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 » Christian and secular science writers » The Dillahunty case

The Dillahunty case

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1The Dillahunty case Empty The Dillahunty case on Mon 11 Mar 2019 - 21:45

Admin


Admin
The Dillahunty case

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case

Matt Dillahunty ducks, and does not respond to my challenge
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#6671


Matt Dillahunty vs Braxton Hunter (Does the Christian God Exist)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Uktg9nLx8



Last edited by Admin on Sat 16 Mar 2019 - 21:18; edited 6 times in total

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2The Dillahunty case Empty Re: The Dillahunty case on Mon 11 Mar 2019 - 21:45

Admin


Admin
The Dillahunty case MGnqga5
The Dillahunty case AkiOjj3
The Dillahunty case 77Wo3BA
The Dillahunty case EKe0lbz

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Matt Dillahunty ducks, and does not respond to my challenge

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-biological-cells-are-equal-to-a-complex-of-millions-of-interlinked-factories#6642

Is it not telling, that i wrote to

Matt Dillahunty at the comments section of the YouTube video published on Mar 2, 2019

Atheist Debates - Does the Christian God exist? Matt Dillahunty and Braxton Hunter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASpBVVhC9Kk&lc=z23fwbohnpjet3s1facdp4355lh4kmiyvviu532dzkdw03c010c.1551820152625604

after the comment of  Rusti One: Thus far, almost every atheist, almost because I've actually come across a few who would think, rethink, and perhaps give God a chance after speaking with them myself.

i posted following syllogism:

1. Blueprints and buildings made upon its instructions are always sourced back to an intelligent cause.
2. The instructional information stored in DNA directs the make of biological cells and organisms.
3. DNA, biological Cells and organisms are therefore most probably the result of intelligent design.

to which Matt answered:

Matt Dillahunty : @Otangelo Grasso cool story bro... now bring some evidence.

i replied:
Otangelo Grasso @Matt Dillahunty I just did. Why am i not surprised that you simply ignored all the information i just provided ?  What about YOU provide some evidence why naturalism should top theism in explanatory power ?  What about you stop hiding behind your: " You make the claim, you have to demonstrate it ? "

Helicases are astonishing motor proteins which rotational speed is up to 10,000 rotations per minute, and are life essential. They are a class of enzymes vital to all living organisms. Their main function is to unpackage an organism's genes. They require 1000 left-handed amino acids in the right specified sequence. Each of the 1000 amino acids must be the right amongst 20 to chose from.  How did they emerge by natural processes? The chance to get them by random chemical reactions is 1 to 20^1000..... there are 10^80 atoms in the universe.

So you have NOTHING, Matt.  Are you seeking honestly for truth ? If you are , demonstrate it. You have the opportunity. Right now !!

Matt Dillahunty @Otangelo Grasso I just asked you for evidence... and you respond like this? Goodbye

Otangelo Grasso @Matt Dillahunty  running away ? Refute my claims.  Did you not confirm at the debate that you are seeking truth ? Now its your opportunity.

If we sum up the total number of amino acids for a minimal Cell, there would have to be 560 proteins x 400 amino acids  =  224.000 amino acids, which would have to be bonded in the right sequence, choosing for each position amongst 20 different amino acids, and selecting only the left-handed, while sorting out the right-handed ones. That means each position would have to be selected correctly from 40 variants !! that is 1 right selection out of 40^224.000 possibilities !! Obviously, a gigantic number far above any realistic probability to occur by unguided events. Even a trillion universes, each hosting a trillion planets, and each shuffling a trillion times in a trillionth of a second, continuously for a trillion years, would not be enough. Such astronomically unimaginably gigantic odds are in the realm of the utmost extremely impossible.

You claimed during all your career, nobody ever provided you with a sound syllogism, with a sound premise and conclusion. Here you have it. Positive evidence for a creator.
If you run away and do not answer, everybody will know, that is for sure !! Stand for what you claim: To be an honest seeker of truth.

KEvronista @Matt Dillahunty  block that fuck, matt. he's been dropping those same mega-posts all over your comment section.

Otangelo Grasso @KEvronista  So that is your answer ? Ignore and block ? You are just testifying the bankruptcy of your worldview.



Last edited by Admin on Tue 12 Mar 2019 - 11:02; edited 1 time in total

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4The Dillahunty case Empty Re: The Dillahunty case on Tue 12 Mar 2019 - 0:28

Admin


Admin
Atheist Debates - Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQFYgyEACI&t=408s

" we are physical beings in a physical universe that dictates what the consequences of our action is going to be as far as we can tell and that should be enough to evaluate hey this action helps me thrive does it hurt other people this action helps all of us thrive this action really diminishes our well-being this action diminishes our ability to survive and thrive it's reality that is as far as I can tell the ultimate arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.


Did Matt reinvent the wheel, aka morality ?

Matt 22:39
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself”


my call begins at 1h 23min 50s 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGzLoWWQJQ

Matt wanted me to play magician. He wanted me to say with an authoritative voice and screaming: ABRACADABRA, WHITE ELEFANT, APPEAR IN THE ROOM.  Had it not happened, my point would have been granted. Since I didn't want to play the clown, he got frustrated.... and ended the call. What a pity.

Maybe you do not realize, but at the moment Matt ended the call, his worldview ( and yours )  literally EXPLODED. finish. The end. Unbelievers have NO excuse.

But since that would have meant the end of the TAE show, and the show must go on, he simply ignores what is rationally obvious and evident.

The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic manifestly evince that God must be.   Only the abandonment of rationality imagines that it makes sense to conclude that existence can arise from nonexistence, that an infinite regress of causative events is possible, that actual infinities are possible or that the effect of a mechanical cause is not given from eternity.  

1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. The universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a cause.
3. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.
4. The second law of thermodynamics refutes the hypothesis of an eternal universe.
5. Therefore an eternal & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.
6. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.


Nothing is the thing that stones think of

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2817-nothing-is-the-thing-that-stones-think-of

"Nothingness" is a philosophical term that denotes the general state of nonexistence 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Argument: The argument that something cannot come into existence from absolutely no thing. is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing. You assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this?
Response:  Absolutely nothing, as the absence of anything, can't do something. It has no potentialities, it is the contrary of being: Non-being. 0 x 0 = 0.  That is inductive reasoning which does not require empirical demonstration and testing. Nothing has no ontological value to be taken seriously as a possible explanation of anything, since, its the absence of any being, it cannot produce being. This is obviously true, self evident,  and can be taken for granted without the need to be demonstrated. 



Last edited by Admin on Sat 16 Mar 2019 - 16:44; edited 3 times in total

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5The Dillahunty case Empty The Dillahunty case on Wed 13 Mar 2019 - 0:42

Admin


Admin
The Dillahunty case

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case

I called in to his The Atheist Experience show, on March 10, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGzLoWWQJQ

My argument: Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.

I would have proceeded with the philosophical cosmological argument of Gods existence, but it did not come that far:
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2832-the-philosophical-cosmological-argument-of-gods-existence

Matt's Objection: The argument that something cannot come into existence from absolutely no thing. is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing. You assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this?
Response:  Absolutely nothing, as the absence of anything, can't do something. It has no potentialities, it is the contrary of being: Non-being. That is inductive reasoning which does not require empirical demonstration and testing. Nothing has no ontological value to be taken seriously as a possible explanation of anything, since, its the absence of any being, it cannot produce being. This is obviously true, self evident,  and can be taken for granted without the need to be demonstrated.

If there is is no logical contradiction contained within the concept of 'nothing' then it could, in principles, and in fact, exist. The state of non-being could be. But then , we would not be here to talk about non-being. And since we ARE here, non-being has never been, but being has always been. In time, and in eternity. An eternal being without beginning, and without end, exists. Fits perfectly with the one that named himself " I AM". I don't know of any other deity calling himself " I AM". That should be telling.

I can even make fun of this ( Sadly, i didn't at the show: )
Matt wanted me to play magician. He wanted me to say with an authoritative voice and screaming: ABRACADABRA, WHITE ELEFANT, APPEAR IN THE ROOM. Had it not happened, my point would have been granted. Since I didn't want to play the clown, he got frustrated.... and ended the call. What a pity.

Maybe you do not realize, but at the moment Matt ended the call, his worldview ( and yours ) literally EXPLODED. finish. The end. Unbelievers have NO excuse.

But since that would have meant the end of the TAE show, and the show must go on, he simply ignores what is rationally obvious and evident.

Matt Dillahunty ducks, and does not respond to my challenge
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#6671

My post at Matt's patreon page:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/atheist-debates-25086132?cid=20698023

Otangelo Grasso
Matt: I contacted you by messenger, and you blocked me for no reason. I challenged you to explain how 560 proteins could have formed without guidance to kick start life, and you ignored to answer. I said yesterday on your show that there is no need to demonstrate that non-being can't do something, because by definition, nothing is the absence of anything, and you hang up, running away again. A commenter wrote on the YouTube timeline: SCIENCE
46 minutes ago
i just saw cowardice from the atheists side toward the brazilian guy./// You have buried your worldview and don't recognize it. Logic and reason is not on your side. What you accuse believers, is what you do: making fallacious arguments. Besides this, why do you not scrutinize a worldview without God? Being skeptical towards one side, means you need to be gullible towards the other option of origins. And saying : " I don't know" is NOT justified. Atheists: what they must believe in order to refute creationism

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2716-atheists-what-they-must-believe-in-order-to-refute-creationism



Last edited by Admin on Sat 16 Mar 2019 - 19:06; edited 1 time in total

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
AtheistDebates - Argument From Design, Part 2: What are the odds?

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2829-the-dillahunty-case#6687

Responding to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsw8VXAcHz4&t=79s


1.17 - 56

What are the odds? Can the odds be calculated to explain for example the origin of life?  If we ask this question in regards to the origin of life, we need to know first, what is the minimal complexity to have a self-replicating cell.
Science has a pretty clear picture on that, and the minimal number of proteins that keep the essential functions of life have been calculated to be 561 proteins: 

The proteomic complexity and rise of the primordial ancestor of diversified life
A more recent study of 184 genomes identified 669 orthologous protein families, which cover 561 detailed functional classes that are involved in almost all essential biological processes of extant life, including translation, transcription and its regulation, DNA replication, recombination, and repair, transport and membrane-associated functions, electron transfer, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123224/

We can also make an estimate of the average size of each protein: 

Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life
The average protein length of these 110 clusters of orthologous genes COGs is 359 amino acids for the prokaryotes and 459 for eukaryotes.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5650/aaa06de4de11c36a940cf29c07f5f731f63c.pdf

and come to about 400 amino acids. 

Based on this information, we can calculate the odds to get a minimal protein set for the origin of life by random prebiotic events: 

Objection: every sequence is just as improbable as another.
Answer: It's true that any particular equal-length sequence is just as improbable as any other. But if the goal is to have a sequence, a particular string starting at 1, then 2,3,4,5,6 ............ 500, then intuitively you know there sequence has a specific order. The relevant point to be outlined here is: The sequence 1,2,3,4 ..........  500, exhibits a specification or particular pattern. What must be explained, is the origin not of any kind of sequence, but a particular, specific sequence.
Suppose you see a blueprint to make a car engine with 100 horsepowers to drive a BMW 5X. Not any blueprint will produce this particular car engine with the right size and fit and power. Only a blueprint with the precise, specific, complex arrangement of orders that is understood by the common pre-established agreement between the engineer, and the manufacturer, will permit to be encoded, transmitted, decoded and transformed in an equivalent artefact that has the specific, recognizable function which meets the pre-established goal. The information for that particular car engine can be encoded in Bits. Let's suppose its the size of a CD, 600mb. What has to be calculated, are the odds to get that specific sequence of instructions, which permit to give rise to that particular car engine. Not any sequence will do. . Now
We know by experience, that intelligence is able to produce factories, engines, machines, codes, computers, software, hardware etc. The odds are 1, since it happens and are a proven, it's a fact.Now you take a random character generator. The odds to have a specific string of 470 characters, equivalent of a medium-sized protein of that length are 1:10^451. So there would have to be this number of trials and errors to get the right sequence. 

3.53 - 4.07: In respect to the Universe, what are the odds?

Argument: The odds can't be calculated
Response: There are many parameters which are necessary for the origin of the Universe to take place. A very balanced fine-tuning is necessary. Following some numbers:

The universe required the number of electrons equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 37th power. If it were not so, galaxies, stars, and planets would never form (because electromagnetic forces would so overwhelm gravitational forces).

Quarks and anti-quarks form via matter-antimatter pair production. Because of their nature, these particles instantly annihilate each other. However, during the creation of the universe, a slight asymmetry in this pair production resulted in approximately 1 extra particle of matter for every 10 billion produced. It turns out that this 1 in 10 billion ratio of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. As much as 2 in 10 billion, and the universe would have just been filled with black holes. As little as 0.5 in 10 billion, and there wouldn’t have been enough density for galaxies to form.

Upon the finetuning of the cosmological constant,  the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 10^123.

The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229
The chance to get the force of gravity just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
The chance to get the strong nuclear force  just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21

4.10 - 23

Question: How do they know this isn't possibly the only possible Universe?
Response: 

Paul Davies: 
“There is not a shred of evidence that the Universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders of reality” (“The Appearance of Design in Physics and Cosmology,” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, ed. Neil A. Manson [London: Routledge, 2003], 148–49).

Physical Necessity
First, let’s talk about physical necessity. As I just explained, according to this alternative the universe has to be life-permitting. The constants and the quantities had to have the values that they do. It is literally physically impossible for the universe to be life-prohibiting. It is physically necessary that the universe be a life-permitting universe. 1

String theory, the current best candidate for a "theory of everything," predicts an enormous ensemble, numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly fine-tuned universe. [url= 3]https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html#jCp]3[/url][/url]

Implausibility
On the very face of it, this is an extraordinarily implausible explanation of the fine-tuning. It would require us to say that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible – such a thing could not exist. And that is an extremely radical view. Why take such a radical position? The constants, as we have seen, are not determined by the laws of nature. Nature’s laws could hold, and the constants could take any of a wide range of values, so there is nothing about the laws of nature that require the constants to have the values that they do.

Arbitrary Quantities
As for the arbitrary quantities, remember those are completely independent of the laws of nature – they are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature then operate. Nothing seems to make these quantities necessary in the values they have. The opponent of design is taking a very radical line which would require some sort of evidence, some sort of proof. But there isn’t any proof that these constants and quantities are physically necessary. This alternative is just put forth as a bare possibility; and possibilities come cheap. What we are looking for is probabilities or plausibilities, and there just isn’t any evidence that the constants and quantities are physically necessary in the way that this alternative imagines. 4

Steven Weinberg   Department of Physics, University of Texas
Anthropic Considerations
In several cosmological theories the observed big bang is just one member of an ensemble. The ensemble may consist of different expanding regions at different times and locations in the same spacetime,7 or of different terms in the wave function of the universe.8 If the vacuum energy density ρV varies among the different members of this ensemble, then the value observed by any species of astronomers will be conditioned by the necessity that this value of ρV should be suitable for the evolution of intelligent life. 5

The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible. As Barr notes, “In the final analysis one cannot escape from two very basic facts: the laws of nature did not have to be as they are, and the laws of nature had to be very special in form if life were to be possible.” Our options, therefore, are between chance (the anthropic coincidences truly are coincidences) or design (the parameters needed for life were purposely arranged). While it cannot be established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that design is the most probable explanation.

Paul Davies, Information, and the Nature of reality, page 86:

Given that the universe could be otherwise, in vastly many different ways, what is it that determines the way the universe actually is? Expressed differently, given the apparently limitless number of entities that can exist, who or what gets to decide what actually exists? The universe contains certain things: stars, planets, atoms, living organisms … Why do those things exist rather than others? Why not pulsating green jelly, or interwoven chains, or fractal hyperspheres? The same issue arises for the laws of physics. Why does gravity obey an inverse square law rather than an inverse cubed law? Why are there two varieties of electric charge rather than four, and three “flavours” of neutrino rather than seven? Even if we had a unified theory that connected all these facts, we would still be left with the puzzle of why that theory is “the chosen one.”

"Each new universe is likely to have laws of physics that are completely different from our own."  If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, by pure odds at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things. “In some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics,” Linde says. “They will not see our universe. They will see only theirs. In 2000, new theoretical work threatened to unravel string theory. Joe Polchinski at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Raphael Bousso at the University of California at Berkeley calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 10^1,000*.   Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe. This meant that almost any experimental result would be consistent with string theory.

4.49 - 5.09

Argument: What if we live in a multiverse? 
Response: Atheists love to use Occam's razor. Remarkable, that arguing that there is no evidence of God because he cannot be perceived by our senses, in order to explain fine-tuning, he sticks to infinity of completely made-up, undetectable and unobservable parallel universes and claim the proposal to be entirely scientific and disregarding Occams. Me thinks. Occam's would not be amused.

The multiverse hypothesis is plagued by two problems: first, as Dr, Robin Collins, an acknowledged authority on fine-tuning, has argued, it merely shifts the fine-tuning problem up one level, as a multiverse capable of generating any life-supporting universes at all would still need to be fine-tuned; and second, as physicist Paul Davies has pointed out, even the multiverse hypothesis implies that a sizable proportion of universes (including perhaps our own) were intelligently designed. By default, then, Intelligent Design remains the best viable explanation for the origin of replication and translation, and hence of life on Earth. Why? Because it’s the only explanation that posits something already known to be capable of generating life, in order to account for the emergence of life on Earth. That “something” is intelligence.

Argument: How to calculate the probabilities of supernatural means to create a universe? 
Response: The probability would be one. Because we have empirical knowledge and experience that intelligent minds can create rules under which objects and things can exist and operate. Intelligence can also calculate and figure out, what solutions permit certain things to operate in the way intended. God, in his eternal power and knowledge, can have known what it would take to make a life-permitting universe, with the right constants, and finely tuned to permit life. 

6.05 - 23: 

Argument: How many possible supernatural causes do we know of? none
Response: I believe exactly the opposit: Namely that we cannot exist without a creator. 

1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.
3. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning of time, therefore, it had a cause.
5. Therefore a non-physical, eternal, non-created & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.
6. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.
7. That cause must be supernatural in nature, (as He exists outside of His creation), Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known), Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space), Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it), Timeless and changeless (He created time),  Immaterial (because He transcends space), Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality), Necessary (as everything else depends on Him), Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites),  Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity),  Intelligent (supremely, to create everything), Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything), Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver), Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)


7.33 - 8.02 

Argument: Abiogenesis: In regards or proteins: Improbability does not mean impossibility. 
Response: I think really the calculations of the odds demonstrate the impossibility. Let's just take one protein, for example Helicase:

Helicases are astonishing motor proteins which rotational speed is up to 10,000 rotations per minute, and are life essential. 

How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2227/

We propose a minimal gene set composed of 206 genes. Such a gene set will be able to sustain the main vital functions of a hypothetical simplest bacterial cell with the following features.

(i) A virtually complete DNA replication machinery, composed of one nucleoid DNA binding protein, SSB, DNA helicase, primase, gyrase, polymerase III, and ligase. No initiation and recruiting proteins seem to be essential, and the DNA gyrase is the only topoisomerase included, which should perform both replication and chromosome segregation functions.

Helicase is a class of enzymes vital to all living organisms. Their main function is to unpackage an organism's genes. They require 1000 left-handed amino acids in the right specified sequence. Each of the 1000 amino acids must be the right amongst 20 to chose from.  How did they emerge by natural processes? The chance to get them by random chemical reactions is 1 to 20^1000..... there are 10^80 atoms in the universe. 

The Dillahunty case Helica10

8.24 - 42: 

Question:  Why do you calculate the structure of a modern, complex protein structure? If you accept that there was a simpler protein which then could evolve into a more complex protein, you accept the theory of natural selection. 
Response: Proteins were never simple. A fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth, with profound repercussions for planetary exploration and exobiology. The estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth.
http://sci-hub.hk/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923250805002676

Life was never simple: 

A minimal estimate for the gene content of the last universal common ancestor—exobiology from a terrestrial perspective
A fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth, with profound repercussions for planetary exploration and exobiology. The estimate of LUCA's gene content appears to be substantially higher than that proposed previously, with a typical number of over 1000 gene families, of which more than 90% are also functionally characterized.a fairly complex genome similar to those of free-living prokaryotes, with a variety of functional capabilities including metabolic transformation, information processing, membrane/transport proteins and complex regulation, shared between the three domains of life, emerges as the most likely progenitor of life on Earth.
http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923250805002676

The Dillahunty case Sem_tz26

Argument: Creationists claim that the origin of proteins happened by one trial, and one single chance. A pool of chemicals in a primordial soup offers the opportunity of countless simultaneous trials. 
Response: It is irrelevant how many trials in parallel would/could have occurred. 

1. The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of pre-biological ( chemical) evolution.
2. The formation of amide bonds without the assistance of enzymes poses a major challenge for theories of the origin of life. 
3. The best one can hope for from such a scenario is a racemic polymer of proteinous and non-proteinous amino acids with no relevance to living systems.
4. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favoured in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favours depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed.
5. Even if there were billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates, even if, as is claimed, there was no oxygen in the prebiotic earth, then there would be no protection from UV light, which would destroy and disintegrate prebiotic organic compounds. Secondly, even if there would be a sequence, producing a functional folding protein, by itself, if not inserted in a functional way in the cell, it would absolutely no function. It would just lay around, and then soon disintegrate. Furthermore, in modern cells proteins are tagged and transported on molecular highways to their precise destination, where they are utilized. Obviously, all this was not extant on the early earth.
6. To form a chain, it is necessary to react bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the chain can grow no further at this end. If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could not form. But all ‘prebiotic simulation’ experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.

Argument: The physical laws, the laws of biochemistry, those aren't chance. The interaction of proteins, molecules, and atoms, their interaction is dictated by the laws of the universe. 
Response: While it is true, that the chemical bonds that glue one amino acid to the other are subdued to chemical properties, there are neither bonds nor bonding affinities—differing in strength or otherwise—that can explain the origin of the specificity of the sequence of the 20 types of amino acids, that have to be put together in the right order and sequence, in order for a protein to bear function.  What dictates in modern cells the sequence of amino acids in proteins is the DNA code. 

DNA contains true codified instructional information, or a blueprint.  Being instructional information means that the codified nucleotide sequence that forms the instructions is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar-phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

11.10 - 20

Argument: There is no reason to assume that a supernatural cause, is possible, let alone, probable until such thing has been demonstrated. 
Response: Chance of intelligence to set up life: 
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints and constructs complex factories and machines with specific purposes.

Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:


Proteins are the result of the DNA blueprint, which specifies the complex sequence necessary to produce functional 3D folds of proteins. Both improbability and specification are required in order to justify an inference of design.
1. According to the latest estimation of a minimal protein set for the first living organism, the requirement would be about 560 proteins, this would be the absolute minimum to keep the basic functions of a cell alive.  
2. According to the Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life, there is an average between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells of about 400 amino acids per protein. 8
3. Each of the 400 positions in the amino acid polypeptide chains could be occupied by any one of the 20 amino acids used in cells, so if we suppose that proteins emerged randomly on prebiotic earth, then the total possible arrangements or odds to get one which would fold into a functional 3D protein would be 1 to 20^400 or 1 to 10^520. A truly enormous, super astronomical number. 
4. Since we need 560 proteins total to make a first living cell, we would have to repeat the shuffle 560 times, to get all proteins required for life. The probability would be therefore 560/10^520.  We arrive at a probability far beyond  of 1 in 10^200.000  ( A proteome set with 239 proteins yields odds of approximately 1/10^119.614 ) 7
Granted, the calculation does not take into consideration nor give information on the probabilistic resources available. But the sheer gigantic number os possibilities throw any reasonable possibility out of the window. 

If we sum up the total number of amino acids for a minimal Cell, there would have to be 560 proteins x 400 amino acids  =  224.000 amino acids, which would have to be bonded in the right sequence, choosing for each position amongst 20 different amino acids, and selecting only the left-handed, while sorting out the right-handed ones. That means each position would have to be selected correctly from 40 variants !! that is 1 right selection out of 40^224.000 possibilities !! Obviously, a gigantic number far above any realistic probability to occur by unguided events. Even a trillion universes, each hosting a trillion planets, and each shuffling a trillion times in a trillionth of a second, continuously for a trillion years, would not be enough. Such astronomically unimaginably gigantic odds are in the realm of the utmost extremely impossible.

13:01 - 12

Argument: You have to provide evidence for your proposed counter mechanism. 
Response:  All the design proponent has to do, is to demonstrate why the origin of proteins, and life, is more likely to have occurred by intelligent design, rather than by unguided random events. That has been done and has demonstrated sufficiently, that design is CLEARLY a capable cause, while random events are too unspecific. 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

7The Dillahunty case Empty Re: The Dillahunty case on Thu 30 May 2019 - 10:47

Admin


Admin
To: Eric, and the board of directors of ACA.

At the end of this call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7SybLnNihc

Eric said AFTE I DID HANG UP, and had no chance to defend myself:

" These conversations are worth having, but they are worth having when we are dealing honestly and the level of dishonesty there is just mindblowing, and anyone saying something about Otangelo, he will blast them with bullshit. "

Eric also said: " I don't know why you lied to your friends".

Eric has accused me of lying to my friends, being dishonest, and blast people in the comments section with bullshit.

I want either Eric to back up and demonstrate where I have been dishonest, or making a public announcement where he retracts from these accusations. If this is not done, I will consider this as cowardice, and it will an open issue until this has been dealt with accordingly.

I want Eric also to respond what exactly of ANYTHING that I have posted in the comments section is bullshit, and why.

Otangelo

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

8The Dillahunty case Empty Re: The Dillahunty case on Sat 3 Aug 2019 - 11:50

Admin


Admin
What qualifies the hosts of ACA and TH to be " judges" , if there is evidence of God's existence?

One of the most relevant qualifications is to be UNBIASED and permit the evidence to lead WHEREVER IT IS, and actually, admit when a theist made a good point.  
Already here, the hosts, ALL of them, have already been disqualified, since they hold DEMONSTRATIVELY an agenda - which is to keep the " NO-GOD hypothesis" alive. At ALL costs.
Even at the cost of sacrificing reason and sound thinking. If they would permit to the God hypothesis a chance, the crowd which weekly religiously assists the show would be disappointed. How many titles on YouTube are: Theist DESTROYED by Dillahunty? That's what the crowd wants, and what Matt and cohorts think, they are able to deliver. Destroy the enemy. Disqualify him. Make him look like a fool. And when the hosts reach that goal, the production team behind the screen has a good laugh. Goal achieved.

Matt is the worst of the God-haters team. He goes to the point to even question if the God hypothesis is possible !! And IF God actually COULD exist, he might be dead, and we are alone. So far his wishful thinking goes....

Wow !!

Wherever he finds a reason to question Gods existence, he attempts to explore the idea, and formulate it into ( philosophically ), supposedly sound elaborated arguments, which he then, proud of himself, through his ( in his imagination) higher intellectual philosophical capacity, presents. Atheology at its best. ( sic )

"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). But Matt thinks he can re-invent the wheel and makes videos of how to frame a sound moral framework ( sic ). Sorry, Matt, the ten commandments are a bit older than you..... and there cannot be a binding moral standard if it is not given by above higher entity, above you and me.

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)

Matt and Eric are, in reality, misotheists.  God-haters. Even name-calling Jesus is not off the table at the show ( Done at his life rant on his parent's letter on his 50th birthday ).

Furthermore, the hosts, ALL OF THEM, have NO scientific education, but a very shallow, superficial grasp of epistemology, philosophy, biochemistry, biology and astronomy, and ( badly ) parrot what their fore(thinkers) like Krauss, Dawkins et al claim.

When a caller actually calls in and wants to discuss biology, the common answer is: This is an atheist show, if you want to discuss biology, seek knowledgeable people in the field. Well, actually having an education ( a formal one with PhD and titles is not required ) seems to me to be a BASIC requirement to be a judge of the quest of Gods existence if theology and religious books do not suffice. So the hosts FALL SHORT as well in this regard.

So this show is basically consisting of ULTRACREPIDARIANS with high ego, little substance, and, another point, are even unable to conduct a fruitful debate.

They are unable/unwilling to permit a theist which actually HAS A CASE to expose his thoughts. How many times have I been interrupted in my calls, at my attempts to expose my argument? The hosts HAVE NO INTEREST at all to listen and permit a caller to actually eloquently expose the evidence.

How many times have the hosts actually admitted: That sounds like a fairly good argument for Gods existence? Has a caller been granted to provide a good reason to believe in God? In all the shows which I have seen, also older ones, I have NEVER seen this occurring.

An honest epistemological framework is to scrutinize the evidence for both worldviews, one with God, and one without, weigh them one against the other, and say: Upon this and that, it seems that the God hypothesis versus the no-God hypothesis makes more sense or vice versa.

But no. Only when the miserably faulty epistemological framework is exposed, the justifications come out. " Oh, I have already checked if naturalism makes sense " ( So, Dillahunty ). Well, that does not suffice. The whole framework of the shows is a lie. Be honest and confess that you guys are agnostics would be a good start.

That would demonstrate how SENSELESS your show actually is.

If the God of the Bible exists and will judge mankind as promised in the Bible, then these promoters of unbelief will have a lot to explain to God. Why do they attempt to bring believers down to unbelief? Matt has trumpet how he has led thousands to unbelief. So, if the God of the Bible exists, you have basically turned yourself into a spiritual mass killer. And crowds will spend eternity in hell. Because of your already 20 years lasting campaign of lies.
Heavy will be your burden of killing the hope of thousands.  

False Dichotomy of Theism and Naturalism | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vYXETmSv_w&lc=z232zd4qconcidcdmacdp432jukcea4ip0bssawfnj1w03c010c.1563651753228770

There Are Only Two World Views? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.04 Published on Feb 5, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_l8-JNGJ5s&t=1181s

God Encoded His ID in the Natural Forces | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.06  Feb 15, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d2i4gl-s7Q&t=758s

Something Can't Come From Nothing? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.07  Feb 20, 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28NzBFSKLA&t=1016s

It's impossible for god not to exist | Otangelo - Brazil | Atheist Experience 23.10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0W8sPKaGPQ&t=1s

Talk Heathens, 1h 23min 50s  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSGzLoWWQJQ

Exploring the Blind Watchmaker | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo9LiACghEI&t=5s

Willing to Change Beliefs? | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7SybLnNihc












express their skepticism and provide reasons why they think the caller's evidence is not sound

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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