I believe that Joao is a Christian and a scientist.
1 Like
Well, a Christian Evolutionist is not BOUND by the same sensibilities as an
Atheist Evolutionist. So thereās no need to defend every little problem that
would exist for Atheists.
George Brooks
What sensibilities are you referring too?
When a Creationists wants to dispute some āmicro-pointā in the realm of Evolutionary Science . . . you
know, some point of scientific speculation that nobody yet has any solid answers . . . an Atheist Evolutionist
might shrug his shoulders and insist āWeāll know soon enough.ā
A Theist Evolutionist can respond with ā. . . something that randomness couldnāt have handled would
have been effected by the Hand of God.ā
In some ways, Creationists and Theist Evolutionists have much more in common than the latter does
with Atheist Evolutionists.
George Brooks
1 Like
yep. true.
joao- so what doest it mean? get seriousā¦
hi sy garte.
you said:
āThe point I was making (and that is made in the paper I linked is that while you are correct about modern proteins, ancient proteins near the origin of life were very likely much simpler.ā-
i gave another paper that disprove this claim. it show that most of the protein structure (310 aa from 497) need for its minimal function. so we cant start from a simple protein. lets say that we can even start from an half of this (250 aa). its still a lot.
āThe other possibility is that in the earliest form of life we already had close to the modern complement of proteins, genetic code etc, that we have now.ā-
actually a lot of new proteins evolve according to the evolution later in reptiles and mammals. so again- its not possible.
āWhichever is correct, none of this pertains to evolution past the LUCA, since from that time on, new proteins did not arise from random searching through sequence space, but from modification of existing proteins.ā-
see above. more then this- even if you will try to change one biological system to another, you will need to change a lot more then 50 amino acid and even 100.
I think that good scientists of any religion or no religion should search for a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon. If there is a natural explanation, they will only find it if they look for it.
1 Like
Iām fine with LOOKING ā¦ but since, by definition, a Theistic Evolutionist INTENDS for God to
have some finger prints on the process, there should be no undue stress when a purely
random/naturalistic explanation cannot be found.
George Brooks
What? It seems very hard NOT to find a purely random/naturalistic explanation to cosmic rays and DNA mutations.
Patrick, you forget that Iām a THEISTIC evolutionist. I am looking for where God
CAN intervene in the pure randomness of evolution.
Why would I avoid it? For me, Cosmic radiation is an optimum choice because it comes at us from all anglesā¦
Under the best of circumstances, we would never be able to tell the difference between randomly generated Cosmic
rays and those specifically targeting DNA from God - - especially if his work in evolving Humanity is now complete.
Itās an elegant solution.
George Brooks
I donāt think that TE scientists expect to find Godās fingerprints in the natural world. That would bring investigation to a premature halt.
Of course, I mean this in a figurative sense. 
I donāt see any reason to be bashful about Cosmic radiation.
Itās the perfect tool of the Divine hand.
George Brooks
The cosmic radiation that you speak so fondly of left their source as much as billions of years ago to travel to Earth.
1 Like
Iāll repeat the jist of my response to your similar comment in another thread:
Thereās a new sheriff in town, Patrick ā¦ and heās God.
Theists donāt have any objection to God planning BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years in advance.
George
[quote=āEddie, post:36, topic:3249, full:trueā]God is both the wisest possible and the worst possible designer at the same time. That is TE logic for you.
[/quote]
Why would He be the worst designer considering that everything that God created was/is good and for His Glory?