Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

Originally posted by squiz

"Levinthal's paradox is a thought experiment" wikipedia.

It was when Levinthal conceived it in 1969 but now there's loads of evidence of it. Einstein's Relativity started as a thought experiment too. All scientific theories start at that level, nothing unscientific or new.

More evidence on sequential "folding as it emerges" and its implications in reduced computational complexity:

Cotranslational protein folding—fact or fiction?

Motivation: Experimentalists have amassed extensive evidence over the past four decades that proteins appear to fold during production by the ribosome. Protein structure prediction methods, however, do not incorporate this property of folding. A thorough study to find the fingerprint of such sequential folding is the first step towards using it in folding algorithms, so assisting structure prediction.

Results: We explore computationally the existence of evidence for cotranslational folding, based on large sets of experimentally determined structures in the PDB. Our perspective is that cotranslational folding is the norm, but that the effect is masked in most classes. We show that it is most evident in α/β proteins, confirming recent findings. We also find mild evidence that older proteins may fold cotranslationally. A tool is provided for determining, within a protein, where cotranslation is most evident.

Instead your thought experiment "the god crock" is not falsifiable (unscientific) and therefore will remain a thought experiment till the end of time.

Originally posted by Brasov

Originally posted by squiz

Very nice. Too true, there is no such thing as a simple life form.

What's your definition of life? To me, life is anything that can reproduce and change to adapt to its environment.

Now here' s a very simple life-form according to this definition that reproduces and evolves:

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist

A new molecule that performs the essential func.tion of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things. If that wasn't enough, the laboratory-born ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand evolves in a test tube to double itself ever more swiftly.

Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

Life-like evolution in a test tube | COSMOS magazine

Why is it that everyone can look at an automobile and know that it could have never built itself, started itself, and reproduced itself? But when one looks at a single cell that is far more complex than an automobile they imagine it could have built itself, started itself, and reproduced itself. And I'm still waiting for my Toyota to evolve into a BMW.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Why is it that everyone can look at an automobile and know that it could have never built itself, started itself, and reproduced itself? But when one looks at a single cell that is far more complex than an automobile they imagine it could have built itself, started itself, and reproduced itself. And I'm still waiting for my Toyota to evolve into a BMW.

This is the "watchmaker fallacy". Computer simulations using the rules of Evolution show that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly generated yet naturally selected steps, rather than an intelligent designer.

Comparison to the "lucky" construction of a BMW or watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not appeal to "luck". Rather than luck, the evolution of life is the cumulative result of random changes + natural selection. Evolution is a fair contestant to replace god in the role of watchmaker.

The watchmaker fallacy is a self-refuting argument: if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (god) must also have been designed by something yet more complex.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

I'm still waiting for my Toyota to evolve into a BMW.

The history of car evolution mimics animal evolution. You can't arrive "miraculously" to a BMW without having gone through the history of car evolution/selection (trial and error) since 1885, so actually BMWs have evolved form older, simpler cars too.

Originally posted by Brasov

The watchmaker fallacy is a self-refuting argument: if complex things must have been intelligently designed by something more complex than themselves, then anything posited as this complex designer (god) must also have been designed by something yet more complex.

But this is where you are incorrect the creator lives outside the laws of the creation. Thus the creator also lives outside the bounds of time. If there is no time than what was and is always was and is. Time is an illusion and the creator does not live by the laws of the creation. Therefore what has to be in what we see does not have to be for something that is outside of the creation. You only know what you see and can test. Because you are bound by these principles does not bind the creator to these principles.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

But this is where you are incorrect the creator lives outside the laws of the creation. Thus the creator also lives outside the bounds of time.

That's just kicking the can. Transferring the "creation" problem to an imaginary world outside of the Universe doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it out of sight.

It is also a non-scientific conjecture because it's impossible to conceive any experiment that would contradict what you propose, am I wrong?

Originally posted by sacgamer25

You only know what you see and can test. Because you are bound by these principles does not bind the creator to these principles.

If the creator can't be seen or tested, then it belongs to the realm of fantasy side by side with fairies, elves and pink elephants balancing on a spiderweb on the edge of the parallel flat universe.

But the most important concept is this:

a creator is not needed to explain the observable universe, there are simpler explanations that don't invoke magic.

That's what this thread is about.

reply to post by Brasov


This is not so most science agree that there was something prior to what we see that was not bound by the laws of what we see. Here is something for you to think about.

The singularity

No matter what route you take I would like you to consider a few things. First, all things had a beginning; science now calls this a singularity. Science has proven that the universe in its current state appears to both be expanding and dying. All the matter that is, is all the matter that can be. Science tries desperately to explain away God with complex theories that simply don’t match observable science.

So understanding that everything had to have started from a singularity and understanding that most everyone accepts that singularity as Devine, then everything came from that singularity.

Now if there were multiple God’s we would still be part of only one singularity. For each God per say would be the foundation of their own singularity. So even if more than one God existed that would be irrelevant because we are all part of the same singularity. Which means we are all part of one creation. Multiple God’s would be multiple creations. But since we are all part of one creation the existence of other creations is meaningless to us.

Seeing that there is only one singularity that we refer to as God, it is logical to assume that there is only one creation. We know for certain we are all part of one creation, and thus know that we are all part of one exact plan. Science and math are our friends on this one. Everything that we see or touch follows an exact plan, if the plan was off by just the tinniest of margins creation would cease to exist. Again pointing to the singularity.

So if we can agree on a singularity and that singularity being divine why can we not agree that just as creation must follow only one plan that there is indeed only one plan. All other plans then cannot be the plan of the singularity but the plan of the created. However the plan of the created simply cannot be the same plan as the creator. So this points back to the singularity, one creator, one plan.

Now if we understand the singularity as God, then we realize that God is both a scientist and mathematician for all that we see is understood by these two observations. Since God has created something based on a perfect plan his creation must indeed follow one perfect plan. To deny that the perfect creator created anything less than a perfect plan is to deny the singularity and what is observable through math and science. A logical creator as this would not leave the creation with an illogical answer. So the logical answer is again one creator one plan.

You see anyone can believe in God, as a matter of fact there is from a worldview almost no debate. Therefore the true debate should be what God’s true plan is. If you continue to seek the truth over the multitude of religions it as if you are trying to build your own God, you could save yourself the effort and just believe what you want. If you look long enough you will make God what you want anyway.

Again anyone can believe in God but it takes faith to believe in one God with one Plan.

I provide this argument not so much that you choose Christ, although I do believe that he is the one true path. And it is more likely that Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and other religions adopted Christ than it is the bible adopted them. In the event of a singularity there is only one source, not one manuscript from any religion that is compared to Christ can be found that predates Christ. But even if you choose a different path I urge you to have complete faith in that one path that leads to the singularity.

You can continue to wait for science to explain the singularity, or you can accept that God is the only logical singularity.

What Say I?

i say i cant watch the video at work, its blocked..... what say you to that!?

but after reading about 10 replies i can say that i still believe the earth is more than 5000years old and wasnt created by a 'higher power'.
the 'creator' would have to come and slap me in the face and say "OI! I CREATED THIS!"

Originally posted by sacgamer25

This is not so most science agree that there was something prior to what we see that was not bound by the laws of what we see. Here is something for you to think about.

The singularity

No matter what route you take I would like you to consider a few things. First, all things had a beginning; science now calls this a singularity. Science has proven that the universe in its current state appears to both be expanding and dying.

The discussion about Evolution (the variety and adaptations of life) is one topic. The discussions about the origins of the Universe and the origins of life (the first cell) are unrelated topics.

When defeated by evolutionists, creationists often switch topic and pretend they're discussing the same thing.

You can always open a thread about the origins of life or the origins of the Universe and we'll meet there, but please don't contaminate this thread.

Originally posted by Brasov

a creator is not needed to explain the observable universe, there are simpler explanations that don't invoke magic.

That's what this thread is about.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Brasov because: (no reason given)

Really there is? Did this logical explanation come out yesterday? You know one that matches observable science and is not fantasy?

String theory is fantasy if you weren’t sure, since it cannot be proven by math or observable science.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

String theory is fantasy if you weren’t sure, since it cannot be proven by math or observable science.

Again, this thread is about Evolution (the variety and adaptation of life), what is the relevance of string theory to this?

The variety and adaptation of life can be explained without invoking magic, OK?

Stay on topic, please.

Originally posted by Brasov

Originally posted by sacgamer25

This is not so most science agree that there was something prior to what we see that was not bound by the laws of what we see. Here is something for you to think about.

The singularity

No matter what route you take I would like you to consider a few things. First, all things had a beginning; science now calls this a singularity. Science has proven that the universe in its current state appears to both be expanding and dying.

The discussion about the evolution of living beings is one topic. The discussions about the origins of the Universe and the origins of life (the first cell) are unrelated topics.

When defeated by evolutionists, creationists often switch topic and pretend they're discussing the same thing.

You can always open a thread about the origins of life or the origins of the Universe and we'll meet there, but please don't contaminate this thread.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Brasov because: (no reason given)

When confronted with origins, evolutionists always want to ignore that they simply have to say I don't know. And they know as well as I do that I don't know is not an intelligent answer. You can continue to have faith in something that YOU CANNOT prove, evolution. There is NO PROOF for evolution. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that suggests anything can be added to an organism that will cause it to to become a more complex, more intelligent organism. Organisms adapt, they do not, have not, and cannot evolve into more complex life. There is ZERO evidence that this has ever happened or ever will.

I may not be able to prove to you that God is real but GOD HAS PROVIDED ME PROOF that he is real.
So again you can continue to believe in things that no one can prove or you can believe in something that many have proven.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

When confronted with origins, evolutionists always want to ignore that they simply have to say I don't know.

The starting position of Religion is "I know". Creationists start with the conclusion right away: the dogma. From there on any observation that contradicts their dogma is ignored/denied so that the dogma always prevails. Their only rule is "to preserve the dogma at any cost". Religion refuses to change its preconceived conclusions regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.

The starting position of Science is always "I don't know". From there on conjectures are made based on what we know (laws of Physics and Chemistry). If a conjecture is confirmed by observations then it becomes a theory. If new observations contradict the theory then it is updated or discarded and alternative, more accurate explanations are sought.

I repeat, open a thread about the origins and we'll meet there, but please (for the third time) let's not deviate this thread.

"?" Is a symbol, although not complex it has functionaly specified information attatched to it via intelligence separate to it's physical characteristics.

It can alter a number of different characters function. For example it can turn a statement into a question, or it can imply some uncertainty to the statement. What do we infer from this string of characters functionaly specified information.

Loads of evidence = Cotranslational protein folding—fact or fiction?

Nope, not a single answer to any of the problems proposed in this thread. Not one. Just more unfounded "just so" stories.

Originally posted by squiz

Loads of evidence = Cotranslational protein folding—fact or fiction?

Nope, not a single answer to any of the problems proposed in this thread. Not one. Just more unfounded "just so" stories.

Typical creationist denial. When the dogma crashes against the facts, deny the facts.

No one expected your religious mind to question its preconceived dogmas. Even if a thunderbolt hits you in the backside you'll deny it.

reply to post by Brasov


Is that even an answer?

Go back and read the rest of the thread, You obviously haven't. I'm not religious, never read the bible. So sorry so that doesn't work on me. See how you just made an ssumption based on lack of evidence? Easy to do without critical thought isn't it?

Typical response though, you guys are a cliche, full of pre programmed responses lacking in original thought.

I'm only interested in the scientific facts. Darwinism is refuted under close scientific scrutiny, it's impossible. This has become clear in the last few years. I've presented several very recent research papers on a variety of issues that have overturned some long held assumptions. In most cases it comes from within darwin evolutionary research field itself including population genetics.

Typical denialist response that has to resort to religiion bashing, it's much easier than responding to the difficult scientific questions. And typically the denialist filters out any evidence to the contrary as well as denying a simple thing like the fact that protein folds are one of the biggest enigmas in biology, that no true biologist would ever deny. And denying actual experimental evidence that actualy verifies the problem that is related. Yes it's much easier than actually answering anything. Much easier to point to a computer simulation and go "see? Proof!".

So much for the scientific method.

Then hypocrytical we state ID is not science, where are the scientific peer reviewed papers confirming the existance of god? where is the experimental proof?

You aren't doing any favours for your particular faith.

Originally posted by squiz

I'm only interested in the scientific facts. Darwinism is refuted under close scientific scrutiny,

I haven't seen any scientific facts from you. You're just babbling and denying.

I contrast I've provided scientific facts linked to scientific publications for your automatic, knee-jerk denying.

reply to post by Brasov


Ok, sure. If you say so.

This is where I say to Both sides Sit down, Shut up and listen to This!

YOUR ALL WRONG !

I believe in Creationism and Evolution - because they can Both be valid.

Science is just as much a religion as any if one is not willing to be objective and open minded - even open minded to the possibility that God exists.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Oh man, Thank you.

I'd be happy with just acknowleding the criticisms and dealing with them, instead of being labeled and ridiculed.

Forget about the origin of the biological information for a moment or the concept of a higher intelligent intent.

It's completely fair to say that Darwinism is not up to the task of explaining evolution. And we should look further inside the realms of natural causes. Some scientists do actually feel this way.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

I believe in Creationism and Evolution - because they can Both be valid.

Wrong. Creationism is a preconceived conclusion that no amount of evidence can ever change.

Creationism started in ancient times when man had no knowledge of Nature and everything was explained away by myths. Creationism hasn't moved an inch since the caveman and it will never move an inch from today.

Also, Creationism is a non-explanation, it only passes the problem on to an imaginary entity.

What creationists fail to see that proposing an entity that had no beginning is the same as proposing a Universe that had no beginning. The reasoning is the same, but the latter is more probable giving the principle of Economy that an explanation should not unnecessary multiply the number of entities involved.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Science is just as much a religion as any if one is not willing to be objective and open minded - even open minded to the possibility that God exists.