Summations Only

Alias writes: I wonder what it would have been like to watch elements randomly shift into amino acids (without guidance or a controlled lab) and then watch those acids randomly shift into proteins (made from 100's sometimes 1000's of amino acids which has never been observed at all in a lab)

If amino acids are so special and unique to life that a creator must've made them for that purpose only, why are they found on meteors? Maybe god was sloppy?
Furhtermore, amino acids do spontaneously polymerise into polypeptide (protein-like) structures under thermal conditions including volcanic vents. (Melius 1982, Fox 1977).
This does not mean life started that way, it could be due to a completely different molecule (e.g. RNA-like polymers). The important thing to remember is, just because we don't know yet, doesn't make a fairytale true by default.

Alias writes: That It makes more sense that certain elements that have certain specific properties came from intelligence.

See my first point (also, elements aren't molecules for the record).

Alias writes: Thus nature teaches nothing. When we discuss "god" we are saying that it created nature and has overall authority of moral which man has tried to get it right without that authority and is terrible in my view at getting it right.

Which of course isn't helped by God stating that slavery is allowed and that you should kill your offspring whenever he asks.
Nature actually does teach a lot, including collaboration and altruism. Additionally, the most secular countries are among the least violent, best educated and most caring for the poor... no god needed.

Alias writes: A planet with amino acids exploded?

That It makes more sense that certain elements that have certain specific properties came from intelligence.

Still that means that god was sloppy and created life on another planet as well?

Also I'm not claiming a fairytale true by default. Please don't assume its rude.

My sincere apologies. I was under the impression you insinuated the presence of a god, which is by all definitions a fairytale.

Chemical chains are not proteins. Amino acid chains with a specific function are proteins.

Actually they are: proteins are polymers of chemicals called amino acids. Polypeptides are small proteins and proteins don't necessarily need to have a function to be termed 'protein' (though chances are any polypeptide will have some chemical affinities, that's why they work so well as enzymes, especially through natural selection).

RNA is produced by DNA you need to show RNA existing prior to DNA

This is not true. DNA can just as well be synthesised from RNA by reverse transcriptase. Apart from this assumption, there could've been several molecules involved in the origin of life that are now replaced by more efficient modern contemporaries (e.g. proteins, DNA, RNA)... just because we don't use spears in modern society, doesn't mean we never used them to our advantage (disclaimer: this is an analogy).

Please ref CH and verse that slavery is OK in the bible

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. Titus 2:9

Of course it's absurd, it's fantasy.

Alias writes: The insinuation of a god or that there is no god is equally a fairytale if we go with your claim. Just because "God" chooses to do things clearly different than you does not quantify to it not existing. Atheism is a leap just as much as theism.

I just made the observation god was sloppy if he did use those "special" amino acids only to create life. Again this doesn't mean accepting scientific evidence is a "leap of faith" or a fairytale. Throughout history, people created gods for whatever natural event they didn't understand (e.g. lightning, migration of the moon and stars, the origin of species). Now we have scientific theories which explain the natural world around us in detail. Just because we don't know what specifically happened billions of years ago or every possible way molecules interact in every possible environment doesn't mean an intelligent creator set it all in motion.

Yakuzi writes: Actually they are: proteins are polymers of chemicals called amino acids.

Alias writes: Proteins are much bigger chemicals if you want to call them that but it seems bad to refer to them that way when you seemed ignorant on chemistry.

I never called them that, you assumed wrong.

Your 2nd to last paragraph is a claim void of fact. It also shows a leap of faith on your part. What a fairytale.

Hey I'm just saying there are working hypotheses out there that of course need testing. Remember, just like before the theory of gravity, evolution and baby making. No need to create the god of the gaps.

Secular countries are not among the most educated, etc... This is a claim and it makes no difference.

How does this not make a difference?

Thanks for the reference. Although this draws a couple of points. Slavery was OK historically since "god" is the authority, or this verse is corrupt, or the god of the bible is a fairytale and I'm sure you can make up some other thoughts. All conclusions are equally falsifiable or rather require faith. FYI: I'm a agnostic theist not a christian.

You're welcome.

Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.

Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.

Hi Alias,

I have never even mentioned atheism. I was stating that all the existing scientific evidence makes it extremely unlikely that gods/creators exist, pretty much as likely as flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns and other figments of the imagination. Particularly in the context of the making up creators activities observed throughout human history. One of your main arguments was that you could not imagine that proteins formed without a creator, and I presented two research articles stating otherwise. I'm sure you can come up with more gaps now, making a stronger case for your creator of the gaps, just like creationists do with the fossil record. Of course, if you have any evidence that proves a creator, enlighten us by all means. Please note, just because you can't imagine it doesn't count as evidence.

Stating that I'm outdated is a psychological projection, but I guess reality bites and it is a decent defense mechanism.

Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.

Edited by Yakuzi, : No reason given.

You haven't read the articles have you? Please give your perspective on the first four paragraphs of page 277 from Melius' article.

Cheers. While you're at it, also read Parker 2011 on amine synthesis in a modified Miller experiment.