• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

DNA -Sea, Land, Air.... Space?

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
You aren't understanding what I am saying.

Both the Iliad and the Bible have verifiable historical facts. I agree that Athena is not real. So, having verifiable historical facts does not substantiate the stories of supernatural influences. In particular, the verifiable historical facts in the Bible do not show that the stories of Yahweh are true. Nor even that Yahweh is real. So, using the Bible as evidence of God is no more justified than using the Iliad as evidence for Athena.

As for personal experiences. ALL religions have such experiences. ALL claim to be special in some way. The Christian mythology is no different than every other mythology on this point.

So, why should I believe Christianity and NOT believe all the rest? Isn't it much more reasonable to think that ALL are mistaken?

I do understand your point.

You should not believe anything until you have good reason.

It is never reasonable to assume. Accurately-perceived experience would be the necessary difference.

The bible itself does contain proof of an intelligence able to have written future history, but few will consider the matter seriously or thoroughly.

"God" is not of a simple description. "God" is essentially the sum of that which exists (God is one).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I do understand your point.

You should not believe anything until you have good reason.

It is never reasonable to assume. Accurately-perceived experience would be the necessary difference.

The bible itself does contain proof of an intelligence able to have written future history, but few will consider the matter seriously or thoroughly.

"God" is not of a simple description. "God" is essentially the sum of that which exists (God is one).

So God is the universe? If so, I can accept that, but I wonder why we should use the word 'God' when 'the universe' is perfectly workable.
 
Last edited:
@Etritonakin

"The bible itself does contain proof of an intelligence able to have written future history, but few will consider the matter seriously or thoroughly."

Is this going to be one of those entirely unconvincing 'this Bible passage predicted that Bible passage' things? If so you are correct that only people that already believe would give that any weight.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
"Where there is a niche there is an organism to live inside that niche". It is an expression that basically applies to anywhere within the biosphere of Earth. However, there must be certain limits that an organism can exist within (i.e. the biosphere). Keep in mind that DNA breaks down rapidly at the temperature of boiling water ...... which is why boiling water is the best way to make water safe for drinking (at least from parasites and other disease pathogens). Similarly steam is used to disinfect surgical instruments before they are used inside the next patient.
Volcanic oceanic vents are surrounded by microscopic life, but nothing lives inside the lava itself.
At the other extreme.....space is a void. No nutrients, no water, NADA. There is minimal solar/stellar energy, but without matter there is no growth, and no reproduction. So even a photosynthetic cell cannot do more than freeze and "hibernate" while out in space. Although even most single cell micro-organisms would die in the superfrigid environement of space. The bonds between cells of all larger (multi-cellular) organisms would fair even less well.

In order to reproduce the organism needs the atomic/molecular components that make up the original organism. So, Yes.


No. when even something as simple as viral DNA sheds its protein shell to get into a living cell, the shell is just as alive as a rock. The DNA loop that just got inserted into the host cell is the only part of the virus that stands any chance of duplicating itself (and replication/reproduction is one of the defining features of a living organism).
No DNA/RNA = No life ......(as far as we understand life). Other self-replicating molecules could theoretically exist, although simply using different atomic building blocks for the molecules would not allow replication without an environment containing said building blocks.

These are a commonly misunderstood set of terms. Adapt is not the same as Evolve. But we still have the problems outlined above. That is....make the environment too extreme and you will never suddenly make cell-cell interactions occur without liquid water, or DNA survive 300+ degrees Farenheit.
Not sure that's entirely accurate in regards to DNA itself. It looks like some dna can survive considerable extremes and remain intact.

Scientific American source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFzFp4F_SmGpAR_TEbUSwtkuNpZtg
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
So God is the universe? If so, I can accept that, but I wonder why we should use the word 'God' when 'the universe' is perfectly workable.
A more accurate way to think about it would be that God is the overall mind, and every"thing" is essentially his body in that he has control over all things, just as we consider our bodies part of our selves -except that God is able to basically represent himself in any way he chooses within the whole of himself as there is nothing external to that which is considered "God".
Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

It is not known that the universe is all there is. Even if so, "God" is a name of a person.
If there were no mind or personality associated with all things, then universe or similar would be accurate.

I have been considering why God necessarily exists and is necessarily perfect (just some ideas at present -not making any claims).
Perfection would be by necessity, as all things would directly affect God from the beginning. There would not be the same buffer we have.
As for the necessity of an overall mind and personality...
Though we begin our awareness within a system which is already in motion and complex, we see that certain things are only possible after awareness, self-awareness, decision, creativity, etc. -and that those things must be preceded by that which makes them possible.
It is logical that the same applies to all things, as that which exists now is the same as that which existed before, but in a different arrangement.
That (the arrangement) which exists now could not have existed unless preceded by a mind and personality, and that mind and personality would be by that which made it possible.

That would mean God was once the most simple state possible -which would be logical if God were to have all knowledge, all power, etc.

Even if one believes God does not exist, it should be acceptable that the development of self, awareness, self-awareness, creativity, personality, etc., etc is inherent in "nature".
God would be the original and overall self -and would exist by "his" "own" "nature"
In other words...
I AM THAT AM
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
A more accurate way to think about it would be that God is the overall mind, and every"thing" is essentially his body in that he has control over all things, just as we consider our bodies part of our selves -except that God is able to basically represent himself in any way he chooses within the whole of himself as there is nothing external to that which is considered "God".
Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

It is not known that the universe is all there is. Even if so, "God" is a name of a person.
If there were no mind or personality associated with all things, then universe or similar would be accurate.

I have been considering why God necessarily exists and is necessarily perfect (just some ideas at present -not making any claims).
Perfection would be by necessity, as all things would directly affect God from the beginning. There would not be the same buffer we have.
As for the necessity of an overall mind and personality...
Though we begin our awareness within a system which is already in motion and complex, we see that certain things are only possible after awareness, self-awareness, decision, creativity, etc. -and that those things must be preceded by that which makes them possible.
It is logical that the same applies to all things, as that which exists now is the same as that which existed before, but in a different arrangement.
That (the arrangement) which exists now could not have existed unless preceded by a mind and personality, and that mind and personality would be by that which made it possible.

That would mean God was once the most simple state possible -which would be logical if God were to have all knowledge, all power, etc.

Even if one believes God does not exist, it should be acceptable that the development of self, awareness, self-awareness, creativity, personality, etc., etc is inherent in "nature".
God would be the original and overall self -and would exist by "his" "own" "nature"
In other words...
I AM THAT AM


This is ultimately a version of pantheism. God is the animating spirit of the universe.

I come from an atheist perspective and don't think the universe *has* an 'overall self': consciousness came about through natural processes and didn't exist until there were organisms complex enough to develop it.

But pantheism is at least less destructive of science than most religions.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Not sure that's entirely accurate in regards to DNA itself. It looks like some dna can survive considerable extremes and remain intact.

Scientific American source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFzFp4F_SmGpAR_TEbUSwtkuNpZtg
Tis a good point, but the article itself points out the idea of micro environments/micro-climates on the shielded surfaces of the rocket (tucked into cracks and notched screw heads, etc....). These might not have reached the full 100 celcius that large thermometers straped to the fuselage were reading.

Furthermore, I think if the panspermia concept were to hold water, one must realize that while DNA holds the information, it still requires DNA helicase and polymerase in order to produce copies/reproduce/be alive. So viruses or plasmids alone cannot have conveyed life between the stars. It must have included independent, functional cells in order for DNA replication (i.e. LIFE) to pick up on a new planet where it left off on the old one.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Tis a good point, but the article itself points out the idea of micro environments/micro-climates on the shielded surfaces of the rocket (tucked into cracks and notched screw heads, etc....). These might not have reached the full 100 celcius that large thermometers straped to the fuselage were reading.

Furthermore, I think if the panspermia concept were to hold water, one must realize that while DNA holds the information, it still requires DNA helicase and polymerase in order to produce copies/reproduce/be alive. So viruses or plasmids alone cannot have conveyed life between the stars. It must have included independent, functional cells in order for DNA replication (i.e. LIFE) to pick up on a new planet where it left off on the old one.


There are many types of bacteria that can form 'spores' that survive dehydration. Such *do* have the polymerases and other supporting proteins required for metabolism. The main question is whether those spores would be able to survive the long term dehydration and radiation involved in movement between stellar systems.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There are many types of bacteria that can form 'spores' that survive dehydration. Such *do* have the polymerases and other supporting proteins required for metabolism. The main question is whether those spores would be able to survive the long term dehydration and radiation involved in movement between stellar systems.

There's only one thing that for now, imv could conceivably survive such a journey and extremes.

Something that fits both the definitions of living and non living matter.

A virus.

Being star stuff. The nessessary components creating life had to come from somewhere.

I do wonder if life itself is a virus.

Further research by Stanley and others established that a virus consists of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) enclosed in a protein coat that may also shelter viral proteins involved in infection. By that description, a virus seems more like a chemistry set than an organism. But when a virus enters a cell (called a host after infection), it is far from inactive. It sheds its coat, bares its genes and induces the cell’s own replication machinery to reproduce the intruder’s DNA or RNA and manufacture more viral protein based on the instructions in the viral nucleic acid.


Source:


Are Viruses Alive?
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
This is ultimately a version of pantheism. God is the animating spirit of the universe.

I come from an atheist perspective and don't think the universe *has* an 'overall self': consciousness came about through natural processes and didn't exist until there were organisms complex enough to develop it.

But pantheism is at least less destructive of science than most religions.

I technically agree that consciousness came about through "natural" processes, but find it logical that an initial consciousness must have preceded what we know as natural processes -that some "natural processes" must have been set in motion by decision, such as our universe. I do not see how the Big Bang could have been the very beginning due to its initial complexity. How the singularity came to be is not otherwise adequately explained.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I technically agree that consciousness came about through "natural" processes, but find it logical that an initial consciousness must have preceded what we know as natural processes -that some "natural processes" must have been set in motion by decision, such as our universe. I do not see how the Big Bang could have been the very beginning due to its initial complexity. How the singularity came to be is not otherwise adequately explained.


Most of the current quantum theories of gravity predict something before the current expansion phase of the universe. They differ on the specifics, however and we cannot yet test between the different views.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The bible states (taking several verses together) that we may be given bodies which allow for creative power similar to that which allowed for the initial creation (more direct interface/fiat), as well as the inhabitation and ordering of the universe. (Philippians 3:21, Isaiah 45:18, Romans 8, etc.)

As those verses discusses a bodily change which has already been planned, it essentially means such a body has already been designed for us.

While considering those things, I began to wonder if it was possible for DNA-based life to eventually adapt to the point of travel through space without the use of external vehicles.
Can "evolution" alone make the transition from Earth to space -or is it limited by the availability of material?
Is it truly feasible for man to inhabit other planets and solar systems without a drastic change in bodily form -even if using external vehicles?
A body is partly a vehicle -so what sort of bodily vehicle would make inhabiting the universe feasible -and could it be DNA-based?
Can DNA-based life make a "natural" transition to any other sort of base -or can such a transition be made possible by life forms capable of self-evolution?

The Bible got a lot of astounding things right, many that were once thought impossible- 'lucky guesses' or not, anything predicted in the Bible is at the very least an interesting conversation piece for anyone not ideologically opposed to it.

Genesis also talks about mankind becoming as numerous as stars (which it also correctly compares with the number of grains of sand on Earth) which would take more than one planet.

Some atheists also like Hawking think it's mankind's destiny to colonize the stars.

I don't think 'evolution' in the Darwinian sense can make us space beings, any more than it could morph a single cell into our current form! But with the application of creative intelligence, anything that is willed becomes theoretically possible I think. We invented powered flight barely a lifetime ago and have probes beyond the solar system already..

That nobody else apparently ever colonized the galaxy already.. I think also supports the notion of us being alone/ the primary beneficiaries of creation that is ours to explore/ dominion over etc..
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Most of the current quantum theories of gravity predict something before the current expansion phase of the universe. They differ on the specifics, however and we cannot yet test between the different views.
We have been able to reverse-engineer things thus far, and I believe the realization that the universe is at least a portion of the same stuff that existed before -is made of that which existed before -which seems logical -would be important, as that which now exists would not necessarily only reveal its own apparent beginning, but also that which preceded its beginning.
 
Top