The Ultimate Goal of Life

[truthguild]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Citation needed for that claim please.

gladly.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations
(you'll note that insertions and repeat expansion mutations add to the DNA)

Yes, let's look at a Dictionary definiton of spirit: The intelligent, immaterial and immortal part of human beings.
Notice "immaterial". It doesn't take up any space, or, in short, not in any of the dimensions.

Of course, you could start arguing over the meaning of spirit, but if you do that, we'll have to start debating in a different language, since we can't come to an agreement on the words in the english language.
What other languages do you know? lol just kidding.

well, that's good evidence that the word "spirit" exists - but that wasn't the point in question. the point in question is whether or not a spirit exists.

 

[ichwar]

Re: Do you believe in God?

gladly.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations
(you'll note that insertions and repeat expansion mutations add to the DNA)

And notice that in every instance they show, they also say that it leads to a defective potein, that doesn't sound too good to me. Also, they've never observed that happening in real life. That is just what they hypothesis the process would be like IF that happened.

well, that's good evidence that the word "spirit" exists - but that wasn't the point in question. the point in question is whether or not a spirit exists.

No, if I'm not mistaken, I thought the point of the question was where did spirits come from. So I simply gave that definiton to prove that spirits are immaterial and therefore do not need an origin, like matter does.

 

[Kayos]

No, I'm not trying to divert the topic away from its original intention.
The topic is 'The Ultimate Goal of Life' I don't believe we can know what the ultimate goal of life is unless we first come to a conclusion on whether or not God exists.
Because, if God does exist, then the goal of life would be something along the lines of trying to please Him and get His favor.
But, if there is no God, then the ultimate goal of life is more like: 'Eat, Drink, and be Merry, for Tomorrow, We Die.'

The topic at hand has nothing to do with my personal religious views (or the lack thereof) so those questions deviate from it. They are another poor attempt at a joke too, which also deviates from the original questions.

I can tell that I hit a nerve with you due to such defensive questions. It was never my intention for you to assume I was questioning your religion.

Nope, no evidence that I have heard of. And I've studied this quite a bit.
Ofcourse, don't get me wrong in this, there plenty of things people bring for as 'evidence' but when examined closely in light of what we already know to be true, it all crumbles apart.
Have you found any new evidence?

I'd be willing to bet that you haven't studied it much. Could the theory be untrue? Sure. Theres a small chance it could be false. Is the theory most likely true? Yeah.

Now, being that it is a theory, can you disprove it? Saying there is no evidence is not a way to disprove it. Support the reasons why you think it's false. Using religious ideas and faith are not reasons either.

 

[truthguild]

Re: Do you believe in God?

And notice that in every instance they show, they also say that it leads to a defective potein, that doesn't sound too good to me. Also, they've never observed that happening in real life. That is just what they hypothesis the process would be like IF that happened.

nylonase is an example of it happening with beneficial results. it stared with a gene duplication, and then a frame shift - resulting in a new enzyme that could take advantage of a new material in it's environment (nylon).

No, if I'm not mistaken, I thought the point of the question was where did spirits come from. So I simply gave that definiton to prove that spirits are immaterial and therefore do not need an origin, like matter does.

perhaps i should have worded it better, but the point I'm looking for is the evidence of the existance of a spirit. also, even if it is immaterial, there's no logical mechanism explaining why it shouldn't need to form.

 

[ichwar]

Re: Do you believe in God?

nylonase is an example of it happening with beneficial results. it stared with a gene duplication, and then a frame shift - resulting in a new enzyme that could take advantage of a new material in it's environment (nylon).

You forget that no one saw that happen, what you said is just one of the many hypothesises of what could of happened.

perhaps i should have worded it better, but the point I'm looking for is the evidence of the existance of a spirit. also, even if it is immaterial, there's no logical mechanism explaining why it shouldn't need to form.

Form: to model, can only be applied to matter, as you cannot model or shape a spirit.

 

[truthguild]

Secondly, How on earth did the earth ever carry the 'building blocks of life'? Amino acids need to come from somewhere. They don't just poof in to existence somehow. Of course, that's simple. Amino acids come from protiens. So where did the protiens come from?

that's not quite how it works - proteins are chains of amino acids - not the other way around. amino acids have been shown to naturally form under many different conditions.

Also, it is a SCIENTIFIC LAW, that life can NOT come from non living things. Just jumbling a bunch of protiens together in the right way will NEVER, not even in a million billion years, create any form of life what so ever.

all the materials needed for life form under natural conditions

And how, pray tell, can a microorganism evolve into a human? Where did it get all the DNA from? It definately didn't make it. The second law of thermo dynamics states that if left alone, things naturally fall into a state of decay. They become worse and worse, not better and better.

beside a fallacy of personal incredulity, this is a serious misrepresentation of the second law of thermodynamics. as the name would imply, thermodynamics deals with the movement of heat energy. in simplest terms, the 2nd law states that in a closed system (the earth is an open system) as work is performed, some energy will be irreversibly lost to the system as heat. that's it - absolutely nothing about genetics.

And besides, even IF we evolved from some amino acids, do you know how long it would take? Well, first of all, you need to know how many protiens are in a single amino acid.

0

In the very simplest amino acid there are 22. In the more complex ones, there are HUNDREDS of protiens. For life to exist, all the amino acids are neccessary, but for my purposes, I'll stick with just the simplest amino acid.
So now, take that amino acid, and figure out how many amino acids you need to be able to make just 1 living cell. For the very simplest cell, 20 amino acids are required. Now, that is just the very simplest cell. The more complex ones, like the ones that make up humans, animals, plants, etc. have hundreds of amino acids.

ignoring that you have amino acids and proteins backwards through most of this - it still isn't a problem for 3.5 billion years or so of evolution - that's a lot of generations passing.

But just taking that simplest cell, let's now take a look at:
'The 5 Steps To Making an Amino Acid!'
1) Assuming that there are 22 protiens to an amino acid, and 20 amino acids to a cell, that is 440 protiens.

there are 0 proteins to an amino acid

2) Now, you do know that to make an amino acid, you can't just take any 22 protiens and put them in any order. They need to be 22 specific protiens in a specific order. Any other mix of protiens or any other order in which they link together, would not produce an amino acid.
3) So, first, you have to get all the right protiens, let's just assume that just the right protiens all happened to be togher, that will make it easier.
4) Then, all the protiens have to be in the right order. If those protiens all line up, then switch places to create a new order once each second, there are 1124000730000000000000 different possiblities, only one of which is the right one, it will take them 35,641,829,337,900 years. Let me put that into words for you: Thirty-five trillion, sixhundred and forty-one billion, eighthundred and twenty-nine million, threehundred and thirty-seven thousand, ninehundred years. You see then, for one cell to exist, it takes more time than you think that it ever took to create our world with almost an infinite amount of cells.
5) You also ontop of all that, need to keep nature from running its course, because a protien disintigrates within a minute of its creation if it doesn't bond into an amino acid within that time.

amino acids form naturally from simple compounds. they do break down rapidly upon exposure to oxygen, but oxygen was scarce in the pre-biotic environment, so this isn't a problem.

So, I just don't see how it is possible for us to have evolved from nothing.

2 points - fallacy of personal incredulity, and a strawman argument (evolutionary theory doesn;t say we evolved from nothing)

You see, in the end, this all boils down to two points of belief. You believe that either
1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
or
2) In the beginning, there was NOTHING, then it exploded.

I'm settling for the first of those two choices.
How about you?

number 2 is a horrid misrepresentation of the Big Bang. no cosmologist claims it was nothing, and no cosmologist claims it was an explosion. the Big Bang theory claims a singularity and the expansion of space-time (which we observe contiinuing today).
Edit:

You forget that no one saw that happen, what you said is just one of the many hypothesises of what could of happened.

hypothesized based on a comparison of the genome of the mutated flavobacteria (ie. the ones with nylonase) to the genome of those that didn't.

Form: to model, can only be applied to matter, as you cannot model or shape a spirit.

you're still dodging on the point of evidence for a spirit.