(March 14, 2016 at 9:29 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 6:48 am)AJW333 Wrote: Seems like the theory has some significant problems,

"But there are problems with this so-called RNA World hypothesis. For starters, in water, the four chemical components of RNA — the nucleotides abbreviated A, G, C, and U — don’t spontaneously assemble to create sizable molecules. So it remains a mystery how the first long gene-length chains of RNA could have taken shape in Earth’s ancient oceans..............

Unfortunately, in water CA and TAP clump together in large ribbons and sheets and quickly fall out of solution, making it hard to conceive of how these proto-RNAs could have stored genetic information in the earliest stages of life."

Why did you stop reading at that and miss the part I quoted from that article?
“The nice thing [about the current study] is this is a demonstration of self-assembly in water,”... thus providing a mechanism to skip that difficulty where you got stuck.

"These "proto-RNA bases" spontaneously assemble into gene-length linear stacks, suggesting that the genes of life could have gotten started from these or similar molecules................. Hud's group knew that they were on to something when they added a small chemical tail to a proto-RNA base and saw it spontaneously form linear assemblies with another proto-RNA base."

I would like to know what the small chemical tail was. Was it something that naturally occurs in nature or a manufactured substance?

So if I were to summarize what the article is saying, it would be; "the molecules required to form RNA don't  spontaneously form in water but we found some other chemicals that do so we think RNA formed from these, but we've no idea how that happened." It's not exactly compelling evidence.

---

(March 14, 2016 at 9:50 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(March 8, 2016 at 7:47 pm)AJW333 Wrote: UNSW. Inside the top 50 in the world. Check it out.

Tell us the name, initials not useful.

University of New South Wales

---

(March 14, 2016 at 10:00 am)robvalue Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 8:45 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: The problem is, Rob, he's not applying scepticism to science, he's applyong denialism. It can clearly seen from this thread that like YECs and other biblical literalists, ajw will ignore any evidence or phenomenon which contradicts his personal interpretation of the biblical mythology.

That is true. It's what I would call scepticism level infinity, where literally no evidence will ever suffice.

As opposed to scepticism level zero, which people apply to their religion.

But you guys have given me no testable evidence as to how life came from non-life, just theories and maybe's. I fail to see any difference between me having faith in an external creator being responsible for it and your belief (faith) that it all happened by random chance, defying insurmountable odds. Both sides have faith and belief.

Quote:AJW333 Wrote:

https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/20...k-job-1-5/

---

This is what happens when you rely on bible-thumping bullshitters.  You end up looking very foolish.  Must be the story of your life.

http://www.ancient.eu/article/226/

Quote:The Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi is a Babylonian poem which chronicles the lament of a good man suffering undeservedly. Also known as `The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer', the title translates as "I will praise the Lord of Wisdom".  In the poem, Tabu-utul-Bel, age 52, an official of the city of Nippur, cries out that he has been afflicted with various pains and injustices and, asserting his own righteous behavior, asks why the gods should allow him to suffer so. In this, the poem treats the age old question of `why do bad things happen to good people' and the poem has thus been linked to the later Hebrew composition The Book of Job. No scholarly consensus exists on a date for the writing of Job (nor, for that matter, when the story related is supposed to have taken place) but many point to the 7th, 6th, or 4th centuries BCE as probable while Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi dates to c. 1700 BCE. The Babylonian poem was probably inspired by the earlier Sumerian work, Man and His God (composed c. 2000 BCE) which, according to Samuel Noah Kramer, was written "for the purpose of prescribing the proper attitude and conduct for a victim of cruel and seemingly undeserved misfortune" (589). In this, the poem follows a paradigm of Babylonian writers borrowing from earlier Sumerian pieces as exemplified in The Epic of Gilgamesh where the Babylonian scribe Shin-Leqi-Unninni (c. 1300-1000 BCE) drew on separate Sumerian tales of the King of Uruk and formed them into the now famous epic.

Just more stuff stolen from older and wiser cultures.

(March 14, 2016 at 10:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Here's the thing that's really stupid about most religions:

Look at the size of the universe. Look at us. Consider how long we'll be here, relative to the age of the universe. Consider how far we could possibly travel, even with the most amazing technology, through the universe. Consider how much of it is deadly to us.

It was all made for us?

You can forgive ancient man for being incredibly ignorant, and also (clearly) thinking "earth" and "the universe" were the same thing. The sky was just a backdrop, and everything on this planet sort-of worked for us. Now we know differently, I am astonished anyone could still think this was all designed for us. Talk about low standards.

If there is a God then it isn't ignorant to assume he designed the earth for mankind, in fact it makes perfect sense.

---

(March 14, 2016 at 7:17 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Words such as  "unlikely" are the hallmark of an argument from ignorance.

Do you folk here not say, "it is unlikely there is a God?"

(March 14, 2016 at 8:50 pm)AJW333 Wrote: If there is a God then it isn't ignorant to assume he designed the earth for mankind, in fact it makes perfect sense.

And the bolded part is all you got. Your whole substance boils down to If.

(March 14, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 5:46 pm)AJW333 Wrote: I believe I take a rational view, not because "the book says so," but because it is so unlikely that an ancient writer would be so confident (and accurate) as to which constellations were linked or not linked.

I'm an atheist because literally nothing seems less likely than the notion that physical reality is a creation made by an extradimensional entity with infinite attributes who is perfect in every way.

And yet many respected physicists believe in the existence of other dimensions and the possibility of intelligent entities existing in those dimensions.

"If". You use that word a lot. "If such and such is true, then 'God' etc etc."

If not, what then?

(March 14, 2016 at 8:58 pm)AJW333 Wrote: And yet many respected physicists believe in the existence of other dimensions and the possibility of intelligent entities existing in those dimensions.

Believe? Consider the possibility more likely. And that makes your case how exactly?

(March 14, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Chas Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 6:48 am)AJW333 Wrote: It says that the stars of the Pleiades were bound. If not by a force of gravity (or some other force) , then what is it talking about?

Because it's not fucking talking about stars - it's about Greek myth.

The Pleiades were the seven daughters of the titan Atlas and the sea-nymph Pleione.

Orion the hunter chased them, but could not bind them.

How do you know that Job is borrowing his revelation from the Greeks? He says it was God who revealed it to him directly. Check the context of the passage. God is saying to Job how he created everything and holds itall together. It has nothing to do with Greek fables.

(March 14, 2016 at 9:02 pm)AJW333 Wrote: He says it was God who revealed it to him directly.

Want to know what Bugs Bunny revealed to me the other day? I say it, so it has to be true, doesn't it?

Don't you dare to doubt me, because I say so.

(March 14, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:AJW333 Wrote:

https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/20...k-job-1-5/

---

This is what happens when you rely on bible-thumping bullshitters.  You end up looking very foolish.  Must be the story of your life.

http://www.ancient.eu/article/226/

Quote:The Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi is a Babylonian poem which chronicles the lament of a good man suffering undeservedly. Also known as `The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer', the title translates as "I will praise the Lord of Wisdom".  In the poem, Tabu-utul-Bel, age 52, an official of the city of Nippur, cries out that he has been afflicted with various pains and injustices and, asserting his own righteous behavior, asks why the gods should allow him to suffer so. In this, the poem treats the age old question of `why do bad things happen to good people' and the poem has thus been linked to the later Hebrew composition The Book of Job. No scholarly consensus exists on a date for the writing of Job (nor, for that matter, when the story related is supposed to have taken place) but many point to the 7th, 6th, or 4th centuries BCE as probable while Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi dates to c. 1700 BCE. The Babylonian poem was probably inspired by the earlier Sumerian work, Man and His God (composed c. 2000 BCE) which, according to Samuel Noah Kramer, was written "for the purpose of prescribing the proper attitude and conduct for a victim of cruel and seemingly undeserved misfortune" (589). In this, the poem follows a paradigm of Babylonian writers borrowing from earlier Sumerian pieces as exemplified in The Epic of Gilgamesh where the Babylonian scribe Shin-Leqi-Unninni (c. 1300-1000 BCE) drew on separate Sumerian tales of the King of Uruk and formed them into the now famous epic.

Just more stuff stolen from older and wiser cultures.

If we accept that Job is pre-Abraham, then that puts it at circa 2000 BC. My money is on the Babylonians taking it from the Hebrews. But why should we assume they are linked anyway? It is an age old question -" why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?" I've no doubt that faith cultures all over the world have been asking this question since day dot.

---

(March 14, 2016 at 8:56 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 8:50 pm)AJW333 Wrote: If there is a God then it isn't ignorant to assume he designed the earth for mankind, in fact it makes perfect sense.

And the bolded part is all you got. Your whole substance boils down to If.

Yep, that's why we call Christianity a faith.