SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.
Scientists have debated for years the various possibilities that could have led to life evolving on Earth, and the arguments have only grown more heated in recent years as many have suggested that it did not happen here it all, instead, it was brought to us from comets or some other celestial body. Most of the recent debate has found scientists in one of three chicken-or-the-egg first camps: RNA world advocates, metabolism-first supporters and those who believe that cell membranes must have developed first.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html
[Abstract]: http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.2202.html
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @12:16AM
I am a creationist. I am not a young-earth creationist. You'd be surprised at how many of us there are. It's just that the young-earth types tend to be the loud ones.
I agree with your assessment of "disgusting". That said, this is a bit of selection bias. If you're a "preacher" trying to bilk people out of money, you're going to have the most success if you're on TV.
I like referring people back to Matthew 7:15-23, where Jesus talks about false prophets and the people who will do evil things in his name. Even to the point of fooling themselves that they have somehow done something great in the name of Jesus.
As to faith, and the answers that you seek, I'll simply point you to Hebrews 11:6, which has a promise in it: "he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Also reference Matthew 7:7, with a similar promise.) Spend some time seeking God, earnestly and diligently. If the Bible is true, this is a promise that will be fulfilled. If you don't find that faith, well... the fact that you are not rewarded with that faith means that it was an untrue promise, and thus invalidates the scripture altogether.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:43AM
How is goddidit working out for you? One thing I don't get is why people have so much difficulty just admitting that they don't know the answer to something. "I don't know." is a lot simpler and more honest than "A god must have done it, even though I have no evidence of that."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:09AM
Quite well, thank you.
I don't know. I *believe* it. That's what faith is about. If I *knew*, it wouldn't really be faith. That's that whole Hebrews 11:6 thing again: "he that cometh to God must believe that he is".
Believe [reference.com]: "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:30AM
it's funny when atheists try to justify their own faith in unproven psuedo-scientific theories (like in TFA) and then deny their own beliefs as being religious
i'm not religious or atheist... i'm "open-minded"
(Score: 1) by Steve Hamlin on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:44AM
"then deny their own beliefs as being religious"
You can have a proof-less belief in something (under the definition Leebert posted), and yet that belief does not have to be religious, or even supernatural at all.
Religion: "the belief in a god or in a group of gods; an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:52AM
You have a pretty odd definition of "faith" and "religious". The scientific method has shown to be the most reliable way of arriving at the truth, even if it is not perfect. That is not "faith", and it has nothing to do with religion.
i'm not religious or atheist... i'm "open-minded"
Are you open minded about the tooth fairy, and flying spaghetti monster, Santa Claus, and any number of other things someone could dream up?
I'm an agnostic atheist. That is, I don't claim that god doesn't exist. But there is no evidence that such a thing exists, so I lack a belief in it. If someone could present compelling evidence, then that would give people an actual reason to believe. In that way, I too am "open-minded."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:54AM
In other words, you have an irrational belief in a magical sky daddy for no reason. Thank you for making that clear. No need to quote your fairy tale book, though.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @03:11AM
No, that's not true. But based on your condescending wording, I don't get the sense that you really want to understand anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @03:38AM
I am condescending because you admitted that you have nothing but faith. You didn't present any evidence; you just mentioned more nonsense about faith. If you believe in the existence of a god without evidence (and there is no good evidence, and ignorance doesn't count as evidence), then you are irrational.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday March 21 2015, @07:30AM
I cite the "watchmaker's analogy" as evidence. Its all the evidence I have. I am aware of the complexity of everything around me and am at a complete loss of words to explain it.
Occam's razor steps in... you find a watch... there was most likely a watchmaker somewhere who made it. It didn't get there by itself.
And that's about all I know. The rest is conjecture, and I openly admit it as such.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @08:49AM
That is not evidence. That is just saying, "I don't know how this could have happened without a god, so it was god." In other words, an argument from ignorance. God of the gaps is still very popular.
We know watches are created because we create them all the time and we have evidence that it happens. No such evidence exists for god. And I think that Occam's razor wouldn't support an omnipotent being far more complex than anything we can possibly imagine.
(Score: 1) by EventH0rizon on Saturday March 21 2015, @01:34PM
A creationist, OK.
No doubt you're aware that Jesus believed that the end of time was at hand, really at hand. And not in some misty-eyed metaphysical sense, but really about to happen. In places like Matthew 16:28, it's clear that he believed that some of those around him would still be alive when it happened.
“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Care to tell us your take on this?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Leebert on Saturday March 21 2015, @02:26PM
Sure, I'd be happy to.
Verse 27 starts the thought that is continued in verse 28: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels...
It's helpful to keep in mind that Christians, in general, believe that Jesus was simultaneously God and man (John 1:1, 1:14; 9:35-38). It's my interpretation that, when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of man", he is referring to his human incarnation - Jesus of Nazareth. A clear instance of this is in Matthew 8:20 where he refers to himself in that way when pointing out that he has no home.
With that in mind, my interpretation of the verse you quoted is that Jesus is referring to his "ascension", 40 days after the resurrection (Mark 16:19). It most certainly happened during the lifespan of most of the people who were witness to that statement, including the 11 remaining apostles (explicitly mentioned in Mark 16:14).
The standard disclaimer of human interpretations being just as fallible as humans applies, and I am most definitely human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 21 2015, @03:53PM
John the Beloved was given the gift of immortality.
John 21:21-23