it doesn't matter if they are amino acids, like i said before the chemical compound of a spoon or fork does not explain their arrangement in a dining table
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 doesn't matter if they are amino acids, like i said before the chemical compound of a spoon or fork does not explain their arrangement in a dining tableSix base pairs, actually. And they're not" letters of code," they're amino acids.
That only tells me what you think your god isn't.
I am not here to explain anything, particularly your "out of thin air" straw-man. I just see your analogy as faulty, and that adding an undefined, unfalsifiable "god" to the equation does nothing to help.
then explain how it arranged in the first living cell through chemical evolution?Sure it does. It's molecular biology.
I have no idea.
Sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with us not having found the first self-replicating proteins.well if the chemical soup cannot explain the arrangements of the first life, then indeed the analogy of the chemical compound of a spoon cannot explain its arrangements in a table. Just as the Ink in a news paper cannot explain the meaning of the Headline.
Sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with us not having found the first self-replicating proteins.
You've done some research in this field, then?First self replicating protein out of a prebiotic soup and each protein need 100s of specific amino acids, due to prebiotic condition there should be only a chemical explanation without natural selection. This would be like meaninful Articles self originating out of a river of INK
I don't claim to speak for you. It just seems that you are remarkable evasive about this "god" that you think fills the gaps in scientific knowledge.Well it works for me
how can you speak for me? what works for me might not work for you
Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.unless you can prove the origin of life to happen without a cause,
Particularly if you are unclear on your theology.you and me have nothing much to benefit from a theological conversation.
This mysterious gap-filler can be contacted? By telephone or internet?Only after you accept a cause can i introduce you to my way of contacting the cause.
I still do not know what you mean by "god".We are going to waste time on talking about the path to the God, if you dont believe in God our conversation will end only in ''the path'' but not what the path leads me to.
You made a claim regarding regarding self replicating proteins, indicating that the probabilities are highly unlikely. So I'm asking if you've done any research in this area? Scientists often speak in terms of what is possible based on evidence, not in terms of what isn't possible.what do you mean by then?
I don't claim to speak for you. It just seems that you are remarkable evasive about this "god" that you think fills the gaps in scientific knowledge.
Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.
Particularly if you are unclear on your theology.
This mysterious gap-filler can be contacted? By telephone or internet?
I still do not know what you mean by "god".
If chemical does not have a possible answer, it opens the door to find new approaches. If you dont like the word Intelligence then may be natural selection before the first life? Sometimes if we stick to the same approach that has failed to give an answer its better to open doors to others.You made a claim regarding regarding self replicating proteins, indicating that the probabilities are highly unlikely. So I'm asking if you've done any research in this area? Scientists often speak in terms of what is possible based on evidence, not in terms of what isn't possible.
If chemical does not have a possible answer, it opens the door to find new approaches. If you dont like the word Intelligence then may be natural selection before the first life? Sometimes if we stick to the same approach that has failed to give an answer its better to open doors to others.
Why, if you already have your answer?why should i explain to you about something that you do not believe?
Science is something we both can accept because its based on facts, but God is something we both cannot agree because its based on faith.
Anyhow everything that is science does not become a fact, such is the case with chemical evolution.
Its a misunderstanding you have got to claim the God i believe to be a gap-filler for me, Science fills the gap of how God did it for me, so God does not fill science for me
If science proved this is how a DNA works, for me it means this is how God works. Through science i know that gravity, O2, distance from Sun and many other factors are the reason why we are alive so this filled the gap of how God governs earth. Through science i knew the patterns of life and its evolution from time which made me understand how God progressed with his creatures with time.
For me Science fills the Gaps not the other way around.
You might wonder why am i questioning chemical evolution so hard then? well that's one gap science has failed to fill for me so i like to seek the answer for that
well then explain chemical evolution in scientific methodThen you have totally failed to understand the scientific method, as everything we have learned about the natural world is a result of the scientific method and inquiry. You are engaging in classic argument from ignorance and credulity, with a heap of god-of-gaps on the side. IMO, this is a terrible way to learn about reality, and allows one to fill in the blanks with religious dogma.
Everything we have ever learned is a result of the scientific method; not faith, revelation, or prayer.
love to learn more, increases my faith by learning the complexity and patterns....i have my own reasonsWhy, if you already have your answer?
Then you have totally failed to understand the scientific method, as everything we have learned about the natural world is a result of the scientific method and inquiry. You are engaging in classic argument from ignorance and credulity, with a heap of god-of-gaps on the side. IMO, this is a terrible way to learn about reality, and allows one to fill in the blanks with religious dogma.
Everything we have ever learned is a result of the scientific method; not faith, revelation, or prayer.
Life is a great product that successfully reproduces, evolves and adapts in to changing conditions. Sequence hypothesis as Bill Gates said is similar to Binary codes.
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?