz
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23591470


Origin of life is about the right blend of elements and water.
God is no longer needed to explain our origins all we need do is learn.


Noentry wrote:Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor formed on Mars and transferred to Earth”


Maybe...or maybe not...

Where did get this from?

Noentry wrote:Origin of life is about the right blend of elements and water.
God is no longer needed to explain our origins all we need do is learn.
Jesus died our death so that we may receive His life.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:50 am » by Noentry


Noentry wrote:Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor formed on Mars and transferred to Earth”

Bleever wrote:Maybe...or maybe not...

Where did get this from?


Noentry wrote:Origin of life is about the right blend of elements and water.
God is no longer needed to explain our origins all we need do is learn.


The first quote was a side quote on the page that got into the copy and paste.

The second quote is my belief based on up to date scientific knowledge.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8122
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 12:53 am » by Noentry


I voted

We were the culmination of many processes to make life as we know it.

Seems the most accurate description for the origin of life.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:54 am

PostSun Aug 11, 2013 1:27 am » by SonOfGodEternalFlame


Science is math!

Evolution=0 out of nothing came everything. 0 can not produce. 0x0=0,0+0=0,0/0=0'0-0=0.
I have a better chance at hitting power ball every day of my life than the chance of evolution
ever being the cause of all. Now evolution of adaptation is real Animals Adapt it's a genetic code
for survival.

Creation=1 (GOD) I AM THAT I AM. 1x1=1,1+1=2,1-1=0 if take god out of the equation it = 0
Something not of this physical universe a higher power created this universe and can enter into this
universe. Now which law of this universe apply to its creator can a painting tell the painter what to imagine
Can your eye's tell where the universe begins or ends or is your ideas just theories. Eternity is past the comprehension of mortal beings. The question of an everlasting creator is more realistic for all life and
the universe than a mere evolution theory. You cling to nothing when god is everything you need.


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook