Evolution and Creationism

[buffalo]

The JILA research revealed many previously unknown states by unfolding an individual protein. For example, the JILA team identified 14 intermediate states—seven times as many as previously observed—in just one part of bacteriorhodopsin, a protein in microbes that converts light to chemical energy and is widely studied in research.

“The increased complexity was stunning,” said project leader Tom Perkins, a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) biophysicist working at JILA, a partnership of NIST and the University of Colorado Boulder. “Better instruments revealed all sorts of hidden dynamics that were obscured over the last 17 years when using conventional technology.”

JILA Team Discovers Many New Twists in Protein Folding

BOULDER, Colo.-- Biophysicists at JILA have measured protein folding in more detail than ever before, revealing behavior that is surprisingly more complex th

www.nist.gov

 

[Gigantals]

We’re talking about the formation of the original strand of DNA from amino acids in a brackish soup, before it was subject to mutation through natural selection as living things are today.

Of course, this is all assuming that the DNA isn’t subject to damage or disassembly during the construction process.

And we’ve already proven that there is no part of the genome that is truly useless or junk, so it would require probably those 10^602 combinations to come out right for over 1000 in a row at minumum.

Surely we’re not crazy enough to think that a molecule as complex as DNA suceeded in forming twice over (maybe even only a few metres apart), right?)

 

[buffalo]

Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance​

 

[Freddy]

Atheists require evolution to be true to explain a Godless origin of life. Does that mean all the atheists’ work needs to be removed because they’re being religiously bias?

You really need to get a grip on exactly what you are arguing here. It isn’t about godless atheists versus creationism. It’s about religious fundamentalism versus science.

You are not making a case for God by promoting these beliefs that the earth is 6,000 years old. You are only making a case for a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. Nothing more. And anyone who is trying to teach you that the planet is a few billion years old is not making a case for a godless universe. They are explaining that which the evidence suggests.

The fact that God doesn’t come into the explanation doesn’t mean that God is excluded. I have said that so many times that it’s almost become a mantra. Science doesn’t deal with God. It deals with the evidence that God has given us.

Feel free to ignore it.

 

[Freddy]

I answered your view of macroevolution…

You have done no such thing and are never likely to do so. But you will be constantly asked so everyone can view your refusal to do so.

 

[buffalo]

They are explaining that which the evidence suggests.

Which has to be or evolution is dead. Circular.

 

[buffalo]

It deals with the evidence that God has given us.

The “evidence” is subject to flawed human reasoning. In addition, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is provisional.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

From you? Nothing.

If he said God created everything you would say that’s foolishness,but then you would prove the Bible is right.

Well, I 'm glad you said ‘if’ because it’s a recognition that nothing has yet been forthcoming as to what o-mlly actually believes to be the alternative process.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Do you understand what that means? He is actually paid to produce conclusions that the earth is 6,000 years old. That’s his job.

Evo researches have to stay within the bounds of the evo paradigm or their funding disappears.

His funding? He’s paid by the Discovery Institute! And he’s a guy that can produce two papers that directly contradict each other.

 

[buffalo]

His funding ? He’s paid by the Discovery Institute! And he’s a guy that can produce two papers that directly contradict each other.

Here we go with your standard mo. Always attack the poster.

And btw, my earlier post remains uncontested by you.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

His funding ? He’s paid by the Discovery Institute! And he’s a guy that can produce two papers that directly contradict each other.

Here we go with your standard mo. Always attack the poster.

If dismantling your argument is ‘attacking the poster’ then guilty as charged.

You can’t claim some guy is promoting a planet a few billion years old because he might lose his funding when that funding is provided by an organisation that promotes a view directly opposed to his paper.

 

[Gigantals]

You’ve clearly ignored the theological rant I had somewhere above.

God is at the centre of all knowledge, fact and logic (though it may take some interpretation to get there). He is the one who spoke the Universe into being and wrote its laws in such a way we can express them in rules and equations. A science that leads to God is a true science that recognises its Creator as a book can reveal its Author.

Evolution isn’t that, let alone theistic evolution. It’s a theory written by a man who spent a large time grieving the loss of his children, wondering why God could allow such sadness and cruelty in this World. Evolution never centred around God, and slapping Him on last minute will not work. In fact, I’ve never known someone who’s followed evolution and found God.

I’ve known plenty of the opposite though (that is, theistic evolutionists becoming atheists). And that is because evolution is the gateway to atheism. It gives people a chance to say ‘What if there’s no God?’, and they have a similar, atheistic theory to follow. Theistic evolution has nothing supportive of God in it that an atheist can counter or remove to show it was evolution all along. I have never seen a theistic evolutionist stand against a militant evolutionist and win (some of them keep a tally of those they’ve beaten, it’s sickening).

Though if we follow Eastern philosophy (such as Hinduism), then we find a pagan version of evolution that St Augustine personally found ridiculous.

Christianity has the strongest archaeological, historical and theological support out of all the religions on this Earth. Catholicism has the strongest Apologetics out of any Christian denomination. But theistic evolution cannot stand against an evolutionist who knows what they’re doing, reducing the evidence for God to purely personal faith (which really isolates people from both the Scripture and Tradition pillars) by ‘science’ (which is why so many people believe it’s religion vs science for some reason, they clearly don’t realise that that finger and thumb belong to the same Entity). And then that allows them to undermine every piece of archaeological evidence we dig up in the Middle East, calling the Bible a ‘book of half-truths’. That’s worse than saying the entire Bible is wrong.

 

[Gigantals]

Yet when Creationists undermine Evolution with their own investigations and produce results (which are usually never countered, just swept under the rug and ignored) or provide an alternative interpretation to the same evidence that apparently proves evolution, we’re turned against because we have enough Faith in the Bible (and of course, we need the Church Fathers’ work as part of Tradition to support us), the book that is supported by 10,000’s of archaeological evidence; that there is evidence for the first few chapters of the first book (which the rest of the book seems to be proven, along with the vast majority of, if not the rest of the Old Testament, and there’s no point doubting the New Testament)? I’d understand an atheist disregarding all this, but not us. We’re proving that the Bible ISN’T a book of half-truths. We can see God’s signature on this Earth just as we can see it in the books He gave us. We see His works in everything, and the hints of His Miracles that we will never fully comprehend, just like the One who made them (whilst we are on this Earth).

Our science isn’t wrong. The fact that Creationists can publish their works in scientific journals (only the investigations, results, explanations, etc, but not private interpretations immediately implicating Creationism, and there are so many variations of evolution that the evolutionists need to keep quiet themselves) and people agree with those results proves that. But us trying to see where God’s signature in all this is wrong through our interpretation (all evolutionists do it to, with or without God involved)? Do we embarrass you theistic evolutionists for not simply compromising parts of Scripture that the most influential in this modern World disagree with, whilst they slowly remove their fear of God’s authority by holding a compromised book as nothing more than half-truths?

The Bible is like a strand of DNA. There is no junk in it. Every piece contributes something, whether it directly codes something or contributes to the shape of the overall molecule (whether we understand every individual piece or not yet). You can’t just start physically removing or excluding from your reports the bits and sections that don’t make sense, otherwise the whole molecule starts changing. And if the Bible is already perfect, then what can it change into? Only something worse.

 

[Gigantals]

Calling us ‘fundamentalists’ reading the Bible too literally is a bit far. Instead of chopping out great big sections of the Bible like the atheists do, you just call those same sections ‘symbolic or metaphorical’. Oddly enough, is that not similar to what happened 500 years ago? The Protestants took out a few books they disagreed with, then people started interpreting what they disagreed with that was left as symbolic or metaphorical so they didn’t feel as though they were spiritually cheating. We do interpret the Bible all four ways, we just don’t neglect the literal side of it. The Bible doesn’t change, we don’t read more of it than you, we just are more open to interpreting more of the same book without the restrictions of whatever ‘science’ this era uses. And we have the evidence to prove it, you just seem to think it’s too bias because you’ve lived in a culture that has taught you evolution (feel free to add theistic on) is completely true and unopposed since birth. Some of us took a step back and looked at both Creationism and evolution before making up our mind which one fit the facts better.

I don’t hate a single evolutionist or theistic evolutionist. Nor do I hate atheists, Protestants, or agnostics. I don’t even hate the militant atheists that like to verbally abuse us. If this is the World that God requires for His plan of Salvation, with all this division, hate, discrimination and violence created by the evil one, then so be it. But I will not blindly follow what I’ve been taught my whole life, because clearly this World is not perfect nor will it ever succeed in redefining perfect as itself. I know I do not, and never will know everything, but this interpretation I’m following makes more sense than what I’ve been taught. I may only ever know a fraction of all there is, and I have Faith that I will not only find God at the end of that fraction, but throughout as hints of and evidence of what could only be His Works, which would require a whole new framework of unnecessary complicated interpretations to be proven as something without Him.

Catholicism is more than a religion, it’s a truth. And the truth can never be unlearned, which is why those who fall away because it’s too much for them are really not going to be in a good place spiritually (or they’ve been misled, I’m not trying to condemn anyone personally here, just the ideologies). All the anomalies evolution and the old Earth can’t explain, all the genetics and biology and theology I’ve learned, there’s simply no way that can be unlearned. The only limiting factor is my short time on this Earth to not have learned more about His Works. If you wish, I could send you links to those who may have your level of experience so you can have more detailed debates.

I clearly lack the experience required to make the same point with fewer words

 

[Freddy]

Calling us ‘fundamentalists’ reading the Bible too literally is a bit far.

Your world view is based upon a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of scripture. There is simply no other way to put it. You start with that interpretation and reject everything that counters it.

This post was originally a lot longer. It proffered some home truths and asked questions about morality and honesty. But we are meant to treat each other with respect in this forum. So best I say no more.

 

[buffalo]

Your world view is based upon a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of scripture. There is simply no other way to put it. You start with that interpretation and reject everything that counters it.

what about atheists who after seeing the evidence convert?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your world view is based upon a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of scripture. There is simply no other way to put it. You start with that interpretation and reject everything that counters it.

what about atheists who after seeing the evidence convert?

You are welcome to anyone who thinks that scientific arguments can prove the existence of God. And I have no interest in fellowship with anyone who thinks it can disprove His existence.

 

[rossum]

We’re talking about the formation of the original strand of DNA from amino acids in a brackish soup, before it was subject to mutation through natural selection as living things are today.

Then you are not talking about evolution, you are talking about abiogenesis. A lot less is known about abiogenesis. For example it is not yes certain whether DNA, RNA or proteins came first. You cannot just assume DNA first, that is still an open question. There is even a possibility that it was something else entirely that came first.

Some research has been done on chemical activity of short random strings of RNA, see Ekland et al (1995) Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences. That shows that randomly assembled RNA sequences can have chemical activity, and that activity can be useful, as in the case of ligases.

 

[rossum]

Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance

How is this relevant? Your calculation omits natural selection and so is completely irrelevant to evolution, which does include natural selection.

We have seen the spurious attempts to debunk evolution before; the one you link to is not the first.

It is just as irrelevant as calculating the probability of all the letters in the text of the Bible assembling randomly and claiming that shows God does not exist. The Bible was not assembled randomly. Evolution does not assemble proteins randomly either.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

I answered your view of macroevolution…

You have done no such thing …

Yes, I have. Read the post again.

Macroevolution is the best speculation that science can offer today. However, the speculation does not meet science’s requirements as an hypothesis evidenced in part by the failure to precisely define the very event it purports to explain.

Back to you.

Got anything to add to what was merely your confession of faith in macroevolution?

The game was jacks or better to open. You opened, I called. Time to put your cards on the table. And now we see that you never had the jacks; your hand’s high card is just a 7 of clubs.