Creationists: Here's your chance

[Krok]

How about formation of proteins within cells.

Yes, and what about it? We know quite a lot about how this forms.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding.

No one knows how...

Maybe you don't. Less ignorant people than you actually do know quite a lot about it.

....(the 'rules' to protein formation) a protein folds from the time it is made as a polypeptide(s) to the time in conforms into its 3-dimensional shape.

Trying the classic god of the gaps argument again? The ancients inserted Thor when they didn't understand thunder. Now you are inserting your particular god into proteins. And it's only because you don't know what's happening in the real world. Be assured, scientists are working on this and gain information on exactly how this happens on a daily basis. By the way, how exactly did your choice of designer do it, seeing that you claim he did it. Describe the process exactly.

The best scientists can do is say a particular region will most likely conform to this secondary structure, but that isn't even close to understanding how the tertiary or quaternary structure form inside chaperonins.

Oh yeah, and describe exactly how your choice of designer did this?

There, it's easy to prove creation with up to date, modern science.

No, all you did was to try to insert your choice of designer into a percieved gap. You didn't explain anything. All you did was proclaim that your choice of designer does it.

 

[methylatedghosts]

How about formation of proteins within cells. No one knows how (the 'rules' to protein formation) a protein folds from the time it is made as a polypeptide(s) to the time in conforms into its 3-dimensional shape. The best scientists can do is say a particular region will most likely conform to this secondary structure, but that isn't even close to understanding how the tertiary or quaternary structure form inside chaperonins.

There, it's easy to prove creation with up to date, modern science.

But.... that doesn't prove anything more than "we don't know yet"

It doesn't prove creation any more than it proves aliens exist.

"I don't know" is not proof or disproof of a creator

 

[Krok]

But.... that doesn't prove anything more than "we don't know yet"It doesn't prove creation any more than it proves aliens exist."I don't know" is not proof or disproof of a creator

It's amazing that they all think that "I don't know" equals "creation by my selected diety". To me, if "I don't know" is proof of creation, then it's also proof that Douglas Adams was a prophet as he at least described exactly how the mice created earth.

 

[McBell]

How about formation of proteins within cells. No one knows how (the 'rules' to protein formation) a protein folds from the time it is made as a polypeptide(s) to the time in conforms into its 3-dimensional shape. The best scientists can do is say a particular region will most likely conform to this secondary structure, but that isn't even close to understanding how the tertiary or quaternary structure form inside chaperonins.

There, it's easy to prove creation with up to date, modern science.

and how exactly does no one knowing how something works "Proof" of creation?

Is creation so desperate that it has to claim anything that is unknown as proof of itself?

 

[Wotan]

and how exactly does no one knowing how something works "Proof" of creation?

Is creation so desperate that it has to claim anything that is unknown as proof of itself?

Yeah, pretty much

 

[painted wolf]

How about formation of proteins within cells. No one knows how (the 'rules' to protein formation) a protein folds from the time it is made as a polypeptide(s) to the time in conforms into its 3-dimensional shape. The best scientists can do is say a particular region will most likely conform to this secondary structure, but that isn't even close to understanding how the tertiary or quaternary structure form inside chaperonins.

There, it's easy to prove creation with up to date, modern science.

The problem with shoving god into a gap... is that eventually the gap will be plugged.

This is one of my biggest problems with creationist/ID people... the assumption that if they can't figure something out, that no one will ever figure it out either. It is gross hubris.

This gap is going to close.
Chaperonins prompt proper protein folding -- but how?
SpringerLink - Journal Article
Inside the chaperonin toolbox: theoretical and computational models for chaperonin mechanism
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20233

wa:do

 

[Webbster101]

The purpose of this thread is to provide evidence for creation. Give us some evidence. None has been presented so far.

What does atheism have to do with evolution? Most "evolutionists" are religious.

I know many Atheists that try to use evolution to prove the creation of the world. They may be religious but if what form?

Very few species of bacteria have flagellums. They all have survived for billions of years. Bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. And Muller has already discovered in 1918 that the flagellum on the species that have flagellums is not irreducibly complex.

Why do you use Wikipedia? That site cannot be completly trusted, many people have posted random information on that site. How can the Bacteria flagellum survive if they are not irreducibly complex? If they evolve over time then for some time they would not all have survived the evolution period because it would have been random evolution not like we see in a lab or documentory today.

No, you didn't provide proof for anything. You just tried to assess that evolution is wrong.

Yes, I didn't provide proof but I said there is proof out there. I needed timm to find it all and put it together. Sorry if it was hard for people to understand!

 

[Gunfingers]

Take your time, but i recommend before you post it to fact-check it against TalkOrigins index of Creationist Claims, and give AronRa's fourteen foundational falsehoods of creationism videos a watch because, honestly, whatever "proof" you have to post is probably something we've seen before and we're all a little tired of explaining the faulty logic of the same couple things over and over.

 

[Webbster101]

The problem with shoving god into a gap... is that eventually the gap will be plugged.

This is one of my biggest problems with creationist/ID people... the assumption that if they can't figure something out, that no one will ever figure it out either. It is gross hubris.

This gap is going to close.
Chaperonins prompt proper protein folding -- but how?
SpringerLink - Journal Article
Inside the chaperonin toolbox: theoretical and computational models for chaperonin mechanism
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20233

wa:do

Its not that we don't think others can figure it out, many times its non-Christians that start the research and then Christians try to understand their work along side them. I welcome you to read Stephen Meyers newest book on the cell, it might help explain ID better for anyone out there.

 

[ilhad]

Actually, it says in Genesis that God created the heaven and the earth before the sun - this is not correct. It also says he simultaneously created all the "beasts" of the sea and all of the birds on one day, then all the creatures that crawl upon the land the next day. Land animals came before birds, so this makes no sense.

Oops, overlooked the sun and the bird parts. As for the days, there are many religious scholars who believe that the day was not really a day as we measure it (Heaven days are suppose to be a lot longer), so these creations occured over many, many years.

Sounds to me like they were just reading a lot into the Bible that isn't necessarily there.

But it doesn't explain why no human-like fossils have ever been found at the same geological strata or dated to the same age as dinosaur fossils. That kind of puts the oil in the ointment of that hypothesis.

Good Point, but that doesn't mean that no fossil won't be found. We are still discovering new fossils, after all.

Again, I think this is reading too much into it.

You really need to check your facts on evolution.

Believe it or not I do know the basics of evolution (although my first part doesn't show it); I just rushed through the writing and made a couple of stupid errors. As far as what the guy was saying, I just thought he had some interesting points on the subject; It is very likely that he could have been reading too much into the Bible (it was on TBN, haha, and they'll basically say anything on there to get their viewpoint across). I won't say one way or the other on that one, though, without reading everything he quoted in the correct context.

Anyways, I did a bad job getting it across, but my main point was simply there is no way to prove without any resonable doubt that Creationism is the correct theory (especially the more fundamental version of it). What others view as stories is part of our proof and main arguments, so anything that happens to mash up should be viewed as a possiblity. Any other argument we have going for us (fossil records, bacteria, complexity of cells, ect.) can not stand up in a debate because no current scientic answer for those questions does not simply mean Creationism must be the answer; it just means there is still things that must be understood. Personally, I don't think it has to be one or the other. I am a believer in the fundamentals of evolution, but I also think that God was the driving factor in it.

 

[Tristesse]

Its not that we don't think others can figure it out, many times its non-Christians that start the research and then Christians try to understand their work along side them. I welcome you to read Stephen Meyers newest book on the cell, it might help explain ID better for anyone out there.

Id isn't that tough to understand. It's one big argument from ignorance.

 

[ilhad]

Never mind that plants existed before the Sun according to Genesis. And according to stellar astronomers when a proto-star becomes a main-sequence star (a 'normal' star), there is something called a hydrogen flash that happens (a huge release of energy from the Sun as it begins to undergo nuclear fusion in its core of hydrogen into helium), if anything was alive on the Earth when that thing supposedly went off all life would have perished.

There have been fossils found of a ancient nonphotosynthetic large, fruiting fungi that many have argued support the claim of trees with seeds inside themselves, as described in Genesis, since the fungi resembles a tree. Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to put it into that context, but it proves that there were plants that didn't rely on the sun.

This sounds all extra-biblical to me. A plain reading of the text will tell you that the universe was around for only 5 days before mankind was divinely created.

I said before that it could be reading a little too much into it. He described Genesis as a recreation, though, which would go along with the first passage of the Bible. Plus, time flip flops around all over the place in the Bible, so there is the possiblity that it is a correct interpretation.

 

[painted wolf]

Its not that we don't think others can figure it out, many times its non-Christians that start the research and then Christians try to understand their work along side them.

Actually many times it's Christians doing the work... unfortunately Intelligent design has no one actually doing any scientific work on it.
Lot's of book writing and tour giving... but no actual scientific research.

I welcome you to read Stephen Meyers newest book on the cell, it might help explain ID better for anyone out there.

Yeah, somehow a former geophysicist doesn't strike me as someone educated and experienced with cellular biology.
I also don't like the idea of letting podiatrists do heart surgery.

But who knows, if I can get a cheep-as-free copy I may check it out.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

Yes, and what about it? We know quite a lot about how this forms.Protein folding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe you don't. Less ignorant people than you actually do know quite a lot about it.

I should have been more clear. Scientists don't know the 'rules' that govern protein folding. Looking at a polypeptide and saying that it will fold into this 3-dimensional complex. Yes, we know how amino acids form and are connected to each other via peptide bonds, and that it is folded in chaperonins; most likely in multiple stages all dependent on its primary structure (the amino acid sequence) with chemical interactions. The best that they can do right now is look at a section and say this section will conform into an alpha helix complex or beta platted sheet complex.

Trying the classic god of the gaps argument again? The ancients inserted Thor when they didn't understand thunder. Now you are inserting your particular god into proteins. And it's only because you don't know what's happening in the real world. Be assured, scientists are working on this and gain information on exactly how this happens on a daily basis. By the way, how exactly did your choice of designer do it, seeing that you claim he did it. Describe the process exactly. Oh yeah, and describe exactly how your choice of designer did this? No, all you did was to try to insert your choice of designer into a percieved gap. You didn't explain anything. All you did was proclaim that your choice of designer does it.

God did it via magicks! There's your explanation.

 

[RedOne77]

The problem with shoving god into a gap... is that eventually the gap will be plugged.

This is one of my biggest problems with creationist/ID people... the assumption that if they can't figure something out, that no one will ever figure it out either. It is gross hubris.

This gap is going to close.
Chaperonins prompt proper protein folding -- but how?
SpringerLink - Journal Article
Inside the chaperonin toolbox: theoretical and computational models for chaperonin mechanism
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20233

wa:do

I agree. Why does nobody pay attention to the winks, they're there for a reason.

One of the most interesting faculties of evolution, IMHO, is its use in genetic algorithms. This in turn, has been used to help understand protein folding at the molecular level and create programs able to predict the tertiary structure based on the primary.

 

[RedOne77]

There have been fossils found of a ancient nonphotosynthetic large, fruiting fungi that many have argued support the claim of trees with seeds inside themselves, as described in Genesis, since the fungi resembles a tree. Personally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to put it into that context, but it proves that there were plants that didn't rely on the sun.

Everything alive relies on the Sun in some form or fashion. But even if something was alive before there was a Sun, when the Sun did form it would have released a hydrogen flash that would have literally sterilized the Earth clean of any life or pre-life that may have formed. The only possible exception would be at the bottom of the ocean, and even then the scientific consensus is that they too, would most likely have been destroyed.

I said before that it could be reading a little too much into it. He described Genesis as a recreation, though, which would go along with the first passage of the Bible. Plus, time flip flops around all over the place in the Bible, so there is the possiblity that it is a correct interpretation.

Time was of little concern for them, but if you want to go with the culture route of interpretation, than it is very unlikely that Genesis should be interpreted as having anything to do with the physical formation of the universe, solar system, Earth and even life itself.

 

[ilhad]

Time was of little concern for them, but if you want to go with the culture route of interpretation, than it is very unlikely that Genesis should be interpreted as having anything to do with the physical formation of the universe, solar system, Earth and even life itself.

I was not talking specifically about the book of Genesis, with the flip flop of events. There are many instances in the Bible where things are looked back upon or the future is discussed; which would go along with what he was talking about with the earth being around before the creation in Genesis. And if what he says is true, Genesis is not the literal formation of earth because earth itself already existed; it is the a story of a reawakening of the earth and the creation of new life.

Disregarding anything the guy was saying, I still don't consider Genesis a literal story of creation. I consider it more of a summary of what God did.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree. Why does nobody pay attention to the winks, they're there for a reason.

Because sometimes I'm thick as a brick... you should shout Poe. Maybe we need a specific wink for that. :cover:

One of the most interesting faculties of evolution, IMHO, is its use in genetic algorithms. This in turn, has been used to help understand protein folding at the molecular level and create programs able to predict the tertiary structure based on the primary.

It almost makes we wish I had more molecular biology under my belt.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

I agree. Why does nobody pay attention to the winks, they're there for a reason.

addendum to Poe’s law – sometimes a wink is not enough.

I might recommend one of these smilies in the future. :bonk: :jester3: :jester5:

 

[Krok]

I should have been more clear. Scientists don't know the 'rules' that govern protein folding. Looking at a polypeptide and saying that it will fold into this 3-dimensional complex. Yes, we know how amino acids form and are connected to each other via peptide bonds, and that it is folded in chaperonins; most likely in multiple stages all dependent on its primary structure (the amino acid sequence) with chemical interactions. The best that they can do right now is look at a section and say this section will conform into an alpha helix complex or beta platted sheet complex.

You don't have to know the rules to see that it happens naturally every day. No magic involved. It happens.

God did it via magicks! There's your explanation.

Then it's not science!:slap:
PS I did not see the little wink at the end as I read the thread in "show printable version". :sorry1: