[aldo_14]

I don't think anyone beyond the original writers could give you the correct, literal meaning (parable or otherwise) of the bible.   All other interpretations would be affected by years of societal change and development, and the interpretations of those before; let alone if they were using translated texts.  

The need to express interpretation in modern terms that may not exist in the original Hebrew or Greek, which in itself presents a problem with strict accuracy; the same concepts probably do not exist in modern days (or even in previous times) as at the time of writing.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
@karajorma

And who do you think is right - a horde of educated men who devote their whole life to the interpretation of said text or a couple of people who read the book at home and start drawing conclusions?

I don't think any of them are right if they are interpreting it as fact. The same body of people have had over a thousend years to study the book and not one of them interpreted it as meaning that evolution occurs until after Darwin discovered it.
 Even once the structure of DNA was determined and heredity proved and evolution was starting to look concrete it still took the Vatican until 1996 to admit that science was correct and that as that as far as they were concerned there was no creation vs evolution debate.  

 So the bible is no more proof that evolution happens than it is proof against evolution.
 
I think this proves that you absolutely can not interpret the bible as fact. The Vatican should have learned this when they had a go at Galileo and Copernicus but if they're finally realising now that the they should interpret the bible as symbolic then I have to praise them for being able to throw off the dogma that other creationists have been unable to relinquish.

Might be nice if they made a bit more of a song and dance about it so that it didn't have to be an atheist who brought this to the boards attention though


And now I've got a question for you Trashman. I'm assuming that you're a catholic here but does that mean that since the pope himself has stated that evolution is accepted by the Vatican that you will drop all objection to the theory from now on?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Stealth

the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE.  whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

As I said earlier in the thread, you cannot evaluate the bible holistically. Parts of it may be valid and true, but other parts are blatantly fantastical. You can provide specific evidence from the bible, but you can't use treat the whole thing as some infallible source of truth.

So, what specific evidence does the bible have that evolutionary theory is incorrect or that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory? Note that "this part of the bible must be true, because some other parts were true" is not valid for reasons in the above paragraph.

[Kazan]

The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy

certain simple proteins are known to be replicators and these simple proteins can easy form in a random "amino acid soup"

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy

certain simple proteins are known to be replicators and these simple proteins can easy form in a random "amino acid soup"

Got a link?

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Kazan
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy

From what i've studied of Urey & Miller, it seemed pretty easy. I concur with Kara, linky please...

[Bobboau]

I think I remember reading something about this in relation to reasearch on prions (mad cow desise/althimers/ect)

[Wanderer]

I though that carbonyl sulfide with few metals can catalyse the oligopeptide formation (perhaps even polypeptide = protein) formation, and carbonyl sulfide it is a common vulcano exhaust gas. Also rapid termperature change as organic matter flows to cold sea floor (2 to 4 C) from  black smokers (over 100 c) can cause spontaneous formation of peptides, though only quite short ones.

Really hard part is to explain where did the sugar came from? The backbone of RNA/DNA requires a certain sugars molecules (ribose/deoxyribose) and formation of these compounds is much more difficult to explain than protein formation. In addition also RNA can also catalyse chemical reactions and perhaps even act as replicator.

Haven't got links though, yet.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Wanderer
I though that carbonyl sulfide with few metals can catalyse the oligopeptide formation (perhaps even polypeptide = protein) formation, and carbonyl sulfide it is a common vulcano exhaust gas. Also rapid termperature change as organic matter flows to cold sea floor (2 to 4 C) from  black smokers (over 100 c) can cause spontaneous formation of peptides, though only quite short ones.

Really hard part is to explain where did the sugar came from? The backbone of RNA/DNA requires a certain sugars molecules (ribose/deoxyribose) and formation of these compounds is much more difficult to explain than protein formation. In addition also RNA can also catalyse chemical reactions and perhaps even act as replicator.

Okay, I lost you at "I thought"...

[Wanderer]

Point was that both amino acid and (later on) protein formation can be explained with current knowledge but the formation of sugars needed to keep the only known biological databank together is much more difficult to explain.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kazan
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy

That is totally contrary to everything I've ever read on this stuff - you definitely need a link.

[aldo_14]

I always read that the Urey-Miller experiments shown the spontaneous formation of amino acids to be simple given the correct conditions and electrical (lightning) stimuli.  Although it's now believed the primoridal atmosphere was a less reactive combination than the Urey-Miller experiment, which has been somewhat more difficult (although they have produced a single amino acid in that experiment, so getting amino acids is proven).

Perhaps Kazan means protein 'evolution'?  Or maybe polymer formation from monomers in a liquid environment?

[Descenterace]

Originally posted by Stealth
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE.  whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

OK, we've now got fairly good evidence in favour of 'Stealth is an idiot'. Of course, this probably can't proven, but I don't expect it to be disproved any time soon.

Taking all this back to basics, the Creationist camp is favouring ignorance and blind faith over a desire to learn. A cynic might suggest that's because it's easier to control people if you indoctrinate them with a set of beliefs and suppress curiosity about the facts.

Is that it? Science is undermining your safe and happy little world where you're one of God's Chosen Species? Taking away your feeling of superiority?

Welcome to Reality. Your early ancestors were chemicals. Deal with it.

[Kazan]

Wanderer: they think the first replicators were simple RNA chains - and it's very easy to determine what the atmosphere was made out of in times passed because of gas-capture by rocks and ice.

aldo_14: Although it's now believed the primoridal atmosphere was a less reactive combination - for a while that was true, but that was the false assumptions i made reference too.  Further study has found that the primordial atmosphere was atleast, if not more, reactive than the mixture Urey-Miller used.

I'm sorry i cannot grab linkies - all the source citations were attached to that wikipedia article that has since been replaced with a much less detailed one and I swinging by to post without enough time to dig in google

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
Wanderer: they think the first replicators were simple RNA chains  

I wouldn't dispute that the formation of RNA is important but Wanderer is correct in stating that the appearance of sugars is a more complex problem that you've glossed over.

You can't have RNA without having ribose and the Urey-Miller experiments never resulted in the formation of any sugars as far as I'm aware.

Besides the belief that RNA was the first replicator is one theory amongst many. I've already mention Cairn-Smith's inorganic clays theory on this thread for one example.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
Wanderer: they think the first replicators were simple RNA chains - and it's very easy to determine what the atmosphere was made out of in times passed because of gas-capture by rocks and ice.

aldo_14: Although it's now believed the primoridal atmosphere was a less reactive combination - for a while that was true, but that was the false assumptions i made reference too.  Further study has found that the primordial atmosphere was atleast, if not more, reactive than the mixture Urey-Miller used.
 

I was going by a book published 2003, so fair enough.  The source cited was, IIRC, H2O by Ball, which is dated 2000.  So it's obviously somewhat problematic relying on books for this sort of thing, but the internet has it's own problems with a lot of deliverate disinformation.  I swear, if I see another 'science' page quoting ****ing Gish I'll explode into incadescent rage.  Or mild annoyance.

What I've been able to find out was that about that time geologists believed volcanic activity would have massively increased levels of less reactive CO2, etc in the atmosphere; presumably the basis for the previous.  But since then  they've determined there could/would likely be a significant methane contribution from volcanic seabed activity.

Albeit, I suppose it's somewhat of a moot point as they've been able to form amino acids within the (simulated) co2-heavy atmosphere model, just in lesser quantities and more difficulty.

(As an aside, I finally got round to ordering The Blind Watchmaker, having spent weeks trying to find it in normal bookshops.  You'd have though a gigantic Borders would have it, but nooooooo)

[karajorma]

Good book that one Aldo. I'm sure you'll enjoy it I prefer The Selfish Gene personally if only for the Nice Guys Finish First chapter

[Kazan]

aldo: yep, relatively lower abundance doesn't matter when you have sheer mass