Abiogenesis

[bob x]

None of those chemicals are "amino acids". Do you know what an "amino acid" is?

Your powers of observation are truly stunning ! !

Spot a mistake and attempt to belittle the one making it.....

Well it's not like it's a small mistake. It is more like trying to discuss Christianity with someone who says "King Saul, also called Paul, was one of the 12 disciples" or "The Koran is one of the books of the New Testament". It indicates that you don't know the basics, and don't care to learn. You clarify your "understanding" by saying thing like:

The subunits of DNA, which make up the genetic material or genes, and of RNA, material used by the cell to translate the genetic messages contained in the genes into the specific structure of proteins and other structures found in living things, consist of amino acids and four different kinds of nucleotides

NO. No subunits of DNA or RNA are amino acids.

The set of "20" which most life-forms have DNA codes for has nothing magical about it, as the existence of some organisms which make some substitutions shows.


These are in essence 'magical,' they are unique.

NO. They are not "unique"; a different set could have been used. There is nothing magical about the set of 20, and no need that it has to be as large as 20, or 14 either.
You explained where you got your number "14" from:

Studies of protein structures show that chains of 7 amino acids are required to create the secondary stage stable structure. The overall protein structure is the tertiary structure, the final structure requires two of these 3D structures to join and fold to create a definate 3D stable structure, so as to make a rigid and reproducible protein

Alpha- or beta-chains shorter than about 7 are not very stable; but there is no requirement that the 7 be of 7 different kinds. The protein that makes silk is a very long beta-sheet alternating just 2 different amino acids over and over; alpha-coils can be formed with every amino acid the same.
And not every protein needs to have two or more chains to form a tertiary structure; and in those proteins that are formed this way, there is generally no difference, or little difference, between the amino acids in the one chain and the other (hemoglobin for example is made of four chains, two identical "a" and two identical "b" with little difference between "a" and "b"; except that in lower chordates the "monomeric" hemoglobin only has one chain).

Do you know the difference between a flat circle and a sphere yet ?

I always did. And so did the Hebrews: they depict the Earth as a flat circle, not as a sphere.

 

[lunamoth]

NO. No subunits of DNA or RNA are amino acids.

A small but important technical point: DNA and RNA are nucleic acids made up of four different nucleotides (A, T, G, C). Proteins are made up of amino acids.

cheers,
lunamoth

 

[E99]

Hello bob.....I've been away, so a late reply.


My quote:
Your powers of observation are truly stunning!! Spot a mistake and attempt to belittle the one making it...


Your quote:
Well it's not like it's a small mistake. It is more like trying to discuss Christianity with someone who says "King Saul, also called Paul, was one of the 12 disciples" or "The Koran is one of the books of the New Testament". It indicates that you don't know the basics, and don't care to learn.



If someone continued to promote that King Saul was one of the disciples, then it would be a mistake. If that same person admitted that it was an error in a typed thread, then he showed what he actually meant, then the mistake is shown as just that. He then clarifies what he meant.....


Your nitpicking is only a diversionary tactic to veer from the subject in hand that you cannot substantiate, flitting from one new theory to another, and an inability to grasp the insurmountable chemical problems faced in ALL processes required to get animated life to start. You divert by attempting to belittle an opponent of your belief, by accentuating an obvious mistake, trying to show that the one disagreeing with abiogenesis does not understand the ins and outs. Making one error into a mountain, deflecting from the real discussion on the fact that abiogenesis is impossible because you're getting bogged down in dealing with the realistic complexities involved that you obviously find hard to stomach when you have to chew on them.


I can see that you can't even grasp the aspects about cellular amino acids and proteins, the requirements, upwards to 20 L-isomer amino acids that are needed to form a most basic protocell. You keep going off on a tangent to look at modern day cells and other various proteins that aren't relative at all to the earliest assumed workings of protocells, those with different and specific functions.


The proteins I am talking about are specific to the functioning of a hypothetical protocell, not haemoglobin molecules or silk protein etc. (Are you deliberately being obstructive and awkward ? ) I don't know why you cannot understand this need for the specific amino acids and proteins that I am talking about. The proteins for instance would need a good amount of the 20 specific L-isomer amino acids to form, and those first proteins would need to have a specific function such as waste product ejection ...... If each protein is representative of say the parts of a bicycle, what good is the bike without the chain or wheels ? Evolutionists have a bad habit of bypassing irreducible complexity and fantasize that the bicycle can run along smoothly without the wheels and chain....same with the so called first simple life form.


I stepped this hypothetical protocell down to a ridiculously low amount of only 12 proteins, each with an essential function. In reality cells need to have a bare minimum of 250 proteins to work. Most have a lot more.

If you think that I'm picking my ideas on this subject out of thin air, evolutionist scientists have a similar understanding about the required amino acids and particular proteins required to make the most extreme basic protocell work..... e.g. Sagan and Shklovskii have put up calculations on their formations by estimating the number of amino acids (and types required) present in the speculative primeval sea etc. They use the same concepts that I am using, and calculate the probabilities of getting the very first living simplest protocell by random processes.


Your quote:
The set of "20" which most life forms have DNA codes for has nothing magical about it, as the existance of some organisms which make up substitutions shows.


My quote:
These are in essence 'magical' they are unique.


Your quote:
NO. They are not "unique"; a different set could have been used. There is nothing magical about the set of 20, and no need that it has to be as large as 20, or 14 either.
You explained where you got your number "14" from:

Are you on the same planet ? Are you made up of non life giving amino acids then ?..... (unless you are a troll ? Hmmm.....Come to think of it!) Out of all of the hundreds and hundreds of amino acids (and all the other millions of molecules) only 20 'left handed' amino acid molecules have the essential ingredients that are required for life...the ingredients amongst zillions of non-life giving molecules, a miniscule amount needed to animate life, the first protocell.......And you say that they are not unique !! These somehow got together amongst millions of other chemicals by chance and life started ! Really !

What other 'set' could have got together to form the simplest cellular functioning protein ?


My quote:
Studies of protein structures show that chains of 7 amino acid sub units are required to create the secondary stage stable body. The final overall protein structure requires two of these 3D structures to join and fold to create a definate 3D stable structure, so as to make a rigid and reproducible protein.


Your quote:
Alpha- or beta-chains shorter than about 7 are not very stable; but there is no requirement that the 7 be of 7 different kinds. The protein that makes silk is a very long beta-sheet alternating just 2 different amino acids over and over; alpha-coils can be formed with every amino acid the same.
And not every protein needs to have two or more chains to form a tertiary structure; and in those proteins that are formed this way, there is generally no difference, or little difference, between the amino acids in the one chain and the other (hemoglobin for example is made of four chains, two identical "a" and two identical "b" with little difference between "a" and "b"; except that in lower chordates the "monomeric" hemoglobin only has one chain).



Life giving proteins within the hypothetical protocell with their specific functions are a far cry from silk proteins. Spider silk proteins have a different property and a different function. Silk protein is in fact quite complex in structure. Is silk protein ever going to have the properties to form life ? What have these proteins to do with cellular construction anyway ?
So if a protein in the simplest of protocells had to form to do the function of say energy metabolism, what would this protein consist of ? The same as silk ?! Do you really think that it could function properly with just two amino acids and only a secondary structure ? For these early functioning types of proteins a stable structure is required.


My quote:
Do you know the difference between a flat circle and a sphere yet ?


Your quote:
I always did. And so did the Hebrews: they depict the Earth as a flat circle, not as a sphere.


Absolutely no proof in what you say. Show me substantial evidence that this is as you assume. Only a willful stubborness to accept facts make you believe that they were talking about a flat circle. The Hebrew word 'Chug' means sphere also, as I showed you in the creationist model discussion, and how the word is utilised in other scriptures. You seem to think that you have a sole understanding of the original Hebrew word in that it only means a flat circle, and along with a pre-conceived assumption that the ancient Hebrews thought that we lived on a flat disc. This is despite other scriptures countering this anti scripture website drivel, and the scholarly knowledge on the meaning of the Hebrew word Chug (sphere) which dispels your flat circle idea as yet another dead loss.



This feeble unfounded statement is the same as your persistant assuming of all events within his discussion, you think that mere speculations are fact, an obstinancy to accept that abiogenesis, RNA, protocellular formation and pre-biotic soup chemical combinations is an impossibility, as you have no substantial back-up, give no indepth analysis of the complex processes involved, and use out of kilter analogies. Abiogenesis is fact only in your mind, but its far from realistic truth outside of your imagination.


As we are getting 'patchy' in our discussions, what would be advisable, is for you to give a complete run down on the processes, how you come to the end product, formation of the first living cell by the various stages involved, RNA world, etc. Including the formation of the pre-biotic soup, or what other new theory has cropped up that suits for a while, until the next one has to be promoted.

 

[bob x]

If that same person admitted that it was an error in a typed thread, then he showed what he actually meant,

and if what he actually meant was just as bad a misconception, then what? NO, there are NO amino acids in DNA or RNA.

Your nitpicking is only a diversionary tactic to veer from the subject in hand that you cannot substantiate

Abiogenesis is a difficult problem, and no mistake. But you are not approaching the literature with any view to figuring it out, but only to find excuses for why the problem cannot be solved. And so you are not much interested in understanding what the literature has to say.

I can see that you can't even grasp the aspects about cellular amino acids and proteins, the requirements, upwards to 20 L-isomer amino acids that are needed to form a most basic protocell.

There is, as I keep trying to explain to you, NO requirement that 20 different kinds had to be used from the beginning.

You keep going off on a tangent to look at modern day cells and other various proteins that aren't relative at all to the earliest assumed workings of protocells, those with different and specific functions.

What "assumptions" about the workings of protocells are you working from? No possibilities should be foreclosed at this early stage of investigation. There is no reason to assume that the protocell had any control over transport across the membrane, or any co-ordination between the membrane splitting and the nucleic-acid copying, for example.

The proteins I am talking about are specific to the functioning of a hypothetical protocell, not haemoglobin molecules or silk protein etc. (Are you deliberately being obstructive and awkward ? )

I was being responsive to your argument for the number "14": you got from the literature that alpha-coils and beta-pleats need to be about seven long before they hold stable, and that a protein really needs more than one of these elements to do anything, to the assumption that there needs to be 14 DIFFERENT amino acids involved, which does not follow in the slightest.

I stepped this hypothetical protocell down to a ridiculously low amount of only 12 proteins

Why not to ZERO proteins? On what basis do you claim that the first protocells had to use proteins in any way?

They are not "unique"; a different set could have been used. There is nothing magical about the set of 20, and no need that it has to be as large as 20, or 14 either.
You explained where you got your number "14" from:

Are you on the same planet ? Are you made up of non life giving amino acids then ?.....

*I* am made up from the 20, because I share common ancestry with the other creatures that have settled on that set of 20. Other life-forms could use a completely different set; we do have examples of life-forms on this planet which slightly vary the set of amino acids used, and completely unrelated life-forms would have no requirement to use a set that was particularly similar, although it would be surprising if any of the very simple amino acids like glycine or alanine were unused.

Out of all of the hundreds and hundreds of amino acids (and all the other millions of molecules) only 20 'left handed' amino acid molecules have the essential ingredients that are required for life...the ingredients amongst zillions of non-life giving molecules, a miniscule amount needed to animate life, the first protocell.......And you say that they are not unique !!

That's right, and I will keep telling you this until you hear. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THOSE TWENTY AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER AMINO ACIDS. It could have ended up being a different set of amino acids: some mixture of electropositive, electronegative, and neutral, surely, but not necessarily the same ones.

they depict the Earth as a flat circle, not as a sphere.


Absolutely no proof in what you say. Show me substantial evidence that this is as you assume.

The OT refers to the earth as having "edges", and numerous scriptural references assume the possibility of seeing the whole earth at once from a high enough vantage point (impossible, since the earth is a sphere).

The Hebrew word 'Chug' means sphere also, as I showed you

You ASSERTED this; that is not the same as SHOWING it. The word for "ball" is duwr which is never used for the earth; the word chuwg is "circle", and is never used for a sphere.

 

[bob x]

An article on the current status of abiogenesis research:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0030396-S.pdf

 

[lunamoth]

An article on the current status of abiogenesis research:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0030396-S.pdf

Hi bob x, thank you for the link. Fascinating stuff! I like Russell and Martin's metabolism first model a lot. As I said at the start of this thread it's hard to understand the usefulness of a lipid bilayer in the earliest protocells, before metabolism was advanced enough to create the selective permeablility of transport proteins. Having metabolism and simple catalytic molecules evolving in the protected microenvironments of the chimneys seems to solve that problem. The first life would not have been cells at all, but replicating systems of ever increasing complexity. I think what is being learned about protein-protein interactions in metabolism also fits well with this model. Having the whole replicating structure contained in a lipid membrane could have come much later.

lunamoth

 

[E99]

Bob....

Okay, I'm weeks behind on the debate ! Busy time of year. Your new link is interesting, more theories, reasonable ones that don't seem to bring in insurmountable improbabilities, but still with many problems regarding restrictions in chemical combining.

The hydrothermal vent theories have already been contested. Assuming a metabolism first, only leads onto the inevitable....A self replicating system had to form at some point and the article admits that it can't work without the RNA world. RNA is always the big problem....Accumulation of the essential compounds is highly restrictive under the vent conditions described in the article, they are far too short lived e.g. RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100 ° C - adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. In fact cytosine is unstable at temperatures as cold as 0 c....Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist. Under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.

Its good to see that they recognise the incredible problems facing current established abiogenesis theories, and subsequently they have to forever turn to new ideas.



Your quote:
Abiogenesis is a difficult problem, and no mistake. But you are not approaching the literature with any view to figuring it out, but only to find excuses for why the problem cannot be solved. And so you are not much interested in understanding what the literature has to say.



Difficult problem ....( Understatement of the year ! ) I've looked into this subject from various angles as a creationist, and in the past as an evolutionist, read the different sides of the literature, and tried to figure it out. My conclusions are that it is totally unrealistic. I think that you are looking at it from only one angle, the one that fits in with your belief. I am trying to be open minded on this subject.....My previous posts did say that abiogenesis is possible under guidance of an omnipotent being, because my belief is based on the scripture that 'All things are possible with God'. However, there is no reasoning by present evidence to say that random abiogenesis has occured. It is all speculation, and remains so. I can't kid myself like I used to. Equally 'all things possible with God' can mean that he has chosen to directly create. What is possible, is highlighted by God showing us what he has chosen to make us see as impossible under his own physical laws, he sets his own limits under the laws he created for us. Outside of his created physical laws all things are possible. His written word seems to point to direct creation stages as the means, and extensive anthropic design factors seem to say that this is the course that he has taken. More like a designer creator of products than a planter of seeds. We differ in that you believe that he planted the seeds and I believe that he creates and plants. We both though recognise that God is involved in someway, which is thankfully, something that we can agree on.



If the evidence of abiogenesis is not 100% forthcoming, should it be promoted as fact ?..... Books, websites, magazines, T.V. programmes play it out as if lifes origins have been solved, still using the old tales about random chemical combinations in a prebiotic soup. This should not be promulgated in this way, but put across to us as only an unfounded idea. Which it is.


My quote:
I can see that you can't even grasp the aspects about cellular amino acids and proteins, the requirements, upwards to 20 L-isomer amino acids that are needed to form a most basic protocell.


Your quote:
There is, as I keep trying to explain to you, NO requirement that 20 different kinds (of amino acids) had to be used from the beginning.



I have said UPWARDS to, I agree with the hypothetical assumption that not all 20 need have been used at the beginning. A lesser amount, but not down to a miniscule amount to invalidate protein function. Proteins would have to had a certain amount of specificity. However, in reality, and evidentially 22 maximum are used in life giving proteins. Additionally, the 'left handed' amino acids are required for life. 'Right handed' amino acids exist, and only make a dead end barrier to the formation of life if they bond with the 'left handed' amino acids, as would have happened in the pre-biotic soup. This is called a lock out, polymerylization could not continue. A vast primeval sea of only the proteinous 20 L-isomer amino acids alone would have given a greater probability that a simple life form could have formed, but this scenario is pure fantasy. Amino acids form readily out of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms as these atoms are abundant. The reality of biochemistry is that all the other hundreds of types of amino acids in D and L form would have existed in the speculative primeval sea, these would have only been a great restriction to the reacting and combining of proteinous amino acids.



We can get an idea of the number of amino acids required to make a substantial protein. Insulin has one of the smallest amounts which is 51. More importantly ancient proteins in bacteria, that apparently date near the beginning of time, the amino acid contents are 56. To put it down to 14 aa is extreme, (and not all different ones) This is a hypothetical amount, and by no means says that a protocell would work with so few, but a minute amount is theorised because it is assumed that a small amount would have been the case at the outset. Even computational models cannot create a tertiary structure with less than 23 amino acids, which is the key to protein function.



My quote:
You keep going off on a tangent to look at modern day cells and other various proteins that aren't relative at all to the earliest assumed workings of protocells, those with different and specific functions.


Your quote:
What "assumptions" about the workings of protocells are you working from? No possibilities should be foreclosed at this early stage of investigation. There is no reason to assume that the protocell had any control over transport across the membrane, or any co-ordination between the membrane splitting and the nucleic-acid copying, for example.



The workings of a protocell that would function on a bare minimum, based on its descendant the cell, its workings, laws of biology etc. But this is purely hypothetical. A very basic cell would need proteins to serve the cell so that it continues to work and survive. Each protein needs to have a regulatory protein to assure that nothing go's wrong. I tried to play devils advocate by reducing the modern minimal amount of 250 proteins to 12 ...6 essentials and each essential protein needs a regulatory protein.
You wouldn't say that your watch would work below a minimum amount of parts. There is a minimal limit before it would stop functioning. It might just about function if non vital parts were taken away and only for a while before breakdown, if some more vital parts were disposed of. This is the same with the cell, or in this case an earlier hypothetical protocell. It would have had to rely on vital units to work and survive. Against all of the tremendous odds the individual proteins would have had to have formed in the pre-biotic soup and then each protein would have had to unite to form the protocell. Avoiding DNA so as to simplify, RNA would have had to form so that it would have the ability to self replicate. A watch is not a functioning unit if cannot give us the measure of time if it is only five cogs and one hand lying next to each other.

Such is life, things have to work in unison with a limited amount of parts to work and progress. We cannot go below a certain amount. A fact of life. Physical laws. Irreduceable complexity.



My quote:
I stepped this hypothetical protocell down to a ridiculously low amount of only 12 proteins .


Your quote:
Why not to ZERO proteins? On what basis do you claim that the first protocells had to use proteins in any way?


On the laws of nature of cells, and in your own words you recognise the laws regarding the building blocks of proteins, amino acids.....
Your quote.....>>" *I* am made up from the 20, because I share common ancestry with the other creatures that have settled on that set of 20."<<
Common ancestry also recognises that the 20 life giving amino acids make up proteins, and proteins are the mainstay of any cell.... If you say zero proteins, then you might as well say zero amino acids.
Modern cells use proteins. The essence of life. If something else comes up where proteins are not the only working blocks of life then you could possibly say zero proteins.



Your quote:
They are not "unique"; a different set could have been used. There is nothing magical about the set of 20, and no need that it has to be as large as 20, or 14 either. You explained where you got your number "14" from:


My quote:
Are you on the same planet ? Are you made up of non life giving amino acids then ?.....


Your quote:
*I* am made up from the 20, because I share common ancestry with the other creatures that have settled on that set of 20. Other life-forms could use a completely different set; we do have examples of life-forms on this planet which slightly vary the set of amino acids used, and completely unrelated life-forms would have no requirement to use a set that was particularly similar, although it would be surprising if any of the very simple amino acids like glycine or alanine were unused.


What other set of amino acids ? Left handed or right handed, or a mixture ? How could these create life ? Why did they not formulate in the pre-biotic soup ? They would have faced the same chemical barriers and combination probabilities that the known 20 life forming amino acids had to face. In the billions of years that the life forming amino acids were said to have been reacting and combining. Why did the other sets not combine to form life ? Surely these sets would have formed life, given the same time scale, vast primeval sea and conditions that were known for the 20 life giving amino acids. How would they have stopped from reacting with other amino acids ? How would other sets work with DNA, RNA, codons, bases. Is there hard evidence in what you say ? Would these other amino acids have an inbuilt genetic code ?


My quote:
Out of all of the hundreds and hundreds of amino acids (and all the other millions of molecules) only 20 'left handed' amino acid molecules have the essential ingredients that are required for life...the ingredients amongst zillions of non-life giving molecules, a miniscule amount needed to animate life, the first protocell.......And you say that they are not unique !!


Your quote:
That's right, and I will keep telling you this until you hear. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THOSE TWENTY AS OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER AMINO ACIDS. It could have ended up being a different set of amino acids: some mixture of electropositive, electronegative, and neutral, surely, but not necessarily the same ones.



This is interesting, please show me in detail one other different set of amino acids that could be life forming and how they would have bonded to be producers of life and subsequently work with RNA, DNA to code the proteins etc.. At present we have 2 bases consisting of pyrimidine and purine that use 64 triplet codons for 20 amino acids, a lot of redundancy to tackle error transmission. Little is known how the bases code for the 20 essential amino acids. How on earth would they code for a different set of amino acids ? The bases work with the proteinous amino acids, so are you saying that a new set of amino acids would require a new form of bases ? How does this work out regarding the current understanding of molecular biology ?



If you can show me life where RNA, DNA etc etc work hand in hand with another set of amino acids and the other amino acids L-isomer or D-isomer ones are involved in lifeforms, then you can say that the twenty that are used now are not unique. Other than that you are wasting your breath and typing in caps fruitlessly. For now it happens to be that the evidence is that existing life in the realm that we live in proves that they are unique. Hypothetically you can say that anything can be used for life, realistically and evidentially you can't. Whatever, other fictional sets would face the same extensive probability factors and the chemical barriers required to combine.

 

[E99]

Bob:

Flat earth....?
A little off topic, but it did sprout up in this discussion as a side line to abiogenesis, creation and the biblical view of creation regarding a globular earth as opposed to a flat earth.


Your quote:
They depict the Earth as a flat circle, not as a sphere.


My quote:
Absolutely no proof in what you say. Show me substantial evidence that this is as you assume.


Your quote:
The OT refers to the earth as having "edges".


I take it that the so called 'edges' come mainly from this scripture in Revelation 7:1. and scriptures in Psalms. This is the common misconception about Revelation 7:1 Some assume a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Corners.... taken from the Hebrew word Gonia ; an angle, corner, quarter.

Its said that this is figuratively referring to the four compass points. The scripture is symbolic, figurative. We still use this phrase ourselves today, but we don't believe that the world is flat or square. Likewise we would say 'I'd search for her to the ends of the earth'.
Most of revelation is symbolic and figurative. No need to take the obvious so literally.


Your quote:
And numerous scriptural references assume the possibility of seeing the whole earth at once from a high enough vantage point (impossible, since the earth is a sphere).


Again figurative speech. Although a real occurance:
Do you take this mainly from Matthew 4:8 ?.."The Devil took him along (Jesus) to an unusually high mountain and showed him all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory". Could do the same thing on a computer screen, it doesn't mean the world is flat.


Jesus sometimes explained his figurative speech, e.g. John 2:19 Jesus said..."In answer break down this temple and in three days I will raise it up." Those listening did not understand the figurative speech as they knew that the temple took 46 years to build. If the scriptures had not explained what Jesus actually meant, then we might still be deliberating over it today. He was referring to his body as the temple, raised up three days later. Do you believe that Jesus could raise up the temple in three days ? An understanding of the context of the chapter, verse and other scriptures is required before taking figurative and symbolic scriptures too literally.



My quote:
The Hebrew word 'Chug' means sphere also, as I showed you.


Your quote:
You ASSERTED this; that is not the same as SHOWING it. The word for "ball" is duwr which is never used for the earth; the word chuwg is "circle", and is never used for a sphere.



Apologies, you are right, I did 'assert' rather than show you, so I'll 'assert' a little bit more. The word 'chug' is used for sphere, (see the creation model discussion ) it implies that it means sphere as it is used in context of describing a spherical shape that is found in various scriptures, and Hebrew scholars recognise that 'chug' was used for a globular shape other than just circle. Other Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and "the round earth."-(Moffatt.)



Five different Hebrew words....´e´rets; che´dhel; che´ledh; `oh·lam´; te·vel´ are used to describe the world, earth. It is spherical in shape, but it doesn't mean that these words have to describe the spherical shape each and every time, which they don't, they each have different meanings relating to the world or earth. Chug likewise has different connotations circle, sphere, globe. Its used correctly and appropriately within the context of the scriptures to where it is found.



Your quote:
The word for "ball" is duwr which is never used for the earth; the word chuwg is "circle", and is never used for a sphere.


Wrong...chug is used for sphere. The word Duwr does not specifically refer to a ball but to a circular shape. It is used once when translated as ball. Again this is the way Hebrew words have different connotations under different contexts...Chug and duwr being two of them.



Looking at where the word ball (Hebrew duwr) is used in the scriptures we can see that it is not appropriate to use it at Isaiah 40:22 .....
"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth" ...and 'duwr' is not always implying a spherical shape only....
In Isaiah 22:18 it reads "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die" The Hebrew word here is Duwr ...a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

Duwr is used elsewhere, but here it refers to its truer meaning, a circular shape

Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, (duwr) and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a ball sphere around the city ! Based on this and other scriptures, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape.



I don't think it would be proper Hebrew to say 'Dwelling above the ball of the earth' in the scriptures in Isaiah. We don't say upon the ball of the earth or the round or turn of the earth. We can say that the earth is like a ball.
Above..... scholars did translate the Hebrew word chug appropriately as a globe in Isaiah. The Hebrews had no need to use the word duwr (turn, ball, round about) for sphere in this context, as it is inappropriate and chug, meaning sphere is spot on. In fact duwr would have been more appropriate if the Hebrews wanted to describe a circle more than a sphere. Our language has many descriptive words to use, in a language of around 300,000 words, whereas the Hebrews had only 30,000, so their words were more open ended.


Regarding the scriptures recognition of a globe, also, Luke 17:34-36 pictures Christ’s next presence occuring while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities. This is an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.The implication of a globular earth is seen in this book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Jesus words in.....Luke 17:34 "In that day," then later in verse 34 "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.



Job 26:7 it says that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing." In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" (beli-mah´) used here literally means "not any thing," This is not saying at all that it is a disc laying flat on its back.



The flat earth, edged earth, cornered earth etc, junk theories can be countered by using the original languages used in the scriptures. Please be specific Bob and pick out the scriptures that you think imply a flat earth and I'll take up the original language used to clarify the true meaning.

Hebrew scholars knowledge of the Hebrew language, and Gods written word in the scriptures overwhelmingly describe a globular earth, one shape that was clearly recognised by the ancient Hebrews..... They had divine insight.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi E99,
Seems to me like you forever go back to fitting your argument against a backdrop of a perfectly dilute and diffuse pre-biotic soup. Has a coastal rockpool the same chemistry as a geo-thermal pool or a freshwater pond or the deep ocean? In truth a variety of chemicly rich micro-enviroments would have certainly existed. It is probable that in one of these, (since we are here to discuss this), that a few of the 8 (yes eight) essential amino acids per chance combined as they are apt to do. Then some catalyst, for example sunlight or high temperature, caused a few wee reactions and whaddaya know these amino acids started synthesising new types of amino acid. Before long we had a few protiens which began to 'self-replicate'. If any 'God' had a hand in this I dont presume to know.....I'm not that arrogant. That you are shows that despite you obvious intellect you are willing to invoke this supernatural being which despite its omnipresence there is not a single shred of evidence to prove exists. In my opinion anyone who has made up 'their mind' on this issue has forfeited objectivity in order to do so. You seem to highlight this as valid and then some.

Most of revelation is symbolic and figurative. No need to take the obvious so literally.

An understanding of the context of the chapter, verse and other scriptures is required before taking figurative and symbolic scriptures too literally.

Thats just the trouble with the bible and other 'devinely' inspired peices of fiction. You dont like what it says so you re-interpret it or re-translate it till such time as it does. Looking for the origins of how this world came to be and how life got started in the 'scriptures' is as ridiculous as looking for the blueprints to build a nuclear reactor in snow white and the seven dwarves. The one thing that truly disgusts me with any religeon is this quoting of a line here and a line there to support an argument. In todays world of 'soundbite' politics you can get just about any given combination of words to have just about any meaning you want and still say nothing. So it is with scripture.

Hebrew scholars of the Hebrew language, and Gods written word in the scriptures overwhelmingly describe a globular Earth, one shape that was clearly recognized by the ancient Hebrews..... They had devine insight.

Devine insight!!....my they must have been thick to need devine help to see such an obvious fact from the world around them. Even the humble dung beetle knows the world is round after all. Anyone with a few proto-cells between their ears can see between the moons phases, and the sun and moons traversing of the skies that we live on a sphere. This is what almost every people took for granted...it was only some idiot control freaks in the vatican that got the 'flat earth' theory started in the first place, before that it was universaly accepted the world was a globe. No devine inspiration required, just a tiny little step of logic.

Regards

TE

 

[E99]

Hello Tao Equus

You've got a bee in your bonnet !


Your quote :
Seems to me like you forever go back to fitting your argument against a backdrop of a perfectly dilute and diffuse pre-biotic soup. Has a coastal rockpool the same chemistry as a geo-thermal pool or a freshwater pond or the deep ocean?


Seems to me that you really have no idea what backdrop to choose from now. Like most evolutionists, you change your outlook like leaves swirling in the wind, and pick and choose to suit.


You believed that it was a pre-biotic soup before, one of your threads mentioned the number of chemical reactions within a prebiotic soup...Your quote >>" These reactions were taking place similtaneously, ie there were many many millions, if not billions and possibly trillions of reactions per second."<<


So what is your backdrop belief now ? Sea, soup, pond, geo-thermal pool, thermal vent or a jar full of mayonnaise ? Has your opinion on the 'backdrop' origins of the simplest protocell or precursor changed within one month ? If it is no longer the primeval sea and one of the other theories then please explain in greater detail how abiogenesis happened under your new assumed early earth scenario.
Are you speculating again or do you have strong evidence ? Have you come to the conclusion that the pre-biotic sea theory is a fable.


Your quote:
In truth a variety of chemicly rich micro-enviroments would have certainly existed...In truth !...

What truth ? What evidence is there that they existed billions of years ago ?

Your Quote:
Probable that in one of these (micro- environments) a few of the essential Amino acids per chance combined...

By dreaming it up Tao.... anything can happen in your mind. What probability factor, high or low ? How do you calculate this ? How did they combine etc. ?


Your quote:
That a few of the 8 (yes eight) essential amino acids per chance combined as they are apt to do......

I assume you mean your previous non synthesised 8 amino acids Arginine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Threonine and Tryptophan.
How did these 8 in the required L-isomer form react and combine ? How did they start to synthesise other amino acids once they had combined ? How did they combine and fold to form a tertiary stable structure ? What kind of protein would they have formed, what function would it have had ? How did it survive ? Where does DNA and RNA fit into this ?


Your quote:
Then some catalyst, for example sunlight or high temperature, caused a few wee reactions and whaddaya know these amino acids started synthesising new types of amino acid.

Hey presto !...just like that ! The rabbits pulled out from the hat ! You make it sound so simple.... (As do the text books etc etc.) Do you know of the effects of sunlight and high temperatures regarding these chemical reactions ? Are they detrimental or favourable ? Its not the latter. Mix and play with the amino acids in a lab for years and you won't get life.

You are simply convincing yourself with extremely over-simplified ideas.



Your quote:
If any 'God' had a hand in this I dont presume to know.....I'm not that arrogant. That you are shows that despite you obvious intellect you are willing to invoke this supernatural being which despite its omnipresence there is not a single shred of evidence to prove exists.


Now you are getting personal..... Hypocritical in fact....You also presume to know though what God is all about. All of your threads are based on your gaia belief. You have stated this many times before, how you see God as an essence of nature. Are you uncertain in your belief then ? Don't make out that you are not definate enough in your concept of God so as to make out that I am arrogant in my concept.

I don't have an obvious intellect, I'm mildly autistic which helps in memory, but other than that just average Joe Bloggs. I've simply studied for years... evolution, creationism and the scriptures and put my ideas across firmly instead of in a wishy washy-way, (which upsets other contrasting beliefs as it comes across as too forthright.)

Was not Jesus definate in his belief, he made a stance even to his death. He announced that he was the son of God, a seemingly arrogant claim, I likewise will be definate in that claim that he was the son of God and all of the beliefs that go with it. Jesus claimed to have the truth and recognised the creator...was he arrogant ?

Equally I find it offensive that the personal God is attacked by the persistant belittling of his word in the bible, the attacks are based on twisted scriptural referrences and weak knowledge of the ins and outs of the scriptures and its translation, promoted by atheists and sadly taken up by believers of God..... Flat earth being one of them. However, although you attack the biblical writings, you and Bob are not wishy-washy.


There is evidence of a creative God. It is found in his design, as much so as finding out that there is a designer maker behind any intricate manufactured item.

Gods complete design is like a mirror, it is reflective of the unseen creator. The anthropic principle intelligent design highlights this. A series of exact fitting in..... from sub atomic nuclear forces to the vast universe itself. The creation is infinitely finely tuned and precisely designed. It is not by chance that a creation process was given to men thousands of years ago, that is now slowly being revealed as one that ties in with the creation and creator in the scriptures. It will be revealed to all eventually, Prophecies from Gods own mouth bare this out Jeremiah 31:34 "And they will no more teach each one his companion and each one his brother, saying, ‘know Jehovah!’ for they will all of them know me, from the least one of them even to the greatest one of them," is the utterance of Jehovah.


My quote:
Most of revelation is symbolic and figurative. No need to take the obvious so literally. An understanding of the context of the chapter, verse and other scriptures is required before taking figurative and symbolic scriptures too literally.


Your quote:
Thats just the trouble with the bible and other 'devinely' inspired peices of fiction. You dont like what it says so you re-interpret it or re-translate it till such time as it does.


What other 'divinely inspired pieces of fiction' do you mean ? What ones are these in your eyes ? The quran, the avesta, book of mormons....anything that doesn't fit in with your beliefs 'inspired fiction' ? Please be specific.

Your whole idealism seems to be based on pluck out of the air speculations, and indirectly, on hearsay regarding false unfounded assumptions about opposing religious beliefs.
Substatiate your assumptions..... For instance, give two major scriptural examples of what you think are misinterpretations that say, go against your belief. I agree that interpretations can be varied and misconstrued, but this comes from the writings after they have been translated from the original language.This is why it pays to have a little understanding of the main original Hebrew and Greek languages. The original languages give the truer concept of what is being relayed to us.


Your quote:
Looking for the origins of how this world came to be and how life got started in the 'scriptures' is as ridiculous as looking for the blueprints to build a nuclear reactor in snow white and the seven dwarves.


Untrue.......Dopey was certainly involved in the design of the Chenobyl nuclear reactor.

Its not meant to be a science manual. God could have easily had his inspired scriptures give a detailed account of the creation that would clearly have tied in with the findings of science today. He deliberately made it vague so as we don't all come flocking to him to save our own skins. Its written in such a manner so as to test our faith by never giving the whole truth, not being shown the obvious, but by getting enough insight by working at it. The more you study the scriptures (or other claimed divinely inspired book ) the more about the creator and his pruposes are revealed, the greater your faith becomes.


Your quote:
The one thing that truly disgusts me with any religeon is this quoting of a line here and a line there to support an argument. In todays world of 'soundbite' politics you can get just about any given combination of words to have just about any meaning you want and still say nothing. So it is with scripture.


What can I do if I'm confronted with scriptures that are pulled out and misrepresented ? ....Quote from the lord of the rings ? I don't expect you to ever agree with what I put, but I will defend the word of God if it is being slandered.


My quote:
Hebrew scholars of the Hebrew language, and Gods written word in the scriptures overwhelmingly describe a globular Earth, one shape that was clearly recognized by the ancient Hebrews..... They had devine insight.


Your quote:
Devine insight!!....my they must have been thick to need devine help to see such an obvious fact from the world around them. Even the humble dung beetle knows the world is round after all.


Some ancient civilisations believed in a form of a flat earth. The Greeks generally believed in a non spherical earth, but those Greeks of learning believed in a round earth. Bob assumes that the ancient Hebrews were thick. He thinks that when the ancient Hebrews were eating pomegranates, they were scoffing flat discs, he thinks that they have no concept of a globular earth. The scriptures say otherwise.


Dung beetles know that the world is round !! ? Do you speak to the animals ? Don't listen to those dung beetles Tao, they'll have you rolling up your own waste into balls in no time. And . 'The earth hangs upon nothing' How did your dung beetles suss that one out ?!


Your quote:
Anyone with a few proto-cells between their ears can see between the moons phases, and the sun and moons traversing of the skies that we live on a sphere.

Well I'm glad that you realise that the Hebrews recognised that the earth was not flat. Could you convince Bob for me ?


Your quote:
This is what almost every people took for granted...it was only some idiot control freaks in the vatican that got the 'flat earth' theory started in the first place, before that it was universaly accepted the world was a globe. No devine inspiration required, just a tiny little step of logic.


Its not exactly true that it was down to the vatican. This is a bit of a myth.

Shalohm

 

[InChristAlways]

double post. sorry
[size=+1][/size]

 

[InChristAlways]

Kindest Regards, all! Really nice to see you back, path of one!

Thanks for raising this, Luna! I am afraid it is a bit out of my league for the moment, but I am sure I will love where it goes.

I do have a curious thought though that lingers from the other thread. What is the role of E=MC2 in this? That is, is spirit a form of energy, and if so, how or does it tie into the equation considering life, particularly at the single cell level? Is it possible, that if spirit is endemic in matter as energy, that the process is not "if" but "when?"

Just a thought.

I don't know if this was answered or not, but here was an interesting insight on AE and his rabbinical study on Genesis:

http://www.geocities.com/lvegh/Einstein.html

[size=+1]In 1905, Albert Einstein first published his theories on relativity, from which, eventually, he developed his formula for the atomic bomb. Though not commonly known, Albert Einstein once told a group of rabbis in New York City, that he had done a rabbinical study of ohr, the Hebrew word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 and maohr, in Genesis 1:14, and arrived at his conclusions about relativity. He noted that the two terms are not alike. The light in v.3 appears to be the Divine source, while the light in v.14 appears to be of a different order. Maohr means "from light"; - thus emanating from the ohr. Rabbis believe the ohr to be the primeval light - source of the shekinah glory.

Einstein took the word for light (maohr) and by a complex series of grammatical divisions and substitutions, arrived at the words for mass ma, light ohr, speed mahar, raised rum and squared rebah. This led the Jewish genius to discover that E "energy" could be derived from M "mass" multiplied by the C2 "square of the constant" (the mathematical "constant" commonly assumed to be the speed of light).
[/size][size=+1]lbert Einstein discovered this incredible formula from an ages-old accepted and proven rabbinical method for interpreting the depths of Hebrew as the biblical language. He not only proved that the formula works, but that the original author of the formula placed it in the opening chapter of the Bible.

[/size]Genesis 1:2 Now, the earth, had become waste and wild, and, darkness, was on the face of the roaring deep,--but, the Spirit/breath of God, was brooding/fluttering over face of the waters. 3 And God said--Light [#0216], be. And light was.

0216 'owr {ore} from 0215; TWOT - 52a; n f
AV - light(s) 114, day 2, bright 1, clear 1, flood 1, herbs 1, lightning 1, morning 1, sun 1; 123 215 'owr ore a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):--X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.

 

[bob x]

E99, sorry I have been neglectful. I don't know that much more talking would get us anywhere, but at least one point I can clear up:

At present we have 2 bases consisting of pyrimidine and purine that use 64 triplet codons for 20 amino acids, a lot of redundancy to tackle error transmission. Little is known how the bases code for the 20 essential amino acids. How on earth would they code for a different set of amino acids ? The bases work with the proteinous amino acids, so are you saying that a new set of amino acids would require a new form of bases ?

It is not true that "little is known of how the bases code". There are short RNA molecules called the "transfer RNA" with four arms: one arm has the same sequence in all the transfer RNA's, and latches onto a complementary sequence in the ribosome when it has grabbed an amino acid; another arm that is pretty much the same in all of them makes a socket that fits the NH2-CH-COOH part that all the amino acids have; another arm is highly variable and makes a socket for the chain that distinguishes the specific amino acid it targets from any other; and the "anticodon" arm has three nucleotides held out flat, which are complementary to the triplet code.

For example, UUU codes for phenylanaline, so the variable arm has a socket for the phenyl group, and the anticodon arm has a sequence AAA (complement to UUU). There is no reason UUU had to be phenylanaline rather than anything else: UGA isn't used for anything in our bodies; in other creatures it is used for a "stop" sign (we could use it as a "stop" but prefer other stops); some assign it to tryptophan like UGG, others to cysteine like UGU or UGC, and a couple protozoa use it for selenocysteine, an amino acid that we don't even form let alone incorporate into proteins.
A triplet code can't be reassigned unless it has fallen out of use, completely or nearly completely, as that would have the effect of "mutating" every gene that contained that triplet. That is why triplet substitutions are so rare, but the fact that they exist at all shows that the association of a particular triplet to a particular amino acid is fundamentally arbitrary; no, there would be no need for different bases if a widely different set of amino acids were used. The overall use of the same genetic code with only rare substitutions is evidence for common ancestry: Darwin did not require that all life-forms have a common ancestry, speaking of life "being originally breathed into either a few forms, or into one". But it has turned out that all life comes from one original.

You asked why different combinations didn't also start? Maybe this kind of thing only happens once every hundred million years. Then, when protocells started the second time, the first would already have evolved into greater efficiency, and would eat the newcomers for lunch, literally. A head start gives a great advantage.