somecallmegenius

Hello everyone, I have just created the following thread in the Religion Section of the Forums: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68062-how-did-life-come-to-be-abiogenesis-or-divine-creation-or-are-they-both-one-and-the-same/ Any and all participators are welcome.

Well, according to the Holy Bible: Genesis 2:5-7 (the creation of Adam):<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">"The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." According to the Quran: Chapter 15, verse 26: "And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud" According to Abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis According to Panspermia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia I also welcome any other theories of creation you may have, preferably ones based in science. May the best theory win... And by best, I mean the one backed by the most evidence. [/url] Can the mud or clay or dust mentioned in the holy books be montmorillonite? Also, can God, in going straight from clay (possibly montmorillonite) to man, have skipped the many steps in between which require our current (and some future) knowledge of chemistry, that people could not have understood 2000 years ago? Meaning, in the holy books, they go straight from point A to point Z without any mention of the many points in between? So, it could be that we are made of clay although one which has gone through many chemical and natural processes in order to end with our current bodies (Self-replicating chemicals, enzymes, and reactions all included)... Meaning, I am suggesting, that the modern theory of Abiogenesis and the extremely concise creation stories of the Holy books are not contradictory after all... Do you agree? Disagree?

Just to be clear. I am not on this website to prove god exists, or argue my religious views. I am here to benefit from what people with scientific curiosity have to say. I am here for constructive scientific debate, and not to convert people or to convince them to believe in divine creation. Nice to meet everyone. Alan, whatever you are trying to prove, you are approaching the matter in a wrong way, with all due respect. My purposes here seem to be different than yours....

Good argument. Yeah, I prefer to keep this debate scientific. I was just saying that I am open minded towards scientific explanations of any natural/observed phenomena, even though I am religious. It may seem contradictory I know... On a side note, I just discovered this website by chance, today. And I have to say this is great. The fact that it is free to join and that the moderators such as yourself try to keep it as clean and scientific as possible. Well done. No ads either, I wonder how you guys keep it running... One more thought, maybe the "Magical Creation Story" that we read in books of religion is some kind of dumbed-down long-story-short version for what we are now actually discovering to be true about abiogenesis. However improbable you believe it maybe... Also, the laws of nature, why are they the way they are? I do believe that science can eventually explain how everything is the way it is... However, I don't think it can tell us WHY it exists, it just does... I mean, take any theory, it must have some fundamental piece of existance which has to exist in some dimension in order work, even string theory, and any other unified-field theories..

Great first video, I am a monotheist but also a scientist (Materials Scientist to be specific) and I am willing to accept the hypothesis presented as soon as you show me how RIBOSE CAME TO BE. Do not post an argument with a hole the size of a million galaxies and expect no one to catch it!! However, if they do show me how RIBOSE came to be I will accept the hypothesis... Replicates with variation?? That does not even make sense... look up the definition of "replicates" and the definition of "variation"... Two completely contradictory concepts...

If life is anything that replicates, then by accurately performing a Briggs-Rauscher oscillating reaction, you have created life!!! I believe your definition of life needs work, you should meditate and reflect deeply on what you believe life to be.

mathsgiup nailed it.. The statement is meant in the combinatorial sense. As to what Chris L said, you are absolutely correct about the astrophysical aspects of the "size" of the universe, (except for the expansion part, because the expansion of the universe, as it is currently understood and as it was first suggested, means the increase in the spacetime separation of faraway galaxys from the center of the universe where the Big Bang is supposed to have occured, it does NOT mean that the amount of matter/energy in the universe is changing...). However, had the initial statement been formulated more accurately, meaning: "The number of POSSIBLE connections in the brain is higher than the upper bound of the number of atoms of CONVENTIONAL MATTER (i.e. in the form of one of the currently known elements) in the KNOWN universe, as of 07/31/2012". With "KNOWN universe" being the key words here, in addition to the combinatorial calculations which clearly yield much higher numbers than 10^88 or 10^100 or even 10^1000, the statement, when stated in the manner above, becomes absolutely CORRECT!!!! BAM! the answer to end all speculation. You're welcome. One more thing I forgot to add: What lead me to believe the statement is meant in the combinatorial sense are the two key words "POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS" One more thing, great answer shelby, only you are answering the wrong question. "Possible connections" are different from "physical connections" as synapses can detach and reattach to different synapses, hence the word "possible". So, yes at any one time, the max number of synapse connections is in the range you have stated. However, if you check the same brain again, while the number of synapse connections will not exceed the range you mentioned, synapses will be connected differently. Hence, the number of combinations which CAN happen (i.e. are possible) are much higher than the number you stated, and are obtained through combinational calculations. Hmmm. After reading jdah4's reply, while the statement remains abstractly correct, it is logically flawed since it compares possibilities to actualities... So I guess it all depends on each person's definition of correctness. To me, I find that many axioms of science (especially the natural sciences) can be easily deconstructed to seem "logically" wrong. However, most modern scientists care much more about the abstract correctness of a statement than it's logical value... They care more about the actual consequences of a statement than if it makes logical sense... Therefore, I still believe the statement should be deemed correct... I have replied so many times, only because I care for accuracy.