Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Various issues » My articles

My articles

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 4]

76 Re: My articles on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:53 pm

Admin


Admin
Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2086-chromosome-condensation-amazing-evidence-of-design

Imagine trying to stuff about 10,000 miles of spaghetti inside a basketball.  Then, if that was not difficult enough, attempt to find a unique one inch segment of pasta from the middle of this mess, or try to duplicate, untangle and separate individual strings to opposite ends.  This simple analogy illustrates some of the daunting tasks associated with the transcription, repair and replication of the nearly 2 meters of DNA that is packaged into the confines of a tiny eukaryotic nucleus.  The solution to each of these problems lies in the assembly of the eukaryotic genome into chromatin, a structural polymer that not only solves the basic packaging problem, but also provides a dynamic platform that controls all DNA-mediated processes within the nucleus.

Every second, the cells constituting our bodies are replaced through cell division. An adult human consists of about 50,000 billion cells, 1% of which die and are replaced by cell division every day. In order to ensure cell survival and controlled growth of these new cells, the genetic information, stored in DNA molecules, must first be correctly copied and then accurately distributed during cell division. Moreover, to fully ascertain that the new cells will contain the same genetic information as the parental cells, any damage to the DNA, which is organised into several chromosomes, must be repaired.

Quite a bit is known about two of these complexes. One of them, cohesin, keeps the DNA copies together such that they do not separate too early; while the other, condensin, makes the chromosomes more compact, making the separation easier.

During the first stage of mitosis, that of prophase, the duplicated chromosomes are prepared for segregation and the mitotic machinery is assembled. The nucleus of an interphase cell contains tremendous lengths of chromatin fibers. The extended state of interphase chromatin is ideally suited for the processes of transcription and replication but not for segregation into two daughter cells. Before segregating its chromosomes, a cell converts them into much shorter, thicker structures by a remarkable process of chromosome compaction (or chromosome condensation), which occurs during early prophase

Research on chromosome compaction has focused on an abundant multiprotein complex called condensin.

Packing ratio is the length of DNA divided by the length into which it is packaged.

The shortest human chromosome contains 4.6 x 107 bp of DNA (about 10 times the genome size of E. coli). This is equivalent to 14,000 µm of extended DNA, or about 2 meters. In its most condensed state during mitosis, the chromosome is about 2 µm long. This gives a packing ratio of 7000 (14,000/2). That means, it becomes 7000 times shorter !!

To achieve the overall packing ratio, DNA is not packaged directly into final structure of chromatin. Instead, it contains several hierarchies of organization. The first level of packing is achieved by the winding of DNA around a protein core to produce a "bead-like" structure called a nucleosome. This gives a packing ratio of about 6. This structure is invariant in both the euchromatin and heterochromatin of all chromosomes.

The second level of packing is the coiling of beads in a helical structure called the 30 nm fiber that is found in both interphase chromatin and mitotic chromosomes. This structure increases the packing ratio to about 40.

The final packaging occurs when the fiber is organized in loops, scaffolds and domains that give a final packing ratio of about 1000 in interphase chromosomes and about 7,000 in mitotic chromosomes.

Thats a amazing change , from a ratio of 6, to 7.000 !!

Squeezing DNA Into A Small Space

To fit 2 meters of DNA into a tiny nucleus is a monumental engineering feat. DNA is highly compacted yet has to be instantly available to rapidly make proteins in neurons with a momentary change of thought. This regulation is different in each type of cell. . It has been known for some time that the shape of proteins determines their function and the folding is very complex involving four levels of folding . Now it appears that the shape of the chromatin, also, determines function, with new secondary and tertiary structures discovered.

Condensins: universal organizers of chromosomes with diverse functions

Condensins are multisubunit protein complexes that play a fundamental role in the structural and functional organization of chromosomes in the three domains of life. It is a molecular machine that helps to condense and package chromosomes for cell replication. It is a five subunit complex, and is “the key molecular machine of chromosome condensation."

Condensin produces “supercoils” of DNA, one of many steps in packing the delicate DNA strands into a hierarchy of coils that results in a densely-packed chromosome.  “It is not entirely clear how the DNA is held in this supercoiled state,” they say, “but several studies suggest that the V-shaped arms of the condensin complex may loop and clamp the DNA in place.”  This clamping is “rapid and reversible.”  Scientists watching the process in both bacteria and humans are “showing that both vertebrate and bacterial condensins drive DNA compaction in an ATP-dependent fashion with a surprising level of co-operativity that was not fully appreciated.” The condensin molecules work as a team; if not enough condensin is around, nothing happens.     These authors point out also that condensin is just one of many enzymes involved in chromosome formation.  Think about how remarkable it is that during each cell division, the chromosomes are structured so reliably that they can be labeled and numbered under the microscope.  “Our own proteomic analysis,” they claim, “has identified over 350 chromosome-associated proteins, so there is clearly more work to be done.”

How could these nano machines arise by natural means, in a gradual stepwise manner ?   Unless someone can demonstrate a series of small steps to climb mount unprobable (as Richard Dawkins calls the challenge of evolving complex, information-rich, functional biological structures), this is wishful thinking.  The mountain is not a series of small steps, but a sheer cliff with slippery vertical walls.  And why would a mindless molecule even want to go climb uphill against its natural inclinations? The discoveries in biochemistry are making evolution increasingly untenable.  Here we see highly complex molecules, made up of building blocks (amino acids) arranged in precise sequences to build functioning machines.  The complexity is mind-boggling, and it exists all the way down in the very simplest single-celled life forms, with no precursors.  Without these machines, the cell could not divide. Proposing intelligent design is not a argument of ignorance. We know that intelligent minds are capable of projecting complex machines where ideas of problem solutions are required. Intelligent minds are able to store large quantities of information into small spaces, computer chips are a good example.  As conclusion, Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
The irreducible process of phototransduction, 11 cis retinal synthesis, and the visual cycle, essential for vertebrate vision

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2061p75-my-articles#5773



http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1638-origin-of-phototransduction-the-visual-cycle-photoreceptors-and-retina#5753


William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013
Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. 9

From the book: Evolution of Visual and Non-visual Pigments, page 106
Opsin—the protein that underlies all animal vision., has become a favorite research target, not only of vision scientists but of many researchers interested in the evolution of protein structure, function, and specialization. This level of focus has made the opsins canonical G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and arguably the most investigated protein group for its evolutionary radiations and diverse functional specializations.  Still, opsin’s early evolution REMAINS PUZZLING, and there are many questions throughout its evolutionary history for which we have partial, but tantalizingly incomplete, answers. Obviously, the invertebrates, with their astonishing diversity and with evolutionary hints of the most ancient animals in their genomes, functions, and even body plans, offer the best hope of answering many of these fundamental questions.

Rhodopsins and Cone opsins have two interdependent agents, namely 11 cis retinal chromophores, and opsins, to which they are attached. By absorbing a photon, 11 cis retinal isomerizes to trans retinal conformation, and that triggers a conformational change in opsins, which trigger the signal transduction cascade, which in the end, provokes the electrical signal, transmitted to the brain for processing.

11-cis-Retinal is a unique molecule with a chemical design that allows optimal interaction with the opsin apoprotein in its binding pocket, and this is essential for the formation of the light-activated conformation of the receptor. 2

There are many things that are functionally important, and must be JUST RIGHT, in order for these molecular mechanisms to work. 

The fact that rhodopsin has been intensely studied, provides a WEALTH of information on a molecular level, which permits to make INFORMED CONCLUSIONS of its origins.

Now OBSERVE how many things must be JUST RIGHT and ESSENTIAL ( following is straightforward from the relevant scientific literature ) :

Rhodopsin Structure and Activation

Rhodopsin consists of an apoprotein opsin and an inverse agonist ( that's like a mechanism which keeps a switch off ), the 11-cis-retinal chromophore, which is covalently bound through a Schiff base linkage to the side chain of Lys296 of opsin protein.

The binding of the chromophore to the opsin is essential to trigger the conformational change. That means, there had to be

- a Schiff base linkage   
- a Lys296 residue where chromophore retinal covalently binds
- the side chain of the residue
- an essential amino acid residue called "counter ion" key factor appears to be the protonation state of the Schiff-base counterion
- a pivotal role of the covalent bond between the retinal chromophore and the lysine residue at position 296 in the activation pathway of  rhodopsin
A key feature of this conformational change is a reorganization of water-mediated hydrogen-bond networks between the retinal-binding pocket and three of the most conserved GPCR sequence motifs. 2

Residues important for stabilizing the tertiary structure

- (e.g. disulphide bridge (S-S),
- amino-terminal (N) glycosylation sites)
- activation/deactivation of photopigments (e.g. carboxyl-terminal (C) phosphorylation sites)
- membrane anchorage (e.g. palmitoylation sites)

For visible light absorption, all opsins contain an essential amino acid residue called "counter ion", in addition to a retinal-binding site, Lys296 (in the bovine rhodopsin numbering system), where chromophore retinal covalently binds through a protonated Schiff base linkage . The proton on the Schiff base is necessary for visible light absorption, but energetically unstable within the opsin molecule. In opsin pigments, a negatively charged amino acid residue, counterion, stabilizes the protonated Schiff base, and is an essential amino acid residue for opsin pigments to absorb visible light.

Various types of opsin-based pigments with absorption maxima in the visible light region possess a “protonated” Schiff base linkage. In the protein moiety, the positive charge on the protonated Schiff base is unstable, and therefore a counterion, a negatively charged amino acid residue is needed to stabilize the positive charge. In vertebrate visual pigment, glutamic acid at position 113 serves as the counterion 11

Furthermore: movement of the cytoplasmic end of the sixth transmembrane helix is essential for pigment activation.

From the above information, it is clear that there is an evidently FINE- TUNED protein-protein interaction, that is, the 11 cis retinal chromophore physical constitution, and the opsin physical constitution, MUST BE JUST RIGHT from the beginning, and be able to interact PRECISELY to trigger the signal transduction chain.

Let's suppose, opsin is able to interact with TRANSDUCIN. So what ?? If the signal transduction pathway is not fully setup, and able to go all the way through - no signal - no vision. So having such a precise protein-protein arrangement will make only sense, if down down there, after many complex molecular interactions, a visual image is generated in the brain. After two amplification steps, the goal is achieved, and a signal is sent to the brain. To get that signal, is a REMARKABLE SIGNAL AMPLIFICATION mechanism:

A single photoactivated rhodopsin catalyzes the activation of 500 transducin molecules. Each transducing can stimulate one cGMP phosphodiesterase molecule and each cGMP phosphodiesterase molecule can break down 1000 molecules of cGMP per second. Therefore, a single activated rhodopsin can cause the hydrolysis of more than 100.000 molecules of cGMP per second.

Following enzymes, molecules, and proteins are ESSENTIAL in the signal transduction pathway:

Rhodopsin  Rhodopsin is an essential G-protein coupled receptor in phototransduction.
Retinal Schiff base cofactor All-trans-retinal is also an essential component of type I, or microbial, opsins such as bacteriorhodopsinchannelrhodopsin, and halorhodopsin.
Transducin  Their function is to mediate the signal transduction from the photoreceptor proteins, the opsins, to the effector proteins, the phosphodiesterases 6
Guanosine diphosphate ( GDP ) Transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called Guanosine diphosphate ( GDP ) 
Guanosine triphosphate GTP when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called  GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin. 
G-nucleotide exchange factor (GEF)    The exchange of GDP for GTP is done by a G-nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) 7
Cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) 
phosphodiesterase (PDE)  is necessary to transform cGMP to GMP. This closes the cGMP gated ion channel due to the decreasing amounts of cGMP in the cytoplasm 6  
cGMP-gated channel of rod photoreceptors
Cyclic nucleotide-gated Na+ ion channels

Once the signal goes through,  a system is required to stop the signal that is generated and restore the opsin to its original state. For that task, other essential proteins are needed  to restore the initial state of rhodopsin:

Guanylate cyclase
Rhodopsin kinase
Arrestin

The biosynthesis of 11 Cis retinal, essential in the first step of vertebrate vision, is also REMARKABLE.

There is an INTRIGUING EVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATION  of the key components involved in chromophore production and recycling, these genes also have adapted to the specific requirements of both insect and vertebrate vision. Visual GPCR signaling is unique with respect to its dependence on a diet-derived chromophore (retinal or 2-dehydro-retinal in vertebrates; retinal and 3-hydroxy-retinal in insects). The chromophore is naturally generated by oxidative cleavage of carotenoids (C40) to retinoids.(C20). Then the retinoid cleavage product must be metabolically converted to the respective 11-cis-retinal derivative in either the same carotenoid cleavage reaction or a separate reaction. 3

All animals endowed with the ability to detect light through visual pigments need pathways in which dietary precursors for chromophore, such as carotenoids and retinoids, are first absorbed in the gut, and then transported, metabolized and stored within the body to establish and sustain vision.

Two fundamental processes in chromophore metabolism defied molecular analysis for a long time: the conversion of the parent C40 carotenoid precursor into C20 retinoids and the all-trans to 11-cis isomerization and cleavage involved in continuous chromophore renewal. Following proteins are essential in the pathway to synthesize 11 cis retinals :

retinal pigment epithelial (RPE)  The retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), a single layer of cuboidal cells lying betweenBruch's membrane and the photoreceptors, is an essential component of the visual system.
Lecithin-retinol acyltransferase  Is Essential for Accumulation of All-trans-Retinyl Esters in the Eye and in the Liver 4
Retinyl ester hydrolase
11-cis-retinol dehydrogenases
Isomerohydrolase  It performs the essential enzymatic isomerization step in the synthesis of 11-cis retinal. 5
Retinoid-binding proteins
RPE retinal G protein-coupled receptor (RGR)

The absorption of light by rhodopsin results in the isomerization of the 11- cis -retinal chromophore to all- trans forming the enzymatically active intermediate, metarhodopsin II, which commences the visual transduction process.

Continuous vision depends on recycling of the photoproduct all-trans-retinal back to visual chromophore 11-cis-retinal. This process is enabled by the visual (retinoid) cycle, a series of biochemical reactions in photoreceptor, adjacent RPE and Müller cells.

Since the opsins lacking 11-cis-RAL lose light sensitivity, sustained vision requires continuous regeneration of 11-cis-RAL via the process called ‘visual cycle’. Protostomes and vertebrates use essentially different machinery of visual pigment regeneration, and the origin and early evolution of the vertebrate visual cycle is an UNSOLVED MYSTERY.

Restoration of light sensitivity requires chemical reisomerization of trans-retinal via a multistep enzyme pathway, called the visual cycle, in cells of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE).

When a photon of light is absorbed, 11-cis retinal is transformed to all-trans retinal, and it moves to the exit site of rhodopsin. It will not leave the opsin protein until another fresh chromophore comes to replace it, except for in the ABCR pathway. Whilst still bound to the opsin, all-trans retinal is transformed into all-trans retinol by all-trans Retinol Dehydrogenase. It then proceeds to the cell membrane of the rod, where it is chaperoned to the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) by Interphotoreceptor Retinoid Binding Protein (IRBP). It then enters the RPE cells, and is transferred to the Cellular Retinol Binding Protein (CRBP) chaperone. 8

The visual cycle fulfills an essential task of maintaining visual function and needs therefore to be adapted to different visual needs such as vision in darkness or lightness. For this, functional aspects come into play: the storage of retinal and the adaption of the reaction speed. Basically vision at low light intensities requires a lower turn-over rate of the visual cycle whereas during light the turn-over rate is much higher. In the transition from darkness to light suddenly, large amount of 11-cis retinal is required. This comes not directly from the visual cycle but from several retinal pools of retinal binding proteins which are connected to each other by the transportation and reaction steps of the visual cycle.

This cycle is present only in vertebrates, as cephalochordates and tunicates do not possess the required enzymes. The isomerization of 11-cis retinal to all-trans retinal in photoreceptors is the first step in vision. For photoreceptors to function in constant light, the all-trans retinal must be converted back to 11-cis retinal via the enzymatic steps of the visual cycle. Within this cycle, all-trans retinal is reduced to all-trans retinol in photoreceptors and transported to the Retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). In the RPE, all-trans retinol is converted to 11-cis retinol, and in the final enzymatic step, 11-cis retinol is oxidized to 11-cis retinal. The first and last steps of the classical visual cycle are reduction and oxidation reactions, respectively, that utilize retinol dehydrogenase (RDH) enzymes.

To make things even more intriguing, there are at least 4 different pathways for regeneration of 11 Cis retinal. Protostomes and vertebrates use essentially different machinery of visual pigment regeneration, and the origin and early evolution of the vertebrate visual cycle is an unsolved mystery. In the vertebrate cycle, following proteins are ESSENTIAL :

Rhodopsin (also known as visual purple) is a light-sensitive receptor protein involved in visual phototransduction.
Photoreceptor cells are specialized type of cell found in the retina that is capable of visual phototransduction.
Retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) is the pigmented cell layer just outside the neurosensory retina that nourishes retinal visual cells
Retinal G-protein-coupled receptor (RGR) is a non-visual opsin expressed in RPE. RGR bound to all-trans-RAL is capable of operating as a photoisomerase that generates 11-cis-RAL in the light-dependent manner
Interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP), an abundant 140 kDa glycoprotein secreted by photoreceptors . The binding of retinoids by IRBP protects them from oxidation and isomerization.
β-Carotene 15,15′-monooxygenase (BCO) in RPE supplies all-trans-RAL to the visual cycle via central cleavage of β-carotene 
Cellular retinaldehyde-binding protein (CRALBP)  binds 11-cis-ROL and 11-cis-RAL
Retinoid isomerase RPE65 (or isomerohydrolase) in the RPE. RPE65 is involved in the all-trans to 11-cis isomerization.


Retinoids need to be shuttled between different organelles and protected from isomerization, oxidation, and condensation. Thus, key retinoid-binding proteins are critical for maintaining proper retinoid isomeric and oxidation states. Cellular retinaldehyde–binding protein (CRALBP) in the RPE and Müller cells, and extracellular interphotoreceptor retinoid–binding protein (IRBP) are two major carriers involved.  The structure of CRALBP—with its unanticipated isomerase activity—has been elucidated, whereas the structure of IRBP has only been partially characterized. Inactivating mutations in either one of these binding proteins can cause retinal degenerative disease.


Origin of opsins: 

Type I and Type II opsins
Opsins comprise two protein families, called type I and type II opsins, with detailed functional similarities. Both opsin classes are seven-transmembrane (7-TM) proteins that bind to a lightreactive chromophore to mediate a diversity of responses to light. In both families, the chromophore (retinal) binds to the seventh TM domain via a Schiff base linkage to a lysine amino acid.  Two major classes of opsins are defined and differentiated based on primary protein sequence, chromophore chemistry, and signal transduction mechanisms. Several lines of evidence indicate that the two opsin classes evolved separately, illustrating an amazing case of convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution ? Can you believe that ? 

Supposed split of type 1 and type 2 opsins: 
Although parapinopsin ( Any of a group of opsins in the parapineal gland of some fish )  has an amino acid sequence similar to those of vertebrate visual pigments, it has the molecular properties of a bistable pigment, similar toinvertebrate visual pigments (Gq-coupled visual opsin) and Opn3 (encephalopsin)/ TMT-opsin-based pigments. These observations indicate that parapinopsin is one of the key pigments for understanding the molecular evolution of vertebrate visual pigments. Parapinopsin has glutamic acid residues at both positions 113 and 181, similar therefore to vertebrate visual pigments. However, mutational analyses have revealed that Glu181 is the functional counterion residue, as found for invertebrate rhodopsins. Therefore, this suggests that the molecular properties of photoproducts, namely photoregeneration (bistability) and bleaching, may relate to counterion position and that vertebrate visual pigments having bleaching property might have evolved from an ancestral vertebrate bistable pigment similar to parapinopsin.  

This might be not that easy. In order for the transition to work, all the proteins and enzymes, and all metabolic steps of the visual cycle would have to be set up and in place, fully working, otherwise, how could 11 cis retinal be regenerated? and since there are at least 4 different visual cycles, they would have had to emerge independently four times..... and if key retinoid-binding proteins were not there ready to bind retinoid, nothing done.....

Now - THIS is the kind of information that must be studied, considered, and analyzed when talking about origins of vision and phototransduction. 

What is the proposal based on philosophical naturalism to explain the systems described above ? 

The Evolution of Opsins 
T H Oakley and D C Plachetzki, 2012
Opsin genes were very often duplicated and retained during animal evolution. Early opsin gene duplications led to the major opsin groups and more recent duplications mostly led to additional specializations, such as the ability for color vision. As members of highly coordinated protein networks, changes in opsin proteins are sometimes correlated with changes in partnering proteins. The interaction of two evolutionary processes has resulted in the diversity of opsin-based phototransduction pathways observed today that contains a combination of shared and distinct interactions. First, co-option refers to instances where an opsin recruited different intracellular signaling components than its ancestor during evolution. Second, coduplication involved the simultaneous duplication of multiple genes of an ancestral network. Co-option and coduplication are not discrete alternatives; instead, some genes of a network originated by co-duplication, whereas others joined the network by co-option.

Where is the evidence for these claims? So, basically, they claim duplication and co-option did the feat. And furthermore, they go fishing where they should not, using teleological phrasing, like recruited. Recruiting is a conscient direction driven mental process based on intelligence. There is not a shred of evidence for the proposal, nonetheless, it is presented as consumed, proven fact. This is the bitter fruits of methodological naturalism.

1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698906003580
2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7340/abs/nature09795.html
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41621159_The_biochemical_and_structural_basis_for_trans-to-cis_isomerization_of_retinoids_in_the_chemistry_of_vision
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1351249/
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/6121
6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267825362_Evolution_of_transducin_alpha_beta_and_gamma_subunit_gene_families
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2794341/
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach_and_recycle
9. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

78 Re: My articles on Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:42 am

Admin


Admin
From prebiotic synthesis to the molecular machinery to make the basic building blocks of life - no evolutionary pathway is known - for good reasons.

The origins debate between the two camps of thoughts, on the one side, naturalists, and on the other side, creationists, has gravitated historically in regards of biodiversity, and origin of life issues have widely played a marginal role of debates. I, on the other hand, find issues in regard to how life first came to be utmost fascinating, and my investigations revealed an amazing awe-inspiring scenario. One, which I want to outline here, is the fact, that life employs enormously complex biomolecular mechanisms to produce the basic building blocks of life, namely carbohydrates, amino acids, lipids, and nucleotides. The catch22 situation has been outlined many times. It takes complex protein machinery to produce each of the basic compounds. And it requires the basic building blocks to make that machinery. One requires the other.....

Between the prebiotic proposals to produce the basic building blocks of life, and the methods that life employes exists a huge gap. What is remarkable is, that Cyanobacteria produce

1. oxygen ( essential for all advanced life forms ),
2. ATP ( the energy currency of life ) through ATP synthases nano turbines, using a proton gradient and embedded in cell membrane,
3. Carbohydrates through the dark reactions in photosynthesis, and
4. ammonia, through nitrogenase enzymes, basic building blocks for amino acids.

Abiogenesis research struggles enormously to explain the origins of these building blocks abiotically. Actually, there is no compelling account of how they could have been recruited abiotically, and much less the evolutionary transition from abiotic recruitment, to the synthesis through the sophisticated molecular machinery. Both questions constitute insurmountable obstacles for naturalistic proposals, and there is no evidence that it happened, or that it could happen.
There is NO compelling, or viable evolutionary account, from a supposed first cell to Cyanobacteria, employing the MOST COMPLEX protein complexes and biosynthesis pathways to produce the above mentioned basic building blocks. None. Nada, Njet.

Science is totally in the dark, and there is nothing beside baseless speculation, dressed in the nice appealing word of " hypothesis ", adding phrasing as " might be, possible, likely, we suppose, probably, eventually " and so on. Guesswork, which gives the impression that science is close to unraveling how things evolved naturally.

Nothing could be less true. The evolution of photosynthesis, nitrogenase, and the armada of proteins involved in these processes is not known. Not even close. That is the true, real situation - and as it was in the past, it is even more true today.

Of course, there are the naturalists with their answer ready on the tongue : " science is working on this ", or " argument from ignorance ", or " God of the gaps". None of these answers do justice to the situation. The gap and lack of naturalistic explanations is not closing, but becoming wider and wider. The more science discovers, the more the impossibility of naturalistic scenarios becomes evident.

If a proponent of intelligent creation would say:

''We don't know what caused 'x', therefore, God.'', it would be indeed a 'God of the gaps' fallacy. What we say, IMHO is: ''Based on current knowledge, a creative agency is a better explanation than materialistic naturalism based on unguided random events." If one is not arguing from ignorance, but rather reasoning from the available evidence to the best explanation, is it not rather ludicrous to accuse them of launching a 'god of the gaps argument'?

1. If there is no money in the wallet
2. It's an argument of knowledge to say: There is no money in the wallet after you check.
3. The same happens in biology. We checked, and we learned that biological cells are factories, full of machines and production lines and computers, and such things originate from intelligent minds. No exception.
4. Hence, the argument is from knowledge, not from ignorance.

What will faithful believers in naturalism do with this? I guess I know.....

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

79 Some of my musings on Facebook on Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:08 pm

Admin


Admin
Some of my musings on Facebook

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2061p75-my-articles#5951


The only real fact about evolution is that it is not a fact ( macro )

=================================================================================================================================

In the same sense as a watch needs a watchmaker, and a factory a factory builder, life needs a life maker.

=================================================================================================================================

We are totally convinced that OJ killed Nicole, but we cannot prove it. The circumstantial evidence points to that outcome.
We are totally convinced that God created the physical world, but we cannot prove it. The circumstantial evidence points to that outcome.

When an atheist says " I don't know ", he is commonly not saying: I am actually a true agnostic and have no idea what explains best our origins. I have not examined the evidence, and just at the beginning of the journey. ( and open to let the evidence lead wherever it is and points to. ) What he REALLY says, is: I have excluded God as a compelling explanation of origins a priori ( i don't want him ), and I am open to ANY convincing explanation WITHOUT God. Science is working on it, and soon or later, answers will be found, where God is not required. Naturalism of the gaps is what goes strong with most atheists. They project on us ( God of the gaps ) what they are guilty of doing. I have found this to be often the case, and very common.

=================================================================================================================================

Whatever stance on origins someone takes, it requires always a leap of faith. So the claim of atheists that believers in God stick to blind faith and gaps of knowledge, while they stick to reason, science, and logic, is a strawman at its best.

=================================================================================================================================

True or false? Fake, or genuine?
We have false gospels like the prosperity gospel
Impostors that claim to be medics, lawyers, professionals of all sorts, and are not.
People that claim to be our friends, but are not.
Pastors without any credentials or abilities to be so.
Fake news
False flags, like in Syria.
All modern media controlled by the elite, to manipulate the masses.
All politics of the western world appearing to be democratic, but being essentially dictatorial.
Modern science promotes fake and bad science, based on a constraint and wrong philosophical foundation.
Good science permits all possible mechanisms to be investigated/tested.
Secular scientists claim evolution to be science, and ID to be pseudoscience - and so, inverting the real situation.
Many use fake/false identity cards
Falsified products of all sorts
Academics that do their final exams by cheating, copying their master write up from others
False brothers in Christ, which claim to follow Christ, but do not.
False religions of all sorts
False masters and spiritual leaders, which are wolves disguised as sheepherders.
False worldviews
Man pervert themselves to become " woman". And vice versa.
And the modern Zeitgeist does everything to make it socially acceptable.
If you don't, you are outed.
Politicians which buy their election through corruption
Many like false things, because they are cheaper.
They cost less and demand less effort.
But in the long run, what seems in the first instance to be cheap, can be far more expensive.
God likes what is true and genuine. HE IS truth personified.
The false God likes what is fake. Satan is a liar and the father of lies.
God likes truth
Satan likes lies
Honest people go to heaven.
Liars destiny is hell.

=================================================================================================================================

Gods design is not just intelligent. It is extreme, astonishing, amazing, incredible, unfathomable, incomprehensible, beautiful, exuberant, exaggerated, extrapolating.....
Psalm 104:24-25
24 How many are your works, LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. 25 There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number— living things both large and small.

God to Noah: Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Noah: I have some difficulties. Every time, I bring male and female of fishes into the ark, they die....

=================================================================================================================================

Atheism. The result of willful ignorance and unbelief. But atheists believe they are on the side of reason, science, and education.
Me
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-Benjamin Franklin
"Atheists are now here to stay. We are ready to take over the culture and move it ahead for the benefit of all mankind. Religion has ever been anti-human, anti-woman, anti-life, anti-peace, anti-reason, and anti-science. The god idea has been detrimental not only to humankind but to the earth. It is time now for reason, education, and science to take over."
-Madalyn O'Hair

=================================================================================================================================

If a universe from nothing is possible, why are atheists which profess this to be possible, not multi-millionaires?

=================================================================================================================================

There is no mathematical proof of Gods existence, in the same sense as 2 x 2 = 4. But if we define proof as " Beyond reasonable doubt ", then we can say, Gods existence is a proven fact - beyond a reasonable doubt. Only unreasonable atheists doubt HIS existence. Reason, btw. has NEVER been on the atheist's side.

=================================================================================================================================

It is more rational to claim the earth is flat, than there is no creator.

=================================================================================================================================

Technically, Moses was the first person with a tablet downloading data from the cloud

=================================================================================================================================

An Atheist is someone that believes that he is the product of a chemical accident.

=================================================================================================================================

Anyone that does not have developed a sound, consistent epistemological foundation and framework, upon which build its worldview and that has used that foundation to do a consistent systematic research on origins, which leads to a creator as the most adequate explanation of our origins, and knows how to defend such position with sound arguments based on philosophy, theology, and science, has in my view not reached a level of "high intellect". Most people have an advanced education in regards to their profession, but remain intellectual babies in regard to fundamental questions of our existence, and have in most cases no idea why we exist.

=================================================================================================================================

If Elon Musk would send a mission to Mars, and the astronauts by landing, suddenly discover an enormous quantity of abandonded, interconnected factories there, each hosting millions of complex machines, communication channels, fast highways and cars, each car pre-programmed to drive on these highways to a specific diestination, loading and unloading goods of the right size and constitution, these factories all interconnected, and all finely adjusted to adapt to various environment conditions and change, each factory with error detection and check, and repair mechanisms, gates which recognize what materials can go in, and which out, waste bins and recycle mechanisms, Interconnected computers, and the whole factory complex is self replicating itself. Now they had to communicate to the earth, what they discovered. Do you think , they would say:
" We found the remainings of an advanced civilization of Extraterrestrials which have build complex factories ",
or would they say:
" We have discovered some sort of factory, which appear to be the result of ET's, but are rather not, probably lucky unguided random events produced these factories? "
The same situation occurs in biological Cells. Richard Dawkins said:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. "
Why not say: "Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose, and most probably are " ?
Four additional words, but a huge difference, which contrasts a whole worldview with another. One with a designer which makes sense, and one, insane and irrational.
Pick yours...

=================================================================================================================================

What is the difference between "I like you", and I love you" ?
If you like a flower, you simply collect/cut her.
If you love a flower, you pour her daily with water.
Buddha.

=================================================================================================================================

The more I think about our existence, the more I feel how enigmatic everything really is. Gods intelligence and power is light-years above ours. His information process abilities are far beyond what we can fathom or understand. Every hair on our head he knows its number. And names all stars in the universe. And stretched the whole universe in an instant. There are events in my life, which benefit me, where I see Gods foreknowledge and care, and i see the connections and how one event influences another, apparently unrelated, in a positive way - brought by, by Gods direct intervention and direction of events. He uses our enemies which try to attempt against us and glorifies himself by providing victory to us over them, and so show his power in our lives. How many times did he save us from an accident, and we did not even perceive it? There is some sort of middle-knowledge in play, and HE instructs HIS angels to act in our favor. His power is truly incomprehensible to our limited minds.

Most atheists have no idea what would convince them that God exists. They live in a denial state, and are unable / unwilling to look beyond, and actually scrutinize both worldviews, one with, and the other without God.

=================================================================================================================================

I see it over and over: Atheists are throughout defeated in their reasoning that our existence can be explained without a creator. But once all arguments are exhausted, and they find themselves in a situation, where they cannot sustain what they tried to justify, rationally, they need to face the brute fact that God exists. And this situation demands that they make a decision. That is where will kicks in. C.S.Lewis brought it straight to the point, when he wrote, that atheists look for God, like a thief for the police station. A honest agnostic seeker, after his journey, and evaluating all evidence, has to come without doubt to the conclusion that Theism is the best ansswer after a critical analysis of the evidence that surrounds us. That brought Anthony Flew to abandone his views, and endorse deism. The quest of God IS one that demands us rationally to search him. An irrational worldview can only perpetuate based on blind faith, which unfortunately all to often is the case. But a worldview , to be true, must withstand rational , philosophic, and scientific scrutiny.
Many atheists however become misotheists, or indifferent alltogether towards questions of origins, and God. We are often acused of making baseless claims, when we point out why atheists are atheists. I agree, everyone has its personal reasons and motivations. But a general picture can be outlined. An atheist, which cannot sustain his views rationally, rejects God because of will. He does not WANT ( will ) God in his life. He thinks, life without God is better. He has the ( false ) perception and imagination that life without God will provide more freedom. And that it is not worth to obey a higher entity, whatever his laws are. Another reason is: Statistically it is proven, that most people define their position in regards of religion when they are young. Older people are accostumed into a certain lifestyle, and see no necessity of change.
In the end, the big issue is spiritual. Surrender to God is a spiritual event and transition, that is provoked by the change and moving of the "heart" ( or your inner being ), moving from a spiritual dead life, to a spiritual awakening, where God begins to dwell, interact, and live in the life of a believer.
I also think, God in his wisdom, wanted it so: It would not be just, if people of higher intelligence would have an advantage over people with less IQ/education/instruction. So God made our position to HIM a quest of our heart, a moral decision. So there is equality. Even people with a certain mental deficiency can find and worship God, and become his children.
What a blessing experience of all those, which have had the courage to be persuaded by Gods love and grace !!

=================================================================================================================================

Without God, nothing matters. Soon, we would all be stardust again, and if we lived like a jerk or a saint, nobody could remember. If there is no God, and no eternity, then the best philosophy of life would be to adopt selfishness and egocentrism. Live as best as you can to please yourself, since chance to be happy, you have only here and now. Tomorrow, we be all dead. The greatest stupidity would be to live altruistic, and suffer or self sacrifice for others in order to do good motivated by love.

=================================================================================================================================

Science until about one hundred years ago claimed that the universe was eternal. But then, it came to realize that most probably, it was not so. The universe had a beginning. Which is what Genesis 1 has always claimed.
Bible 1, Science 0.

Science thought the universe was eternal which means, it would not end either. But then, science came to realize as well, that far in the future, the universe will reach a state of heath death, or basically, it will die. Which is what Apocalypse, the last book of the Bible, has claimed for millennia.
Bible 2, Science 0
It might be good for skeptics and unbelievers to realize, that Gods word tells the truth, and God never fails, and never lies.

=================================================================================================================================

A life without God is a waste of time

=================================================================================================================================

Darwinists: At what point in past history has matter made its transition to self-awareness , and why has been able to make free choices been restricted only to humans?

=================================================================================================================================

When someone discovers a DaVinci painting after exhaustive research, hidden at some place, the admiration goes to the beauty of the painting, and the ingeniosity of its creator, the painter. Little credit is given to the discoverer. Why is each year the Nobel prize given to scientists that discover amazing phenomenal new things in the molecular world, receive honors and gratifications, but repeatedly, and every year, the organizers of the Nobel prize, completely dismiss, forget, neglect and ignore to mention, remember, and give credence and honors to whom actually invented by his immense, unfathomably intelligence, and made all these things, namely God?
Psalm 19:1
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."
John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Psalm 95:3-5
"For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods. In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land."
Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Psalm 104:24-25
"How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number – living things both large and small."

=================================================================================================================================

When you go fishing, and take a fish out of the water: Do you think: That was how my ancestors looked like, before they began walking out of the water some time ago? If so, hey, a little more respect with the poor fish

=================================================================================================================================

The secret to win in a casino is: Never play.

=================================================================================================================================

Thank God for the time he has given you. Do not waste it. Educating yourself and gaining knowledge is NEVER a waste of time, but the pathway of understanding, and enriches you with something that you never lose. Most people gain knowledge at school and learn a profession only in order to make a living, gain money, and think, that's enough. They never work to form a solid epistemological foundation about reality and origins. Knowledge makes you change and expand the vision of how you see the world. Learning is fun, and specially in biology, there are many moments of excitement and awe. The most precious knowledge you can gain is about God. Read and study the bible. That's theology and philosophy. Soon behind, is science, especially natural and historical sciences, like astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology geology, history, and archeology etc. Knowledge also expands your freedom of thought, and you can incorporate it into new forms of awareness. Educate yourself !!

2 Chronicles 1.2: That night God appeared to Solomon and said to him, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.” Solomon answered God: Give me wisdom and knowledge.

=================================================================================================================================

The claim that Intelligent design is not scientific fails by the fact that this is an entirely void and irrelevant argument.
Intelligent Design is a WORLDVIEW, which draws its inferences based on science and philosophy, in the same exact sense as philosophical naturalism does.
The proponent of ID comes to his conclusion by analyzing the same exact evidence that naturalists have at hand. The only difference is, that one concludes a creative agency is required, while the other side, does not.

=================================================================================================================================

I see atheists still very often rather than providing positive reasons to back up their position that no creative agency is required to explain our origins, they attack strawmen, such as claiming that the inference of intelligent design is not scientific, that most biologists reject ID, that no university accepts ID, that there is no consensus in regard to ID, that no peer reviewed papers on ID exist, that the Dover trial refuted ID, that evolution is a fact, that irreducible complexity has been refuted, and so on. None of these " arguments " provide technical scientific explanations on specific issues, and why naturalistic explanations top the inference of a causal agency as the best explanation. Atheists commonly use that tactic, because it's easy. Not much depth study of biology is required.
In regard of the claim that ID is not scientific, Ariel de la Torre made a good point: To say ID is scientific is like saying "here's a car, now by only studying the mechanisms of this car, prove to me how it was manufactured." It's a philosophical position with scientific implications.
And even biologists and scientists, often have an education about how things work, as described in biology textbooks, have often practical experience in the lab, but lack what is most important: critical thinking and skills to scrutinize the question of how what we observe in nature REALLY could have come about. Most are satisfied with what science papers offer. Not rarely, when a specific issue is raised, they make a quick google research, find respective papers on the issue, and think the mere existence of such papers grants them that their views are backed up, and sufficient explanations exist. Often, they have not even given a short look on what these papers say. They just fool themselves, because the real situation is, that, since science must find natural explanations, and they often do not exist, their alternative is to use a language that gives false hopes. It is never openly admitted that natural explanations are hopelessly inadequate. Then verbal diatribe is applied, like " most probably, we suppose, likely, we suggest, we are confident " ... and so on. That might convince who already believes naturalism is true, but it does not so who has serious and justified doubts, and skepticism.

=================================================================================================================================

Evidence, logic, and reason, is it enough to persuade of truth?
If our process of formulating a consistent epistemological framework would be based solely on critical thinking, reason, logic, and evidence, there would probably not exist such an eclectic towuwabohu of different worldviews and explanations of origins.
There is, however, a decisive ingredient here, that plays a major role. And that ingredient is called bias. We have a natural tendency to analyze newly presented evidence in face of the views that we already hold, accepting evidence that is consistent with our already hold views without further scrutinize, while subjecting inferences that contradict our views to intense scrutiny.
A study came to the conclusion that persuasive arguments tended to use calm words rather than emotional or LOUD ones (such as YOU MAKE JESUS A LIAR). Usually, it requires more detail to explain a viewpoint, that in the end is persuasive, rather than using short superficial explanations.
It's also important to provide references and links that back up a viewpoint. That helps in regard to credibility.
Using wording like "it could be the case" is not necessarily a sign of weakness or uncertainty, but they help to soften the " i am right " tone and help to make an argument easier to accept.
The attention to an answer is given more to sentences given in the beginning, rather in the end. So, provide the relevant information at the beginning of an answer.
If you have not been able to persuade the counterpart after the fourth, fifth exchange, you never will.
Illustrations, metaphors and analogies are often worth more than a thousand words, and very powerful. Why do you think, did Jesus use them a lot ?
And of course, if you preach the Gospel, if the holy spirit does not convince, nothing done.
If you have not read Dale Carnegies book : How to Win Friends and Influence People, i highly recommend it. Its an EXCELLENT book, and has helped people for decades, and is a best seller ever since.

=================================================================================================================================

If God is imaginary, nothing has creative powers.

=================================================================================================================================

To proponents of an old earth: Can you provide a timeline, when you think, God created the various kinds ( or species ) of animals, bacterias, and plants? And when God entered his resting state, the sabbath mentioned in Genesis? What does day one, day two, etc. equal and relate to in the creation process, in the old earth chronology? And when happened the events in the Garden of Eden ?

=================================================================================================================================

How can the universe expand into nothing, if nothing is the absence of anything ?

=================================================================================================================================

Hey, Charly, how do you explain this ??
This Iranian snake’s tail is shaped into a bulbous structure with thin ‘legs’ jutting out that look just enough like a spider to lure the horned viper’s chosen prey: birds. While other snakes also use their tails as lures, none have lures as complex as that of this viper. The lure is moved across a rocky surface, while the snake lies in wait, the rest of its body perfectly camouflaged. When a bird – typically a warbler – swoops down to capture the spider, the snake attacks.

=================================================================================================================================

It's remarkable that Christ never talked about billions of years of the age of the earth and the universe. He could have easily done that... The Bible mentions 10.000 x 10.000 angels in heaven. Jesus could have said, the past was and exists 10.000 x 10.000 years. The apostles could have reported that. Was Christ, and is God such an ambiguous communicator?
I believe the bible states FIRMLY and CLEARLY that the earth is young.
That does not remove away the problems to back it up with science IMHO.

=================================================================================================================================

Do you agree?
Atheists do not exist. Only people that profess to be atheists exist.

=================================================================================================================================

Atheists commonly accuse theists that they are only trying to live a moral life because of their fear of God and that it is perfectly possible to live a life, being good, without God.
If atheism were true, and no God would exist, and we would actually have knowledge of this fact, it would be horrendous.
If God would not exist, abiogenesis would not only be possible, but it would be a fact, and eventually reproducible. And biodiversity as well.
Humans, applying their intelligence, would create life in the lab, and all kind of monsters, which would at a certain point run out of control.
The fact that no moral instance would judge our misbehaviors, would be the grounding of explicit hedonism in all its forms, even the cruelest ones.
Amongst a few that would understand that justice and love is the basic requirement for a well-functioning society, what we see all over the world already, would increase drastically and fast. Murders, stealing, lying, betraying, cheating, wars, plundering, etc. would take overhand very fast. We would become savage beasts without mercy and without compassion and enslave others.
Our lives would be senseless, hopeless, meaningless, void and empty.
I am more than happy to KNOW my creator exists, and it is the just and loving gracious Lord which so much I love, which gave his life for me, and resurrected, and is giving me his hand and help to go through a world which is very much dominated by the one that hates us, but cannot overcome the ones that God saved, cleaned, and loved, and follow him.

=================================================================================================================================

Why do you never see in science articles asking questions like this ? What emerged first, Genes, or the gene regulatory network, and the information to pick or suppress the right genes at the right time? Simple. Because such simple questions make it evidently clear why naturalism fails. No Nobel price needed... btw.....

=================================================================================================================================

The best thing that happened to me when I was a child, was
1. My mother praying for and with me before sleeping
2. Our school teacher telling us stories of the Bible, in particular starting with Genesis, every Friday afternoon, before the weekend. I loved that.
Yes, it's not child abuse to teach children beginning from a young age the ways of the lord.
Yes, my 4yo daughter loves to go to the " Casa de Jesus", the house of Jesus.
As a father, I could not do anything better, and she will be grateful for that during her whole life.
1. Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
2. Deuteronomy 6:5-9 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. Take to heart these words that I give you today. Repeat them to your children. Talk about them when you’re at home or away, when you lie down or get up. Write them down, and tie them around your wrist, and wear them as headbands as a reminder. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
3. Deuteronomy 4:9-10 “But watch out! Be careful never to forget what you yourself have seen. Do not let these memories escape from your mind as long as you live! And be sure to pass them on to your children and grandchildren. Never forget the day when you stood before the Lord your God at Mount Sinai, where he told me, Summon the people before me, and I will personally instruct them. Then they will learn to fear me as long as they live, and they will teach their children to fear me also.”
4. Matthew 19:13-15 One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could lay his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him. But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.” And he placed his hands on their heads and blessed them before he left.
5. 1 Timothy 4:10-11 This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers. Teach these things and insist that everyone learn them.
6. Deuteronomy 11:19 Teach them to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up.
I am truly disgusted with Lawrence Krauss video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo
Luke 17New International Version (NIV)
17 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

=================================================================================================================================

Almost every Biochemistry and Biology textbook mentions evolution as the only explanation of origins. Almost every university teaches evolution and excludes creation / ID a priori. Nonetheless, only in 3 countries in the list below ( China, Great Britain, and in Mexico ) more than half of the population agrees that scientific evidence for evolution exists. Why ? - because there are no REAL reasons and a total lack of real evidence that points to common ancestry and biodiversity through macro-evolution. Proponents of naturalism through evolution have utterly failed with their goal to remove God from the picture. Their lame excuse that God is supernatural, and has no place in operational science, has not reached its goal. It's time that biology textbooks start to present BOTH views so every student can make up his mind by comparing the provided evidence of design and evolution. That's not only fair. Its the RIGHT procedure, give a fair chance, and both views deserve to be scrutinized and evaluated and compared against each other. I predict, that slowly, Darwin's ideas will die out, and less and fewer people will fall into the lies of the one that is not unknown to us.
God or Darwin? The world of evolution beliefs
Find out where on earth only 8% of people believe in evolution
https://www.theguardian.com/…/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution

=================================================================================================================================

What emerged first: DNA transcription and translation, or DNA replication?

=================================================================================================================================

Terms coined and invented should bear the best and most explanatory power by themselves. For that, i do not like the term coined by Dembski:
" Complex specified information ".
Specified is well understood when explained what is meant. But without doing so, it remains somehow vague. When its replaced by the term instructional, it seems to me that the term by itself is more elucidating. It has a more clear semantic content, or meaning by itself. In Wiki, specifying is explained as " To bring about a specific result. ".
" Complex instructional information "
IMHO seems much clearer to me. Wiki describes instructional, giving an example :
" instructs you how to assemble the furniture. "
So the word by itself is clear and its clearly understood what is meant.
The same applies to Behe's famously coined description of
" irreducible complexity ".
Unless someone explains to a layperson what is meant, the term itself does not clarify much. When we substitute the word complexity by structure, then the term
" irreducible structure "
by itself becomes much clearer and bears a inherent semantic, self-explaining content. A structure that is irreducible, or cannot be reduced further, keeping its function.
Replacing the two key terms that define what ID stands for, namely from
complex specified information
irreducible complexity
to
complex instructional information
irreducible structure
would be in my view a major advance to bring clarity to what ID stands for.

=================================================================================================================================

When someone has the intention to make a machine, a project and planning are indispensable. Normally, it requires factories to make machines. And the make of these factories also requires planning. Every step requires foreplanning. Often it takes several machines, working in a coordinated, finely tuned, interconnected manner to make one part of the machine, a subunit. And that subunit is later joined to other parts of the complex. And that subunit must fit precisely to bear a overall function. All that must be foreplanned. The import of the raw materials to the assembly place requires also planning, and complex mechanisms, like highways to bring the materials to the factory, and complex procedures to clean the raw materials, and prepare them to be used to make the machine part. All this requires often other machines as well. Once the individual parts are made, intelligence is required to assemble the complex subunits. They must be mounted in the right way, at the right place, at the right time. Its, in fact, difficult, to think about something, that requires more brainpower to be done, than to project, and make complex machines and factories. It is self-evident, that they had an inventor, a team of intelligent, highly skilled engineers as makers. Why the same logic is not applied to molecular machines and cell factories, has to do with the fact that most people have no true understanding that things in molecular biology work surprisingly similar like in man-made artifacts. And indoctrination has made that most see these issues as settled in their minds. Cells are extremely complex factories, full of machines, assembly lines, computers, software, organization, fine-tuning, error check and repair mechanisms, advanced communication systems, maintaining the right milieu and homeostasis, self-replication, energy uptake and transformation, and the amazing ability to adapt to the environment and its varying conditions. Its a far smaller leap of faith to believe, life came from a super intelligent inventor, than from no manufacturer at all.

=================================================================================================================================

All living cells, conduct and require cell communication to survive.Cell communication, also known as cell signaling, involves both incoming and outgoing signals. Cells of all living organisms both respond to incoming signals and produce outgoing signals. Cell communication is a two-way street. Question: What evolved first: The mechanism to recognize and understand the ingoing signals, or the outgoing signals? And: In order for cell-cell communication to exist, there would have had to be more than one cell for life to begin...... If the emergence of one cell on a prebiotic earth is a daunting task, imagine more than one....

Do you want to expand your knowledge? Become an engaged proponent of Intelligent design. When you debate ID with non-believers, they will confront you with all sorts of arguments, to which you need to find good arguments of refutation, and explanations that top theirs. There your learning process happens. When you google and make your search on the web to find adequate answers to the challenge. Believe me. That's far better than watching a movie on Netflix. You will discover especially in the molecular world bewildering things that will amaze you, and a world that cannot be beaten by the best Science fiction movie. Reality beats fiction. What God has done to make life possible is far far beyond the wildest dreams of any molecular biologist, and science has only started to scratch the surface. Life is far far more complex than anything the human mind will ever be able to grasp. The Glycan alphabet encodes in glycosylated proteins, on the surface of cell membranes, a complex communication system far beyond the genetic code and information stored in DNA. Science is just in the beginning to unravel the meaning of the code. And that is just one of at least a dozen other code systems inside the cell. Start your journey and enjoy !!

=================================================================================================================================

Why do freethinkers after their free thinking process never come to the conclusion: God did it?

=================================================================================================================================

Science, peer review consensus = truth.
Religion, sheepherders, talking snakes, faith, superstition, sky daddy = fairy tale.
In the same sense as drug-abuse craves a certain behavior and reward reaction in your brain, and makes you addicted, a world-view that someone is used to, or accustomed to it, and he feels fine with, is hard to change. Many see simply no need to obey an invisible being, giving their autonomy of decisions out of their hand. They do not want to trust a higher being, but proud makes them want to keep being in control of their lives. Many see no need to trust God. There is a dictum: an old tree is difficult to straighten. That might be the reason why most people come to God at a young age, mostly as teenagers. That was also my case. And many when going through difficult times, and searching for a solution.

=================================================================================================================================

The teleological argument which I most like, can be expressed in a simple syllogism:

Complex machines and factories do not self-assemble.
Biological Cells are literally complex self-replicating factories, full of molecular machines
Therefore, they are most probably due to intelligent design.

Nobody in its sane mind would defend and advocate that computers, hardware, software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, complex machines, factory assembly lines, error check and repair systems, recycling methods, waste grinders and management, power generating plants, power turbines, and electric circuits could emerge randomly, by unguided, accidental events. That is, however, the ONLY causal alternative, once intelligent planning, invention, design, and implementation are excluded, to explain the origin of biological Cells, which are literally miniaturized, ultracomplex, molecular, self-replicating factories.

=================================================================================================================================

The God of the Bible is terrific and terrifying at the same time. He is terrific because of his love and grace, but terrifying because of his justice.

=================================================================================================================================

Darwinists commonly argue that Hoyle's analogy in regard to the self-assembly of a 747 fails, because natural selection is not random. Well, atheists do in this case, what they commonly accuse theists of doing. They quote mine Hoyles analogy and change the true significance.
What is commonly overlooked ( and so did I as well ), is the fact, that the original analogy was made to illustrate the problem of the origin of life, not evolution and emergence of biodiversity. For that reason, Hoyle's analogy is FULLY valid, and unchallenged !!
Origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution.
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com.br/…/re-fred-ho…
Here is the relevant part of that quote by Hoyle:
"If you stir up simple nonorganic molecules like water, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen cyanide with almost any form of intense energy ... some of the molecules reassemble themselves into amino acids ... demonstrated ... by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. The ... building blocks of proteins can therefore be produced by natural means. But this is far from proving that life could have evolved in this way. No one has shown that the correct arrangements of amino acids, like the orderings in enzymes, can be produced by this method. .... A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." (Hoyle, F., "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp.18-19).
The first instance that I am aware of Hoyle's use of that metaphor was reported in the science journal Nature in 1981:
"Hoyle said last week that ... the origin of life ... the information content of the higher forms of life is represented by the number 1040 000 - representing the specificity with which some 2,000 genes, each of which might be chosen from 1020 nucleotide sequences of the appropriate length .... The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. " (Hoyle, F., in "Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105). >and Dawkins is clearly misleading his readers to blunt what he knows is a devastating attack on a "naturalistic" origin of life.
Further down in the article : Dawkins forgets that as he once admitted, that in:
"... the problem of how life originated on Earth. .... we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself ... cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!." (Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.139-141)
Dawkins then answered his own question:
"... how much luck are we allowed to assume in a theory of the origin of life on Earth? ... when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves ...such an extravagant theory ... provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." (Dawkins, Ibid, 1986, pp.143,146).
But unfortunately for Dawkins, "1 in 100 billion billion" is only 1 in 1020 (i.e. 102*109*109 = 102+9+9). That is not enough for the chance assembly of a specific chain of 15 (2015 = ~1019.5) amino acids, i.e. not even enough for one protein!

=================================================================================================================================

Orchestration and timing of cellular processes require life-essential, precise timing, cross-regulation, coordination, the right sequence of processes, the right speed, at the right rate, there are checkpoint mechanisms, error checking, and repair at various stages.
Question: What emerged first: protein synthesis, or the right, precise coordination of the whole process, and its respective proteins and signaling processes doing the job?
Protein recipe requires precise timing 4
March 25, 2016
The activation of genes is a complicated biochemical endeavor akin to cooking a meal, and a new Yale study details just how precisely choreographed those steps need to be. Do cells cook the meat entrée before the vegetable? Or are these dishes cooked simultaneously? The Yale team led by Karla Neugebauer examined the intricacies of RNA splicing—the removal of RNA segments (known as introns) encoded by DNA that do not contain instructions for making proteins. The splicing machinery stitches the RNA segments together into accurate copies of mature messenger RNA that in turn sets in motion the cell's protein-making machinery. It was previously thought that splicing takes place well after transcription of the RNA segments. The Yale researchers found this crucial splicing step occurs as soon as the RNA is transcribed from the DNA template and that the timing of both transcription and splicing processes are precisely coordinated. "It's like cooking Thanksgiving dinner: The turkey and mashed potatoes need to be completely cooked and hot when the feast is served," Neugebauer said.
Splicing of Nascent RNA Coincides with Intron Exit from RNA Polymerase II 5
March 24, 2016
Here, we present two single-molecule nascent RNA sequencing methods that directly determine the progress of splicing catalysis as a function of Pol II position. Perturbations that slow the rate of spliceosome assembly or speed up the rate of transcription caused splicing delays, showing that regulation of both processes determines in vivo splicing profiles.

=================================================================================================================================

The claim that Intelligent design is not scientific fails by the fact that this is an entirely void and irrelevant argument.
Intelligent Design is a WORLDVIEW, which draws its inferences based on science and philosophy, in the same exact sense as philosophical naturalism does.
The proponent of ID comes to his conclusion by analyzing the same exact evidence that naturalists have at hand. The only difference is, that one concludes a creative agency is required, while the other side, does not.

=================================================================================================================================

I see atheists still very often rather than providing positive reasons to back up their position that no creative agency is required to explain our origins, they attack strawmen, such as claiming that the inference of intelligent design is not scientific, that most biologists reject ID, that no university accepts ID, that there is no consensus in regard to ID, that no peer reviewed papers on ID exist, that the Dover trial refuted ID, that evolution is a fact, that irreducible complexity has been refuted, and so on. None of these " arguments " provide technical scientific explanations on specific issues, and why naturalistic explanations top the inference of a causal agency as the best explanation. Atheists commonly use that tactic, because it's easy. Not much depth study of biology is required.
In regard of the claim that ID is not scientific, Ariel de la Torre made a good point: To say ID is scientific is like saying "here's a car, now by only studying the mechanisms of this car, prove to me how it was manufactured." It's a philosophical position with scientific implications.
And even biologists and scientists, often have an education about how things work, as described in biology textbooks, have often practical experience in the lab, but lack what is most important: critical thinking and skills to scrutinize the question of how what we observe in nature REALLY could have come about. Most are satisfied with what science papers offer. Not rarely, when a specific issue is raised, they make a quick google research, find respective papers on the issue, and think the mere existence of such papers grants them that their views are backed up, and sufficient explanations exist. Often, they have not even given a short look on what these papers say. They just fool themselves, because the real situation is, that, since science must find natural explanations, and they often do not exist, their alternative is to use a language that gives false hopes. It is never openly admitted that natural explanations are hopelessly inadequate. Then verbal diatribe is applied, like " most probably, we suppose, likely, we suggest, we are confident " ... and so on. That might convince who already believes naturalism is true, but it does not so who has serious and justified doubts, and skepticism.

=================================================================================================================================

Evidence, logic, and reason, is it enough to persuade of truth?
If our process of formulating a consistent epistemological framework would be based solely on critical thinking, reason, logic, and evidence, there would probably not exist such an eclectic towuwabohu of different worldviews and explanations of origins.
There is, however, a decisive ingredient here, that plays a major role. And that ingredient is called bias. We have a natural tendency to analyze newly presented evidence in face of the views that we already hold, accepting evidence that is consistent with our already hold views without further scrutinize, while subjecting inferences that contradict our views to intense scrutiny.
A study came to the conclusion that persuasive arguments tended to use calm words rather than emotional or LOUD ones (such as YOU MAKE JESUS A LIAR). Usually, it requires more detail to explain a viewpoint, that in the end is persuasive, rather than using short superficial explanations.
It's also important to provide references and links that back up a viewpoint. That helps in regard to credibility.
Using wording like "it could be the case" is not necessarily a sign of weakness or uncertainty, but they help to soften the " i am right " tone and help to make an argument easier to accept.
The attention to an answer is given more to sentences given in the beginning, rather in the end. So, provide the relevant information at the beginning of an answer.
If you have not been able to persuade the counterpart after the fourth, fifth exchange, you never will.
Illustrations, metaphors and analogies are often worth more than a thousand words, and very powerful. Why do you think, did Jesus use them a lot ?
And of course, if you preach the Gospel, if the holy spirit does not convince, nothing done.
If you have not read Dale Carnegies book : How to Win Friends and Influence People, i highly recommend it. Its an EXCELLENT book, and has helped people for decades, and is a best seller ever since.

=================================================================================================================================

“Methodological naturalism destroys the truth-seeking purpose of science, dooming it as a game with an arbitrarily restricted set of possible outcomes.” Dr. Paul Nelson

Historical sciences, and methodological naturalism
Methodological naturalism is necessary for science because science requires that as a precondition of investigating natural things. It is not necessary to elucidate historical facts however. History does not investigate by empirically determining anything. Although history does seek to answer questions about the past, it requires only that the past is rational. Rational simply means that there is a reason. So if something did happen that were an act of God in the past, then as long as that act had a reason, history can investigate it.

Credit to: Steven Guzzi
The specific complex information of living systems as,well as fine tuning agents of a life permiti g universe and immaterial truths, etc have causal materialistic dead ends. However, intelligent design is a current observable mechanism to explain design, thus are an adequate simple causal mechanism to explain these realities of our universe, its fine tuning improbabilities, information, immaterial abstracts, etc. Intelligence can and is a causal agent in the sciences such as forensics, archeology engineering, etc., thus there is no reason to rule out a priori the unobserved designer scientifically. We only rule him out by philosophical or anti religious objection, which anybody has the freewill right to do, but it isn't necessarily true or right to do so, and we can't use science to do so, if we are unbiased, correctly using the discipline. Additionally, to argue non empirical causes are inadequate would rule out many woukd be mainstream secular materialistic hypothetical causes as well. It then becomes a matter of preference to the type of causes one is willing to accept and one's preferred worldview has a lot to do with that.

=================================================================================================================================

It's remarkable that Christ never talked about billions of years of the age of the earth and the universe. He could have easily done that... The Bible mentions 10.000 x 10.000 angels in heaven. Jesus could have said, the past was and exists 10.000 x 10.000 years. The apostles could have reported that. Was Christ, and is God such an ambiguous communicator?
I believe the bible states FIRMLY and CLEARLY that the earth is young.
That does not remove away the problems to back it up with science IMHO.

=================================================================================================================================

Atheists commonly accuse theists that they are only trying to live a moral life because of their fear of God and that it is perfectly possible to live a life, being good, without God.
If atheism were true, and no God would exist, and we would actually have knowledge of this fact, it would be horrendous.
If God would not exist, abiogenesis would not only be possible, but it would be a fact, and eventually reproducible. And biodiversity as well.
Humans, applying their intelligence, would create life in the lab, and all kind of monsters, which would at a certain point run out of control.
The fact that no moral instance would judge our misbehaviors, would be the grounding of explicit hedonism in all its forms, even the cruelest ones.
Amongst a few that would understand that justice and love is the basic requirement for a well-functioning society, what we see all over the world already, would increase drastically and fast. Murders, stealing, lying, betraying, cheating, wars, plundering, etc. would take overhand very fast. We would become savage beasts without mercy and without compassion and enslave others.
Our lives would be senseless, hopeless, meaningless, void and empty.
I am more than happy to KNOW my creator exists, and it is the just and loving gracious Lord which so much I love, which gave his life for me, and resurrected, and is giving me his hand and help to go through a world which is very much dominated by the one that hates us, but cannot overcome the ones that God saved, cleaned, and loved, and follow him.

=================================================================================================================================

Why do you never see in science articles asking questions like this ? What emerged first, Genes, or the gene regulatory network, and the information to pick or suppress the right genes at the right time? Simple. Because such simple questions make it evidently clear why naturalism fails. No Nobel price needed... btw.....

=================================================================================================================================

How was evolution able to place 37 trillion cells ( 37.200,000,000,000 Cells ) at the right place in the body of homo sapiens, in a time period of 1,5 billion ( 1.500,000,000 ) years, according to evolutionary thinking? That is, when supposedly unicellular lifeforms began to develop multicellularity. Let's suppose a theoretical average lifespan of each organism of 30 years. That means there were 50mio ( 50.000,000 ) generations. That means the average mutation rate of each generation had to generate 740 thousand ( 740,000 ) mutations PER GENERATION, and as a result, NEW information to instruct the organism WHERE to add the new 740 thousand cells. That calculation dismisses all other requirements for body development, that is:
1. Kind or type of cell, that is, cell differentiation,
2. Cell size
3. It's specific function,
4. Position and place in the body. This is crucial. Limbs like legs, fins, eyes etc. must all be placed at the right place.
5. How it is interconnected with other cells,
6. What communication it requires to communicate with other cells, and the setup of the communication channels
7. What specific sensory and stimuli functions are required and does it have to acquire in regard to its environment and surroundings?
8. What specific new regulatory functions it acquires
9. When will the development program of the organism express the genes to grow the new cells during development?
11. Precisely how many new cell types must be produced for each tissue and organ?
10. Specification of the cell - cell adhesion and which ones will be used in each cell to adhere to the neighbor cells ( there are 4 classes )
11. Programming of time period the cell keeps alive in the body, and when is it time to self-destruct and be replaced by newly produced cells of the same kind
12. Set up its specific nutrition demands

=================================================================================================================================

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist
Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round
This means space and time don't exist in the linear fashion we think it does
He uses the famous double-split experiment to illustrate his point
And if space and time aren't linear, then death can't exist in 'any real sense' either

=================================================================================================================================

Darwins Theory evolved from an idea he plagiarized, presented it as his theory deserving to be accepted, rather than a philosophical hypothesis, and the idea further evolved into the claim of being a Fact - by conflating what can be observed - micro-evolution, and extrapolating it to common ancestry, and macro-evolution ( primary speciation )

=================================================================================================================================

It's not: " Believe me, or burn".

Its: I am knocking at the door ( of your heart ). If you let me in, I, Jesus, will come and transform you to get a new nature, become a newly transformed creature with a new heart, which will permit you to grow spiritually, and interact with me and your next,  in a manner that paradise will be indeed paradise. Paradise is not, because the streets in the new Jerusalem described in apocalypse will be transparent Gold and the gateways of precious stones. Paradise is because God is there. There will be no evil, no harm, no sin, no corruption of any sort, no fear, no pain, no kind of sickness, but joyful communion with Brothers, Sisters, the bride with the fiancé, God with his children. Heaven will be a busy place. Gods Children will not be playing harps eternally, and only praise God. This is the ridiculous imagination of atheists. That is the essence of heaven. And the bride will reign with God in all eternity.

Why should unrepented sinners go to heaven? Their permanence there would be worse than in hell. They would BEG God to let them go to hell. A sinner in heaven would be in a WORSE state than in hell. So even by letting a sinner go to hell, God is applying grace, by letting him go to where He chose freely to go. Sinners will bow their knee FREELY to the lamb, even knowing that they will be cast into hell because they will admit that their judgment was righteous. Black and white do not combine. Sin and holiness/purity do not combine. A sinner in Gods presence will immediately perceive his dirtiness. Gods children can approach Gods throne only because Christ's righteousness was applied to them. And we are free to do this spiritually, today. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out of paradise, and the tree of life. If would be a disgrace, if the state of sin would endure eternally. That's why this reality is doomed to pass. But Gods new heaven, and a new earth will endure forever.  Gods plans are perfect. He deserves our praise and trust.

=================================================================================================================================

God is a fact
Creation is a fact
Intelligent design is a fact
Adaptation is a fact
Change over time is a fact
Variation of alleles is a fact
Limited common ancestry is a fact
Pre-programmed evolution is a fact
Natural Selection up to two mutations is a fact
Epigenetic plus Genes define body form is a fact
That Darwin was wrong is a fact
Irreducible complexity and Interdependence extends in all biology - is a fact
Life comes only from life is a fact
Abiogenesis is impossible - is a fact
Fossils disprove Darwin's theory - is a fact
Darwin's theory has been falsified multiple times - is a fact
Planets and stars do not form through accretion - is a fact
The universe is finely tuned to host life - is a fact
The physical laws and the physical universe are interdependent - a fact
Our existence is best explained through Intelligent Creation - is a fact - in my opinion.




Last edited by Admin on Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

80 Re: My articles on Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:44 am

Admin


Admin
Death defies Darwins Theory of Evolution

The goal of philosophical naturalism is to exclude God out of the picture of reality. But life has purpose and goals. While a lifeless Rock has no goal, has no specific shape or form for a specific function, but is random, and the forms of stones and mountains come in all chaotic shapes, sizes, and physicochemical arrangements, and there is no goal-oriented interaction between one rock and another, no interlocking mechanical interaction like proteins through co-factors and apo-proteins ( lock and key).   Life is inherently different.

Some atheists try to poke holes in the design inference by pointing to bad design in nature, or vestigial organs. Not only is the argument fruitless, because we can recognize that Newcomen's steam engine was far behind Watts steam-engine, less practical and efficient, but nonetheless, designed.

The few vestigial organs that are commonly mentioned, have been found to have a purpose as well, like the appendix or the Coccyx. Whenever scientists find a new creature or species, they try to figure out what kind of ecological function it has in its habitat. When they find a new organ in the body - same, they ask, what purpose does it have. There is a global interconnection and purpose from the micro, to macro.

Interdependence and irreducibly complex machines point to purpose, when one part needs the other in order to exist and fullfill a distant end goal.

Cosmology: Interdependence of the universe, with our milky way galaxy, solar system - sun - planets - sun - moon
Planet earth: Land - water - volcanoes - plate tectonics - earthquakes
Energy cycles on earth: water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, Phosphorus, Iron, and Trace Mineral cycles
Biology: Organism level - organ level - tissue level - cell level - molecular level

It is very common, that authors of scientific papers smuggle a teleological vocabulary into their write-ups, where it does not belong, because, in a world without God, purposeful design cannot and does not exist, or the naturalistic worldview breaks down. But describe the purpose of the heart, avoiding to mention why the heart is there, is oxymoronic. But natural selection has no goal to produce or select a heart, which has the purpose to pump blood into veins and keep a multicellular organism alive.

Even the very core of Darwins Theory of Evolution is an inference to a purpose-driven situation: survive. But also Darwin knew, that he had to avoid to smuggle teleology into his intended worldview, so natures SELECTION did not actually select in a goal-oriented manner, but it was portrayed as a passive process. What best adapts, is "selected",  survives, spreads in the population, and positive alleles take over, gain overhand. No action, just direction of more survivability.  

But the view of purposeless life finds its biggest problem in the fact, that lifeless matter and molecules do have no purpose to organize themselves and do not have the inherent drive to become alive. Iron becomes rust, oxidizes. Thermodynamic laws result in the tendency of dissipating energy. But life is exactly the opposite

Bill Faint brought it to the point in an epic sentence:.
life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever "get off the ground". It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce its own entropy. That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail "figuring out" how to spontaneously rust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion. Unintelligent simple chemicals can't self-organize into instructions for building solar farms (photosystems 1 and 2), hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase), propulsion (motor proteins) , self repair (p53 tumor suppressor proteins) or self-destruct (caspases) in the event that these instructions become too damaged by the way the universe USUALLY operates. Abiogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism

But once life was established, why would it "want" to remain alive and perpetuate through self-replication and reproduction? Self-replication is per se a mystery.

The process of self-replication requires ultracomplex processes of cell division,  orderly sequence of events, long and complex sequences of cell divisions, growth coordination, and controlling the timing of the cell cycle requires irreducible control checkpoints, namely:

Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things and requires an irreducibly complex regulation process
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2109-the-cell-cycle#5660

Essential Cell-Cycle Regulators

CDK2 (Hs, Xl, Gg)    No reduplication, normal duplication, needed for duplication in absence of CDK1
Separase (Xl) No     centriole disengagement, impaired duplication
Spliced Sgo1 (Mm)  Precocious centriole disengagement
p53 (Mm, Hs)          Amplification
CHK1 (Gg, Hs)         No centrosome amplification upon DNA damage
PLK1 (Hs)                No reduplication in S phase-arrested cells
PLK2 (Hs)                No reduplication in S phase-arrested cells
MPS1 (Hs, Mm, Sc)  No reduplication (Hs, Mm; reports differ); normal duplication
(Dm);                     no spindle-pole-body duplication
BRCA1 (Hs, Mm)      Premature centriole separation and reduplication in S-G2 boundary (Hs); amplification (Mm)
Cdc14B (Hs)            Amplification
PP2 (Dm)                Centrosome amplification Overexpression: prevents reduplication Nucleophosmin/B23
(Mm, Hs)                Amplification
CAMKII (Xl)             Blocks early steps in duplication
CDK1 (Dm, Sc)        Amplification
Skp1, Skp2, Cul1,    Slimb (SCF Complex)
(Dm, Xl, Mm, Hs)     Blocks separation of M-D pairs and reduplication
(Xl);                        increased centrosome number (Dm, Mm)
Geminin (Hs)           Centrosome amplification
Overexpression:       blocks reduplication


Why would life adapt to the environment at all - if it is not goal driven? Why would it progress from single cells to higher and higher complexity, requiring a not small number of new genes and functions, if bacterias, arachea, and single-celled organisms like algae survive just fine? Why a sudden Cambrian explosion ?  

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

Why would life suddenly burst with new inventions, like

1.cell signaling,
2.cell movement,
3.cell proliferation, and
4.cell -cell adhesion proteins ?

Why would single-celled organisms suddenly evolved and begin to produce structurally new, complex and organized structures,  pluripotent somatic cells, and interdependent systems like the nervous system, muscles, connective tissue, skin, bones, blood, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, digestive and Excretory Systems, endocrine and immune systems? The endocrine and nervous system, directly and indirectly, regulate the cardiovascular system.  One depends on the other, and both had to emerge together. Both digestive and excretory systems are regulated with input from the nervous system and endocrine system, and the cardiovascular system is inextricably linked with bowel and kidney function on multiple levels. which means, these systems had to emerge altogether. The endocrine and nervous system may work together on the same organ, and each may influence the actions of the other system.

Not only that. Why does life die again, and bodies going their natural course, thermodynamically downwards, and disorganization into random chaotic existence of mere matter and basic building blocks, molecules, and atoms?

And why have organisms a program of cellular self-destruction to favor the survival and benefit of the whole organism? Why would Mr.Natural Selector have chosen that route of altruism, rather than selecting to make Cells that would, once aged, return back to be somatic? If Cells have a program of differentiation, to become specialized ( the human body has about 200 different, specialized cells ), why did Mr.Natural selection not select a program, which would , once the cell has reached its max age, replicate and produce cells that would return to its youngest age, and then began a new life cycle, and virtually live forever ?

You might think that is science fiction. But that is precisely what Jelly Fish do !!

http://www.thatsreallypossible.com/news/289/immortal-jellyfish-mystery/

The creature, known scientifically as Turritopsis nutricula, was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea in 1883, but its unique regeneration was not known until the mid-1990s. How does the process work? If a mature Turritopsis is threatened — injured or starving, for example — it attaches itself to a surface in warm ocean waters and converts into a blob. From that state, its cells undergo transdifferentiation in which the cells essentially transform into different types of cells. Muscle cells can become sperm or eggs, or nerve cells can change into muscle cells, "revealing a transformation potential unparalleled in the animal kingdom," according to the original study of the species published in 1996.

If Darwin's fancy idea where true, why would such amazing ability not have spread from Jelly Fish to ALL animal kingdom? Jelly Fish belong on Darwin's tree of life to the OLDEST species on earth. No wonder, a science paper reports that Clytia hemisphaerica, a member of the early-branching animal phylum Cnidaria, is emerging rapidly as an experimental model for studies in developmental biology and evolution.

http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952510000235

The oldest known fossils of jellyfish have been found in rocks in Utah that are ( supposedly ) more than 500 million years old.
https://www.livescience.com/1971-oldest-jellyfish-fossils.html

That puts them on Darwin's tree of life right in the beginning of animal development, which supports what I wrote above. Jellyfish could have been the precursor of a significant part of biodiversity, evolving and only dying by accident.
But only a small number of organisms is known to have inbuilt that feat. Why ?

The Bible gives a consistent report about why death entered our planet. Humans sinned, and brought death and destruction to the earth. And so, once more, giving a far more consistent and rational account of why there is death.

But God is life and the life giver. He has overcome death through the resurrection of Christ. And he will give eternal life to all who recognize, believe him, repent and surrender to his grace and love, and follow him. He is worthy of praise and worship because he is the author of life.  Do you belong to HIM ?!!

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

81 Re: My articles on Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:05 pm

Admin


Admin
=================================================================================================================================

Every time, an atheist tells you that you do not know how evolution works, you can ask:
Which of the 23 items below does NOT define Cell and body form, size and shape, and organism development? If you cannot point it out, you demonstrate lack of knowledge to argue about if Darwins Theory is true, and confirmed, or not:
Genetic:
1.DNA Code sequence
Epigenetic ( beyond or outside the genetic information ) :
1. Membrane targets and patterns
2. Cytoskeletal arrays
3. Centrosomes
4. Ion channels, and their location in the cell membrane
5. Sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar or glycan code)
6. Gene regulatory networks
7. Splicing Code
8. Metabolic Code
9. Signal Transduction Codes
10. Signal Integration Codes
11. Histone Code
12. Tubulin Code
13. Glycomic Code
14. Calcium Code
15. RNA Code
16. MicroRNAs
17. Transposons and Retrotransposons
18. DNA dinucleotide methylation
19. DNA CpG island methylation
20. Histone methylation
21. Chromatin remodeling
22. DNA coiling
23. microRNA regulation
The answer :
ALL of above 23 mentioned items ( and many more which science will discover ) do influence cell shape, body form, and development. There is just ONE item which is genetic, namely the genetic DNA sequence, which upon Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection has influence in a VERY limited range.
I think, we, Creationists / ID-proponentists, have made it into a hobby, to point out why Darwins Theory is false. Above points it out in a nutshell, why. You can save this list on your laptop, and use it, every time when an atheist wishes to educate you on evolution.

=================================================================================================================================

God has proven his existence to me. I cannot believe anymore, that he does not exist. To me, he DOES exist, and I am 100% certain about it. I am convinced about that fact, as much as I am convinced about the existence of the air that I breathe. And somebody could even torture me to death, and I COULD NOT stop to believe in his existence. His existence is overwhelmingly obvious through his creation, and direct revelation. BUT. I cannot prove you, what I am convinced of. You have to do your own work of forming an epistemological framework and then search for the truth of our existence.
Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
But when you seek, it's actually not, that you will find the truth. But the truth will find you.
Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

=================================================================================================================================

The more I ponder about the miracles described in the Bible, the more I realize how much our existence is a mystery. How could the first apostles after they got the holy spirit, start to talk in other languages, and understand them? Not only that, but speak the dialect of these languages? How did that work? Yeah, of course, it was a miracle. But if you think about it, is completely unexplainable and incomprehensible. Truth is, above this reality in which we live, there are other, higher realities and dimensions, which we cannot fathom. Gods nature and love is also something beyond our comprehension. Why is God good? Why does he love us that much, that it did cost him to suffer that much to save us, to have us with him? Why are we so precious to him? Why did he pay such a high price to save us?
God could be in essence totally different. Imagine, his moral nature would be totally different. Can't it be? It can. Imagine, he would have no foresight and created our world, and humans, with the expectation, that we would obey him freely, and not foresee, that the first couple would disobey him. He could also decide since we all did not obey and meet his standard, to apply his justice, and simply send all to hell, that would sin, even IF they would like to worship him, and be in eternity with him. We could not blame him. He would be just. He would be justified to accept our worship and praise, nonetheless, send us to hell.... I don't know if we can ever appreciate in an adequate manner his grace and love and retribute it accordingly. We will eternally owe him. But thank God, he does not take that into consideration. His love covers all our shortcomings....

=================================================================================================================================

For those who believe piously in science, scientific theories, and peer-reviewed papers, consider:
Eight years before Orville and Wilbur Wright took their home-built flyer to the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk, cranked up the engine, and took off into the history books, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration.
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very powerful man of science....
Rumor has it Lord Kelvin was slightly in error.


=================================================================================================================================

Now, this is truly a funny article:

Evolution of higher torque in Campylobacter-type bacterial flagellar motors
08 January 2018

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18115-1

Understanding the evolution of molecular machines underpins our understanding of the development of life on earth. A well-studied case are bacterial flagellar motors that spin helical propellers for bacterial motility.

Diverse motors produce different torques, but how this diversity evolved remains unknown.

To gain insights into evolution of the high-torque ε-proteobacterial motor exemplified by the Campylobacter jejuni motor, we inferred ancestral states by combining phylogenetics, electron cryotomography, and motility assays to characterize motors from Wolinella succinogenes, Arcobacter butzleri and Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus.

Observation of ~12 stator complexes in many proteobacteria, yet ~17 in ε-proteobacteria suggest a “quantum leap” evolutionary event.

My comment: So after over 20 years, when Behe published the first time about the Flagellum, the authors of this paper in Nature admit, they have no clue how the flagellum diversified ( they could have also admitted to have no clue how it emerged in the first place ), to then, make literally a LEAP OF FAITH, by claiming that the " 12 stator complexes suggest a “quantum leap” evolutionary event. ".

=================================================================================================================================

Darwins Theory is a metabiological program to eliminate God.

================================================================================================================================

Death defies Darwins Theory of Evolution

Through philosophical naturalism, supernatural entities are excluded out of the picture of reality. But life has purpose and goals. While a lifeless Rock has no goal, has no specific shape or form for a specific function, but is random, and the forms of stones and mountains come in all chaotic shapes, sizes, and physicochemical arrangements, and there is no goal-oriented interaction between one rock and another, no interlocking mechanical interaction like proteins through co-factors and apo-proteins ( lock and key).   Life is inherently different.

Some atheists try to poke holes in the design inference by pointing to bad design in nature, or vestigial organs. Not only is the argument fruitless, because we can recognize that Newcomen's steam engine was far behind Watts steam-engine, less practical and efficient, but nonetheless, designed.

The few vestigial organs that are commonly mentioned, have been found to have a purpose as well, like the appendix or the Coccyx. Whenever scientists find a new creature or species, they try to figure out what kind of ecological function it has in its habitat. When they find a new organ in the body - same, they ask, what purpose does it have. There is a global interconnection and purpose from the micro, to macro.

Interdependence and irreducibly complex machines point to purpose, when one part needs the other in order to exist and fullfill a distant end goal.

Cosmology: Interdependence of the universe, with our milky way galaxy, solar system - sun - planets - sun - moon
Planet earth: Land - water - volcanoes - plate tectonics - earthquakes
Energy cycles on earth: water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, Phosphorus, Iron, and Trace Mineral cycles
Biology: Organism level - organ level - tissue level - cell level - molecular level

It is very common, that authors of scientific papers smuggle a teleological vocabulary into their write-ups, where it does not belong, because, in a world without God, purposeful design cannot and does not exist, or the naturalistic worldview breaks down. But describe the purpose of the heart, avoiding to mention why the heart is there, is oxymoronic. But natural selection has no goal to produce or select a heart, which has the purpose to pump blood into veins and keep a multicellular organism alive.

Even the very core of Darwins Theory of Evolution is an inference to a purpose-driven situation: survive. But also Darwin knew, that he had to avoid to smuggle teleology into his intended worldview, so natures SELECTION did not actually select in a goal-oriented manner, but it was portrayed as a passive process. What best adapts, is "selected",  survives, spreads in the population, and positive alleles take over, gain overhand. No action, just direction of more survivability.  

But the view of purposeless life finds its biggest problem in the fact, that lifeless matter and molecules do have no purpose to organize themselves and do not have the inherent drive to become alive. Iron becomes rust, oxidizes. Thermodynamic laws result in the tendency of dissipating energy. But life is exactly the opposite

Bill Faint brought it to the point in an epic sentence:.
life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever "get off the ground". It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce its own entropy. That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail "figuring out" how to spontaneously rust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion. Unintelligent simple chemicals can't self-organize into instructions for building solar farms (photosystems 1 and 2), hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase), propulsion (motor proteins) , self repair (p53 tumor suppressor proteins) or self-destruct (caspases) in the event that these instructions become too damaged by the way the universe USUALLY operates. Abiogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism

But once life was established, why would it "want" to remain alive and perpetuate through self-replication and reproduction? Self-replication is per se a mystery.

The process of self-replication requires ultracomplex processes of cell division,  orderly sequence of events, long and complex sequences of cell divisions, growth coordination, and controlling the timing of the cell cycle requires irreducible control checkpoints, namely:

Essential Cell-Cycle Regulators

CDK2 (Hs, Xl, Gg)    No reduplication, normal duplication, needed for duplication in absence of CDK1
Separase (Xl) No     centriole disengagement, impaired duplication
Spliced Sgo1 (Mm)  Precocious centriole disengagement
p53 (Mm, Hs)          Amplification
CHK1 (Gg, Hs)         No centrosome amplification upon DNA damage
PLK1 (Hs)                No reduplication in S phase-arrested cells
PLK2 (Hs)                No reduplication in S phase-arrested cells
MPS1 (Hs, Mm, Sc)  No reduplication (Hs, Mm; reports differ); normal duplication
(Dm);                     no spindle-pole-body duplication
BRCA1 (Hs, Mm)      Premature centriole separation and reduplication in S-G2 boundary (Hs); amplification (Mm)
Cdc14B (Hs)            Amplification
PP2 (Dm)                Centrosome amplification Overexpression: prevents reduplication Nucleophosmin/B23
(Mm, Hs)                Amplification
CAMKII (Xl)             Blocks early steps in duplication
CDK1 (Dm, Sc)        Amplification
Skp1, Skp2, Cul1,    Slimb (SCF Complex)
(Dm, Xl, Mm, Hs)     Blocks separation of M-D pairs and reduplication
(Xl);                        increased centrosome number (Dm, Mm)
Geminin (Hs)           Centrosome amplification
Overexpression:       blocks reduplication


Why would life adapt to the environment at all - if it is not goal driven? Why would it progress from single cells to higher and higher complexity, requiring a not small number of new genes and functions, if bacterias, arachea, and single-celled organisms like algae survive just fine? Why a sudden Cambrian explosion ?  

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

Why would life suddenly burst with new inventions, like

1.cell signaling,
2.cell movement,
3.cell proliferation, and
4.cell -cell adhesion proteins ?

Why would single-celled organisms suddenly evolve and begin to produce structurally new, complex and organized structures,  pluripotent somatic cells, and interdependent systems like the nervous system, muscles, connective tissue, skin, bones, blood, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, digestive and Excretory Systems, endocrine and immune systems? The endocrine and nervous system, directly and indirectly, regulate the cardiovascular system.  One depends on the other, and both had to emerge together. Both digestive and excretory systems are regulated with input from the nervous system and endocrine system, and the cardiovascular system is inextricably linked with bowel and kidney function on multiple levels. which means, these systems had to emerge altogether. The endocrine and nervous system may work together on the same organ, and each may influence the actions of the other system.

Not only that. Why does life die again, and bodies going their natural course, thermodynamically downwards, and disorganization into random chaotic existence of mere matter and basic building blocks, molecules, and atoms?

And why have organisms a program of cellular self-destruction to favor the survival and benefit of the whole organism? Why would Mr.Natural Selector have chosen that route of altruism, rather than selecting to make Cells that would, once aged, return back to be somatic? If Cells have a program of differentiation, to become specialized ( the human body has about 200 different, specialized cells ), why did Mr.Natural selection not select a program, which would , once the cell has reached its max age, replicate and produce cells that would return to its youngest age, and then began a new life cycle, and virtually live forever ?

You might think that is science fiction. But that is precisely what Jelly Fish do !!

http://www.thatsreallypossible.com/news/289/immortal-jellyfish-mystery/

The creature, known scientifically as Turritopsis nutricula, was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea in 1883, but its unique regeneration was not known until the mid-1990s. How does the process work? If a mature Turritopsis is threatened — injured or starving, for example — it attaches itself to a surface in warm ocean waters and converts into a blob. From that state, its cells undergo transdifferentiation in which the cells essentially transform into different types of cells. Muscle cells can become sperm or eggs, or nerve cells can change into muscle cells, "revealing a transformation potential unparalleled in the animal kingdom," according to the original study of the species published in 1996.

If Darwin's fancy idea where true, why would such amazing ability not have spread from Jelly Fish to ALL animal kingdom? Jelly Fish belong on Darwin's tree of life to the OLDEST species on earth. No wonder, a science paper reports that Clytia hemisphaerica, a member of the early-branching animal phylum Cnidaria, is emerging rapidly as an experimental model for studies in developmental biology and evolution.

http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952510000235

The oldest known fossils of jellyfish have been found in rocks in Utah that are ( supposedly ) more than 500 million years old.
https://www.livescience.com/1971-oldest-jellyfish-fossils.html

That puts them on Darwin's tree of life right in the beginning of animal development, which supports what I wrote above. Jellyfish could have been the precursor of a significant part of biodiversity, evolving and only dying by accident.
But only a small number of organisms is known to have inbuilt that feat. Why ?

The Bible gives a consistent report about why death entered our planet. Humans sinned, and brought death and destruction to the earth. And so, once more, giving a far more consistent and rational account of why there is death.

But God is life and the life giver. He has overcome death through the resurrection of Christ. And he will give eternal life to all who recognize, believe him, repent and surrender to his grace and love, and follow him. He is worthy of praise and worship because he is the author of life.  Do you belong to HIM ?!!

================================================================================================================================

Think for a minute.

Coelacanth fish supposedly lived 60mio years ago, and still live, unchanged, today.
So do algae, and cyanobacteria, which supposedly did not go extinct for 3 bio years.
Same with Comb jelly.
Same with Horse Crabs, and Crocodiles.

Amongst many others, unnamed, here.

But if speciation occurred,  there are 23 ancestors, from Pan Prior, our supposed common ancestor with Apes, until getting to us, Homo sapiens, but all intermediate ancestors - died. Why?

Pan Prior - Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor
Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus
Ardipithecus kadabba
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Lucy (Australopithecus)
Australopithecus deyiremeda
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Australopithecus africanus
Homo rudolfensis ( habilis )
Australopithecus sediba
Paranthropus robustus
Paranthropus boisei
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo erectus
Homo floresiensis
Homo neanderthalensis

Why did all ancestors of humans die out, but above-mentioned living fossils, which are just a small selection, did not? Why is any of the above mentioned human ancestors not still walking and running in the Savannahs of Africa?

The origin of Homo Sapiens & timeline of human evolution according to mainstream science.....

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2596-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-timeline-of-human-evolution

================================================================================================================================

Atheists compare the belief in the Bible with faith in Spiderman, and fairies. But do not think about how irrational the proposition is, that nothing at all created the universe and life.

================================================================================================================================

W.L.Craig writes:

God must be causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang. With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relations with the created order. It follows that God must, therefore, be timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timelessness-and-omnitemporality#ixzz4lILYz3mz

I agree that there must have been a point or transition from a timeless dimension, to a dimension in time. What I always struggled with, is to think that this transition happened when God created the physical universe. If it were so, he would have had to create the reality of heaven, and the heavenly creatures at the same time - since, even in a higher, different, or another dimension, as soon as there is action, movement, motion, there is time.  

Job 38.4:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
   Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
   Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
   or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
   and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

Romans 8.29 we read:
Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

Ephesians 1.4:
According  as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

To me, it seems more realistic to think of another "timeline", that is:

- God in a timeless dimension, where he existed alone
- God got into time, creating heaven, and the heavenly creatures
- God created the physical universe
- This universe will be destroyed and replaced by a new one, which will be eternal

i asked W.L.Craig what he thought about the hypothesis. He answered : That's fine.

================================================================================================================================

When the Bible says that God is just, we are mostly not aware how that unfolds, and the relevance of it. The Bible tells us that one day, we will have to justify every word we have spoken. I don't doubt, that even all our thoughts are carefully being reported, saved, and written down by Gods angels. Maybe there is even a heavenly Big brother, where angels and heavenly creatures ( who knows, maybe even our died parents ) observe us from their dimension, and whatever we do, is recorded, to then being used when God will judge the world. That must be a busy event then!!
The Bible tells us, that the Body of Christ, all that pertains to God, will actively assess and help to judge the world !! If God knows and named each of the trillions of trillions of stars, he is not limited in regards to the number of information to be processed. That must be indeed beyond our understanding. Imagine, every day, billions of angels are writing down every move, every word, every intention, every event of 7 billion people !! And are busy, doing that since the foundation of humankind !! And all these books are catalogized, stored, and ready to be used before the great white throne. I can imagine, billions of angels, busy going in and out to the heavenly storage facility, to bring heavy precious books to the trial, to confront every person with what was done, during every and each day of their lives.
I have never seen an atheist reason in that way: " I am very sad by seeing no sign or evidence of Gods existence. How wonderful, however, if a just superior being would exist !! Because, then he could judge the world, and do final justice !! "
Have you EVER seen an atheist reason like that? I - never.
The implication is, if God, if a final justice which will do justice does not exist, then we live inherently in an unjust world, where injustice reigns, and where the ones that steal, cheat, betray, oppress the poor, and get away with it - are definitively on the smart and winning side of history. And the ones that were oppressed, which suffered the injustice of all sorts, and never saw their tormentor being brought to justice, are the losers of human history. Politicians that bribed to get to power, and then sucked all wealth out of a nation, like often seen in Africa by dictators, are the smart ones. They have not to fear to be charged on the other side of reality.
Fact is, the human justice system has always been very demanding and unjust. Judges are biased, often bribed, often judge the innocent, often give a too high or too low penalty, often give a too low sentence for a certain crime. In the u.s. often the sentence is too severe, in Brazil, to lax. Fact is, there does not exist just justice in the world. And all people that have lived on the loser side because of that, if a just judge exists, they can have hope. But if the atheist worldview is true, then injustice has overhand, and there is no hope to see perfect just justice applied one day. Then, many have good reasons to live depressed and without hope.
But Jesus said: I overcame the world. He was the one that suffered the worst injustice of all. The perfect lamb, with no sin, was betrayed by Judas, put on trial, spit, brutally whipped and tortured and crucified for no crime at all that he committed !!
HE is the King of justice. Praise HIM.

================================================================================================================================

Evolution:
1. Neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis propose a gene-centric view, a scientific metabiological proposal going back to Darwin's landmark book " On the origin of species " in 1859, where first natural selection was proposed as the mechanism of biodiversity, and later,  gene variation defining how bodies are built and organized.

2. Science researchers have discovered, that robust networks of interactions and biological function, major morphological innovation, development and body form are based on integrative mechanisms, the interplay of genes with the gene regulatory network, Transposons and Retrotransposons, so-called Junk DNA, splicing, and over a dozen epigenetic codes, Membrane targets and patterns, Cytoskeletal arrays, Centrosomes, Ion channels, Sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code), that are not specified by nuclear DNA - that is, inheritance is not defined through DNA sequences alone.

3. Science is coming to recognize, that none of the recently proposed alternatives, like the third way, Saltationism, Saltatory ontogeny, mutationism, Genetic drift, or combined theories, do full justice by taking into account all organizational biophysiological hierarchy and complexity which empirical science has come to discover. As such, only a holistic view which we might name otangelistic holo-structuralism takes into consideration all influences that form cell form and size, body development and growth, doing justice to the scientific evidence.

4. Scrutinizing which causes ultimately respond for the complexity discovered in life is only satisfying, once the epistemologically flawed foundation of methodological naturalism is taken out of the box, and replaced by a new paradigm, where all possible mechanisms and causal influences are permitted to be scrutinized, investigated, and scientifically tested, including the interaction and creative force of an external intelligent, mental agency outside the known physical world, which through its transcendent power creates, forms and builds all physiobiological lifeforms in all its astounding diversity.

Abiogenesis
Observation:
The origin of life depends on biological cells, which perpetuate life upon the complex action of  molecular computers, hardware ( DNA ), software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, ( the genetic and over a dozen epigenetic codes ) information retreavel ( RNA polymerase ) transmission ( messenger RNA ) translation ( Ribosome ) signaling ( hormones ) complex machines ( proteins ), factory assembly lines ( fatty acid synthase, non ribosomal peptide synthase ), error check and repair systems  ( exonucleolytic proofreading, strand-directed mismatch repair ) , recycling methods ( endocytic recycling ), waste grinders and management  ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )  , power generating plants ( mitochondria ), power turbines ( atp synthase ), and electric circuits ( the metabolic network ).  Biological cells are veritable micro-miniaturized factories containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery. Biological Cells do not resemble factories, they ARE an industrial park of various interconnected factories, working in conjunction.

Hypothesis (Prediction):
 Complex machines and interconnected factory parks are intelligently designed. Biological cells are intelligently designed. Factories can not self-assemble spontaneously by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction.The claim can be falsified, once someone can demonstrate that factories can self-assemble spontaneously by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction.

Experiment:
Since origin of life experiments began, nobody was able to bring up an experiment, replicating the origin of life by natural means.

Eugene Koonin, advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics, writes in his book: The Logic of Chance:
" The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351:The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique events are not conducive to scientific study.

A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives for the origin of life. "

Scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a conscious creative agency.
The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true.

Conclusion:
Life is intelligently designed.

================================================================================================================================

It's not: " Believe me, or burn".
Its: I am knocking at the door ( of your heart ). If you let me in, I, Jesus, will come and transform you to get a new nature, become a newly transformed creature with a new heart, which will permit you to grow spiritually, and interact with me and your next, in a manner that paradise will be indeed paradise. Paradise is not, because the streets in the new Jerusalem described in apocalypse will be transparent Gold and the gateways of precious stones. Paradise is because God is there. There will be no evil, no harm, no sin, no corruption of any sort, no fear, no pain, no kind of sickness, but joyful communion with Brothers, Sisters, the bride with the fiancé, God with his children. Heaven will be a busy place. Gods Children will not be playing harps eternally, and only praise God. This is the ridiculous imagination of atheists. That is the essence of heaven. And the bride will reign with God in all eternity.

Why should unrepented sinners go to heaven? Their permanence there would be worse than in hell. They would BEG God to let them go to hell. A sinner in heaven would be in a WORSE state than in hell. So even by letting a sinner go to hell, God is applying grace, by letting him go to where He chose freely to go. Sinners will bow their knee FREELY to the lamb, even knowing that they will be cast into hell because they will admit that their judgment was righteous. Black and white do not combine. Sin and holiness/purity do not combine. A sinner in Gods presence will immediately perceive his dirtiness. Gods children can approach Gods throne only because Christ's righteousness was applied to them. And we are free to do this spiritually, today. After Adam and Eve sinned, they were cast out of paradise, and the tree of life. If would be a disgrace, if the state of sin would endure eternally. That's why this reality is doomed to pass. But Gods new heaven, and a new earth will endure forever. Gods plans are perfect. He deserves our praise and trust.

================================================================================================================================

Life is characterized by Davies as:

Reproduction.
Metabolism.
Nutrition.
Complexity.
Organization.
Growth and development.
Information content.
Hardware/software entanglement.
Permanence and change.
Sensitivity.
Regulation.

and Darwin's theory of evolution tries to account for the survival of the fittest, and the diversity of species.

What it does, and cannot explain or account for, however, is

the origin of conscience
thought
speech
language
beauty
feelings
the sense of beauty
morality
justice
reason
logic
the ability of humans to do math
the ability to solve complex problems
the ability to build software, machines, and factories

it also cannot explain:

why did organisms change, and others did not? why did Cyanobacteria get the MOST COMPLEX energy transformation machinery known in the living world, namely photosynthesis, transforming light of the sun into chemical energy, namely carbohydrates, Glucose, which is the most essential nutrition compound on earth to build carbon-based life? - which is an insurmountable origin of life problem, since cell depend on glucose as source of nutrition, but glucose was not available on early earth?

Where did Glucose come from in a prebiotic world?
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2419-where-did-glucose-come-from-in-a-prebiotic-world

this question is as much important as the question of the origin of life, since, without Photosynthesis, without Glucose, no advanced life on earth would be possible, but for that, the before mentioned machinery had to emerge, but, science has NO clue AT ALL how photosynthesis could have emerged:

Photosynthesis
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1555-photosynthesis

“The process of photosynthesis is a very complex set of interdependent metabolic pathways “How it could have evolved is a bit mysterious.”
Robert Blankenship, professor of biochemistry at Arizona State University  

and a "waste" product, namely oxygen, is also produced by the
oxygen-evolving complex ( OEC ) employed in photosynthesis, another irreducibly complex machine, which up until today is so complex, that its mechanism is not fully understood:

The oxygen-evolving complex (OEC) of photosystem II is irreducible complex.
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1583-the-oxygen-evolving-complex-oec-of-photosystem-ii-is-irreducible-complex

The origin of the oxygen evolving complex ( OEC )  is an enigma.
Oxygen evolving complex in Photosystem II: Better than excellent Mohammad Mahdi Najafpour*a and Govindjeeb

Perhaps the most widely discussed yet poorly understood event in the evolution of photosynthesis is the invention of the ability to use water as an electron donor, producing O2 as a waste product and giving rise to what is now called oxygenic photosynthesis.
Transition from Anoxygenic to Oxygenic Photosynthesis in a Microcoleus chthonoplastes Cyanobacterial Mat.  Jørgensen BB1, Cohen Y, Revsbech NP.

another question is also unsolved: Why did the Energy cycle for Nitrogen fixation emerge, an ecological interdependent process requiring 13 enzyme complexes in various Bacterias, that had to be present and distributed on a global scale, on earth, in the desert, in the mountains, in lakes, and in the open ocean, to produce ammonia and ammonium, essential to make amino acids and nucleotides, the most basic building blocks of life? And where did these bacterias their fixed nitrogen, ammonia, get from, to make their dna, rna, and proteins, which use as building blocks ammonia ??

So, why did Bacteria, algae, and Rhizobia bacterias which live in a symbiotic relationship with plants emerge billions of years ago, and did not change, while at the same time, supposedly, illustrated by Darwin's tree of life, multicellularity arose and got more and more complex, up to humans? - considering that Cyanobacteria can be both, single cells, but also form multicellular organisms, sharing compartments, where one cell produces oxygen and glucose, while other, separated Cells, ammonia through nitrogen fixation? - finely separated, because oxygen is toxic to nitrogenase, which is the enzyme complex that fixes dinitrogen gas into ammonia? why did Cyano's not keep evolving, but other organisms supposedly did? it could not be argued because other organisms occupied other ecological niches, since Cyano's exist all over the earth.....

Another question: Why do only humans think and speak, and know what justice is ? There is a HUGE gap between the animal world, and humans, a distance that can hardly be described. But humans can explore from micro to macro. Can build machines and factories and computers, and make fine meals , and can punish murderers to jail time. Which animal can do the same ?

And what does all that have to do just with survival ?

================================================================================================================================

When an atheist challenges you to provide a single shred of empirical evidence indicating God exists, you can challenge him to provide a single shred of empirical evidence indicating that he did spend 5 minutes to think and formulate a consistent, meaningful epistemological framework to investigate origins.

================================================================================================================================

The New Atheists belong to the most ignorant and intolerant people on the face of the earth. Their views are based on ignorance—tremendous ignorance. I would call that they're main, most distinguishing trait. Ignorance is defined as a “lack of knowledge or information.” and means being unaware, and can describe individuals who do deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. Atheists are willfully ignorant. That is, they have been informed about the respective facts that could permit them to make logical, right inferences and conclusions about origins, but are unwilling to acknowledge and admit it.

They are mostly uneducated in philosophy and naive towards the claims of their most exposed well-known proponents, Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, and cohorts. The irrationality of their views cannot be outlined enough, and what they claim, is despicable and ridiculous. The intellectualism proposed is nothing else than hot stinky toxic smog, bogus, phony, artificial,  fake, false, spurious, deceptive and misleading. Their arguments are illogical and intellectually bankrupt.

Their philosophy is hollow and hypocritical. In the meanwhile, their attacks and tactics are commonly hostile and below the punch line. When their viewpoints cannot be defended further, rather than admit defeat, they resort to personal attacks, questioning the education or knowledge of their opponent, or their sources of information, and ridicule and mock it. Not rarely, engage with them, is just cast one’s pearls before swines. The more their views are exposed for what they are, ranging from junk pseudo-intellectualism to open wilful ignorance but justified as honest position, the more shrill, aggressive and nasty they are. Not rarely, I am unsure if they regard their interlocutor's brain as potty to urinate into, and their time as waste.  

At the meantime, the qualitative level of their arrogance—that is, the level of condescension they show towards the ones that disagree with them—is remarkable. Another point that characterizes them is in the most part their modest knowledge. Maybe someone heard the dictum: “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” A small amount of information, based on rational wiki, or biology college courses, can mislead people into thinking they are more expert than they really are. It's ultracrepidarianism at its best. This is not dangerous alone to conclude that philosophical naturalism is true, but in regard to any religion, that is not well founded. They self-delude themselves and based on that condition, people make war and oppress people that believe differently.

The destructive force of the illusion to have knowledge cannot be outlined enough. How many people think they are experts in trading Bitcoins or stocks at the stock exchange, and lost their savings? Losing money is something that has remedy. Someone can work hard and gain money, again. Someone losing its eternal life and eternity based on lack of knowledge is much worse. Once they lose their souls, there is no way back.

Hosea 4:6 People are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

What does the Bible say about atheism?

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1953-what-does-the-bible-say-about-atheism

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God!' Corrupt up and injustices committed detestable; there is none who does good "(Psalm 14: 1).

This is one of the statements that the Bible makes about atheism. We highlight two points:
Atheism is nonsense
Denying the existence of God is foolish because the existence of God is obvious. The Bible in no time seeks to defend the existence of God because it is the most basic of all truths. The Bible begins already stating categorically: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1: 1)

================================================================================================================================

If you can't make a brick, you can't make a house. Naturalistic beliefism is an anecdotal pseudo-scientific House of Cards.
If you can't make left-handed amino acids, you cannot make life essential proteins, nor protein complexes, nor biological cells.

================================================================================================================================

In Narnia, we are transported to fantasy land. I feel sometimes, that God is taking my hands, and takes me to a walk to see what he has done to make life possible, to a reality which is more bewildering than in someone's wildest dreams. When i move forward in my investigation, I step into new territory, and what i discover, makes me speechless.

The ability of transfer of just ONE SINGLE CARBON atom is absolutely essential for the metabolism of the amino acids glycine, serine, methionine, and histidine, and the biosynthesis of purines and pyrimidines - which constitute DNA molecules, the information carriers of cells.

And in order for biological cells to achieve this transfer, they require tetrahydrofolate cofactors, consisting of three moieties. Folates are among the most complex pterin coenzymes. The folate pathway is central to any study related to DNA methylation, dTMP synthesis or purine synthesis, and as such, to the origin of life itself, since without amino acids, and DNA - no life.

Annexed below, you can see the Folate biosynthesis pathway - at each branch point, there is a ramification of a web of complex enzymes which work in a coordinated, orchestrated, and interconnected way together to produce just this Tetrahydrofolate cofactor. To make things even more complex, the two essential precursors of folate biosynthesis are 4-aminobenzoate (a product of shikimate biosynthesis pathway) and GTP. To give you an idea about the complexity of the shikimate metabolic pathway, you can have a look here:

http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?map01063

The central pathway uses six extremely complex enzymes, which I describe in detail in the article below. Moral of the story: These metabolic networks, enzymes, and co-factors are upon which life depends, and could hardly be explained with any other causal mechanism, besides a super intelligent creator.

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2590p25-origins-what-cause-explains-best-our-existence-and-why#5938

================================================================================================================================

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

82 Re: My articles on Sat May 12, 2018 5:49 am

Admin


Admin
Against facts, there are no arguments. Naturalism is a failed worldview - falling apart like a card-house, every time, science makes a new discovery. Like that the universe had a beginning and is finely tuned for life, that life from non-life is impossible, and Darwinism is exploding. A matter only view only exists in the mind of naturalists - but not in the real world, where God is well and alive, and controlling the world in highness and sovereignty. Some realize it sooner, Some later, and some in hell.



===================================================================================================================

Accidents do not happen by uncaused accidents. Therefore, the Big Bang was not an accident, but a purposeful creative act of God.

===================================================================================================================



Transition from Water to Land Dilemma
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1808-transition-from-water-to-land-dilemma

" Tetrapods evolved " . Really ?  
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2219-tetrapods-evolved-really

The evolution of whales - a whale of problems for evolution
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1691-evolution-of-whales



This is really funny. Do you think, the " retarded " should go to me, who made fun of contemporary science claims, or who actually makes the claims ???

Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents
https://www.space.com/19439-origi n-life-earth-hydrothermal-vents.html

Cyanobacteria Architects of the earliest microfossils, atmospheric oxygen, and plastids.
http://cyanophyta.blogspot.com.br/
The Cyanobacteria and Archaea belong to separate lineages, having diverged from an unknown last universal common ancestor (LUCA, "?")

Evolution And Paleontology Of Algae
https://www.britannica.com/science/algae/Evolution-and-paleontology-of-algae
Some scientists consider the red algae, which bear little resemblance to any other group of organisms, to be very primitive eukaryotes that evolved from the prokaryotic blue-green algae (cyanobacteria)

First cells - Eukaryotes - Metazoa - Bilateria - Deuterostomes - Chordates - Vertebrates
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evolutionary-path-from-single-celled-organisms-to-humans

THE DIVERSITY OF FISHES Biology, Evolution, and Ecology page 169
The very first fishlike vertebrates undoubtedly evolved from invertebrates.

Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/13/tiktaalik-fossil-fish-four-legged-land-animal

From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2
The transition from land to water is documented by a series of intermediate fossils, many of which are known from India and Pakistan.

Bumpy whale fins set to spark a revolution in aerodynamics
https://newatlas.com/bumpy-whale-fins-set-to-spark-a-revolution-in-aerodynamics/9020/

==============================================================================================================================================

Intelligent design is science

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2313-intelligent-design-is-science

Design can be tested using scientific logic.  How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable.  Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design.  And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable. Based on a logical evaluation of evidence, we can conclude that a design theory is probably true (if all non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is probably false (if any non-design theory seems highly plausible). A design inference does not claim non-design is impossible and design is certain, it only claims that design seems more probable based on scientific evidence and logic. This type of probability-based conclusion is consistent with the logic of science in which proof is always impossible, even though scientists can develop a logically justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory.

The scientific methods used in a design investigation are also used in historical sciences like geology, archaeology, evolutionary biology, and astronomy.  Many arguments against design are also arguments against every historical science.  But scientists have developed methods for coping with the limitations of historical data, and historical science can be authentically scientific.

Intelligent Design proposes the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by the deliberate creative act of an intelligent cause.

One of the most common charges that intelligent design (ID) opponents, Advocates of methodological naturalism, is that the theory of intelligent design is inherently unscientific.  that ID is not real science. They will say that a real scientific theory must be testable against the empirical world, must make predictions, must be falsifiable, must be explanatory by reference to natural law, and so forth. They point to ID and say that it doesn’t meet all of these criteria, and therefore ID must not be science. But is that true? Are there really criteria that define whether something is science or not science? Well, if you ask philosophers of science (the academic experts on this question), they will tell you that no such criteria exist. Every attempt at formulating an ironclad set of criteria has ended up accidentally excluding what scientists consider to be legitimate scientific fields. There is no set of agreed-upon criteria for separating science from pseudo-science; it just doesn’t exist among philosophers of science. The question of whether something is science or non-science is both intractable and uninteresting. The real issue is not whether a theory is ‘scientific’ according to some abstract definition, but where the scientific evidence leads to, and how it is best explained. In other words, what mechanism explains best X. This procedure is obvious, but the attempt at demarcating between science and non-science is a favorite way and artifact of ID opponents. By calling ID non-scientific, they never to examine if the proposed causal mechanism is more compelling than theirs.

==============================================================================================================================================

Amino acid synthesis requires solutions to four key biochemical problems

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2590-molecular-biochemistry-biology-the-origin-of-life-and-biodiversity-sistematically-analyzed-from-a-universal-perspective#5864

1. Nitrogen fixation
Nitrogen is an essential component of amino acids. Earth has an abundant supply of nitrogen, but it is primarily in the form of atmospheric nitrogen gas (N2), a remarkably inert molecule. Thus, a fundamental problem for biological systems is to obtain nitrogen in a more usable form. This problem is solved by certain microorganisms capable of reducing the inert N = N triple-bond molecule of nitrogen gas to two molecules of ammonia in one of the most amazing reactions in biochemistry. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia is the source of nitrogen for all the amino acids. The carbon backbones come from the glycolytic pathway, the pentose phosphate pathway, or the citric acid cycle.

2. Selection of the 20 canonical bioactive amino acids
Why are 20 amino acids used to make proteins ( in some rare cases, 22) ?  Why not more or less ? And why especially the ones that are used amongst hundreds available? In a progression of the first papers published in 2006, which gave a rather shy or vague explanation, in 2017, the new findings are nothing short than astounding.  In January 2017, the paper : Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected, reported:

" Amino acids were selected to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets. Factors to take into account when assessing why a particular amino acid might be used include its component atoms, functional groups, biosynthetic cost, use in a protein core or on the surface, solubility and stability. Applying these criteria to the 20 standard amino acids, and considering some other simple alternatives that are not used, we find that there are excellent reasons for the selection of every amino acid. Rather than being a frozen accident, the set of amino acids selected appears to be near ideal. Why the particular 20 amino acids were selected to be encoded by the Genetic Code remains a puzzle."

3. Homochirality
In amino acid production, we encounter an important problem in biosynthesis—namely, stereochemical control. Because all amino acids except glycine are chiral, biosynthetic pathways must generate the correct isomer with high fidelity. In each of the 19 pathways for the generation of chiral amino acids, the stereochemistry at the a -carbon atom is established by a transamination reaction that includes pyridoxal phosphate (PLP) by transaminase enzymes, which however were not extant on a prebiotic earth, which creates an unpenetrable origin of life problem. One of the greatest challenges of modern science is to understand the origin of the homochirality of life: why are most essential biological building blocks present in only one handedness, such as L-amino acids and D-sugars ?

4. Amino acid synthesis regulation
Biosynthetic pathways are often highly regulated such that building blocks are synthesized only when supplies are low. Very often, a high concentration of the final product of a pathway inhibits the activity of allosteric enzymes ( enzymes that use cofactors ) that function early in the pathway to control the committed step. These enzymes are similar in functional properties to aspartate transcarbamoylase and its regulators. Feedback and allosteric mechanisms ensure that all 20 amino acids are maintained in sufficient amounts for protein synthesis and other processes.

Of course, our God is a master Chemist, and solved these issues with ease. No problem for HIM !!

==============================================================================================================================================

A true atheist, if living his worldview honestly, radically taking the consequences of it into consideration, must live a life void of ultimate hope, since his destiny is the grave and annihilation. Not only his body will rot in the grave. His soul, conscience, memories suddenly cease, and turn into nothing.  I compare it to a being when someone goes to surgery, and under narcosis. When you wake up, you remember absolutely nothing. Atheism is truly a death cult, where their proponents fight that this scenario might be true. Death wins ultimately and will be our ultimate fate.  Maybe their urgent need to cover their sins, that they might not be exposed, and their wish not to be accountable to a higher entity, makes them blind towards the brute fact that atheism means that our destiny is death. Ultimate annihilation. Coming from the dust, and going to the dust. End of story. Planet Earth hosted us during a limited period of time for no reason at all. And if we lived like a Jerk , there is nobody to care. Injustice won.

Whatever we did, or did not do, does not matter. If we ever existed or did not exist, is irrelevant. In the end, we are all dead.  If this is true, there are no moral values either, and there is no reason to have compassion for others or to love unless it serves a self-pleasing goal. We are the ultimate, highest instance, nobody is above us. Nobody is watching. I can be a jerk as much as I want. Ultimately, its all about making as much out of this existence as possible, because - tomorrow we are all dead. Why should I care for the well being of others?  Most atheists do not go that far to think about the consequences of the naturalistic - matter only worldview. They just do not want to consider what God might want for them and for their life, because they want to be their own Gods and manage their lives without any higher interference,  and that's it.

Mediocre short ranged thinking is the norm. " I just don't believe you", or " I just believe in one God less than you" are the typical arguments of atheists. The deeper insight or more advanced thinking is nonexistent in the mind of the so-called New Atheists.

What a huge difference to the thinking of a biblically rooted Christian. He has good reasons to believe that this existence has meaning, and consequences for eternity. What we do today, is carefully annotated, and whatever we do to serve our Creator, is carefully registered, and our service for the Lord is not in vain. We are unimaginably loved by our Creator, and we have good reasons to hope for a better life after this one and can be certain of it. We will not be bored by playing harps and just glorify our Creator in a heavenly Chorus. If God has prepared tasks and missions for each of his Children here on earth, how much must that not be the case in eternity, where working will be a happy serving for divine purposes? In fact, the Bible promises that  "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--1 Corinthians 2:9 . The little suffering here on earth has little meaning compared to the Glory that has to be revealed on us in heaven.  Are you prepared ?

==============================================================================================================================================

Yesterday, i had an exchange on Strong Atheism group with an atheist.  The issue was about the origin of the spliceosome.

He quoted a science paper :

" For example: "The origin of nuclear introns is still under debate, but one hypothesis is that the spliceosome and the intron-exon structure of genes have evolved from bacterial-type group II introns that invaded the eukaryotic genomes. The group II introns were most likely introduced into the eukaryotic genome from an α-proteobacterial predecessor of mitochondria early during the endosymbiosis event."

I answered: check how many times the paper writes " likely ". That's guesswork at its best.

He then answered:

Most likely means probability > 50%. Even if the probability were < 50%, it still puts the lie to the creationist straw man.

My answer:
First of all. Every science paper that deals with evolution and origins, in general, have to deal with the same constraints. Namely. Past historical events and the condition they happened, cannot be repeated and experimented in a test tube. If Intelligent Design is not science, because the action of the designer occurred in the past, and cannot be repeated, then the same has to be valid for a proponent of evolution.

Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ?
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1390-macroevolution-fact-or-fantasy

There is NO empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where  one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) ,  like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, What is an evolutionary novelty? A list of most-often cited examples include the shell of turtles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005), flight (Prum 2005), flowers (Albert, Oppenheimer, and Lindqvist 2002), the ability of great tits to open bottles of milk (Kothbauerhellmann 1990), the transition from the jaw to the ear of some bones during the evolution of mammals from reptiles (Brazeau and Ahlberg 2006), eyes (Fernald 2006), hearts (Olson 2006), bipedalism (Richmond and Strait 2000), and the origin of Hox genes (Wagner, Amemiya, and Ruddle 2003);   Ernst Mayr, a major figure of the MS, defined novelties as “any newly acquired structure or property that permits the performance of a new function, which, in turn, will open a new adaptive zone” (Mayr 1963, 602)

Then they answer: Micro leads to macro.

Really?  How do they know? Who argues like that, has no clue about:

1. the mechanisms of speciation and adaptation

Why Darwin was wrong, and what really drives descent with modification
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2460-what-are-the-mechanisms-that-drive-adaptation-to-the-environment-microevolution-and-secondary-speciation

2. the mechanisms that define cell shape and size, and body plans, size, and development.

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

The problem goes further: A scientist has to constraint his explanations to natural, aka non-guided, non-intelligent causes, be it either 1. physical necessity, 2. chance, or 3. evolution.

Philosophers of science have chosen after Darwin that design has no place in biological sciences, and only natural causes are permitted and can be proposed. That is the reason that science papers flourish, where evolution is proposed as likely mechanism to various degrees in biology, and self-organization to explain the origin of life.

The road track is always the same. Despite being extremely irrational and unlikely, evolution is assumed a priori as THE mechanism for biodiversity, and I have observed not rarely, as well to explain the origin of the first living cells. To bolster that a prior commitment, guesswork is always smuggled in as serious science, and camouflaged with wording like

The general guesswork and ad hoc explanations of scientific papers related to key issues of origins
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1675-the-general-guess-work-and-ad-hoc-explanations-of-scientific-papers-related-to-key-issues-of-origins

Overwhelming evidence indicates,
most probably,
supposed,
A wealth of evidence indicates,
Significant evidence indicates,
have clearly had distinct evolutionary trajectories,
There have been numerous suggestions,
The accumulated evidence suggests
There are currently two main, competing theories about the origin of mitochondria.
assumptions
view is linked to the ideas
perhaps similar
might have
presumes
corollary assumption
it is likely
Current data suggest
seems to be
It would seem
that attempt to explain
proposes
It is further suggested
It is argued
Its advocates claim
it is claimed
proposes that

and so on.

based on such word constructions, and red herrings, science distracts from the fact that

a)
There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Shapiro 1996).
James Shapiro Microbiologist of the University of Chicago

and

b) the alternative AND POSSIBLE mechanism, namely design, is not considered.

When a paper says, that X is unlikely, it does not admit that THEREFORE DESIGN is more likely. That is ignored. What is said then is:

" We don't know yet, science is working on it".

This is NOT an honest position. Its dishonest, committed to fraud and dishonesty, based on that, many that are too lazy to look by themselves into the evidence, are misled to believe that the case of evolution is robust. But it is not.

========================================================================================================================================

It is remarkable how many people are so concerned about their image and honorability, and what impression they transmit to the outside world. They are true jerks at home with their wives and kids but are true showmen to demonstrate unity and love to the outside, and want to be regarded as exemplary husbands and fathers. Integrity means to be the same wherever you are. Someone behaving like this is neglecting and ignoring the fact that
a) your neighbor is more concerned about HIS wellbeing, rather than if you beat up your wife or scream at her if she does something you dislike.
b) We cannot hide ANYTHING about who we REALLY are in front of the holy one, which has eyes like fire and scrutinizes the innermost of ours. God knows everything about us, what we think, what we do, our motivations, our behaviors, what we do when nobody is watching. We cannot hide from him.
Acknowledging this prevents us to be showmen, and not authentic. I do want to please my creator and my lord, and my savior. He is the ONLY one (besides my family - but not in any case either, btw. ) that is truly concerned with me, and is my TRUE friend. I am accountable to HIM about my life. HE will judge my life, not my neighbor. So why should i care about what my neighbor thinks?
My neighbor is not concerned normally about my wellbeing either ( only a few true brothers in Christ might be, which live in brotherly love ). He is rather concerned about my shiny car, that he wants, but does not have the cash to buy......
In life, it does not matter, what I appear to be to others. It matters who I really am and if I have my creators approval.

====================================================================================================================================

When you see  News, immediately recognize it as one of these Fake News stories, go and check the source, and find out it's from Newsweek

=====================================================================================================================================

The Bible does not recommend to flirt with sin but flee from it and every temptation. The flesh is weak and easy to cease to all kinds of desire. The Bible recommends us:

2 Timothy 2:22 ESV
So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

Romans 6:11 ESV
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

1.John 2.16:
For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

When you cease and surrender to sin every time, temptation knocks on the door, it is like throwing sand in a well-lubricated engine. The engine will not run well and will need time to be fixed and recover. Same with Sin. When you sin willingly, you get up eventually after wrongdoing from your knees, but need time to search again the presence of God because of shame. This is time YOU lose, and the Lord loses because you are inoperative doing his will. No father likes to give away gifts to his children when they are distant. Every father loves when his children are close, so he can give them what they ask for, give them a hug, and express his love. So is our heavenly father. Focus on HIM, ask HIM to empower you to serve him. And what the world offers, will not be in your mind. He will do it, and your focus will be on serving him happily. Wherever you are, and by whatever you are doing. And HIS peace will reign inside you. No struggle and inside division anymore. That way, you will gain spiritual maturity, and God will open new doors and visions to you.

John 15.2:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful."

Ask God, seek, pray, and permit the holy spirit to empower you to focus on HIM. And God will start doing great things through you to glorify HIS name.

======================================================================================================================================



Last edited by Admin on Sun May 20, 2018 8:16 am; edited 8 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

83 Re: My articles on Sun May 13, 2018 9:29 pm

Admin


Admin
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will take the burden from you. I will replace it, and give you wealth, health, and happiness. Certainly, certainly !!  It will come to you, you will get the victory because I love you. You are mine. I will give you a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over. Believe !! Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. As Abraham was blessed, so you shall be - prosperity belongs to you. Since I am rich - all wealth, silver and gold belong to me, my children shall be, and you shall be. The blessings of Abraham shall come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. I, Lord Jesus, will put sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on at Calvary. For you know the grace of me, Lord Jesus Christ, that though I was rich, yet for your sakes, I became poor, that you through my poverty might become rich. Give. The more you give, the more you will get in return. Give freely, give with love - God loves who give with love. Be spiritually empowered by faith. Pray. Pray faithfully and with power, and I, Jesus will respond. Personal success in all areas of your life I will grant you. When you pray, believing that you have already received what you are asking for praying, I, the Lord, have no choice but to make your prayers come to pass. Can I have a powerful amen ??

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/5-errors-of-the-prosperity-gospel/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum