tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post970338614920294251..comments2024-01-29T01:22:14.621-08:00Comments on Makarios: "This Is Interesting"Thesauroshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-13212530918870261172009-12-14T12:34:09.510-08:002009-12-14T12:34:09.510-08:00Without even trying to explain you how they might ...Without even trying to explain you how they might have evolved," <br /><br />I can go into much more detail as you want. It’s just that you’re missing some very important points and it’s those important points that I tried to highlight. <br /><br />Here are just a few. Don't just skim these Hugo - ok. Read them till you actually understand what's being said.<br />. Natural selection begins ONLY after self-replication has taken place. The information that allows for self-replication came first. <br />. . . . those placing their faith in RNA bypassing the need for DNA, in order to self-replicate do not and cannot explain the origin of the specified complexity in the alleged original RNA molecule NOR in its compliment.<br />. Replication happens only AFTER specified complexity is in place. Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins. <br />. We have every reason to reject protein-first theories, DNA-first theories, RNA-first theories, none of these are able to explain the origin of the information that is needed for living cells to emerge and evolve.<br />. No living molecule is self-reproducing. Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, but it is incapable of “making” anything else. The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.” <br />. If all of these systems evolved, then proteins with a decoding ability evolved before the protein with the decoding system itself evolved. <br />. The synthesis of proteins requires a tightly integrated sequence of reactions, most of which are themselves performed by the synthesis of proteins.” <br />. The (DNA) code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are THEMSELVES coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated other than by products of translation. <br />. If proteins must have arisen first then how did they do so, since all extant cells construct proteins from assembly instructions in DNA. How did either arise without the other?<br /><br />This isn't some side issue Hugo. These are THE questions that need to be answere.<br />================<br /><br />“why does it matter so much that life emerged because of an intelligent agent, not on its own?” <br /><br />Because if there is an Intelligent Agent, an agent that could create the universe and life itself, don’t you think it would be prudent to find out everything there is to know about such an agent? <br />=============<br />“so why do you wish this to be the case?”<br /><br />Whether I wish it to be the case of not is not the issue. The issue is, if it IS the case that such an agent exists, then I would want to organise my life accordingly. <br />=====================<br /><br />"Would you finally believe that life can arise naturally from non-life material?"<br /><br />Of course, but as it stands, that doesn’t seem likely.Thesauroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-46229752376339651602009-12-14T10:39:02.313-08:002009-12-14T10:39:02.313-08:00Oh Hugo... if only it were that simple. I love you...Oh Hugo... if only it were that simple. I love you for trying.<br /><br />I've desperately attempted to catch Mak up on the last century of synthesis between theology and science. He refuses to take refuge in the last stand of the theist: the notion that God wrote the laws of the universe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-10656045452033423402009-12-14T10:04:14.242-08:002009-12-14T10:04:14.242-08:00Dear Rod,
Once again, I still haven't taken t...Dear Rod,<br /><br />Once again, I still haven't taken the time to read all your post on the subject, but I did read this one carefully, and it's obvious that <b>there is in fact only ONE single idea that you try to defend, and it's the famous problem of irreducible complexity.</b><br />Correct?<br /><br />In other words, according to your understanding of biology, it is impossible for some parts of living creatures to have evolved by natural means. These parts are too complex to have risen, to use your words, by chance.<br /><br />Nowadays however, the problem of irreducible complexity has been tackled so much that you have to resort to the very beginning of life, when the first molecules started to replicate, giving rise to what we define as life and the process of natural selection.<br /><br />In other words, you seem to accept the Theory of Evolution and the idea that any living creatures did evolve from simpler life forms, but at some point, you stop, and argue that beyond this certain point, it's not possible to go to a simpler version, and that's where an intelligent agent must have intervened.<br />Correct?<br /><br />If yes, let me ask you a one question then. Why...?<br />You already answered by giving examples of why RNA could not be the answer, but basically what you are saying is that we cannot yet explain how RNA/DNA evolved, so it must not be the case. Without even trying to explain you how they might have evolved, don't you see yourself the illogical reasoning behind this?<br /><br />I would also have another question actually, and I think Ginx pointed that out already, why does it matter so much that life emerged because of an intelligent agent, not on its own? You said it's a question of science, well yes, it is, and science does not talk about intelligent agent at all, so why do you wish this to be the case? And, on the same idea, what would it change if scientists were to give you a detailed explanation on how everything evolved? From amino acids, to RNA/DNA or ribosome? Would you finally believe that life can arise naturally from non-life material?<br /><br />Oh, by the way, they can explain the ribosome now, I remember reading that in the newspaper a few months ago because it was because of researchers from Montréal! Let me find some articles...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/science-et-technologie/200903/01/01-832345-un-secret-de-lorigine-de-la-vie-est-perce.php" rel="nofollow">Original thing I read, in French :P</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/02/deconstructing-the-ribosome.html" rel="nofollow">From American Association for the Advancement of Science</a><br /><br /><a href="http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=2554" rel="nofollow">From Swiss' Insciences organization</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17933-nobel-for-explaining-natures-protein-factories.html" rel="nofollow">Related article from NewScientist</a><br /><br />cheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-80926679971451577432009-12-14T09:41:00.034-08:002009-12-14T09:41:00.034-08:00Ya, Monty Python - funny stuff
Ah, now look what ...Ya, Monty Python - funny stuff<br /><br />Ah, now look what you've done! You've squirted blood all over my new shirt. Flesh wound my arse. <br /><br />You're down for the count Ginx. You should just admit that you're on the wrong road, turn around and get back to where you need to be.Thesauroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-10473034455299257782009-12-14T09:24:52.794-08:002009-12-14T09:24:52.794-08:00@Ginx
"Black Knight - Mak
King Arthuer - Evid...@Ginx<br />"Black Knight - Mak<br />King Arthuer - Evidence<br />Green Knight - The Bible<br />Patsy - Ginx"<br /><br />Being at work I won't go watch a video, but this must be the Monty Pyton clip where the black knight loses his arms, but still want to fight, then eventually even loses his legs and to call it a draw!!<br />Makes me laugh just thinking about it ;)<br /><br />I'll try an answer to Makarios anyway, when I have spare time between software compilations...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-47409932127673836762009-12-14T08:27:16.774-08:002009-12-14T08:27:16.774-08:00No no no, this is better. Let me cast the roles:
...No no no, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno" rel="nofollow">this</a> is better. Let me cast the roles:<br /><br />Black Knight - Mak<br />King Arthuer - Evidence<br />Green Knight - The Bible<br />Patsy - GinxAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-4734253448011161622009-12-14T07:32:54.860-08:002009-12-14T07:32:54.860-08:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HUvTp8ZcJshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HUvTp8ZcJsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-31222932150790041972009-12-14T06:49:06.103-08:002009-12-14T06:49:06.103-08:00“There is no evidence that can satisfy you.”
Ginx...“There is no evidence that can satisfy you.”<br /><br />Ginx, for goodness sake, I’m giving you flat out science. <br /><br />Religion is only a secondary issue in these posts - at least as the information presented goes. How desperate must you be to even ignore the reality of science in order to hold to your faith? <br /><br />I’m not giving you some “interpretation” of mine. I’m giving you the facts - period. <br /><br />There are many possible answers to the question of “Where did the information come from that allowed for the origin of life.” I’m showing you, via science, that Chance, Predestination and RNA replication are not acceptable answers. There may be other answers that are not "God did it," but these three just aren't acceptable. <br /><br />This isn’t my opinion Ginx. This is what anyone can know by reading what is known about DNA / RNA / proteins etc, via science.Thesauroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-36963313048681774052009-12-14T06:30:25.064-08:002009-12-14T06:30:25.064-08:00I love how creationists are offended by the idea o...I love how creationists are offended by the idea of descending from apes, but they relish is being made of dirt.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-47599511429659321522009-12-13T21:05:07.101-08:002009-12-13T21:05:07.101-08:00Less than 7 thousand years ago, GOD breathed life ...Less than 7 thousand years ago, GOD breathed life into some lifeless dust. And you can return to HIM if you repent. THat;s all you need to know about that.Marcus Wellingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467800833497566464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-79114233975313672162009-12-13T20:58:56.943-08:002009-12-13T20:58:56.943-08:00There is no evidence that can satisfy you. What wo...There is no evidence that can satisfy you. What would prove any for you? Does it need to be written down over a thousand years ago?<br /><br />What's more, you have no reason to care. Nothing in abiogenesis disproves God, nor do you have any theories which you deem worthy of addition to current models. You are merely trying to argue for the place of God where He is not observed.<br /><br />Do you post solely because you think if you keep dismissing us long enough, you might somehow appear right? This debate is a century old, and the people on your side who have their eyes open have moved on to other debates.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.com