Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[lostone]

To put one issue raised here to rest, the matter/atoms of which the earth is composed is no older than the matter of which the sun is composed. Both are composed of elementary particles which have existed since the Big Bang. But the sun formed first

Disagree.

The sun is mostly hydrogen. Protons, paired with electrons. That is truly primordial.

However, everything above that has neutrons. Some neutrons were created in the big bang but most of them were created later (fundamentally, proton + electron => neutron, but not necessarily by a direct path.)

And I certainly haven't seen any real attempt to address my point about exactly when they formed. It is pretty clear that some degree of formation of the Earth predates stellar ignition. At what point do we say Earth was "formed"? If we are comparing it to the "pro-life" community I would say the Earth formed first--but in the sense that they consider a blastocyst to be a person.

Not disputing that protons and neutrons have changed form, but the quarks of which they are composed have not.

Neutrons change form every 15 minutes or so. That's their half life, when not in a nucleus. When ancient suns exploded, it was hot enough to break nuclear bonds.

Most estimates make the Earth younger than the sun. Can you cite sources that do not?

 

[lostone]

The Earth's water is indeed older than the sun, but I find no creditable sources that suggest that the Earth formed before the sun.

 

[Elixir]

Our sun is supposedly a third generation star. Heavy elements require such exotic conditions to form, it’s amazing that they happen in detectable amounts anywhere. And hydrogen is still most of the universe’s mass, but yet here we sit, dependent upon ferrous compounds for lots of our toys, enjoying gold rings and nuclear bombs.

There have been trillions of stars preceding our sun, over billions of years.

 

[lostone]

The most credible information I can find suggest that the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Isn't their a hidden topic here being assumed? The existence of this particular 'God'?

Creationists like this one will freely admit that. They call themselves "presuppositionalists". They just assume god exists and it saves them a lot of heavy mental work.

 

[Elixir]

The most credible information I can find suggest that the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

What’s a hundred million years between friends?
I’ve waited longer than that to pick up my wife at the hairdresser’s.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In regard to water, the account in Genesis of following creationist literalism seems to lead to a bizarre dark Waterworld. This seems to be in contrast to an initial hot earth that would not have had tons of darkness and tons of liquid water.

I think that one must also remember that some cultures at some points in time were aware of the spherical nature of Earth, but most likely not this one. So, the Earth was the primary thing they observed. It had the most things as far as they could tell. And later on, this worked its way into the Earth being the center of the Universe thinking.

So this dark Waterworld (i.e. flat area with water above and below it and all about with no light that had no form and was void) was come upon by a divine entity who then cast a Lumos Maxima spell. Then this being took some of the water and placed it up above the sky and some of the other water and placed it down below.

A lot of creationists and other assorted bizarre fundies create a picture of a dome above the Earth with a huge amount of water circling above the sky. They then claim this water was all released during the alleged Great Flood.



Other creationists have learned how ridiculous this is and frankly so unpopular that they could never get a good following in the modern world and so have adapted the canopy theory into, "Yeah, well, it's just clouds. God created clouds."

Continuing on...when you believe you are the center of everything and so are the things closest to you, the sun, moon, and stars come afterward.

These things are small because they look small. They are up in the sky for you, placed there for purposes. The moon is made so you can see at night. The sun is made so you can see in the daytime. The stars you can use as signs for the seasons or navigating. That's why they are there! So, naturally, an eclipse that blocks the sun....well, that contradicts god's purpose, and god is all-powerful...so it has to be god doing it or satan. Just ask MTG, she'll christiansplain it to you.

As for plants, where to put them in the chronology? When they looked about, no doubt they saw that many animals ate plants. Perhaps did not notice that some plants ate animals...and of course, did not observe bacteria, viruses, or other microscopic life...so left those out entirely. A fungus? What's that? Mushrooms are plants! Anyway, so, yeah, plants had to come before animals because animals are dependent upon plants. But as it happened, they put plants before the sun because no one knew about photosynthesis.

And modern creationists being aware that Light was day 1 can start tweaking that narrative to be about a nascent sun on Day#1 or a special God-Light that could be used to help the plants live anyway. Special photosynthesis!

So where exactly does this put a self-replicating RNA feature in an RNA world?

It'd have to be prior to plants and plants were Day #3. So either a first step of Day#3 or before that on another day.

Or maybe they were magic plants.

 

[Tharmas]

I feel responsible for this thread going on for nearly 400 posts, almost none of them dealing directly with the article I referenced (fee access to which has expired by now). I fear the fault lies in my careless wording and over simplifications in the OP.

Here is what I wrote:

An interesting article in the Washington Post adds momentum to the RNA world theory. Self-replicating RNA has been created in a lab. The copies made are quite similar to the original, which has apparently been a stumbling block to earlier efforts. We are inching forward to the creation of life in a test tube.

Let me rephrase and expand on that with a number of quotes from the article. (I have re-shared the article so it will be accessible again hopefully).

An interesting article in the Washington Post adds momentum to the RNA world theory. Self-replicating RNA has been created observed in a lab copying other types of RNA molecule.

The copies made are quite similar to the original, but not absolutely identical.

An RNA molecule must make copies very close to the original to achieve the same delicate balance that governs Darwinian evolution in nature. If the copies change too much, the RNA’s abilities degenerate, and things go downhill quickly. Imagine a malfunctioning photocopier that makes a fuzzy or faded copy of an image. When placed in the machine, the fuzzy copy produces a new one that is even worse.

“If the error rate is too high, you can’t maintain the [genetic] information,” Joyce said. “It just blows up.” The errors happen too quickly to allow Darwinian selection to pick the winners, those best equipped to survive, and “round by round of evolution you just see the population dissipate into no man’s land.”

In the new work, the Salk scientists created an RNA that makes copies of something called a hammerhead RNA. Instead of copying other RNA molecules, the hammerhead chops them. When the RNA made copies of the hammerhead, each new generation could still chop; each also grew easier to copy.

To show that their RNA was getting better at copying, the Salk team tested a 71st-generation version against one of its distant ancestors. The newer generation outperformed its ancestor when it came to making accurate copies.

In other words, scientists created the initial conditions, and then observed over a number of months while a sort of proto-Darwinian evolution took place (my words).

The central point, Joyce said, is that “eventually Darwinian evolution began to operate,” and at some point early in the history of life, RNA fulfilled the crucial roles of holding genetic information and accelerating the chemical reactions needed to make copies of that information.

Should the scientists succeed in generating an RNA that can copy itself, evolution could then proceed largely on its own.

Note the use of “generate.” There’s a subtle difference from the word “create.” There was some initial creation of an environment, but then the scientists let nature take over.

We are inching forward to the creation of life in a test tube.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, back when genesis was first written, there weren't as many words in the language, and the same word "water" could mean many different things.

In the philosophy course I took going to art school in Colorado (and it was a surprisingly comprehensive course), it was discussed that in old texts like that, "water: the combination of hydrogen and oxygen" is not the intent of the passage at all.

In the old testament, and genesis in general, "water" is more appropriately read as "chaos" or "fluid and indeterminate".

Even when depicted as "the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in particular geometric format", the water seems is often metaphorical of chaos, not liquid.

In this vein, in a world without light where everything is incandescent and opaque, there is no "light" or "darkness". There was no contrast at all.

"In the beginning there was chaos, and the chaos was separated" is an accurate statement, because this IS essentially what happened, even if it was assumed mostly on accident or through an idea that would need to percolate another few thousand years before it resolved into something accurate.

This was not understood entirely correctly, but rather from the sequence of events that any human goes through in making, for example, a clay pot: you collect unformed clay, and have to process it to make anything of vision.

Still, it's not wrong, it was just an ass-pull.

If you would like, I could give you another creation story, this one 100% true, albeit not about us?

That said, the genesis account is bullshit because it was claimed prior to evidence, and based not on evidence but on ass-pull.

 

[Elixir]

A lot of creationists and other assorted bizarre fundies create a picture of a dome above the Earth with a huge amount of water circling above the sky.

They're not the only ones ... from Wiki description of Zelazny's "Creatures of Light and Darkness""

"Thoth, who has meanwhile been utterly overthrown by his Angels, has no choice but to contain the dark force until he can find a way to destroy it. He also revives the personality of his wife and keeps her safe on a special world known only to him, where the seas are above the atmosphere, not below them"

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I feel responsible for this thread going on for nearly 400 posts, almost none of them dealing directly with the article I referenced (fee access to which has expired by now). I fear the fault lies in my careless wording and over simplifications in the OP.

Here is what I wrote:

An interesting article in the Washington Post adds momentum to the RNA world theory. Self-replicating RNA has been created in a lab. The copies made are quite similar to the original, which has apparently been a stumbling block to earlier efforts. We are inching forward to the creation of life in a test tube.

Let me rephrase and expand on that with a number of quotes from the article. (I have re-shared the article so it will be accessible again hopefully).

An interesting article in the Washington Post adds momentum to the RNA world theory. Self-replicating RNA has been created observed in a lab copying other types of RNA molecule.

The copies made are quite similar to the original, but not absolutely identical.

An RNA molecule must make copies very close to the original to achieve the same delicate balance that governs Darwinian evolution in nature. If the copies change too much, the RNA’s abilities degenerate, and things go downhill quickly. Imagine a malfunctioning photocopier that makes a fuzzy or faded copy of an image. When placed in the machine, the fuzzy copy produces a new one that is even worse.

“If the error rate is too high, you can’t maintain the [genetic] information,” Joyce said. “It just blows up.” The errors happen too quickly to allow Darwinian selection to pick the winners, those best equipped to survive, and “round by round of evolution you just see the population dissipate into no man’s land.”

In the new work, the Salk scientists created an RNA that makes copies of something called a hammerhead RNA. Instead of copying other RNA molecules, the hammerhead chops them. When the RNA made copies of the hammerhead, each new generation could still chop; each also grew easier to copy.

To show that their RNA was getting better at copying, the Salk team tested a 71st-generation version against one of its distant ancestors. The newer generation outperformed its ancestor when it came to making accurate copies.

In other words, scientists created the initial conditions, and then observed over a number of months while a sort of proto-Darwinian evolution took place (my words).

The central point, Joyce said, is that “eventually Darwinian evolution began to operate,” and at some point early in the history of life, RNA fulfilled the crucial roles of holding genetic information and accelerating the chemical reactions needed to make copies of that information.

Should the scientists succeed in generating an RNA that can copy itself, evolution could then proceed largely on its own.

Note the use of “generate.” There’s a subtle difference from the word “create.” There was some initial creation of an environment, but then the scientists let nature take over.

We are inching forward to the creation of life in a test tube.

Blame the Creationist for derailing the thread with their ridiculous nitpicking.

 

[Lion IRC]

Use the quote function?

Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Do you know how?

It will save you a ton of work

 

[Jarhyn]

Use the quote function?

Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Do you know how?

It will save you a ton of work

We all saw you make the statement. They don't need to quote something easily read up thread.

Everyone here is asking you for this evidence because you did, in fact, claim that it existed.

You prevaricating (great phraseology for it BTW Pood) merely makes you look even more dishonest.

Why not just own up to it? Or did you already forget that it happened?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The most credible information I can find suggest that the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Which doesn't address the issue of what counts as Earth actually forming.

In it's final form, definitely after the sun's ignition. But how much of it constitutes "Earth"? I have seen mention of the Theia impact hitting "Earth" and that radically changed our planet, thus clearly it doesn't need to be in it's final form to be "Earth".

 

[lostone]

The most credible information I can find suggest that the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Which doesn't address the issue of what counts as Earth actually forming.

In it's final form, definitely after the sun's ignition. But how much of it constitutes "Earth"? I have seen mention of the Theia impact hitting "Earth" and that radically changed our planet, thus clearly it doesn't need to be in it's final form to be "Earth".

The salient questions would be at what point in time did day and night exist on the proto-Earth and at what point did life first appear on the proto-Earth. I don't have a clue or a source. Do you?

 

[pood]

Use the quote function?

Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Do you know how?

It will save you a ton of work

You’re someone one who believes in talking snakes and an invisible bearded tooth fairy in the sky, and you presume to patronize me?

I don’t need to scroll back and find your stupid post in which you claimed there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. You know you said it. Now defend it. You won’t, because you can’t. All you can do is shape shift, move goal posts, evade, elide and hide.

 

[pood]

I would suggest that Lion’s derails of this topic, which is in the science forum and is about science rather than religious hallucinations, be split off to the Batshit Insanity forum, if there is such.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think I am probably... Well, the "craziest" user here, except maybe [redacted], at least of the people who claim to understand many oft-considered-hard things, and who is not a theist.

I claim to be a god for fucks sake and I say this unironically. Sure I say it as much to troll people who will find offense at the statement, but this doesn't erase the fact that I do also mean it.

I am kind enough to explain what I mean by this, to indicate it does not give me any special powers beyond "understanding godhood from the inside", it does not give me debugging access to any universe I do not have physical access to the substrate of, and even of those I have access to the substrate of, I cannot know certainly what will be without making it so be or calculating some proof of operation, nor without record be certain of what was or why.

In short, I'm not God; there is no evidence for any such God, and if there is a God it can only at best be assumed to be a god(s) and not a GOD. GODs are logical impossibilities, they cannot exist even "as an ideal". They're just nonsense.

Of the set of things and processes that can relationally satisfy the definition 'god', many are going to be too dumb and small to leverage Obniscience or Obnipotence, and the leverage of Obniscience unto an act of Obnipotence depends on what sort of 'game' the universe is, again assuming a non-ideal substrate. The Ob- rather than Om- being used to indicate the idea that it might take effort over time between systemic moments to leverage the ability, and thus not "true omniscience", and thus not "nonsensical".

To even start to understand gods, what would constitute evidence for them, you have to precisely understand the minimal requirements for substrate. That means studying physics and computer science not religion to understand what would constitute evidence of a more complicated substrate. Then you have to look for that, actually test for it.

Then you would see if there were evidence for a god... Not by looking at "evidence" of a carnival salesman, but by looking at the evidence produced by nature itself.

The problem is that we see no such evidence of a non-ideal substrate. An ideal substrate is sufficiently explanatory to observations.

We who are not religious like looking, at least some of us, so we can ask the honest question and get honest answers.

But don't claim you have evidence. We're looking for evidence, in a variety of ways, and none of those ways include the sorts of shit that involve prayer and belief; those things look away from evidence straight at a bottle of snake oil on a shelf.

 

[Lion IRC]

Use the quote function?

Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Do you know how?

It will save you a ton of work

You’re someone one who believes in talking snakes and an invisible bearded tooth fairy in the sky, and you presume to patronize me?

I don’t need to scroll back and find your stupid post in which you claimed there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. You know you said it. Now defend it. You won’t, because you can’t. All you can do is shape shift, move goal posts, evade, elide and hide.

Yeah...I don't think you can.
Here's the quote where you think I tried to smuggle "talking snakes and an invisible bearded tooth fairy" into the thread.

Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists

I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there

 

[Elixir]

Use the quote function?

Yes.
Do you understand what that means?
Do you know how?

It will save you a ton of work

You’re someone one who believes in talking snakes and an invisible bearded tooth fairy in the sky, and you presume to patronize me?

I don’t need to scroll back and find your stupid post in which you claimed there is scientific evidence for the existence of God. You know you said it. Now defend it. You won’t, because you can’t. All you can do is shape shift, move goal posts, evade, elide and hide.

Yeah...I don't think you can.
Here's the quote where you think I tried to smuggle "talking snakes and an invisible bearded tooth fairy" into the thread.

Created.
Great.
Another win for Team Creationists

I don't see the word God or bible anywhere in there

Eeeuw.