[quote]haney wrote:
“The idea that molecules could spontaneously organize themselves into living proteins is as likely as a tornado passing through a junk yard beside a Boeing aircraft plant accidentally creating a working 747 airplane. If you brought together all the carbon molecules in the universe, the chances of them spontaneously reacting to form a single perfectly sequenced protein are about 1 in 10 to the 60th power, Bradley said.”
Fred Hoyle [/quote]
Add to that the fact that “life” has never been duplicated or created since and it points to there being a power strong enough to create life in some form regardless of what you believe. Since we have yet to find that power in the entire universe (it isn’t solar power that creates life…nor wind power…or electicity), somehow it is beyond some people that a greater power could have donated that gift. I could see the attempt to make believers appear to be morons if life was a force that could be created in a test tube or any other form for that matter. Life itself is a force that we have no equivilence for. Nothing on Earth creates it(aside from other living creatures through procreation which is not true creation)…so where does that logically leave us?
Evolution is far from a fact. See my above statements concerning scientific method. The things you say of intelligent design also apply to evolution.
Evolution is a change in genetic make-up over time.
This is an indisputable fact.
Again, there is no evidence for intelligent design, just a literal interpretation of the bible.
The theory of evolution has evidence, lots and lots of it.
To prove it wrong, you must prove the evidence for it wrong.
Intelligent design has no evidence.
None.
[/quote]
there is obviously a difference in view of what ?evolution? is here. Changes within a species is obviously fact- and this is a change in genetic make-up over time. Such changes are called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, includes a change of species. This concept has little to no more supporting evidence than intelligent design.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Da Man and Prof X –
Have you guys studied relativity and quantum theory? I took the introductory class for physics back in college, and I have never had my mind blown so completely apart.
At any rate, I agree with what you guys have said about the concept of being outside of time, as well as what Prof X said way back above about the Bible not being precisely literal. One can believe the Bible was divinely inspired overall without having to believe that the minds of the authors were capable of writing things about quantum theory and the concept of time back in 3000 BC. It would seem to me that the text would be constrained by the ability of the author to use language to express the inspiration.
Switching from beginning to end to play on that theme, think about Revelation. If one starts from the premise that John had a vision, how would someone from 2000 years ago describe all those things with which he had no experience? Interesting to ponder (although some people take it way too far…).
Anyway, I’m off to the gym – good stuff to ponder during the warm up.[/quote]
BB, I have been into quantum theory since the days of quarks?. Like Prof, I was a weird kid studying stuff like evolution and singularities and relativity. Actually, it is from such studies that my belief in a higher power came. My Christian beliefs are more from my heart and soul, however.
I have actually had discussions like what you speak of. I am into science fiction as well, and have read some stories that relate to such things. How would a person from 3000BC describe an automobile? Hell, how would someone from 1500 AD describe it? Language and cultural limitations show themselves everyday in todars society, and in efforts to describe things that exist today. How does someone with an intellect that is likely closer to a 5th graders than a scientist describe the concept of space-time? How would they describe dimensions?
Things to ponder, indeed. And I thought I was the only one that thought about such things while warming up?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
One can believe the Bible was divinely inspired overall without having to believe that the minds of the authors were capable of writing things about quantum theory and the concept of time back in 3000 BC. It would seem to me that the text would be constrained by the ability of the author to use language to express the inspiration.
This point is why the bible has survived as long as it has (even though what we currently relate to as the Bible is not a collection of all of the books that were written). One concept is, If one of us were allowed to see far into either the Future or to see every aspect of a Black hole or alternate reality, what words would we use to describe it…based on our 2004-2005 knowledge of the world? I apologize to some if this seems extremely “sci fi”, but if you are to dispute the presence of a higher presence or intelligence, you need to at least have some concept of the large findings that go against everything we know to follow the laws of physics on this planet. You can’t jump out and claim you have it all figured out and there is no God…unless you can explain what that huge vortex is that has no beginning and no end yet attracts so much matter that it sucks light away.
Science has explained very little on this planet. We still have over 2/3 of this planet unexplored because much of it is under water. Even the concept of muscle contraction is a THEORY. Dentinal tubule pain is a THEORY. Science can’t explain what life even is yet so many are ready to throw out the concept of there ever being a higher being that intervened and started it.
It amazes me how arrogant some people are to throw out ideas and concepts simply because they can’t hold it or completely understand it. In the middle ages, it was believed that decayed meat turned into maggots. They thought it was a magical process. Imagine how stupid we will look to humans 1,000 years from now (if we are still here).[/quote]
Very well said, Professor X.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Science deals with evidence, as often produced through experimentation. Reproducing evolution is about as unreasonable as creating a star, but physicist have deduced how it happens.
[/quote]
There is something of a problem, and a major one I believe. Scientists have not PROVEN the process of a stars creation and lifetime, they have only THEORIZED. The same is true for evolution. As a matter of fact, there is still some dispute in the scientific community about certain stages of a stars life cycle. Not to even mention singularities or string theory?.
speaking of presupposition?. The ideas you state above presuppose that all life is similar to the life present on earth- carbon based/organic. I truly do not understand why this is the case. Why does all life have to be carbon based? Why not silicon? Chlorine? Any other host of elements?
Prof X: There may be life on one of Saturn’s moons. Titan has a thick organic atmosphere, and astrobiologists theorize that conditions there may be suitable for life. A probe is dropping of Cassini and will plunge through the atmosphere, taking samples. Also Europa may have a liquid water ocean under it’s frozen crust, could be interesting to see what’s in there!
speaking of presupposition?. The ideas you state above presuppose that all life is similar to the life present on earth- carbon based/organic. I truly do not understand why this is the case. Why does all life have to be carbon based? Why not silicon? Chlorine? Any other host of elements?
[/quote]
Well, life does not have to be exactly the same as on Earth. But it is a reasonable assumption, after all what we have here is all we know of life in the entire universe! So I believe sciece is just with what it knows to be true, as far as what chemicals life is composed of. Of course, this is very earth-centric, and this may not be the case for life everywhere in the cosmos. Life on earth is composed mainly of carbon nitrogn, hydrogen and oxygen. These are not the most common elements on earth, but they are 4 of the 6 most common in the visible universe. So, it’s likely that life elsewhere is made of these elements, because they’re basically everywhere.
Life would also need to be made out of atoms that can allow complex structures to exist. Carbon can have up to 4 atoms attached to it at a time, and it forms the backbone of all but the simplest molecules in life, such as proteins and sugars. Silicon also allows up to 4 atoms at a time. The problem is silicon bonds rather strongly to other atoms. Carbon is relatively weak, meaning carbon molecules can break apart and form new types as they collide and interact, essential to any life form’s metabolic process. Most silicon bonds can lat for millions of years, making it hard to rearrange them. This does not rule out silicon though, just that it may be more likely that carbon will form the base for whatever other life we may eventually find. It’s pretty unlikely that something like germanium (also bonds 4 atoms) will be used in other life like we use carbon due to its scarcity in the cosmos.
Well, life does not have to be exactly the same as on Earth. But it is a reasonable assumption, after all what we have here is all we know of life in the entire universe!
To-Shin Do[/quote]
Actually, at its base, it would be completely UNreasonable for life in its simplest form to be confined to carbon based biology and molecular structure. Like I said above, instant life would first even need a WILL and drive to survive for any other theory to be viable after that. First, where would this “desire” come from? Then, assuming it had the desire, instant life would attempt to adapt to its surroundings. It is a huge leap to assume that not only did life suddenly appear out of thin air…along with a “big bang”, but it also confined itself to only one planet in this solar system. The entire line of thought is unbelievable and would require even more faith in random chaos suddenly becoming grand structure than the faith required to believe in God. Yet, no one complains about that aspect if they happen to claim atheism. I think part of the problem is that many think of God as some “Santa-like” creature with a beard dressed in all white. This may make the concept hard to accept as it is to believe in the Easter Bunny. The truth is, we have no clue what “God” is truly like aside from the fact that the Bible states that we were created in his image…however, we don’t know what part of our creation is in his image. We only use 10% of our brain power (under normal conditions) and that passage could be speaking completely on a spiritual level. I would think the concept of aliens seedin this planet with life as more probable than life just appearing out of nowhere, yet never doing it again…EVER.
Toshindo,
I’m not sure that you ‘proved’ Borel to be wrong, but I agree that the result of his logic – miniscule probability equals didn?t happen (as posted here) isn’t quite right – or at least it’s not self-evident. However, the situation is not as bright as one might expect. Were all the carbon on earth in the form of amino acids, which it’s not, and they could react at a rate of 10^12 per second for a billion years (10^17 seconds – the greatest possible time between the cooling of earth and the appearance of life) the probability of forming a single biologically relevant protein is still extremely remote. (Best case scenario: the probability of getting the right amino acid in place in the protein is about 0.0125: each amino acid can bond in two ways (the right way and the wrong way, 50%) and each can be right or left ‘handed’ only one type is biologically relevant (50%). With 20 different amino acids in the mix the probability of getting the right one in place is about 1/20 or 5%. A small protein consisting of 100 amino acids represents a "random’ chance of 1/10^191. Proteins in the cell typically contain several hundred amino acids? and forget about talking about “random” formation of something as complex as a gene. And this doesn’t take into account competing reactions, reversible reactions, and preferred kinetic pathways which makes the problem even more challenging. Granted this doesn’t “prove” that it (formation of a protein by undirected, i.e., random, process) couldn?t happen. But it starts to make assumption of a “natural” process look a lot more like faith.
As far as the uniqueness of earth, once again it is easy for us to under-estimate how unlikely it is to find another planet with conditions suitable for advanced life. The conditions on earth are truly remarkable. A few characteristics of the sun-earth-moon system which make life possible here and unlikely elsewhere: 1. The number of stars in the system must be exactly 1 otherwise planetary orbits are too unstable to allow life formation. 2. The sun/star in the system has to be about the right age. If it is too young, it is not in its stable burning phase. If it is too old the burning again becomes unstable. 3. If it was a “new” star, then the stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements (carbon) to support life. 4. If it is too close to the center of a galaxy, the radiation from neighboring stars is too intense, if it is too far, it will not have enough heavy elements (iron) to make rocky planets. 5. If the planet is too close to the star (like mercury, venus) then the temperature is too high for a stable water cycle. If it is too far from the star (like all the rest), the temperature is too low for a stable cycle. 6) If the moon’s gravity is higher, the tidal effects on the atmosphere and oceans would be too severe, if it was lower, the obliquity of the orbit would be very unstable (like mars). 7) If the ozone level in the atmosphere is higher, the surface temperature would be too low. If it was lower, the radiation levels would be too high for life. 8) etc, etc there are many more. It is difficult to assign probabilities to all of these factors; however, some are rather straightforward. One estimate I’ve seen is 1 chance in 10^24 (or 1 in a trillion trillion). Given a universe with a few hundred billion galaxies, each with a few hundred billion stars, each with a few planets, the odds are that the earth is one of a kind.
As far as Europa is concerned, if there is liquid water beneath the frozen crust, that frozen crust is likely to be 500 feet thick so you can say good bye to sunlight and photosynthesis. Europa won’t even have SOY protein to say nothing of anything useful.
As far as the uniqueness of earth, once again it is easy for us to under-estimate how unlikely it is to find another planet with conditions suitable for advanced life. The conditions on earth are truly remarkable. A few characteristics of the sun-earth-moon system which make life possible here and unlikely elsewhere: 1. The number of stars in the system must be exactly 1 otherwise planetary orbits are too unstable to allow life formation. 2. The sun/star in the system has to be about the right age. If it is too young, it is not in its stable burning phase. If it is too old the burning again becomes unstable. 3. If it was a “new” star, then the stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements (carbon) to support life. 4. If it is too close to the center of a galaxy, the radiation from neighboring stars is too intense, if it is too far, it will not have enough heavy elements (iron) to make rocky planets. 5. If the planet is too close to the star (like mercury, venus) then the temperature is too high for a stable water cycle. If it is too far from the star (like all the rest), the temperature is too low for a stable cycle. 6) If the moon’s gravity is higher, the tidal effects on the atmosphere and oceans would be too severe, if it was lower, the obliquity of the orbit would be very unstable (like mars). 7) If the ozone level in the atmosphere is higher, the surface temperature would be too low. If it was lower, the radiation levels would be too high for life. 8) etc, etc there are many more. It is difficult to assign probabilities to all of these factors; however, some are rather straightforward. One estimate I’ve seen is 1 chance in 10^24 (or 1 in a trillion trillion). Given a universe with a few hundred billion galaxies, each with a few hundred billion stars, each with a few planets, the odds are that the earth is one of a kind.
As far as Europa is concerned, if there is liquid water beneath the frozen crust, that frozen crust is likely to be 500 feet thick so you can say good bye to sunlight and photosynthesis. Europa won’t even have SOY protein to say nothing of anything useful.[/quote]
Well actually the ice could be only 36 feet thick, or it could be over 2500 feet thick, we don’t know yet. But the lack of sunlight doesn’t matter that much. Here on earth we have life that thrives on the ocean floor, never seeing the light of day, ever. We also have microbes that live under the crust of the earth, eating minerals. Some microbes can survive gamma ray blasts that would fry us, and live in ultra-dry conditions. Lack of sunlight isn’t a barrier to life on earth, so I doubt it would be a barrier to other places either. The internal heat of Europa (fired by the tidal interplay of Io, Ganymede and Jupiter) is sufficient. That being said, life on par with us would probably need a planet similar to earth. But who knows for sure
Prof. X: I was not trying to imply that Earth is the only planet with life, I apologize if that’s what you thought. I personally would find it surprising if we turn out to be the only place in the entire universe that has life (it’s been said before, but what a waste of space!) Unfortunately I doubt we’ll find out for sure in my lifetime. Of course the very fact that you’re suggesting that life could be on other planets would have gotten you set on fire only 400 years ago! Giordano Bruno learned the hard way not to say stuff the Catholic Church doesn’t like.
A team of astrophysicists reported in July that deep space abounds with complex organic compounds that could have helped seed the origin of life. Radio emissions from Sagittarius B2, a nebula near the center of our galaxy, signal the presence of two previously undetected aldehyde molecules. Aldehydes help form amino acids, the fundamental components of proteins. “We’re finding that a lot of prebiotic chemistry is already transpiring in space long before a planet like Earth is formed,” says Jan Hollis of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Hollis and his team used the 100 meter Green Bank telescope in West Virginia to listen in on the weal, low frequency, radio emissions from clouds of rotating molecules. Each molecule produces a unique radio signature that identifies it. Using this technique, Hollis had previously identified several other organic molecules in space, including glycolaldehyde, a simple sugar. The two new compounds, propenal and propanal, show that the precursors of amino acids naturally form in the kinds of gas clouds that give rise to new starts. Comets could have deposited such molecules on the early Earth, in which case the birthplace of stars might also have been the cradle of life as we know it.
ToShinDo, I don’t think the issue is if the molecules are out there in space. the issue is…what is the force of life and how did it start. You can fill a room with every organic molecule known to man and it will not spontaneously start living.
So there is amino acids and carbs just floating around space. That is awesome, hopefully the boys at biotest can get up there and get enough free raw matrials to further lower there prices.
ToShinDo:
Well said… and understood that there are some chemicals to be found in space. You are obviously current on the searches for building blocks of life. I wasn’t saying that relevant chemicals don’t exist in nature - just that the assumption that they react in just the right way, at just the right place, in just the right time to form even just a simple protein strains credibility even with generous allowances.
Good point about microbes and stuff living in the dark, I’m sorry I oversimplified the argument. (Biochemistry is not my forte’ and soy protein is always good humor) However, the ‘energy’ that sustains life on earth in places where the sun don’t shine (read that as deep-sea vents, please) is oxygen (or other oxidants) transported by diffusion from the surface. If, as hypothesized, there is a liquid “ocean” under the surface of the crust, and if there was sufficient tidal heating to maintain it, it is still a stretch to assume that oxidants can be transported from the surface to sustain living organisms given that the thickness of the ice is more likely to be several miles thick based on images taken by Galileo and calculations by P. Schenk of the Lunar and Planetary Institute (Nature, vol 417, p. 419, 2002)
But none of this will convince anyone who has already made up his mind that it’s still possible. Nevertheless at some point you have to decide which way the evidence points or doesn’t point. I guess that’s the nature of faith.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ToShinDo, I don’t think the issue is if the molecules are out there in space. the issue is…what is the force of life and how did it start. You can fill a room with every organic molecule known to man and it will not spontaneously start living.[/quote]
…Prof. X: I was not trying to imply that Earth is the only planet with life, I apologize if that’s what you thought. I personally would find it surprising if we turn out to be the only place in the entire universe that has life (it’s been said before, but what a waste of space!)
…
[/quote]
Well, it could be a waste of space or it could be a proclamation of how much care (time, effort, whatever) a “God” took to create a place for us.
Prof X: The bible says a lot more about God than we were made in His image. (“The truth is, we have no clue what “God” is truly like aside from the fact that the Bible states that we were created in his image”)
Anyway, it says he created the universe, is intelligent, cares for humanity, etc. All of which is consistent with what we observe about our planet.
The more I learn about life the more amazing I find it to be.
[quote]T-Doff wrote:
Prof X: The bible says a lot more about God than we were made in His image. (“The truth is, we have no clue what “God” is truly like aside from the fact that the Bible states that we were created in his image”)
Anyway, it says he created the universe, is intelligent, cares for humanity, etc. All of which is consistent with what we observe about our planet.
The more I learn about life the more amazing I find it to be.
[/quote]
I believe the goal is to present most of these concepts or thoughts in ways that avoid basing them on pure emotion. It keeps those who greatly oppose the idea of God from claiming anyone who does continues to do so out of ignorance or routine. What I meant was, the Bible gives no PHYSICAL descriptions of God or what form “he” is in.
One thing that can be settled on by all is that the force of life on this planet had to be brought/given/donated to this planet from somewhere or something. Nothing on this planet creates life so the belief that life just appeared by itself once and only once is ridiculous and has no base in logic.
Evolution has been proven within a species but none has been observed to cross species. That means that concept is also a theory and not proven.
The Big Bang apparently only works if there is an absence of a center of the universe. The entire concept requires you to believe that the force of life was released once and only once at this point in time and that it was carbon based and landed on Earth where it became a single celled organism that eventually became every living thing on this planet. It also requires you to believe that every solar system in the universe was compressed into a single massive entity yet never questions what this entity was residing in before it exploded with a Bang. Along with that, it apparently requires you to believe that, out of the millions of planetary environments, life just decided that a carbon based life-form would make the most sense. Damn, and some think believing in God is crazy?
I believe the goal is to present most of these concepts or thoughts in ways that avoid basing them on pure emotion. It keeps those who greatly oppose the idea of God from claiming anyone who does continues to do so out of ignorance or routine. What I meant was, the Bible gives no PHYSICAL descriptions of God or what form “he” is in.
[/quote]
Gotcha. No physical description but still there are a number of attributes of character which, I believe, are part of our “image.” (BTW, I thought I was presenting my thoughts w/o emotion - - that’s always my GF’s complaint…)
I wouldn’t argue that there is “no” basis in logic, rather that logic would indicate that your conclusion is valid.
Life doesn’t “just appear”. Not here. Not anywhere.
While there is no certainty to this the idea of being created in His image is most likely in our ability to have Free Will. Something that no other creature we have come across has. That is the most probable way we are created in His image.
Which would explain why the Bible is in a constant state of showing us that we need to choose God, because He chose us.
One thing that can be settled on by all is that the force of life on this planet had to be brought/given/donated to this planet from somewhere or something. Nothing on this planet creates life so the belief that life just appeared by itself once and only once is ridiculous and has no base in logic.
[/quote]
Professor X –
I conceptualize it the same way you do.
I could be wrong, given how long it’s been since I was in chemistry, but this idea would seem to me to resolve the paradox of the idea of spontaneous generation of life with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which holds that systems left alone tend to greater states of disorder (lower states of energy). The life force you’ve been talking about, donated from God, would supply the energy and “will” (a hard concept for the lowest single-cell creatures and viruses (alive? non alive?)). My $0.02 anyway.
