Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Ordo
JIA, why don't you answer my questions if you expect me to answer yours?

Thats so selfish...

Ribozymes aren't life, they are components of it. Thus, ribozymes, artificial or natural do not need to "create life" or gain new functions. (I know you're obsessed with a point of creation, but there was likely not a single instant when life was made)

Darwinian selection does not apply to non-life or the components of life, but to life only. Ribozymes cannot, by definition, evolve.

That, however, doesn't erase the fact that ribozymes (the things that made EVERY protein in your body?) disprove all your other crap posits.

Certainly, you don't expect other machines, such as your computer, to spontaneously gain functions within a short period of time. A little tiny molecule is no different. It requires time and selection. And no about of you misrepresenting concepts in your narrow understanding will overcome that fundamental fact.

Also, next time...take scientific facts from papers, not from some lady's science blog. I know you think if someone said it its "true"... unfortunately the rest of the world has higher standards.

I have to agree with Ordo on this one. Not only do you run the risk of being painfully mis-informed when you try to gain factual evidence from a blog, but you also look a fool to those who you are debating and/or arguing with. Don't get me wrong, blogs like this could be a good place to start looking for information, but it is by far not the place to read and blindly believe every stated word.

In the end, using a blog to support your claim would be like me going into a Star Wars thread and using This site to support a claim that... uh... Darth Sidious was the greatest sith lord ever. Now, this may be a true claim, however the site I have used is well known for spewing the most preposterous nonsence.

The thing is, though, that the site you used may speak the truth, but more likely than not, as it is with most any blog, the information is skewed by the blogger's personal views, or they may not have done all of their research and may be missing out on some very important points. Not only that, but blogs themselves come under fire due to sites like the affore mentioned Star Wars site, which clearly spew garbage.

Allright, I've put in my two cents. Have fun, guys. 😄

Oh, and JIA, don't get me wrong, I respect what you are trying to do. I also am a Christian, and probably believe very similarly to how you do, but something I have realised over the last year is that beating a person over the head with Scripture, incomplete facts, and blog posts is not the way to make a point. If you are going to make a point, you are going to have to go out yourself and study, and learn the truth and the facts, and not shut your mind to any that seem contradictory to your beliefs (Why should you, if what you believe is true then the facts, in the end have to support it. A contradiction can not exist in part or in whole.) then and only then will you be able to make a well reasoned argument.

God gave us the ability to reason... well for a reason. I can not believe that a God that gave us these wonderful things such as a mind, free will, and the ability to reason, would want us to shut it all off and instead blindly follow what others say we should do, think, feel, and believe. I don't understand these people that will ignore facts that seem to contradict what they believe, to me that actually shows a very strong lack of faith in what they profess to be true, because if it were true, then, in the end, the facts will support it. Maybe not immediately, maybe not easily, but in the end, reason is more likely to reveal truth than blind faith.

Ok, so that makes 3 cents. 😛

Oh, and to those who do not believe in God, yes this post was made using the assumption that God exists. If you have a problem with that, then add the words "If there really is a" before the word God. There is no need to point out the possibility that there may not be a God.

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
...something I have realised over the last year is that beating a person over the head with Scripture, incomplete facts, and blog posts is not the way to make a point. If you are going to make a point, you are going to have to go out yourself and study, and learn the truth and the facts, and not shut your mind to any that seem contradictory to your beliefs (Why should you, if what you believe is true then the facts, in the end have to support it. A contradiction can not exist in part or in whole.) then and only then will you be able to make a well reasoned argument. [/B]

this post made my day. 😛

Lol, you guys are ..."arguing" about creation now? xD

Originally posted by King Kandy
See, now you have changed what you are asking for... but it does not change the fact that RNA has been created, and in fact is capable of creating proteins in the form of other copies of itself. Don't add on more criteria just because you're upset you lost the argument.

"Some of the steps leading to the synthesis of DNA and RNA can be duplicated in the laboratory, others cannot."

Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 63.

Originally posted by Ordo
JIA, why don't you answer my questions if you expect me to answer yours?

Thats so selfish...

Ribozymes aren't life, they are components of it. Thus, ribozymes, artificial or natural do not need to "create life" or gain new functions. (I know you're obsessed with a point of creation, but there was likely not a single instant when life was made)

Darwinian selection does not apply to non-life or the components of life, but to life only. Ribozymes cannot, by definition, evolve.

That, however, doesn't erase the fact that ribozymes (the things that made EVERY protein in your body?) disprove all your other crap posits.

Certainly, you don't expect other machines, such as your computer, to spontaneously gain functions within a short period of time. A little tiny molecule is no different. It requires time and selection. And no about of you misrepresenting concepts in your narrow understanding will overcome that fundamental fact.

Also, next time...take scientific facts from papers, not from some lady's science blog. I know you think if someone said it its "true"... unfortunately the rest of the world has higher standards.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Truth without a clarifier? What do you mean? I believe that Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ.

I did respond to your first point see above post or do you mean something else?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"Some of the steps leading to the synthesis of DNA and RNA can be duplicated in the laboratory, others cannot."

Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 63.

So? Whats your point?

This is of course in contrast to creation, of which nothing has been reporduced in the laboratory. Thus...if duplicating something perfectly in the laboratory is a requirement for accepting it, we're FAR ahead of you.

...and you still havnet' answered my question or responded to my points.

May I also point out, a book is not peer reviewed and thus not considered scientific or factual, even if it is a "science book."

It is a nice suggestion though. And certainly above a Blog, because its at least written by someone who is supposed to have some (however miniscule) amount of knowledge.

Originally posted by Ordo
JIA, why don't you answer my questions if you expect me to answer yours?

Thats so selfish...

Ribozymes aren't life, they are components of it. Thus, ribozymes, artificial or natural do not need to "create life" or gain new functions. (I know you're obsessed with a point of creation, but there was likely not a single instant when life was made)

Darwinian selection does not apply to non-life or the components of life, but to life only. Ribozymes cannot, by definition, evolve.

That, however, doesn't erase the fact that ribozymes (the things that made EVERY protein in your body?) disprove all your other crap posits.

Certainly, you don't expect other machines, such as your computer, to spontaneously gain functions within a short period of time. A little tiny molecule is no different. It requires time and selection. And no about of you misrepresenting concepts in your narrow understanding will overcome that fundamental fact.

Also, next time...take scientific facts from papers, not from some lady's science blog. I know you think if someone said it its "true"... unfortunately the rest of the world has higher standards.

How do ribozymes disprove my posts?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Life cannot form without God.

True or False amino acids disperse or break down in the ocean not concentrate

You have no proof that a god even exists, in the first place. You prove that and then you can start proving that life cannot form by natural processes.

I say life is natural and occurs when the conditions are correct.

Answer to you question. Amino acids do not brake down in the oceans that were on the Earth 4 billion years ago. The chemistry of those oceans were quite different then they are now.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"Some of the steps leading to the synthesis of DNA and RNA can be duplicated in the laboratory, others cannot."

Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 63.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You're dodging the issue again. RNA has been created in a lab, which you said was impossible. End of story.

You are stating the obvious. 😄

I don't know if the issue in these discussions is about God or nature.

The explanations for both are grounded on entirely different things. With God, a transcendent and infinite being is necessary to cause reality - a first cause that is not bound by the concepts of time and space.

With nature, its a question of nature engineering itself, but there's a danger of infinite regression if you want to accept nature and only nature as the sole author of a finite reality.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How do ribozymes disprove my posts?

Because:

1. as I explained, they over-ride the central dogma.

2. you cant accurately interpret them, thus you continue to poke holes in your own argument by claiming irrational things like peptide bonds cant form outside the cell.

Originally posted by Ordo
Because:

1. as I explained, they over-ride the central dogma.

2. you cant accurately interpret them, thus you continue to poke holes in your own argument by claiming irrational things like peptide bonds cant form outside the cell.

Fact: chemicals have never been known to create life. Chemicals are just that chemicals.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: chemicals have never been known to create life. Chemicals are just that chemicals.

Fact: Life is made of chemicals.
Fact: Chemicals do create the components of life.
Fact: You are just chemicals.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: chemicals have never been known to create life. Chemicals are just that chemicals.

Originally posted by Ordo
Fact: Life is made of chemicals.
Fact: Chemicals do create the components of life.
Fact: You are just chemicals.

Dead bodies contain chemicals too. But the body without the spirit is dead.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Dead bodies contain chemicals too. But the body without the spirit is dead.

A spirit, as described in the bible, is not real. When the chemical processes in the body brake down, then the body dies.

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK now that is just plain false. Cells are made of chemicals, formed by chemical reactions. They are called "living" because they can interact with the environment... through internal chemical changes. Every single thin in your body is a chemical.

But chemicals do not create life they simply sustain or maintain it in this physical world.

But no scientist can create life because what gives life to a physical body is the spirit from God.

Why would Jesus help a Muslim?

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8870177642686242029&hl=en