Originally posted by scottishinnzOne, both the constituents for amino acids have been found in gas clouds associated with stars.
It's not the presence of the acids that's the problem, it's how they have to combine.
Two, chains of DNA (about 50 bases) form spontaneously in the lab. It's an exergonic reaction (releases energy) and happens spontaneously. Furthermore, DNA can (and does) replicate under cell free onditinons.
Since I haven't dedicated my life to molecular biology, I'll have to ask you to talk to those who have. Dr. Behe and a number of others have spent the last 10+ years researching this very topic and it's their conclusions I have shared here. If you believe you are right, I honestly suggest you contact them and help them find the solution they are seeking.
DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendSorry but Behe plays with numbers. he states life to be 'irreducibly complex' without proof. Even if he had proof, it would only prove life is irreducibly complex now. Under present conditions. Of course, Behe talks about the chances of making up a protein of 150+ amino acids by randon chance as impossible, and he's right. But that's not the way that evolution operates. When the world was younger and life was first evolving conditions were quite different to the way they are now, and some of the biochemical tricks that seem miraculous now were much simpler then.
[b]One, both the constituents for amino acids have been found in gas clouds associated with stars.
It's not the presence of the acids that's the problem, it's how they have to combine.
Two, chains of DNA (about 50 bases) form spontaneously in the lab. It's an exergonic reaction (releases energy) and happens spontaneously. Furthermore, D ...[text shortened]... honestly suggest you contact them and help them find the solution they are seeking.
DF
For example, CO2 fixation. CO2 is fixed in the process of photosynthesis by the enzyme Rubisco. Now Rubisco is a very large and complex molecule, but is also one of the most widespread in biology. Everything that photosynthesizes has Rubisco. This tells us it evolved very very early. Rubisco is a huge enzyme. It has a molecular mass of 550,000 Daltons, and comprises over 4000 amino acids. Higher plant Rubisco has 16 subunits. Of course, microbial Rubisco only has 2. Rubisco could never have spontaneously evolved. However, remember earlier I said Rubisco evolved really early in life history? Well, based on the properties of rocks that were formed 3.8-3.95ish billion years ago we know that the atmosphere was about 21% CO2. This means that in the oceans there would have existed many C containing compounds. It's hypothesized that the first organisms were heterotrophic and 'ate' these C containing compounds. Then, like now, reduced N would have been at a premium though, and it would be quickly taken up by the organisms living in that environment. The organisms that managed to take up most N would be most successfull since they were more able to reproduce. So, what did the microbes do? They stored N. Some microbes turned it into organic N (i.e. amino acids), which spontaneously formed into clumps, i.e. proto-proteins. These organisms were most efficient because N would not be leached readily from them. Many different configurations of amino acids would emerge. Millions of them. And then something important happenned. One of these configurations could turn CO2 into something else, maybe COOH. That was enough though, because it meant that this organism could start to feed itself. As the world became more populated by microbes the amount of C in the oceans would decrease, which would select for those able to photo (or chemo) -synthesize. In those days photosynthesis didn't have to be too efficient because the atmosphere was 21%C, and nothing else was very good at it either.
Nowadays, Rubisco is pretty big and complex, but it's became that way as the atmosphere changed. Not all Rubisco has changed though. Microbial Rubisco is pretty much the same, but only in the oceans. It shouldn't be efficient enough to compete, but these organisms have got some new biochemical tricks which allows them to compete such as CCM's (carbon dioxide concentrating mechanisms), and higher plants have developed C4 and CAM photsynthesis mechanisms, which still utilise Rubisco.
Now I appreciate that much of what I've said is contentious, and may never be proved or disproved, but it remains scientifically a better option than god due to the action of Occams razor. This probability approach I use is simpler than reliance on a god, because we can prove chance but not god.
Behe is a fool, irrespective of his professorship, who plays with numbers to disprove something that he does not understand.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'll add that when Behe wants to attach more pedigree, albeit no more genuine substance, to his magical mathematics, he simply calls up his partner in crime, the "Isaac Newton of Magic Math," William Dembski.
Sorry but Behe plays with numbers. he states life to be 'irreducibly complex' without proof. Even if he had proof, it would only prove life is irreducibly complex now. Under present conditions. Of course, Behe talks about the chances of making up a protein of 150+ amino acids by randon chance as impossible, and he's right. But that's not the ...[text shortened]... essorship, who plays with numbers to disprove something that he does not understand.
Originally posted by powershakerPlus, if you multiply 666 by 4, you get your approximate OTB rating.
No, I am saying there is an empty seat in the European Union numbered 666. And, I'm also saying that the Roman Catholic Church (the papacy) is the 7 heads of the beast. The eight will be the Antichrist. The heads are already numbered 665. A new name in the papacy will reflect 666. Also, on the pope's metre the roman name is numbered 666. I am sayin ...[text shortened]... t let the World form your thoughts. Look for the true Love, Jesus Christ. He died for you.
Spooky.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut, you still didn't explain how all of this got together and happened. I think you're mistaken scottish. It can't just "bump into each other." God made it happen. That's a fact. And, do you know that scientists and doctors can still not explain how a unborn baby begins to breathe? How does it happen? Well, I don't know why they can't figure it out. It's so simple. GOD MAKES IT HAPPEN.
Okay, two points.
One, both the constituents for amino acids have been found in gas clouds associated with stars. In space. The early earth would be much more conducive for the molecules, and therefore early life to form.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/spitzer-20051220.html
Two, chains of DNA (about 50 bases) form spont ...[text shortened]... m of circular DNA formation from tandem repeats. Nucleic acids research, 29, 2542 ->+
Originally posted by powershakerI see that you are an unabashed proponent of "The God of the Gaps." Unfortunately, that position has been continuously eroding since at least Galileo's time.
But, you still didn't explain how all of this got together and happened. I think you're mistaken scottish. It can't just "bump into each other." God made it happen. That's a fact. And, do you know that scientists and doctors can still not explain how a unborn baby begins to breathe? How does it happen? Well, I don't know why they can't figure it out. It's so simple. GOD MAKES IT HAPPEN.
Originally posted by powershakerIt is NOT so simple.
How does it happen? Well, I don't know why they can't figure it out. It's so simple. GOD MAKES IT HAPPEN.
It is NOT so simple.
It is NOT so simple.
What is God and why would it make us (at the risk of us then spending an eternity in hell) ?
Originally posted by powershakerThermodynamics dude. It's all out there. Molecules do 'bump into each other' all the time - otherwise every water molecule on the planet would be ice (H bonds between H2O molecules hold them apart so they don't bump). You wouldn't care though, because there wouldn't be any air either. Your tea, likewise would be decidedly non-sweetened if molecules didn't bump into each other all the time. it is this bumping that allows the H2O molecules to 'rip' sucrose molecules out of the sides of the sugar crystals. But then not to worry because the haem in your red blood cells wouldn't be able to react with oxygen that dissolves in there from your lungs so you'd be dead anyway, and wouldn't drink tea.
But, you still didn't explain how all of this got together and happened. I think you're mistaken scottish. It can't just "bump into each other." God made it happen. That's a fact. And, do you know that scientists and doctors can still not explain how a unborn baby begins to breathe? How does it happen? Well, I don't know why they can't figure it out. It's so simple. GOD MAKES IT HAPPEN.
Maybe we don't know what makes babies take their first breath, but 500 years ago we didn't know what made babies (if your wife tells you 'god did it', she's lying). We've came a long way, and yes, there is more out there to learn. Just give us time.
Originally posted by powder005He has an obligation if he is to create us with the risk if us spending an eternity in hell. He has failed in his obligation ... or doesn't exist.
poeple have there own choice. we do not have some kind of dael or contract with god. can you exspect him to do everthing we have contral over are own lives bad things all the time plus if there is no evil then what is good?
Originally posted by scottishinnzHere we see evolutionists at their core. At first they malign creationists for not using science to back up what we beleive. Then they say that evolution has been proven through science. This is despite the fact that evolution is merely a theory and not a law. Then when creationists use science to back up creationist claims they brush us off and don't desire to even engage us in debate and say things like, "Don't waste my time." This comes from a scientific community of evolutionists who only about a 100 years ago thought that fly's evolved from refuse. Well, for everyone else out there who is searching for truth and not just looking to reinforce their beleifs, this is my take on evolution.
Actually, I'm not really going to expand on what I said before here too much. All the points you note are undeniably true. It all goes to prove that the universe is exactly the way it is. Nothing more.
There IS scientific proof that backs up some parts of the bible. Humans, for example, were undeniably alive 2000 years ago. I'm not particularly ...[text shortened]... nd animals, etc) with science. Thanks, but I've really got better things to do with my life.
Evolution has been embraced and held onto by scientists for one simple reason. They have nothing else. Otherwise, you must concede there is a creator. The problem of conceding there is a creator is that you can't place God in a test tube and put him to the scientific method. Granted, this is despite the fact that there is scientific data that points to a creator. Its kind of like trying to prove smoking causes cancer. You can't!! You can show strong correlations that it does, however. Therefore, they will never concede creationism no matter what the data shows and will not debate the correlations that point to creation. I have also concluded that beleif is more important than collecting data. Beleif dictates how data is processed and what conclusions are reached from the data. For example, if you are a scientist who beleives in evolution, then all of your findings will go toward supporting your beleif in that theory. If you are a scientist who beleives in creationism, you will do the same. Although I don't agree with the theory of evolution, it is important to credit Darwin with some important findings such as species adaptability. We were programmed to adapt and vary as a species such as different skin color, size, ect., but never do we change species. However, with the advent of intelligent design theory, some scientists who were once hard core evolutionists are coming to terms with the fallacies of evolution. Darwin and his findings were revolutionary for his time back in the 1880's, but for todays standards his findings are simplistic and based mostley on assumptions about his observations. Today we have the ability to explore the molecular level and as a result have found descrepencies with the theory of evolution. The theory of intellegent design has come to terms with the fact that sceince has no answers regarding how something so complex and intricate as DNA could have evolved. Like I say, however, most sceintists are still holding to their beleifs and refuse to even entertain the thought of creationism. It is important to realize that evolution is a religion. Man was created by the godess mother earth and has himself become a god. Have you ever seen the graph where we started out as a cell and then a bacteria, and then a fish, and then a monkey, and then the monkey gradually begins to walk erect. Soon we will have the brains the size of basketballs and become a true and mighty god. Apparently, mother earth, who has no intelligence, can do something scientists can't do, who supposodley have intelligence. That something is to create the smallest living organism which is a cell. We can't produce a living organism in a controlled evnironment such as a labrotory with intelligent thought. Mother earth, on the other hand, is smarter than the whole lot of them even though she has no intellect at all. Proving evolution is like me pretending I can prove a theory for getting rich even though I can't produce a single penny for myself. Oh, and by the way, don't even contemplate the astronimical improbabilities associated with evolution having taken place without intellegent thought. It all seems absurd when you really think about it.
Originally posted by whodeyOne. It's belief, not beleif. Fool.
Here we see evolutionists at their core. At first they malign creationists for not using science to back up what we beleive. Then they say that evolution has been proven through science. This is despite the fact that evolution is merely a theory and not a law. Then when creationists use science to back up creationist claims they brush us off and don't des ...[text shortened]... e without intellegent thought. It all seems absurd when you really think about it.
Two. Creationists don't tend to back their stuff up. I have written copiously on these forums regarding evolution. Read my posts.
Three. There are no discrepancies between evolutionary theory and molecular biology or any other part of biological theory. Without evolutionary theory basically all our understanding of how biology operates falls apart into piecemeal scraps of information.
Four. A theory is pretty much the strongest certainty that we can have in science. Look it up. People have tried, repeatedly, for 150 years to find even the smallest chink in evolution. No-one has ever disproven it. Go on, do your worst.
Five. 100 years ago scientists thought that flies (note the spelling dimwit) evolved from garbage? Back that up. I want the original journal article please.
Six. Science is merely the application of logic on empirically gathered data to find the most parsimonious explanation to a phenomenon. Why would we make something like evolution up if it wasn't the simplest explanation of the data? If we knew it was false why would we promote it? We wouldn't. We don't have to lie to protect our beliefs, we just show data. I personally couldn't give a damn if there is a creator or not.
Seven. I have extensively covered the evolution of life, and the difficulties of creating it in the lab. Give us $30,000,000 and a 20,000 years and we'll do it. Deal?
Please, go ahead, read my public forum posts - I've explained every one of your objections countless times, hence my request for you to stop wasting mine.