Discussion:
DANIEL 65
(too old to reply)
%
2024-03-13 21:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
Where did the RNA come from?
Random mixing of molecules.
Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules
can be synthesised into complex molecules, some significant
to terrestrial life, with modest input energy like
ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
creation and longetivity.
We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins. RNA
replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
most of the molecules of inefficient but possible
life. Best on chance and organic chemistry without needing
a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be
able to explain everything without a god.
There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains
that it is as rational to believe in a creator god as to
disbelieve.
It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
disbelieve.
Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
don't solve anything.
Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are
irrelevant. Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past
the graveyard with all our theories and philosophies.
Belief and disbelief are equally rational.
Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
only one "disbelief".  As the "beliefs" contradict each other, at
least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to
choose?  On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,
which makes it more rational than all the others, because
"disbelief" opens itself up to being proved wrong.
or right as facts present themselves.
Sure, let God, if He exists, instantaneously and fully heal an adult
amputee, and then let's talk.
Being a Right Arm Above Elbow amputee for almost 50 years I'd be
interested in this, too!! ;-P
The Doctor
2024-03-13 23:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
Where did the RNA come from?
Random mixing of molecules.
Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules
can be synthesised into complex molecules, some significant
to terrestrial life, with modest input energy like
ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
creation and longetivity.
We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins. RNA
replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
most of the molecules of inefficient but possible
life. Best on chance and organic chemistry without needing
a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be
able to explain everything without a god.
There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains
that it is as rational to believe in a creator god as to
disbelieve.
It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
disbelieve.
Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
don't solve anything.
Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are
irrelevant. Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past
the graveyard with all our theories and philosophies.
Belief and disbelief are equally rational.
Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
only one "disbelief".  As the "beliefs" contradict each other, at
least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to
choose?  On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,
which makes it more rational than all the others, because
"disbelief" opens itself up to being proved wrong.
or right as facts present themselves.
Sure, let God, if He exists, instantaneously and fully heal an adult
amputee, and then let's talk.
Being a Right Arm Above Elbow amputee for almost 50 years I'd be
interested in this, too!! ;-P
Hi!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nk.ca Ici ***@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
What worth the power of law that won't stop lawlessness? -unknown
%
2024-03-14 00:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
Where did the RNA come from?
Random mixing of molecules.
Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules
can be synthesised into complex molecules, some significant
to terrestrial life, with modest input energy like
ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
creation and longetivity.
We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins. RNA
replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
most of the molecules of inefficient but possible
life. Best on chance and organic chemistry without needing
a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be
able to explain everything without a god.
There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains
that it is as rational to believe in a creator god as to
disbelieve.
It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
disbelieve.
Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
don't solve anything.
Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are
irrelevant. Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past
the graveyard with all our theories and philosophies.
Belief and disbelief are equally rational.
Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
only one "disbelief".  As the "beliefs" contradict each other, at
least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to
choose?  On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,
which makes it more rational than all the others, because
"disbelief" opens itself up to being proved wrong.
or right as facts present themselves.
Sure, let God, if He exists, instantaneously and fully heal an adult
amputee, and then let's talk.
Being a Right Arm Above Elbow amputee for almost 50 years I'd be
interested in this, too!! ;-P
Hi!
hello

Loading...