|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, rki),
390
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: jcl]
#69231
06/15/06 02:35
06/15/06 02:35
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Before I even get back to anything else, let's just get this out of the way. Hydrolysis can effect organic molecules just like it can effect inorganic molecules. Quote:
At first glance, the RNA world hypothesis seems implausible because, in today's world, large RNA molecules are inherently fragile and can easily be broken down into their constituent nucleotides with hydrolysis. Even without hydrolysis RNA will eventually break down from background radiation. (Pääbo 1993, Lindahl 1993).
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/RNA%20world%20hypothesis
They mention, as a solution, the synthetic-only PNA molecule.
The website I got the quote in the post above this from is wikipedia. But unfortunately I found it through google and can't remember what I typed in to get that specific entry. Hang on...
Duh, here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
I kept searching for biogenesis instead of origin of life, which is why I couldn't find it. 
Quote:
Hydrolysis is a chemical process in which a molecule is cleaved into two parts by the addition of a molecule of water. [...] In the discussion below, the focus is on hydrolysis of organic compounds, but one should bear in mind that there are also many well known examples of inorganic hydrolysis.
Now, based on what I'm reading on these unbiased (towards creation anyway) websites, the worst that can be said of me is that I've been mislead.
Quote:
Do I understand right that now not thermodynamics, not oxygen, not UV rays, but enzymes killed the early peptids?
Well, technically thermodynamics don't do anything. Its just an explanation of why (not how) pretty much everything happens in the universe.
Ultraviolet rays are dangerous, but won't do anything to pre-life in the water. That's why I mentioned hydrolysis.
Thermodynamics only comes into the picture explaining the flow of energy that causes the molecules to break down into simpler forms. Not the cause of the energy, of course, which you seem to think I'm saying. But that's besides the point.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/15/06 02:36.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: jcl]
#69233
06/15/06 23:31
06/15/06 23:31
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I guess I just supposed the RNA World hypothesis was the one that everyone assumed made the most sense.
I suppose this will complicate my arguments against random biogenesis.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: capanno]
#69238
06/26/06 21:24
06/26/06 21:24
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
This topic is probably going to slow down now that we've split biogenesis into another thread. So changing the name would be rather pointless.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/26/06 21:24.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Science vs Wack Jobs
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69239
10/12/06 13:42
10/12/06 13:42
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
A.Russell
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
|
Evolution is a science, creation is superstition (i.e. outside of your fundamentalists' [censored] up brains there is no positive evidence of creation -just the reverse "it's so complicated that only a supreme being -the supreme being of the dogma that has brainwashed me- could have created it all!").
Last edited by A.Russell; 10/12/06 13:44.
|
|
|
Re: Science vs Wack Jobs
[Re: A.Russell]
#69240
10/12/06 15:21
10/12/06 15:21
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Its not science vs creation, its evolution vs creation.
Why? If science is the method to disprove creation, then 'science vs. creation' is a good title. Yes, evolution might be the opposing theory in general, but there's more science that could or actually is discrediting parts and or the whole of creation, not just the 'evolution theory' alone.
Quote:
Evolution is a science, creation is superstition
I totally agree. Infact, I really can't grasp their basic idea of, there's got to be "something devine creating everything from nothing without any evidence supporting our theory", but accepting random spontaneous creation of matter? I don't think so. Lol.
Repeat after me: It's "Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I am thinking, therefore I exist"). It's not "Deus creat, ergo sum". How the hack could you end up concluding that?
It's getting old, I know, but being created by a God simply is not logical. And, no not everything that's unlogical is untrue, but in this particular case, how could we even know for sure?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
