Faith versus Science

quote:

---

crashfrog, you're right. Science doesn't just discard facts. But evolution does - from time to time. For example, if the universe resulted from a detonation such as the big bang there should be an even distribution of matter in the universe. Clearly the universe is quite uneven, with vast continents of galaxies beyond huge tracts of empty void. There is not nearly enough dark matter to explain such irregularities.

---

Mark24 pointed it out but this part of your post makes me seriously question if you even know what the theory of evolution is since here it would appear you are confusing the big bang with biological evolution.

Defender,

quote:

---

I suppose one might call creation and evolution theories. They are to be proved using empirical evidence, and are not just philosophies, as you say.

---

Creation isn't a theory because it doesn't originate through empirical evidence and can't be subjected to experimental testing. The word 'creation' doesn't constitute a hypothesis or an explanation.The theory of evolution does explain observations, and it's based on the confirmation of several core hypotheses which can be experimentally tested. It depends on material mechanisms that are verifiable.Why is there conflict between faith and science? Can believers have faith regardless of the origin of biological complexity? Isn't faith based on different principles and aimed at a different human need than science?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-20-2003]

quote:

---

Loudmouth, the concrete facts support the ancient texts. There are hundreds of prophecies about Jesus, including His birthplace and His manner of death, dozens of details which He couldn't have had control over if He were a normal man, which had been prophesied hundreds of years earlier in the prophets of the Old Testament. And whenever the Bible makes a claim, it is vindicated. People thought the Hittites mentioned therein were just a myth until somebody dug up their civilisation in Turkey.
Not all scientists believe evolution. Those who don't regularly challenge the findings of those who do. You can go to the AiG website and find dozens with PhDs or suchlike, all of whom have found evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.

---

Site a piece of evidence that you think contradicts anything in science, including evolution, and I would love to discuss it. As a historical document, the Bible can be accurate. However, this is because archaeological digs have found EVIDENCE. Find evidence that creationism is true and evolution is false.

quote:

---

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

---

According to the text in Genesis one, there is no sun and moon on days one through sometime in day four. The text says these became the measurement of the days, etc. So before these were created, nobody knows the length of the other evenings and mornings.

Hi buz..and the testable hypothesis and supporting evidence for this is what?

crashfrog, your example citing computers is not entirely valid. I'd have to examine this project further, but in order to create something using a computer you'd need a computer program first. If the computer has no criteria and just pops up with the first circuit design that comes into its head, you'd have to wait an awfully long time before you got something more efficient than current designs. An intelligently-designed program should be directing the computer through combinations until it alights on the optimal one.Here are some interesting points:1. DNA is a computer.
2. A computer won't work with incorrect circuitry. With proteins, all amino acids must be left-handed, whereas with DNA the nucleotides must all be right-handed. The handedness is known as chirality.
3. If you get the circuits wrong, the computer won't work. The process of DNA -> RNA -> proteins won't work if one acid or nucleotide is the wrong hand. Also, DNA chains are immensely long.
4. Scientists have not yet found a way of reducing the natural mixture of both left- and right-handed amino acids that occur naturally to left-handed ones only. We can't create the conditions for life by a purposeful process... much less evolution by a random process. In the naturally occurring mixture of right- and left-handed amino acids, only left-handed ones could be used to make a protein... how would the mixture be purified randomly? There is no instance of the natural mixture being purified, not even in laboratory conditions. The same goes for DNA's nucleotides.
5. DNA, thus, could not arise randomly.
6. If DNA doesn't work, life doesn't either.
Conclusion: DNA must have been designed.By the way, I saw a creationist doctor specialising in biology only the other day on a DVD. He'd been an evolutionist also, until two students challenged him to objectively examine the evidence. He realised that design, thus creation, is the only logical explanation for the origin of life. There are, indeed, scientists who specialised in biology as well as evolution... but are now creationists.If there is any evidence that the correct chirality for the formation of DNA or proteins can form randomly, even in a laboratory environment, I encourage you to tell us all.

By the way, buzsaw, it says in Genesis 1:3-5...Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.So you see, there was night and day before the sun and moon. God created light on Day One, and separated it from the darkness. Thus there was indeed a precise evening and morning. He created the sun, moon and stars on Day Four to be "for signs and seasons, and days and years" (v. 14), and also to rule over the day and night (v.18). They seem to be meant as the permanent measurers and lightgivers. Genesis 1:5 does state that night and day were created before them.Hope this clears it up...

quote:

---

1. DNA is a computer.
2. A computer won't work with incorrect circuitry. With proteins, all amino acids must be left-handed, whereas with DNA the nucleotides must all be right-handed. The handedness is known as chirality.
3. If you get the circuits wrong, the computer won't work. The process of DNA -> RNA -> proteins won't work if one acid or nucleotide is the wrong hand. Also, DNA chains are immensely long.
4. Scientists have not yet found a way of reducing the natural mixture of both left- and right-handed amino acids that occur naturally to left-handed ones only. We can't create the conditions for life by a purposeful process... much less evolution by a random process. In the naturally occurring mixture of right- and left-handed amino acids, only left-handed ones could be used to make a protein... how would the mixture be purified randomly? There is no instance of the natural mixture being purified, not even in laboratory conditions. The same goes for DNA's nucleotides.
5. DNA, thus, could not arise randomly.
6. If DNA doesn't work, life doesn't either.
Conclusion: DNA must have been designed.

---

1. DNA is not a computer. It is a structure based on simple chemistry.
2. Since DNA is not a computer, the circuitry analogy is also false. But given it is a chemical reaction chirality is a consequence of the chemistry not a restriction...and some proteins are produced that have different chirality.: J Mol Biol. 2002 Sep 20;322(3):491-5. Related Articles, LinksChirality-independent protein-protein recognition between transmembrane domains in vivo.Gerber D, Shai Y.Department of Biological Chemistry, The Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100, Rehovot, Israel.Stereospecificity in protein-protein recognition and docking is an unchallenged dogma. Soluble proteins provide the main source of evidence for stereospecificity. In contrast, within the membrane little is known about the role of stereospecificity in the recognition process. Here, we have reassessed the stereospecificity of protein-protein recognition by testing whether it holds true for the well-defined glycophorin A (GPA) transmembrane domain in vivo. We found that the all-D amino acid GPA transmembrane domain and two all-D mutants specifically associated with an all-L GPA transmembrane domain, within the membrane milieu of Escherichia coli. Molecular dynamics techniques reveal a possible structural explanation to the observed interaction between all-D and all-L transmembrane domains. A very strong correlation was found between amino acid residues at the interface of both the all-L homodimer structure and the mixed L/D heterodimer structure, suggesting that the original interactions are conserved. The results suggest that GPA helix-helix recognition within the membrane is chirality-independent.J Chromatogr A. 2001 Aug 3;925(1-2):89-97. Related Articles, LinksEfficient enantioselective separation of drug enantiomers by immobilised antibody fragments.Nevanen TK, Soderholm L, Kukkonen K, Suortti T, Teerinen T, Linder M, Soderlund H, Teeri TT.VTT Biotechnology, Espoo, Finland.There is an increasing need for methods for efficient enantioselective separation and purification of chiral drugs. Genetic engineering provides the means for generating recombinant antibodies exhibiting extremely high specificity for even small molecular mass compounds. Here, recombinant antibody fragments have been generated for the drug diarylalkyltriazole that contains two chiral centres. Immobilised antibody fragments has been used successfully for efficient, step-wise separation of two enantiomers of the drug. Owing to the antibody specificity, one enantiomer came out in the flow-through, while the bound enantiomer could be specifically eluted. One of the antibodies tolerated solvents required both for dissolving the target molecules and for their elution for extended times and was shown to function over multiple cycles of the separation process.3. Engineers cannot transport me to a terraformed villa on Jupiter either..so I guess airplanes don't exist..pure argument from incredulity followed by a fallacy...

quote:

---

much less evolution by a random process.

---

..this is done in the lab daily...

quote:

---

The same goes for DNA's nucleotides.

---

..um, are you suggesting that nucleotides have not been purified? As to 100% purity..you cannot even purify alcohol 100%...that engineering and chemistry is not perfect is hardly an argument about what can or cannot happen. In addition, if you have a 50:50 chance of using D or L forms at the begiining and once you choose one, all subsequent molecules will take one form to the exclusion of the other..why is that so hard to understand...each DNA molecule does not just decide its chirality de novo
5. Your argument does not support this as it is merely based on a couple of false statements and modern chemistries limitations at purification followed by incredulity
6. False, DNA get's messed up all the time i.e. cancer, mutation, strand breaks and there are lots of individuals surviving unless you deny organisms exist...but this is a circular argument..if there is no DNA there is no DNA
7. Again, this is merely your personal incredulity and not supported by your statements.How about being the first person in history to propose a testable and falsfiable hypothesis of intelligent design? This challenge has been ignored and unmet by its proponents and is why it is not considered sciencecheers
M

Well, yes. Duh. The engineers programmed the computer to do nothing more than apply the mechanisms of unguided mutation and natural selection to a group of simple circuits. Then they let it run unaided.As it turns out, you don't need anything more than natural selection and random mutation to get great design. What about this is hard to understand? I guess it could be hard to accept, though. No, it's really not. It's more like a meta-catalyzing molecule, to coin a phrase, perhaps.And from what I understand, the reason that protiens are left-handed is because they're more stable that way. You can have right-handed proteins, but they're less stable. So perhaps, in the beginning of life, right and left-handed organisms competed, and the left-handed ones won, and we're all the decendants of that original winner. At any rate the common chirality of all organisms is powerful evidence for common descent. I think there's a vast gulf of ideology between a position that not all biological structures are best explained through random mutation; and 6-day creation by divine fiat. After all you still have to explain the vast fossil and genetic evidence for common descent, and the way natural selection + random mutation are a very creative process.

Someone will have to back me up on this (to lazy to do the leg work) but isn't the chirality of an amino acid determined by the enzymes involved in aa biosynthesis? This would negate the need for the cell to "choose" between D and L.Also, looking at the Sigma-Aldrich catalog it's possible to buy separate D and L amino acids. Sigma figured out how to separate them, can't be that hard. Probably just one simple HPLC run. No webpage found at provided URL: www.sigma-aldrich.com has their online catalog and search engine.

Duplicates previous message - content deleted.Please, only click "Submit" button once, and give the system time to operate.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-21-2003]

defenderofthefaith, Please respond to this.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Okay, Defender might still be mulling over that classic Mammuthus rebuttal on post #23. I still think this particular subject (no, not the chirality of amino acids) is at the heart of the EvC debate.Science has nothing to do with faith. I don't feel that a religious person could claim that biological complexity is proof that there is a God any more than an atheist could claim it as proof that there is no God. I don't think Nature gives us reason to decide either way.As Crashfrog has pointed out, the design in Nature appears to be fundamentally different than the design in human artifacts. The 'detection' of intelligence in biological structures is nothing more than wishful thinking, unsupported by anything more than the urge to see purpose where it doesn't appear to exist.Both Philip Kitcher in Abusing Science and Robert Pennock in Tower of Babel made it clear that the reason creationism is such a laughable excuse for a scientific model is because its main appeal is psychological. Faced with a world bereft of purpose, some believers are desperate to paste a veneer of meaning on top of a natural history that doesn't provide them with spiritual comfort.It reminds me of the old joke where the guy is looking for his lost keys. Though he actually lost them in the park, he's looking for them under a streetlight because 'the light is much better here.' If you want to find meaning and purpose in the universe, you won't find them looking through a microscope. The bacterial flagellum and the optical left-handedness of amino acids are no substitutes for a mature sense of purpose in life.I'm not convinced that our creationist correspondents here are sincere in wanting to learn about nature. I think most of them assume that taking Nature on its own terms is an insult to God. If they can't understand biology and have faith at the same time, then I suppose they're not likely to progress either intellectually or spiritually.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

quote:

---

By the way, I saw a creationist doctor specialising in biology only the other day on a DVD. He'd been an evolutionist also, until two students challenged him to objectively examine the evidence. He realised that design, thus creation, is the only logical explanation for the origin of life. There are, indeed, scientists who specialised in biology as well as evolution... but are now creationists.

---

Sounds like a Chick Tract."But sir, have you actually thought about evolution?""I... I... no! Nobody's ever told me the truth before! I realize now that evolution is a lie!"Jack Chick... I love that crazy little nut.Regardless... tangent mode off... what does the origin of life have to do with evolution?[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-22-2003]

Dan,You call yourself a comics buff? That's not how it goes at all. It's like this:"I wonder if I could ask you if you believe in the so-called Evolution.""I'm a scientific practitioner who's been practicing science in the Science field for twenty-five years now. Of course I believe in the Darwin Evolution.""Did you realize it's just a theory?""What on Earth? You mean---""Furthermore, do you realize that evolution is an atheistic lie perpetrated by Satan to keep you from salvation?""B-but I thought the facts---""Well, did you know that the dinosaurs only went extinct during the Reagan Administration? And that no one has ever seen a cat turn into a dog, as predicted by Darwin before he recanted on his deathbed?""Now that you mention it...""Do you know that God has a plan for you, and He has all the facts? They're all in this book.""The Bible!""Yes. No theories. No apes. No whales with cowboy boots. Just the love of Jesus and complete certainty and everlasting life.""Thank you, sir! Praise God!"[Copyright 1998 Chick Publications. All rights reserved.]------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.