• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A poll for creationists

If enough evidence were presented to you in favor of evolution, would you change your mind about it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 62.5%
  • No

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • Total voters
    8

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
AND, I cannot discuss this with you because you aren't a biologist."

Well, ah . . . I have a very strong background in biochemistry, plant physiology beginning with a major in agriculture and graduate work related to geology and evolution.

Again regardless of discipline science or theology I rely on good academic references in the appropriate field, and not necessarily my own knowledge.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No complicated nor too many subjects at all.



It seems , , , and ah interpreted do not work. They did not reflect the view of my posts,



I could not be more specific.

"understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis." I will add the knowledge of Methodological Naturalism and how it functions in science.

I believe you have been described in detail in a number of posts the problems with 'Intelligent Design' and trying to falsify the negative concerning issues such as the development of complexity, and the failure of the Discovery Institute to provide meaningful research that could possibly lead to falsifiable hypothesis nor theory concerning ID.

This in part revolves around your objection to my emphasis on requiring academic authorities within the field in question, Biological sciences, as per your example of the dialogue or debate?. I will emphasis that either the people involved are academics in their field, or reference extensively the academics of the field. I would not be interested in a theological debate between mathmaticians.

You have also presented some very questionable phony stuff like your "case study" which was not a "case study" in the scientific sense, and was to put it bluntly arguing against the scientific video by the classic arguing from ignorance to make an argument for an 'Intelligent Design' video which was not based on science.

If you look again, you would find that I said it was a "case study" of intelligent people differing in viewpoint (which I will still stand by). If you wish to apply that under a different microscope, that would be misappropriating what I said and in the intent of what I was saying.

And, again, there are Bioligist who still do not hold to your the strictness of your interpretation. If you wish to discuss it with them, may I suggest a different forum?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Interesting topic. They say that scientific theories can never be proven, just falsified, but it seems to me that the heliocentric theory of our solar system and the germ theory of infectious disease have been proven.

Regarding evolutionary theory, if it is wrong, what could possibly be right except a deceptive intelligent designer scenario? Even if that legendary precambrian rabbit were to surface, the mountains of evidence supporting the now overthrown former theory of evolution still remains. What hypothesis could account for that apart from a decepetive designer hypothesis, one that either made a mistake creating the geological column, or left an Easter egg behind for us to find to blow our minds and amuse it?

And that's no help to our Christian and Muslim creationist friends, because that's not a description of their god, one that allegedly reaches out to man in an effort to reveal itself, be known, be loved, be obeyed, be trusted, and be worshiped. It need not be a god at all. A sufficiently advanced civilization that arose naturalistically (unguided abiogenesis and evolution) would probably seem likelier than a Loki-type mischievous god.

Deceptive for whom? speak for yourself!

Belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, far less in many other places.

For the rest of us, the fingerprints of design have always been there to see, and are becoming ever more clear as scientific understanding progresses.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
In what way?

The Bible cannot be consistently verified by objective verifiable evidence. There are, of course, 'some' historical events that can be verified by archaeology and parallel historical accounts generally accepted by historians. The Bible is not a history book. It is a narrative by many different authors set in history.

Scientific methodology cannot support the theological/philosophical questions concerning the Bible nor the Creationist accounts concerning the origins and history of our physical existence,
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If you look again, you would find that I said it was a "case study" of intelligent people differing in viewpoint (which I will still stand by). If you wish to apply that under a different microscope, that would be misappropriating what I said and in the intent of what I was saying.

And, again, there are Bioligist who still do not hold to your the strictness of your interpretation. If you wish to discuss it with them, may I suggest a different forum?

The microscope is the standard of ALL sciences and does not change for manipulation to justify a theist agenda that is not falsifiable.

Thread to follow in Evolution vs Creationism.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The Bible cannot be consistently verified by objective verifiable evidence. There are, of course, 'some' historical events that can be verified by archaeology and parallel historical accounts generally accepted by historians. The Bible is not a history book. It is a narrative by many different authors set in history.

Scientific methodology cannot support the theological/philosophical questions concerning the Bible nor the Creationist accounts concerning the origins and history of our physical existence,
I disagree although certainly there are part that cannot be consistently verified by objective verifiable evidence.

For that matter, abiogenesis cannot be consistently verified by object verifiable evidence even with the advent of the Miller-Urey experiment.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For that matter, abiogenesis cannot be consistently verified by object verifiable evidence even with the advent of the Miller-Urey experiment.

Not correct, the Miller-Urey experiment is a little old and moldy :rolleyes: not particularly relevant to contemporary research on abogenesis, and yes there is objective verifiable evidence and falsifiable hypothesis concerning different possible ways abiogenesis can take place, and the environments that abiogenesis can take place. Of course research is in progress, and all the questions are not answered, but blanket challenges of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance does not qualify as a coherent argument against the science of abiogenesis.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not correct, the Miller-Urey experiment is a little old and moldy :rolleyes: not particularly relevant to contemporary research on abogenesis, and yes there is objective verifiable evidence and falsifiable hypothesis concerning different possible ways abiogenesis can take place, and the environments that abiogenesis can take place. Of course research is in progress, and all the questions are not answered, but blanket challenges of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance does not qualify as a coherent argument against the science of abiogenesis.
please attach supportive documentation
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
please attach supportive documentation

I really do not like to spoon fed the intentional ignorance of those who will not do their own homework.

. . . but nonetheless the following series of posts may help.

From: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

"The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can’t copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science."
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
From: https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html

New evidence emerges on the origins of life

In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

"Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."

Their findings, published in companion papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fly in the face of the problematic "RNA world" theory, which posits that RNA - the molecule that today plays roles in coding, regulating, and expressing genes - elevated itself from the primordial soup of amino acids and cosmic chemicals to give rise first to short proteins called peptides and then to single-celled organisms.

Wolfenden and Carter argue that RNA did not work alone; in fact, it was no more likely that RNA catalyzed peptide formation than it was for peptides to catalyze RNA formation.

The finding adds a new layer to the story of how life evolved billions of years ago.

Its name was LUCA

The scientific community recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, of all living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have. From LUCA forward, it's relatively easy to see how life as we know it evolved.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence about how LUCA arose from a boiling caldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. Those chemicals reacted to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today.

"We know a lot about LUCA and we are beginning to learn about the chemistry that produced building blocks like amino acids, but between the two there is a desert of knowledge," Carter said. "We haven't even known how to explore it."


The UNC research represents an outpost in that desert.

"Dr. Wolfenden established physical properties of the twenty amino acids, and we have found a link between those properties and the genetic code," Carter said. "That link suggests to us that there was a second, earlier code that made possible the peptide-RNA interactions necessary to launch a selection process that we can envision creating the first life on Earth."

Thus, Carter said, RNA did not have to invent itself from the primordial soup. Instead, even before there were cells, it seems more likely that there were interactions between amino acids and nucleotides that led to the co-creation of proteins and RNA.

Complexity from simplicity

Proteins must fold in specific ways to function properly. The first PNAS paper, led by Wolfenden, shows that both the polarities of the twenty amino acids (how they distribute between water and oil) and their sizes help explain the complex process of protein folding - when a chain of connected amino acids arranges itself to form a particular 3-dimensional structure that has a specific biological function.

"Our experiments show how the polarities of amino acids change consistently across a wide range of temperatures in ways that would not disrupt the basic relationships between genetic coding and protein folding," said Wolfenden, Alumni Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics. This was important to establish because when life was first forming on Earth, temperatures were hot, probably much hotter than they are now or when the first plants and animals were established.

A series of biochemical experiments with amino acids conducted in Wolfenden's lab showed that two properties - the sizes as well as the polarities of amino acids - were necessary and sufficient to explain how the amino acids behaved in folded proteins and that these relationships also held at the higher temperatures of Earth 4 billion years ago.

The second PNAS paper, led by Carter, delves into how enzymes called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases recognized transfer ribonucleic acid, or tRNA. Those enzymes translate the genetic code.

"Think of tRNA as an adapter," Carter said. "One end of the adapter carries a particular amino acid; the other end reads the genetic blueprint for that amino acid in messenger RNA. Each synthetase matches one of the twenty amino acids with its own adapter so that the genetic blueprint in messenger RNA faithfully makes the correct protein every time."

Carter's analysis shows that the two different ends of the L-shaped tRNA molecule contained independent codes or rules that specify which amino acid to select. The end of tRNA that carried the amino acid sorted amino acids specifically according to size.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html#jCp
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I really do not like to spoon fed the intentional ignorance of those who will not do their own homework.

.
This statement alone is enough to support my position that you talk good but have no substance.

But I will look beyond your ignorant statment and look into what you gave.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This statement alone is enough to support my position that you talk good but have no substance.

But I will look beyond your ignorant statment and look into what you gave.

Substance provided and there will be more.

There have many subtle and not so subtle problems with your arguments with a religious agenda. I posted a thread concerning the problem of falsifiable evidence to justify a hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design,' and your lack of coherent response in this thread and the other is deafening silence.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Substance provided and there will be more.

There have many subtle and not so subtle problems with your arguments with a religious agenda. I posted a thread concerning the problem of falsifiable evidence to justify a hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design,' and your lack of coherent response in this thread and the other is deafening silence.
As with this post... talk good but no substance.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I've been watching creationists in different internet forums for a while now, and I've noticed something interesting. They are now almost entirely focused on the origin of the universe and the origin of life, in a clear "God of the Gaps" manner.

The fact that this is pretty much all they have is a good sign for those of us on the science advocacy side of things.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It is great that scientists are learning and studying... As I read it, I am simply looking for assumptions and understanding that science still is evolving, they may come up with more information that can support the evidence as well as negate the evidence.


I really do not like to spoon fed the intentional ignorance of those who will not do their own homework.

. . . but nonetheless the following series of posts may help.

From: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

"The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can’t copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids.

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science."
OK... let's start with this one:


could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce
showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own

Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.

For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.

Now we are talking statistical probabilities that MOST building blocks happen simultaneously as well as uniting and evolving into nucleic acids and amino acids besides happening at the same time and in VERY close proximity.

Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.

Obviously, there is no empirical and verifiable evidence of what the early Earth was.

That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research.

Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history. But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, “and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.”

So we have could have, maybe, was thought, could undergo with suppositions of them coming together in a pool because they know that the varieties would happen in different places so we statistically have to factor in same time, rain water, same pool, close enough proximity, correct environment with a supposed what-the-earth-was at that time.

NOT SAYING that there isn't science here and that they aren't learning something but, at this time, it sounds more like "I"ntelligent people are "D"esigning what probably is statistically improbable.

Purely my opinion and definitely not a Biologist with a PHD at the end.

Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, who was an evolutionist with three earned doctorates, eventually decided against evolution. Why? Apparently his view as an evolutionist came to a halt when he realized:

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." (his words)

And as secular researcher Richard Milton said "Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters"

Did he just say "biologist"?
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
So we have could have, maybe, was thought, could undergo with suppositions of them coming together in a pool because they know that the varieties would happen in different places so we statistically have to factor in same time, rain water, same pool, close enough proximity, correct environment with a supposed what-the-earth-was at that time.

That's the language of science when the work is still in the hypothesis stage.


NOT SAYING that there isn't science here and that they aren't learning something but, at this time, it sounds more like "I"ntelligent people are "D"esigning what probably is statistically improbable.

If you're going to say something is "statistically improbable", you should probably show some actual....you know.....statistics.


Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, who was an evolutionist with three earned doctorates, eventually decided against evolution. Why? Apparently his view as an evolutionist came to a halt when he realized:

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." (his words)

And as secular researcher Richard Milton said "Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters"

Did he just say "biologist"?
FYI, quoting young-earth creationists (Wilder-Smith) and taking Milton's words out of context don't speak well of you. You should be more careful.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That's the language of science when the work is still in the hypothesis stage.
Obviously...

FYI, quoting young-earth creationists (Wilder-Smith) and taking Milton's words out of context don't speak well of you. You should be more careful.

Making statements without documented support doesn't speak well of you. You should be more careful. :)

And Wilder-Smith's statement is true whether he is a young-earth creationsist or an old earth creationist.

Usual tactic when someone doesn't have a good response
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Obviously...
I kind wonder why you focused so heavily on it then.

Making statements without documented support doesn't speak well of you. You should be more careful.
How about you start by giving a citation for the Milton quote?

And Wilder-Smith's statement is true whether he is a young-earth creationsist or an old earth creationist.
No, it's quite surprisingly stupid actually. Atoms and molecules organize themselves all the time. It's the entire basis for the field of chemistry!

Usual tactic when someone doesn't have a good response
Response to what? A YEC's ignorant opinion, an uncited out of context quote (EDIT: from a journalist), and an appeal to statistics without any actual statistics?

If that's the best you can offer, that speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
Top