Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[inaluct]

Stuff:
1. Macro and microevolution: yes. That third one: I have seriously never seen anyone make this claim. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, which is supported by scientific evidence, provides an explanation for the origin of life. Christianity does not provide scientific evidence for it's claims.
2. The embryo guy = Ernst Haeckel
3. You seriously didn't mention "darwin types" doing anything to persecute good God-fearing religious folk, etc. So I have no idea why you just jumped into that thing about religion being "assaulted."

Yesterday was my facetious day. I'm being serious this time. I sort of doubt that you are, but still. i srs this tiem

[Strife26]

Doesn't Abiogenesis violate cell law?

[inaluct]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. I think you might mean cell theory, and I'm unaware of abiogenesis violating it. Is that what you were talking about?

[Strife26]

Cell theory qualifies as Scientific Law, if I recall correctly.

One of the premises of it is,

Cells only result from other cells.


My major problem with evolution as a creation theory is where does that origional life come from?

If we'd like to ask what the most realistic reasoning behind 'life' is, I'd say that Diesm makes the most sense. God made life and then shuffled off. Not what I believe, but it makes a lot of sense.

[inaluct]

One of the exceptions to that part of cell theory is that the first cell did not come from a preexisting cell.

I'm just going to copy-paste a short section of Wikipedia here;

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

   1. Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primary of Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and Phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
   2. In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
   3. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
   4. A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
   5. The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
         1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
         2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
         3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

As far as I know, that's the most popular explanation.

Also, it's Deism. And there isn't any proof for it. Because there is absolutely no proof for these religious explanations, other ones that have some evidence backing them up are the ones that I (and many others) take seriously.

[deadlycairn]

But what you just posted is also a guess! It boils down to IF the atmosphere of the Earth was different then, it MAY have caused a chemical reaction that created life. You might as well say the RNG did it. Let's face it, until someone actually goes back in time and shows us what happened, there's no conclusive proof either way.

[inaluct]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that they've already found that rocks pre-dating the early Paleoproterozoic Era had much lower levels of oxygen than earlier rocks, which shows that earth used to have a reducing atmosphere. And the Miller-Urey experiment proved that such an atmosphere could give rise to the particles that life is created from.

Short article relevant to what the hell I am talking about.

[Strife26]

That seems to be a bit short of proof to me.

[inaluct]

How so? What you believe has even less.

[deadlycairn]

... I'm pretty sure neither of us (Strife or me) have said what we believe. I merely find our current scientific theories as to how the world began somewhat lacking, as they depend on chance as much as anything else.

[inaluct]

Strife said he was Lutheran-ish.

Also, it doesn't really rely all that much on chance. As I just pointed out, there's evidence behind those theories.

If I may ask, what do you believe?

[Strife26]

For the intents here, Lutheran.

Basicly, I'm a Christian who decided that his beliefs lined most closely to that of my Lutheran church.
Which do not of course, line up with the higher lutheran organizations.

I have no problem with evolution (or the teaching of it). However, in my mind, using it as a story for the creation of life is no different than a religon and should not be overly supported in a public schooling system. Basicly, I'd be more than happy if I had recieved a disclaimer that said "Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory." As opposed to what seemed awfully like 'Evolution explains everything!!"

Mind you, I had some fun with worksheets in the class.

[inaluct]

Yeah, but the thing is that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Also, what beliefs made you choose Lutheranism? Just curious, as I have very little idea of what makes Lutheranism different from other branches of Christianity.

[Strife26]

I don't like organized religon as a concept. A lot of religon deals directly with one's own belief (tangent: by this same token, I try not to persecute people due to these beliefs, although I can lose my temper with millitant atheists). What the Pope thinks does not have the same wieght as what I think. And speaking latin in church is silly. As far as differences in actual protestant religons go, I could have written about them at one time, but I don't remember. Basicly, they're neligable. I call myself lutheran becuase my church is (organization is fine, provided it stays small). I think that my church strikes the right balance of acceptance, tradition, and uncreepiness.

[inaluct]

Is it one of those cool churches where you walk in and tell them you're an atheist and the pastor is like "That's cool, brah. Have some cookies," and then people aren't chasing you with pitchforks?