Jump to content


Photo

Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

#1 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:36 PM

DNA transcription and translation involves the helicase opening(unzipping) the double helix at the speed of a jet so that the process or replication may begin. Questions for the skeptics:

1. Since it takes a helicase to open the double helix then what was the origin of the first helicase protein? Where does nature make the helicase outside of living organisms?

2. How does the helicase know just where the start/stop codons are with virtual perfect functioning?

Please view this short video clip before answering:



Do not dodge the issue like most neo-Darwinians do. Give us the answers and document how this could happen naturally and without human intervention.

Thank you.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:21 PM

DNA transcription and translation involves the helicase opening(unzipping) the double helix at the speed of a jet so that the process or replication may begin. Questions for the skeptics:

1. Since it takes a helicase to open the double helix then what was the origin of the first helicase protein? Where does nature make the helicase outside of living organisms?

2. How does the helicase know just where the start/stop codons are with virtual perfect functioning?

Please view this short video clip before answering:



Do not dodge the issue like most neo-Darwinians do. Give us the answers and document how this could happen naturally and without human intervention.

Thank you.


Don't you know?!? Over "millions" of years, "evolution did it" :D

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:51 PM

Don't you know?!? Over "millions" of years, "evolution did it"


Oh, yes, of course. How foolish of me to not see it sooner.

Say, did you hear that that new skyscraper in Asia fell out of the sky...beam by beam, window by window...all 110 stories...or was it 130. Can't remember. But nature does it all the time............................right?Posted Image

#4 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 12 July 2012 - 04:13 AM

First of all DNA transcription does not take place "at the speed of a jet". It is documented at about 50 nucleotides per second. That works out at 4 feet per year. Quite a bit slower than your average jet. Its only practical in the cell because transcription takes place at numerous sites along the DNA.
It is true that no one knows - or even has a credible theory about - how DNA and DNA transcription arose. That doesn't mean that it will always be unknown. Darwin didn't know about genes, heredity, DNA or DNA transcription. All of that is knowledge that has come about by the steady disciplined work of thousands of scientists. Just like how two weeks ago no one could be sure how matter gets mass. Now the discovery of the Higgs boson at its predicted mass provides a very solid explanation. I am confident that science will eventually provide an answer to questions about the origin of life. Whatever the explanation turns out to be, the question of whether we have found a natural explanation or the method by which God accomplished creation will remain a philosophical question.

#5 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 July 2012 - 07:11 AM

First of all DNA transcription does not take place "at the speed of a jet". It is documented at about 50 nucleotides per second. That works out at 4 feet per year. Quite a bit slower than your average jet. Its only practical in the cell because transcription takes place at numerous sites along the DNA.
It is true that no one knows - or even has a credible theory about - how DNA and DNA transcription arose. That doesn't mean that it will always be unknown. Darwin didn't know about genes, heredity, DNA or DNA transcription. All of that is knowledge that has come about by the steady disciplined work of thousands of scientists. Just like how two weeks ago no one could be sure how matter gets mass. Now the discovery of the Higgs boson at its predicted mass provides a very solid explanation. I am confident that science will eventually provide an answer to questions about the origin of life. Whatever the explanation turns out to be, the question of whether we have found a natural explanation or the method by which God accomplished creation will remain a philosophical question.


"Quite a bit slower than your average jet." Which is?

"It is true that no one knows - or even has a credible theory about - how DNA and DNA transcription arose."

Thank you for that honesty.

"That doesn't mean that it will always be unknown."

Then you're welcome to get back with us when it is known. Don't hold your breath.

I would be most happy to find out how the power switch (mitochondria) got 'switched on' in the first place. Actually, it's more like a power 'factory' than a switch. Learning that by itself would be a gigantic accomplishment of Nobel prize proportions.

#6 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 13 July 2012 - 05:41 PM

"Quite a bit slower than your average jet." Which is?

333,020,160,000 inches per year - 83,255,040,000 times faster than DNA transcription

"That doesn't mean that it will always be unknown."
Then you're welcome to get back with us when it is known. Don't hold your breath.


History is full of examples of things thought to be supernatural that turned out to be perfectly natural. For example up until Newton, the best explanation for rainbows was
Genesis 9:12-13 "And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.""
Rainbows are now known to be due differential difraction of white light. However that doesn't necessarily make the Bible wrong. God could work in elegant natural ways. That was certainly the opinion of the Jesuit priest and naturalist
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who wrote
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."
Or the great Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote in a paper titled
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
“Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”
In the profile I call myself an atheist because I certainly do not accept the concept that God intercedes all the time to make supernatural adjustments to the world. However I do think it is entirely possible that the universe was set in motion by a Creator, who designed an elegant self sustaining cosmos. Whether there was a Creator or not, I believe the most worthwhile of human endeavours is the attempt to discern as much as we can about the world we live in. Science is the tool to accomplish this.



#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2012 - 06:22 PM

333,020,160,000 inches per year - 83,255,040,000 times faster than DNA transcription


History is full of examples of things thought to be supernatural that turned out to be perfectly natural. For example up until Newton, the best explanation for rainbows was
Genesis 9:12-13 "And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.""
Rainbows are now known to be due differential difraction of white light. However that doesn't necessarily make the Bible wrong. God could work in elegant natural ways. That was certainly the opinion of the Jesuit priest and naturalist
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who wrote
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."
Or the great Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote in a paper titled
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
“Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”
In the profile I call myself an atheist because I certainly do not accept the concept that God intercedes all the time to make supernatural adjustments to the world. However I do think it is entirely possible that the universe was set in motion by a Creator, who designed an elegant self sustaining cosmos. Whether there was a Creator or not, I believe the most worthwhile of human endeavours is the attempt to discern as much as we can about the world we live in. Science is the tool to accomplish this.



I believe that the speed that replication goes compared to the size of the parts involved ie- body lengths per second, would be much faster than what you are attempting to claim. My lecturers agree that it is an incredible process, it occurs amazingly fast and it "replicates the DNA faithfully to its template".


Who is claiming that God interceeds all the time to make adjustments? Who has argued that on this thread? I know I haven't. I believe most Creationists believe that the INITIAL conditions for life and for a universe to exist requires the hand of a cosmic design. Yes learning about the world is a great endeavor and science is the tool to discover this hence why the first academies to science were created by the Christian Church so we could learn more about the creator and his works.

Hence one of my signature quotes, "faith in search of understanding"

#8 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:33 PM

I like the chicken or the egg question because, the scientific answer is logically forced, and concludes that the only scientific possibility is that a creator created the parents first.`.

For, by natural scientific reproductive experiment we know that eggs produce chicks only when laid by a female hen that has been fertilized by a rooster.
There is no alternative scientific evidence available.
And, of course like all true scientific experimentation, the experiment is repeatable and consistent.

Also, the chicks as the offspring providing the next generation of parents, must first survive and mature into becoming reproductive parents.
Therefore, all true scientists must admit that the parents always preceed the egg and are its maker, and that, the next generative parents must also survive. and mature slowly to attain the ability to parent a fertile egg.

This scientific experimental reality proves that evolutionary theory is not based on scientific evidence, nor reasoning and is therefore, faith based.
This also proves that creation is not a science either.

Since, fully mature parents must exist for offspring to be scientifically reasoned as possible, then by default, a creative act is required to provide the first fully developed parents.

Please note that male and female must be created within the same generation.
This proves that the rationale of vast ages of time allowing for a chance probability is illogical since, the male and the female must exist in the very first generation.

Thus, naturalism is falsified by scientific experiment and it is philosophically falsified as well since, it is premised as being a science based philosophy.

#9 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 13 July 2012 - 07:35 PM

Easy.

The chicken.

Without an egg, the chicken can produce more chickens. But without a chicken an egg will just die. :)

#10 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 13 July 2012 - 08:12 PM

I believe that the speed that replication goes compared to the size of the parts involved ie- body lengths per second, would be much faster than what you are attempting to claim. My lecturers agree that it is an incredible process, it occurs amazingly fast and it "replicates the DNA faithfully to its template".

I think the idea of comparing data replication with the speed of a jet is quite pointless and misleading - it wasn't my idea. A more useful comparison is with the speed of electronic storage. The fastest currently available devices are Magnet Random Access Memory (MRAM). They can achieve rates of data retrieval of 2GB (2,000,000,000 bytes) per second. A nucleotide pair actually carries 2 bits or a quarter of a byte. That makes the DNA transcription rate about 10 bytes per second. Pathetically slow by electronic standards and cell operation is only possible because transcription is done at many parallel points.

Who is claiming that God interceeds all the time to make adjustments? Who has argued that on this thread? I know I haven't. I believe most Creationists believe that the INITIAL conditions for life and for a universe to exist requires the hand of a cosmic design.

Well I am not sure what Calypsis4 is saying when he says

2. How does the helicase know just where the start/stop codons are with virtual perfect functioning?

Is he claiming that God intervenes to inform the helicase at every transcription?
Or maybe he is suggesting that it is a self replicating process originally designed by God?
If so, unless you accept evolution, its got to be put into every new species created. That looks like a lot of intervention since there are 2 to 10 million species on earth.
Now I am suggesting that this process arose in the course of evolution, possibly because of the way that the universe was originally set up. I am also suggesting that scientists will eventually be able to deduce a pathway by which the transcription process arose, just a Newton was able to deduce how rainbows come about.

#11 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 July 2012 - 09:57 PM

333,020,160,000 inches per year - 83,255,040,000 times faster than DNA transcription


History is full of examples of things thought to be supernatural that turned out to be perfectly natural. For example up until Newton, the best explanation for rainbows was
Genesis 9:12-13 "And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth."

Rainbows are now known to be due differential difraction of white light. However that doesn't necessarily make the Bible wrong. God could work in elegant natural ways. That was certainly the opinion of the Jesuit priest and naturalist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who wrote "Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."

Or the great Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote in a paper titled
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
“Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”
In the profile I call myself an atheist because I certainly do not accept the concept that God intercedes all the time to make supernatural adjustments to the world. However I do think it is entirely possible that the universe was set in motion by a Creator, who designed an elegant self sustaining cosmos. Whether there was a Creator or not, I believe the most worthwhile of human endeavours is the attempt to discern as much as we can about the world we live in. Science is the tool to accomplish this.


Quote: " 83,255,040,000 times faster than DNA transcription"

Not transcription...which takes about 18 minutes from beginning to end of protein production; I was referring to the actual opening of the double-helix by the helicase. But if you wish to argue it then debate the evolutionist narrator of the video clip I posted.

" I certainly do not accept the concept that God intercedes all the time to make supernatural adjustments to the world..."

Who said He does? I don't know of a creationist who thinks God is 'adjusting' anything. He finished his creation and is no longer creating. The world He created perfectly and ruined by human sin and rebellion against Him is degenerating, not evolving. God is letting it degnerate as evidence that Genesis is true and something is very wrong with out world.

But you didn't answer the challenge in the OP. What is the origin of the helicase? Which came first; the DNA that is required to make the protein or the protein called 'helicase'? This is like a symbiotic relationship so how do you explain this by natural processes?

I believe in the Creator God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ because of scripture, answer to prayer,and because I have seen (with witnesses) the power of God to heal and a number of miraculous things in my 61 yrs. There have been many occasions that I have personally prayed for certain things privately in some detail and I've seen Him answer those details in a remarkable manner. It told me He knew exactly what I was thinking.


#12 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:02 PM

Well I am not sure what Calypsis4 is saying when he says...

Is he claiming that God intervenes to inform the helicase at every transcription?


In a manner of speaking yes. God supplied the blueprint, the mechanisms necessary, and then empowered the cell to perform the task which would include the seeming 'knowledge' of the locations of the stop/start codons. If you differ....fine....but offer an explanation that is better than the supernatural origin/plan I have described. If you can't do that then be honest enough to admit you have no case.....er, helicase.

#13 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:38 PM

History is full of examples of things thought to be supernatural that turned out to be perfectly natural. For example up until Newton, the best explanation for rainbows was
Genesis 9:12-13 "And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.""
Rainbows are now known to be due differential difraction of white light.


Mountainboy19682
I'm curious. Exactly who regarded rainbows as requiring a supernatural explanation in the pre-Newtonian world? Do you have an actual historical basis for that claim, or are you just creating a straw man to support your point? There's nothing unnatural about a rainbow indicated in Genesis 9. The fact that He said it would be "for all future generations", indicates that it would be a regularly occurring phenomenon (i.e. natural), not some Divinely micromanaged arbitrary event. And the fact that He said it would be a sign is not unusual (He said the same thing about the sun, the moon, and the stars in Genesis 1).

#14 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:28 AM

All quotes by mountainboy...

History is full of examples of things thought to be supernatural that turned out to be perfectly natural.

And there are things that have no natural explanation.


Genesis 9:12-13 "And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.""

And, the" Holy Bible is one of those things that has no natural explanation.

Do you readers suppose that it is coincidental that there is today, 44oo years after God covenanted with Noah about the safety of the earth, a palpable "global warming" scare, produced by a signed, global "consensus" of anxious scientists, that is in direct contradiction to one of the specified promises of God, e.g. "neither heat nor cold" shall cease.
And what book but the Holy Bible spoke of global issues 44oo years ago?

And this reference to the bow seen in the clouds is presented as an example of something not of God?
Lets consider that for a moment shall we?

What was the message? The message was to man about a promise of peace between God and the earth concerning a global destruction of the earth by natural means.

Why was it chosen as the token of a promise? Because it is...
A global, one world message.
A global phenomenon.
A phenomenon authoritatively above the heads of all mankind.
A phenomenon referring to heaven.
A phenomenon associated with the water of the global flood of Noah.
A phenomenon with the full spectrum of visible colors.
A phenomenon symbolic to all the forms of mankind.
A phenomenon of and affording scientific observation.
A phenomenon using the dust of the earth of which all men are made.
A phenomenon associated with the number six which number speaks of mankind.
A phenomenon which, was discovered to be many colors taken out of unity.
A phenomenon symbolic of the most advanced communication system possible on a global scale... "fiber optic".
A phenomenon that speaks directly of full bandwith communication.
A phenomenon using magnification.
A phenomenon of colors seen on the back of a serpent.
A phenomenon pointing toward holography in the sky.


Seems to me the author of the message is far more super naturally intelligent and foresighted than any man ever was. I know that the people stuck in the muck of the fairytales of the. seemingly God hating, scripture denying, mythmaking, grail hunting, magic power seeking, vanity filled, scientific philosophers of todays world will simply say...they don't get it. We Christians know they don't get it, and we know they remain unable to get it as long as they remain blinded by the prince of the power of the air on earth. But, it is obvious that there is a message involved far deeper than any physics master grasps.


What does it imply about the former world before the flood?
It proves that before the flood the earth and sky were not at all as they are now.
And, that reveals what was different. So, the rainbow is a scientific message about the world before the flood which our world today will become as, before the new world Jesus Christ is bringing, comes.


Why a bow?

Notice that God says, "bow...in the cloud" instead of the casual...rainbow term. If you can, please take my word for it, God is a very precise communicator of truth at all levels of understanding. That is why it is wise to be very careful which text you suppose the word of God to be. Note, for exampe it is the word of God, not the words of God. Again, a communication unity out of which a vast array of communications arises. Not coincidental.

The bow speaks of power. A thing bent willfully. A mechanism that shoots arrows. A thing that over covers.
The main point being that, the bow shows up in the last book of the Holy Bible, held in the hand of the global deceiver of all mankind, w.ho rides forth, successfully, to unite all mankind into a global entity. This is not the place to speak deeply of these things but, I thought it must be mentioned since, I perceive that when God spoke to Noah he was speaking to the father of all mankind today and speaking prophetically about what will come to pass at the end of the world, when men set their hearts to war with God and his people as you see occurring more and more today.

Rainbows are now known to be due differential difraction of white light.

God knew it when he spoke to Noah and covenanted with the earth.

It is the differences that produces precise knowledge of things scientifically. And there is a unity of knowledge. And, as you know, modern scientist are seeking that unification of understanding.

the opinion of the Jesuit priest and naturalist
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who wrote
"Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is."

Notice that melding in him of the natural and the supernatural? For, he used what we know now as new age meditative methodology of the occult, to unify his soldiers minds religiously.

That is, what you see today occurring in religions, science, technology, politics, etc is not a coincidental thing but the outworking of a satanic plot.
And, how is that plot hidden as it is worked out openly?
By the deceit of evolutionary change being a nature force driving towards a evolutionary change of mankind.
But, you see? not really. The change is not chance in action but, conspiracy of the red dragon in action.
I tell evolutionists to prepare for what they will be forced to believe when the unification of scientific thought (consensus) is accomplished. For the athiest and the agnostic and the pagans, and the heathen, and the carnal, and the religious shall all agree at the time of the end. And they will obtain to themselves the mark of the light bearer, Lucifer. Which enlightenment will be technologically global as well. All in agreement and from out of the head of the Serpent who visited the garden of Eden.

Or the great Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote in a paper titled
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
“Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.”

Evolutionism always was a religion married to magical symbology understood occultically. But who knew? The serpent, that moves upon the rock dialectically.


In the profile I call myself an atheist because I certainly do not accept the concept that God intercedes all the time to make supernatural adjustments to the world. However I do think it is entirely possible that the universe was set in motion by a Creator, who designed an elegant self sustaining cosmos. Whether there was a Creator or not, I believe the most worthwhile of human endeavours is the attempt to discern as much as we can about the world we live in. Science is the tool to accomplish this.

But, it is already known where all false religions, theologies, philosophies, and false science theories are heading. They simply return to their mother. They re-unify simply because they all came from the false, so-called... "One". Who was really nothing more that the most intelligent copycat of all time and space.


#15 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 14 July 2012 - 08:05 AM

Which came first? the genome? or the empty cell?

You can't create, nor sustain the existence of a super; precise, delicate, tiny, complex, dynamic, string of information out in the open world of nature.
So, you have to have a empty cell first.
A home fit for a family of whatevers.

And, a home needs a house.
And, a house needs lots of things.
But, lets look at the simplest little ole' house we can imagine.
More like a hut, maybe, but not crude and wide open, and third worldly.
But very simple, if simple it can be. That is the question.

A house needs walls.
So, lets start with a fatty two walled bubble. Seems ionically possible, and quite naturally produced.

So, bam! there is our empty cell! Fit to become a home for the whatevers.

But, what then? hmmm....

I know, a door, or a window!
A way in.
A way out.
With a lock against the wrong intruders.
A knob for the right whatevers.
And a enviromental control system to keep out the wrong whatevers.

It doesn't appear to be simple at all, come to think of it.

Its easy to imagine a simple empty cell.
But, how do you get in?
And, how do you get out?
And, who cares to get in?
And, who cares to get back out?

Evolutionary supposings are rather useless, dreamy things that ignore common sense as though its natural.

#16 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 15 July 2012 - 04:58 PM

I'm curious. Exactly who regarded rainbows as requiring a supernatural explanation in the pre-Newtonian world?

All I am saying is that just because there is no current explanation for a particular phenomena is not proof that it must be supernatural. Bolstering the argument for divine causation by making false analogies "faster than a jet" does not strengthen the case. Its what Richard Dawkins rightly criticizes as "argument from personal incredulity". In fact if the transcription mechanism was designed - then the designer needs to go and have a chat with the folks at Intel or Seagate - because it actually goes 10,000 times slower than a very slow snail. The transcription mechanism looks very much like something that evolved.
In regard to rainbow origins, after consulting http://en.wikipedia....ws_in_mythology , I think the Norse Bifrost myth is much more satisfying than Genesis. Furthermore on further research although Newton did make the crucial discovery that white light is composed of a mixture of colored light, it was not until the 20th century that Gustav Mie came up with a fully satisfactory explanation of rainbows.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 July 2012 - 07:28 PM

All I am saying is that just because there is no current explanation for a particular phenomena is not proof that it must be supernatural. Bolstering the argument for divine causation by making false analogies "faster than a jet" does not strengthen the case. Its what Richard Dawkins rightly criticizes as "argument from personal incredulity". In fact if the transcription mechanism was designed - then the designer needs to go and have a chat with the folks at Intel or Seagate - because it actually goes 10,000 times slower than a very slow snail. The transcription mechanism looks very much like something that evolved.
In regard to rainbow origins, after consulting http://en.wikipedia....ws_in_mythology , I think the Norse Bifrost myth is much more satisfying than Genesis. Furthermore on further research although Newton did make the crucial discovery that white light is composed of a mixture of colored light, it was not until the 20th century that Gustav Mie came up with a fully satisfactory explanation of rainbows.


Yet there are things which defy natural law which therefore are supernatural by default.

The origin of the universe defies the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (as Miles has recently learned the hard way)

(I would also state that it also defies the 2nd Law since from the 2nd Law we can deduce that the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, therefore how was the order established in the first place? Considering that the BB was an unordered "explosion" then this being the origin of order seems unlikely)

The creation of DNA / RNA / Protein defies the nature of chirality

DNA contains information of which there is no naturalistic cause for information systems



EDIT: These things are rightly attributed to God since their very nature defies natural law / the prerogatives of reality which would therefore defy a naturalist worldview since it is their belief that there is no such contradiction.

#18 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:41 PM

All I am saying is that just because there is no current explanation for a particular phenomena is not proof that it must be supernatural. Bolstering the argument for divine causation by making false analogies "faster than a jet" does not strengthen the case. Its what Richard Dawkins rightly criticizes as "argument from personal incredulity". In fact if the transcription mechanism was designed - then the designer needs to go and have a chat with the folks at Intel or Seagate - because it actually goes 10,000 times slower than a very slow snail. The transcription mechanism looks very much like something that evolved.
In regard to rainbow origins, after consulting http://en.wikipedia....ws_in_mythology , I think the Norse Bifrost myth is much more satisfying than Genesis. Furthermore on further research although Newton did make the crucial discovery that white light is composed of a mixture of colored light, it was not until the 20th century that Gustav Mie came up with a fully satisfactory explanation of rainbows.


And all I am saying is that you are obfuscating the issue by mixing "apples and oranges." You are equating the lack of a technical explanation for a naturally (i.e. regularly and consistently) occurring phenomenon--the rainbow ,with the lack of an explanation of how something as complex as the transcription of DNA arose, when we see no such origin occurring naturally (i.e. regularly and consistently) on its own today, and it therefore requires a supernatural explanation that goes beyond the mere properties of the materials to get it started.

The fact that you are "confident that science will eventually provide an answer," as you stated in your earlier post, is just a statement of faith, and, as gilbo12345 likes to point out, just an Argumentum ad futuris (argument to the future).

Before you started nitpicking Calypsis4's "faster than a jet" analogy (like I did with your rainbow analogy Posted Image), did you first scale the jet down to the size of a tRNA molecule before comparing relative velocities?

#19 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 17 July 2012 - 04:06 PM

Yet there are things which defy natural law which therefore are supernatural by default. The origin of the universe defies the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (as Miles has recently learned the hard way) (I would also state that it also defies the 2nd Law since from the 2nd Law we can deduce that the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, therefore how was the order established in the first place? Considering that the BB was an unordered "explosion" then this being the origin of order seems unlikely) The creation of DNA / RNA / Protein defies the nature of chirality DNA contains information of which there is no naturalistic cause for information systems EDIT: These things are rightly attributed to God since their very nature defies natural law / the prerogatives of reality which would therefore defy a naturalist worldview since it is their belief that there is no such contradiction.

In science the whole idea of "laws" or "natural laws" is very 19th Century. Newtons laws of motion have been superceded by Einsteins Theory of Relativity. You can confirm the truth of Einsteins theory over Newton's laws every time you use a GPS because the GPS clocks must be adjusted for relativity affects. (See http://www.metaresea...-relativity.asp for details)
Similary Boyle's Gas Laws have been replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Kinetic theory gives a more accurate result than the Gas Law. (See http://en.wikipedia....and_ideal_gases for details). Mendel's Laws on inheriitance have been replaced by Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics.
In the 19th Century, matter and energy were thought to be distinct - resulting in the Law of Conservation of Mass. This "Law" was dramatically violated at Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and every day now in hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world.
The famous 19th Century physicist Clerk Maxwell proposed his "demon" as a thought experiment as to how the Laws of Thermodynamics might be violated. Scientific interest in this idea persists and recent experiments have come close to violating the thermodynamic "laws". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon for details).

The 20th Century physicist Fred Hoyle was an atheist and pro Darwin, despite being frequently quoted (usually out of context) by Creationist sites. His reputation and ability was established by his Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis - which successfully explained the abundance of elements in various kinds of stars. Hoyle was the author of the term "Big Bang". He supported an elegant alternative called the Steady State Theory. In order to account for the observed expansion of the Universe, Hoyle postulated the continual creation of matter in space. The fact that this might violate some 19th century "law" certainly didn't bother him. Big Bang has only triumphed over Steady State because of careful statistical analysis of the density of galaxies at varying cosmologiical distances.

The bottom line is that I don't think citing some 19th century "laws" which were only derived empirically can in any prove (or disprove) the existence of God. That is a question that I don't think science will ever resolve. All other issues - including the origin of the RNA transcription process and why it moves so incredibly slowly are open season.

As an atheist, I would question the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I admire his wisdom, exemplified in Mark 12 : 17

#20 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:36 PM

In science the whole idea of "laws" or "natural laws" is very 19th Century. Newtons laws of motion have been superceded by Einsteins Theory of Relativity. You can confirm the truth of Einsteins theory over Newton's laws every time you use a GPS because the GPS clocks must be adjusted for relativity affects. (See http://www.metaresea...-relativity.asp for details)
Similary Boyle's Gas Laws have been replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Kinetic theory gives a more accurate result than the Gas Law. (See http://en.wikipedia....and_ideal_gases for details). Mendel's Laws on inheriitance have been replaced by Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics.
In the 19th Century, matter and energy were thought to be distinct - resulting in the Law of Conservation of Mass. This "Law" was dramatically violated at Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and every day now in hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world.
The famous 19th Century physicist Clerk Maxwell proposed his "demon" as a thought experiment as to how the Laws of Thermodynamics might be violated. Scientific interest in this idea persists and recent experiments have come close to violating the thermodynamic "laws". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon for details).

The 20th Century physicist Fred Hoyle was an atheist and pro Darwin, despite being frequently quoted (usually out of context) by Creationist sites. His reputation and ability was established by his Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis - which successfully explained the abundance of elements in various kinds of stars. Hoyle was the author of the term "Big Bang". He supported an elegant alternative called the Steady State Theory. In order to account for the observed expansion of the Universe, Hoyle postulated the continual creation of matter in space. The fact that this might violate some 19th century "law" certainly didn't bother him. Big Bang has only triumphed over Steady State because of careful statistical analysis of the density of galaxies at varying cosmologiical distances.

The bottom line is that I don't think citing some 19th century "laws" which were only derived empirically can in any prove (or disprove) the existence of God. That is a question that I don't think science will ever resolve. All other issues - including the origin of the RNA transcription process and why it moves so incredibly slowly are open season.

As an atheist, I would question the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I admire his wisdom, exemplified in Mark 12 : 17


Yes, but we don't admire yours. Now please go back to the OP and answer the questions listed there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users