Evidence for God from Science

It looks like some scientists are close to creating life from non-life. They already got some molecules doing lifelike stuff, such as replicate and compete with one another. Some of these scientists are NOT calling it life just yet as they have yet to observe these molecules evolve new features.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479777,00.html

harth, I forgot this for awhile. Thanks for posting this.

RNA has been in the news for awhile as the precursor to DNA as being the first molecule for life.

It is exciting to see what they are doing but one phrase still stuck out at me. THe had to *synthesize* that RNA molecule themselves. Once they did that, of course that RNA molecule self-replicates. RNA molecules have the unique ability to self-replciate and also act as enzymes.

However, they still had to do the first work. This wouldn't really count as abiogenesis unless they can show this happening spontaneously.

zoegirl wrote:harth, I forgot this for awhile. Thanks for posting this.

RNA has been in the news for awhile as the precursor to DNA as being the first molecule for life.

.

Amazing Zoe, this must be the long awaited 'missing link' that the evolutionists have been waiting for, for millions and billions of years.

I never realized that RNA evolved into DNA, do you have any scriptures to back this up ?

Or would you be able to explain how RNA evolved slowly or with speed into DNA. Was it a miracle, a mutation, divine intervention, natural selection within cell bodies. I would love to hear yours or anyone's explanation of how RNA is a precursor to DNA. Because you are suggesting that DNA came after in time, after the evolution of RNA, RNA then evolved or divinely changed into DNA.

I am serious, and wonder how you or evolutionists or SED'S scientists have reasoned this...

Please answer seriously with a few details and explanations if possible

Thanks much appreciated

Yours in HIM sincerely

David

DAvid, before we enter into another attempt at a debate I wanted to make sure you hear this. I have googled your name and found other forums where you blithely post thread after thread where you *assert*, not argue. Then, when others answer you, you simply tell them they are wrong (liek you did with CSLewis about her post) instead of arguing it. YOur response seems to run something like this "if you simply let yourself open to what GOd has to say, the cetainly you would agree with me, obviously you are not listening to God" (and using your ideas, our crystalling skulls must be out of whack for us to not be receiving the frequency of GOd! http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan ... skull.html)

The frustration you generate is seen in both Christian threads (where posters have patiently explained why you need to argue instead of assert see http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=1044 or non-Christian skeptic sites 't see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77406. YOu simply ram post after post and don't address other's arguments but repeat assewrtion afer assertion. YOu also don't seem to have a problem calling others "not so bright" on the CHristian forum, which is rather humorous when you come here and demand an apology when your feelings are hurt. On that CHrsitian forum you weren't acting so CHristian-liek yourself! B.W. posted numerous scritpure references and you didn't even address these and then had the temerity to accuse him of not addressing yours.

So I will gladly try this again, but my response was really to HArth and others.

So now that I have that established...I will seriously respond

Davidjayjordan wrote:

zoegirl wrote:harth, I forgot this for awhile. Thanks for posting this.

RNA has been in the news for awhile as the precursor to DNA as being the first molecule for life.

.

Amazing Zoe, this must be the long awaited 'missing link' that the evolutionists have been waiting for, for millions and billions of years.

1) I didn't SAY this was the missing link, now, did I?
2) I said it has been in the news, not that I agree with it.

david wrote: I never realized that RNA evolved into DNA, do you have any scriptures to back this up ?

1) Gee, David, why would you be concerned with this, since you believe that not all scripture is God-breathed (using your argumentation, I am simply hearing what God is telling me, it doesn't need to be in scritpure)

but I am assuming this is a bit of mockery on your part

2) Scripture doesn't mention cells, algae, plankton, photosynthesis, or other processes but surely you aren't denying their existence? Of course, since I didn't *say* that RNA evovled into DNA did this is rather a moot point.

david wrote: Or would you be able to explain how RNA evolved slowly or with speed into DNA. Was it a miracle, a mutation, divine intervention, natural selection within cell bodies. I would love to hear yours or anyone's explanation of how RNA is a precursor to DNA. Because you are suggesting that DNA came after in time, after the evolution of RNA, RNA then evolved or divinely changed into DNA.

There are numerous ideas out there about how it started (ok, let me repeat myself here, there are numerous ideas *out there* to explain it, not that I necessarily agree with them.... but surely you would know this? I would be surprised to have to explain this to someone with a science degree? I am serious here. YOu should know these things already.

The current theory states that RNA wouyld have been built by RNA nucleotides that can link together and self-replciate. Originally DNA was thought to be the first molecule but DNA cannot self-replicate and must require RNA primers. The eviednce to support the idea that RNA is the original molecule comes from the evidnece that RNA molecules *can* self-replicate and act as enzymes. So in the current model short RNA pieces of RNA would have been the original molecule.

RNA did NOT then evolve into DNA. RNA and DNA are different nucleic acids. RNA, however, CAN serve as a template for creating DNA, much like transcription but in reverse. And since DNA nucleotides can be attached to RNA primers, the idea is that DNA could be attached onto the RNA pieces. Once the DNA and RNA molecules were replicating, the idea is then the sequences change as mutations occur.

There are obviously still problems with this and I am in no way a support currently of abiogenesis. I am now simply answering your question about the current ideas.
For problems see http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

david wrote: I am serious, and wonder how you or evolutionists or SED'S scientists have reasoned this...

See above

I dont know if you truly weren't aware of these models or were trying to challenge the idea, but hopefully it is not the former. YOu really can't debate and criticize when you don't know the current models.

david wrote: Please answer seriously with a few details and explanations if possible

Thanks much appreciated

Yours in HIM sincerely

David[/quote]

Dr. Rana of Reasons to Believe spoke about this discovery on their podcast. Go to this link:
http://www.reasons.org/

On the right side of the page about half way down are six small squares. Click on the one labeled Science News Flash. When iTunes pops up scroll down to the 1/12/09 "release date" (Life as we know it....).

He gets very detailed about this topic.

Thanks, I will check this later tonight

Hi Dayage - That was a very interesting podcast. Thanx for the referral. BTW, to get to it, I had to click on podcasts on the left side.

DB

Hello David,

Yes, they have made a lot of changes in the past week.

Until this month they had a live 2-hour webcast that you could call in during. That went on for years, but now they have broken it down into three podcasts. One "I Didn't Know That" is where they now answer e-mails. I hope one day they will bring back a live call-in show.