I conclude evolution is guided (page 41)

Caedes

an emphais on facts can be as unfactual as non facts sometimes (sic)

Can you give an example of that?

Also could you tell me what units you use when adding imagination to an equation?

OrphanCrow

ruby: an emphais on facts can be as unfactual as non facts sometimes and peeps who like to tell other people they are talking nonsense are pretty much often talking nonsense themselves

Image result for homer simpson facts are meaningless

The Rebel

Well cedars you quote Kate :-

"an emphasis on facts can be as factual as non facts sometime "

and if I could answer on Kate's behalf :-

" maybe the more you look, the less you really know? And maybe that is a fact, a true fact. In a way it's the only fact there is. So maybe we should not look at the " FACTS" but the meaning of the facts. Even if we conclude the facts have no meaning"

I got those words from somewhere and maybe quoted them wrong, anyway I hope they help understanding each other's perspective?

The Rebel.

Ruby456

thanks guys

Caedes

There was a lesson in the bible about reaping what you sow, how could we apply that lesson to the situation here?

konceptual99

Oh dear, another one of these threads goes from "god dunnit" to philosophical abstraction.

No one who is more secular in their outlook has basically said anything other than "scientific research has demonstrated that homochirality is possible after just a few iterations of an auto-catalytic reaction". There is no statement or conclusion one way or another about a deity, aside an inference that once again science fills a hole that some have previously decided to fill with a god of the gaps.

The only people coming to formal conclusions are those who wish to conclude that this part of chemistry reflects the influence of a deity.

Discussing the chemistry and the research around it is not about promoting some atheist agenda, it simply a reflection of what we find through the methodical application of the scientific method.

Hadriel

It's as simple as this. You some how have to get from RNA to DNA. What's the catalyst? We don't know therefore it is impossible to conclude as fact one way or the other.

Spent months reading up on this and although I'm no expert I've put the time in. You categorically cannot conclude creation, evolution by creation, evolution or otherwise without knowing what event enabled RNA to become DNA.

Figure that out and you'll be famous.

cofty

You categorically cannot conclude creation, evolution by creation, evolution or otherwise without knowing what event enabled RNA to become DNA. - Hadriel

This thread is not about the origin of life. It is about the homochirality of some organic molecules. Some creationists - for reasons best known to themselves - see this as evidence of a creator.

Kenso Soai demonstrated that in fact there is nothing unlikely about homochirality at all.

Having said that your question about the transition from RNA to DNA in the early stages of life on earth is a good one.

You should investigate the work being done by biochemist Bill Martin of the University of Dusseldorf, Mike Russell of the Jet Propulsion Lab in Passendina, and Eugene Koonin of the NIH in the USA.

There are just two tiny chemical differences between RNA and DNA. Both of them would easily have occurred spontaneously in the alkaline vents that were the nursery of life. I will explain more if you are interested.

Hadriel

@cofty I've already looked into this question extensively. There's simply nothing concrete hence for me personally I'm at an impasse.

At this point in very short my conclusion is if there is a God he/she is not likely to be as described in the bible.

I also don't feel you need the bible to believe or disbelieve in God/creation/evolution.

For me it is about that catalyst, until that is solved both are nothing more than theory. That mysterious event is the key that unlocks it all.

I will not likely see this unlocked in my lifetime. I'm perfectly fine with that.

There's far too much to enjoy in life and for us we're getting busy enjoying it!!!

cofty

For me it is about that catalyst, until that is solved both are nothing more than theory.

We had a very long conversation about that and despite numerous requests for you to define what you mean we are no better informed..

I came to the conclusion that you don't understand your own "question".

I told you above about three prominent scientists who have provided a compelling hypothesis about the origin of DNA and offered to tell you a lot more about it.

There are just two tiny chemical differences between RNA and DNA. Both of them would easily have occurred spontaneously in the alkaline vents that were the nursery of life. I will explain more if you are interested.

You really don't want an answer do you?

I conclude evolution is guided

Share this