PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Origin of Life - Continues
       Uracil - key building block

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NASA researchers have shown that Uracil, a key component or RNA, can be produced naturally under condition found in space.

NASA Reproduces A Building Block Of Life In Laboratory


"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."


and another co-author of the paper had this to say:

[b]
"Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," explained Sandford.
[\b]

It's interesting to observe that as more research is done we are finding more natural pathways by which life's molecular building blocks can be formed - without the assistance of some supernatural entity, I might add.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:49 PM on November 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:49 PM on November 11, 2009 :
It's interesting to observe that as more research is done we are finding more natural pathways by which life's molecular building blocks can be formed - without the assistance of some supernatural entity, I might add.


That is one of the reasons I hate God of the gaps arguments. Not only is it a horrible argument for the existence of God, as a theist I think it is very limiting in how one perceives God. Personally (from a theist perspective) I think it is very dangerous to start thinking in such a way; to box in God to only the unknown diminishes God's power. I think such thinking will ultimately destroy a person's faith if they decide to not be willingly ignorant of history and science.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:30 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 04:30 AM on November 12, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 11:49 PM on November 11, 2009 :
It's interesting to observe that as more research is done we are finding more natural pathways by which life's molecular building blocks can be formed - without the assistance of some supernatural entity, I might add.


That is one of the reasons I hate God of the gaps arguments. Not only is it a horrible argument for the existence of God, as a theist I think it is very limiting in how one perceives God. Personally (from a theist perspective) I think it is very dangerous to start thinking in such a way; to box in God to only the unknown diminishes God's power. I think such thinking will ultimately destroy a person's faith if they decide to not be willingly ignorant of history and science.



Fencer, interesting point.  

And I will ask, does advancing scientific knowledge leave room for a theist belief?  Perhaps that depends on how restrictive that belief is.  A confined and preconcieved notion of God is going to lead to obvious conflict with growing scientific knowledge.  We certainly see this happening with biblical literalists.

But knowing that evolution is true, and believing that life arose in a naturalistic fashion, that doesn't really take away the awesome wonder I feel when I see the tremendous diversity of life around us.  Scientific inquiry has revealed beautiful natual processes, evolution being one of these.  I think one can look at evolution and embrace theist belief that includes a far more ingenious, and dynamic, God than the one depicted in the Bible.

Scientific knowledge advances over time, in a sort of self-correcting process as we learn new things.  Science is dynamic.  Perhaps theistic thought should follow the same process, be dynamic rather than static.  The Bible can be a start, but it doesn't have to be the final word.

 


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:44 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 04:30 AM on November 12, 2009 :

That is one of the reasons I hate God of the gaps arguments. Not only is it a horrible argument for the existence of God, as a theist I think it is very limiting in how one perceives God. Personally (from a theist perspective) I think it is very dangerous to start thinking in such a way; to box in God to only the unknown diminishes God's power. I think such thinking will ultimately destroy a person's faith if they decide to not be willingly ignorant of history and science.



Indeed.

Those gaps keep getting smaller and smaller - soon the fundamentalist will have to rejoice in God's ability to explain why rap music is popular!




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:23 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I will ask, does advancing scientific knowledge leave room for a theist belief?  


Not from the atheistic evolutionist's point of view - in fact that is why he subscribes to the evolution theory, to get rid of God (the God of the Bible that is).

Perhaps that depends on how restrictive that belief is.


You mean whether the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God or not.

A confined and preconcieved notion of God is going to lead to obvious conflict with growing scientific knowledge.


As would an a priori  belief in naturalism when the evidence starts to contradict it at every turn.

We certainly see this happening with biblical literalists.


As we see it with atheistic evolutionists.

But knowing that evolution is true, and believing that life arose in a naturalistic fashion


Would this be 'knowing' or 'believing'.

Scientific inquiry has revealed beautiful natual processes, evolution being one of these.


What is beautiful about evolution?

I think one can look at evolution and embrace theist belief that includes a far more ingenious, and dynamic, God than the one depicted in the Bible.


AAh there we go, the anti-Christ spirit enters.

Perhaps theistic thought should follow the same process, be dynamic rather than static.


What if evolution is a lie and the truth remains the truth, no matter what you prefer to believe?




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:39 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What if you cut it out with posts that lead to nothing and start addressing your dodges?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:56 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 07:44 AM on November 12, 2009 :
Fencer, interesting point.  

And I will ask, does advancing scientific knowledge leave room for a theist belief?


While many choose to become atheist, I think that science does leave room for theistic belief. I think the statistic is about 40-50% of scientists are religious, and I don't think that would be the case if there was no room for theism. Since science is the study of the natural only, I don't think it will ever be in conflict with theism, although theism may have to change.

Perhaps that depends on how restrictive that belief is.  A confined and preconcieved notion of God is going to lead to obvious conflict with growing scientific knowledge.  We certainly see this happening with biblical literalists.


Most definitely. I think Galileo hit it right on the head when he said the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. When we ascribe what the Bible has said in regards to the physical universe, I say we do both religion and science a disservice. I also feel that doing so with any religious text will have the same effect.

But knowing that evolution is true, and believing that life arose in a naturalistic fashion, that doesn't really take away the awesome wonder I feel when I see the tremendous diversity of life around us.  Scientific inquiry has revealed beautiful natual processes, evolution being one of these.  I think one can look at evolution and embrace theist belief that includes a far more ingenious, and dynamic, God than the one depicted in the Bible.


Many TE's have embraced such thinking. To look at the natural beauty of the universe and the systems that make it so can be immensely awe inspiring for the theist. Often I feel sorry for the literalist in that they can never accept the creative process by which God has created life, its diversity and the universe itself.

Scientific knowledge advances over time, in a sort of self-correcting process as we learn new things.  Science is dynamic.  Perhaps theistic thought should follow the same process, be dynamic rather than static.  The Bible can be a start, but it doesn't have to be the final word.


I think the idea of a religion being static is very emotionally appealing, and somewhat misleading. Religion has been evolving since the beginning of its existence. While I admit that changing my beliefs might be too difficult for me, if mine are wrong I hope those in the future abandon it for something closer to the truth, and perhaps one day the truth.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 09:08 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An evolving religion is an admission that it doesn't have the Truth. Lester couldn't deal with that.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:16 AM on November 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:16 AM on November 12, 2009 :
An evolving religion is an admission that it doesn't have the Truth. Lester couldn't deal with that.



Yes, that would seem so to many people.  But does that mean that a religion has to remain static and unchanging?  You then become hostage to out-dated ideas and ethics.  And that's what we see happening today in some areas of the population.  Take, for instance, gay rights (in the USA).  There is a major faction of the American population that opposes the idea that gay couples should have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples.  This opposition has its basis in Biblical views.

But it would certainly be false to say that all Christians share that view.  For many, their ethics HAVE evolved to accept new standards.  And as Derwood pointed out earlier, the Bible's views on slavery and treatment of women is certainly less than admirable.  How many Christians today (including YEC) support biblical views on slavery and treating women as property?  So, for even many YEC's, their ethical views have 'evolved' to accept new standards different from what the Bible presents.  At least in some areas.  

So I don't really see a problem with someone whose perception of God evolves as their understanding of the world matures and grows.  

But, as you say, many people can't handle that, and so they can't move beyond an outdated worldview.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:03 PM on November 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An evolving religion is an admission that it doesn't have the Truth.


That's right. If you believe that truth 'evolves', it is as good as saying that there is no truth but what we think it is or prefer to believe at the moment.

Lester couldn't deal with that.


Lester thinks that makes a mockery of the very concept of truth.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:14 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
wisp
An evolving religion is an admission that it doesn't have the Truth. Lester couldn't deal with that.
Yes, that would seem so to many people.
And myself.
But does that mean that a religion has to remain static and unchanging?
If it claims to have the Truth, yes, yes it does.
You then become hostage to out-dated ideas and ethics.
Exactly!
And that's what we see happening today in some areas of the population.
Certainly.
Take, for instance, gay rights (in the USA).  There is a major faction of the American population that opposes the idea that gay couples should have the same basic rights as heterosexual couples.  This opposition has its basis in Biblical views.
Indeed. And it's horrible. And the reason why they still hold to some concepts of that primitive religion is that it has evolved. It has become nicer in some respects, while remaining a worthless piece of crap in others. You let it evolve, and you have to keep putting up with the crap.
But it would certainly be false to say that all Christians share that view.
I know. But they should. They should also stone people to death for working on Saturdays, or drop that silly religion. THAT should be the choice.

If THAT was the choice, people would have dropped it long ago, and gays would have their rights.

For many, their ethics HAVE evolved to accept new standards.
For many, their ethics HAVE evolved to stop stoning people to death. Thanks to that they can keep discriminating.
And as Derwood pointed out earlier, the Bible's views on slavery and treatment of women is certainly less than admirable.
Yeah, disgusting.
How many Christians today (including YEC) support biblical views on slavery and treating women as property?
Alas, not many. I wish more did. Discriminating against gay people is not enough to make Christianity die out.
So, for even many YEC's, their ethical views have 'evolved' to accept new standards different from what the Bible presents. At least in some areas.
Exactly my point. If no evolution was allowed within Christianity people would drop it altogether, and EVERY area would meet the new standards.

So I don't really see a problem with someone whose perception of God evolves as their understanding of the world matures and grows.
Me neither. Mine has. But not within any religion (certainly not within a religion that claims to come from the word of some god, and to have the ultimate Truth).

I do see a problem with an evolving religion that claims to have the Truth.

That claim is essentially bigotry. Bigot religions should die.
But, as you say, many people can't handle that, and so they can't move beyond an outdated worldview.
Too bad that a person can't. Too good that a religion can't.

In many respects i prefer Lester over Fencer. Good and honest guys make a religion look good too, even when it's garbage.

I prefer extremists. A religion that claims to have the Truth cannot compromise. No middle ground. No fence-sitting. That's not an option. We're talking about the Truth here!

Lester
An evolving religion is an admission that it doesn't have the Truth.
That's right. If you believe that truth 'evolves', it is as good as saying that there is no truth but what we think it is or prefer to believe at the moment.
Exactly!! You're so very right on this one, Lester.

But, since we agree on this one, now it's time for you to reckon that you don't like Science. Because that's what Science is, basically. An everchanging model of a reality that nobody knows for certain.

Disgusting, isn't it? Say it! =D

Lester couldn't deal with that.
Lester thinks that makes a mockery of the very concept of truth.
I'm not sure i follow. If you respond to the previous quote, then i do.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:25 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:14 AM on November 13, 2009 :
An evolving religion is an admission that it doesn't have the Truth.


That's right. If you believe that truth 'evolves', it is as good as saying that there is no truth but what we think it is or prefer to believe at the moment.


Lester and his ilk prefer to simply deny those stupid things called facts and evidence and observation and lack of corroboration in favor of a never-yielding belief that their ancient tall tales are 100% true.

It leads to all manner of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy, but that is what such folk need to feel safe.

Pretty sad.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:50 AM on November 13, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.