Castanet

tryscotty wrote:Move to different thread please. Your comments are welcome but your direction is already a recent thread. I would post a link but I can't from my phone. Or keep going with it. It don't have the enthusiasm to start the RNA DNA discussion, again.

Pssst.. I post from my phone all the time and links, proper quoting etc can happen! Here's my secret: use your "safari" not the forum app --> way simpler!

This thread is going in weird direction.

don_pepe wrote:So far abiogenesis has passed the tests. The more widely accepted theory is that RNA formed through natural chemical processes. RNA is interesting because it can store information like DNA but since it's single stranded it can form different shapes and act like an enzyme. Once RNA was formed it would have had to be be covered with phospholipids to protect it, and this would have been a self replicating system ie a primitive cell.

Experiments have been done where conditions of the primitive earth has been replicated in the lab, and RNA was formed.

Could you please provide links. From what I've discovered they have only created the ingredients for RNA but not RNA itself, that is (imo) a significant distinction.

pbs.org

"nova science now" just aired a show on RNA

[quote="nickd"]pbs.org

"nova science now" just aired a show on RNA[/quote]

That would be interesting. Since this thread is gone a rye, here's a question: if the DNA has all the information for the entire living thing, and a cell cannot replicate without DNA/RNA. Where did the. Information come from? I mean you can have a blank hard drive or a full one, the full one had something/someone fill it with info this is a far cry from having the ingredients to build a HD, don't you think?

How does evolution fit in with those who believe the literal account of Noah's Ark? Were there wooly mammoths on the ark?

nickd wrote:pbs.org

"nova science now" just aired a show on RNA

Here is the Program Description of the above mentioned show:

Where did the very first living thing on Earth come from? Scientists have long argued that billions of years ago, life emerged on its own—but no one knows exactly how. Now, in a landmark discovery, chemist John Sutherland has created the conditions in which the building blocks of RNA, one of the key molecules of life and the probable precursor to DNA, assemble themselves naturally.

Emphasis mine.

Now, in a landmark discovery, chemist John Sutherland has created the conditions in which the building blocks of RNA, one of the key molecules of life and the probable precursor to DNA, assemble themselves naturally.

Emphasis mine.

jennylives wrote:How does evolution fit in with those who believe the literal account of Noah's Ark? Were there wooly mammoths on the ark?

I used to wonder where Noah kept the wood-boring insects.

You could wonder HOW these amazing insects actually came into existence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9t4cuKQ ... ata_player

how many people were on the ark?
from what I can find its 8,but go on-line and you'll get differing #'s and explanations of what and how it is written in the bible
if its 8(and the fable is true) that would explain why the human race is so screwed up, not a great gene pool to start over with is it.seems we're all inbred,not just the royal family

tryscotty wrote:You could wonder HOW these amazing insects actually came into existence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9t4cuKQ ... ata_player

I did at one stage, but then I turned to biology to find out. To be honest, it was quite an 'anticlimax' when I learned how simple the processes of evolution are that led to the "glow" in the glow worms. I do love a good mystery, but sadly, this did not prove to be one.

Back to the ark. I haven't really given it much thought before, but now I'm kind of becoming intrigued. From memory it was supposed to have rained for 40 days, and that every bit of land was covered in water; something along those lines anyway. That's quite amazing!!

Mount Everest is a little over 8,800 metres, so that would require a daily rainfall of 220m/d(722'/d) to achieve the claimed extent of flooding. That would mean that for the atmosphere to contain enough water to maintain that rainfall per day poor old Noah would have been subjected to about 900 atmospheres (13,226psi) of pressure on his body instead of the usual 1atm(14.5psi) that him and his pet goat were used to. That in itself gives rise to the problem of the temperature required to form condensation. Basically the Earth would have to be hotter than hell -- literally!! Oh man!, the more I think about this the more I am led to question the veracity of the claim.

Sorry but the mountain ranges would have dramatically risen due to the flood. But I didn't start this thread to discuss wasn't humanly possible. That was the point I was making. If God did do as is written in the Bible than he could have solved all the issues raised thus far in this thread. The real issue is lack of faith in God. Not the account. But 4 days on this is enough for me.

Seeing OP poster is pull out Hmm...... interesting. The belief in God is personal issue, looking at stories of the bible is more of public thing. I am one who encourages those who are interesting in the bible and it's teachings not to go into it blindly. Look and study and find how it speaking to you as a person.

I have my own way at looking at my beliefs and faith, the bible is jigsaw puzzle so have good time learning about yourself. That is the bottom-line.

tryscotty wrote:Sorry but the mountain ranges would have dramatically risen due to the flood.

Really? Would you care to explain how that would have occurred?

Born_again wrote:

tryscotty wrote:Sorry but the mountain ranges would have dramatically risen due to the flood.

Really? Would you care to explain how that would have occurred?

Apparently it's not due to plate tectonics. I too am eagerly awaiting the alternative explanation.