The Genetic Code

[AV1611VET]

You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.

That's the Holy Spirit's job.

I was saved first, THEN became a Fundamentalist.

As we're fond of saying: I'm a Christian by election, and a Baptist by conviction.

 

[ottawak]

That's the Holy Spirit's job.

I was saved first, THEN became a Fundamentalist.

As we're fond of saying: I'm a Christian by election, and a Baptist by conviction.

Wait, what? What is the Holy Spirit's job? The Holy Spirit brought you to Christ and then you became a Fundamentalist for some other reason? Or did you come to Christ and then the Holy Spirit forced you to become a Fundamentalist?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see a rather remote possibility of being Christian, but reverting to the immature shallow mentality of a child is not going to happen.

Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Holy Spirit brought you to Christ and then you became a Fundamentalist for some other reason? Or did you come to Christ and then the Holy Spirit forced you to become a Fundamentalist?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

When I got saved, I wanted to go back to my old church (American Baptist) to see what it was like.

So wife and I attended a Sunday night service back in my old church.

Result: Neither one of us ever went back.

We've been Independent Fundamental Baptists now for forty years this December (she was a Catholic).

 

[Mountainmike]

So atheists keep saying, that the two are not connected.
Except all the atheists on here and elsewhere seem to believe it, or have you not noticed you belong to that tribe!. I assume from your other remarks that you do believe it.

Which is hardly surprising since atheists have no other position to promote on life. it has to be part of the credo. Life was a random chance chemical accident.

But There is no evidence that the chemical mix percolating earth did produce life. There is No known process for it. Just a few pieces of conjecture, about how small parts of the process might have happened. And even if those bits might have happened there is no evidence they actually did.

All you have is belief.

You clearly have bad understanding of the staggering unlikelihood considering the irreducible complexity problem of a self evolving self replicating cell. The idea that you think it happened by pure random chance (amongst squillions of other outcomes of nearly life which didnt actually happen for which there is no evidence, or any evidence the process of trying is still ongoing).

Me ? I prefer scientific evidence. I have actual forensic evidence of human heart tissue from eucharistic host. Life from no life Several times. Whatever the weaknesses in it, my evidence trumps yours. I have some.

I am not actually challenging the idea that abiogenesis might have happened by random chance. I am open to persuasion, on science not wishful thinking.

I am challenging the idea that atheists are somehow more rational to believe it considering they do so with no evidence at all, and the staggering unlikelihood that it occurred, or could occur. Its a atheist belief no more and no less.

I am just evening up the score. We both have a belief.

But Mine has forensic evidence..

Abiogenesis is not an atheistic concept. It's a scientific concept. There is no atheistic position on abiogenesis or the the Big Bang or evolution. It's entirely possible to reject all three concepts and still be an atheist.

This misunderstanding alone would be enough to convince me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your central misunderstanding is to assume that life is special. It isn't. You assume it's special because it's familiar. The chemical mix percolating in an early Earth could have produced any number of outcomes. The fact that it produced life is neither amazing nor statistically improbable unless you assume it was destined to produce life. Your critical error is to assume, without reason, that life was a special and intentional outcome. You have confused the cart with the horse.

OB

 

[Hans Blaster]

So atheists keep saying, that the two are not connected.
Except all the atheists on here and elsewhere seem to believe it, or have you not noticed you belong to that tribe!. I assume from your other remarks that you do believe it.

If this site didn't require users to post their (lack-of-) faith identifiers you would have no idea that most of us non-believers were non-believers. We would just be a bunch of people supporting non-creationist scientific positions. We would be indistinguishable from the believers who support similar scientific positions.

 

[partinobodycular]

You clearly have bad understanding of the staggering unlikelihood considering the irreducible complexity problem of a self evolving self replicating cell.

You do realize that no matter how unlikely abiogenesis is, it's still more likely than the Christian alternative.

Christians believe that they're going to live forever. That means that they just happen to be living in that infinitesimally short period of time between their physical birth and their death. The odds of their existing in that exact period of time are so small that it makes abiogenesis look like a sure thing. Out of all of eternity the Christian somehow believes that they're living in that one miniscule part between birth and death.

The most likely explanation is that life is constantly fluctuating between emergence and annihilation, and so we can't help but exist during a period of time that looks almost exactly like this one. The world around us isn't unique or unlikely, it's inevitable, and it's the notion of living forever that's unlikely.

 

[ottawak]

But There is no evidence that the chemical mix percolating earth did produce life. There is No known process for it. Just a few pieces of conjecture, about how small parts of the process might have happened. And even if those bits might have happened there is no evidence they actually did.

If that was true, so what?

You clearly have bad understanding of the staggering unlikelihood considering the irreducible complexity problem of a self evolving self replicating cell. The idea that you think it happened by pure random chance (amongst squillions of other outcomes of nearly life which didnt actually happen for which there is no evidence, or any evidence the process of trying is still ongoing).

You clearly have no grasp of what is actually being proposed by biologists studying abiogenesis. "Pure random chance" isn't it.

 

[partinobodycular]

I am not actually challenging the idea that abiogenesis might have happened by random chance. I am open to persuasion, on science not wishful thinking.

I would argue that you're definitely not open to persuasion, and that the evidence demonstrates that you're not.

You steadfastly refuse to put your quotes at the top of the page, even though it's obviously the standard practice on these forums...makes the most sense...and has been requested of you in the past.

The fact that you refuse to change even when that change is the rational thing to do illustrates that you definitely aren't open to persuasion, but are instead vehemently opposed to it. Reason and logic don't seem to enter into your behavior.

 

[Mountainmike]

If this site didn't require users to post their (lack-of-) faith identifiers you would have no idea that most of us non-believers were non-believers. We would just be a bunch of people supporting non-creationist scientific positions. We would be indistinguishable from the believers who support similar scientific positions.

I agree with that, and I think it might well create less preconceived notions in the arguments if there were no faith identifiers. But It is still a case that almost all the atheists I know support abiogenesis as life as a random chance outcome from chemistry.

 

[Mountainmike]

. Reason and logic don't seem to enter into your behavior.

I am amazed you think I would respond to such cheapshots. It is clearly false since I am a math modeller knowing lots of fancy optimization math. Thats why I know Dawkins got "climbing mount improbable" wrong.

My comments on such as zeitoun images is knowning a lot about physical optics and reading various books analyzing them. Not surprising , Ive done ESA projects on image entropy and put physical stuff into observatories too. I remember the days when we were forced to do all our image processing in hardware! computers were not fast enough, and didnt have enough memory.

Your opinion on zeitoun comes from just guessing and a priori faith regardless of evidence.

I could use a similar cheapshot. How does it help?

Studying before comment does not seem to enter your behaviour. You have a book on eucharistic miracles which voices the opinion of forensic pathologists about them. You prefere to comment on them without reading it first. What does that say about our relative interest in reason?

Can we keep it to the science instead from now on?

 

[partinobodycular]

I could use a similar cheapshot. How does it help?

It wasn't a cheap shot. It was a very astute observation. You don't like to conform to the norm, even when it seems like the logical thing to do. Your reply to me demonstrates that you can put the quotes at the top of the page if you want to...you just don't want to.

That tells us something about your personality. It says that you don't like to conform to the norm.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But Mine has forensic evidence..

Stop teasing, I'm not sure I can contain the excitement! So many people have been looking for that sort of evidence - please tell us your big reveal will be on these forums, not on national TV.

Oh wait, it's that claim you made earlier, isn't it? I feel let down now.....

 

[Occams Barber]

You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.

I agree (apart from the bit about being brought to Christ)

OB

 

[Kylie]

My point is it is all staggeringly unlikely.

So the atheist mantra oft repeated that somehow they take a “logical view” of what is near inevitable in their eyes , given enough time and places to happen , is logical hogwash. Atheist belief in random chance abiogenesis with no designer is just that: an unsupported belief bordering on the magical that Dawkins so attacks.

Given the amount of research into such as volcanic vents, if there were something bordering on protocell it would have been found, as would the stream of still born one winged birds or crustaceans rhat can’t make it out of the shell, due to a design flaw in absence of any designer to make sure it does. Even now the minimum cell is staggeringly complex.

Don’t get me wrong: I might even be persuaded it happened.

But most of the so called research is just wishful thinking to fill a void. Create enough smoke, pretend it’s a fire.

The irreducible complexity problem of the minimum self evolving self replicating cell is a serious problem for how any of it happened.

I don’t have to prove anything.

The burden of proof is on those who think it all could have happened by random chance chemistry.
I’m entitled to incredulity. What is proposed is incredible. It’s up to such as bungle bear the case for why he thinks it can.

On the other hand I can point at ACTUAL forensic evidence of host became cardiac tissue in the Eucharist. Life where none existed before.

Bread so intimately intermingled at the edge of the heart tissue nobody could fake it even now. So however incredible that might sound there is at least some evidence it did, and does!
So I’ll stick with the evidence of creation, and offer credulity to the idea it all happened random chance.

My scepticism of the idea of climbing mount improbable to use Dawkins view is from professional experience of optimisation. Dawkins ignores all the problems,
Presumably because he has no experience whatsoever of the subject he writes volumes about.

Actually, if you say it is irreducibly complex, you must support that claim.

And funny how that "It's irreducibly complex" argument never seems to apply to God, huh?

And you have actual evidence that sacramental bread actually became cardiac tissue? I assume you mean in some way other than the person who ate it breaking it down and using it to develop heart muscle. That's something I'd love to see.

 

[Kylie]

It’s not “ plausible”. It’s a guess with little or no evidence either that it did, or that it could. Despite a huge volume of money poured on origin of life , all there is is a pile of conjecture about how a few bits of it might have happened.

Dont get me wrong, I might be persuaded it happened , if ever there is evidence, my point is , it is not a logical consequence of enough time and places to happen. The very idea is incredible.

It is a hypothesis which is entirely consistent with what we know about how the world works. And we know that amino acids can form from very basic chemicals. It's quite easy to form the building blocks of life.

 

[Mountainmike]

Irreducible complexity in the context I raised it is undeniable.
It is Simple logic.

There are a minimum number of structures needed 1/ to have an inheritable genetic code 2/ for the cell to use that to be self evolving 3/ to be self replicating 4/ to transpire , since all the previous processes use energy.

The minimum cell we know is fabulously complex.

Prior to the minimum self evolving and replicating cell , whatever existed didn’t evolve, so how was the first step taken? The more complex that minimum cell the more unlikely it is it happened by accident. Simples.

There is plenty of forensic evidence , and many credible scientists involved in analysing the Eucharistic miracles of sokolka, Buenos airies , tixtla , legnica. The existence of white cells shows they were recently live at the time of sampling. Suggest you start with Serafinis book for a cardiologists overview of it. But whatever the strength of that evidence at least there is some! There is only conjecture for abiogenesis from chemical soup. No actual evidence it ever happened or how , or where.

Actually, if you say it is irreducibly complex, you must support that claim.

And funny how that "It's irreducibly complex" argument never seems to apply to God, huh?

And you have actual evidence that sacramental bread actually became cardiac tissue? I assume you mean in some way other than the person who ate it breaking it down and using it to develop heart muscle. That's something I'd love to see.

 

[Kylie]

Irreducible complexity in the context I raised it is undeniable.
It is Simple logic.

There are a minimum number of structures needed 1/ to have an inheritable genetic code 2/ for the cell to use that to be self evolving 3/ to be self replicating 4/ to transpire , since all the previous processes use energy.

The minimum cell we know is fabulously complex.

Prior to the minimum self evolving and replicating cell , whatever existed didn’t evolve, so how was the first step taken? The more complex that minimum cell the more unlikely it is it happened by accident. Simples.

So, argument from incredulity is all you've got.

There is plenty of forensic evidence , and many credible scientists involved in analysing the Eucharistic miracles of sokolka, Buenos airies , tixtla , legnica. The existence of white cells shows they were recently live at the time of sampling. Suggest you start with Serafinis book for a cardiologists overview of it. But whatever the strength of that evidence at least there is some! There is only conjecture for abiogenesis from chemical soup. No actual evidence it ever happened or how , or where.

Please provide a valid scientific source for these claims. Don't tell me to read a book about it unless you are offering to purchase it and send it to me. I'm not going to spend money to do your homework.

And there is plenty of evidence that this "chemical soup" you speak of was around very early. There's evidence for amino acids all through the universe, so there's no justification for saying they couldn't have existed on an early earth. First evidence that amino acids formed soon after the Big Bang

 

[JohnPaul88]

And IF that could be in any way shown to be anything but
a claim, an opinion stated as fact -
Does it mean He created everything just as it is?
Full size mountains, tall trees, etc?
Or that He created the most basic raw materials at the
big bang and then " stood back" and watched?

You seem very awfully sure of your facts- not- in- evidence.

Tell us more of what you somehow " know". Was it one
of the above scenarios or did you detect other facts?

God created everything, no big bang happened.

 

[JohnPaul88]

Which is entirely irrelevant to the OP, whiich is about "how" not "who."

How? God simply said let there be, and it was.