- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Agreed, but then I'm not usurping science in an attempt to claim certain other theories are science.....
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It does Christians no credit to attempt to discredit science. Science confirms its own validity every time I turn on my stereo.
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
LHS1140b
Yes, science is supposed to be based on observation. No, science does not draw broad conclusions about probabilities from a sample of size one.
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?
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
Methane on Mars.
In theory, yes. In reality. Not so much.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.
. 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 complexAnd 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.....
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.
What changes to the copy? The changes to the copy are changing again what already exists. Once again re-purposing what already exists..... 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
The first argument of someone out of his league and incapable of defending his beliefs. Claim the other guy just doesn't understand....You obviously don’t understand evolution so why are you arguing.
I see that you only touched on the conditions of our planet and not the laws of physics.
But lets look at your analogy (the lottery) for a second.
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.
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.
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.So are you claiming that life is known to exist there or did you just miss that portion of my question?
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?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.
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 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?
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?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?
Sorry, but no. Choosing to draw a universal conclusion based on a sample size of one is not an option in science.
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 SzostakSure 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
. Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation back in the 1800s . What does that have to do with modern Abiogenesis research?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."
No they form from phospholipid molecules, which were first observed in biological tissues..... they are a major component of all cell membranes.Lipid bilayers form by themselves in liquid water
. Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation back in the 1800s . What does that have to do with modern Abiogenesis research?
. Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation back in the 1800s . What does that have to do with modern Abiogenesis research?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?