Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Foxfyre]

We know they didn't always exist. If the big bang happened there was no life in existence. There is zero evidence of prebiotic evolution for the reasons I have given.

No we don't know that because there is no way to prove that or disprove that. But for sure you can't have a big bang without including the other probabilities into it.

The simple fact is, simple logic makes a far stronger case for intelligent design. It is a far stronger case than any logical conclusion that there is no intelligent design.

Let me explain this again. Life had to exist in order for the things that make up a cell to form another cell, Cells form from living organism's. Life produces life.

Non-living matter cannot produce living matter.

So far as we know. Which is why I mentioned Dr. Crick's study re DNA and his theory of how we got it. But you are also making an argument for there being an intelligent designer within the process which is entirely logical given the science that we do have and that is accepted as settled science.

 

[konradv]

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

See the problem.the things that make up a cell can only be produced in something alive meaning life had to be created,life had to exist before a cell could be produced again.

I don't see why proteins could only be formed inside a cell. What prevents two amino acids from joining? Nothing I know of and it's something you'll have to explain.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No we don't know that because there is no way to prove that or disprove that. But for sure you can't have a big bang without including the other probabilities into it.

The simple fact is, simple logic makes a far stronger case for intelligent design. It is a far stronger case than any logical conclusion that there is no intelligent design.

Let me explain this again. Life had to exist in order for the things that make up a cell to form another cell, Cells form from living organism's. Life produces life.

Non-living matter cannot produce living matter.

So far as we know. Which is why I mentioned Dr. Crick's study re DNA and his theory of how we got it. But you are also making an argument for there being an intelligent designer within the process which is entirely logical given the science that we do have and that is accepted as settled science.

Help me understand your point are you saying that the cell was formed because of RNA ?

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me explain this again. Life had to exist in order for the things that make up a cell to form another cell, Cells form from living organism's. Life produces life.

Non-living matter cannot produce living matter.

So far as we know. Which is why I mentioned Dr. Crick's study re DNA and his theory of how we got it. But you are also making an argument for there being an intelligent designer within the process which is entirely logical given the science that we do have and that is accepted as settled science.

Help me understand your point are you saying that the cell was formed because of RNA ?

I am saying that life has always existed (Dr. Crick's theory.) (Which would negate quite a bit of the settled science we now accept.)
Or life magically occurred out of non living material at some point. (As you and I and others have pointed out, that has never been scientifically shown to be possible.)
Or there was an intelligence within the process that caused it to happen. (The most plausible of the three theories if the settled science that we now accept is to be considered reasonable to accept.)

 

[Youwerecreated]

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

See the problem.the things that make up a cell can only be produced in something alive meaning life had to be created,life had to exist before a cell could be produced again.

I don't see why proteins could only be formed inside a cell. What prevents two amino acids from joining? Nothing I know of and it's something you'll have to explain.

First off let's read a quote from somone on your side of the argument.

The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book, Life Itself insists that the probability of life's chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, had this to say; What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.



Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. Each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left handed. Yet, while some amino acids are left handed, others are right handed. Should they be formed at random in a organic soup, it is most likely that they would occur in roughly equal proportions. The question of how a specifically required combination of left handed amino acids could unite by chance, while excluding right handed amino acids, constitutes an impasse for abiogenesis.

Miller and urey's experiment produced both left and right handed amino acids and right handed amino acids prove to be lethal to living organisms. One other reason they can't connect is right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Don't misuderstand what I am saying the amino acids can connect but they can't connet to the proteins around them right handed amino acids that is.


Here is an article better explaining the problem.

Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids

 

[Cammmpbell]

I refuse to believe that the universe and everything in it happened "by accident"...

imho, there's something bigger driving the whole thing... something beyond our ability to comprehend...

Yeah...well Einstein's theory of relativity was proven a century ago and when the improved Hubbel project gave scientists pictures of absolute happenings in the universe and effectively time stamped all of them...the big bang is a no brainer. Maybe god was phucking around with some pretty serious matters and blew his foolish ass away. The life thing and evolution did happen and you can call it an accident if you wish but as long as religion is all you have to back it up you have nothing. Most religion hangs on the premise of life after death and there's no way to substantiate that except to take the word of ignorant primitives. Sad fix isn't it............

Do you know the difference between theory and fact ? Why don't you give us evidence that is not theory. There is plenty of evidence agains't the Big Bang theory.

LOL!! When a person who is supposed to me half smart puts a load of schit like this up against science they definitely have their head where the sun don't shine:

The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago

Two naked teens and a snake in garden determined the fate of the whole human race

There was a flood in which the water level reached a height of 29.000 ft and evaporated within a few weeks

Big fish puked up live men

Walls came tumbling at the sound of a trumpet

A virgin gave birth to the god of the universe who was also himself and a holy ghost

A man was able to walk on water

People were healed of leprosy by laying hands on them

Water was turned into fine wine

5000 hungry men plus women and children who also ate were fed with two fish and five loaves then 12 baskets of leftovers were collected

A man was hung on a cross and bled like a hog only to show up two days later fit as a fiddle

The stories were told by family and a few of the man's close friends about 2000 years ago and never verified by anybody else.

 

[Parsifal]

That is correct anyone who promotes war is not listening to the words of Christ.

So Bush isn't a Christian?

Virtually all Republicans went along with Bush's wars.....You're saying that virtually no Republican Christians?

 

[Parsifal]

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

So who created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn,..........?

The creator is, by definition, complex which means that something complex must have created it which means that something complex must have created IT..........

 

[code1211]

There is no lore of dragons among most of the cultures in Africa, Australia, islanders who were not exposed to the Roman Empire either by physical presence or via trade relationships. No concept of dragons evident in the historical record of North and South American ancient cultures.

Yet a concept of some sort of god or gods is evident in all.

Quetzalcoatl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, in various forms, the feathered serpent legend, not a dragon, was a common mythical figure among the peoples of that area and again can be explained by the interrelations of the people who included it in their lore. Humankind of all cultures has been blessed with imgination that appears to be evident in no other species, at least so far as we know.

And once a really good story is developed, it will become popular.

But so far as teaching intelligent design as sicience, I agree. It isn't science. But I have no problem with teaching that science is inadequate to support or deny intelligent design, but that there is a rational basis for intelligent design.

I am not against teaching ID Right next to Evolution.

I also have no problem with assigned reading including fiction and history.

The best way to expose the emptiness of ID is to teach it next to Evolution.

've said on this board before that ID offer a Doctoral program. The offensive line at all of the major schools would concentrate on this. The answer to every question is "God".

4.0, Baby!

 

[code1211]

Please provide a viable explanation on how life started ?

Something was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn..........

There is evidence of design.

What evidence? Do you mean complexity is evidence for a designer?

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

See the problem.the things that make up a cell can only be produced in something alive meaning life had to be created,life had to exist before a cell could be produced again.

Is it possible that the conditions that exist inside cells to allow proteins to form could occur in nature under any circumstance at all.

 

[code1211]

We know they didn't always exist. If the big bang happened there was no life in existence. There is zero evidence of prebiotic evolution for the reasons I have given.

No we don't know that because there is no way to prove that or disprove that. But for sure you can't have a big bang without including the other probabilities into it.

The simple fact is, simple logic makes a far stronger case for intelligent design. It is a far stronger case than any logical conclusion that there is no intelligent design.

Let me explain this again. Life had to exist in order for the things that make up a cell to form another cell, Cells form from living organism's. Life produces life.

Non-living matter cannot produce living matter.

There are allot of things that can't happen until they do.

The fact is that life exists and that proves that life exists. It proves nothing else.

 

[code1211]

So far as we know. Which is why I mentioned Dr. Crick's study re DNA and his theory of how we got it. But you are also making an argument for there being an intelligent designer within the process which is entirely logical given the science that we do have and that is accepted as settled science.

Help me understand your point are you saying that the cell was formed because of RNA ?

I am saying that life has always existed (Dr. Crick's theory.) (Which would negate quite a bit of the settled science we now accept.)
Or life magically occurred out of non living material at some point. (As you and I and others have pointed out, that has never been scientifically shown to be possible.)
Or there was an intelligence within the process that caused it to happen. (The most plausible of the three theories if the settled science that we now accept is to be considered reasonable to accept.)

The option to stuff that we know exists combining in an ideal circumstance through trillions of trillions of possible circumstances on billions of planets around billions of stars is a living entity that forces the combination of the same stuff outside of any cell since none existed at the time. Not only that, the Creator layers all of the redundancy that would have happened in evolution just for fun.

Again, the proof of life existing proving something besides its own existence is weak.

If you have faith, you require no proof. If you require proof, you have no faith.

 

[code1211]

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

See the problem.the things that make up a cell can only be produced in something alive meaning life had to be created,life had to exist before a cell could be produced again.

I don't see why proteins could only be formed inside a cell. What prevents two amino acids from joining? Nothing I know of and it's something you'll have to explain.

First off let's read a quote from somone on your side of the argument.

The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book, Life Itself insists that the probability of life's chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, had this to say; What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.



Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. Each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left handed. Yet, while some amino acids are left handed, others are right handed. Should they be formed at random in a organic soup, it is most likely that they would occur in roughly equal proportions. The question of how a specifically required combination of left handed amino acids could unite by chance, while excluding right handed amino acids, constitutes an impasse for abiogenesis.

Miller and urey's experiment produced both left and right handed amino acids and right handed amino acids prove to be lethal to living organisms. One other reason they can't connect is right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

What is the statement of the chance of something happening one time in an infinite series of chances?

 

[code1211]

That is correct anyone who promotes war is not listening to the words of Christ.

So Bush isn't a Christian?

Virtually all Republicans went along with Bush's wars.....You're saying that virtually no Republican Christians?

There was a pretty high percent of Democrats, too. The international community supplied intel that helped. This was not the work of one man.

To find that kind of a job, you need to go to the Failed Stimulus.

 

[Parsifal]

There was a pretty high percent of Democrats, too.

There were many Democrats who were stupid enough to vote to go into Iraq.

The international community supplied intel that helped.

Anybody that trusted the intel that Bush and company went in for was extremely dumb.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quetzalcoatl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, in various forms, the feathered serpent legend, not a dragon, was a common mythical figure among the peoples of that area and again can be explained by the interrelations of the people who included it in their lore. Humankind of all cultures has been blessed with imgination that appears to be evident in no other species, at least so far as we know.

And once a really good story is developed, it will become popular.

But so far as teaching intelligent design as sicience, I agree. It isn't science. But I have no problem with teaching that science is inadequate to support or deny intelligent design, but that there is a rational basis for intelligent design.

I am not against teaching ID Right next to Evolution.

I also have no problem with assigned reading including fiction and history.

The best way to expose the emptiness of ID is to teach it next to Evolution.

've said on this board before that ID offer a Doctoral program. The offensive line at all of the major schools would concentrate on this. The answer to every question is "God".

4.0, Baby!

I teach concepts of evolution right alongside concepts of ID with PhD scientists sitting in my class who have no problem with that so far. So far nobody, and I mean nobody, has come with any any logical rationale for why ID is not both rational and plausible or that it is in any way in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you are the one who will finally show us the error in that.

 

[Parsifal]

nobody, has come with any any logical rationale for why ID is not both rational and plausible

There isn't any scientific evidence for it therefore teaching it as a scientific theory is lying about what science is.

 

[Foxfyre]

nobody, has come with any any logical rationale for why ID is not both rational and plausible

There isn't any scientific evidence for it therefore teaching it as a scientific theory is lying about what science is.

I have never and am not not advocating that it be taught as sicentific theory.

 

[Parsifal]

I have never and am not not advocating that it be taught as scientific theory.

Cool......ID isn't a bad idea it just isn't at all a scientific theory.