AGE OF THE EARTH...

Well, there is a reason why we cannot create life. We have reduced the basic biology and chemistry down to it very roots, its protons and neutrons and nucleui, and, surprise of surprises, when we put all those little parts together ourselves - life does not spring forward. It just sits there being a cell - an unliving cell. Even the supposed bacteria and virus' that we have "almost" created, does not have proof of uncontaminated conditions.

The idea of "man-made" is an oxymoron - man makes nothing. We can only take the things that are already made, combine them, and come up with something else. We like to call it man-made - makes us feel important. We clone - but we make nothing - we take live cells and combine them with other live cells, and we get something else.

It reminds me of my grandparents, who used to have the idea that dirt caused bugs. Pile up some dirt, and bugs came forth. And, of course, that is so simplistic - my parents changed that to "it draws" - an entirely different concept. Bottom line is: add an unliving organism to an unliving organism or to 100 unliving organisms, put all the components to a cell together - and it will not start living.

Ah, there is the rub.

On another point - the idea that we are the only living creatures in a universe that goes way beyond what we even know about, is, unbelievably conceded.

B
 

Mr. O,

Several years ago, a biologist tried to chemically generate life (basic protein pairs) in the lab. I want to say his name was Johnson, but can't be sure.
Anyway, he couldn't get any to form until he removed all water (H2O) from his closed-system setup. Also, he only produced left-hand proteins and right-hand protein pairs are the real life seeds. In other words, he FAILED to create life.
 

Shortstack wrote
In other words, he FAILED to create life

That is what I recall reading too - though there are some claims online of success, so far as I know, in every case the "success" is very likely just a contaminated result. <Some kind of bacteria or mold spore etc was accidently introduced>
Oroblanco
 

Mrs. O,
I remember seeing something on the History Channel about people use to believe that you shouldn't throw burlap over corn because it created rats. (seriously)


Mr. O,
Did all of that stuff get through. There should be about 5 different "packages".
 

Oroblanco said:
Shortstack wrote
In other words, he FAILED to create life

That is what I recall reading too - though there are some claims online of success, so far as I know, in every case the "success" is very likely just a contaminated result. <Some kind of bacteria or mold spore etc was accidently introduced>
Oroblanco

The scientist was not getting ANY protein formation UNTIL he removed all water from his system by using a sump. After putting in a sump and removing all water from the circuit, he got some left-handed protein pairs; which are useless.

A Creation scientist asked him what did nature use as a sump. He had no answer (of course) but did get a little bit irritated. :laughing7:
 

Yes and THANK YOU amigo Shortstack! I have plenty of reading to do! :icon_thumleft: :icon_thumright: <2 thumbs up>
Roy - Oroblanco
 

Shortstack said:
Mr. O,

Several years ago, a biologist tried to chemically generate life (basic protein pairs) in the lab. I want to say his name was Johnson, but can't be sure.
Anyway, he couldn't get any to form until he removed all water (H2O) from his closed-system setup. Also, he only produced left-hand proteins and right-hand protein pairs are the real life seeds. In other words, he FAILED to create life.
Dear Shortstack;
I don't think the point of labratory experiments such as the one you mentioned is to produce LIFE, per se, rather the point is to attempt to produce the AMINO ACIDS which are the building of life, my friend. One of the very first of these experiments is also perhaps the most famous and it's called the Miller-Urey Experiment.

The problem does not lie in the experiement itself, rather the problem lies in the fact that we can only GUESSTIMATE what conditions were like on our newly formed Earth at the time life first appeared. There is a cool webpage where a person can perform the experiment for themselves and ascertain whether they were able to produce amino acids by using their own *recipe* of gases and water.
http://www.ucsd.tv/miller-urey/
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Shortstack said:
Mr. lamar,
I am aware of the "seeding" idea, but that still doesn't explain HOW life started. I don't care how far back you go and to what location. Somewhere, life BEGAN and required the actions taken by the Grand Designer, Lord God Jehovah, or anyother name He's known by.

My basic belief is still that life began HERE and that water will be found throughout the universe, but NOT animal and / or human life. Since I am not perfect, I MAY be wrong, but unless life is actually found somewhere else, other than this planet, I will continue to believe that Earth is IT.


If you believe that God was always here, why is it so far fetched to believe that Life was always here???? Not that I believe that, but it is just as logical.....I mean if God is real, he had to come from somewhere.....Never have understood that....
 

gallileo60 said:
Shortstack said:
Mr. lamar,
I am aware of the "seeding" idea, but that still doesn't explain HOW life started. I don't care how far back you go and to what location. Somewhere, life BEGAN and required the actions taken by the Grand Designer, Lord God Jehovah, or anyother name He's known by.

My basic belief is still that life began HERE and that water will be found throughout the universe, but NOT animal and / or human life. Since I am not perfect, I MAY be wrong, but unless life is actually found somewhere else, other than this planet, I will continue to believe that Earth is IT.


If you believe that God was always here, why is it so far fetched to believe that Life was always here???? Not that I believe that, but it is just as logical.....I mean if God is real, he had to come from somewhere.....Never have understood that....


The very idea of God is that of a supreme being who is omnipotent and doesn't have the same form and function as our scientific findings.

God is not "real" in the sense of body and form - therefore, doesn't heed the "realities" of human life. (he sent his son, a human being, for that very reason) God is not of flesh and blood.

B
 

Mr. lamar,
The scientist I spoke of was doing that experiment and got some amino acid'; protein pairs, to form, but as I pointed out, they were NOT the kind that produced life. Our scientists can play around and create some protein molecules, etc. but they cannot create LIFE. Only God can and DID create life.

Mr.gallileo60,
God is eternal. He was, is , and will always BE. Our finite little minds cannot grasp that concept to it's fullest because that is the way they are designed. As for life, our spirits have always "been", too, since we are "of God".
 

Just out of interest, I wonder how many folks believe in a young Earth, but who are NOT religious (or who don't have a relationship with a God, if you prefer)


I can't imagine there are very many.
 

Mrs. O wrote: The very idea of God is that of a supreme being who is omnipotent and doesn't have the same form and function as our scientific findings.

God is not "real" in the sense of body and form - therefore, doesn't heed the "realities" of human life. (he sent his son, a human being, for that very reason) God is not of flesh and blood.
B


I fully agree with your evaluation. In the Bible, we're told that when Moses went up on the mountain to meet with God, he asked God several times to let him look upon His face. God told him that he could not withstand His Glory. But, after repeatedly begging, Moses was told to get himself into a large crack in the rock and he would be allowed to view God's Glory as God passed by. Being in God's Glory is what made Moses' hair turn totally white and his entire body GLOWED brightly. Moses glowed so brightly that he had to put a cloth over himself so that the others in his tent could get to sleep and not be kept awake by the bright light.

By that turn of events, God took a familiar form (that of a man) so that Moses could "look upon" something familiar. I found this occurrence very interesting because when God walked and talked with Adam; and later, with Job, they didn't have that result. Makes me wonder if God did that with Moses because Moses thought he was deserving to look at God when Adam and Job did not request that honor. Adam and Job were, I think, more deserving than Moses and so were not subjected to such a display of power and authority. I think maybe Moses had to be reminded of his "place". God seemed to get a little irritated with Job's constant questioning of "why" things happened the way they did and finally asked Job, "where were YOU when I set the very foundations of the universe?" Maybe that question could be presented to some folks today in today's society. :icon_scratch: ;D Yep. Maaaaybe. :laughing7:


Mr. Saturna,
You could be correct. :dontknow:
 

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."--> Sir Arthur Eddington

How does an atheist explain the origin of the Universe? <Whether "Young" or "Old"> Thank you in advance,
Roy
 

Dear Oroblanco;
I thought it was not going to turn into a religious discussion?
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Attachments

  • exploded_thread.jpg
    exploded_thread.jpg
    10.4 KB · Views: 344
Mr. lamar,
This is not a religious thread. We are NOT writing about salvation or other religion related topic. We are still discussing the age of the earth as young or old and it's origin as related to Created or Banged. In the Creation arena, there is a requirement for a Creator. If we're speaking Intelligent Design, then there is a requirement for a Designer. That Creator or Designer is referred to by many names and synonyms; God is just one. And the term "atheists" simply labels the general group who do not believe in either of those origins; generally speaking.
 

Ditto to the words of Shortstack; I don't see us debating religion per-se, and I am just curious what the explanation IS, without any kind of a "god" for the origin of the Universe. What I have heard leaves some huge blanks, which I thought perhaps one of our members could "fill in". Not a big issue - curiosity.
Oroblanco
 

You know,Mr. O, that word "atheist" brings up one of those "universal questions" that just BEGS to be asked.

If an Atheist does not believe in God; why does he or she constantly call on God to damn things; such as a chair they just stubbed their toe on, or that dumb-ass driver who just cut them off on traffic, and any of a thousand other things. :laughing7: :laughing7: :icon_scratch: :dontknow: Not trying to change the subject; just wondering. Maybe I'll start a new thread on the Religion board.
 

Shortstack wrote
If an Atheist does not believe in God; why does he or she constantly call on God to damn things;

LOL :laughing9: :laughing7:
I found that to be a MAJOR problem - after whacking my finger with a hammer the thirtieth time of the day, it was too time-consuming to have to say "Existentialist-secular-damm-it". :BangHead::laughing9: :tongue3:

There was a great quote for atheism though, when asked why he didn't believe in a god, the atheist replied, "Well you know the reasons why you don't believe in Zeus, Ra, Dagon, Thor and the rest of the polytheist deities? They are the same reasons why I don't believe in yours." and the old comeback, "I only believe in one less god than you." ::)

I still wonder, if we don't have a god for the origin of the Universe, how it is explained - that everything which exists simply popped out of nothing? Or do they say it was just "always there" which is at odds with the expanding Universe? Just wondering...
Roy
 

I still wonder, if we don't have a god for the origin of the Universe, how it is explained - that everything which exists simply popped out of nothing? Or do they say it was just "always there" which is at odds with the expanding Universe? Just wondering...
Roy



Mr. O, that is the question that has been asked for centuries and will probably be answered only after we each, in turn, step to the otherside.
 

Ah, now we come down to the age old question.

Reminds me of that one song:

"I swear their ain't no heaven"
"And, I pray their ain't no hell"


;D :laughing9:


B
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top