Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Rich Wrote: Abiogenesis....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Mohammad Isa Mirsiam on November 11, 2000 06:05:31 UTC

Rich Wrote: "Just because a book says it doesn't mean its true."

I agree with you! just any "Book".. Yes.
You seem to get your knowledge from your books and I from my books. What we are doing now is analyzing our knowledge of our books on this forum.

Rich Wrote: "Many other religions would beg to differ with you."

Name one please and how?

Rich wrote: "My question still is, which you haven't answered because you know you can't, the certain law of conservation of existence in the realm of god."

What is your answer? What can you tell us about your other gods? we should like to know? I write about substance (which is seen in us)while you write about imaginary substances which you are not able to provide.

Rich wrote: "In our realm, abiogenesis is not possible. But god exists through abiogenesis."

According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to
calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic
chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form "as we know it" would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at: ). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10
to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have to say 10 100 molecules
altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA
generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very
severe indeed for the theory of evolution.

Rich wrote: If that realm allows such an existence, then it would not just limit it to one being. Why do you think it does?!

Because the life that I write about is not made of any substance or material or anything known to mankind, or to any other living being any where, than to God itself/himself. It is just accepted as fact be cause we see the result which is in us and around us. (( i.e.: A DOOR IS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTED MATER AND A DOOR FRAME TOO. WHO MADE THIS DOOR AND DOOR FRAME? WE SAY A PERSON DID! NOW WE SAY WHY COULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN SOME ONE ELSE WHO MADE THEM? NOW WE ARE LIVING IN DENIAL OF THE RESULT BECAUSE WE CAN NOT FIND THE MAKER WHICH WE WISH HAD MADE IT AS WE DO NOT ACCEPT THAT A PERSON HAS MADE THE DOOR AND/OR THE DOOR FRAME.))

Ask me any question and I will try to satisfy your thirst for knowledge as you challenge me and others always.

Thanks Rich. Keep them coming. We will find some answers together. Ok?

Best regards

As I had written before nothing "NOTHING!" is like unto Allah (GOD) that is how Allah (God) is uncorrectable and infinite and pure and perfect and in equilibrium with the Law of God-hood.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins