Dna And Its Origins

[Khandro]

In the light of new findings, DNA is even more beautiful and complex than we imagined, considering that it was in existence in the early life-forms on the planet, doesn't any theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seem preposterous ?
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.

[Khandro]

Gromit; //A book claiming to be the word of God says that life is only 6,000 years old.//
Thank you for that valuable contribution.

[Khandro]

atalanta; The fact is, and I hate to have to tell you this, but John Parrington doesn't have a clue as to the origins of DNA on this planet and neither does Stephen Hawkins, the big difference between them is that Hawkins is aware of that and the former isn't.
One is minded of the lines of W.B. Yeats;

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

[Clanad]

Interesting discussion… but in the interest of validity, the Bible does not say anywhere that "life is only 6,000 years old". The erroneous figure was arrived at by Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656) based primarily on the incomplete genealogies contained in several places throughout Scripture...

[Theland]

I still like Stephen Meyers examination of cell biology to state that there has to be intelligent design. Yes, the Bible.

[wildwood]

Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in religion without wondering how it all came about without evolution!

[Khandro]

wildwood; Without evolution we wouldn't be here to believe or disbelieve in anything. What point are you trying to make?

[naomi24]

I’m assuming Wildwood is saying that if you believe that the God of the bible was the creator, then it follows that you must believe he made everything as it is now, because that's what the bible says. No evolution necessary.

[THECORBYLOON]

Why would a designer bother with basic forms of life rather than going straight for the finished article?

[Peter Pedant]

well done Hypo
give him hell

I dont suppose you are gonna get best answer - but so what
[ I would neva be a member of a club that elected me - Broucho Marx )

[Old_Geezer]

At one time it was thought RNA was a precursor to DNA. I don't know if that is still the commonly accepted belief.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //And as a sub-question; aren't you absolutely staggered in wonder? //

Absolutely! On a daily basis, by the miracles of nature that surround me in this wonderful world of ours.

But my wonder does not extend as far as saying that because creation is the marvel that it is - that means it must have been created by a sentient being - a 'god' if you will.

I believe that inbuilt in Man's psyche is the driven need to explain and understand and make sense of what is around him. Because of the sheer enormity of the concept of creation, it needs an equally enormous concept to explain it - and that is where religion starts.

It doesn't matter if you believe that the sun is responsible, of that thunder demands human sacrifice, or that an eclipse means the end of the world - the premise is exactly the same - it provides an explanation, an grounding point for thought processes that otherwise bother mankind because they simply cannot be explained.

This psychological desire to give massive happenings a base to believe from exists in another modern phenomenon - the conspiracy theory.

Take a seismic event like 911 - as soon as something like that happens, the conspiracy theorists leap into action. Of course, their meanderings are utterly bizarre - but the fulfil the basic human need to 'explain' something that otherwise we cannot comprehend.

So in conclusion - the theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seems utterly feasible to me. It is the notion of a 'higher power' that I can't get to grips with.

[jomifl]

/Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this./
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded woud dismiss the best explanation so far without even attempting to understand it.

[jomifl]

/I still like Stephen Meyers examination of cell biology / Why wouldn't you?

[jomifl]

Every day god makes billions of snowflakes, I don't know how he finds the time. Which brings me to an interesting point, at what point in the spectrum of natural occurrances does god leave things to chance and when does he feel obliged to take over and run the show himself.

[Peter Pedant]

// then it follows that you must believe he made everything as it is now, because that's what the bible says. No evolution necessary.//

erm yes and no
In the C18 - people noticed inevitable change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

in 1787 the Jedburgh disconintuity caused a bit of a stir - the geologial layer had twisted on itself and was pretty obviously a change and not created like that.

and here we are 200 y later arguing the toss about the very same things

Once the battle on geological evolution had beenw won ( 1800-1850) one might thinnk biological evolution was plain sailing - but no .....
all sorts of tin pot ideas are resurrected to deny the obvious

[Peter Pedant]

// At one time it was thought RNA was a precursor to DNA. I don't know if that is still the commonly accepted belief.//

I think the idea still gets up and runs OG

The difficulty with some changes is that they are obviously much more efficient than the precursor that the intermediate stages dont survive

Mammaiian eye is another example: Darwin said once the evolutiion of the mammalian eye had been worked out it would prove evolution

and funnily enough the crazies maintain that the mammailan eye has no precursors and so MUST have been created and so it proves that ( intelligent design )

[Khandro]

jomifl; Welcome! (I was wondering when you would put your head over the parapet). What is most extraordinary is that so many of the resident atheists on here, wish to drag "God" into the thread, something I haven't mentioned at all.

[Peter Pedant]

Oh and Jim'll like this

If a statement is used to prove A ( evolution ) and not A ( creative design) then logically it has no place in the argument

Just thought I would drag a bit of computabliity and logic into an otherwise run of the mill discussion of 'is the Bible true?'

[Peter Pedant]

// /I still like Stephen Meyers examination of cell biology /
Why wouldn't you?//

o god I thought this was gentle irony

you mean you really DO like Stephen Myers analysis ?

its crap my the way - his Cambridge PhD was in History of Science.

[jomifl]

PP you were right first time..S.Meyers is looking for something to justify his belief in God and Theland is looking for someone to justify his belief in God.