Questions to God.

[MarkK]

No matter what you believe, as you walk the path of your own narrative you will find it ends in profound mystery. Reasoning from science confronts the unknowable. Belief in God confronts the unknowable.

Possibly, the degree to which you think your own view is worth arguing is directly proportional to your own discomfort with its uncertainty.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Science tells us that ribonucleic acid formed in the primordial soup. It wasn't alive because RNA is not alive. It's just a melange of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. But when two RNA molecules intertwined, things got interesting. Because two intertwined RNA sequences equal a DNA sequence. Technically, DNA isn't alive, either - but with DNA as a template, things REALLY got interesting.

Before we start throwing around acronyms that might confuse people, let's define what RNA actually is first. Then we can think through what you just said logically. I did a simple AI assisted search asking does RNA contain information? This is a crucial question IMO. Interestingly, the AI came back with the following.

It is like a container that carries the DNA information or copies of it (mRNA, tRNA, rRNA) for the purpose of protein synthesis. So that leads to the question, what is synthesis? It's basically the product of this complex biological wonder machine, as it puts the elements (building blocks) together into workable usable biological product. It all starts in this amazing biological machine like factory for biological things.

Yes, RNA contains information. It carries genetic information from DNA to the ribosomes, where it directs the synthesis of specific proteins during translation. This information is encoded in the sequence of nucleotides—adenine (A), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G)—which form codons that correspond to specific amino acids. Messenger RNA (mRNA) is the primary type of RNA that conveys this information, acting as a temporary copy of a gene's instructions for protein production. Beyond mRNA, other forms of RNA, such as transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA), play essential roles in the process of protein synthesis. RNA also serves as the genetic material for many viruses and performs various regulatory functions within cells.

What is RNA? Clearly it is part of existing living cells, so just observing what it is and this complex function that they perform is already present in fully formed living cells and proves my point even more. Explaining how this biological masterpiece came to be in the first place is the crucial question. I argue information could not have just formed itself or put itself together in a functional way. Just look at the complexity of the functions themselves and where did all that information come from in the DNA in the first place?

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a crucial biological macromolecule present in all living cells, playing a central role in converting the genetic information stored in DNA into functional proteins. It is a single-stranded nucleic acid, in contrast to the double-helix structure of DNA, which allows RNA to fold into complex secondary and tertiary structures that are essential for its diverse functions. The key difference between RNA and DNA lies in their sugar components: RNA contains ribose, which has an extra oxygen atom compared to the deoxyribose in DNA, making RNA less stable but more versatile.

RNA's primary function is as a messenger. When a cell needs to produce a specific protein, it transcribes the relevant gene from DNA into a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule. This mRNA acts as a temporary, disposable copy of the genetic instructions, which is then transported out of the nucleus to the cytoplasm where ribosomes can read it. The ribosome translates the mRNA sequence, which is read in groups of three nucleotides called codons, into a specific sequence of amino acids to build a protein. Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules act as adaptors, bringing the correct amino acids to the ribosome based on the mRNA codon, while ribosomal RNA (rRNA) forms the core of the ribosome and catalyzes the formation of peptide bonds between amino acids.

Beyond its role as a messenger, RNA has many other vital functions. It can act as an enzyme, known as a ribozyme, catalyzing chemical reactions such as peptide bond formation during protein synthesis and RNA splicing. This catalytic ability is a key piece of evidence for the "RNA world" hypothesis, which proposes that early life on Earth relied on RNA to both store genetic information and perform enzymatic functions before the evolution of DNA and proteins. Furthermore, RNA is the genetic material for many viruses, including influenza and HIV, which use its instability to their advantage by mutating rapidly to evade the host's immune system. Recent research has also revealed that a significant portion of the genome, beyond the 2% that codes for proteins, is transcribed into various non-coding RNAs (like lncRNAs and siRNAs) that play critical roles in regulating gene expression, cell division, and other cellular processes, with defects in these RNAs linked to diseases such as cancer and heart disease.

Is DNA information? Many scientists say it is, and to say building blocks of life just intertwined in a book on evolution is over simplistic and overshadows the complexity and timing involved in this process to make the biological machine that is described and observed in living cells which no scientist even knows how to create in the lab let alone it happening by itself in the great shuffling primordial soup (thank God for that). The amount of information contained in any living animals DNA today is not the result of millions of years of evolution. It takes virtually the same amount of information (same chain sequence) in it's perfect sequence to generate each of the various forms of life. Something that does not happen on any other planet that we are currently aware of. And I argue that it does not and can not happen all by itself or by a bolt of lightning or any other imaginable natural event from within the environment just prior to any life existing at all on the planet. That little single cell is the amazing factory of life itself, and each factory of life is programmed with a tremendous amount of information.

Where did that information come from? This is a crucial question that must be grappled with. It is not enough to just say you don't know either. So this question fits in with the overall theme of the thread "a question to God". The evolutionist doesn't ask the question, they just answer it in a non sensical assertive kind of way and just claim that they know it happened all by random chance and all that information just compiled itself into living cells by accident. I'm calling BS on this every step of the way.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The dichotomy between us boils down to these two positions.

You cannot accept that evolutionary forces of the "random connections to see what sticks" style could ever produce anything living. Even though you have seen my mathematical breakdown that suggests good odds of exactly that. Even though you have seen the detailed analogy of Nature shuffling molecules and eventually shuffling genes.

I cannot accept the existence of a being / entity capable of creating a whole universe. I was a Methodist for 30+ years but eventually when I examined the Bible in deep reading while looking for solace during my family crisis, the whole house of cards fell apart. I cannot find a reason for this perfect entity to create us that doesn't suggest imperfection on the part of this entity. I can't find mercy. All that is claimed of God is in the imagination, not provable until you die - at which time (according to Ecclesiastes) all thoughts cease, all awareness, all interactions. Sounds like death to me.

which no scientist even knows how to create in the lab

This is NOT a barrier to evolution being true. A couple of hundred years ago we didn't understand television, computers, and nuclear reactors - all of which now exist. Just because you don't understand or appreciate the science doesn't mean a thing.

Your problem is that you want scientific proof NOW - and actually, I also wanted proof by demonstration when I was still a Methodist. But that didn't happen and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Science discovers new facts at its own pace.

What is RNA? Clearly it is part of existing living cells, so just observing what it is and this complex function that they perform is already present in fully formed living cells and proves my point even more.

Is DNA information? Many scientists say it is, and to say building blocks of life just intertwined in a book on evolution is over simplistic and overshadows the complexity

Except that if you accept RNA, you have a non-living object that can exist outside of the context of a cell and continue to exist as a NON LIVING chemical. DNA isn't living, either. The cells might have been built using DNA as the blueprint, but that is life being built from NON LIVING chemicals - again! DNA contains information but only a poetically inclined non-scientist would say it IS information.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Except that if you accept RNA, you have a non-living object that can exist outside of the context of a cell and continue to exist as a NON LIVING chemical. DNA isn't living, either. The cells might have been built using DNA as the blueprint, but that is life being built from NON LIVING chemicals - again! DNA contains information but only a poetically inclined non-scientist would say it IS information.

My understanding is that RNA and DNA make up a single living cell. It appears to be for all practical purposes an amazing biological machine that can duplicate itself and run the code in the DNA string of digital code to do so. That's why the information plus this amazing biological machine called a cell is so incredible. There could be more to it than what is currently known, but this is the best that science has been able to come up with. What they all do not know is where that information came from. Spaghetti slinger explanations have been flung at the wall hoping it sticks, but I see through this nonsense and you do to if your honest with yourself.

Here is some quotes from Richard Dawkins book that establish the fact that the information in DNA is just like strings of pure digital data. It's a biological digital code. There are others from VOX (voices from Oxford) that think the same as well. Dennis Noble is one of them. George Church is another.

After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves,
within their minute internal structure' are long
strings of pure digital information. What is more,
they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense
of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense
of the nervous system.

The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers,
nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems'
but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine
code of the genes is uncannily computerlike.
Apart from differences in jargon' the pages of a
molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with
those of a computer-engineering journal...

Our. genetic system, which is the universal system of
all life on the planet' is digital to the core. With
word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of
the New Testament in those parts of the human genome
that are at present filled with "junk" DNA - that is,
DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the
body.

Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of
forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital
characters via numerous reading heads working
simultaneously.
In every cell, these tapes
—contain the same Information but the reading heads—
different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes.

Genes are pure information - information that can
be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any
degradation or change of meaning. Pure information
can be copied and, since it is digital information?
the fidelity of the copying can be immense.
DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that
rivals anything modern engineers can do.

Back in May 31, 2019, the folks over at VOX set up a contest to see if anyone can solve the origin of life mystery to find where all the information comes from. So they want to know, and were willing to pay 10 million to the winner. Every theist already knows the answer, but they don't like that simple answer so no prize money for us. But is the entire framing of the contest way out of line? I think it is, so far no one has been able to rival God's claim on the origin of life. Maybe they should up the prize money to a billion dollars.

Requirements to get the prize money is essentially an effort to explain away God and put a natural mechanisim on how all this information came to be. It's literally a setup from the start to force an outcome. So this is clearly not science IMO.

You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge. or-self-evolve without cheating.
The diagram below describes the system. Without
' explicitly designing the system. your experiment
must generate an encoder that Sends digital code to
decoder.

Your system needs to transmit at least five bits of
information. (In other words it has to be able to
represent 32 states. The genetic code supports 64. )

Now where has anything like this occurred anywhere in the observable universe or in our human history? They literally have to go to human imagination and creativity to even think of how such a thing can accomplish itself. How would anything be able to use such a device without any intelligent input? If the contestants have to arrange this to happen, but it must emerge or self-evolve without intelligent input, doesn't that mean we should just try to be as observant as possible to the natural world around us to try and spot this miracle happening in the moment? Why is a machine to do this needed to be created first by our very much alive human contestants? It's all a very comical watching the struggle to do the things that God does with no effort at all. Anyway, the money is up for grabs if you can explain how this process of encoding garbage in and decoding information out.

Your problem is that you want scientific proof NOW - and actually, I also wanted proof by demonstration when I was still a Methodist. But that didn't happen and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Science discovers new facts at its own pace.

I just want scientists to be honest instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole so it fits their paid for agenda. I don't believe science will ever be able to duplicate the creation of life. There is a statement made by God that demands that he intervene should humans continue to pursue the ability to be gods themselves. I expect he is just not going to let it happen. Science is doing it's best to decode the mysteries of Gods creation and if they stuck to the science, all would be well, but they have collectively a clear agenda that has nothing to do with the truth. They do not desire the truth and have created a framework of materialism to work from exclusively. That shuts out the vary nature of who and what we really are, and shuts out God on purpose to serve mans own need for self reliance and desire to live life separately from the creator.

Gen 11

And they said, “Come, let's build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let's make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of all the earth.”

So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth; and they stopped building the city.
Therefore it was named Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they have started to do, and now nothing which they plan to do will be impossible for them.

I know you don't want to hear this, but the fact that we are not all made whole in this world on demand is not God failing us. God doesn't need us, we need him. I'm sure you are well aware of the story of Job and how even in spite of his faithfulness to God and not doing anything wrong, he was subject to his life being turned upside down and you would think like Satan did that he would curse God and just stop being faithful, but here was a rare example of a man that continued to be faithful after getting an answer back through prayer. I won't go into anymore detail other than most of us will not be healed on demand or have perfect happy lives even when we do everything right. This suffering is a part of every Christians life sooner or later. It's not always going to be easy. Could God heal us all now and make it heaven on Earth now, sure he could, but it's obviously not in the plan that all should avoid all suffering in the present. What you want comes later after living out a faithful life that does your Fathers will. Don't assume your current or past suffering and pain is not known by him.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Requirements to get the prize money is essentially an effort to explain away God and put a natural mechanisim on how all this information came to be. It's literally a setup from the start to force an outcome. So this is clearly not science IMO.

No, it is merely to warn people that the answer must be scientifically testable. But you are complaining about a valid question. The prize is based on finding an answer that doesn't require God. It absolutely IS a scientific question. You just have a rigid belief system that won't let you see the other side of the coin. Answering God is the end of all questioning. Once someone says "goddidit" all rational argument flies out of the window.

My understanding is that RNA and DNA make up a single living cell.

Then your understanding is incomplete. RNA and DNA are molecular components of a cell that has MANY other components. Unicellular animals that are alive fit the definition of life even though the components of the cell, taken individually, do not.

To be alive, an object of interest must exhibit certain abilities. Just to be sure I didn't forget anything, I looked it up. This is a Googled list. After all, I'm a chemist, not a geneticist.

(1) Organization
(2) Growth/development
(3) Reproduction
(4) Energy processing (of some sort, generally any form of metabolism - energy through chemical interactions)
(5) response to stimuli
(6) homeostasis (stable internal environment)
(7) Adapt by evolution. I didn't put that in... it is part of what Google Gemini places in its answer.
(8) Following reproduction events, there must be a form of heredity (i.e. pass along information to the next generation).

RNA and DNA aren't alive because they fail "response to stimuli" and the definition of "organization" is marginally outside of their abilities. "Homeostasis" is also a bit open since as molecules with no cell walls, they HAVE no internal environment. Also neither RNA nor DNA metabolize anything.

Mike, your answers are yours and I don't begrudge you the right to believe as you do. But understand that your answers cannot be the same as mine. I find that God is the silencer of all questions, even when the questions are valid and worthy of response.

 

[Pat Hartman]

but it's obviously not in the plan that all should avoid all suffering in the present.

It is the striving that gives us purpose and makes us grow. But I agree - way too many are internally motivated to play God rather than to learn and grow. We have gotten to the point where we know enough about genetics to accidentally destroy ourselves and the planet.

 

[Isaac]

Those of us in south Louisiana understand that blue lake crabs ALWAYS go sideways.

Your belief is yours, mine is mine. I have given an ANALOGY of what I believe happened.

Science tells us that ribonucleic acid formed in the primordial soup. It wasn't alive because RNA is not alive. It's just a melange of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. But when two RNA molecules intertwined, things got interesting. Because two intertwined RNA sequences equal a DNA sequence. Technically, DNA isn't alive, either - but with DNA as a template, things REALLY got interesting.

Now I'm going to give you the double whammy. If you are a young-Earth creationist following the chronology of Bishop Ussher, we have things more than 6300 years old that are attributed to humans. If you are an intelligent-design creationist, though, denying that it could have happened this way because God wanted it lot look this way... that denial limits the power of your God. Are you sure you want to do that?

I'm torn on the age of the earth, I mean torn as to what my beliefs are. There is enough evidence of things they've found in layers of earth that should be 'impossible' according to evolutionary timelines. Typically these are rushed to be buried because of course, above all, if you are a God-denying scientist you hasten to toe the party line.

But I can go either way on whether the exact story of creation is how it happened or is an allegory. I will say I'm impressed the God put that bit of history into the stories of many religions, however.

I'm not sure I followed your question exactly, i.e. understood it, but I will say that I believe God operates according to principles that He does not break. You can call that limiting his power if you wish, but I don't see it that way. You can say you like or don't like those principles (such as the existence of pain on earth), but that's irrelevant as to the existence of God.

In fact, maybe another religion is more closer to the truth than mine. I don't think so, but I'm open minded to an extent on that ... the most important thing is to acknowledge God and humbly submit to His will, and accept the relationship with your Creator such as it is - that's the change required to be a believer IMO. Not a ceremony that man made up. And I'll say the same thing about marriage, I say this all the time when Christians discuss among themselves subjects such as sex outside marriage :: Once you are to the point where you have decided to spend the rest of your life together, I say, you're good to go. It better be a real commitment, BUT, God didn't originally design the ceremony of marriage, man did, or I might possibly go so far as to agree that God allowed/gave it to man to satisfy man's legalistic understanding of things. But you're married when you say you're married as far as 'before God' goes, IMO.
There are a lot of ceremonies that God hasn't given man that man performs to make himself feel better about his relationship with God, mostly missing the big fact in the process - that fact being that God loves us infinitely and He does not make a hard time about coming close to man once man attempts to draw close to Him.

 

[Isaac]

Possibly, the degree to which you think your own view is worth arguing is directly proportional to your own discomfort with its uncertainty

There is something to be said for this. The more anxious you are for others to see it your way, perhaps that betrays a 'need' that comes from a place of personal uncertainty. Of course there can be a million other motivations for proselytizing, I would hope at least one of the more common motivations among Christians would be out of love, i.e., if I really believe you are in danger of eternal separation from God, well then of course that's going to endlessly concern me, though there are rules of decorum that might be stayed within in order to not cause more harm than good.

I get no "credit" for my discussions on this forum; my family isn't on here, nobody I know personally is on here, my religion doesn't know about it, etc. I have no ulterior motive and no special reason for doing it - the only thing left is also the real reason, which is a concern for my fellow man. I doubt I will convert anyone in a direct manner from these discussions, but if it only places a thought that might take root in their mind sometime between now and death, that may be the best case scenario. At first it may even be an angry or disgusted thought, a retaliatory thought, an uncomfortable and disagreeable thought, but a thought nonetheless that may take root in the dark hours of our life when we tend to reach out to the unknown for meaning.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have no ulterior motive and no special reason for doing it - the only thing left is also the real reason, which is a concern for my fellow man

But according to the book of Esdras (of the Apocrypha), when you go before your God, you go alone. Your fellow man's concern for you is not relevant. Chapters 1-3 emphasize that you go alone. Intercessory prayers have no meaning. All of the evangelical preachers who ask for a small donation so that they can afford the time to pray for you? Snake oil.

Your concern for your fellow man is nice and I actually will not say it is misguided. But that concern will govern how you treat your fellow man in this life. We can guess regarding the concern of Hamas over their fellow men. We can also guess regarding that concern for people who volunteer for rescue missions after hurricanes. (I have a cousin who volunteered for power lineman work after hurricanes.) We can guess about my father, who was a fire fighter. Actions speak louder than words. If you can't do nice things for people while you are alive, your ledger might be a bit red. But to me, it isn't about Heaven and Hell. It is about the good that you left behind to be paid forward.

 

[MarkK]

if I really believe you are in danger of eternal separation from God, well then of course that's going to endlessly concern me,

If there is then a duty to act out of that concern, what action are we called to?

From discomfort in my own uncertainty, peace is mine when the other agrees.
• Thus I seek to change/convince the other.
• I have need, the other provides.

From peace in my own uncertainty, peace is mine when the other finds peace.
• Thus I seek to accept/understand the other.
• The other has need, I provide.

So if the higher purpose of debate is that we grow to more accurately understand ourselves and the world, then in debate it may be...
• less important to divide ourselves onto paths that uniformly terminate in the unknowable, and
• more important to make peace with the unknowable, and realize that when we arrive there in awe and wonder, there was only one path.