Srch: New Technology Enables Fast Protein Synthesis. See what it takes to make protein from the elements. Does this describe a prebiotic world? This is MIT's biomimicry of a ribosome, a molecular machine made of proteins and rRNA that assembles amino acids into proteins as coded by rRNA. The simplest cell requires 473 genes coding for the replication of the 12.6 billion amino acids arranged in 42 million proteins. Only the 20 specific out of 500+ kinds, in only their left hand forms except for glycine. In sequences as specific as 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words averaging 300 each.
There are several different worlds over time that impact what we see. Genesis 1 tells of a perfect world that God created. We don't know much about what that was like. Genesis 3 tells us about the fall of mankind. We are told that it destroyed a number of wonderful relationships. Could this have included the speed of light or other things that give the appearance of a very old universe? We are told that the fountains of the deep were broken up at the start of Noah's flood. Was this the beginning of catastrophic plate tectonics? By the time of King David, everything had settled down. Could these be factors in the way our generation looks at these issues?
A old universe does not means a old humanity or even evolution. Also, in the beginning the creation of the world could have make a way to distant stars to appear. Also, it's possible the redshift does not measure distance and therefore, the stars would be not that far away.
Darwin won because his explanations were the least implausible of the two explanations. Talking snakes, magic fruit trees and 7-day creations really hit the 0% plausibility level given what we know.
Loved that quote from Darwin at 40:30 . I imagine Darwin had some understanding of Christianity but this quote shows a serious gap in that he assumed that a good God should reflect exactly onto creation looking perfect: a poor understanding that forgets the essential doctrine of original sin. Yes there is a good God but there is also the corruption of creation and it's waiting for redemption. Evolution, and the negation of a good God, on the other hand, may give a satisfying reason for the chaos and pain we see but very poor explanation to why we experience love, see beauty, and are capable of language.
It did reflect God's goodness begin with but then human beings, which are weaker, somehow harmed god's perfect creation despite being weaker. It never made any sense to begin with and even less sense when we actually learned the facts. Love and beauty aren't interesting because they are subjective. Language is so obviously useful that it isn't really a problem to explain its evolution.
Thank you
Evolution wholly refutes original sin.
Srch: New Technology Enables Fast Protein Synthesis. See what it takes to make protein from the elements. Does this describe a prebiotic world? This is MIT's biomimicry of a ribosome, a molecular machine made of proteins and rRNA that assembles amino acids into proteins as coded by rRNA. The simplest cell requires 473 genes coding for the replication of the 12.6 billion amino acids arranged in 42 million proteins. Only the 20 specific out of 500+ kinds, in only their left hand forms except for glycine. In sequences as specific as 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words averaging 300 each.
Catholicism and Evolution by Fr. Michael Chaberek.
Excellent book
There are several different worlds over time that impact what we see.
Genesis 1 tells of a perfect world that God created. We don't know much about what that was like.
Genesis 3 tells us about the fall of mankind. We are told that it destroyed a number of wonderful relationships. Could this have included the speed of light or other things that give the appearance of a very old universe?
We are told that the fountains of the deep were broken up at the start of Noah's flood. Was this the beginning of catastrophic plate tectonics?
By the time of King David, everything had settled down. Could these be factors in the way our generation looks at these issues?
A old universe does not means a old humanity or even evolution. Also, in the beginning the creation of the world could have make a way to distant stars to appear. Also, it's possible the redshift does not measure distance and therefore, the stars would be not that far away.
@@Mateus.007lol. God jury rigged it to trick us! Any evidence for that?
@@Mateus.007 care to test those hypotheses? Or just assert them?
God's word gives us plausible explanations. Darin's hypothetical theory gives us implausible presumptions.
Darwin won because his explanations were the least implausible of the two explanations. Talking snakes, magic fruit trees and 7-day creations really hit the 0% plausibility level given what we know.
Magic vs history.
Thank you for sharing the intelligence of accepting the Bible.
Loved that quote from Darwin at 40:30 . I imagine Darwin had some understanding of Christianity but this quote shows a serious gap in that he assumed that a good God should reflect exactly onto creation looking perfect: a poor understanding that forgets the essential doctrine of original sin. Yes there is a good God but there is also the corruption of creation and it's waiting for redemption.
Evolution, and the negation of a good God, on the other hand, may give a satisfying reason for the chaos and pain we see but very poor explanation to why we experience love, see beauty, and are capable of language.
A good god wouldn’t endorse slavery.
It did reflect God's goodness begin with but then human beings, which are weaker, somehow harmed god's perfect creation despite being weaker. It never made any sense to begin with and even less sense when we actually learned the facts.
Love and beauty aren't interesting because they are subjective. Language is so obviously useful that it isn't really a problem to explain its evolution.