God did it - metabolism discovered OUTSIDE of the a cell

[Melkor]

I can understand why someone might think that zero minus 8 is zero. But that doesn't mean its true.

Now, what I said about metaphysics, thats just a FACT. Its not a belief. The fact is the only way to explain everything is to posit God. My belief is that God exists. See, it would also be logical to say that I believe things are unexplainable and that would not contradict the fact that the only explanation is God. I would just be choosing to believe that there is no explanation.

Now, heres the crux=  you can say this caused that, but what you mean is that you saw this precede that, causation is something you did not witness, something you cannot witness, but nonetheless you still have "this" (which preceded "that") to account for. What preceded this? And so forth. But yet, its irrelevant because all we can witness is effects, a mechanical sequence, the cause for the motion of sequence, that original and ultimate prime mover, that is something that even if we see an event without precedent we still cannot speak on for we have not witnessed it.

Causation, origin, metaphysics and the entire universe and every happening inside of it... ultimately, there is onle one possible explanation, which is GOD. Glory to God

You raise an interesting point about causation i.e. correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. However scientific research (or at least good, legitimate scientific research) uses specific study designs and mathematical analyses which aim to show causation. For example removing confounding elements.

Many studies don't show true causation between variables - but this is okay as long as it is flagged and noted. We can still learn and make predictions from observing correlations that occur naturally - the essence of science is in attempting to test these predictions and prove whether causation does occur. It is a difficult, tedious process and every question that is answered likely leads to many more questions.

But I don't see how you can say that we can't witness or prove causation (at least with reasonable certainty). If somebody punches a hole in the wall, the variable that caused the hole is the punch. That is causation.

[Tapeworm]

The spectre of Big Dave Hume looming over this thread.  C'za'un?  Bhaghaa!

[tbombz]

You raise an interesting point about causation i.e. correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. However scientific research (or at least good, legitimate scientific research) uses specific study designs and mathematical analyses which aim to show causation. For example removing confounding elements.

Many studies don't show true causation between variables - but this is okay as long as it is flagged and noted. We can still learn and make predictions from observing correlations that occur naturally - the essence of science is in attempting to test these predictions and prove whether causation does occur. It is a difficult, tedious process and every question that is answered likely leads to many more questions.

But I don't see how you can say that we can't witness or prove causation (at least with reasonable certainty). If somebody punches a hole in the wall, the variable that caused the hole is the punch. That is causation.

the issue is ULTIMATE causation. 

[avxo]

I never said it wasn't true or not. I need more evidence coming from a source less bias coming from basically an Atheist site that probably spouts everything evolution.

Heh... but when the content is from a site that spouts all Obama conspiracy theories and repeats proven falsehoods, you're ok and all over that with that? You're a fucking hypocrite.

Like I said, this wasn't about metabolism, this was to incite a debate and not about physiology.

LOL. So when you post your bullshit birther conspiracy theories you aren't trying to "incite" a debate? Also, "incite a debate"? Really? You keep making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself.

[Alpine]

Quite the contrary actually.

It is often argued by those of the intelligence design persuasion, that the metabolic reactions required to form the building blocks of living cells were too complex to occur outside of a biological organism (i.e. a living cell). In other words the cell and the organism had to come first before the chemical reactions could occur.

What this paper shows (and what has been shown many times before going back as far as the Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's) is that the chemical reactions that can create the building blocks of the cell (and of life) can be created outside of a living cell.

This dispels the notion that the cells were "created" first. It is likely that the building blocks of life (amino acids, DNA, RNA, fats, etc) can be created under abiotic conditions, arising spontaneously in an aquatic environment where the correct combination of chemical ions are present along with a heat source (possibly from hydrothermal vents).

Melkor wins. Close thread now. This post is over. Creationist hicks who believe in Zeus need not apply. It's amazing he reads this forum in between splicing stem cells.

[el numero uno]

Necrosis posting that article and the article itself had little to do with "metabolism" and everything to do with inciting a debate of yet another creationism vs. evolution. Nothing more nothing less. Keep it going genius.

Well, the title "Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells" appears to be be striking evidence that the article has indeed a lot to do with metabolism 

[Melkor]

Melkor wins. Close thread now. This post is over. Creationist hicks who believe in Zeus need not apply. It's amazing he reads this forum in between splicing stem cells.