Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
OK... please give me an example of any experiment which non-biologically produces amino acids and has given rise to biologically active proteins or enzymes.
Because evolutionism conveys "antiknowledge" as a fairy tale for adult atheists it "keeps them from the Gospel". When Christians latch on to it "hopefully" exchanging the gospel for a myth - they assume a compromised position in which the only acceptable direction is "more compromise" with atheism's doctrines of evolutionism.
Indeed. Our evolutionist friends would "never" place all their "faith" and "hope" in speculation that corrupts the gospel and the word of God - as if "hopefully the Bible is wrong" were their montra. Rather they would only go as far as sound objective, verifiable, peer-reviewed, imperical data required them to go in distancing themselves from God's Word. So as in this case - it is only "rock solid" - "hard data" that would force the affirmation of such a ratio from our friendly evolutionist.
So, what have you sent them so far?
Hmmm, I can't remember anyone here saying that it was simple... Clearly, for the bioligical illiterates here such as myself, it is far from simple. But then nature often is not.
Both of these links are the same, so I assume that more than one noted example was the point… but I don’t see how this helps the evolutionary paradigm. These are examples of an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED system for creating and purifying amino acids. In the links on the left side of your linked web page we find the Methodology of synthesis of peptides where the hydrophobic microstructures of an hydrophilic carrier parts are used to predetermine structure/conformation of the amino acids as well as an hydrophilic polymer carrier are used:
No one denies that amino acids and biologically active peptide chains can be created as the result of Intelligent Design. You missed the point.
All three of these links are also examples of Intelligent Design forcing molecules to align just so.
The fact that biologically active peptides can be formed is so well known that I just did a search and gave you a few of the many sites that popped up.
It doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It has to to with abiogenesis.
So was Miller-Urey. But then we discovered that it happens in nature, too.
Good. But you have evidence that conditions were such that it could never happen in nature? I already showed you it would happen even if it was an entirely random process. A very small number of biologically active peptides form simply because the huge number of reactions will produce some of them.
Yep. One of the ways this can happen is for them to form on a surface that aligns the molecules. Certain clays found in shallow waters do that.
Unless there's a process that selectively picks such peptides.
We don't know yet. But since we know that the formation of such peptides is a fact, we do know that there are not theoretical objections to it.
Of course. He made nature. Why wouldn't it do His will? Nature works the way He wants it to.
Certainly not. He continues to be completely involved in the world. But He does almost everything here by natural means.
Isn't that what you've just done? You accept the six days, but you won't accept that the earth and water brought forth life.
</font>[/QUOTE]Abiogenesis IS chemical EVOLUTION.
So was Miller-Urey. But then we discovered that it happens in nature, too.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the Miller-Urey is a designed experiment, but it was designed to MODEL a theoretically realistic environmental condition that evolutionists believed actually exited on the primordial earth. The experiment demonstrated that such a theorized and realistically possible environment could produce amino acids. But, again, the peptide strings that come from Miller-Urey type experiments are ALWAYS racemized and are ALWAYS a dead-end for origin-of-life research. If you have evidence to the contrary, please give it and stop dodging the issue.
Excuse me, but it is YOU who is so adamantly claiming that there is so much evidence to support abiogenesis. My reaction - provide it, please. The very experiments so often sited to favor abiogenesis indicate the very real limitation of nature to only go so far before intelligent intervention is required.
Good. But you have evidence that conditions were such that it could never happen in nature? I already showed you it would happen even if it was an entirely random process. A very small number of biologically active peptides form simply because the huge number of reactions will produce some of them.</font>[/QUOTE]“I already showed you it would happen even if it was an entirely random process”? Yeah, you started with a rigged presumption of 80% pure L-forms of ALL the necessary amino acids (which you do not explain how this came about)... as I pointed out before, this is figure is MUCH higher than even the Murchison meteorite which is so widely touted as evidence for naturally forming higher L-form concentrations and never takes into consideration the multitude of other amino acids that would definitely play their part in contaminating any resulting peptide (again, only 8 out of 80 peptides of the Murchison meteorite were even capable of use by proteins). Your statistics may fool some people but you constant bluff does not intimidate me in the least. These VERY slanted statistical assumptions were then used to provide statistics for a peptide chain consisting of only a whopping 10 peptides. The average protein is between 300-400 peptides in length and even "simple" insulin is over 150 peptides. Gee, did we find ANY of those in any Miller-Urey experiment or in the Murchison meteorite? NOPE. Statistically probable my foot. Get a grip on reality. Again, please provide some REAL evidence of your assertions.
Yep. One of the ways this can happen is for them to form on a surface that aligns the molecules. Certain clays found in shallow waters do that.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the use of certain clays to fix the chirality problem has been proposed for decades. And even in this early stage problem for abiogenesis, the results to naturalistically produce any biologically active proteins is, well, non-existent. It is the very fact that the experiments have been such dismal failures that has lead to the hype of the Murchison meteorite for evidence to support the hope and faith that even if the required molecules could not have formed on earth naturally, perhaps there is the chance they formed in space and seeded the earth. Why else do you think the Murchison meteorite got so much attention? If anyone could actually demonstrate that the required molecules could be created with only the goo from a Miller-Urey experiment and a little clay, do you think the Murchison meteorite would have gotten any press?
It's a certainty, even with a completely random process. Because of the huge number of molecules, some of them will form peptides with only L-forms.</font>[/QUOTE]It’s only a certainty with your rigged assumptions. Again, please give evidence otherwise. Please provide the experimental data that backs up your “certainty” because if it were that certain, SOMEBODY would have produced the experiment to prove it by now and the Murchison meteorite would be nothing more than a side curiosity.
Unless there's a process that selectively picks such peptides.</font>[/QUOTE]You mean like the clay selection discussed above.
We don't know yet. But since we know that the formation of such peptides is a fact, we do know that there are not theoretical objections to it.
Sorry. Theories are only judged by the claims they make. Hence, since evolutionary theory only makes claims about the way living things change, the question of how living things came about is not part of the theory.
Yep. As you see, contrary to the claims of people who said Miller-Urey couldn't happen in nature, it does.
I DO agree with this in one sense, though I would state it: "Abiogenesis may involve chemical evolution." By which I mean, the origins of life may involve the operation of RM&NS at levels prior to what we would technically call life. We just don't yet know for sure to what extent this was the case.
Reviewing some of my comments and yours again, we seem to be talking past each other on some points. In my case, I confess to not being specific enough at times especially when using such relative terms as “short” relative to peptide chain length. Maybe we need to come to some sort of definition as to what is actually SIGNIFICANT for possibly meaningful biological activity as it relates to abiogenesis. A polypeptide chain of only 10 amino acids, even 10 all L-forms, is not significant IMO (even though you seem to feel it is). Even a chain of 100 peptides is still a “short” chain IMO as it is still shorter than he simplest protein we know of. One of the simplest proteins we know of, an insulin protein, is a chain of 150 amino acids… all L-form. The insertion of even one D-form into the chain makes that chain biologically inactive. This is still “short” in my book as most proteins are longer than that, the average consisting of between 300-400 peptides. But I recognize that in the naturalistic view of things, the early proteins would not be as advanced as most modern proteins. Yet, in order to produce the symphony of chemical reactions found in even a rudimentary form of a hypothetical primordial living cell, some complexity would seem to be called for. I therefore propose that the 150 number of all L-form amino acids be used as the significant figure to demonstrate the threshold of a true biologically active protein.
One Catholic creationist site, http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/rnamodel.html , said this:
That’s it from me for now. I’m off to enjoy a relaxing American 4th of July long weekend. I hope everyone has a great weekend!
Evolution's doctrines produce a kind of "faithful devotee" that clings "to the slightest HOPE that evolutionism will one day pan out". AS you said before "hope springs eternal" for the evoltionist looking for support of their doctrines.
Again you state the "obvious" but once committed to compromised science of evolutionism - they can not concede to even the most obvious point.
Ahh yes "pick and choose" and "cut and Paste" when it comes to God's Word.
Spoken like a truly hopeful atheist!
Yes. God used natural means to create life. Very good.
That's true. But I don't think anyone here said that He did.
You seem to be arguing with yourself.
Yep. From the earliest Christians, it's been noted that it is not reasonable to assume 24 hour days, evenings, and mornings, with no sun to have them. Augustine, for example, repeatedly tried to make it work in a literal sense, and finally admitted that a literal reading was not supportable.
Nonsense. Even the allegories in the Bible are true. The problem is, you don't like the way God managed things.
It's sad to see someone who claims to be a Christian calling other Christians "atheists". You're upset, and you're perhaps realizing that things are different than you assumed. But there's nothing wrong here that can't be made worse by such behavior.
Whacking that ol' strawman, um? Not a good idea either. Inventing positions for others is a very transparent ploy.
You've gotten off track again. This is about abiogenesis, not evolution. And the argument is that since the evidence we have to date supports abiogenesis, it's foolish to assume that the evidence we don't yet have will rule it out.
Bob, do you honestly think that anyone will think better of you or your beliefs because you misrepresented my position?
quote:Bob responds
Nope. I am observing that our atheist friends make that appeal above - since THEY have no alternative after all for THEM - "there is no God" to DO any of this.
hmmm. "compelling"?
Pretending that those that differ with you can not "see the obvious" is also not compelling Galation.
Oh I see. This is about the way a purely naturalistic explanation can be found for how life itself evolved on this planet from the very START - and NOT a discussion about the naturalistic way that life evolved at some point AFTER the start of life evolved.
Actually the "evidence" has not been shown to "remotely support abiogenesis" and that is the "problem". Every time you have expressed a hopefull "possibility" that might surface - science has shown that your hopes are "without imperical data".
You "pretend" not to notice that my statment above is "suprise" that a Christian would have to resort to the same hope-filled posture as an atheist confronted with lack of imperical data to support the key, central, unique, salient point of their argument. And you pretend to say I called the Christian an "atheist" when in fact - the quote SHOWS that I merely expressed SURPRISE that a Christian could bring themselves to that same sad appeal that only an atheist should be "left with".
Please explain what you mean by a 'faithful devotee'. All I know are evolutionists who believe that evolution is the best way to explain life on earth. Most would drop evolution in a minute if there were a better explanation.
Actually, it has panned out. Evolution has done exactly what it is supposed to do as a theory. It explains the way things are.
Actually, I know of no one that is looking for support for evolution any more. That was done ages ago. Evolution has moved on to being a premise for further research. This is probably the source of your confusion.
I know of no one here besides creationists who call evolution a faith.
I know of no one here besides creationists who call evolution a "fact."
I don't know much about 'imperical' data, but there certainly is empirical data to support evolution along with legions of circumstantial data. For instance, we have empirical data that natural selection works. And we have circumstantial data in the fossil record.
Actually, it is the ending point of extensive research, all completed in the past. Evolution is a starting point because it has been verified by so much history. This is how we make progress. Someone first shows that flight is possible and then later people accept this and build airplanes. We no longer try to 'prove' that flight is possible.
That is correct. In science few things are proven in an absolute sense. However, after many years of testing, they become broadly accepted by the scientific community and can be accurately called 'scientific fact.'
I would resent your treatment of Christian evolutionists on this board as atheists, if I were not so accustomed to it. I dare say that you are not exactly winning souls by doing so. In fact, you are probably achieving quite the opposite.
Nope. That's not what any evolutionists on this board has said. In fact, there are even atheists who would not say this. Why do you poison the well, Bob?
We seem to see a lot of things that are unexpected from Christians on this board... Do you realize that with the wave of a hand, you have significantly reduced the Christian population of the planet?