Thread: Who created God?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

It would be wise to smell the Sh** that you're shoveling.

The smell is actually quite nice.

Abiogenesis is based on assumptions, that's why it's called an hypothesis and not a theory. Still, those assumptions are not baseless.

Evolution on the other hand is an observable fact. Don't panic yet though, maybe if you close your eyes and count to ten it'll go away.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Apparantyl I am talking to a dumbass.

I must remember that you are immune to facts and reasoning...

Instead of crying and showing your Whimpy side why don't you "Man Up" and tackle my questions head on with something intelligent to say, instead of the the same ignorant answers from you.

What questions?

All you did was assert that RNA is not observable.

I agree, it isn't. But the biochemistry backs it up, so calling it a "baseless assumption" is ignorance.

Why don't you attempt to learn or, at the very least, show consistency between your posts?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Instead of crying and showing your Whimpy side why don't you "Man Up" and tackle my questions head on with something intelligent to say, instead of the the same ignorant answers from you.

Internet tough guy!

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And Darwinians Evolution and Abiogenesis is not a baseless assumption?

I already answered the question, but I don't mind answering again: no.

I've authorized Google to lend you a hand, so go ahead and do a search for "observed instances of speciation".

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Instead of crying and showing your Whimpy side why don't you "Man Up" and tackle my questions head on with something intelligent to say, instead of the the same ignorant answers from you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htm

And heres another just incase you think someone was making it up.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

Read this. Please don't tell me it was the devil.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Yeah I could agree considering the nature of my God explains a lot of our nature as well especially in the information department. I'm curious what are these "facts" that determines the origin of life regarding abiogenesis?

Again, the facts do not "determine" the theory. The theory organizes available facts and predicts unknowns in such a way that new information can be obtained and perhaps new technologies and methods derived for broader use. A theory is not right or wrong; it either works or does not.

Comparing abiogenesis to speciation through natural selection, abiogenesis is a much younger field with a smaller body of evidence behind it and less of an experimental and predictive track record. Will the theory we know now hold up for the next fifty or one hundred years? Who knows. As with any scientific theory, people are working tirelessly to disprove and revise it. After all, there's not much thrill or glory in tossing another corroborating datum on the pile; any scientist would rather find something new and radically different to get their name in the textbooks with Newton, Darwin, Einstein et al.

Man did I hit a soft spot... LOL.

It's late Im going to sleep, but when I get back it's on.

This will be interesting.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Man did I hit a soft spot... LOL.

It's late Im going to sleep, but when I get back it's on.

Don't forget to respond to this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htm

Don't forget to do the google search either, you just need to press "I'm feeling lucky".

Okay I’m back, let’s get down to it Now whatever you guys do, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not pull a Wendylove on me and run for the hills when I get to an area that you are unsure of. Just respect the debate and come honest and say “Hell I don’t know?” I can respect that. I just hate asking a question and you people always tend to turn tail and run the other way, or try to pass any information off as being accurate when it’s not, just in hopes that I would leave, as though I’m going to accept that inaccurate information. Omicron tried that previously in another thread, and I had to call her/him out on it. Now that we got that out the way let’s get started.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

The smell is actually quite nice.

Abiogenesis is based on assumptions, that's why it's called an hypothesis and not a theory. Still, those assumptions are not baseless.

Evolution on the other hand is an observable fact. Don't panic yet though, maybe if you close your eyes and count to ten it'll go away.

I never said evolution is not observable, Next Generation gaming is definately something of an eye popper. Did you play GTA IV? OMG! That game is awesome, do you remember oddessy? So the real question is how does this compare with the Darwinian's model? What's your thoughts on Random mutation?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

What questions?

All you did was assert that RNA is not observable.

I agree, it isn't. But the biochemistry backs it up, so calling it a "baseless assumption" is ignorance.

Why don't you attempt to learn or, at the very least, show consistency between your posts?

Attempt to learn huh? I can support that, reading is definitely fundamental, I’ve learned quite a few things during my existence on this rock. Let’s see what we’ve both know.

So exactly how does biochemistry back up prebiotic RNA as the main source for the origin of life?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Internet tough guy!

I already answered the question, but I don't mind answering again: no.

I've authorized Google to lend you a hand, so go ahead and do a search for "observed instances of speciation".

Are you trying to pass off speciation as the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Again, the facts do not "determine" the theory. The theory organizes available facts and predicts unknowns in such a way that new information can be obtained and perhaps new technologies and methods derived for broader use. A theory is not right or wrong; it either works or does not.

Comparing abiogenesis to speciation through natural selection, abiogenesis is a much younger field with a smaller body of evidence behind it and less of an experimental and predictive track record. Will the theory we know now hold up for the next fifty or one hundred years? Who knows. As with any scientific theory, people are working tirelessly to disprove and revise it. After all, there's not much thrill or glory in tossing another corroborating datum on the pile; any scientist would rather find something new and radically different to get their name in the textbooks with Newton, Darwin, Einstein et al.

That was well put. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Don't forget to respond to this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htm

Not sure what kind of response you were expecting but, Okay

Hell i dont know.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

We are talking about "creator" God. A supernatural force.

I know, and man created him.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That was well put. Thanks.

So you accept that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection and its offshoots are the most elegant and productive framework we have for uniting and expanding the disparate data sets of zoology, paleontology, virology and ecology, to name a few? That this body of theory reveals more about the realms it addresses than any other explanatory mechanism addressing those realms? And that abiogenesis may well follow suit in years to come?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I never said evolution is not observable, Next Generation gaming is definately something of an eye popper. Did you play GTA IV? OMG! That game is awesome, do you remember oddessy? So the real question is how does this compare with the Darwinian's model? What's your thoughts on Random mutation?

You're right, you just said it was a baseless assumption, that's totally different.

Are you trying to pass off speciation as the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution?

No, why would you think that?

It's evidence for the evolution described in "Darwinism".

So exactly how does biochemistry back up prebiotic RNA as the main source for the origin of life?

Originally Posted by The Origin of Life

An RNA World first?

It is now widely agreed that at the origin of life there was not the current DNA/(RNA)/protein system for gene information on one hand and catalysis, regulation, and structural function on the other. It would beg the question, what came first, protein or DNA? Protein catalysis without gene information, which allows it to be maintained and propagated, is not sufficient in the long term, and DNA gene information without catalysis, necessary for the function of life, would be useless as well.

Instead, it is assumed that RNA acted as a precursor of both protein and DNA, in the sense that it can serve both as catalyst (like protein enzymes) and as carrier of genetic information (like DNA, RNA is a polynucleotide). Even in the modern cell ribozymes (catalytic RNAs) still play a vital, albeit limited, role. In the ribosome, the synthesis of the peptide chains of proteins from RNA code is accomplished by ribozymes. They also catalyze splicing of RNA.

Could this so-called RNA World have offered a good basis for the origin of life? Although this is a commonly held view, it appears to have been made obsolete by ongoing research.

Leslie Orgel is one of the leading figures in origin-of-life research since many years, and he is one of several researchers who independently from each other proposed in the 1960s the RNA world as a precursor of the current DNA/protein world. Gerald Joyce is also a top scientist in the field. The authors argue in a joint article published in The RNA World, 2nd edition (2000), p. 68, on solid chemical grounds that, because of the complex and stereospecific chemistry required, "the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle" (1). After describing a chemically more plausible scenario, PNA (peptide nucleic acid) as a precursor to RNA, the authors point to the enormous difficulties of a transition from PNA to RNA, and to the fact that it yet has to be established that PNA could result in a replicating system. They go on to say that although the presumed RNA World should be considered a milestone and a plateau in the early history of the earth, the concept "does not explain how life originated" (p.74). They conclude (p. 74): "One can sketch out a logical order of events, beginning with prebiotic chemistry and ending with DNA/protein based life. However, it must be said that the details of these events remain obscure and are not likely to be known in the near future."

I refer the reader to Orgel’s authoritative 2004 review article "Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World" (Orgel 2004; free full text, you may need to register on the link, which is free). It is a must-read for scientists interested in origin-of-life research, and for those who are otherwise interested in this field and have some basic understanding of chemistry. Orgel reviews a lot of impressive chemistry yielding building blocks for life (with a considerable amount of the experiments over the last few decades having come from his own lab, published in leading journals), but he concludes that even just prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides is "unlikely" (nucleotides are the monomer precursors of oligonucleotides and polynucleotides).

Indeed, even though it is commonly accepted that the RNA World presumably had played an important role in the development of life, it now seems clear that it must have been preceded by other steps, if life were to have arisen spontaneously.

Difficulties remain with a precursor genetic system. In his 2004 review, where he describes the already mentioned PNA system and also a TNA (threose nucleic acid) system – the latter being more promising, and simpler to synthesize than RNA (2) –, Orgel states that "the idea that RNA was ‘invented’ by a simpler genetic system is now a popular one, but no convincing precursor system has been described". However, it is not implausible that such a system existed.

A highly interesting and chemically appealing, yet still untested idea is the PAH World (PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which is described extensively in Gen-e-sis: 222 ff and also at Wikipedia and at pahworld.com.

Other difficulties are that a ribozyme (catalytic RNA) that can copy itself completely has not yet been found, but this rather seems just a matter of time – so far, a 200 base ribozyme can copy 14 bases of its sequence. Also, "the formidable problem of separating the double-stranded product of the copying reaction so as to permit a second round of copying would remain to be solved" (Orgel 2004 review). Solutions for these problems of copying a long ribozyme sequence and of double strand separation have been proposed in the article "Synthesizing Life" (Szostak et al. 2001); experiments will have to show if they are feasible.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abio...ginoflife.html

So no. Not what you thought, huh?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay I’m back, let’s get down to it Now whatever you guys do, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not pull a Wendylove on me and run for the hills when I get to an area that you are unsure of. Just respect the debate and come honest and say “Hell I don’t know?” I can respect that. I just hate asking a question and you people always tend to turn tail and run the other way, or try to pass any information off as being accurate when it’s not, just in hopes that I would leave, as though I’m going to accept that inaccurate information. Omicron tried that previously in another thread, and I had to call her/him out on it. Now that we got that out the way let’s get started.



I never said evolution is not observable, Next Generation gaming is definately something of an eye popper. Did you play GTA IV? OMG! That game is awesome, do you remember oddessy? So the real question is how does this compare with the Darwinian's model? What's your thoughts on Random mutation?



Attempt to learn huh? I can support that, reading is definitely fundamental, I’ve learned quite a few things during my existence on this rock. Let’s see what we’ve both know.

So exactly how does biochemistry back up prebiotic RNA as the main source for the origin of life?



Are you trying to pass off speciation as the evidence for molecules-to-man evolution?



That was well put. Thanks.



Not sure what kind of response you were expecting but, Okay

Um, its kinda proof of evolution.

You completely disregard a article which contradicts all you are saying. If you believe you are right, enlighten me. If you post illogical material, post away. At least make it look leet.

AFter your done with that read this. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay I’m back, let’s get down to it Now whatever you guys do, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not pull a Wendylove on me and run for the hills when I get to an area that you are unsure of. Just respect the debate and come honest and say “Hell I don’t know?” I can respect that. I just hate asking a question and you people always tend to turn tail and run the other way, or try to pass any information off as being accurate when it’s not, just in hopes that I would leave, as though I’m going to accept that inaccurate information. Omicron tried that previously in another thread, and I had to call her/him out on it. Now that we got that out the way let’s get started.

*crickets*

Everyone that says god can't create god. Then has to admit existence can't exist by creating itself. So in effect people who claim something can't create itself. All of existence is mocking them.....

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

But that begs the question: "Who created Supergod"?

SuperGod

evolves into...............................
MEGAGOD

Originally Posted by psychology student

But that begs the question: "Who created Supergod"?

SuperGod

evolves into...............................
MEGAGOD

I think you're getting it.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Everyone that says god can't create god. Then has to admit existence can't exist by creating itself. So in effect people who claim something can't create itself. All of existence is mocking them.....

Existence has always been.

So you agree with me. Sorry I thought you were saying that isn't possible. Because in my other thread you were arguing against it that's all. If it always was. Then it always created itself. Since it's the only thing that can cause itself.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think you're getting it.

But lets take a step back and look at the question posed in this thread.

"Who created God"?

Such a question makes a hypothetical assumption that God exists. I'm going to assume that this is the God depicted by religion. Therefore, this hypothetical God is omnipotent (the God depicted by religion is described as being omnipotent: "having unlimited power").

Doesn't this imply that that he doesn't need to be created?