tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post4264689678935826289..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: The RNA WorldMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55316496032025158672010-09-22T09:48:48.522-07:002010-09-22T09:48:48.522-07:00Life on Earth May Have Had an Icy Start
The cracks...<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS367823573220100922" rel="nofollow">Life on Earth May Have Had an Icy Start</a><br /><i>The cracks in ice could have served as a safe environment — much like a cell — for the first life on Earth to replicate and evolve.<br /><br />The study adds plausibility to the ‘ RNA World’ hypothesis that argues life began with a single stranded molecule capable of self-replication...</i>Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86957030582853831842010-02-03T15:16:53.301-08:002010-02-03T15:16:53.301-08:00The money paragraph:
In the prologue to his book ...The money paragraph:<br /><br /><i>In the prologue to his book Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer states that it is an attempt to make a comprehensive, interdisciplinary argument for the Intelligent Design view of the origin of life. But as the author himself concedes (in an appendix on page 496), the discovery of a precursor to DNA (such as RNA) would demolish the whole edifice. A “key prediction” is that “Future experiments will continue to show that RNA catalysts lack the capacities necessary to render the RNA world scenario plausible”. It is Stephen Meyer’s bad luck to have published his book in 2009, the very year that the RNA world scenario became eminently plausible. In February of that year came the discovery of the self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme, by Lincoln and Joyce (Science, Vol 323, pp1,229–32). In March came the identification of the prebiotic translation apparatus (a dimer of self-folding RNA units) within the contemporary ribosome, by Yonath et al (Nature Proceedings, Posted March 4, 2009). Finally, in May came the discovery of the synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions, by Powner et al (Nature, Vol 459, pp239–42). I am afraid that reality has overtaken Meyer’s book and its flawed reasoning.</i>Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22061277979988878972010-02-03T15:15:08.897-08:002010-02-03T15:15:08.897-08:00The Times Literary Supplement, Feb 3, 2010
Intelli...The Times Literary Supplement, Feb 3, 2010<br /><a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7013742.ece" rel="nofollow">Intelligent Design</a><br /><br /><i>Sir, – Stephen C. Meyer and Thomas Nagel are both sceptical of the chemical theory of evolution (Letters, January 15). Nagel suggests no alternative, but Meyer advocates a theory known as Intelligent Design, which proposes that certain features of living things were introduced by a supernatural being at various times in the past. He has also written a book about it. Nagel initially puffed the book using quasi-scientific quotations, but now confesses that he took “the presentation of the data largely on trust”.<br /><br />The theory of Intelligent Design makes some outlandish claims about DNA and proteins...<br /></i><br /><br />STEPHEN FLETCHER<br />Department of Chemistry, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55122285634228383822009-10-07T05:48:21.848-07:002009-10-07T05:48:21.848-07:00Nobel Prize for chemistry of life
The 2009 chemist...<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8294421.stm" rel="nofollow">Nobel Prize for chemistry of life</a><br /><i>The 2009 chemistry Nobel Prize has been awarded to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz and Ada Yonath.<br /><br />The prize is awarded for the study of the structure and function of the ribosome - the cell's protein factory.</i>Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32056100852286649442009-05-14T09:06:00.000-07:002009-05-14T09:06:00.000-07:00Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point fo...<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html" REL="nofollow">Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life</A><BR>By NICHOLAS WADE<br />Published: May 13, 2009 (NYTimes)<br /><br /><I>An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago.<br /><br />He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life — how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.<br />...<br />In the article in Nature, Dr. Sutherland and his colleagues Matthew W. Powner and Béatrice Gerland report that they have taken the same starting chemicals used by others but have caused them to react in a different order and in different combinations than in previous experiments. they discovered their recipe, which is far from intuitive, after 10 years of working through every possible combination of starting chemicals.<br />...</I>Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47526072742042092582009-03-04T06:40:00.000-08:002009-03-04T06:40:00.000-08:00A hierarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosoma...<A HREF="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7232/full/nature07749.html" REL="nofollow">A hierarchical model for evolution of 23S ribosomal RNA</A><BR/>Konstantin Bokov & Sergey V. Steinberg<BR/>Nature 457, 977-980 (19 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07749<BR/><BR/>The emergence of the ribosome constituted a pivotal step in the evolution of life. This event happened nearly four billion years ago, and any traces of early stages of ribosome evolution are generally thought to have completely eroded away. Surprisingly, a detailed analysis of the structure of the modern ribosome reveals a concerted and modular scheme of its early evolution.<BR/>...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-79097803976193307222009-01-16T13:58:00.000-08:002009-01-16T13:58:00.000-08:00Oops. I meant to write "and so must have some inte...Oops. I meant to write "and so must have some interaction with the <B>material</B> world."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44633295691587131542009-01-16T06:15:00.000-08:002009-01-16T06:15:00.000-08:00One: nobody every said that they are made of anyth...<I>One: nobody every said that they are made of anything with molecules.</I><BR/><BR/>Nobody said that, and nobody said the opposite*. The very lack of hypotheses and evidence is my point.<BR/><BR/><BR/>* Actually, in the Bible, angels are visible and audible to people, and so must have some interaction with the Biblical world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3425666516227916382009-01-15T19:24:00.000-08:002009-01-15T19:24:00.000-08:00Reginald, YOU WIN. There are no angel fossils and...Reginald, YOU WIN. There are no angel fossils and there never will be and I can't find you any.<BR/><BR/>One: nobody every said that they are made of anything with molecules.<BR/><BR/>Two: they would have had to be crushed in the special conditions needed to form fossils (highly unlikely, if they had any sense to protect themselves). :)Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26856098615683176742009-01-13T06:20:00.000-08:002009-01-13T06:20:00.000-08:00Writing things like these make you look ridiculous...<I>Writing things like these make you look ridiculous not credibly scientific, academic, Reginald. Marks off.<BR/>...<BR/>Ah, yes, I forgot, angels are the missing link.</I><BR/><BR/>This would leave you to explain why you consider my remark about angel fossils to be ridiculous. There are several possibilities.<BR/><BR/>1) You are aware that there actually are angel skeleton fossils, and you can provide a reference for that information.<BR/><BR/>2) You know that angels do not leave fossils, and your evidence for concluding this is...<BR/><BR/>3) You believe that the Intelligent Designer did not use angels when He designed - and implemented - the many facets of the biological world which you attribute to Intelligent Design. Your evidence for believing this is...<BR/><BR/><BR/>You might notice a common factor here. While you seem to consider angel fossils to be ridiculous, you have not proposed any alternative hypothesis to compete with my offerings, and you have not supplied <B>any evidence whatsoever</B> either for why you should feel justified in doubting the prevailing scientific view, or in support of the alternative view you have not bothered to offer.<BR/><BR/>Since you are concerned with what is "credibly scientific," these omissions must cause you great concern, and you must feel a like a hypocrite suggesting that someone else is not "credibly scientific" when you yourself are not dealing in hypotheses and evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64045461383712543902009-01-13T06:06:00.000-08:002009-01-13T06:06:00.000-08:00Talk.Origins, one of the most comprehensive Intern...<A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/" REL="nofollow">Talk.Origins</A>, one of the most comprehensive Internet archives of information on evolution and creationism, is back in action.<BR/><BR/>Another book I can recommend is <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Life-Earth-Historical-Scientific/dp/0813527406/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231855382&sr=1-2" REL="nofollow">The Emergence of Life on Earth</A> by Iris Fry (2000, Rutgers University Press). It gives a more historical view of the inquiry into the origin of life than the Robert Hazen book, but is a few years older, longer, and somewhat dry.<BR/><BR/>If you want to see a recent negative outlook from a scientifically respectable source, see <A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life" REL="nofollow">A Simpler Origin of Life</A> by Robert Shapiro, Scientific American, February 12, 2007.<BR/><I>The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. Energy-driven networks of small molecules afford better odds as the initiators of life.</I><BR/>While Shapiro questions the RNA World scenario, he does not go in for Intelligent Design, but instead favors a scientific theory called "metabolism-first." By the way, the mischaracterization of opposing theories with terms like "sudden appearance" is one reason I do not agree with Shapiro.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-19417818039593241452009-01-12T11:08:00.000-08:002009-01-12T11:08:00.000-08:00"If you know of fossil, or other credible scientif..."If you know of fossil, or other credible scientific evidence of angels, please share."<BR/><BR/>Ah, yes, I forgot, angels are the missing link.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-89069850945702969062009-01-11T12:51:00.000-08:002009-01-11T12:51:00.000-08:00Writing things like these make you look ridiculous...<I>Writing things like these make you look ridiculous not credibly scientific, academic, Reginald. Marks off.</I><BR/><BR/>If you know of fossil, or other credible scientific evidence of angels, please share. Or any other positive evidence of how an Intelligent Designer might have designed - and implemented - the natural world. Otherwise you may understand that at this stage I am not at all impressed with your ideas about what is and is not credibly scientific.<BR/><BR/>At least when I show some attitude, there is substance behind it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-18266248294642604992009-01-11T11:40:00.000-08:002009-01-11T11:40:00.000-08:00Dear Reginald: thank you for your patient respons...Dear Reginald: thank you for your patient response (and the generous marking scheme! :)<BR/><BR/>I wrote before that my internet was not accessible most of the holidays. (small outfit via cell phone tower).<BR/><BR/>I also buried my son this week (18 years old).-- I sure hope there is more to life than molecules.<BR/><BR/>I will try to get through my reading assignments as time allows.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"No fossil skeletons of angels have been found in the fossil record. Absolutely none."<BR/><BR/>Writing things like these make you look ridiculous not credibly scientific, academic, Reginald. Marks off.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31151999482893377462009-01-09T06:57:00.000-08:002009-01-09T06:57:00.000-08:00Heard on NPR's All Things Considered, January 8, 2...Heard on NPR's <I>All Things Considered</I>, January 8, 2009:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99132608" REL="nofollow">In Lab, Clues To How Life Began</A><BR/>(audio, 4:05)<BR/><BR/>A report on research published in this week's <I>Science</I> magazine:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856" REL="nofollow">Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme </A><BR/>Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce<BR/>Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1982004248750926372009-01-03T12:47:00.000-08:002009-01-03T12:47:00.000-08:00Reginald, I found this list of implausibilities of...<I>Reginald, I found this list of implausibilities of the RNA world<BR/>here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/cairns-smith_RNA.asp<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>or are all the listed implausibilities thrown over by current research? How do you reasonably get any RNA floating around making protein?</I><BR/><BR/>Answers in Genesis? Those are the people who run the Creation Museum. You could start by finding some better resources. Frankly it's shocking that someone who claims to be a science teacher cannot figure out where to look for up-to-date, accurate information.<BR/><BR/>I provided quite a few resources above. Have you looked into any of them? The book by Robert Hazen would probably be most relevant, as it is a fairly recent (2005) and it is a broad-ranging overview of the origins of life field by a leading researcher. It should be fairly accessible to non-specialists.<BR/><BR/>Your link is to a Creationist site discussing an article by A.G. Cairns-Smith which was published in 1982. Yes, that is a bit dated. The discussion itself is not signed or dated; possibly it is by Dean Kenyon. The author provides a list of 19 obstacles to acceptance of the RNA World theory.<BR/><BR/>I have read Cairns-Smith's book <I>Seven Clues to the Origin of Life</I>, which I found interesting, but it was published in 1985, so it too is dated. He happens to favor a role for clay.<BR/><BR/>I consider the biological evidence of a central role for RNA in ribozymes, ribosomes, and elsewhere (I didn't even mention enzymatic cofactors) to be convincing evidence that the RNA World actually existed, and that some remnant of it continues in every modern cell. As I already stated, most biologists accept the RNA World theory. Since there is evidence that this actually did occur, I am not particularly swayed by arguments as to the improbability that it did not.<BR/><BR/>The list of difficulties mostly address the chemical plausibility of getting to an RNA World. These can be countered in a number of ways. Some counter-arguments are linked above in my original post. Points off for you for any argument I have to repeat. It gives the impression you're just not paying attention.<BR/><BR/>This one is a repeat:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.physorg.com/news74184949.html" REL="nofollow">Researchers Study Formation Of Chemical Precursors to Life</A><BR/><I>In just two years of work, an international research team has discovered eight new complex, biologically-significant molecules in interstellar space using the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia.<BR/><BR/>"This is a feat unprecedented in the 35-year history of searching for complex molecules in space and suggests that a universal prebiotic chemistry is at work," said Jan M. Hollis of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, leader of the research team.<BR/><BR/>The new discoveries are helping scientists unlock the secrets of how the molecular precursors to life can form in the giant clouds of gas and dust in which stars and planets are born...</I><BR/><BR/>These precursors are so abundant that interstellar clouds of them can be identified spectroscopically from a distance of several hundred light years.<BR/><BR/>Along the same lines:<BR/><I>The Varieties of Scientific Experience</I>, by Carl Sagan (published post-humously in 2006). As a planetary scientist, Sagan was aware of the huge amount of organic gunk that exists in comets, asteroids, and on the surface of planets and moons that have stable surfaces. There's an awful lot of this crud, and it presumably includes a large number of different organic molecules.<BR/><BR/>The exact composition of the early Earth's surface is not precisely known. This means that the yea-sayers are speculating. But it also means that the nay-sayers are speculating just as much.<BR/><BR/>Even the concentration of oxygen in the early atmosphere is still under active scientific debate. It is known to have been low, but just how low? Would it have interfered with various proposed reactions?<BR/><BR/>As for the plausibility of certain molecules forming, I think objections are premature. Most of the discussion is about the original Urey-Miler experiments, and follow-ups to them. In these experiments a small number of chemicals (ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc) are sealed in a container, which is then subjected to electrical arcing, or some such. Variations in ingredients and conditions are still producing new findings.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=1" REL="nofollow">Did Life Evolve in Ice?</A><BR/>2008<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/10/17/new-results-from-a-1953-experiment-offer-hints-to-the-origin-of-life/" REL="nofollow">New Results from a 1953 Experiment Offer Hints to the Origin of Life</A><BR/>2008<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/12/08/devastating-meteorite-strikes-may-have-created-earths-first-organic-molecules/" REL="nofollow">Devastating Meteorite Strikes May Have Created Earth’s First Organic Molecules</A><BR/>2008<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated" REL="nofollow">Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment</A><BR/>2007<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/89" REL="nofollow">How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?</A><BR/>2005<BR/><BR/>The origin of Earthly life is not something that happened in a carefully controlled flask. Imagine a laboratory the size of a planet, with an amazing variety of different environments in which unregulated chemistry was happening: warm puddles, yes, but also hot smoker vents, pyrrhite chimneys, geysers, deep underground, possibly ice packs (Incidentally, all environments in which modern cellular life is know known to thrive). The wide-openness of the question favors the yea-sayers.<BR/><BR/>----<BR/>To switch gears, here's a couple fairly recent things about the plausibility of RNA replication:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218213634.htm" REL="nofollow">Origin Of Life On Earth: Simple Fusion To Jump-start Evolution</A><BR/>Points off: already posted by Eric Sotnak.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;313/5786/447.pdf" REL="nofollow">Self-correcting messages</A><BR/><I>Mistakes can occur as RNA polymerase copies DNA into transcripts. A proofreading mechanism that removes the incorrect RNA is triggered by the erroneous RNA itself.</I><BR/>2006<BR/><BR/>-----------------------<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile let's consider the evidence for alternative hypotheses:<BR/><BR/>No fossil skeletons of angels have been found in the fossil record. Absolutely none.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-19025484384290897362009-01-03T11:29:00.000-08:002009-01-03T11:29:00.000-08:00It's great that RNA can make proteins. BUT we stil...<I>It's great that RNA can make proteins. BUT we still have no evidence for an RNA world, per se,--<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Yes, there is evidence. Some of it was presented above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-24542968830729495662009-01-02T08:14:00.000-08:002009-01-02T08:14:00.000-08:00Sorry, guys, I'm in process. I see now that rever...Sorry, guys, I'm in process. I see now that reverse transcriptase has nothing to do with the plausibility of getting polynucleotides in primordial waters. <BR/><BR/>It's great that RNA can make proteins. BUT we still have no evidence for an RNA world, per se,-- or are all the listed implausibilities thrown over by current research? How do you reasonably get any RNA floating around making protein?Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78034884175540088352009-01-01T17:34:00.000-08:002009-01-01T17:34:00.000-08:00Matt, I understand what you are saying, but I'm no...Matt, I understand what you are saying, but I'm not educated enough at this point to evaluate the RNA theory. And yes, not in spite of, but on top of everything empirical, there are conclusions that cannot be strictly empirical. There is more than what can be measured.<BR/><BR/>So, you think, to be consistent I HAVE to argue against RNA world?<BR/><BR/>Reginald, I found this list of implausibilities of the RNA world<BR/>here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/cairns-smith_RNA.asp<BR/><BR/>I posted them on my blog, too. You can write about it there, if you want. Or are all these objections completely outdated due to discovery of reverse transcriptase?Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2858073503709230062008-12-29T07:04:00.000-08:002008-12-29T07:04:00.000-08:00I'm just wondering if you make as much fun of para...<I>I'm just wondering if you make as much fun of parallel universes as you do in the belief in heaven?</I><BR/><BR/>When believers in parallel universes start insisting that I live my life according their beliefs, refrain from publicly mocking them, and use governmental power to enforce those insistences, then I will take your analogy seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86235242977696940102008-12-28T16:25:00.000-08:002008-12-28T16:25:00.000-08:00Bror Erickson wrote:"I'm just wondering if you mak...Bror Erickson wrote:<BR/>"I'm just wondering if you make as much fun of parallel universes as you do in the belief in heaven?"<BR/><BR/>Hmm.. first off, I don't think I made fun of the belief in heaven. Rather, I stated some reasons why such a belief is problematic.<BR/><BR/>Consider another problem: On your view, one's physical body is brought back (by magic) from a state of decay and dissolution. How do all the physical constituents of one's body get transported to wherever Heaven is? Again, the only answer I suspect you can offer is: "By magic".<BR/><BR/>So again you should detect a theme here. I am skeptical of a great many theistic claims because the only way of explaining those claims is by appealing to magic. And I don't happen to find that much of an explanation at all.<BR/><BR/>But if you can offer alternate explanations that DON'T appeal to magic, I'm willing to listen.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50159099900815798532008-12-28T14:58:00.000-08:002008-12-28T14:58:00.000-08:00The point, which you seem to be missing Brigitte (...The point, which you seem to be missing Brigitte (and that you should have learned in all of your advanced molecular biology classes), is that as we go back in evolutionary history we explain each stage in simpler and simpler parts, reducing the complication of the mechanism and removing the illusion of purposeful design. So when we explain DNA in terms of RNA, and then RNA in terms of simpler chemical processes, there is LESS to marvel at, not more. Marveling at the remarkable complexity or good fit of parts in the whole is only fitting if you presuppose that the whole completed thing was designed. <BR/><BR/>It really is obvious that you've switched from trying to give empirical evidence for design on the basis of molecular complexity to just insisting that you'll be amazed at God's creation no matter what the alternative scientific explanation is. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27871373559315033932008-12-28T13:45:00.000-08:002008-12-28T13:45:00.000-08:00For example, my much admired protein molecules and...For example, my much admired protein molecules and the incredible cellular machinery, at some point might have been someone's explanation that everything is science and natural explanations and God is not needed to design it. It tells me the opposite.<BR/><BR/>If you find some super elegant RNA world that explains how things were even earlier, then I will still probably honestly be marveling at the neat mechanism.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>... I would be likely marveling at THAT mechanism, is what I meant. The issue remains the same, it just gets moved to different arenas.Brigittehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259491144770243688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64455257044483920962008-12-28T07:38:00.000-08:002008-12-28T07:38:00.000-08:00Reginald,How would you know if I drank the poison ...Reginald,<BR/>How would you know if I drank the poison or not? I'll let you know that I have not, your inductive reasoning has led you right this time. But the passage of which you speak has its fulfillment in the ministry of the Apostles, Paul being bit by a snake after shipwreck etc. And I stand with Jesus in that whole not testing God thing. If you want to attack a religion learn what it believes.Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84702153911846547262008-12-28T07:36:00.000-08:002008-12-28T07:36:00.000-08:00"It seems that you are willing to accept scientifi..."It seems that you are willing to accept scientific hypotheses when they support your religious beliefs, but not when they don't. That seems to be a case of cherry-picking your evidence, to me."<BR/>I accept a lot of science that has nothing to do with my faith also. But I don't know that I accept string theory or not. I'm just wondering if you make as much fun of parallel universes as you do in the belief in heaven?Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.com