|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Origin of Translation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
I will not go into exact details of translation. But if we look at translation what is specifically needed:
- the ribosome - the message - the initiating factors - the elongating factors - the energy transfer system - the tRNA's - the amino acids - the chaparonins - the coding system All of these had to be dependently and coordinately evolved slowly over millenia with continous selection pressure on the non- functioning intermediate systems in order for a single fully functional, selectively useful protein to be generated. It is possible to "imagine" simplified versions of the system in which protein products were all much simpler and therefore, chaparonins, for example, would be redundant. However, there is no evidence that such simple systems existed or could have existed. But! perhaps we are looking at the artwork of a masterful designer who saw the whole system and designed all the parts whose specific functions I have not defined rigorously. So we find ourselves staring at these glorious diagrams- simplifications of the actual machines. Hmmm is this a fortuitous series of accidents or the work of a superior Designer? Faith is critical to either of these two interpretations. So the next question becomes: Where is it more rational to lodge my faith? Looking at the final product, which is more plausible? Or, more determinantly, which of these two interpretations do you want to believe in, for that is where your intellect will go to brouse!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
Sorry about that. I guess maybe I'm in too much of a rush to get a topic out there. Sorry again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
Also the other 2 topics you I proposed can be closed. I've already gone through the site and found related threads that address the topic and have posted there. I don't see any reason to start another.
But as far as this post goes, what exactly is wrong with it? In my other proposed topics, they'd already been discussed quite thoroughly. You suggested that I read through the threads and take a new angle on it. As for this topic, I've not found a ton of conversation on this topic. Maybe that's my fault. If you could specifically point out problems, I'd be glad to try and edit it. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: Simply because its never good enough for me. A hundred years ago, the Bible was discredited because the civilization of the Hittites could never be confirmed. We didn't know where their archaeological remains were, and it was taken as the Bible is false. Why wasn't it good enough then, that we simply hadn't found it yet? Eventually, the civilization was discovered in northern Canaan.
quote: Then you are one of the very very very select few. The rest of us our heavily influenced by our world view. Let's be honest, the fact that both creationists and evolutionists look at the exact same evidence and two completely different ideas are created lends credence to this statement unfortunately. I'll equate it this way. Could an athetis entertaing the question "Did God create?" No, as soon as they allow it as a question, they are no longer atheist. So as an atheist scientist looking at the fossils and the world around him, no matter what evidence he finds he will never see it as evidence for creation.
quote: I'm going to have to disagree, specifically about the origin of life. All the fossils we have, all the experiments we do to test possibilities about the origin of life are in the present. Everything exists in the present. The origin of life cannot be directly tested using the scientific method. No one was there to see it, record it, or re-tell it. You must rely on faith that your re-creations of the origin of life are in fact how life began.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: I'm not saying that all science is based on faith. But when it comes to origins and past events in which there was no recording of data, we are relying on faith regardless of your interpretationg as mentioned in the above post. We weren't there to see it happen so our theory of how it did happen is taken on faith that it actually happened that way regardless of whether or not we can re-test our theory's. We will never know for sure how it happened in the past. That is where faith comes in
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car. You believe it even though you did not see it. The same concept can be placed with an ID. Now while this may not be in biological terms it is still relevant. And as far as not seeing supernatural design, well that would depend on your philosophy. If your a materialist then no, if your a creationist yes. I see God's hand in biology every day. It's simply a matter of philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: The fact that we have complex environments, complex chemicals, and definite sign of life, in no way asserts that the chemicals and the environment interacted in some way to form life. You don't walk into an empty workshop, see a fully made cabinet, some tools, wood, and assume that the tools and wood randomly created the cabinet. You assume that it was designed and built by somebody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: I'll completely agree to this point. However, I believe that in the same light, evolution is governed by the philosophy of materialism.
quote: quote: As I've mentioned in pretty much all of my replies this is a fallacy. Sure you can test, see, feel, re-test, re-see, re-feel all your mechanisms from the lab. But does that mean that is how it happened in the past? No! You take it on faith that this is how it happened and you take it on faith that there was no creator there to start it all. We weren't there. There is no record of it, so it is based on faith!!! This extends past origins even into evolution itself. The unrecorded past is exactly that unrecorded. Evolutionists can make up schemes and make experiments about how life may have evolved, but in the end there is no concrete data to support it. Therefore, the evolution of life has to be taken on faith that your ideas and theories are correct. Evolution is faith based whether your willing to see it or not. The difference between you and I is simple. I believe there was somone that saw it all and revealed what happened to mankind in the Bible. You have your truth and I have mine. But in my truth, I have an eyewitness account. Sorry that these last few posts have been somewhat redundant on my part. But I leave for thanksgiving break from school, and I wanted to reply to the posts before I left since I won't be able to reply over the next week. I've also rushed to get these posts out and in doing so may have been unclear, and have not supported my points well enough. Please forgive me in this regard, and hopefully when I return I might be able to add to these posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: Point taken. I see how these analogies don't exactly fit. But I still hold to the point of all of my posts. Evolution, particularly when concernec with origins requires faith. This message has been edited by jjburklo, 11-19-2004 12:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: An excellent argument, however, in my opinion flawed. In such cases there is concrete evidences that point toward the murderer. Such as DNA or semen matching. The evidence is hardcut, clear. And if you talk to any lawyer or judge, trying to prove guilt purely on forensic data and such is extremely extremely hard. Now as far as the case for evolution goes there isn't clear cut, exact, evidence that proves evolution to be true. This is shown obviously by this website in the fact that there is debate over the issue. It isn't as clear cut. There is a huge difference in this analogy I also just came across this excellent interview between Dr. Gary Habermass, philosophy professor at Liberty University, and professor Antony Flew, a long time leading philosophical atheist that has turned to theism. There are some excellent points but I will simply point out one reply. When explaining how he came to theism he stated that it was not ontological or moral arguments that brought him to the belief in a God, in fact he states that he was quite unimpressed by these arguments, but rather only the scientific forms of teleology.
quote: quote: I personally love this last quote because it pertains to the topic of this thread. DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution. While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation. In any case the interview is excellent, and has some excellent incites. Flew is obviously not a Christian and has not subscribed himself to any sort of religion. At the time he does not believe in revelation but is open to it. Here's the link Interview with atheist turned theist Antony Flew
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: No not at all. When Adam sinned the entire human race was cursed. And as time goes on the degression of mankind will continue due to continual sin. Not until God establishes his kingdom on earth will we be perfect. It's no surprise to me at all. I thank God everyday that we are finite. That we are able to die. The moment Adam sinned God as a perfect being was forced to seperate himself from us. It is because of the curse that eventually, through the death and resurrection of Christ that I can have a personal communion with my creator and everlasting life. Without the curse mankind would be left here on earth forever seperated from God, something I would not wish upon anyone. But it is because of the curse that we are able to be redeemed. Regardless of our imperfections, there is still a complexity about humans, specifically in their DNA, that cannot be accounted for by evolution. To have everything work in the precise manner that it does, even from a cosmological standpoint, the earth is to perfectly set up to have happened by random chance. To expect random mutation to have created the complexity of life and the universe we see today is mind boggling to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
sorry posted it twice by accident
This message has been edited by jjburklo, 12-11-2004 12:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: I've already said that I admit my original analogies have holes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: I'd understand your frustration to this point if it was how I conveyed it. This was my statement
quote: My argument was not that since evolution doesn't have an answer then it must be God, it was that the characteristics of DNA point more towards design. The intricacies of DNA and its replication, translation, etc are so complex and wonderful that it seems to be designed rather then to have happened by random chance. Evolution has yet to come up with a suitable explanation, and so since I detect design, I infer design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjburklo Inactive Member |
quote: What?! When did I ever state or even infer that the designer wasn't God. If I detect design, therefore infer design, then obviously I believe in a designer, which I obviously I believe to be God.
quote: Well actually I do. The infallible word of God. God said it, and it happened. Obviously, you don't hold to this opinion just as I don't hold to yours.
quote: Key point in this statement is "once life has arisen." Evolution has to be able to account for origins, and as of right now evolution is clueless in that regard. In fact the only thing that "evolution" has definitively shown is that varieties are formed. I'm fine with that. The Bible's fine with that. Nowhere does it state that species are fixed. But the formation of a variety is a far cry from common descent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024