maybe im not sure but i guess it could be real
no but if yes this god is a jerk
yes but i do wonder sometimes if its true
You're contradicting yourself. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, like you said. Why do we have to have a god to create matter? Why can't matter be eternal instead, or something like that?
Also god never came from anywhere. He is eternal. There is no misconception in the understanding of it. We're just saying that you can apply the eternal aspect of things to the universe instead of god.
Are you saying if matter came about from magic then god doesn't exist? lol
Nothing comes from magic. Everything has a reason. There are some theories about where matter came from, but I wouldn't be the one to explain them. Are you aware of the Big Bang Theory?
[Reference: last post wins]
[Reference: last post wins]
[Reference: last post wins]
I am very happy that Poozy actually backed his post up with some facts.
Again, I appreciate you posting a link and backing up your argument.http://www.ucm.es/info/investig/divu...s_%20today.pdf
Summary: By crushing and grinding you can convert a mix of left and right hand isomers into just left hand isomers. An action that would have happened constantly in the violent nature of primordial Earth.
Blackie, there are lots of papers like this, PHYSICAL ways of converting a group of isomers into left hand isomers rather than chemical ways.
In the first place, I really don't have a problem with your process; as with polymerization, and Rammjets recent mechanism, you have an adequate amount of facts. What you are lacking is application; while its alright to show that racemic crystals can overcome chirality in highly specialized conditions, you cannot then apply that to your primordial earth and say "aha" we have an explanation of how amino acids formed proteins.
In the first place, the solvent used in this experiment was methanol and some other chemical; on earth, the solvent would predictably be water. So already there, your assuming you'll get the same results in water as you'll get with methanol. Additionally, this process requires a catalyst so again, your assuming that a catalyst existed on the early earth. This link explains the problems of this mechanism very well: http://www.uncommondescent.com/biolo...ystals-really/
Quoting from it:
Much as the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that it is possible to produce insignificant yields of a very few biologically important monomers in a laboratory device, Noorduin et al. demonstrated that chemists are capable of producing enantiomerically pure crystals under laboratory conditions. This laboratory technique fails to show a mechanism by which enatiomerically pure solutions of all 20 amino acids used in protein construction may have existed before the advent of life, not to mention the other chiral molecules found in living things.
I say abiogenesis is unlikely because the mathematical odds against life happening are astounding. To me, if you really can prove abiogenesis, we don't need to worry about the formation of proteins, just throw a lot of amino acids and anything else you need into some closed environment that replicates the earth. All you need to do to prove abiogenesis is to create a single cell that can replicate. The interesting thing about this is that you cannot even do that; you cannot even create some of the most simple living things. If life can be created naturally as you claim, why hasn't it been created yet? Its the easiest thing in the world for origin of life scientists to do, just mix amino acids together and "voila" you create a fully functional cell. The most devastating facet of abiogenesis is the fact that it cannot recreate life; in fact, it cannot even overcome some of the most fundamental basic problems; such as chirality. In fact, chirality is just the tip of the iceberg; you still have protein order, enzyme formation, DNA, RNA, self assembly of cell parts, cross-reactions that kill cells, atmosphere of the earth, the conditions of the earth such as temperature or weather, and much more.Also I don't know why you're arguing blackie, you don't understand what you're talking about and you don't know the facts - what is the point of arguing when you're just going to keep on saying '10% likely 60% likely' etc etc?
The reason I don't accept abiogenesis is that there is no known process that can create life from a bunch of molecules in some warm pool; there is simply no way you can get past this single fact. You can mix your molecules as long as you want in any conditions, but you simply will not re-create life.
As for me not knowing what I'm talking about, I'd like to point out that on the single problem of chirality, you have come up with 4 "solutions" that are not valid whatsoever. Rammjet proposed enzymes, polymerization, and optical isomerism. You just brought up your idea, and I personally don't find it very convincing at all.
Before you propose a mechanism, research the pros and cons of its argument.
Pr2: Rank 35 Hats:9Pr3: Rank 37 Hats:11
If this thread never existed I am positive Ramm and Blackie's post count would be chopped in half.
To me there is no "god". I believe religion was created to answer the questions of "What's the meaning of life?" and such. I could write 5 pages about my opnions but i'll be fine with a "No! I do not believe in god".
http://www.Sieni.us/?id=38 <- Click this or I will kill you.
Šopyrighted by JaŠob Grahn
Why do people even bother discuss this topic?
Neither Atheists or Christians will ever change opinion.
I am just here to have a good laugh. Because the things people say are ridiculous.
No matter what I just said, It was shit and it was real.