Continued Discussion with cls515

[SmokinDVM]

Christianity is based on following Christ and having a relationship with Him. I believe in Jesus Christ and believe in God. I don't think there is any scientific proof crediting or discrediting Christianity. As posted earlier it is based on faith. It will never be based on pushing your ideas on another, after all, that person being pushed on will not act out of faith but rather coercion.

There is no scientific proof of a god, even after thousands of years. The proof against such a supernatural being is exactly that lack of proof.
You may not believe in forcing your beliefs on others, but christianity, and religions in general, have a long history of doing just that, and continue to practice such.

There are many reasons why I know there is a God, many personal, many not so personal. The complexity of life is a miracle in itself, and I believe without a doubt would not be possible without the hand of God.

The complexity of life has been explained time and again by natural scientific means. IMO, there is no need to invoke the supernatural just to be awed and inspired by that complexity.

I questioned the existence of God. I was going through a hard time and wondered how could there be a god when there is so much evil in the world. I think you can have a God, who is purely good, for lack of better comprehension of the word, and I think God has the power to rid the world of evil. If you believe in God and have studied somewhat, you will find that in the beginning there was only God and good, but that one of his angels became prideful and envious.

I believe there is one god, and I call him God.

Your beliefs are well and good for you, but they are strictly beliefs, without any basis in fact. And while repeating your beliefs and ideas taught to you by your religious books may make you feel better about your place in life, it doesn't constitute proof of a god.

[cls515]

There is no scientific proof of a god, even after thousands of years. The proof against such a supernatural being is exactly that lack of proof.
You may not believe in forcing your beliefs on others, but christianity, and religions in general, have a long history of doing just that, and continue to practice such.

If your beliefs are based on faith, then proof of the existence regarding that religion nullifies your beliefs. From a scientific standpoint, lack of proof does not prove anything. Life has evolved for billions of years. Billions. Yet we don't have any proof how it started, we have theories. Does this lack of proof prove that our existence does not exist? Most certainly not.

The complexity of life has been explained time and again by natural scientific means. IMO, there is no need to invoke the supernatural just to be awed and inspired by that complexity.

I beg to differ. A protein is a fundamental element necessary for us to survive. I assume you are a DVM and have a scientific background, maybe slightly outdated ( sorry). We only know the 3-D structure of very very few proteins. Many of the fundamental pathways involving proteins are still not understood. We just don't know. Is it impossible for us to not advance our knowledge? Of course not. Scientific process governs the complexity, no doubt about it. Natural process, such as like charges repelling one another, explain how molecules interact with each other. But it is so complex. I could go on and on about the complexity and really just scratch the surface for you. It is amazing. It is so complex I don't think it could happen without God's hand.

Your beliefs are well and good for you, but they are strictly beliefs, without any basis in fact. And while repeating your beliefs and ideas taught to you by your religious books may make you feel better about your place in life, it doesn't constitute proof of a god.

I started believing in God before I read the Bible.

[SmokinDVM]

If your beliefs are based on faith, then proof of the existence regarding that religion nullifies your beliefs. From a scientific standpoint, lack of proof does not prove anything. Life has evolved for billions of years. Billions. Yet we don't have any proof how it started, we have theories. Does this lack of proof prove that our existence does not exist? Most certainly not.

Actually, from a scientific standpoint, lack of proof, especially after so long a period of time, is a very good reason to discard a hypothesis.
Also, scientists are collecting more evidence as to the origin of life every day. Your strawman argument relates to the exact moment life began, and its relation to our existence. The main problem with your example is, we can physically observe our existence. We can repeat that observation over and over. The same cannot be done for a god.

I beg to differ. A protein is a fundamental element necessary for us to survive. I assume you are a DVM and have a scientific background, maybe slightly outdated ( sorry). We only know the 3-D structure of very very few proteins. Many of the fundamental pathways involving proteins are still not understood. We just don't know. Is it impossible for us to not advance our knowledge? Of course not. Scientific process governs the complexity, no doubt about it. Natural process, such as like charges repelling one another, explain how molecules interact with each other. But it is so complex. I could go on and on about the complexity and really just scratch the surface for you. It is amazing. It is so complex I don't think it could happen without God's hand.

Proteins are amino acid chains, made up from 20 different amino acids, also referred to as residues, that fold into unique three-dimensional protein structures. The shape in which a protein naturally folds is known as its native state, which is determined by its sequence of amino acids. under 40 residues the term peptide is frequently used. A certain number of residues is necessary to perform a particular biochemical function, and around 40-50 residues appears to be the lower limit for a functional domain size. Protein sizes range from this lower limit to several thousand residues in multi-functional or structural proteins. However, the current estimate for the average protein length is around 300 residues. Very large aggregates can be formed from protein subunits, for example many thousand actin molecules assemble into an actin filament. Large protein complexes with RNA are found in the ribosome particles, which are in fact 'ribozymes'.
I would have to assume, from your incorrect statements about how much we know about proteins, that your knowledge of biochemistry is even more dated than mine. I was just scratching the surface of what we know. I regularly read biochem articles in scientific journals. The number of these articles is really staggering. But this really has nothing to do with our discussion.
What you're alluding to is an example of the "Watchmaker analogy" put forth by William Paley in 1803, and which has been debunked repeatedly since. The watchmaker argument basically says you can't have something complex, like a watch, without a watchmaker. For a complete explanation of the problems, and proof against such an argument you should read Dawkins, Richard, 1986. The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: Norton.

[cls515]

Actually, from a scientific standpoint, lack of proof, especially after so long a period of time, is a very good reason to discard a hypothesis.
Also, scientists are collecting more evidence as to the origin of life every day. Your strawman argument relates to the exact moment life began, and its relation to our existence. The main problem with your example is, we can physically observe our existence. We can repeat that observation over and over. The same cannot be done for a god.

First, you make observations. Then, you form a hypothesis. Then, you test this hypothesis. Lack of proof does not discredit a hypothesis. It does not confirm it either.

Proteins are amino acid chains, made up from 20 different amino acids, also referred to as residues, that fold into unique three-dimensional protein structures. The shape in which a protein naturally folds is known as its native state, which is determined by its sequence of amino acids. under 40 residues the term peptide is frequently used. A certain number of residues is necessary to perform a particular biochemical function, and around 40-50 residues appears to be the lower limit for a functional domain size. Protein sizes range from this lower limit to several thousand residues in multi-functional or structural proteins. However, the current estimate for the average protein length is around 300 residues. Very large aggregates can be formed from protein subunits, for example many thousand actin molecules assemble into an actin filament. Large protein complexes with RNA are found in the ribosome particles, which are in fact 'ribozymes'.[/I]
I would have to assume, from your incorrect statements about how much we know about proteins, that your knowledge of biochemistry is even more dated than mine. I was just scratching the surface of what we know. I regularly read biochem articles in scientific journals. The number of these articles is really staggering. But this really has nothing to do with our discussion.
What you're alluding to is an example of the "Watchmaker analogy" put forth by William Paley in 1803, and which has been debunked repeatedly since. The watchmaker argument basically says you can't have something complex, like a watch, without a watchmaker. For a complete explanation of the problems, and proof against such an argument you should read Dawkins, Richard, 1986. The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: Norton.

I'm familiar with biochemistry. My education is not outdated. We know that the interactions between amino acids drive conformation, but there is more to it than that. There are four degrees to conformation, with the fourh being how one protein interacts with another protein forming one functional 3-d protein. We know this. But our crystalline studies used to observe the 3-d structure is vague. We just don't have the observations of it. On some we do. But like I said these are very very few and far between. Does our lack of observation disprove 3-d shape? No, because we know it happens. It is just more research is necessary. And, I'm not talking about any watchmaker problem.

[SmokinDVM]

First, you make observations. Then, you form a hypothesis. Then, you test this hypothesis. Lack of proof does not discredit a hypothesis. It does not confirm it either.

Can you describe the test you would use to test your hypothesis that god has a hand in the creation of life?

I'm familiar with biochemistry. My education is not outdated. We know that the interactions between amino acids drive conformation, but there is more to it than that. There are four degrees to conformation, with the fourh being how one protein interacts with another protein forming one functional 3-d protein. We know this. But our crystalline studies used to observe the 3-d structure is vague. We just don't have the observations of it. On some we do. But like I said these are very very few and far between. Does our lack of observation disprove 3-d shape? No, because we know it happens. It is just more research is necessary. And, I'm not talking about any watchmaker problem.

Actually, their are about 5,000+ proteins in a living organism, about 30% of which are lipid soluble (most are water soluble). It's these lipid soluble proteins that scientists were having a problem with. However, that problem was at least partially solved several years ago.
Anyway, you were using a "watchmaker argument" in your post. You stated that due to the complexity of life, you knew god had to have a hand in its creation.

[cls515]

I would have to assume, from your incorrect statements about how much we know about proteins, that your knowledge of biochemistry is even more dated than mine. I was just scratching the surface of what we know. I regularly read biochem articles in scientific journals. The number of these articles is really staggering. But this really has nothing to do with our discussion.

Since you said my statements are incorrect, I have to assume you misunderstood what I said, again. For further clarification, next time you read an article or read a book, look at the pictures. They are cartoon.

[cls515]

Since you said my statements are incorrect, I have to assume you misunderstood what I said, again. For further clarification, next time you read an article or read a book, look at the pictures. They are cartoon.

Edit - And, while I'm on the subject, , you test a hypothesis to disprove it. So, if I hypothesize there is a God, you have to prove there is not a God through testing to discredit the hypothesis.

[SmokinDVM]

Edit - And, while I'm on the subject, , you test a hypothesis to disprove it. So, if I hypothesize there is a God, you have to prove there is not a God through testing to discredit the hypothesis.

You test a hypothesis to PROVE or disprove it.
If you hypothesize there is a god, YOU have to devise a test to prove such. If you put forth a hypothesis, without any corroborating evidence, your hypothesis will be summarily rejected.

Using your incorrect idea of the scientific method, if I were to say I have an invisible 60' tall shit monster in my back yard, the burden would be on you to prove my statement false.

[cls515]

You test a hypothesis to PROVE or disprove it.
If you hypothesize there is a god, YOU have to devise a test to prove such. If you put forth a hypothesis, without any corroborating evidence, your hypothesis will be summarily rejected.

Using your incorrect idea of the scientific method, if I were to say I have an invisible 60' tall shit monster in my back yard, the burden would be on you to prove my statement false.

This is taken from Wikipedia:
Experiments
Main article: Experiments
Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing.

[ScoopKW]

Using your incorrect idea of the scientific method, if I were to say I have an invisible 60' tall shit monster in my back yard, the burden would be on you to prove my statement false.

Oh thank God!

You found Stinky! I've been looking all over for him.