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 » Philosophy and God » Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God

Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Admin


Admin
Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2863-objections-to-evidence-provided-for-the-existence-of-god

Sean C. Riley @Intelligent Design Academy "Following a list of positive evidence of Gods existence, not depending on gaps or lack of knowledge."

These, at least, I can address.

1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause

You assert that it had a beginning. This is not known, and is one of the gaps I am referring to.

2. The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.

This is not a logical statement. Yes, the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. In no way does this require an intelligent agent to implement those laws. Again, you are making an assertion with no evidence to support it.

3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.

And?

4. Fine-Tuning. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right.

Fine-tuning is an argument made by people who don't grasp the vastness of time and space, nor the complexity of biology and evolution. A much stronger argument (and one we actually do see evidence of) is that these conditions were likely, almost inevitably, going to occur somewhere in the universe at some point in time, simply due to the sheer enormity of it and the seemingly incalculable number of possible systems present.

5. Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.

Neither has divine creation. At least abiogenesis has theoretical models based in functional science.

6. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.

No, cells are not literally factories. They are literally cells. They are figuratively like factories. You don't get to redefine language and then point to your redefined words to claim them as evidence.

7. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000!

Okay...and? This is a statement, not evidence of anything except what a cell requires.

8.Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth

Why would they never accumulate on a prebiotic Earth, and how can you know this? This one I genuinely don't know.

9. The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed.

Utter nonsense. This is an entirely subjective statement. To me, the universe and biological systems appear to be the result of natural processes. Therefore, most probably, they are not designed. See how easy that is?

10. Codified Information. DNA has the highest storage density known, and stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be tracked back to intelligence

Just like your factory analogy above, you're trying to use language (a system created by humans) to prove something about nature.

11. The Fossil Record. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates.

No, it demonstrates that human beings have discovered fossil records of lifeforms and have not discovered evidence of any intermediate lifeforms. The lack of knowledge of a thing is not the same thing a thing never having existed. This is a perfect example of the God of the Gaps.

12. Consciousness and language. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from physical matter.

Another baseless assertion. We have no idea what consciousness is. Scientists and philosophers have debated this for centuries. The mind, conscience, logic...everything you're describing exists within the brain. That is the only thing we do know about it. If there is more to it, we haven't determined that with any certainty yet. But to suggest they cannot emerge from physical matter is disingenuous when our best knowledge on the subject at this time suggests that they are least connected to, if not entirely emergent from the brain.

13. Human objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic.

Another assertion without evidence.

14. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.

This is a gross misreprentation of two very broad fields of study. But even if it were true, so what? It still wouldn't provide any actual evidence of that Creator.

15. The Bible. The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.

Nope, nope, nope. The Bible is useless as evidence of anything. It is a cobbled together work of fiction, interpreted hundreds of different ways, much of its historicity disproven (or at least lacking any corroborating proof).

16. Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.

This is flatly false. You are either lying or grossly misinformed.

17. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead

Also false. At this point I'm less inclined to trust any of your sources.

18. The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.

Yet, not a single one of these testimonies can be verified by an impartial observer. Not. One.

19. End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, Israel as a nation, microchip implant etc.

More prophecies. The fun thing about prophecies is how vague they are, so that people can go back and say, "See? This is what that prophecy meant all along!"

20. After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.

What makes a credible witness for witnessing the afterlife?

There are scientific explanations for these experiences. I'm open to the idea that there could be more to this, but primarily out of my own ignorance on the subject. However, an afterlife still does not prove the existence of God or a created universe. The afterlife could simply be another facet of the natural universe. This is called intellectual honesty, saying "I don't know."





Objection: 1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
You assert that it had a beginning. This is not known, and is one of the gaps I am referring to.

Response: The universe most probably had a beginning
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1297-the-universe-most-probably-had-a-beginning

Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos: 
‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83

Mithani, and  Vilenkin: Did the universe have a beginning?:
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes. Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

NASA: 
The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe. 
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole, therefore, forms a singularity at its center from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is, therefore, finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.  Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded". 


Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In 2012 Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”[1] “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” 
A.Vilenkin, cited in “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (January 11, 2012).

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
 It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning 
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).




Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God Wb5phy10

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


Objection:  The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.

This is not a logical statement. Yes, the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. In no way does this require an intelligent agent to implement those laws. Again, you are making an assertion with no evidence to support it.

3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.

And?


Response: Laws of Physics, where did they come from? 


http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from


The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other. Origins make only sense in face of Intelligent Design.

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

Paul Davies: The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe.

The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause. 


Our very ability to establish the laws of nature depends on their stability.(In fact, the idea of a law of nature implies stability.) Likewise, the laws of nature must remain constant long enough to provide the kind of stability life requires through the building of nested layers of complexity. The properties of the most fundamental units of complexity we know of, quarks, must remain constant in order for them to form larger units, protons and neutrons, which then go into building even larger units, atoms, and so on, all the way to stars, planets, and in some sense, people. The lower levels of complexity provide the structure and carry the information of life. There is still a great deal of mystery about how the various levels relate, but clearly, at each level, structures must remain stable over vast stretches of space and time. 4

And our universe does not merely contain complex structures; it also contains elaborately nested layers of higher and higher complexity. Consider complex carbon atoms, within still more complex sugars and nucleotides, within more complex DNA molecules, within complex nuclei, within complex neurons, within the complex human brain, all of which are integrated in a human body. Such “complexification” would be impossible in both a totally chaotic, unstable universe and an utterly simple, homogeneous universe of, say, hydrogen atoms or quarks.

Of course, although nature’s laws are generally stable, simple, and linear—while allowing the complexity necessary for life—they do take more complicated forms. But they usually do so only in those regions of the universe
far removed from our everyday experiences: general relativistic effects in high-gravity environments, the strong nuclear force inside the atomic nucleus, quantum mechanical interactions among electrons in atoms. And even in these far-flung regions, nature still guides us toward discovery. Even within the more complicated realm of quantum mechanics, for instance, we can describe many interactions with the relatively simple Schrödinger Equation. Eugene Wigner famously spoke of the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural science”—unreasonable only if one assumes, we might add, that the universe is not underwritten by reason. Wigner was impressed by the simplicity of the mathematics that describes the workings of the universe and our relative ease in discovering them. Philosopher Mark Steiner, in The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem, has updated Wigner’s musings with detailed examples of the deep connections and uncanny predictive power of pure mathematics as applied to the laws of nature

Described by man, Prescribed by God. There is no scientific reason why there should be any laws at all. It would be perfectly logical for there to be chaos instead of order. Therefore the FACT of order itself suggests that somewhere at the bottom of all this there is a Mind at work. This Mind, which is uncaused, can be called 'God.' If someone asked me what's your definition of 'God', I would say 'That which is Uncaused and the source of all that is Caused.' 3

Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God Mc_cre11
==============================================================================================================================================

Objection: Fine-tuning is an argument made by people who don't grasp the vastness of time and space, nor the complexity of biology and evolution. A much stronger argument (and one we actually do see evidence of) is that these conditions were likely, almost inevitably, going to occur somewhere in the universe at some point in time, simply due to the sheer enormity of it and the seemingly incalculable number of possible systems present.

Response:  Without fine-tuning of the Big Bang , there would be no Universe at all. 

Fine-tuning of the Big Bang 

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1866-fine-tuning-of-the-big-bang

The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history

Professor Stephen Hawking: 
'If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state.' -

Steven Weinberg Department of Physics, University of Texas 
There are now two cosmological constant problems. The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way why the vacuum energy density ρV is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some contributions to ρV , like the energy density in fluctuations in the gravitational field at graviton energies nearly up to the Planck scale, which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. Such terms in ρV can be cancelled by other contributions that we can’t calculate, but the cancellation then has to be accurate to 120 decimal places.

When one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory. 5 Physicists, who have fretted over the cosmological constant paradox for years, have noted that calculations such as the above involve only the electromagnetic force, and so perhaps when the contributions of the other known forces are included, all terms will cancel out to exactly zero, as a consequence of some unknown fundamental principle of physics.  But these hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implied that the cosmological constant must be slightly positive. This meant that physicists were left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121st digit.

Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10^123 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago. In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation.

Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.

Max Tegmark: 
“How far could you rotate the dark-energy knob before the “Oops!” moment? If rotating it…by a full turn would vary the density across the full range, then the actual knob setting for our Universe is about 10^123 of a turn away from the halfway point. That means that if you want to tune the knob to allow galaxies to form, you have to get the angle by which you rotate it right to 123 decimal places!

That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. 4

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

Objection: Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.
Neither has divine creation. At least abiogenesis has theoretical models based in functional science.

Response: Life comes only from life. Repeatedly proven correct. 
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:

Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce  functional proteins on early earth external to cellular biosynthesis:
1 in 10^200.000 That's virtually the same as 0%. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.

Abiogenesis is virtually impossible
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-virtually-impossible

No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce
a  self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization

Observation: 
The origin of life depends on biological cells, which perpetuate life upon the complex action of  

- factory portals with fully automated security checkpoints and control ( membrane proteins )
- factory compartments ( organelles )
- a library index and fully automated information classification, storage and retrieval program ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network )
- 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 retrieval ( RNA polymerase )
- transmission ( messenger RNA )
- translation ( Ribosome ) 
- signalling ( hormones ) 
- complex machines ( proteins )
- taxis ( dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles )
- molecular highways ( tubulins, used by dynein and kinesin proteins for molecular transport to various destinations )
- tagging programs ( each protein has a tag, which is an amino acid sequence ) informing other molecular transport machines where to transport them.
- 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 )
- electric circuits ( the metabolic network )

Biological cells are a veritable micro-miniaturized industrial park full of interlinked and interdependent factories containing millions of exquisitely designed
pieces of intricate molecular machinery. Biological  Cells do not resemble factory parks, 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: 
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. 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, so, by applying  Bayesian probability, we can conclude that Life is most probably intelligently designed.

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

Objection: Objection: cells are not factories in a literal sense.
Answer: Factory is from latin, and means fabricare, or make. Produce, manufacture. A factory or manufacturing plant is a site, usually consisting of buildings and machinery, or more commonly a complex having several buildings, where, in fully automated factories for example, pre-programmed robots, manufacture goods or operate machines processing one product into another. And that's PRECISELY what cells do. They produce other cells through self-replication, through complex machine processing, computing etc. They produce all organelles, proteins, membranes, parts, they make a copy of themselves. Self-replication is a marvel of engineering. the most advanced method of manufacturing. And fully automated. No external help required. If we could make factories like that, we would be able to create a society where machines do all the work for us, and we would have time only to entertain us, no work, nor money needed anymore..... And if factories could evolve to produce subsequently better, more adapted products, that would add even further complexity, and point to even more requirement of pre-programming to get the feat done.

The Molecular Fabric of Cells  BIOTOL, B.C. Currell and R C.E Dam-Mieras (Auth.)
http://libgen.io/search.php?req=The+Molecular+Fabric+of+Cells&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def

 The central theme of both of these texts is to consider cells as biological factories. Cells are, indeed, outstanding factories. Each cell type takes in its own set of chemicals and making its own collection of products. The range of products is quite remarkable and encompass chemically simple compounds such as ethanol and carbon dioxide as well as the extremely complex proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and secondary products. 

Membranes represent the walls of the cellular factory. Membranes control what comes into the factory and what leaves. We may view the cytoplasm and its surrounding plasma membrane as being the workshop of the chemical factory. The Golgi apparatus, another membranous structure embedded in the cytoplasm, is also involved in the processing of macromolecules made within the cell. Its special properties are for modifying cell products so that they can be exported from the cell. In our chemical factory, they are the packaging and exporting department. Enzymes are indeed rather like the workers in a large complex industrial process. Each is designed to carry out a specific task in a specific area of the factory.

To understand how a factory operates requires knowledge of the tools and equipment available within the factory and how these tools are organized. We might anticipate that our biological factories will be comprised of structural and functional elements.

Plant Cells as Chemical Factories: Control and Recovery of Valuable Products
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0641-4_14

Microbial cell factory is an approach to bioengineering which considers microbial cells as a production facility in which the optimization process largely depends on metabolic engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_cell_factory

Microbial Cell Factories is an open access peer-reviewed journal that covers any topic related to the development, use and investigation of microbial cells as producers of recombinant proteins and natural products
https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/

Fine Tuning our Cellular Factories: Sirtuins in Mitochondrial Biology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111451/

Cells As Molecular Factories
Eukaryotic cells are molecular factories in two senses: cells produce molecules and cells are made up of molecules.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/bioactivities/cellmolecular

Michael Denton: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis:
The cell is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world. 

Ribosome: Lessons of a molecular factory construction
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026893314040116

Nucleolus: the ribosome factory
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712681

Ribosome: The cell city's factories
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/natural-history/ribosome-the-cell-citys-factories
In the cell, there are production lines, in this case, manufacturing new proteins of many different sorts. New goods and products are continually being manufactured from raw materials. In cities this takes place in workshops and factories. Raw materials are transformed, usually in a sequence of steps on a production line, into finished products. The process is governed by a clear set of instructions or specifications. In some cases the final products are for immediate or local use, in others they are packaged for export.

The Cell's Protein Factory in Action
What looks like a jumble of rubber bands and twisty ties is the ribosome, the cellular protein factory.
https://www.livescience.com/41863-ribosomes-protein-factory-nigms.html

Chloroplasts are the microscopic factories on which all life on Earth is based.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-chloroplast-For-what-it-is-used

Visualization of the active expression site locus by tagging with green fluorescent protein shows that it is specifically located at this unique pol I transcriptional factory.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/full/414759a.html

There are millions of protein factories in every cell. Surprise, they’re not all the same
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/there-are-millions-protein-factories-every-cell-surprise-they-re-not-all-same

Rough ER is also a membrane factory for the cell; it grows in place by adding membrane proteins and phospholipids to its own membrane.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Print_version

Endoplasmic reticulum: Scientists image 'parking garage' helix structure in protein-making factory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718130617.htm

Theoretical biologists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have used a New Mexico supercomputer to aid an international research team in untangling another mystery related to ribosomes -- those enigmatic jumbles of molecules that are the protein factories of living cells.
https://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-ratchet-cellular-protein-factory.html

The molecular factory that translates the information from RNA to proteins is called the "ribosome"
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-key-worker-protein-synthesis-factory.html

Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum protein factory
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a factory where secretory proteins are manufactured, and where stringent quality-control systems ensure that only correctly folded proteins are sent to their final destinations. The changing needs of the ER factory are monitored by integrated signalling pathways that constantly adjust the levels of folding assistants.
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature02262

The cell is a mind-bogglingly complex and intricate marvel of nano-technology.  Every one of the trillions of cells in your body is not “like” an automated nano-factory. It is an automated nano-factory.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pardon-me-if-i-am-not-impressed-dr-miller/

Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God QEJ4DJ9

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

Objection: 7. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000!
Okay...and? This is a statement, not evidence of anything except what a cell requires.

Response: Leading scientists have calculated that the statistical probability of the fine-tuning of the universe, and life emerging by random unguided events, is far beyond the limit of Borel's law, which is in the order of 1 in 10^50.
This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help. Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^50. In other words, the evidence that our universe is designed is overwhelming!

A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.  If the probability of an event is an infinitesimally small, then, for all practical purposes, the probability is equal to zero.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Statistical_impossibility

The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :
As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.
http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathproofcreat.html

LES PROBABILITIES DINOMBRABLES ET LEURS APPLICATIONS ARITHMtTIOUES.
Par M. EmiIe BoreI (Paris) 8 novembre 1908
http://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03019651

Strong law of large numbers
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Strong_law_of_large_numbers


And to mention: 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 orgin of life. 2
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.
7.  in modern organisms, linking amino acids and bond one amino acid to the next to build a protein is a highly sophisticated and complex process. Each amino acid is activated to overcome an energy barrier that naturally prevents the linking up of adjacent amino acids in solution, and the energy for this process comes from ATP. Then, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) enzymes bond each amino acid, in two steps, to the correct tRNA.”  The tRNA adaptors are detachable once the amino acid has been joined to the end of the growing protein. How could/would the transition of non-enzymatic protein elongation and formation have occurred from when this machinery was non-extant on early earth, to the process promoted by the Cell machinery? The hugeness of this gap cannot be overstated.


[size=12]==============================================================================================================================================

Objection: [/size] 8.Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
Why would they never accumulate on a prebiotic Earth, and how can you know this? This one I genuinely don't know.

Response: The hydrothermal-vent hypothesis, and why it fails
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1394-the-hydrothermal-vent-theory-and-why-it-fails

The high concentrations of water on the early Earth would have diluted reactants, diffused away products, AND inhibited condensation reactions.  The cytoplasm of living cells contains essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals (Switek). Thus, it is clear, life could not have formed in the ocean.  Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment.


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

Objection: The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed.
Utter nonsense. This is an entirely subjective statement. To me, the universe and biological systems appear to be the result of natural processes. Therefore, most probably, they are not designed. See how easy that is?

Response: The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see :

- an object in nature very similar to human-made things
- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- something purposefully made for specific goals
- specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message  
- irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artefacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- order or orderly patterns
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts
- intelligence can create artefacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes ) 
- Fine-tuning


Which of the following is better explained by design, rather than non-design?

Probability theory is the logic of science, dingdong. You do not need to prove everything absolutely for it to make sense within reason. What you need is a tendency for it to
be true statistically. That means evidence of it working repeatedly with low error.

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.

Upon applying above logic, how is the following better explained, by design, or non-design ?

- Components of a complex system that are only useful in the completion of a much larger system and their orderly aggregation in a sequentially correct manner.
- Intermediate sub-products which have by its own no use of any sort unless they are correctly assembled in a larger system.  
- Instructional complex information which is required for to make these sub-products and parts,  to mount them correctly in the right order and at the right place,
  and interconnected correctly in a larger system.  
- The making of computer hardware, and highly efficient information storage devices.
- Creating software, based on a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint.
- Information retrieval, transmission, signalling, and translation
- The make of machine parts with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into complex machines, production line complexes, autonomous robots
  with error check functions and repair mechanisms, electronic circuit - like networks, energy production factories, power generating plants, energy turbines, recycle
  mechanisms and methods, waste grinders and management, organized waste disposal mechanisms, and self distruction when needed to reach a higher end, and veritable
  micro-miniaturized factories where all before-metioned systems and parts are required in order for that factory to be self- replicating, and being functional.
- Establishment of advanced communication systems. Signal relay stations. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signaling convention
  (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   A transmitter and receiver
  system made of physical materials, with a functional purpose, performing an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them,
  acting as information processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware )
- Selecting the most optimal and efficient code information system and ability to minimize the effects of errors.
- A system which uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language,  which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Apobetics, and assign the
  code of one system to the code of another system.
- The make of complicated, fast high-performance production systems,  and technology with high robustness, flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness, and 
  quality-management techniques.
- The setup of 1,000–1,500 manufacturing proceedings in parallel by a series of operations and flow connections to reach a common end-goal, the most complex
   industry-like production networks known.
- The implementation of a product making system,  only in response to actual demand, not in anticipation of forecast demand, thus preventing overproduction.
- Creating machines, production lines and factories that are more complex than man-made things of the sort.
- The organization of software exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory mechanisms -  and control networks and systems.
- Error check and detection,  inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, information error proofreading and repair mechanisms.
- Foolproofing, applying the key-lock principle to guarantee a proper fit between product and machine.
- Complex production lines which depend on precise optimization and fine-tuning.
- Create complex systems which are able to adapt to variating conditions.



Last edited by Admin on Tue May 21, 2019 11:14 am; edited 4 times in total

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Objection:  Codified Information. DNA has the highest storage density known, and stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be tracked back to intelligence
Just like your factory analogy above, you're trying to use language (a system created by humans) to prove something about nature.


Response: DNA - the instructional blueprint of life

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2544-dna-the-instructional-blueprint-of-life

DNA Is Called The Blueprint Of Life: Here’s Why
OCTOBER 26, 2017
DNA is called the blueprint of life because it is the instruction manual to create, grow, function and reproduce life on Earth similar to a blueprint of a house. 10
https://sciencetrends.com/dna-called-blueprint-life-heres/


BLUEPRINT How DNA makes us who we are
DNA is the major systematic force, the blueprint, that makes us who we are.
https://www.amazon.com/Blueprint-How-DNA-Makes-Press/dp/0262039168

A blueprint is a reproduction of a technical drawing using a contact print process on light-sensitive sheets. Introduced by Sir John Herschel in 1842,the process allowed rapid, and accurate, production of an unlimited number of copies. It was widely used for over a century for the reproduction of specification drawings used in construction and industry.

Blueprints direct the construction of Buildings, DNA directs the " construction" of cells and organisms. DNA is an informational code that directs the development and function of cells and organisms. Segments of DNA called genes code for the formation of specific proteins. The complex information in the DNA regulates which proteins are made at which time and in what quantity.

Life's Irreducible Structure
21 JUNE 1968
DNA Acts as a Blueprint But there remains a fundamental point to be considered. A printed page may be a mere jumble of words, and it has then no information content. So the improbability count gives the possible, rather than the actual, information content of a page. And this applies also to the information content attributed to a DNA molecule; the sequence of the bases is deemed meaningful only because we assume with Watson and Crick that this arrangement generates the structure of the offspring by endowing it with its own information content. This brings us at last to the point that I aimed at when I undertook to analyze the information content of DNA: Can the control of morphogenesis by DNA be likened to the designing and shaping of a machine by the engineer? We have seen that physiology interprets the organism as a complex network of mechanisms, and that an organism is-like a machine-a system under dual control. Its structure is that of a boundary condition harnessing the physicalchemical substances within the organism in the service of physiological functions. Thus, in generating an organism, DNA initiates and controls the growth of a mechanism that will work as a boundary condition within a system under dual control. And I may add that DNA itself is such a system, since every system conveying information is under dual control, for every such system restricts and orders, in the service of conveying its information, extensive resources of particulars that would otherwise be left at random, and thereby acts as a boundary condition. In the case of DNA this boundary condition is a blueprint of the growing organism 7
http://science.sciencemag.org.sci-hub.tw/content/160/3834/1308

1. Regulation, governing, controlling, recruiting, interpretation, recognition, orchestrating, elaborating strategies, guiding, instruct are all tasks of the gene regulatory network.
2. Such activity can only be exercised if no intelligence is present if the correct actions were pre-programmed by intelligence.
3. Therefore, most probably, the gene regulatory network was programmed by an intelligent agency.

1. Complex multicellular lifeforms depend on gene regulatory networks (dGRN's) which are a collection of molecular regulators that interact with each other and with other substances in the cell to orchestrate the expression of DNA. 
2. dGRN's operate based on logic gates and their networks process chemical input signals similar to computers. These encoded instructions are based on boolean logic.
3. Logic depends on reason. Reason depends on intelligence. Only an intelligent mind can think rationally, and implement a system based on conceptual laws of logic. Therefore, the best and most reasonable explanation for the existence of complex gene regulatory networks based on boolean logic, essential for the make of complex multicellular organisms, is the creative action of a powerful, transcendent, intelligent Creator. 

1. The setup of functional Information retrieval systems, like a library classification system, is always tracked back to intelligence
2. The gene regulatory network is a fully automated, pre-programmed, ultra-complex gene information extraction system
3. Therefore, its origin is best explained through intelligent setup

1. DNA stores information based on a code system, and codified, complex, instructional information, with the same function as a blueprint.  
2. All codes and blueprints come from intelligence.
3. Therefore, the genetic code and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms, stored in DNA, were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

1. Cells use sophisticated information selection ( the Gene regulatory network ) encoding and transcription ( DNA & RNA polymerase machines ) transmission (mRNA), and decoding ( Ribosome ) systems.
2. Setup of information transmission systems, aka.  Selection, encoding, transmission, and decoding are always a deliberate act of intelligence
3. The existence of the genetic information transmission system is best explained by the implementation of an intelligent designer.    

1. Either life is due to natural processes, or intelligent design.
2. Life is not due to natural processes,
3. Therefore it is due to intelligent design.

1. Factories are the result of intelligent design
2. Biological cells are factories
3. Therefore, biological cells are designed. 

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the make of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made both for purposeful, specific goals. 
2. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA, which directs the make of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by intelligent design. 

1. The implementation and construction of factory parks for specific goals depends always on planning, elaborating blueprints and codified specified instructions.
2. The make and development of cells which are literally self-replicating factories are due to blueprints, genetic instructions,  stored in DNA. 
3. All information storage devices, code languages, blueprints, information transmission systems, translation cyphers, with the purpose to make factories, are of intelligent origin. Biological cells are therefore the result of Intelligent design.


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

Objection: The Fossil Record. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates.

No, it demonstrates that human beings have discovered fossil records of lifeforms and have not discovered evidence of any intermediate lifeforms. The lack of knowledge of a thing is not the same thing a thing never having existed. This is a perfect example of the God of the Gaps.

Response: 

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 molecular biochemistry. We checked, and scientists discovered that DNA stores specified complex information, which is a blueprint, instructing the precise sequence of amino acids to make proteins. Such information has never been observed to emerge by chance, and therefore, we have evidence that something is extremely unlikely (e.g., that chance could inform the correct instructions to make proteins). Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence. Something has proven not to be the result of X ( as chance, for example )
4. Intelligence can act towards achieving specific goals, and knows how to create codified language, and use that language to create blueprints, used to make complex machines, production lines, and factories. It can finely tune and arrange things to work in a precise fashion. it can shape and form parts that perform tasks by interacting like lock and key. None of all this has been observed to be achieved by any alternative non-intelligent mechanism. if anyone wants to propose an alternative to replace intelligence, it should meet the burden of proof, and falsify the claim based on empirical testing and falsification.
5. Hence, the argument of Intelligent Design as best explanation of origins is based on experiments and observation, gained knowledge and experience. Not from ignorance.  

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

Objection:  12. Consciousness and language. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from physical matter.

Another baseless assertion. We have no idea what consciousness is. Scientists and philosophers have debated this for centuries. The mind, conscience, logic...everything you're describing exists within the brain. That is the only thing we do know about it. If there is more to it, we haven't determined that with any certainty yet. But to suggest they cannot emerge from physical matter is disingenuous when our best knowledge on the subject at this time suggests that they are least connected to, if not entirely emergent from the brain.


Response: Idealism, dualism, or materialism? The Mind is Not The Brain

Flowering plants of the genus Musa will always only generate Bananas. Citrus species will always only produce citrus fruits like Orange, lemon etc.
Only an intelligent mind, capable of logical reasoning, is an adequate cause to create other minds able to reason. If we as humans possess the capability to intellectually understand and to know, then the cause must have the same or better capabilities of the same sort.
Arguing that matter can produce a mind, consciousness, intelligence, and the capability of logical reasoning is special pleading.

The claim that the electric impulses in our brain are or generate sensations and thoughts, is in contradiction with the laws of physics that consider equivalent all electric impulses, inside or outside our brain. In fact, an electric impulse is formed only by some electrons moving in a certain direction; according to the laws of physics, electrons are all equal and indistinguishable, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html

Read and repeat in your mind: " Saying that matter produces thoughts is as saying that the colour blue produces the smell of perfume channel ".  That thought of yours is not in its essence of material causation, but mental. It's not because some electrons fired in some special way in your neurons, that you had this thought. That's an error of category. It's actually the contrary. Your thoughts had a material consequence in your neurons.  Therefore, the supernatural realm exists. And is right amongst us. Our mind and thoughts are in their essence not a manifestation of matter, but of a supernatural realm.

The Mind is Not The Brain
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-the-mind-is-not-the-brain

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1284-near-death-experience-evidence-of-dualism

Mind and brain: A scientific discussion leading to the existence of the soul
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2798-mind-and-brain-a-scientific-discussion-leading-to-the-existence-of-the-soul

The universe: Caused by a Conscient creator, information and energy
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2061p100-my-articles#6037

In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint no longer is credible scientifically, due in large part to the experiments of the renowned Australian physiologist Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles, who won the Nobel Prize for his discoveries regarding how certain portions (known as “neural synapses”) of the brain work, documented that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former (the librarian) is not reducible to the latter (the library). Eccles explained his scientific methodology and his conclusions in The Self and Its Brain, a book he co-authored with the eminent British philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper.
http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0102.pdf

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

Objection:  14. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.

This is a gross misreprentation of two very broad fields of study. But even if it were true, so what? It still wouldn't provide any actual evidence of that Creator.

Response: We do not have to prove anything. Just providing the best explanation is enough.

The philosophical cosmological argument of Gods existence
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2832-cosmological-the-philosophical-cosmological-argument-of-gods-existence

There are only three possible answers to the question of the origin of the universe:

1. the Universe is eternal; it always has existed and always will exist;
2. the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; or
3. the Universe is not eternal and did not create itself out of nothing, but instead was created by something (or Someone) outside of itself.

1. Existence can be divided into two basic categories: physical ( energy/matter, space and time), and mind ( consciousness, intelligence )
2. Since something cannot come from nothing, but we exist, then something has always existed. That must have been either the mind, physical things, or both together. 
3. The physical universe had to have a beginning, therefore it is not eternal. 
4. Thus, the mind must be eternal.

By deductive reasoning, we can come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible most probably exists. Following argument requires no theology nor science which must be true based uniquely on deductive reasoning. 

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.
4. Therefore a non-physical, eternal, non-created & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.
5. 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.
6. 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)

Only the God of the Bible is described with the above-described characteristics.

God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24)
God is omniscient (Psalm 147:4-5)
God is omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17; Psalm 135:6)
God is Spirit (John 4:24)
God is in a league of His own (Isaiah 46:9)
God is immortal and invisible (1 Timothy 1:17)
God is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:16)
God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6)
God is sovereign (Psalm 115:3)
God is One, yet He exists in three persons (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)
God is loving (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8 )
God is gracious and merciful (Jonah 4:2; Deuteronomy 4:31)
God is righteous (Psalm 11:7)
God is holy (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:16)
God is just (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 30:18)
God is forgiving (1 John 1:9)
God is compassionate (James 5:11)


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

Objection: 15. The Bible. The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.

Nope, nope, nope. The Bible is useless as evidence of anything. It is a cobbled together work of fiction, interpreted hundreds of different ways, much of its historicity disproven (or at least lacking any corroborating proof).

Response: Fullfilled prophecies in the bible
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2435-fullfilled-prophecies-in-the-bible

Do you want to know why Simeon and Anna were waiting for the consolation of Israel which was the coming of the Messiah? They understood the book of Daniel
Thankfully, neither your salvation, nor mine, hangs in the balance with getting Daniel 9:24-27 exactly right. But God has already laid down when the Messiah was coming when Danial was in Babylon
Daniel 9:24,27 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy Place . Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

DANIEL 9 & THE 70 WEEKS
Daniel was next told by Gabriel that the 70 sevens are to accomplish six purposes.
1) The first is to finish transgression. The Hebrew word translated “to finish” means “to restrain firmly,” “to restrain completely” or “to bring to completion.”
2) The second purpose of the 70 sevens is to make an end of sins. The Hebrew word translated “to make an end” literally means “to seal up” or “to shut up in prison.”
3) The third purpose is to make reconciliation for iniquity. The Hebrew word translated “to make reconciliation” is “kaphar,” which has the same root meaning as the word “kippur,” as in Yom Kippur. The word “kaphar” literally means “to make atonement.”
4) The fourth purpose of the 70 sevens is to bring in everlasting righteousness. More literally this could be translated “to bring in an age of righteousness,”
5) The fifth purpose is to seal up vision and prophecy. Here Daniel used a word which means “to shut up.” So “to seal up” means to cause a cessation or to completely fulfill. Thus, vision and prophecy are to be completely fulfilled.” Vision” is a reference to oral prophecy, while “prophecy” refers to written prophecy. Both oral and written prophecy will cease
6) The final purpose of the 70 sevens is to anoint the most holy. A better translation here would be “to anoint a most holy place.” This is a reference to the Jewish temple which is to be rebuilt when Messiah comes.

THE PREDICTED TIME.
The time of the 70 Sevens Daniel 9:24,27 “Seventy sevens are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city…” The focus of the program of the sevens was “thy people and…thy holy city.” the Jewish people. The Hebrew text is shavuim, which means “sevens.” The word refers to a “seven” of anything, It was not “70 years,” but “70 sevens of years,” a total of 490 years (70 times seven).
The Start of the 70 Sevens Daniel 9:25 “Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.…”
Artaxerxes to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:1-8 ), issued in the year 444 B.C.E. This decree specifically concerned the rebuilding of the walls around Jerusalem.
The 70 sevens are divided into three separate units—seven sevens, 62 sevens and one seven. During the first time period (49 years) Jerusalem would be “built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.” The second block of time (62 sevens, a total of 434 years) immediately followed the first for a total of 69 sevens, or 483 years. The last seven is known as the seven-year tribulation.
Daniel taught that 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem had been issued, Messiah would be here on earth. “unto Messiah the Prince.” “Would be cut off but not for himself” v26

THE PREDICTED DEATH.
“the Messiah shall be cut off and not for himself” The Hebrew word translated “cut off” is the common word used in the Mosaic Law and simply means “to be killed.”
The Hebrew expression translated “and not for himself” has two meanings. It may mean “nothingness,” emphasizing Messiah’s state at death and he died for others rather than for himself.
The point of this phrase is that between the end of the second subdivision (the 69th seven) and before the start of the 70th seven, Messiah would be killed and not for himself. During this interim period “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood.…” The city and the temple that were to be rebuilt would now be destroyed. So sometime after the Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem and the temple would suffer another destruction. The Romans, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in year 70 C. E. Based upon this verse, it is also clear that the Messiah should have both come and died prior to the year 70 C.E.


THE PROVIDED WITNESS.
In Luke 2:25-38, we learn about Simeon and Anna who also obeyed and clearly understood the time the Messiah was coming according to Daniel in God’s Word.

Daniel was in Babylon, so he would have used the Babylonian calendar, and not the Jewish calendar. The Babylonian calendar is 360 days and the Jewish is 365.
Some scholars I have read have a hard time lining up the Daniel 9 timing with Jesus's death because they assume the Jewish calendar was used.
Using the 365 day calendar produces errors in dating. However if you use the 360 day calendar, it works out to the very day that Jesus entered into Jerusalem the day of His triumphal entry.
One wonders at the reception He was given. He was hailed as the Messiah very clearly. The people knew from Daniel's prophecy that the time of the fulfillment was at hand. 

THEY WERE WAITING FOR HIM!
Jesus delayed His trip so that His entry to Jerusalem would line up exactly with Daniel's prophecy, when the correct calendar was used.

353 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

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

Objection: Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.

This is flatly false. You are either lying or grossly misinformed.



Response: Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1974-is-the-bible-historically-accurate

 There are 3 essential tests that researchers use to ascertain historical reliability. The Bible stands up strongly to these tests, if not more strongly than any other historical document recorded:

Internal Test: Examining linguistic, cultural, and literary context can clear away apparent contradictions in the Bible. For example, some claim that the genealogies of Christ are contradictory. Not so: Matthew lists Joseph’s family line, and Luke lists Mary’s.

External Test: Nelson Glueck, a Jewish archaeologist says, “… it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail statements in the Bible.”

Bibliographic Test: Bibliographic Test: The document must contain eyewitness accounts, there must be a short amount of time between copy and original, and several copies must be made. Pass. Even many non-Christian historians who were not sympathetic to Christianity such as Flavius Josephus, Thallus and Phlegon lend support to Biblical facts.


The Bible’s Power and Influence
In some countries today, the Bible is forbidden. Bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia, for example, or North Korea, or China, or Libya, or Burma — along with many other countries — can result in expulsion for the westerner or arrest and torture if you’re native to the country. It wasn’t that long ago that the Bible was banned in communist Eastern Europe, too; a good friend of mine was involved in Bible smuggling into places like Romania and Hungary during the 1970s and 80s and can tell hair-raising stories of near arrests and fortunate escapes.
Banned in many countries, yet desperately sought by persecuted Christians. The best selling, most widely studied piece of literature, whose influence is unquestionable, whatever you think of the book. Much of our art, law, philosophy, music and literature have drawn upon the Bible.
Yet this potency and influence aside, many people today want to ignore, rubbish, or reject the Bible. “How can you trust the Bible?” sceptics often ask. “New Atheist” writers like Richard Dawkins regularly attack the Bible, calling those who believe in it, “died in the wool faith-heads”.
Three Initial Thoughts
So how might we answer the sceptic? How can Christians show that is rational and reasonable to trust the Bible and take seriously what it says? There are numerous ways one might approach this question but this evening, I want to focus on a historical approach, as that’s my own academic background. But before that, let me start by making three general comments.
First, when somebody says “why trust the Bible?” I sometimes respond “why not trust the Bible?” One can only really doubt something if one has something more solid to believe in. Unless you merely want to be a sceptic. Whilst that’s very fashionable, it’s hard to be a consistent sceptic. Why not be sceptical about your scepticism?
Second, lots of people have bought into popular assumptions and myths about the Bible. So if somebody suggests the Bible is unreliable, ask them to be specific. How exactly? If they claim it’s full of myths, ask them which one they had in mind? Encourage them to read the Bible for themselves before passing judgement on it.
Third, there’s a lot of chronological snobbery about these days. Just because something is old or ancient, doesn’t make it false. Indeed, ancient-icity doesn’t tell us anything about whether something is true or false. Something can be ancient and true. Likewise something can be bang up to date and false.



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



Objection: 17. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead

Also false. At this point I'm less inclined to trust any of your sources.

Response: Evidence of the historical Jesus
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1676-evidence-of-the-historical-jesus

Atheists on the Jesus of history.
No atheist, as far as I know, really believes that Jesus rose from the dead as an act of God. If they did, they wouldn’t be atheists. But many atheist historians have noted the good evidence we have for Jesus for certain aspects of his life. Most surprisingly the atheist historian Gerd Ludemann would write:

“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ”.

Jeffery Lowder, a writer at Secular Web, believes that we have sufficient reason to believe that “…the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability” . This is important for the case for the resurrection as it affirms that Jesus’ body was really in the tomb in the first place. This would then require the historian to have a sufficient historical explanation for how the tomb became empty apart from the unanimous testimony of a resurrection.

Generally speaking of Jesus’ ministry Neil Carter writes that “While highly colored by religious bias, the amount of information we have about Jesus is still impressive in comparison to any other non-official person of his time, even when pared down the most essential details” .

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ ossuary
https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2017/March-2017/9-archaeology-finds-that-confirm-the-New-Testament
James the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62. A mid first century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears this inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (“Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua”)

The ossuary has provoked controversy as the inscription was originally suspected of being a forgery. However, two eminent paleogrophers confirmed it authentic in 2012. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”

The greatest fact of history is the resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Christ was witnessed by His disciples, as well as many others. The disciples were afraid after Jesus died and went into hiding. It’s only because they witnessed Jesus having rose from the dead that they had the courage to preach the Christian Gospel at the risk of being put to death.
Christianity would not have succeeded if Christ had not risen from the dead. The disciples wouldn’t have had the courage to preach that Christ is Lord and Savior and that salvation is only through His name if they really believed Christ was still dead.
The unique message of the Christian Gospel that men cannot save themselves, as the other religions taught, and that only through Christ’s atoning work on the Cross can men be saved was an unwelcome message and could not have been invented or originated from men. The early Christians were threatened with torture and death for preaching such a message.
The Apostles performed signs and wonders as evidence of their authority. We could not have even gotten the Christian Scriptures and the spread of the Christian faith without the Apostles providing objective (scientific) evidence that they spoke for God. All of this constitutes forensic science supporting the Christian Scriptures to be the Word of God. Therefore, we can trust that the Bible we now have is of divine and supernatural origin and that the men who wrote the original Scriptures were, indeed, guided by God so that it was error free.
There are numerous scientific truths in the Bible giving evidence that the writers of Scripture were, indeed, guided by God. For example, the Bible tells us in Isaiah 40:22 that the Earth is a sphere: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (KJV). The word “circle” in the passage comes from the original Hebrew word meaning “sphere.”
In Job 26:7 we read that the Earth is suspended in space: “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing” (NIV).
In Isaiah 55:10 we read about the evaporation and condensation cycle: “As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater” (NIV).
In Psalm 8:8, the Bible states that there are ocean currents in the depths of the sea, something only discovered in modern times. There are many more examples that can be cited.
It is from science we know that the Bible is God's Word and, therefore, it is totally scientific to judge the scientific theories of men by Scripture. We need not prove scientifically everything in the Bible to know that it's true. That's not necessary because, as mentioned, once it has been shown from science that the Bible must be of divine origin then it stands to reason that whatever Scripture teaches on any subject must be true. No further external or scientific evidence is necessary.

The Authenticity of the Ossuary of James
http://www.americanchronicle.info/Home/TabId/514/ArticleId/38/the-authenticity-of-the-ossuary-of-james.aspx
August 30, 2015
Golan was dragged through 7 years of trial and 12,000 pages of testimony, during which time no evidence of wrong doing was produced. Not one single authority could be produced who would professionally deny the authenticity of the ossuary and its inscription, thus relieving Goled of any charges of fraud. Does this remind you of any Gospel story where the Jews tried in vain to find a witness against Jesus?

On the contrary, Andre Lemaire, an internationally renowned paleographer at the Sorbonne, and Ada Yardeni of Hebrew University in Israel, both confirmed the inscription’s authenticity.

Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses

There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Let’s look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:

   Thallus (52AD)
   Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus’ crucifixion:

   “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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