Does god exist?

[Blackie6789]

I did not say polymerization took millions of years :p Polymerization in of itself only produces strands of amino acids. It is up to these amino acids to actually combine with other amino acids to eventually form proteins. That is what would take millions of years.

[Rammjet]

I did not say polymerization took millions of years :p Polymerization in of itself only produces strands of amino acids. It is up to these amino acids to actually combine with other amino acids to eventually form proteins. That is what would take millions of years.

A protein is an amino acid polymer, you seem to be confused about that. Just like plastic is a hydro carbon polymer.

You didn't understand what I meant when I said 'the emergence of life takes millions of years', I'm saying that from the first amino acids and nucleotides forming naturally, to the emergence of the first proto-cells would probably be a very long time. The reactions in between don't take so long, nor is the reaction process entirely linear.

[Rammjet]

A video profile of one of the UK's best known physicists, brian cox, who produces documentaries which concern a lot of the science people in this thread so rarely understand.

[Dolan Duck]

I really don't see how people can so passionately believe in their religion in this modern day. Sure, maybe a few hundred years ago it was ok but these days we know how things work and how things grow. In medieval times a simple answer for everything would be "God". "God" makes the sun come up in the morning and "God" makes the sun go down at night. "God" makes things grow and makes things die. These days, these can be explained by the Earth's rotation of the sun or by things like photosynthesis.

Sure, hundreds of years ago having "God" and "Heaven" gave people something to live for; something good to come out of a hard life but now we have our lives pretty easy and we don't need these fantasys to get us through our lives.

[Blackie6789]

-the nature of a chain can determine the probability of the next constituant.
-some polymers are more stable than others therefore more likely to form
-amino acids are by definition blessed with two functional groups, that's why they're amino acids, and that's why they form zwitter-ions
-experiments with clay catalysts herralded the production of amino-acid polymers, wow it really works.

I have no problem with the above statements. My problem with your idea is that unifunctional monomers will terminate an amino acid chain. Considering that the ratio of unifuntional monomers compared to bifunctional monomers in the primordial soup, that really decreases the chance of a protein forming. Furthermore, it doesn't require just one protein to make a cell, you have to make several hundred proteins; all functioning correctly and in the right order.

According to 'me' [or rather scientists] what you need to make life is an earth sized planet covered in oceans and clay beds, with a lot of spare nutrients, in the vacinity of a nice warm star.

Why couldn't you replicate these conditions in some closed environment and create life then? [Obviously smaller]

Do amino acid-polymers hydrolyse? Well, let's make this clear: the hydrolysis of proteins [not dissolving, but breaking up] requires alkali and acid catalyst, if you think that it's easy to destroy proteins like this, I dare you: get some silk and wash it, according to you it should 'dissolve' in the water. Come on, blackie, think about the absurdity of your claims; you're suggesting that cotton should dissolve when washed, that sheep should melt in the rain, etc

Perhaps the reason why sheep do not break down in rain is because without a catalyst, hydrolysis is an extremely slow process. Quoting from Wikipedia:
The peptide bonds in proteins are metastable, meaning that in the presence of water they will break spontaneously, releasing 8-16 kilojoule/mol (2-4 kcal/mol) [1] of free energy, but this process is extremely slow.
I would like to point out;however, that in your hypothesized millions of years scenario, hydrolysis would destroy your amino acid chain.

Additionally, the tendency of your primordial soup is not to become more complex, but to become disordered. If you put a frog in a blender with some clay or something, in a millions years, it won't turn into a frog again; in fact, it won't even turn into a single cell. In a more realistic situation, if you could somehow break a cell and spill its contents into a vial with anything else you need, it would not self assemble back into a cell; in fact, the DNA, RNA, and other components that are needed for life wouldn't last long at all. And this is just in a closed environment. In the hypothetical primordial soup, there would be cross-reactions that would be hazardous to life which would destroy amino acids, and in general decrease the chance of life forming. So hydrolysis is not the only thing that discourages proteins forming naturally.

People ask why theists are so passionate about God? Maybe after evolution came out scientists could explain everything naturally; however, new evidence has come within the last decade that questions atheism, and supports the idea of divine interference. Theism is not just religion, it is slowly turning into a scientific hypothesis.

In the discoveries of science the harmony of the spheres is also now the harmony of life. And as the eerie illumination of science penetrates evermore deeply into the order of nature, the cosmos appears increasingly to be a vast system finely tuned to generate life and organisms of biology very similar, perhaps identical, to ourselves. All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology - that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as a fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact...Four centuries after the scientific revolution apparently destroyed irretrievably man's special place in the universe, banished Aristotle, and rendered teleological speculation obsolete, the relentless stream of discovery has turned dramatically in favor of teleology and design, and the doctrine of the microcosm is reborn.

-Michael Denton, Phd in Biochemistry from King's College London

[Rammjet]

Cells didn't originate with all the modern protein structures they had today, can we just make that clear?
Amino acids polymerise naturally, and can then be selected and used by self-replicating molecules to increase their likelihood of survival, there's a long line of evolution between that and the first modern cell.

You can't easily replicate the conditions of a primordial planet perfectly because the scales are geographical; large areas and long time periods are required, rather than test tubes.
Since when was everything about replication anyway- a court of law doesn't insist that a murder be repeated in order to justify the guilt of murderer, a set of finger prints on the murder weapon is usually sufficient.


Did you notice that I already told you catalysts were required? Furthermore you're just assuming the correct catalyst was around to break down amino acid polymers. We've proven the correct catalyst was around to make them [clay is the catalyst in this case], so even if they were also being broken down an equilibrium would form, guaranteeing a certain percentage of a primordial swamp would consist of amino acid polymers. :]

The tendency actually is more order, because the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the earth, because the earth is not a closed system [it gets solar energy from the sun and radioactive heating from its core]. Anyway a frog in a blender would actually produce an ecosystem of bacteria and scavengers, but the example is incredibly childish anyway.
Your 'hypothetical swamp' is probably based on one of stanley miller's experiments, let's make it clear he has updated his experiments several times since that happened, what you're trying to argue is that 'cakes cannot bake!' because somebody once burnt a cake.

DNA wasn't around at the beginning of life blackie, seriously now? DNA is an advanced molecule which has evolved so it can only survive inside its host, so don't expect it to start re-making a whole cell for itself if you denucliate a cell and spread its genes over some petri.
Some bio-chemists are however trying to make self replicating molecules, but it's very difficult when you're working in a testube rather than a whole planet's oceans. [in any case, if they succeeded you'd just claim it was evidence that life had to be designed intelligently, so you're not proposing an idea with a falsifiable vice anyway]

Let's take a look at micheal denton, shall we? Is michael denton a creationist? No- he's not trying to argue for creationism, he's trying to argue for a divine origin of life with a mechanism of 'planned' evoluton.

Were michael's books recieved well and supported by his peers? No they weren't, not at all.

Did some idiots mistake michael's books for creationism propaganda and use them to start the ID movement? yes they did.

Was the ID movement based on an incorrect interpretation of michael's books criticised and publicly denounced by the scientific community in court in 2007? Yes it was

[Rammjet]

-This might be a double post, but seriously: Michael denton's argument wasn't agreeing with yours, and his hypothesies are not supported by his peers, do you just think that by quoting 1phd student you'll summon power of authority?

It doesn't work that way; to get power of authority you need to show the scientific community is in a general consensus, not that 1 or 2 scientists somewhere vaguely think something which might be viewed as a bit similar to your post.

[Nedron]

Are you guys seriously STILL arguing about this? It's becoming fairly evident that no one is going to change their minds; instead of bickering all the time why not just accept each others beliefs? I get that part of the point of this thread is to present your ideas of why you believe what you do, but most of the people who are still posting on this thread are people who have already presented their idea; a lot.

Besides, most, if not all, of the people here are not going to change their minds because some person(s) on the internet said a bunch of stuff, no matter how right or persuasive.

[PooZy]

Are you guys seriously STILL arguing about this? It's becoming fairly evident that no one is going to change their minds; instead of bickering all the time why not just accept each others beliefs? I get that part of the point of this thread is to present your ideas of why you believe what you do, but most of the people who are still posting on this thread are people who have already presented their idea; a lot.

Besides, most, if not all, of the people here are not going to change their minds because some person(s) on the internet said a bunch of stuff, no matter how right or persuasive.

People have changed their minds actually

[Rammjet]

Are you guys seriously STILL arguing about this? It's becoming fairly evident that no one is going to change their minds; instead of bickering all the time why not just accept each others beliefs? I get that part of the point of this thread is to present your ideas of why you believe what you do, but most of the people who are still posting on this thread are people who have already presented their idea; a lot.

Besides, most, if not all, of the people here are not going to change their minds because some person(s) on the internet said a bunch of stuff, no matter how right or persuasive.

Actually suuper changed his mind, anyway if you don't think it's worth discussing you don't have to discuss it- nobody's forcing you to come here.

[Nedron]

Actually suuper changed his mind, anyway if you don't think it's worth discussing you don't have to discuss it- nobody's forcing you to come here.

Okay, fair enough. But... I can't help but notice that you guys seem... obligated... to represent whatever it is you are representing.

Rammjet, just a question: What is your reason for wanting to prove your beliefs correct?

Look, you don't have to answer but I'm just curious. If I know, then I would understand better the purpose of this discussion...

[Parvej2*]

I dont, personally i believe my faith shoudn't be questioned in real life, and when asked, i give this exact reply:
God MAY exist but i dont find any photographic proof of him, therefore what is there to believe, all the holy scriptures have writing, but none the less prove nothing about gods existence, why shall i believe in such a creature of power when i have nothing to base my beliefs on? Possibly if scientific evidence of god erupt, i may possibly decide to believe in it/he/she.

[Rammjet]

Okay, fair enough. But... I can't help but notice that you guys seem... obligated... to represent whatever it is you are representing.

Rammjet, just a question: What is your reason for wanting to prove your beliefs correct?

Look, you don't have to answer but I'm just curious. If I know, then I would understand better the purpose of this discussion...

My aims in this thread are to
-Show there is no god, because that's what the thread is about
-To prevent people from deliberately contorting science and politics to fit their god into it.

You'll see, scrolling through this thread, that a lot of people have an incredibly bad understanding of science and incredibly prejudiced political views, because they don't accept any ideas which contradict their gods. I think that's awful and I want to oppose it.

[Nedron]

My aims in this thread are to
-Show there is no god, because that's what the thread is about
-To prevent people from deliberately contorting science and politics to fit their god into it.

You'll see, scrolling through this thread, that a lot of people have an incredibly bad understanding of science and incredibly prejudiced political views, because they don't accept any ideas which contradict their gods. I think that's awful and I want to oppose it.

I have more of a clear understanding of this now. Except

because that's what the thread is about

... because actually, this thread is about discussing the existence of Him, which means there are people who want to oppose you.

That's just me being technical.


I think one of the reasons this thread is still going is because the creation of the world is a tricky subject (of course you guys are way past that now, lol). There's lots of potential evidence that shows what could've happened X thousand/million/billion years ago, but we can't know for sure. Unless if we could find a way to actually see what happened, it would give a better understanding; but our technology is unable to do that as of now.

Example: You say there's proof of the big bang because heat radiation particles exist and have existed at "random place". It could have easily been anything else. It's even possible that the big bang did exist, but didn't create everything. There could've been existing life, planets, etc. millions of lightyears away already, and the Big Bang only created a part of the universe. Maybe there's more than one big bang.

I'm not really putting much thought into that example, but there's many, many possibilities as to why some kind of evidence shows what it does. The big bang could be only one possibility of the many. Yes, even God is only ONE possibility of the very lots of possibilities (or very few, depending on what the evidence is).

I'm too lazy to make a conclusion paragraph, so FIN

[PooZy]

I have more of a clear understanding of this now. Except



... because actually, this thread is about discussing the existence of Him, which means there are people who want to oppose you.

That's just me being technical.


I think one of the reasons this thread is still going is because the creation of the world is a tricky subject (of course you guys are way past that now, lol). There's lots of potential evidence that shows what could've happened X thousand/million/billion years ago, but we can't know for sure. Unless if we could find a way to actually see what happened, it would give a better understanding; but our technology is unable to do that as of now.

Example: You say there's proof of the big bang because heat radiation particles exist and have existed at "random place". It could have easily been anything else. It's even possible that the big bang did exist, but didn't create everything. There could've been existing life, planets, etc. millions of lightyears away already, and the Big Bang only created a part of the universe. Maybe there's more than one big bang.

I'm not really putting much thought into that example, but there's many, many possibilities as to why some kind of evidence shows what it does. The big bang could be only one possibility of the many. Yes, even God is only ONE possibility of the very lots of possibilities (or very few, depending on what the evidence is).

I'm too lazy to make a conclusion paragraph, so FIN

You should read up about scientific theory, it actually goes surprisingly in deptch and there is a lot of evidence both mathematical and scientific

[Rammjet]

Nedron, please- all you're demonstrating at the moment is that you have no idea what the big bang is about.

[Nedron]

Nedron, please- all you're demonstrating at the moment is that you have no idea what the big bang is about.

That's the thing; I wasn't talking about the big bang at all.

I mentioned it.


Side note: I'm starting to realize how dumb my username sounds.

[Suuper]

Actually suuper changed his mind, anyway if you don't think it's worth discussing you don't have to discuss it- nobody's forcing you to come here.

Just thought I'd point out that I was very doubtful of it before I came here, this thread only helped confirm my suspicions that God didn't exist.

But I do seem to remember one or two others changing their beliefs. Too lazy to go back and check, though.

[Rammjet]

Just thought I'd point out that I was very doubtful of it before I came here, this thread only helped confirm my suspicions that God didn't exist.

But I do seem to remember one or two others changing their beliefs. Too lazy to go back and check, though.

I suspect most people who come here and change there minds are like you were.

[DaFlamingPotato]

Just thought I'd point out that I was very doubtful of it before I came here, this thread only helped confirm my suspicions that God didn't exist.

But I do seem to remember one or two others changing their beliefs. Too lazy to go back and check, though.

Same thing here really. I don't remember if I was already a non-believer or if I became one after this thread, but it certainly helped.