Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You don't know anything of the sort. How have you determined that "they don't tell the truth?" Who are you talking about?

I am talking about those who interpret the "evidence" and then present their interpretation as fact, when all they really have is supposition. If you read the work of scientists in their explanations of how things evolved, you will see for yourself how far they have to stretch reality to fit their beliefs. Without the power of suggestion, this theory would not hold water.

Boy, you're really hung up on this following authority figures thing. I'm guessing it's because you're coming from a religious perspective and so it's what you are familiar with?

By no means is my position governed only by my religious beliefs. I have been a spiritual person all my life, having started out in a church system that I came to believe is as corrupt as evolutionary science is. I was raised with both creation and evolution in my school system (in different classes) and it didn't take me long as I matured to see through both.

I was in limbo for quite some time, trying to find somewhere in between, where I did not have to accept things that were beyond what could be proven, or at least did not insult my intelligence. I have no problem with authority figures either BTW. When a person is duly authorized, I am bound to obey them whether I agree with them or not. I have a set of laws that I personally follow that were expounded by Jesus Christ. As long as the duly constituted authority does not impinge on the laws of God, I am bound to obey them. But if said authority were to try to force me to break a law of God, then I will respectfully decline....not as a rebel but as a servant of only one Master.

How many times do I have to point out that science isn't about following authority figures and taking their word for it. It's about following the EVIDENCE where it leads. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the face and keep claiming "it's just a theory" (thus exposing your willful ignorance) but you're still demonstrably wrong.

But that is the point....I am not "demonstrably" wrong at all. What can science do to "demonstrably" fill in the gaps of the fossil record? The "evidence" you speak of is non-existent. The "evidence" is led by suggestion, not by provable scientific facts. The fossil record does not tell the story that science claims for it.
Its like the Emperor's new clothes.....the one wearing it cannot see that they are naked.

The former actually has explanatory power and a heap of empirical evidence. The latter has neither.

According to Merriam Websters Dictionary.....

Empirical:

1. originating in or based on observation or experience

2. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

3. capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

From that definition, science has no empirical evidence....it has suggestion and supposition and conjecture...but there is nothing to support their theory except for how they interpret their so-called evidence. There is no experiment that can back up a single thing they posit. It is all empty guesswork with suggestion masquerading as facts. Their detailed diagrams are presented as part of their evidence, when all it is, is from someone's imagination.

What I can see with my own eyes agrees with what science actually knows and CAN prove....that 'every effect has a cause' and that 'all life springs from pre-existing life'. Evolutionists wants us to ignore those facts. That life has no cause, (or at least that its not important to believe that it does) and that there is no pre-existing life that was responsible for its appearance on this planet. It gives life no purpose and no real future.

I'm still confused as to why you seem to think god could not have created the evolution process.

He is the Creator and creation is not the work of blind evolutionary forces. Each living thing had its body and mechanics designed to fit in perfectly with the environment created to sustain its life. A capacity was inbuilt, whereby a minor change could be made in order for that life to continue. But adaptation within species will never explain the the fairy tale of organic evolution.

There is no way that a simple one celled organism (which on further investigation is not simple at all) could possibly transform itself into all the myriad lifeforms that have ever existed. That is a stretch of enormous proportions....greater IMO than the suggestion of a power greater than us, placing life here on planet Earth in the first place.

 

[ArtieE]

Deeje, if all life springs from pre-existing life and your creator is alive what life did he spring from?

 

[Desert Snake]

Deeje, if all life springs from pre-existing life and your creator is alive what life did he spring from?

Self created

 

[ArtieE]

Self created

So the creator pre-existed and then created himself?

 

[ArtieE]

syncretic, Deeje said that all life comes from pre-existing life and if the creator is alive he must have come from pre-existing life. I would be interested in knowing more about that pre-existing life.

 

[Desert Snake]

syncretic, Deeje said that all life comes from pre-existing life and if the creator is alive he must have come from pre-existing life. I would be interested in knowing more about that pre-existing life.

Ah, yes. some creationists seem to believe that.
I don't subscribe to that idea, /

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, if all life springs from pre-existing life and your creator is alive what life did he spring from?

I'm afraid you'll have to ask him that question because he does not fit into any category of "life" that this rule of science applies to. The scriptures tell us that he is an eternal being, which means that he had no beginning, but is himself the source of all life.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm afraid you'll have to ask him that question because he does not fit into any category of "life" that this rule of science applies to. The scriptures tell us that he is an eternal being, which means that he had no beginning, but is himself the source of all life.

So what you are saying is that life was created but not the creator of life. So you explain the existence of life with the existence of a creator whose existence you can't explain. That is not very helpful. Claiming a god created life is of little use to biologists like claiming Poseidon causes earthquakes is of little use to seismologists.

 

[Kirran]

Things Deeje said

You know Deeje, I'm starting to get the impression we disagree on some issues! Rather than continue to bash our heads against each other, I think we should leave it at that. My prerogative is to understand the world and to serve God, so while of course I come at life from my own context and doubtless have my biases, I find truth as best I can.

Thanks for linking me to your denomination's website, although to be honest the habits of you guys being as they are I am regularly accosted by JWs telling me about their ideas as I walk down the street, so spending time reading a website as well isn't really on my to-do list at the moment! If you ever develop any interest in learning about my own faith I'd be happy to give you the names of some of the teachers I most respect for you to have a look at - my tradition has little interest in proselytising so you won't come across it in the street so easy

Peace!

 

[Deeje]

So what you are saying is that life was created but not the creator of life. So you explain the existence of life with the existence of a creator whose existence you can't explain. That is not very helpful. Claiming a god created life is of little use to biologists like claiming Poseidon causes earthquakes is of little use to seismologists.

The Creator is not a biological being. He created biological life but he himself is not biological in nature.

He has left us with instructions and an explanation for everything that has transpired since creation's beginning, so that we have a reason for our existence...an explanation for how and why things went wrong...and what he is doing to rectify the situation whilst preserving the gift of free will. Those who don't want to believe in his existence are free to do so...for now.

 

[Deeje]

You know Deeje, I'm starting to get the impression we disagree on some issues!

LOL....ya think?

Rather than continue to bash our heads against each other, I think we should leave it at that. My prerogative is to understand the world and to serve God, so while of course I come at life from my own context and doubtless have my biases, I find truth as best I can.

We all have to come to our own conclusions for our own reasons......that is how it should be. We will all be judged by the same criteria....who we really are...the person God sees.

Thanks for linking me to your denomination's website, although to be honest the habits of you guys being as they are I am regularly accosted by JWs telling me about their ideas as I walk down the street, so spending time reading a website as well isn't really on my to-do list at the moment!

I am pleased to hear that my brothers and sisters are doing their job. We are not about 'accosting' people, but informing them about what is to come in the near future. If a natural disaster was impending, would you consider the emergency services personnel knocking on your door, or telling you in the street how to save yourself, an imposition? This is what we believe we are doing.

Nothing is forced, but people can feel that a change is coming and they are curious to find out what the Bible says about world events, since all of this is foretold.

If you ever develop any interest in learning about my own faith I'd be happy to give you the names of some of the teachers I most respect for you to have a look at - my tradition has little interest in proselytising so you won't come across it in the street so easy

I have explored many different faiths and I can see the good points in many of them. I judge a religion by its teachings, practices, and the kind of people it produces. Not just the few notable exceptions, but by the conduct of the majority who follow it. I do not consider those who identify as any particular religious faith, but who fail to live up to the tenets of its teachings, as anything but hypocrites. Jesus took a very dim view of hypocrisy, so we should too and try our best not to stray from his teachings for any reason.

Peace!

And to you.

If nothing else JW's are known to be one of the most peaceable peoples on earth.
Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Deeje]

This is the simple cell from which all life supposedly sprang.......

A biologist said that single-celled animals can “catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity” and “with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds—really have everything we’ve got.”
Its not really simple at all....is it?

What are the chances of something this complex arising by chance with all components in place and fully functional? NIL.

 

[Deeje]

Something else to consider.....

"There is another stubborn problem that confronts the evolutionary theory.

There are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup?

Probability and Spontaneous Proteins
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!" (Excerpts from "Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?" WTBTS)

 

[sayak83]

Something else to consider.....

"There is another stubborn problem that confronts the evolutionary theory.

There are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup?

Probability and Spontaneous Proteins
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!" (Excerpts from "Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?" WTBTS)

Solved
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141126-why-rna-is-right-handed/

 

[sayak83]

This is the simple cell from which all life supposedly sprang.......

A biologist said that single-celled animals can “catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity” and “with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds—really have everything we’ve got.”
Its not really simple at all....is it?

What are the chances of something this complex arising by chance with all components in place and fully functional? NIL.

This is an eukaryotic cell that evolved 2 billion years of evolution after the first simple prokaryotes (as seen in the fossil record). So no, this is not the first forms of life by a long long long long....shot.

 

[Deeje]

Why do humans alone find these images beautiful?

Why are paradisaic places on earth the most popular tourist destinations?
Why are we naturally drawn to beautiful places, even when we can't live there permanently?

People pay enormous amounts of money to enjoy places like these for their vacations......
nothing to do with the fact that we were created to live in paradise conditions?

 

[sayak83]

Why do humans alone find these images beautiful?

Please demonstrate that animals with good color vision do not find these images beautiful.
There is good evidence that many do,
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1577316290/?tag=slatmaga-20

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Words...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=GE4PTFHK95Y2CP9HYK27

 

[Deeje]

Solved
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141126-why-rna-is-right-handed/

This the greatest load of hogwash I have ever read.

You can't be serious....

Like this bit...
"Biochemists have tended to favor an alternative proposal, that a chance occurrence of prebiotic chemistry triggered an initial disequilibrium. Perhaps a slight excess of right-handed nucleotides was trapped and amplified in a shallow pool or some other prebiotic test tube. Eventually the bias reached a tipping point, breaking the chemical mirror and setting the stage for the emergence of life. Blackmond has done extensive work showing how to transform a small asymmetry to a nearly complete one using purely physical and chemical means."

This is the way scientists reach their conclusions?
It is based on speculation and "chance occurrences" and "perhaps" something happened?
If this is the premise upon which their research was built, what were they hoping to find? Something that fitted in with their expectations.

Or this.....
"Given the known limitations, Joyce began to focus on creating a simple ribozyme that could copy RNA when only right-handed blocks were around. His group had some success, but none that fulfilled the requirements of the RNA world theory.
So last year, Joyce and Sczepanski decided to start from scratch. They unleashed a pool of random right-handed RNA molecules and let them react in a test tube with left-handed building blocks. They hoped that within that random pool of RNA molecules was a ribozyme capable of stringing the building blocks together. They then isolated the best candidates — ribozymes that could copy RNA of the opposite handedness — replicated them, and subjected the new pool to the same trial over and over again.


In just a few short months, they had a surprisingly effective ribozyme. The right-handed version binds to a left-handed RNA template and produces a left-handed copy. The left-handed copy can then go on to produce a right-handed version. “It’s amazing what they did,” said John Chaput, a biochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe. “It really does get to the heart of the question of the origins of chirality and provides some solid evidence to move things forward.”

So what do we have here? A natural undirected process? Or an experiment that needed intelligent direction and the creation of the right environment for something to take place? Seriously.....

What is a ribozyme exactly?

"A ribozyme is a ribonucleic acid (RNA) enzyme that catalyzes a chemical reaction. The ribozyme catalyses specific reactions in a similar way to that of protein enzymes. Also called catalytic RNA, ribozymes are found in the ribosome where they join amino acids together to form protein chains."

Anyone would think that these scientists had created life! Good grief!

 

[Deeje]

This is an eukaryotic cell that evolved 2 billion years of evolution after the first simple prokaryotes (as seen in the fossil record). So no, this is not the first forms of life by a long long long long....shot.

I love the way you say that...rolls right off the tongue doesn't it? This evolved only after 2 billion years of evolution....

And how many humans were there to document this evolutionary process 2 billion years ago? The fossil record doesn't tell you anything that specific. Scientists have to suggest that this occurred because it fits in with what they have theorized.

Single celled organisms were supposed to have appeared out of nowhere and replicated themselves. Are you telling me that after 2 billion years, this is all that had evolved?

I thought that this source put it pretty well......

"When (most) scientists attempt to explain events in life’s history, like the origin of eukaryotes, they start with the belief that evolution is a fact and then interpret the data from an evolutionary framework. Often times this approach yields disparate evolutionary trees and accompanying controversy. In these situations, evolutionary biologists look to the future with the hope that access to a database of whole genome sequences will bring clarity to the evolutionary relationships. But as this latest research highlights, this isn’t the case. It looks like evolutionary biologists have reached the end of the road in their quest to explain the origin of eukaryotes. As the authors point out, “Despite the very large number of complex genomes used and the various means of data collection, the number of markers that can be used to investigate the relationship between the Archaea and the Eukarya is very small and seems to have reached its limit.”5


A key idea of the evolutionary paradigm, namely that evolutionary trees built from separate DNA sequence molecules should agree and should also agree with those constructed from morphology, is not supported by the evidence. This disagreement is more profound than it seems on the surface. It can be taken as evidence for the creation paradigm. According to the late evolutionary biologist Morris Goodman, in an article he wrote for The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution:


"If the biblical account of creation were true, then independent features of morphology, proteins, and DNA sequences would not be expected to be congruent with each other. Chaotic patterns, with different proteins and different DNA sequences failing to indicate any consistent set of species relationships, would contradict the theory of evolution." 6"

http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin-of-complex-cells-a-big-event-for-evolution-or-creation

A biased source? So are yours. Let the reader use discernment.

 

[sayak83]

This the greatest load of hogwash I have ever read.

You can't be serious....

Like this bit...
"Biochemists have tended to favor an alternative proposal, that a chance occurrence of prebiotic chemistry triggered an initial disequilibrium. Perhaps a slight excess of right-handed nucleotides was trapped and amplified in a shallow pool or some other prebiotic test tube. Eventually the bias reached a tipping point, breaking the chemical mirror and setting the stage for the emergence of life. Blackmond has done extensive work showing how to transform a small asymmetry to a nearly complete one using purely physical and chemical means."

This is the way scientists reach their conclusions?
It is based on speculation and "chance occurrences" and "perhaps" something happened?
If this is the premise upon which their research was built, what were they hoping to find? Something that fitted in with their expectations.

Or this.....
"Given the known limitations, Joyce began to focus on creating a simple ribozyme that could copy RNA when only right-handed blocks were around. His group had some success, but none that fulfilled the requirements of the RNA world theory.
So last year, Joyce and Sczepanski decided to start from scratch. They unleashed a pool of random right-handed RNA molecules and let them react in a test tube with left-handed building blocks. They hoped that within that random pool of RNA molecules was a ribozyme capable of stringing the building blocks together. They then isolated the best candidates — ribozymes that could copy RNA of the opposite handedness — replicated them, and subjected the new pool to the same trial over and over again.


In just a few short months, they had a surprisingly effective ribozyme. The right-handed version binds to a left-handed RNA template and produces a left-handed copy. The left-handed copy can then go on to produce a right-handed version. “It’s amazing what they did,” said John Chaput, a biochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe. “It really does get to the heart of the question of the origins of chirality and provides some solid evidence to move things forward.”

So what do we have here? A natural undirected process? Or an experiment that needed intelligent direction and the creation of the right environment for something to take place? Seriously.....

What is a ribozyme exactly?

"A ribozyme is a ribonucleic acid (RNA) enzyme that catalyzes a chemical reaction. The ribozyme catalyses specific reactions in a similar way to that of protein enzymes. Also called catalytic RNA, ribozymes are found in the ribosome where they join amino acids together to form protein chains."

Anyone would think that these scientists had created life! Good grief!

You asked if the chirality problem has been solved. It has as seen in the linked researched. As I linked previously, scientists have already created life from scratch in the lab. The idea of small asymmetries causing light and left handed forms to "take over the population is a simple case of spontaneous symmetry breaking seen everywhere in the natural world from crystal growth to matter dominance over antimatter in the universe. The process is so well known and demonstrated that it requires no further need of explication. The challenge was to get an enzyme to work well in a racemic mixture and that has been solved.

The End.