The origin(s) of replication and translation

[mighty_duck]

Believing that "natural" processes created the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system is in the same category: there is no evidence for such a thing.

So the logical conclusion is to say "I don't know" rather than "it can't be done therefore godidit", which is what you did 24 years ago.

From a historic standpoint though, man has usually jumped to a supernatural explanation for various phenomenon, only to replace them with natural explanations when he did more research. The supernatural explanations only hindered his pursuit. Is there any reason to think that abiogenesis is any different?

 

[bob b]

So the logical conclusion is to say "I don't know" rather than "it can't be done therefore godidit", which is what you did 24 years ago.

No, as I have said before it started me on a journey which eventually ended there.

From a historic standpoint though, man has usually jumped to a supernatural explanation for various phenomenon, only to replace them with natural explanations when he did more research. The supernatural explanations only hindered his pursuit. Is there any reason to think that abiogenesis is any different?

Yes. Both abiogenesis as well as the later transformation of a "replicating molecule" to create the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system. These did not happen "naturally". Your "faith" that science will eventually find "natural" ways to explain these is ill founded. My faith on the other hand is supported by scripture, which says that life was created by God in multiple types, presumably at roughly its current advanced state complete with the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system.

 

[mighty_duck]

No, as I have said before it started me on a journey which eventually ended there.

You started your journey on a false premise. Could it be that every conclusion made from that false premise is also faulty?

Yes. Both abiogenesis as well as the later transformation of a "replicating molecule" to create the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system. These did not happen "naturally". Your "faith" that science will eventually find "natural" ways to explain these is ill founded. My faith on the other hand is supported by scripture, which says that life was created by God in multiple types, presumably at roughly its current advanced state complete with the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system.

The person who claimed the sun was actually a chariot of fire, or that the lightning was caused by a guy pounding his hammer in the clouds were likewise supported by scripture. And you can bet that there was a bronze age Bob b telling them that they don't know the natural reason, therefore godidit.

It has nothing to do with faith, but methodology. Supernatural explanations are bad explanations. I would rather seek a good explanation, then to give up and call my ignorance "god".

 

[bob b]

You started your journey on a false premise. Could it be that every conclusion made from that false premise is also faulty?

My "premise" was that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes. I would say that my conclusion has held up well these past 24 years.

The person who claimed the sun was actually a chariot of fire, or that the lightning was caused by a guy pounding his hammer in the clouds were likewise supported by scripture. And you can bet that there was a bronze age Bob b telling them that they don't know the natural reason, therefore godidit.

I would say you are "reaching" pretty low to justify yourself.

It has nothing to do with faith, but methodology. Supernatural explanations are bad explanations. I would rather seek a good explanation, then to give up and call my ignorance "god".

You better "give up" to God before it is too late. I hope you don't drag others down with you.

 

[mighty_duck]

My "premise" was that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system could not have arisen by Darwinian processes. I would say that my conclusion has held up well these past 24 years.

Are you sure your premise wasn't that it couldn't have arisen by ANY natural process? If not, please show how you came from "couldn't have arisen by Darwinian processes" to "a supernatural explanation is necessary"

I would say you are "reaching" pretty low to justify yourself.

Why would you say that? My story is completely analogous to yours, except for different but equally unsatisfying supernatural explanations.

How are you different the the Thor salesman of yore?

You better "give up" to God before it is too late. I hope you don't drag others down with you.

If God wants his followers to use faulty logic and remain ignorant, then I'd rather go to hell.

 

[bob b]

Are you sure your premise wasn't that it couldn't have arisen by ANY natural process? If not, please show how you came from "couldn't have arisen by Darwinian processes" to "a supernatural explanation is necessary"

Can't say exactly how it went over the years. But the idea in scripture seems to fit this case and other facts quite well: i.e multiple fairly advanced types at the beginning. That impressed me even if it doesn't impress you.

Why would you say that? My story is completely analogous to yours, except for different but equally unsatisfying supernatural explanations. How are you different the the Thor salesman of yore?

Only scripture has multiple fairly advanced types at the beginning.

If God wants his followers to use faulty logic and remain ignorant, then I'd rather go to hell.

You forget that He has told us. You just want proof, which you will never get with your present haughty attitude.

I can only hope you don't take your wife, children and friends down with you. That would be a crying shame.

 

[SUTG]

But the idea in scripture seems to fit this case and other facts quite well: i.e multiple fairly advanced types at the beginning. That impressed me even if it doesn't impress you.

The ideas in scripture, if taken scientifically, have held up rather poorly. The world just wouldn't look the way it does if the events described in genesis were literal.

When the biologist J.B.S. Haldane was asked what we could infer about the Creator if Genesis were literally true, his response was "Well...He must have been really, really fond of beatles."

 

[mighty_duck]

Can't say exactly how it went over the years. But the idea in scripture seems to fit this case and other facts quite well: i.e multiple fairly advanced types at the beginning. That impressed me even if it doesn't impress you.

This seems kind of muddy, and doesn't explain how a science lover let a supernatural in the realm of explanations. It sounds like you just got tired of looking for a good explanation, and went with the comforting one.

Only scripture has multiple fairly advanced types at the beginning.

And to the bronze ager, the Thor's hammer idea made perfect sense. He had seen sparks fly off a hammer when hit hard enough. He didn't know how lightning came about. So a supernatural guy with a really big hammer was a sufficient explanation for him.

You forget that He has told us. You just want proof, which you will never get with your present haughty attitude.

He hasn't told us anything. There is one dusty old book full of contradictions. Both mine and your standard of proof is much more then that, you just suspend that standard for a particular dusty book.

I can only hope you don't take your wife, children and friends down with you. That would be a crying shame.

Good to see the age old Christian practice is alive and kicking.When all else fails, threaten them with fire and brimstone... :rotfl:

 

[bob b]

This seems kind of muddy, and doesn't explain how a science lover let a supernatural in the realm of explanations. It sounds like you just got tired of looking for a good explanation, and went with the comforting one.

No. My background and training eventually convinced me that natural forces and laws could not possibly create the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system.

And to the bronze ager, the Thor's hammer idea made perfect sense. He had seen sparks fly off a hammer when hit hard enough. He didn't know how lightning came about. So a supernatural guy with a really big hammer was a sufficient explanation for him. He hasn't told us anything. There is one dusty old book full of contradictions. Both mine and your standard of proof is much more then that, you just suspend that standard for a particular dusty book.

Actually I investigated the so-called "contradictions" in detail for many years. I found that there was not as much there as people typically think. And at the same time I was seeing critics overruled by new findings of artifacts. It's not a slam dunk as yet, but I have seen enough to develop trust in the accuracy of scripture, which is much more than can be said for any other collection of ancient writings. This can be no accident.

And "multiple types at the beginning" solves many mysteries, only one of which is the origin of replication and translation.

Good to see the age old Christian practice is alive and kicking.When all else fails, threaten them with fire and brimstone... :rotfl:

I would be shirking my duty to not emphasize the seriousness of these matters.

 

[mighty_duck]

No. My background and training eventually convinced me that natural forces and laws could not possibly create the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system.

This is the crux of the matter. How did you get to this conclusion? Even if I granted that "Darwinian processes" weren't responsible, how did you rule out all other natural processes and reach supernaturalism?

And "multiple types at the beginning" solves many mysteries, only one of which is the origin of replication and translation.

It solves the mysteries with another mystery. How did God make those multiple kinds again?
Without answering this, you have no explanation at all.

I would be shirking my duty to not emphasize the seriousness of these matters.

I'll put in a good word for you when I am judged by saint Carl Sagan at the pearly gates.

 

[bob b]

This is the crux of the matter. How did you get to this conclusion? Even if I granted that "Darwinian processes" weren't responsible, how did you rule out all other natural processes and reach supernaturalism?

Darwinism hasn't been the reigning paradigm for nothing the last 150 years. All other approaches are inferior. What remains? Only hypothetical "what ifs" like yours.

It solves the mysteries with another mystery. How did God make those multiple kinds again? Without answering this, you have no explanation at all.

You want proof and I can only point you to a reliable source. I have no allusions that I can convert anyone by my own efforts. My goal is only to warn those listening in who already believe in Jesus Christ not to become lured into believing in evolution, because this God which they already believe in was perfectly capable of creating multiple advanced types at the beginning, and this solves the dilemma of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, as well as how sexual reproduction first came about, as well as the lack of transitional forms (etc.). There is no need to "buy into" evolution.

 

[noguru]

Darwinism hasn't been the reigning paradigm for nothing the last 150 years. All other approaches are inferior. What remains? Only hypothetical "what ifs" like yours.



You want proof and I can only point you to a reliable source. I have no allusions that I can convert anyone by my own efforts. My goal is only to warn those listening in who already believe in Jesus Christ not to become lured into believing in evolution, because this God which they already believe in was perfectly capable of creating multiple advanced types at the beginning, and this solves the dilemma of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, as well as how sexual reproduction first came about, as well as the lack of transitional forms (etc.). There is no need to "buy into" evolution.

Yes, we can always just appeal to the supernatural instead of researching natural explanations.

We should make an addendum to the old saying about tough people when the going gets tough. The new saying should be "When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Or they become young earth creationists."

 

[noguru]

Darwinism hasn't been the reigning paradigm for nothing the last 150 years. All other approaches are inferior. What remains? Only hypothetical "what ifs" like yours.



You want proof and I can only point you to a reliable source. I have no allusions that I can convert anyone by my own efforts. My goal is only to warn those listening in who already believe in Jesus Christ not to become lured into believing in evolution, because this God which they already believe in was perfectly capable of creating multiple advanced types at the beginning, and this solves the dilemma of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, as well as how sexual reproduction first came about, as well as the lack of transitional forms (etc.). There is no need to "buy into" evolution.

I am a Christian and I am listening in. I see more lies or distortions of the truth regarding natural philosopy coming from you than from most atheists or agnostics. This does certainly serve as a warning for me though.

 

[mighty_duck]

Darwinism hasn't been the reigning paradigm for nothing the last 150 years. All other approaches are inferior. What remains? Only hypothetical "what ifs" like yours.

"What remains?" is the question.

I'd answer "I don't know" instead of jumping to "it couldn't have happened".

You have a gapping hole in your argument, Bob.

You want proof and I can only point you to a reliable source. I have no allusions that I can convert anyone by my own efforts. My goal is only to warn those listening in who already believe in Jesus Christ not to become lured into believing in evolution, because this God which they already believe in was perfectly capable of creating multiple advanced types at the beginning, and this solves the dilemma of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, as well as how sexual reproduction first came about, as well as the lack of transitional forms (etc.). There is no need to "buy into" evolution.

This is another emotional appeal, which is often the case when reason fails.

No one is denying that God is capable of creating anything. What the scientifically inclined Christian needs to ask is HOW He did it.

God poofing things is a bad explanation, not only for evolution. If God exists, then studying and understanding His creation is the only way to truly know how anything is done.

 

[bob b]

"What remains?" is the question.

I'd answer "I don't know" instead of jumping to "it couldn't have happened".

You have a gapping hole in your argument, Bob.

This is another emotional appeal, which is often the case when reason fails.

No one is denying that God is capable of creating anything. What the scientifically inclined Christian needs to ask is HOW He did it.

The scientifically inclined, Christian or not, would consider that ridiculous. Who do we think we are, gods?

God poofing things is a bad explanation, not only for evolution. If God exists, then studying and understanding His creation is the only way to truly know how anything is done.

Nothing wrong with studying the creation to find out how things work. But it is ridiculous to try to discover how God initially created the universe and first life. Studying the creation will not reveal this, so He has graciously told us that He did it. That is apparently all He thinks that we need to know.

 

[noguru]

The scientifically inclined, Christian or not, would consider that ridiculous. Who do we think we are, gods?



Nothing wrong with studying the creation to find out how things work. But it is ridiculous to try to discover how God initially created the universe and first life. Studying the creation will not reveal this, so He has graciously told us that He did it. That is apparently all He thinks that we need to know.

"Nuff said."

 

[Frank Ernest]

Welcome to atheism Frank!

It may be difficult to think that you should believe only what you have evidence for, but you are guaranteed to make better decisions regarding reality. I've never seen evidence for a flying unicorn, the Loch Ness monster, or "supernatural processes". Believing in any of them would be foolish.

Thanks for the offer, but no, atheism is not an option. Neither is strict materialism. One cannot make better decisions about "reality" by denying what it consists of or severely (and illogically) limiting its scope. I appreciate the constant and egregious comparisons of supernature to flying unicorns, monsters, etc., but, to me, that is meaningless rhetoric. One cannot disprove the existence of anything by waving a magic wand and claiming it compares favorably to that which one has not observed or by implication claims that such cannot be observed. (Do you claim to have observed everything which can be observed and thereby conclude that you know the totality of reality?)

It does remind me of a past incident where a person of my acquaintance declared boldly, "That can't be true because I never heard of it."

 

[mighty_duck]

Thanks for the offer, but no, atheism is not an option. Neither is strict materialism. One cannot make better decisions about "reality" by denying what it consists of or severely (and illogically) limiting its scope. I appreciate the constant and egregious comparisons of supernature to flying unicorns, monsters, etc., but, to me, that is meaningless rhetoric. One cannot disprove the existence of anything by waving a magic wand and claiming it compares favorably to that which one has not observed or by implication claims that such cannot be observed. (Do you claim to have observed everything which can be observed and thereby conclude that you know the totality of reality?)

It does remind me of a past incident where a person of my acquaintance declared boldly, "That can't be true because I never heard of it."

Notice that I never disproved the existence of the supernatural, nor the existence of the flying monsters etc. I obviously can't do that wholesale.

What I said is that it would be foolish to believe in those things. You already apply this logic yourself every day - as seen by your disbelief in unicorns. You probably haven't ruled out their existence altogether, but you don't believe they exist either - you have never seen any good evidence for them. You wouldn't use unicorns in any explanations for the natural world either.

Every time I ask you if you believe in unicorns, you display sound reasoning skills. Even if I claimed I had a book written by a unicorn, or that I feel I was in a relationship with a unicorn, or that unicorns solve the problem of abiogenesis, you would still not believe me until I brought you some real evidence. This is why it is so puzzling that you consciously don't apply your reasoning skills to one particular supernatural claim.

 

[bob b]

Notice that I never disproved the existence of the supernatural, nor the existence of the flying monsters etc. I obviously can't do that wholesale.

What I said is that it would be foolish to believe in those things. You already apply this logic yourself every day - as seen by your disbelief in unicorns. You probably haven't ruled out their existence altogether, but you don't believe they exist either - you have never seen any good evidence for them. You wouldn't use unicorns in any explanations for the natural world either.

Unicorns obviously existed. They are compared to the strength and power of God in many places in scripture. How the medieval artists came to depict them as beautiful horse like creatures is a mystery for historians to solve. There is no question in my mind that they were some kind of large and powerful dinosaur, making the comparison with God as apt as possible in the ancient world. This is just one more piece of evidence that dinosaurs lasted long enough to be seen by humans, as we see documented in many pieces of ancient literature, which usually called them dragons.

 

[Johnny]

Notice that I never disproved the existence of the supernatural, nor the existence of the flying monsters etc. I obviously can't do that wholesale.

What I said is that it would be foolish to believe in those things. You already apply this logic yourself every day - as seen by your disbelief in unicorns. You probably haven't ruled out their existence altogether, but you don't believe they exist either - you have never seen any good evidence for them. You wouldn't use unicorns in any explanations for the natural world either.

Unicorns obviously existed. They are compared to the strength and power of God in many places in scripture. How the medieval artists came to depict them as beautiful horse like creatures is a mystery for historians to solve. There is no question in my mind that they were some kind of large and powerful dinosaur, making the comparison with God as apt as possible in the ancient world. This is just one more piece of evidence that dinosaurs lasted long enough to be seen by humans, as we see documented in many pieces of ancient literature, which usually called them dragons.

You have an amazing talent for completely missing the point. Ok so you believed unicorns existed. Great. The point wasn't that unicorns don't exist, the point was that you use a certain mode of reasoning. Replace the word unicorn with something you don't believe exist(s)(ed). Giant space underwear monster. Now respond.