Utopia Talk / Politics / Where is your God now?

nhill Member	Sun May 31 06:34:24 Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory. Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed. "It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday. RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant. However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients - a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases - ribonucleotides just wouldn't form. Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature. "By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth." Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland's team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth's primordial ooze. They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it. At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland. According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pond" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone." Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis." Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland's team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites. "Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Nekran Member	Sun May 31 06:37:27 Interesting :)
Camaban Moderator	Sun May 31 06:37:57 Very
iii Member	Sun May 31 07:16:53 maybe, you may laugh about this in a couple of yrs. seen that too many times :) "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" "then we added ribonucleotides and later we had ribonucleotides" - corrected
Jeddediah Wilkins Member	Sun May 31 10:19:00 That's great. Highly educated scientists can spend millions of dollars, decades of research and vast resources to create a HIGHLY CONTROLLED laboratory experiment and come up with organic compounds, after taking extremely complicated and intricate steps that involves such common, ordinary things as water, sugar, a petri dish, a heat lamp, and - OH DID I MENTION- radioactive material? YEAH this totally proves that a murky pond that was zapped by lightning is where life started.
River of Red Cells Member	Sun May 31 10:31:01 Just drink water and eat well, and your body can easily recreate any DNA or RNA it needs. This "science" of yours is fucking bullshit.
lucifer Member	Sun May 31 10:41:20 well, Brahma's been around for quite a while now, and he's pretty god damned tired of all your bullshit. you think he's going to show up, and answer questions from some pretentious git like you, who thinks he understands 'it all' becoz he threw together some bits of crap in the lab? I think right now, he's probably sitting back with a scotch and dry, and watching you, having a little chuckle, before he goes off to create a new universe without pretentious gits.
MrBBonz Member	Sun May 31 10:44:39 So they know how it happened? Or they think they do. But they cant recreate it at all?
lucifer Member	Sun May 31 10:58:15 "murky pond that was zapped by lightning is where life started" yes, but who created the murky pond, and why did the lightening strike. I guess Brahma was having a bad day after creating something a little more significant, then came back and saw what a mess he'd made, and tried to tidy up a bit.
Aeros Member	Sun May 31 11:09:49 Well, if we take things at face value, God is a sentient being and we possess similar abilities, since we were "made in his image". I fail to see what this disproves, other then that its so complex an "accidental" creation makes no sense.
lucifer Member	Sun May 31 11:15:07 'we were "made in his image"' oh give me a break, you're still quoting 'christian' scriptures, and thinking you've got an idea of GOD?
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun May 31 11:17:44 ^ actually that is not a christian scripture, it is a Semitic verse
lucifer Member	Sun May 31 11:31:49 I had my annual visit to the noody bar, about two weeks ago. I spent about $300 on young nubile girls, dancing before my very eyes, and rubbing their tits in my face. when your scientists can 'create' something as perfect as the body of an 18YO in a glass container, let me know. I'll order 1/2 dozen.
Aeros Member	Sun May 31 12:34:45 Who spends 300 bucks on strippers?
lucifer Member	Sun May 31 12:49:59 personaly, I'd rather spend 300 bucks on the hottest young bods dancing around in my face, than that same amount on street ho's sucking my nob like a hoover. thats only an hour with 3 different girls
Hrothgar Member	Sun May 31 16:59:35 The only thing that man made creation of life or aspects of it proves is creationism.
Nimatzo Member	Sun May 31 17:24:50 This is awesome =) All science have to do is to show that it is possible for it to occur and this is THE step. Very interesting indeed.
River of Red Cells Member	Sun May 31 17:27:16 Oh yeah right. Try not drinking for 4 days and then tell me if this RNA creations works.
nhill Member	Sun May 31 17:32:17 Nobody has answered my question. Where is your fucking god now? Why is he allowing this to take place? =)
Nimatzo Member	Sun May 31 17:35:41 Jeddediah Wilkins AKA JB from muzzlol already crushed your scientific article by explaining why it is LAUGHABLE to even THINK that such a COMPLEX!!! process could ever take place naturally. He is an idiot though so I guess we can disregard his post.
River of Red Cells Member	Sun May 31 17:37:03 I made a bet with god. I told him to try and not drink for 4 days. I'm afraid he didn't make it, and died because of the disease known os dehydration.
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 17:38:45 lol, nim, I'm still waiting on him to give evidence about dinos existing in humanity's time, using a non-creationist source. I'll die before it happens; more reason for why I quit that shithole.
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 17:39:39 instead of admitting he was wrong he just... stopped answering about anything related to the topic.
Nimatzo Member	Sun May 31 17:44:24 That was like last fall or something, was it not? What is fun about JB is that he "barges" into the thread claiming all kinds of expertise and then when he is called out on it, he mysteriously disappears, when reminded he promises to come back when he isn't so busy. At some point you are "forced" to forget, because well, you have shit to do. When you remind him 7 months later, he claims he answered everything and PWNED you. That you are welcome to start a new thread about it. But seriously why would you do that? To repeat the above process a second time??
Nimatzo Member	Sun May 31 17:47:23 I am done debating evolution with idiots that use arguments that the CREATIONIST site answersingenesis.com explicitly tells Christians NOT to use. If you fail to follow "modern" creationist guielines that, say what you will, have at least reached SOME level of sophistication, then seriously kill yourself.
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 17:47:34 *nods and shakes head and sighs*
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 17:48:54 heh they really say that? amusing
Nimatzo Member	Sun May 31 17:54:59 Yes, things like. "Evolution is JUST a theory" and "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" or "the thickness of dust on the moon proves a young earth" how about "there are no transitional fossils"? There is a whole list of arguments they say Christians should NOT use. Which not surprisingly lists about 95% of the arguments you hear from Christians. NO JOKE.
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 17:56:03 http://www...rs/topic/arguments-we-dont-use ya found it, lol
Judeo Christian Bot New Member	Sun May 31 17:59:13 Scientist claim that evolution takes place over millions of year. If you had read the bible, you would know earth is not even 10,000 years old, therefore, even if evolution is possible, the earth is not old enough for it to have happened
Aeros Member	Sun May 31 18:05:59 The Bible attaches no dates to its time line. Any dates that are established are pure conjecture
nhill Member	Sun May 31 18:08:03 The Bible is a bedtime rag used to scare kids willy nilly into doing what priests want. Dropping their pants and spreading their asscheeks wide. Kinda like that little Iraqi boy you fucked, Aeros, just a little less forced. (for context, of course)
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 18:08:21 Some of the bible (OT) can be accurate about certain events. Such as sentences like "at the day the king X from country Y was crowned, this or that happened". While the country Y has accurate record keepings.
Nimatzo Member	Sun May 31 18:09:13 Ahh read this one Asgard, these are BAD arguments according to this christian site in the debate over God/faith vs Atheism. Do they or don't they list 99% of the arguments that are brought up by religious people? LOL! http://www.skepticalchristian.com/badarguments.htm
Judeo Christian Bot Member	Sun May 31 18:10:05 count backwards and you get a pretty accurate date. Start with the death of jesus and just count back. It might not be perfect, but it does PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that earth is to young for evolution to have really started yet
Asgard Member	Sun May 31 18:18:29 "It is often claimed that atheists have no morals, and thus atheism should be rejected. However, it is untrue that atheists have no morals. Some atheists lead relatively, if not exemplary, moral lifestyles." Spoken by a theist? wow, exemplary! Never had I encountered a theist admit that.
habebe Member	Mon Jun 01 06:59:17 My god? is wrapped with rubberbands in a safe. Your god? he is crashing in my spare room, he's worn out from the fooseball marathon...
Nekran Member	Mon Jun 01 14:14:38 "Spoken by a theist? wow, exemplary! Never had I encountered a theist admit that." Guess you guys have rather radical theists... around here you'd be hard pressed to find a theist who believed otherwise.
Nekran Member	Mon Jun 01 14:14:55 Or who would express that belief out loud anyways... :)
Nimatzo Member	Mon Jun 01 16:02:34 I have to agree with Nekran, most Swedish Christians I have known have truly been what they preached and that is not judging amongst other things.
Asgard Member	Mon Jun 01 16:07:54 Other than the very few and awesome northern European countries where Atheism is considered the norm, that isn't too relevant.
kargen Member	Mon Jun 01 16:12:32 "Nobody has answered my question. Where is your fucking god now? Why is he allowing this to take place? =)" Your 2nd question answers the first. He is allowing this to take place. Your 2nd question is answered simply. Free will.
Nimatzo Member	Mon Jun 01 16:15:16 nhill should have worded his OP a bit better. What this exeriment shows is that life is possible without the interference of any supreme being. Life can form spontaneously in the universe.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jun 01 21:04:44 ^ yet this occured through the careful calculations of a scientist. If anything this is more evidence for an intelligent design theory.
nhill Member	Mon Jun 01 21:25:58 ^lol and the rationalization has begun. how typical
Camaban Moderator	Mon Jun 01 21:30:21 >>^ yet this occured through the careful calculations of a scientist. If anything this is more evidence for an intelligent design theory. << Recreating an environment that would have been expected to occur naturally when the earth was young. (An environment which is probably fairly impossible with the earth as it is today)
mexicantornado Member	Mon Jun 01 23:52:56 I often wonder why atheists are so vehemently against the intelligent design theory. Why are you so desperate to try and prove God doesn't exist when there is nothing you can do that can disprove him and even still you attack anyone who believes in a God when you have zero evidence to support your own beliefs. It is so crazy to think that nothing can become anything. It is far more likely that there is some self aware force that started it all and we are simply playing it's game. And yes, this experiment proves nothing. I'd be impressed if a scientist was able to create a room with nothing in it and left it alone. If a big bang occured in that room then I'd be more inclined to believe the atheist rational, but that can never happen. Food for thought - space is quite empty, why hasn't there been another big bang recently? Why would the cycle of nothing = something not continue throughout time?
Camaban Moderator	Tue Jun 02 00:09:40 >>I often wonder why atheists are so vehemently against the intelligent design theory. Why are you so desperate to try and prove God doesn't exist when there is nothing you can do that can disprove him and even still you attack anyone who believes in a God when you have zero evidence to support your own beliefs. << Because ID gets passed off as science and gets used as a way of inserting god into the classroom... It isn't. It's also not a theory. I'm not even sure if it's a hypothesis. >>It is so crazy to think that nothing can become anything. It is far more likely that there is some self aware force that started it all and we are simply playing it's game. << That has nothing to do with evolution, which is what ID is about. >>And yes, this experiment proves nothing. I'd be impressed if a scientist was able to create a room with nothing in it and left it alone. If a big bang occured in that room then I'd be more inclined to believe the atheist rational, but that can never happen. << It proves that what looks like a basic building block of life can occur under the conditions we would expect earth to have when it was young. >>Food for thought - space is quite empty, why hasn't there been another big bang recently? Why would the cycle of nothing = something not continue throughout time? << Dunno. What's this got to do with evolution and the beginnings of life?
Camaban Moderator	Tue Jun 02 00:13:45 >>And yes, this experiment proves nothing. I'd be impressed if a scientist was able to create a room with nothing in it and left it alone. If a big bang occured in that room then I'd be more inclined to believe the atheist rational, but that can never happen. << To make this a bit clearer, it provides evidence that there's yet another thing for which divine intervention isn't required.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Tue Jun 02 00:15:25 "Where is your God now? " barbados.
Camaban Moderator	Tue Jun 02 00:16:26 >>barbados. << Actually a suburb of Brisbane called Karana Downs, but whatever. Same rock.
kargen Member	Tue Jun 02 01:36:52 "It proves that what looks like a basic building block of life can occur under the conditions we would expect earth to have when it was young." The wrench in the works, or the fly in the pudding being without God there would not be an Earth, nor the conditions needed for life to begin. Give a scientist nothing and see what he does with it. The truth is we still have nothing proving one way or another how ths whole ride got started.
Camaban Moderator	Tue Jun 02 01:40:04 >>The wrench in the works, or the fly in the pudding being without God there would not be an Earth, nor the conditions needed for life to begin. Give a scientist nothing and see what he does with it. The truth is we still have nothing proving one way or another how ths whole ride got started. << Which isn't what this is about. This is about abiogenesis, not genesis. If you've ever participated in one of these debates, you must know the difference. All this article is doing is saying that there's evidence that yet another thing doesn't need divine interaction to make it happen.
kargen Member	Tue Jun 02 02:11:06 "All this article is doing is saying that there's evidence that yet another thing doesn't need divine interaction to make it happen." No, what it does is show that devine interaction need not take place beyond the earliest creation. Look at the title of this thread. The gist of the thread being no God is needed for life to have begun. The article assumes conditions that can't be explained. The short being in the eyes of those that believe God or a devine being created the universe this breakthrough does nothing to hinder or disprove their beliefs. From a scientific standpoint this is really cool. Beyond that it isn't all that breathtaking.
Camaban Moderator	Tue Jun 02 02:15:35 >>No, what it does is show that devine interaction need not take place beyond the earliest creation. Look at the title of this thread. The gist of the thread being no God is needed for life to have begun. The article assumes conditions that can't be explained. << No arguments here. Although I'm not sure why you said no there, as we pretty much said the wrong thing. It's just that you inserted God into a remaining gap. >>The short being in the eyes of those that believe God or a devine being created the universe this breakthrough does nothing to hinder or disprove their beliefs. From a scientific standpoint this is really cool. Beyond that it isn't all that breathtaking. << So can you point me to the church that prays to the actual God of the gaps?
Nimatzo Member	Tue Jun 02 03:21:15 >>I often wonder why atheists are so vehemently against the intelligent design theory.<< You can wonder all you want, the topic has been discussed to many times here that even if you were ignorant prior to those discussion you should be now understand why people guided by reason and science laugh at ID.
Nimatzo Member	Tue Jun 02 03:30:36 >>It is far more likely that there is some self aware force that started it all and we are simply playing it's game.<<< Really? Far more likely? How many %? Where is the math for this? I keep seeing people claiming probabilities left and right and no math. Now it might be so and I can agree that it is more intuitive to imagine that everything has a creator. Intuition however has no bearing on the truth value of a subject. Intuition tells me that I can not stand on a spherical object being hurled through space at couple of thousand km/h.
Viral hemorrhagic fever Member	Tue Jun 02 03:32:29 intuition tells you gravity does not exist nim? ROFL!
Nimatzo Member	Tue Jun 02 03:36:46 What the fuck is this gravity you are talking about?
Nekran Member	Tue Jun 02 05:33:05 "It is so crazy to think that nothing can become anything. It is far more likely that there is some self aware force that started it all and we are simply playing it's game." God or no god... either something came from nothing, either something was always there. There's no winner when it comes to that one. When it comes to explaining adaptive complexity though, postulating it from the start is pretty silly, whilee evolution is pretty damn solid and the various theories on abiogenesis are at least senseful.
Asgard Member	Tue Jun 02 06:41:57 Mexitard: "I often wonde" Stopped reading right there.
Asgard Member	Tue Jun 02 06:42:09 wonder*
Aeros Member	Tue Jun 02 06:45:39 Atheism is the belief that in the beginning there was nothing...which exploded and created everything.
nhill Member	Tue Jun 02 06:47:36 Not even close, Aeros.
Asgard Member	Tue Jun 02 06:48:32 Aeros, don't be an idiot. Right now you have lowered your esteem.
Nimatzo Member	Tue Jun 02 06:48:34 Nr 1. Atheism has nothing to do with cosmology. You can be an atheist and not accept the big bang. Nr 2. Why do you stupid creationist keep insisting with this word "nothing" that exploded? Where does anyone say that it was nothing?
nhill Member	Tue Jun 02 06:51:40 Aeros, Atheism is not even a belief.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: