In a trial, would you be convinced by the defense claiming that "God could have planted the fingerprints at the crime scene"? If not, then why are you convinced by the same argument when it comes to biology?
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.
I'm trying to be. As this is a forum, anyone who has not made their mind up about the evolution/creation controversy is of course welcome to add their comments.
Well, as long as we're not talking about the Judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Seriously, what you're asking for has been done before. PBS Nova even did an excellent documentary about it, and Ken Miller has done several talks on the subject. Here's an example.So far then, nothing significant to convince the "jury" that evolution is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but some scientific evidence to indicate that it's not possible (from post #5 above).
It can't be proven that "God did it" of course, but in the absence of any evidence for an alternative explanation, it's just as valid as saying that some unknown cause was the reason that we have something rather than nothing.
Good for them. But so what?Christian's put their faith in God being the cause because we believe that the Bible is divine revelation from our maker.
The atheist has to put his/her faith in something else and that is why those without the Christian faith are floundering trying to find an explanation that will never be found.
I'm afraid I don't understand this argument at all.
First, what does it have to do with evolution? Protein-folding is biochemistry. Is the idea simply that science is wrong?
Second, you're arguing that certain chemicals, under appropriate conditions, (almost) always behave in certain ways, and that chemists don't understand why . . . and therefore God. What you're describing simply sounds like poorly understood chemistry. That's what we mean by natural law: the way the physical world consistently behaves. If you simply invoked miracles every time some physical process wasn't understood, then no science would have been possible.
Third, is di-sulfide bond formation even all that mysterious? It's been pretty thoroughly studied. Incorrect di-sulfide bonds routinely occur during proteins folding, potentially trapping the protein in a local energy minimum. The enzymes you mention greatly enhance exchange of bond partners, making it possible for the molecule to move out of the local minimum and achieve the most stable conformation. It seems pretty straightforward, at least in the abstract.
This is very interesting thanks for that.Indeed! Thanks for saying this. Time (chronological time) IS a function of space and varies from place to place according to speed, gravity, and even personal experiential perception...
Check this article out by MIT physicist and mathematician Gerald Schroeder
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
Paul
Post #7 mentions more than just domestication. You ignored it.What on earth has domestication of animals got to do with proving that evolution is true? Please provide some real evidence, like one kind of creature turning into another. This is regularly shown as being a fact on the so-called evolutionary tree of life, but if you remove all the dotted lines, you are left with the creationists' "orchard of life" which they say, matches the real world we see around us.
If you can't explain a phenomenon because of a lack of definitive evidence, you are entitled by logic, reason, and honesty to say, "I don't know." Ignorance does not justify asserting, "Leprechauns did it."It can't be proven that "God did it" of course, but in the absence of any evidence for an alternative explanation, it's just as valid as saying that some unknown cause was the reason that we have something rather than nothing. Christian's put their faith in God being the cause because we believe that the Bible is divine revelation from our maker. The atheist has to put his/her faith in something else and that is why those without the Christian faith are floundering trying to find an explanation that will never be found.
OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt.
At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, with some examples of actual creatures where this has happened or is happening.
Let’s flip the coin now. Can someone also present a similar amount of ideas presented by creation scientists that can be shown to be false, again using the above court room scenario.
Finally, could someone answer the question about how the first life could have got started all on its own without any divine intervention.
Since you would be presenting these ideas to non-scientists, could you for each piece of evidence you present, indicate what the specialism of any scientist working in that field would need to have.
It can't be proven that "God did it" of course, but in the absence of any evidence for an alternative explanation, it's just as valid as saying that some unknown cause was the reason that we have something rather than nothing. Christian's put their faith in God being the cause because we believe that the Bible is divine revelation from our maker. The atheist has to put his/her faith in something else and that is why those without the Christian faith are floundering trying to find an explanation that will never be found.
You keep saying impossible, care to demonstrate that?No matter what the evidences are for and against it seems that for all that is involved in making life there is to much involved to say it happened by a random and chance naturalistic process. Whether as a believer in God you think that creation happened by the bible account of by a theistic evolution some sort of intelligent agent had to be involved. There is not enough time or even ability for a natural process to do this.
Evolution hasn't even began to explain how this happens. When people talk about the DNA evidence what they forget is the complexity of our DNA would rule out any naturalistic process creating this in the first place. Its just impossible. Yet people believe by adding the magic ingredient of time the impossible can happen. If anything there is evidence to show how complicated and impossible it is for evolution to happen at the genetic level.
No matter what the evidences are for and against it seems that for all that is involved in making life there is to much involved to say it happened by a random and chance naturalistic process.
Whether as a believer in God you think that creation happened by the bible account of by a theistic evolution some sort of intelligent agent had to be involved. There is not enough time or even ability for a natural process to do this.
Evolution hasn't even began to explain how this happens. When people talk about the DNA evidence what they forget is the complexity of our DNA would rule out any naturalistic process creating this in the first place. Its just impossible.
No matter what the evidences are for and against it seems that for all that is involved in making life there is to much involved to say it happened by a random and chance naturalistic process.
Whether as a believer in God you think that creation happened by the bible account of by a theistic evolution some sort of intelligent agent had to be involved. There is not enough time or even ability for a natural process to do this.
Evolution hasn't even began to explain how this happens.
When people talk about the DNA evidence what they forget is the complexity of our DNA would rule out any naturalistic process creating this in the first place. Its just impossible.
Yet people believe by adding the magic ingredient of time the impossible can happen
If anything there is evidence to show how complicated and impossible it is for evolution to happen at the genetic level.
OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt. At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, with some examples of actual creatures where this has happened or is happening.
Let’s flip the coin now. Can someone also present a similar amount of ideas presented by creation scientists that can be shown to be false, again using the above court room scenario.
Finally, could someone answer the question about how the first life could have got started all on its own without any divine intervention. In particular, where all the information came from to start life and build the first self-reproducing cell and how the problem of chirality could have been overcome in such a process.
Since you would be presenting these ideas to non-scientists, could you for each piece of evidence you present, indicate what the specialism of any scientist working in that field would need to have.
The standard Darwinian approach to how Proteins came about is by random chemical accident over billions of years time. The point was there is, was, and never shall be anything random about it. In a random scenario the sulphides of one functional Protein type when unfolded and allowed to re-fold would refold differently forming other types of proteins on a much more frequent basis and not ONLY refold into the exact same 4 dimensional shape bonding with the exact same partner molecules. On the rare occasions it does not fold properly (very rare) it either neutralizes the function or causes disease in the organism. Now scientists have speculated as to why this is true but none of these hypotheses are viable.
So relative to evolution, the folding for function aspect of Proteins is not random, nor were the first proteins formed in nature outside of a living host over millions or billions of years. And of course protein folding is a common and observed occurrance (that's why it is studied in the link I provided), all physical nature of living things depend on it. And yes some do speculate as to the why it happens just as it does but it is all speculation. They do not understand why the Proteins fold exactly the same way every time. Also I do not believe for one minute in Chemical coincidence, the processes within chemistry are guided by laws and principles...information is NOT a function of dead matter.
Proteins are always formed via the encoded messages found in a cells DNA assisted by mRNA and tRna (transcription and translation) mobilized by enzymes (which themselves are proteins) to and in the ribosomes. This never happens outside of a cell. The cell must exist with all its functional inter-dependent subsystems working correctly and in place for this to happen.
Where did the first of each type of cell come from? Not from transcription and translation (since these do not occur outside a loving system) on the forming earth for these cannot happen outside of a cell. The cell, in order to form requires DNA, the DNA is only functional IN a cellular environment,...no cell no DNA, no DNA no cell (in fact there are no free floating Proteins, let alone DNA, anywhere we look in nature)...it all had to become at once, fully formed, in order to exist and replicate.
No matter what the evidences are for and against it seems that for all that is involved in making life there is to much involved to say it happened by a random and chance naturalistic process.
There is not enough time or even ability for a natural process to do this.
Evolution hasn't even began to explain how this happens.
When people talk about the DNA evidence what they forget is the complexity of our DNA would rule out any naturalistic process creating this in the first place. Its just impossible.
The standard Darwinian approach to how Proteins came about is by random chemical accident over billions of years time.
The point was there is, was, and never shall be anything random about it. In a random scenario the sulphides of one functional Protein type when unfolded and allowed to re-fold would refold differently forming other types of proteins on a much more frequent basis and not ONLY refold into the exact same 4 dimensional shape bonding with the exact same partner molecules.
They do not understand why the Proteins fold exactly the same way every time.
Also I do not believe for one minute in Chemical coincidence, the processes within chemistry are guided by laws and principles...information is NOT a function of dead matter.
Proteins are always formed via the encoded messages found in a cells DNA assisted by mRNA and tRna (transcription and translation) mobilized by enzymes (which themselves are proteins) to and in the ribosomes. This never happens outside of a cell. The cell must exist with all its functional inter-dependent subsystems working correctly and in place for this to happen.
The cell, in order to form requires DNA, the DNA is only functional IN a cellular environment,...no cell no DNA, no DNA no cell (in fact there are no free floating Proteins, let alone DNA, anywhere we look in nature)...it all had to become at once, fully formed, in order to exist and replicate.
Why don't you think they are just as plausible?Why do you think they are just as plausible?
How can natural selection create proteins? Natural selection just selects what has been created surely, so if something hasn't been created, how can it select it? You answer doesn't make any sense. And how do you get over the massive problems of even getting a protein in the first place (Chirality, to name just one)? Nah.False. Evolution says that proteins came about through natural selection. Selection is the opposite of random.
Until you fix this mistake, the rest of your argument falls apart.
Proteins fold according to the laws of chemistry, not randomly. Again, until you fix this mistake, the rest of your argument falls apart. Do you really think that God is in every cell making sure every protein folds correctly?
Yes, they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
In fact, you can predict secondary structures such as beta sheets and alpha helices from the amino acid sequence.
http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/jpred/
All matter has information.
"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Physical_information
This is false. Proteins can form abiotically.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707000889
Also, RNA can act as catalysts and fill the role of proteins. In fact, randomly assembled RNA molecules can have DNA ligase activity.
"Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7618102
However, all of this deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. If you think there is not a natural process that produces humans, then you need to take a sex ed class.
You haven't shown that DNA is required.
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?