Evidence for God from Science

BGood:

Remember, that using something that already exists and making it come together is different from creating the building blocks from scratch--no materials. Do you get it? If not, here's a little story that might help:

There was a scientist who decided that humankind no longer needed God. He had determined, from extensive work in the lab, that people could make people just as well as God could. He came to God with his deduction and stated, "God, we don't need you. We've figured out how to make people on our own." God said, "Really? Okay. I challenge you to a man-making contest. Sunday, meet me here." The scientist was greatly excited. Come Sunday, he met God. God, being as generous as He is, said, "Okay, you first." The scientist proudly reached down and placed some dirt into a testtube. God laughed, "Ah, ah, ah...you need to find your own stuff."

The fact that "stuff" comes together that God has already made is just another testimony of God's perfection. He made it so wonderfully...like the most beautiful puzzle ever created.

One major problem I see with the article is it is saying that the chances of a DNA sequence to correctly encode for a functioning protein are very small. The problem with this is that if I mixed nucleic acids in a vial and shake them around the chances of some of the chains encoding for a protein becomes almost 100%. Its like a quantum computer, all the solutions resolve at once and nature sorts out the ones which work.

First, that only shows the genius of chemists, but it doesn't reflect the real world, and second, we need functioning proteins. And, of course, that doesn't solve your problems at all.

"If man can do it in a lab, then it can be done by unguided forces too!"

Hey Kmart,
I have trouble with abstract generalizations covering broad areas so I tried posing simple questions concerning specific details. I don't know whether I am not making my thoughts clear or whether I cannot understand your responses, but I am not learning much regarding my questions.
sandy

Which questions? The why I said your statement was a strawman?

Mystical wrote:BGood:

Remember, that using something that already exists and making it come together is different from creating the building blocks from scratch--no materials. Do you get it? If not, here's a little story that might help:

I see your point but I don't see how it applies to scientific investigation.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

One major problem I see with the article is it is saying that the chances of a DNA sequence to correctly encode for a functioning protein are very small. The problem with this is that if I mixed nucleic acids in a vial and shake them around the chances of some of the chains encoding for a protein becomes almost 100%. Its like a quantum computer, all the solutions resolve at once and nature sorts out the ones which work.

First, that only shows the genius of chemists, but it doesn't reflect the real world, and second, we need functioning proteins. And, of course, that doesn't solve your problems at all.

"If man can do it in a lab, then it can be done by unguided forces too!"

I don't think you understand. The nucleic acids combine by themselves, without any coaxing from a chemist.
Subsequently the RNA strands assemble proteins using amino acids.
This is an inherent property of nucleic acid strands.

Nothing...I never mentioned scientific inquiry even in beginning this thread.

Mystical wrote:Nothing...I never mentioned scientific inquiry even in beginning this thread.

I'm sorry.
I thought the article linked to, used scientific findings as a basis for a mathematical proof for ID.

I'm a bit confused now.

Really? You're the one who said it. Nothing really to be confused about. The article is more about logic, and probability than about experimentation. When I started the thread, my goal was not to analyze any available "proof" for God, but to allow others to further witness and understand His wonder. Clearer?

Mystical wrote:Really? You're the one who said it. Nothing really to be confused about. The article is more about logic, and probability than about experimentation. When I started the thread, my goal was not to analyze any available "proof" for God, but to allow others to further witness and understand His wonder. Clearer?

Crystal,

In any case my critique of the article was regarding the misrepresentation of the possibilities of certain things happening. The author either left out or does not understand the quantum nature of reality.

Actually, nothing was misrepresented. The thesis is that life as we know it could not have arisen by chance. My friend, you have provided no evidence to prove otherwise. Not agreeing with the evidence provided means nothing. I'm sorry.

Mystical wrote:Actually, nothing was misrepresented. The thesis is that life as we know it could not have arisen by chance. My friend, you have provided no evidence to prove otherwise. Not agreeing with the evidence provided means nothing. I'm sorry.

Very well I respect your opinion.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

One major problem I see with the article is it is saying that the chances of a DNA sequence to correctly encode for a functioning protein are very small. The problem with this is that if I mixed nucleic acids in a vial and shake them around the chances of some of the chains encoding for a protein becomes almost 100%. Its like a quantum computer, all the solutions resolve at once and nature sorts out the ones which work.

First, that only shows the genius of chemists, but it doesn't reflect the real world, and second, we need functioning proteins. And, of course, that doesn't solve your problems at all.

"If man can do it in a lab, then it can be done by unguided forces too!"

I don't think you understand. The nucleic acids combine by themselves, without any coaxing from a chemist.
Subsequently the RNA strands assemble proteins using amino acids.
This is an inherent property of nucleic acid strands.

First, the chemist must get the right chemicals together and avoid the wrong ones. Second, you're begging the question. RNA hypothesis is it? And where do the amino acids come from?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

One major problem I see with the article is it is saying that the chances of a DNA sequence to correctly encode for a functioning protein are very small. The problem with this is that if I mixed nucleic acids in a vial and shake them around the chances of some of the chains encoding for a protein becomes almost 100%. Its like a quantum computer, all the solutions resolve at once and nature sorts out the ones which work.

First, that only shows the genius of chemists, but it doesn't reflect the real world, and second, we need functioning proteins. And, of course, that doesn't solve your problems at all.

"If man can do it in a lab, then it can be done by unguided forces too!"

I don't think you understand. The nucleic acids combine by themselves, without any coaxing from a chemist.
Subsequently the RNA strands assemble proteins using amino acids.
This is an inherent property of nucleic acid strands.

First, the chemist must get the right chemicals together and avoid the wrong ones. Second, you're begging the question. RNA hypothesis is it? And where do the amino acids come from?

You seem to be a chemical expert, where do amino acids come from?

I'm asking you. How did they form? The chemicals present during Earth's atmosphere gives you no (or, to make sure I don't leave myself open, possibly one or two...) amino acids.