Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Justatruthseeker]

It does Christians no credit to attempt to discredit science. Science confirms its own validity every time I turn on my stereo.

Agreed, but then I'm not usurping science in an attempt to claim certain other theories are science.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Gene and chromosome duplication shows exactly how mutations to existing genes make new genes. That icefish blood antifreeze that used a digestive enzyme as a template is one such. The Hox genes , humans have 4 sets . Some Hox genes are identical, some are mutated, a few are missing from one or more of the sets

And yet taking what already exists, and merely putting it into a different format, shows the creation of nothing new. Just re-purposing what already exists to a different end.....

 

[BradB]

LHS1140b

So are you claiming that life is known to exist there or did you just miss that portion of my question?

Yes, science is supposed to be based on observation. No, science does not draw broad conclusions about probabilities from a sample of size one.

Science can only draw conclusions based upon what is observed. If there is only one sample then it can either choose to draw a conclusion based on the one available sample or choose to draw NO conclusion. What science does not do is imagine what's possible and call their imagination... science.

Your quotation here has nothing to do with your previous claim, which was about the magnetic field protecting the Earth from cosmic radiation. Are you withdrawing that claim?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you just misread what I wrote. That happens. But please note that I didn't say "cosmic" radiation I said solar radiation. That is what solar "wind" consists of doesn't it?

Lack of ozone would make land life more difficult, but life did appear on Earth long before there was significant free oxygen (including ozone) in the atmosphere.

Geological history of oxygen

I realize this is going to spin off into a whole big topic about geology. But you do realize there are scientists who for good scientific reason do not interpret the geologic evidence in the same way as yours right? And so I know this will turn into a big thing about "who's list of scientists is bigger" and then I will point out that history has shown that notions of "majority rules" hasn't worked out so good for science in the past, etc... etc. Just trying to save us both a bunch of time here. So let me just say I believe I've got good reason to reject your claims of life existing before atmosphere...based on what you have presented and the fact that I have already seen it before. I have concluded that the other interpretation is more reasonable. If you care to know why I'll be happy to go into more depth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Methane on Mars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Laboratory_synthesis

Although methane can in principle be produced by a variety of forcing methods, it is conveniently generated by protonation of methyl lithium and methylmagnesium iodide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protonation

"Protonation is a fundamental chemical reaction and is a step in many stoichiometric and catalytic processes."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Science can only draw conclusions based upon what is observed. If there is only one sample then it can either choose to draw a conclusion based on the one available sample or choose to draw NO conclusion. What science does not do is imagine what's possible and call their imagination... science.

In theory, yes. In reality. Not so much.

 

[Brightmoon]

And yet taking what already exists, and merely putting it into a different format, shows the creation of nothing new. Just re-purposing what already exists to a different end.....

. Yes , that’s what genes do and how they evolved . Duplication and then changes to the copy . That’s how we’ve gotten our blood clotting cascade . The blood clotting factors are all mutated copies of each other. Despite Behe’s false claim that they’re irreducibly complex
You obviously don’t understand evolution so why are you arguing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thanks for your comments. I can't speak for anyone else but myself of course. But I have heard many reports of people coming to faith in Christ who were raised in homes of other beliefs. I myself was raised as a child in a broken home by an alcoholic mother with no religious upbringing. I came to faith in Christ as a teenager and led my mother to Christ. Later in life I had backslid on God and she was instrumental in getting me back to my faith in Christ. I really believe truth will always out way "upbringing" every time to those who are willing to hear it. The point I hope to make here is that in this "age of scientific enlightenment" it is not required for us to check our brains at the door of the church with our hats and coats. There are reasonable scientific reasons to believe God exists and there is good logical evidence to suggest the Bible is the only book which can be divinely inspired. Therefore from its pages we learn that God does truly reward those who diligently seek Him by faith in His Son Jesus Christ.

I spent 12 years arguing against christianity and for evolution. Then I realized the more I studied the more I realized all was not well in wonderland. The deeper I dug, the more "faith" I had to put to believe in evolution than creation. Basically I got tired of lying to myself to avoid the truths.

Science and religion are indeed not incompatible. How can they be, the same God that penned the Bible spoke the universe into existence. If the two seem to disagree at times, then the problem lies in the interpretation of one or the other. What we believe to be scientific fact as every few hundred years been turned upside down and replaced by new beliefs. To now believe we suddenly have it all figured out, well, those who's science was overturned thought they had it all figured out too.

Perhaps that's why modern cosmology needs 96% ad-hoc theory added to it to make the observations fit reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Yes , that’s what genes do and how they evolved . Duplication and then changes to the copy . That’s how we’ve gotten our blood clotting cascade . The blood clotting factors are all mutated copies of each other. Despite Behe’s false claim that they’re irreducibly complex

What changes to the copy? The changes to the copy are changing again what already exists. Once again re-purposing what already exists....

You obviously don’t understand evolution so why are you arguing.

The first argument of someone out of his league and incapable of defending his beliefs. Claim the other guy just doesn't understand....

I understand I don't need your magic mutations to explain variation....

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.x

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So why do I need mutation which is rarely beneficial if not deleterious to produce variation when actual studies in the real world showed mating was two to three orders of magnitude greater at producing new additive variance than was mutation?

 

[pitabread]

I see that you only touched on the conditions of our planet and not the laws of physics.

It's a bit silly to argue about the "fine tuning" of the universe since we have a sample size of 1.

But lets look at your analogy (the lottery) for a second.

For the record, I was using the lottery analogy as an example of probability NOT as an analogy for the universe itself. I'm not sure why you're talking about a lottery requiring 'intelligence' since that was never the point to begin with.

Gene duplication doesn't demonstrate how the genes came into existence, no more than Xeroxing a page from a book shows how the words in that book were formed.

That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your claim about not observing beneficial mutations in multi-cellular organisms when you'd previously been given examples of just that.

As for the other, by all means please do show me an example of an observed random mutation that added new and beneficial gene increasing type of information to the genome of multi-celled organism.

By "gene increasing" I am assuming you are referring to gene duplications. That's the only thing that makes sense in your above statement when it comes to increasing the number of genes in a genome. And for which it literally took 60 seconds to find these:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221918232_Gene_Duplication_in_Insecticide_Resistance
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ps.2189

Insecticide target gene duplication is involved in insecticide resistance as well. Duplication of the Rdl -amino butyric acid (GABA) receptor subunit gene is a possible cause for the resistance to cyclodiene insecticides in M. persicae. Dual copies of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) play a role in resistance and adaptation in Culex mosquitoes. AChE duplications reduce the fitness cost associated with the mutant ace allele in Culex mosquitoes. Recently,
multiple copies of AChE were confirmed to confer resistance to an OP insecticide in the two- spotted spider mite. Such extensive duplication of AChE provides adaptive advantages in fitness compensation and resistance.​

I do recall our previous discussion as well.

I also recall that you never responded to my replies.

Fair enough, sometimes life gets busy and I end up dropping threads. It happens. Doesn't help that that particular thread also ended up locked.

Regardless, you've repeatedly made claims about types of not observing certain types of beneficial mutations when in fact we've observed those very types of beneficial mutations and have been given examples of such. Time spent searching the scientific literature would be better spent than posting obviously false claims on this forum.

 

[sfs]

So are you claiming that life is known to exist there or did you just miss that portion of my question?

I couldn't figure out what that part of your question meant. Had I understood it, I would have pointed out that it was an invalid request (since we can't detect life at astronomical distances) and an obvious attempt to shift the goalposts.

Science can only draw conclusions based upon what is observed. If there is only one sample then it can either choose to draw a conclusion based on the one available sample or choose to draw NO conclusion.

Sorry, but no. Choosing to draw a universal conclusion based on a sample size of one is not an option in science. Exactly what background do you have in science to be making these pronouncements?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you just misread what I wrote. That happens. But please note that I didn't say "cosmic" radiation I said solar radiation. That is what solar "wind" consists of doesn't it?

My apologies. I did indeed misread your original claim. Your original claim was, however, incorrect, as demonstrated by the existence of life on Earth before there was an ozone layer.

I realize this is going to spin off into a whole big topic about geology. But you do realize there are scientists who for good scientific reason do not interpret the geologic evidence in the same way as yours right?

No, I'm not aware of any scientists who for good scientific reasons think that there has always been a high level of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Could you point me to their publications on the subject?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, but no. Choosing to draw a universal conclusion based on a sample size of one is not an option in science.

Sure it is. You have a sample set of one - the solar system. From that they based a universal conclusion that gravity is the dominating force everywhere in the universe.

Yet the very second one steps outside the solar system and applies this universally dominating force to the other 99.9% of the matter state of the universe (plasma), what was just tested to a 99.9% accuracy in the solar system suddenly is not accurate at all.

So instead of re-evaluating the belief based upon a sample set of one that it is universally dominate (now that there is more than one sample set - which disagrees with their conclusion), they add just the right amount of Fairie Dust in the one place where a gravity only form of matter would not exist - the outskirts of a galaxy, despite the fact the theory was just shown to be 99.9% accurate without it....

So based upon a sample set of one, they drew a universal conclusion that was shown to be incorrect, and then fudged into alignment by proposing ad-hoc theory not needed where it has been shown to be 99.9% correct. And add this ad-hoc theory to a place in exact opposition to where a gravity only acting form of matter would not be prevalent.

But are you not also basing a universal conclusion that life could exist on LHS1140b, or anywhere else for that matter, based upon a sample set of one?

 

[Brightmoon]

Sure it is. You have a sample set of one - the solar system. From that they based a universal conclusion that gravity is the dominating force everywhere in the universe.

Yet the very second one steps outside the solar system and applies this universally dominating force to the other 99.9% of the matter state of the universe (plasma), what was just tested to a 99.9% accuracy in the solar system suddenly is not accurate at all.

So instead of re-evaluating the belief based upon a sample set of one that it is universally dominate (now that there is more than one sample set - which disagrees with their conclusion), they add just the right amount of Fairie Dust in the one place where a gravity only form of matter would not exist - the outskirts of a galaxy, despite the fact the theory was just shown to be 99.9% accurate without it....

So based upon a sample set of one, they drew a universal conclusion that was shown to be incorrect, and then fudged into alignment by proposing ad-hoc theory not needed where it has been shown to be 99.9% correct. And add this ad-hoc theory to a place in exact opposition to where a gravity only acting form of matter would not be prevalent.

But are you not also basing a universal conclusion that life could exist on LHS1140b, or anywhere else for that matter, based upon a sample set of one?

You have bizarre idea that we just have a sample set of one . Organic compounds including animo acids are some of the most common molecules we find aside from water . Even on earth, lipid bilayers like in cell membranes, self assemble . As I’ve stated before, real scientists have got all the steps for abiogenesis figured out . They haven’t figured out how to join them together yet. Which is why I recommended you research the work of Jack Szostak

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have bizarre idea that we just have a sample set of one . Organic compounds including animo acids are some of the most common molecules we find aside from water . Even on earth, lipid bilayers like in cell membranes, self assemble . As I’ve stated before, real scientists have got all the steps for abiogenesis figured out . They haven’t figured out how to join them together yet. Which is why I recommended you research the work of Jack Szostak

No, not even on earth, the only place you have observed it is on earth..... It wouldn't matter if water existed on every planet in the universe. Presence of water does not equate to presence of life. Lipid bilayers have only been observed with life, not as a naturally occurring form separate from life.

Of course they self assemble, that's what they have been programmed to do. They are life, not inorganic compounds.

They haven't got any of the steps figured out. Every single process is incompatible with the next process. The conditions favoring one are disastrous for the next. You'll have to do better than evolutionary PR and the dead belief of spontaneous generation.

"Belief in spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century."

 

[Brightmoon]

Lipid bilayers form by themselves in liquid water

 

[Brightmoon]

No, not even on earth, the only place you have observed it is on earth..... It wouldn't matter if water existed on every planet in the universe. Presence of water does not equate to presence of life. Lipid bilayers have only been observed with life, not as a naturally occurring form separate from life.

Of course they self assemble, that's what they have been programmed to do. They are life, not inorganic compounds.

They haven't got any of the steps figured out. Every single process is incompatible with the next process. The conditions favoring one are disastrous for the next. You'll have to do better than evolutionary PR and the dead belief of spontaneous generation.

"Belief in spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century."

. Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation back in the 1800s . What does that have to do with modern Abiogenesis research?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lipid bilayers form by themselves in liquid water

No they form from phospholipid molecules, which were first observed in biological tissues..... they are a major component of all cell membranes.

They are obtained even in the laboratory only from living matter.

"Common sources of industrially produced phospholipids are soya, rapeseed, sunflower, chicken eggs, bovine milk, fish eggs etc. Each source has a unique profile of individual phospholipid species and consequently differing applications in food, nutrition, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and drug delivery."

That water which is abundant with living matter has phosphlipid molecules unattached to cells is not surprising at all, being a major component of all cells, fish eggs, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospholipid

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation back in the 1800s . What does that have to do with modern Abiogenesis research?

Exactly. The spontaneous generation of Life from non-life was refuted back in the 1880's, but here you are still trying to preach it. They just renamed it to abiogenesis.

 

[JackRT]

. Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation back in the 1800s . What does that have to do with modern Abiogenesis research?

Nothing at all. Spontaneous generation posited the appearance of higher life forms like fruit flies or maggots on rotting fruit or meat. Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized. This is what Pasteur and others disproved --- not the possibility of abiogenesis.

 

[pitabread]

The spontaneous generation of Life from non-life was refuted back in the 1880's, but here you are still trying to preach it. They just renamed it to abiogenesis.

Not the same thing, but nice try...

 

[Brightmoon]

I got the picture from NASA. The earth isn’t flat.