Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: Akragon

Then certain states removed science and replaced it with Christian science

a reply to: Noinden

Oh its not just in the states...

They're all over the place in Canada too... the "God did it" crowd

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Where did I see it reached the end?

As for did you state it as the only answer? What is the subject of the entire thread? IS the word ONLY in there?

Yes, of course, it's in there but you quoted it or used it out of CONTEXT.

Makes a BIG difference to say The ONLY answer as opposed to The ONLY LOGICAL answer.

To illustrate my point. You claim you're a scientist. So in light of this claim - as a scientist, can please explain LOGICALLY to us - the uneducated - what Prof. Hawking meant when he said the following?

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Can you make sense of it?

Don't have to. The book you pulled that from explains it. That's why they wrote the book, so they can spell it out for people who aren't physicists or astrologists or chemists or mathematicians. Have you actually read the grand design by Stephen hawking and Leonard mlodinow? Would you mind quoting the context in which that selection appears?

a reply to: Akragon

Canada removed evolution from the curriculum? Surely not?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Come now, that is unfair, that would totally invalidate him using that quote

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Canada removed evolution from the curriculum? Surely not?

lol no no...

We have "christian" schools that do that for them...

Public schools are very different from those

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

You have yet to prove that it is Logical. Thus it is not a big difference. You've indeed not talked about the alternatives. You cited Professor Hawkins, yet do not cite him in total. Lets make this clear Dr Hawkings, states quite clearly "God did not create the universe".

So when you prove that Creation is Logical, I will concede that you have a point. Hell will be around 0 Kelvin at that point I believe. You have also not proven the alternatives to be illogical. Therefore only is also subjective

I already did show that Creation is the only LOGICAL explanation to the existence of the universe.

But to your point "Dr Hawkings, states quite clearly "God did not create the universe". That much is obvious, we know that already but what I'm getting at is the WHY or the scientific part HOW.

Why would he say such a thing if it's not even scientific?

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

How can gravity create the universe if there was nothing to begin with?

Furthermore, is gravity something or nothing?

If it's nothing, then where did nothing came from?

I can go on but the above is just a starter.

What say you, can you make sense of it?

a reply to: Akragon

Yeah well New Zealand does too, though we enforce a minimum curriculum (very minimum at times) that must be followed. Even charter schools. However remember some states banned the teaching of evolution, and more recently insisted creation be presented and "the students decide which they believe" (way to miss the point of science)

a reply to: edmc^2

You have not shown it is the only logical point of view. You've done the Harlem Shuffle around some basic algebra, and ignored questions. You don't understand the burden of proof neighbour.

As for the rest. Cite in full, or retract.

We are still waiting on those peer reviewed papers bucko.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah well New Zealand does too, though we enforce a minimum curriculum (very minimum at times) that must be followed. Even charter schools. However remember some states banned the teaching of evolution, and more recently insisted creation be presented and "the students decide which they believe" (way to miss the point of science)

keep in mind there is also a state that contains a "creationist museum"...In a replica of Noahs ark... where we ride dinosaurs like the flintstones which is presented as reality

In any case, i'll let you get back to your discussion with our friend above

a reply to: Akragon

Well Ken Ham is an Australian, I could make comments about my brothers and sisters over the ditch, but we beat them in Rugby this year, so I will forget he's an Aussie.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Show proof that this was written by your God. You may not use the answer "it is evident" or a variation on that theme. That would be being intellectually lazy.

And GO.

It is called genetic code for a reason. It encodes information for the organism - we've even cloned organisms using their particular code.

Does code require a coder yes or no?

No.

And here's one of those nasty citations that you refuse to read. This paper was published in March 2016 so it is up to date.


Coevolution Theory of the Genetic Code at Age Forty: Pathway to Translation and Synthetic Life


www.mdpi.com...

Abstract: The origins of the components of genetic coding are examined in the present study. Genetic information arose from replicator induction by metabolite in accordance with the metabolic expansion law. Messenger RNA and transfer RNA stemmed from a template for binding the aminoacyl-RNA synthetase ribozymes employed to synthesize peptide prosthetic groups on RNAs in the Peptidated RNA World. Coevolution of the genetic code with amino acid biosynthesis generated tRNA paralogs that identify a last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of extant life close to Methanopyrus, which in turn points to archaeal tRNA introns as the most primitive introns and the anticodon usage of Methanopyrus as an ancient mode of wobble. The prediction of the coevolution theory of the genetic code that the code should be a mutable code has led to the isolation of optional and mandatory synthetic life forms with altered protein alphabets. Keywords: gene; messenger RNA; transfer RNA; coevolution theory; Peptidated RNA World; last universal common ancestor (LUCA); intron; wobble

About metabolic expansion:

2. Origin of the Gene Primitive Earth as a planet within a habitable zone was formed with chemical constituents including carbon compounds. Prebiotic chemical reactions on the planet together with an influx of matter from space produced building blocks including nucleotides and amino acids (aa). Accordingly, prebiotic chemistry was compatible with the rise of a living world based on nucleic acids and proteins as informational macromolecules. In this regard, the capability of RNA to serve both information storage and catalysis supports the formation of an RNA World prior to the present-day Protein World [1,2,3,4]. Abiotic synthesis of RNA endowed with prescriptive functional information, however, was obstructed by the twin pitfalls: First, prebiotic RNA production led to overwhelmingly useless random RNA sequences, such that RNA of the mass of the Earth had to be synthesized to yield two or more copies of a 40-mer self-replicating RNA to initiate abiotic RNA replication [5]; and, secondly, template-directed RNA replication gave rise to dead-end double-stranded complexes that could not be pulled apart to renew replication [6,7,8]. Although a range of physicochemical systems have been investigated with respect to their potential to generate informational macromolecule evolution, including chaos theory, complexity theory, fractals, rugged fitness landscapes, Markov chains, hypercycles, dissipative structures, Shannon information theory, autopoiesis, evolutionary algorithms and directed evolution, none of them can selectively give rise to enrichment of RNAs endowed with prescriptive functional information [9]. The only mechanism found to enrich functional RNAs (fRNA) over useless RNAs and overcome the twin pitfalls is replicator induction by metabolite, whereby dead-end duplexes containing fRNAs capable of binding metabolite ligands are selectively split apart by the ligands to restart template-directed polymerization. In contrast, dead-end duplexes containing non-functional RNAs that do not bind any metabolite ligand will remain unsplit and degrade, releasing their nucleotides for incorporation into the fRNAs [6,8]. The outcome is expressed by the metabolic expansion law: Under conditions of active synthesis of RNA-like replicators, accelerated template-directed synthesis of RNA-like replicators, and the presence of a huge population of random RNA-like duplexes in the environment, functional RNA-like aptamers/ribozymes will be selectively amplified by their cognate metabolites in the environment through the replicator induction by metabolite (REIM) mechanism based on the metabolic expansion equation, leading to the appearance of novel RNA-like ribozymes catalytically acting on the metabolites to form novel metabolites and thereby expand metabolism. In the metabolic expansion equation, R = ∫ k α R (1 − R + σ) dt

No "coder in the sky" is required for this process to proceed and succeed.

If you don't agree with the author's analysis, please present your version of the "coder in the sky" with evidence (i.e. citations)

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Show proof that this was written by your God. You may not use the answer "it is evident" or a variation on that theme. That would be being intellectually lazy.

And GO.

It is called genetic code for a reason. It encodes information for the organism - we've even cloned organisms using their particular code.

Does code require a coder yes or no?

No.

And here's one of those nasty citations that you refuse to read. This paper was published in March 2016 so it is up to date.


Coevolution Theory of the Genetic Code at Age Forty: Pathway to Translation and Synthetic Life


www.mdpi.com...

Abstract: The origins of the components of genetic coding are examined in the present study. Genetic information arose from replicator induction by metabolite in accordance with the metabolic expansion law. Messenger RNA and transfer RNA stemmed from a template for binding the aminoacyl-RNA synthetase ribozymes employed to synthesize peptide prosthetic groups on RNAs in the Peptidated RNA World. Coevolution of the genetic code with amino acid biosynthesis generated tRNA paralogs that identify a last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of extant life close to Methanopyrus, which in turn points to archaeal tRNA introns as the most primitive introns and the anticodon usage of Methanopyrus as an ancient mode of wobble. The prediction of the coevolution theory of the genetic code that the code should be a mutable code has led to the isolation of optional and mandatory synthetic life forms with altered protein alphabets. Keywords: gene; messenger RNA; transfer RNA; coevolution theory; Peptidated RNA World; last universal common ancestor (LUCA); intron; wobble

About metabolic expansion:

2. Origin of the Gene Primitive Earth as a planet within a habitable zone was formed with chemical constituents including carbon compounds. Prebiotic chemical reactions on the planet together with an influx of matter from space produced building blocks including nucleotides and amino acids (aa). Accordingly, prebiotic chemistry was compatible with the rise of a living world based on nucleic acids and proteins as informational macromolecules. In this regard, the capability of RNA to serve both information storage and catalysis supports the formation of an RNA World prior to the present-day Protein World [1,2,3,4]. Abiotic synthesis of RNA endowed with prescriptive functional information, however, was obstructed by the twin pitfalls: First, prebiotic RNA production led to overwhelmingly useless random RNA sequences, such that RNA of the mass of the Earth had to be synthesized to yield two or more copies of a 40-mer self-replicating RNA to initiate abiotic RNA replication [5]; and, secondly, template-directed RNA replication gave rise to dead-end double-stranded complexes that could not be pulled apart to renew replication [6,7,8]. Although a range of physicochemical systems have been investigated with respect to their potential to generate informational macromolecule evolution, including chaos theory, complexity theory, fractals, rugged fitness landscapes, Markov chains, hypercycles, dissipative structures, Shannon information theory, autopoiesis, evolutionary algorithms and directed evolution, none of them can selectively give rise to enrichment of RNAs endowed with prescriptive functional information [9]. The only mechanism found to enrich functional RNAs (fRNA) over useless RNAs and overcome the twin pitfalls is replicator induction by metabolite, whereby dead-end duplexes containing fRNAs capable of binding metabolite ligands are selectively split apart by the ligands to restart template-directed polymerization. In contrast, dead-end duplexes containing non-functional RNAs that do not bind any metabolite ligand will remain unsplit and degrade, releasing their nucleotides for incorporation into the fRNAs [6,8]. The outcome is expressed by the metabolic expansion law: Under conditions of active synthesis of RNA-like replicators, accelerated template-directed synthesis of RNA-like replicators, and the presence of a huge population of random RNA-like duplexes in the environment, functional RNA-like aptamers/ribozymes will be selectively amplified by their cognate metabolites in the environment through the replicator induction by metabolite (REIM) mechanism based on the metabolic expansion equation, leading to the appearance of novel RNA-like ribozymes catalytically acting on the metabolites to form novel metabolites and thereby expand metabolism. In the metabolic expansion equation, R = ∫ k α R (1 − R + σ) dt

No "coder in the sky" is required for this process to proceed and succeed.

If you don't agree with the author's analysis, please present your version of the "coder in the sky" with evidence (i.e. citations)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to track down a more complete quote pertaining to the gravity selection that edmc shared from professor Hawkings book. I would do it but my electronic device is experiencing complications.

a reply to: Phantom423

Note the Bible is not a valid citable source in science Nor is "it is obvious" or "well why do we call it code then?". Those are all cop outs.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Where did I see it reached the end?

As for did you state it as the only answer? What is the subject of the entire thread? IS the word ONLY in there?

Yes, of course, it's in there but you quoted it or used it out of CONTEXT.

Makes a BIG difference to say The ONLY answer as opposed to The ONLY LOGICAL answer.

To illustrate my point. You claim you're a scientist. So in light of this claim - as a scientist, can please explain LOGICALLY to us - the uneducated - what Prof. Hawking meant when he said the following?

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Can you make sense of it?

Don't have to. The book you pulled that from explains it. That's why they wrote the book, so they can spell it out for people who aren't physicists or astrologists or chemists or mathematicians. Have you actually read the grand design by Stephen hawking and Leonard mlodinow? Would you mind quoting the context in which that selection appears?

Here you go. I have the entire Chapter six if you need me to post it too (it's Kindle form -so jpg is the only way to post it).



As for reading the entire thing, I'm not sure if there's anyone who ever achieved such feat.

Note:

Kindle location - 1722 part of his grand design conclusion.

From the op:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: edmc^2

If you think no one has read the entire book, you are mistaken

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

If you think no one has read the entire book, you are mistaken

I guess you did. Cool.

So what about?

a reply to: edmc^2

What about it indeed? As has been indicated, the book explains it, and as I said, it refutes "god did it" as an excuse.

You can not use a popular science (as in pop sci) book, written for the masses as a primary source. Where are those peer reviewed journals? We are waiting.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure, no problem. Back in about an hour.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Where did I see it reached the end?

As for did you state it as the only answer? What is the subject of the entire thread? IS the word ONLY in there?

Yes, of course, it's in there but you quoted it or used it out of CONTEXT.

Makes a BIG difference to say The ONLY answer as opposed to The ONLY LOGICAL answer.

To illustrate my point. You claim you're a scientist. So in light of this claim - as a scientist, can please explain LOGICALLY to us - the uneducated - what Prof. Hawking meant when he said the following?

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Can you make sense of it?

Don't have to. The book you pulled that from explains it. That's why they wrote the book, so they can spell it out for people who aren't physicists or astrologists or chemists or mathematicians. Have you actually read the grand design by Stephen hawking and Leonard mlodinow? Would you mind quoting the context in which that selection appears?

Here you go. I have the entire Chapter six if you need me to post it too (it's Kindle form -so jpg is the only way to post it).

As for reading the entire thing, I'm not sure if there's anyone who ever achieved such feat.

Note:

Kindle location - 1722 part of his grand design conclusion.

From the op:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

www.theguardian.com...

I don't think we need the whole chapter, although anyone interested in more than a superficial grasp of the concepts and data presented is highly encouraged to read the entire book and perhaps the list of materials used to inform the compilation of the book. Is there something specific in the selection you share via jpeg that confuses you? Or perhaps there is an error you would like to demonstrate?