Continued Discussion with cls515

[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 I assume you are a DVM and have a scientific background, maybe slightly outdated ( sorry).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.