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: 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.