Value of the human life.

[Confused]

The question for this thread is quite simple to ask, though may not be so simple to answer.

Is there anything that can be found in scripture, the teachings of Christ or the teachings that preceded Him, that gives value to human life on earth? Is there anything to indicate that God gives value to human life?

[byofrcs]

...... I think a Harley showing up in my driveway by itself, a 1000 time over, before a dust mite , just happens.
Abiogenesis is a step closer to creation than other theories, science has no choice, it has to go in this direction. But I see science fighting it the whole way, until there is nothing left to do but admit it. They will have to hit rock bottom, first. ( oops sorry for the bad joke)

Your analogies simply show that you just want to insult people rather than debate.

Given that there are viruses that use RNA in that the RNA-dependent RNA polymerases use RNA as their template for synthesis of a new strand of RNA then you tell me if a virus is alive or not.

Given RNA is simply a chain of nucleotides each of which are just nitrogenous base, a ribose sugar, and a phosphate.

Given that there is no magic that holds each of these but they consist of the "dust of the ground" then it is simply a matter of time that the right pathway will be found that shows how the bases had evolved. A vast amount of the pathway from raw organic material to RNA has been shown but the role of trace elements e.g. boron isn't always obvious.

Given the Bible has never mentioned the worlds most abundant metal, I would imagine it would not mention trace elements and as it also does not mention the world's most abundant lifeform, I would imagine it does not mention organisms on the boundary of what we would even consider to be alive.

The Bible is as relevant to day as it has always been relevant.

[dunsapy]

Your analogies simply show that you just want to insult people rather than debate.

Have you ever being on the side of creation talking to science. They think they have all the answers, and your an idiot, if think different than them , especially when you talk about a God.
I have never used words like this Bulls**t. Blah blah blah. Who's doing the insults?
I am very serious about this, I mean what I say. science can not show how life started, they can't show that it could start on it's own. By doing the work in a lab is showing creation. Science has to see this happening in the real world without their interference to say it could happen that way. In the first place science can not know for sure what the conditions were exactly at the supposed start to life, they also can not replicate the conditions over the millions of years it was supposed to take. In a lab they are not going to wait a million years, or replicate the conditions over that period of time. So the lab experiment is false. I'm not saying that at some point , science maybe able to create some sort of life, even the bible hints at this. But would not that be the same as God creating life. It took intelligence to do it.
Now the RNA and DNA.
The teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term “teamwork� hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: “Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt.� Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.
An alphabet is a basic element of many languages. From that list of letters, words are built. In turn, words form sentences. At the molecular level, life employs a similar principle. A master “alphabet� is provided by DNA. Amazingly, this “alphabet� consists of just four letters—A, C, G, and T, which are symbols for the chemical bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. From these four bases, DNA via an RNA intermediate gives rise to amino acids, which could be compared to words. Unlike normal words, however, amino acids all have the same number of letters, namely, three. “Protein-assembling machines,� called ribosomes, link the amino acids together. The resulting chains, or proteins, could be likened to sentences. With more elements than a spoken or written sentence, a typical protein may contain about 300 to 400 amino acids. So if any of these sentences, is wrong, this spells disaster.
According to one reference work, there are hundreds of amino acids that occur in nature, but only about 20 kinds are found in most proteins. These amino acids can be arranged in an almost endless number of combinations. Consider: If just 20 amino acids form a chain 100 amino acids long, that chain can be arranged in over 10100 different ways—that is, 1 followed by 100 zeros!
When proteins have defects in the amino acid chain or are incorrectly folded, they can cause a number of diseases, including sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease in which the hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells are abnormal. A molecule of hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in four chains. A switch of just one amino acid in two of the four chains turns normal hemoglobin into its sickle-cell variant.
Really the idea that RNA and DNA are needed for the type of life we see, on this earth, has to be set up intelligently and complete in the beginning, or you have disaster. For this to happen by chance is impossible. For one thing mutations are usually bad, and for evolution to figure all this out, you would have very large numbers of awful looking animals with partially formed parts sticking out of everywhere . And you may never get a completed animal. But what we see on this earth is completed animals, not any of the in between ones. Except for the odd mutation.
So the answer is still the same, science will have to show that life could happen on its own, and the resultant DNA from that can actually make some animal like a cat. Science doing it only shows that it takes a creator to do that.

[byofrcs]

........
I am very serious about this, I mean what I say. science can not show how life started, they can't show that it could start on it's own. By doing the work in a lab is showing creation. Science has to see this happening in the real world without their interference to say it could happen that way. In the first place science can not know for sure what the conditions were exactly at the supposed start to life, they also can not replicate the conditions over the millions of years it was supposed to take. In a lab they are not going to wait a million years, or replicate the conditions over that period of time. So the lad experiment is false. I'm not saying that at some point , science maybe able to create some sort of life, even the bible hints at this. But would not that be the same as God creating life. It took intelligence to do it.

Using your analogy then no crime could be convicted because the prosecution would not be able to reproduce the crime because the victim (currently in the morgue) would have to be reanimated (Jesus-like) and then have to go over the process again.

Is that reasonable ? I didn't think so, therefore your analogy is unreasonable also to science.

Also the Bible is not a book of science other than some of the science of the day. Any allusion to future knowledge including any prophesy is easy shown to be guesswork.

Now the RNA and DNA.
The teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term “teamwork� hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: “Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt.� Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.
An alphabet is a basic element of many languages. From that list of letters, words are built. In turn, words form sentences. At the molecular level, life employs a similar principle. A master “alphabet� is provided by DNA. Amazingly, this “alphabet� consists of just four letters—A, C, G, and T, which are symbols for the chemical bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. From these four bases, DNA via an RNA intermediate gives rise to amino acids, which could be compared to words. Unlike normal words, however, amino acids all have the same number of letters, namely, three. “Protein-assembling machines,� called ribosomes, link the amino acids together. The resulting chains, or proteins, could be likened to sentences. With more elements than a spoken or written sentence, a typical protein may contain about 300 to 400 amino acids. So if any of these sentences, is wrong, this spells disaster.
According to one reference work, there are hundreds of amino acids that occur in nature, but only about 20 kinds are found in most proteins. These amino acids can be arranged in an almost endless number of combinations. Consider: If just 20 amino acids form a chain 100 amino acids long, that chain can be arranged in over 10100 different ways—that is, 1 followed by 100 zeros!

Which just means that there can be many different proteins. I don't see the point. Lots of diversity is good.

You haven't really refined your argument here. Here is how you should state it,

Titin is the largest known protein, consisting of 34,350 amino acids. To get Titin randomly created you would need to pick 1 out of 20 and do this 34,350 times thus 20^34350 or 10 followed by around 44,000 zeros !. Mine is bigger than yours.

Given that amino acids transcribe around 20 per second this suggests at random it would take around 630 Millions amino acid guesses per annum and to get any one Titin would thus still take around just under 10 to the 44,000 years....or many many times longer than the universe has even existed and longer than it ever will exist.

Clearly at random then it is impossible to create Titin even today. So how do we reduce those odds ?

Clearly something is wrong with your analogy. Obviously it is unlikely that suddenly 100 amino acids line up and create a protein (you didn't give its name) any more than I would see 34,350 line up to get Titin.

Therefore the analogy is wrong. Actually I would say you know it is wrong because you know that proteins are formed from transcription and these only use the 4 bases in chains of nucleic acids which we know as RNA and DNA.

These chains of RNA and DNA are selected for and are thus not random. So the templates used to create proteins are naturally selected and so the proteins are naturally selected.

It is trivial to show that with natural selection then seemingly insurmountable odds are reduced very rapidly and this is all done blind of the outcome.

Your analogy once again uses the same random chance analogy that has been refuted so many times and so you waste all our time though the forum rules forbid me to consider this as being malicious. At the very least your analogies are poorly thought out.

When proteins have defects in the amino acid chain or are incorrectly folded, they can cause a number of diseases, including sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease in which the hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells are abnormal. A molecule of hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in four chains. A switch of just one amino acid in two of the four chains turns normal hemoglobin into its sickle-cell variant.

Thank you for raising this beneficial mutation. The sickle-cell variant is an adaptation that allows the carrier to survive malaria. This short note here details 8 different adaptations of which the sickle-cell is just one of 5 beneficial mutations to haemoglobin. It is debatable if this is a disease per se given it actually protects the bearer from malaria.

Really the idea that RNA and DNA are needed for the type of life we see, on this earth, has to be set up intelligently and complete in the beginning, or you have disaster. For this to happen by chance is impossible. For one thing mutations are usually bad, and for evolution to figure all this out, you would have very large numbers of awful looking animals with partially formed parts sticking out of everywhere . And you may never get a completed animal. But what we see on this earth is completed animals, not any of the in between ones. Except for the odd mutation.
So the answer is still the same, science will have to show that life could happen on its own, and the resultant DNA from that can actually make some animal like a cat. Science doing it only shows that it takes a creator to do that.

As has been shown. It is not by chance and there have never been a single example presented of something that is irreducibly complex.

The Intelligent Design argument is religion and as has even been found in a court in the US, when it comes to the crunch the argument has only ever been presented fraudulently by those promoting it.

You don't need to repeat these ridiculous analogies but simply need to keep the God and step back to pre-Big Bang. The rest can thus follow without God though God can be the prime cause.

[dunsapy]

Using your analogy then no crime could be convicted because the prosecution would not be able to reproduce the crime because the victim (currently in the morgue) would have to be reanimated (Jesus-like) and then have to go over the process again.

Is that reasonable ? I didn't think so, therefore your analogy is unreasonable also to science.

Also the Bible is not a book of science other than some of the science of the day. Any allusion to future knowledge including any prophesy is easy shown to be guesswork.

I did not say that DNA can not be read and linked to a certain person. There is a big difference, between reading a book and writing it.
Yes the bible is not a book of science, but what it does say is accurate.

Which just means that there can be many different proteins. I don't see the point. Lots of diversity is good.

You haven't really refined your argument here. Here is how you should state it,

Titin is the largest known protein, consisting of 34,350 amino acids. To get Titin randomly created you would need to pick 1 out of 20 and do this 34,350 times thus 20^34350 or 10 followed by around 44,000 zeros !. Mine is bigger than yours.

Given that amino acids transcribe around 20 per second this suggests at random it would take around 630 Millions amino acid guesses per annum and to get any one Titin would thus still take around just under 10 to the 44,000 years....or many many times longer than the universe has even existed and longer than it ever will exist.

Clearly at random then it is impossible to create Titin even today. So how do we reduce those odds ?

Clearly something is wrong with your analogy. Obviously it is unlikely that suddenly 100 amino acids line up and create a protein (you didn't give its name) any more than I would see 34,350 line up to get Titin.

Therefore the analogy is wrong. Actually I would say you know it is wrong because you know that proteins are formed from transcription and these only use the 4 bases in chains of nucleic acids which we know as RNA and DNA.

These chains of RNA and DNA are selected for and are thus not random. So the templates used to create proteins are naturally selected and so the proteins are naturally selected.

It is trivial to show that with natural selection then seemingly insurmountable odds are reduced very rapidly and this is all done blind of the outcome.

Your analogy once again uses the same random chance analogy that has been refuted so many times and so you waste all our time though the forum rules forbid me to consider this as being malicious. At the very least your analogies are poorly thought out.

Yes diversity is good. Science is learning things all the time about life, and DNA. But they are learning from reverse engineering. Something that already been done. It's like me taking apart a bicycle , to see how it was put together in the first place. But what science is doing is saying the bicycle, was not created it just happened, so they are trying to reconstruct a bicycle, with the premise that somehow the earth's elements got together and made this bike. Do you see why they can't prove it. It is unprovable.
If science would get off of this predetermined course of trying to prove no God, and just tried to create life, under the best possible conditions, I think they would expand their knowledge considerably, and much faster. As it is they have effectively ,built a wall around themselves so they can't get out.

As has been shown. It is not by chance and there have never been a single example presented of something that is irreducibly complex.

The Intelligent Design argument is religion and as has even been found in a court in the US, when it comes to the crunch the argument has only ever been presented fraudulently by those promoting it.

You don't need to repeat these ridiculous analogies but simply need to keep the God and step back to pre-Big Bang. The rest can thus follow without God though God can be the prime cause.

There has never been any life that has not come from life. Everything that humans know is the life comes from life. But what science has done is ignored that.
Now if God is the prime cause, then through DNA things could be programmed to start with something simple and progress from there. But that isn't evolution that we have be subjected to, because that is pure chance. Also that means you would also have to explain who that God is.
Intelligent design is not just religion, it is common sense. It is what we see. It is what there is proof for. Science does not know if life could start on it's own. Is that even possible? Science doing the experiments, shows only creation.
As for the courts ,they convict innocent people all the time, and guilty ones get off. Science has only circumstantial evidence no proof.
Science says that matter can be created from energy, well the bible says God is abundant in dynamic energy.