Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

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

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Various issues » My articles

My articles

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Go down  Message [Page 8 of 10]

176My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:04 pm


You can experience joy and moments of happiness, and be ok without Christ during this stay on earth without repenting, without asking for forgiveness and HIS grace, without believing, trusting, following, obeying and walking with HIM. God extends his gifts to all people. Believers, and unbelievers. After someone dies, that situation, however, changes. Then, ALL will be believers. But there will be no neutrality. But categorically happy, and unhappy people. Then, all will KNOW, HE exists, but he will grant to everyone what was decided on earth, and the fate will extend eternally. He will remove all his provision and all goodness that HE provided also for the unbelievers while on earth. It will be no more, and the unbeliever will receive the autonomous existence he decided to have apart from God on earth, in its entirety, and forever. He will have nothing to complain about.... besides his own bad decisions.

177My articles - Page 8 Empty Spermatogenesis, by evolution, or design? Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:15 pm


Spermatogenesis, by evolution, or design? 

Confronted with the arguments of a proponent of evolution, one of the first questions appropriate to ask is, similar to the chicken-egg dilemma: In sexual reproduction, what evolved first, the egg, or the sperm? 

Fertilization is of amazing complexity: A sperm cell has to be matured. Spermatogenesis begins with a single cell that undergoes a dramatic transformation, culminating with the hypercompaction of DNA through chromatin condensation into the sperm head by replacing histones with protaminesChromatin condensation starts when histones are removed and replaced by intermediate proteins and ultimately by protamines, smaller and structurally very different proteins that accommodate into minor DNA grooves and establish a strong bond that is further stabilized by cross-linking of disulphide bonds, resulting in very stable, highly compacted DNA. Histone chaperone helper proteins function in histone removal as well as histone exchange and that they team up with ATP-dependent chromatin-remodelling factors. Molecular chaperones are required to remove histones and at the same time aid in incorporating transition proteins and protamines into spermatid chromatin.  This spatial macromolecular organization renders DNA transcriptionally silent, but at the same time shields it and ensures its stability and resiliency to external influences during sperm transit. Spermatozoa's DNA integrity plays a significant role in delivering accurate genetic information. Protamine deficiencies are associated with infertility in men, and the frequency of human sperm with DNA damage correlates with failure of embryonic development. In addition, mechanisms to remove histones and transition proteins have to exist. The fusion of the oocyte and the sperm entails resumption of meiosis of the oocyte and formation of the male pronucleus. Directly after the release of the sperm nucleus into the oocyte cytoplasm, protamines are quickly replaced by maternally supplied histones. In addition, testis-specific histone variants rapidly disappear from the paternal genome after fertilization. ATP-dependent processes are required for protamine replacement. Chaperone nucleoplasmin (NPM) is involved in histone assembly onto the paternal chromatin. Moreover, HIRA protein is essential for decondensation of the sperm nucleus and nucleosome assembly.

Question: Since MATERNALLY SUPPLIED histones replace protamines, is that not an interdependent process, and orchestrated like teamwork, where the male sperm undergoes life essential transformation,  where histones are replaced with protamines, and the female oocyte supplies the histones to replace protamines, and as such, both had to be fully set up and operating, and the whole process of fertilization be working from day one?  Consider as well, that my description above is extremely simplified.

In reality, many essential, irreducible players are working together in a detailed process that utilizes many molecular players to ensure the faithful execution of spermatogenesis. Precise execution of the stages results in the production of motile sperm. Spermatogenesis is a highly orchestrated process that requires the correct interplay and timing of all molecular constituents to produce fully functional and motile sperm. Defects in spermatogenesis can impact a male’s overall fitness, which encompasses the ability to both survive and reproduce successfully. Aberrations during any stage within spermatogenesis can have profound effects on sperm quantity, motility, morphology and ability to fertilize an egg. In addition, poor packaging of chromatin within sperm nuclei can reduce the protection of DNA against chemical and physical damage, potentially leading to mutations and unfit offspring. Modifications to sperm chromatin require the use of specialized DNA-binding proteins, referred to as protamines, which are capable of achieving the level of organization and compression necessary to fit the haploid genome into the compact sperm head.

Consider how many essential players are required to go from a nucleosomal-based to a mainly protamine-based chromatin configuration:

- Histone acetyltransferases 
- Chaperones 
- Proteasomes. 
- Bromodomain proteins 
- Chromatin-remodelling complexes 
- Transition proteins
- Molecular chaperones
- DNA damage repair mechanisms 
- Protamines
- Histone Variants
- Molecular Chaperone
- Ubiquitin
- Poly-Ubiquitin
- Histone Deacetylase
- Histone Acetyltransferase
- BromodomainProtein
- DNA Strand Break Induction proteins
- Chromatin- Remodeling Complex
- DNA Repair enzymes
- Proteasome
- T Transition Protein P Protamine
- E2-Conjugating Enzymes
- Canonical Nucleosome
If one of these parts is missing, Spermatogenesis cannot occur properly, and fertilization cannot succeed. I suppose above makes it clear enough, why fertilization and sexual reproduction is considered by biologists the QUEEN problem of evolutionary biology ?!!!

My articles - Page 8 Polar_10

Last edited by Admin on Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:54 pm; edited 4 times in total

178My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:13 pm


Evidence of Design in Mathematics

there does exist a world (of universals or the form of the Good, which you can identify with God), which transcends the physical empirical world, and this world of intelligible forms is responsible for the “enforcement” of mathematical order in the physical world. Thus, intelligibility is responsible for the physical world.

The other theory of mathematics, the one which I happen to favour because it doesn’t require such icky occultic philosophical entities, is the idea that mathematics is a human creation. Just like how we invented chess, likewise did we humans invent mathematics. But even though chess and mathematics is our invention, but once invented it has a reality independent of our subjectivity. Thus, for example, it is an objectively true fact that one is able to checkmate in a number of moves, or one is forced to make a certain move to get out of a check, etc. The analogy which Karl Popper used is that of a spider spinning a web. The spider made the web, but once the web was made, it has an objective reality of its own, it is of a certain biochemistry, of a certain pattern, structure in order to retain its integrity, etc.

Thus, mathematics is a product of our minds, in exactly the same way that chess, fictional stories, myths, musical compositions, etc, are products of our minds. Thus, upon this conception, the miracle is that the universe happens to conform to our mind generated realities, that the universe is governed, structured, ordered by a mind generated reality. Therefore we can infer the universe is in fact ordered by a like mind upon the basis of the mind-resonating, that is, resonance and conformity to mind generated realities of mathematics, which the universe possesses.

The naturalistic explanation only explains how we came to create those mental constructs which are able to represent the universe, but it doesn’t explain why does nature itself possess those cognitive resonating and conformity to mind-like orders in the first place.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence that the world was expressly designed to conform to simple laws that man would readily discover is furnished by the universal law of gravitation: F= Gm[1]m[2]/r^2. Notice the exponent 2. Why is it not 1.9999999 . . ., or 4.3785264 . . ., or something else hard to use in computations? Yet research has been able to specify the exponent as far as the first six digits, giving 2.00000. Thus, so far as we can tell, the exponent is exactly 2. Coulomb's law of electric force is similar: F = kq[1]q[2]/r^2. In this case, research has established that the exponent is no different from exactly 2 as far as the first 17 digits. Would we find such laws in an accidental universe?

Matter-antimatter pair production ratio 1 in 10 billion of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. The number of electrons (in the universe) is 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.

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

During one orbit around the Sun, Earth actually rotates about its own axis 366.3 times. The Moon orbits the Earth in 27.3 days. Of course, a day is one Earth rotation on its own axis. 366.3 x 27.3 = 9999.99 At the same time, the Earth is 366.3% the diameter of the Moon and the Moon is 27.3% the diameter of Earth. 366.3% x 27.3% = .999999. The combined diameter of all the planets in our solar system is 10 times greater than the Earth’s circumference. This has astonishingly high accuracy at 99.99%. The distance between the moon and the sun is 400 times greater than the distance from the earth and the moon. The Sun happens to be 400 times the Moon’s diameter, and 400 times as far away. This means the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth. The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles. The earth’s rotation speed is 1037.5646 mph. If you divide 24,901.55 by 1037.5646 you get 24. Which is the number of hours in a complete day. Just enough rotation speed compared to it’s size to equal a perfect exposure to both sun light and darkness so that life could exist here.

Scientist quotes about God, evolution, intelligent design

My articles - Page 8 Tegmar10

179My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:14 am


The matter about God is that anyone knows in its innermost that he exists. But that knowledge is something like morality. We cannot explain where that knowledge or sentiment comes from, but its there. Its just inside of us. So we can either suppress that knowledge or develop it and express it through faith. Gods existence cannot be proven by sensorial experience, but, as the apostle Paul famously says in Romans 1, his existence can be inferred through creation. Creation confirms our knowledge.

For that reason, unbelievers are inexcusable. Seeing it from that perspective explains why almost no atheist is a positive or strong atheist, with a rational conviction, that our existence is better explained by no agency at all. It makes no sense. So normally, he avoids that rationalization, by the risk of exposing the nonsense of that view. So he prefers either just to say that he does not believe what believers say, or claim ignorance, which is a dishonest side-step. Or claiming that " science is working on it". He HOPES for Gods non-existence and tries in some cases to develop the faith that evolution, abiogenesis, and multiverses explain God away.

It's a pathetic, irrational venture. The " i don't know" activists on FB are like a poorly dressed door to door salesmen, trying to sale a bad smelling junk-food as delicious, and has a hard time to hide its bad taste. But nonetheless tries tirelessly, and if the well-fed, accustomed to prime steak, fumbles his nose, the poor salesmen becomes aggressive, frustrated, and begins name-calling the potential client's mom. I feel no sorry. Sorry guys.

The "I don't knower"'s philosophical framework:

Start with the presupposition that there is no evidence nor proof of Gods existence
Argue that all arguments and inferences provided by theists are not sound, not based on scientific evidence, and as such, not worthy of being accepted.
Claim that current human knowledge does not justify to make secure, highly probable conclusions of origins, based on logic and evidence
Argue that the current scientific research does not yet have all answers, but the bits we have, tend to point to the fact that no God is required.
Start with the convincement that moral truths based on Christian morality exist, even if in reality only based on social common sense
Remove the few bits of the Christian moral code you don't like
Ignore the fact that you are the byproduct of an evolutionary accident. As Darwin said: How can convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, be of any value or at all trustworthy? Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? As such, try to convince others of your viewpoint, even if your thoughts are not trustworthy.
Argue that we can self-invent and create meaning for our existence.
Do poke holes in the believer's faith, find inconsistencies in the Bible, and ridicule that it was written by primitive sheepherders, claiming that snakes and donkeys talked, and virgins birth.
Deny that abiogenesis is impossible ( science is working on it), outline that evolution is a fact, based on wide consensus amongst professional biologists, and that the Dover trial demonstrated, that there is no irreducible complexity in biological systems, nor that the DNA stores literally codified information (it's just an analogy).
Do not grant the same skepticism to a worldview without God.
Claim that all religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties.
Claim that there is no evidence of Christ's historicity, and even less his resurrection
Claim that faith-based claims are always blind.
Second Dawkins, and portray the God of the Bible, in special the old testament, as jealous, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Argue about how many wars have been conducted in the name of Christianity.

The Philosophy of Atheism

Strong atheism is a religion

My articles - Page 8 There-10

180My articles - Page 8 Empty Replacing Darwins Theory of Evolution Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:07 am


Replacing Darwins Theory of Evolution

Pinpointing what REALLY defines body architecture, the orchestration of organism development, cell shape and body form, and exposing the correct explanation of biochemical mechanisms of biodiversity is the holy grail of biological sciences

Preprogrammed codified information and signalling replaces Darwin's theory and its various subsequent adaptations, extensions, and new proposals like the modern extended synthesis. Some have also proposed a " third way ". Darwins Theory of Evolution to explain biodiversity can be replaced with

" Biochemical systems programming and signalling"

Following list is the result of years of my investigation. It is for sure not complete, ( there must be more mechanisms ), but I do not know of anyone else that has exposed a more complete framework. The only book I came across ( and has been part of my education ) Is Stephen C. Meyers: Darwin's doubt.

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

- The Gene regulation network orchestrates gene expression
- Various signalling pathways generate Cell type and patterns
- Epigenetic Codes are multidimensional and perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development
- Cell-Cell communication in various forms, especially important for animal development
- Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors affect transcription and gene regulation
- Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones affect gene transcription
- The DNA methylation code and language which, like a barcode or marker, the methyl group indicates which genes in the DNA are to be turned on.
- Homeobox and Hox genes determine the shape of the body.
- " Junk DNA "has a crucial role in switching the right protein-coding genes on or off
- Gene regulation through Transposons and Retrotransposons
- The precise arrangement of Cytoskeletal arrays
- Membrane targets which provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
- Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields that influence the form of a developing organism
- The Sugar Code forms sequence-specific information-rich structures which influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development.
- Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes
- hormones

Almost everybody knows the main tenets of evolutionary biology and how it supposedly works: mutations by natural selection. And a few better informed know that it englobes genetic drift and gene flow. But nobody has empirical evidence that these mentioned mechanisms are in fact responsible to explain biodiversity. It is believed to be true, despite never been observed. The claim is that it takes long periods of time, therefore it is justified to claim that this IS the mechanism, despite not observed. Not true. Lenski's experiment with e.coli bacteria over decades and myriads of generations has never demonstrated bacterias to become something new.

The claim that science is still working on it is also false. Science has upon what I have researched a pretty good understanding on a holistic level, the true mechanisms are known, but not expressly mentioned because of the evolutionary underpinning and obsolete philosophical framework, where everything has to be pressed into evolutionary thinking. When put on the table, point by point, what defines body form, and analysed in a systemic approach, it becomes clear, that dozens of different mechanisms are in play.

But the BIG hero on the block which permeates all processes is preprogrammed information transmission and processing on a systemic level, stored in DNA, but principally epigenetic information and SIGNALLING in a myriad of forms and varieties. Information which is NOT stored in DNA, but epigenetic information systems, like the glycan Code on the cell surface which is more complex and permits far more information exchange and processing than DNA. Other at least 22 epigenetic codes are also involved in all kind of cellular processes, from defining WHEN certain biochemical processes have to occur, exactly how many cell divisions have to take place ( if the Cells in the human body would divide just ONE time more then necessary, we would look worse than Frankenstein ) Sex determination in mammals is determined by hormones, which are also signalling molecules. Adaptation to the environment depends on the transmission of signals to the chromosome, which instructs them what proteins have to be expressed to best adapt to the environmental conditions. The Cell cycle is entirely controlled with high precision by checkpoints which depend on getting the right signals to know when to permit the next stage to take place, and so on.

Signalling, pre-programmed information, and Code systems that permit send and transmit codified information and receivers that recognize and decode it correctly, and execute the right biochemical tasks to sustain life, that permit development of multicellular organisms in an orderly, orchestrated, precise fashion, and permit the organism to adapt to the environment upon received information through signalling, is undeniable evidence of a superintelligent mind, which did set it all up. Life was with extreme certainty, designed.

My articles - Page 8 Worldv10

181My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:43 pm


When atheists argue for materialism and against Gods existence, they start with the presupposition that:
- they can trust what they think
- what matters is their sensory perceptions, nothing else
- it's justified to say: we don't know how the universe, physical laws, and fine-tuning came to be.
- the universe operates by consistent natural law, a belief heavily dependent upon a philosophical base provided uniquely by Christianity.
- arguing and their views and convictions have meaning and importance even without God.
- they know how evolution works ( the creationist doesn't), and it factually works ( also macroevolution )
- it's enough to reject others views, they do not need better alternative explanations
- binding moral values exist, even without God
- human life has more value than animal life even if God is inexistent.
- one day science will unravel what is not known yet, and it will unmistakenly favour naturalism
none of the above convictions are factually true.

182My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:48 am


Following the link to my debate with Eric D Murphy & Hector Garcia on Talk heathen Radio channel on the 27th of January 2019. The first forty minutes of the video are between me and  Eric Murphy & Hector Garcia

I want to take note of three objections of Eric during the Radio debate yesterday, to which I think my response did not come out clear enough:
Objection: 'Special pleading' is (basically) the fallacy of claiming rules that apply to everything, don't apply to your claim. Eg: Someone claims nothing is eternal, except their god.
Response: God is infinite everywhere. Only God is the Creator of the universe. Everyone else is different, and as such, he is justifiably special. He is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent and personal, which brought space, time, matter into being. These attributes must logically belong to a necessary being that brought the contingent, physical universe into being. There is no failure in logic or sort or kind of special pleading fallacy in the proposition. The Creator as an infinite being would not be like the rest of us, finite beings. The creator's nature with its attributes of Aseity must be clearly different, and distinguish itself in its nature from his contingent created beings, and be superior to them.
and the second:

Objection: Farting pixies could be in both a universe with and without a god, it's literally a third option of possible worlds.
Answer: They could not exist in a reality without God, as they would be a contingent being, depending on a necessary God with attributes of Aseity creating them. So they could ONLY exist in option one in a reality with God. If the claim goes that they have the same nature of an eternal God, then they would be indistinguishable from God, and as such, be God. A worldview where God exists does not limit the number of Gods. They would be just one of them. In fact, the trinity is three Gods in one. So the objection fails. There are only two options. One: A worldview where there is a limitless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent and personal creator, which brought space, time, matter into being, or two: not.

and the third was:
Question: How to recognize design? How to compare a created universe to a non-created universe?
Answer: There would be no universe if there was no creative agency with the power and intelligence to bring into being a finely tuned universe based on mathematics, and life, based on codified information input.

Believers & unbelievers, radio shows, tactics and strategies.

A very important tactic/element in order to win a battle or war is to know your enemy and what strategies he applies. In case of our opponents that show up with frequency on debates to deny God, we need first to characterize, what position they actually hold. That is often not very clear. Mostly, they resort to two things: They are unbelievers towards theist claims and employ every possible effort and strategy to take the theist arguments down, and when it comes for THEM to back up their alternative, they do not have any. They want to play in a very comfortable position. They want to see us sweet our shirts off providing all kind of justifications FOR God, but they do not want to provide an alternative. Towards a creator and any sort of deity, they are atheists, and towards explaining alternatively our existence, they wear the jacket of an agnostic. They play the " I don't know, and that's an honest position, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that " card.

If you watched the Radio show Talk Heathens last Sunday, you will observe that Eric felt VERY enthusiastic and asked me: Give me your BEST shot why you feel the Bible is true. I did refuse to answer. Do you know why? Because then you move straight forward into the defence. You will be in a situation to defend your view, and they have an easy play. For every argument you bring forward for the Bible, they have several arguments to bring it down. And that's what they, Matt Dillahunty and cohorts, have done for years. And they do whatever they can to hide the fact that THEIR cards are the worst possible ( the naturalist worldview is bankrupt actually), and as long as they are able to hide that fact, they are in the game. They know that. And we need to know that too and turn the game around. We need to start to challenge them to scrutinize THEIR cards. That was what I did on the show.

I was right away able to get two VERY important confessions from Eric D Murphy. 1. In regards to the Universe, he said: We don't know what happens before Planck Time, science does not deal with it, so we don't know where the universe came from,
and 2. When I challenged him in regards to the beginning of life, and asked: Did nonlife produce life? His shot was: We don't know where life came from.

Two VERY important admissions, which brought to light his position. On which straight away I asked: Hey, what is your show all about, to confess your ignorance? Upon which they winded them out and said: OH, let's explore together, is that not an amazing thing?

It's a dishonest thing. Eric and his friends are not there, sitting at the show and challenging theists to find out something new. They want the situation to remain exactly as it is now. To keep rejecting God, and sit on a comfortable chair of agnosticism, where providing answers are not required. Their goal is to seed doubt in the heart of the believer: " Are you sure that God said? " - very much what the serpent did in the Garden of Eden.

You see, in order to make sense of the world in which we live, we need to know the options. What are the possibilities? Even that, Eric tried to deny. Namely that there are just two worldviews. One with, and one without God. When he came up with Pixies farting universes, he tried the strategy of confusing his opponent. I moved straightforward asking him to characterize and define his Pixies, to which he was unprepared. Because by that, it would have been easy, to categorize it and demonstrate, that they had and could only exist in a universe either where they would be and have the characteristic of a God, or contingent to God, and as such, only existing in a universe where there is a God, and as such, the claim that there could/would be more than two options would come down. They went as far as dishonestly put on the description of the episode: Otangelo: Brazil: Theist: False Dichotomy and Universe-Farting Pixies. Nope. It's not a false dichotomy. Exploring the fact that I had not opportunity enough to elucidate why their trichotomy fails and put a dishonest description shows dishonesty.

Truth said, Eric was a believer ( i think some brand of Christian confession ) and moved towards unbelief. I saw no reason, why he would desire to return back from where he came from. He clearly wants to live in a world where there is no place for God. For that reason, the escape: " We don't know, but hey, let's find out" is not honest. Well, yeah, let's find out, but do not let us permit God to put his shoes inside the door.

Fair would be if they said: Ok, here are the two possibilities: One with a creator, and one without. What makes more sense. Let's scrutinize both options, and see where it leads us. No. That's not what they do, and that's not what they WANT. All they want is to explore the ignorance and unpreparedness of the believing callers in such a debate, and expose the weaknesses of their arguments, ridicule, and get the applause of their audiences. They want to be the smart guys. They want to look down to a believer and feel superior. That's what it is all about. It's not an honest research program. It's an egoistic, narcissistic, self-centred program where the interlocutor of the show just wants the accolades and laughers on his side, and feel good. He wants a tickle and massage of his ego. He wants to feel strong and powerful, and smart.

They react hypersensitively when the other side interrupts, but do it all the time. They do not give the caller a real chance to expose their views entirely, which makes the show a really nasty and hostile environment to have an honest dialogue. It's a freak show, and sad exposure of willful ignorance, where the host's intelligence is wasted to promote evil. Romans 1 is clear:

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

I hope sincerely they repent, before its too late. Atheism and ignorance bring no good. And we have already enough evil in the world. Let's not promote it further by dragging down people to unbelief. Atheism has never brought anything good in the world.

My articles - Page 8 Muelle10

Last edited by Admin on Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:03 am; edited 3 times in total

183My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:11 am


Is Darwinism compatible with the Christian Faith ?

In his book, The origin of species, Darwins stated that man evolved from a lower species of animal by a process of “natural selection” .  This would imply that man was not created upon Gods image, directly by God. The bible on the other hand, informes in Genesis, that God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostril the breath of life and man became a living being”. (Gen. 2:7). The implication of this would be, that man has not experienced the fall and therefore needs no redemption as recorded in Genesis 3.  That makes it clear, that Darwin's idea threatened the Christian doctrine of creation, fall and redemption. This statement implies that man is a direct product of an ape-like creature which is a lower animal or inferior to man. The implication of the evolution theory is that it calls to question man’s uniqueness and the authority given to him by God (Gen 2:28) How possible would it be for man to have dominion over an animal supposed to be his grandparents? The theory challenges the foundation of Christian or biblical account of man’s unique creation. Man was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27). This implies that man was created by God to look like Him. But Darwin’s theory contradicts this biblical age long truth. Man was not created in the image and likeness of an ape-like creature, therefore it is not acceptable that he evolved from an apelike ancestor with which he has no resemblance or similarity. The theory is fatal to human values. If we are descended from an apelike being, then we should still be animals and apes.  

The evolution theory has been refuted on scientific grounds and is as such invalid. It is a fantastic hypothesis lacking full factual evidence. It is an unproven, non-working hypothesis, which has not given any success in demonstrating what it set out to prove, and is as well incompatible with the biblical account in Genesis, and so also incompatible with Christian beliefs. Anyone that tries to harmonize  Genesis with evolution, like theistic evolutionists, might overthink their views....


My articles - Page 8 Sem_tz16

184My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:56 am


Believing that God exists, and is the ultimate source of reality, and as such created the universe, life, biodiversity, conscience, intelligence, and moral values is an act of faith. Not believing it is an act of faith, too. And raising the claim that natural, non-intelligent causal mechanisms based on chance and time top creationist propositions, is an ontological claim of faith too. The argument that the dispute is between faith and science, empirical and testable scientific hypotheses and metaphysical, faith-based religious claims is a strawman at best. The ultimate worldviews of reality are based on faith by both sides, theists on the one side, and naturalists on the other side. No difference. While one is based on reason, the other side is based on wishful thinking.

My articles - Page 8 Cc10

185My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:15 am


The mantra of atheists & their worldview

The most unbiased epistemological approach to come to a conclusion in regards of origins would be to formulate first how best to reach that sound & well-founded conclusion, and then go after the evidence, understand how the world works, and draw logical inferences out of it.

But that is not how we, humans, normally operate. Most do not develop these kinds of methods, but rationalize rather spontaneously and/or naturally, what they want in their lives, what they want to be true, without giving a deeper thought, and adopt every aspect of life to fit their needs. The centre of the universe is their will. So, will, and emotion plays an important aspect in forming a world view. We are all biased up to a certain degree. How do we proceed once we have established that? Some give no deeper considerations on these issues, and just live their lives as it comes, family, work, business, friends, politics etc. But others give weight to their worldview and advance and explore it. If they want that a world without God is true, then they will bend and rationalize the evidence around them to fit that view, and in most cases, just trust their senses, and ask for scientific proofs. A method called scientism/verificationism.

There is no surprise that rarely a self-confessed atheist, or skeptic, showing up for a debate on Facebook or a forum, will not be convinced by the theist side, no matter, how eloquent and logical the arguments are. He has already made up his mind.

If you are used to debate with atheists, have you heard that phrase:

" It's no shame to be ignorant, or not knowing !! " ?
That is true. but DEPENDS: it is a shame to know that God exists, but willingly suppress that knowledge, and justify it as honesty, and claiming that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that position of apparent ignorance. Atheists play that cop-out, and adapt and evolve their arguments in order to keep their " There is no evidence of God" mantra.
What unites all their various brands and denominations is their rejection of God, effort to justify it and find ways to bring believers down to their new gospel of supposed freedom & a better world without God. Someway, somehow. That's why it IS a religion, opposing the theistic religious view. Just another brand with other propositions.
Everything is bent to fit that box.

Do you have evidence that there is no God? " Oh, it's your claim that there is one, the burden of proof is on your side. You make the claim, you need to back it up. I just don't believe in your claims."

But then, in turn, as soon as the debate moves forward to specific issues, our self-declared agnostic and "I don't knower" becomes an expert to refute EVERY claim coming from the theist camp. Then, suddenly, they evolve and mutate into a well-versed & educated atheist, which has a good grasp on how to reject theistic belief and arguments. He watches Matt & cohorts on YouTube and does what it takes to refine his knowledge and arguments.
An unbeliever and skeptic will attempt to give an interpretation of reality always to favour what he wants to be true, in the same sense, as a biologist has an a priori commitment to evolution, and needs to fit the evidence, no matter what, into that philosophical box.
Are physical laws descriptive or prescriptive? Descriptive, of course.

Did the universe have a beginning? " We don't know".
The singularity breaks down at Planck time, prior to that, science does not make any proposition or claim. Maybe there were other universes, multiverses, oscillating universes.

Fine-tuning of the universe? Ah, there is no fine-tuning. See how hostile the universe is, we are alone in this vast huge universe. In most parts, the universe would kill life. And in any case, we have still a multiverse....And ever heard about Douglas Adams puddle thinking? It's life adapting to the universe. Not the other way around.
Origin of stars? Accretion of gas did it. The moon? There was a collision of a meteorite with the earth that formed the moon.

Origin of life? What is life? We need to figure that out, first. How it started - no idea. There are various hypotheses, all very compelling. It happened slowly, step by step, and millions, or billions of years. And what we don't know, science is working on it.

Evolution? Darwin's theory is a fact, and there is large consensus on it amongst the scientific community - no God needed. You are able to falsify evolution? God and get your Nobel prize.

The mind? thoughts? They are all product of the brain.

Morals? They are subjective. There is no free will.

Irreducible complexity? Ah.... That has long been debunked. See the Dover trial. Intelligent design is just creation science with another name. See "Of Pandas and People" . Its religion, not science.

Yesterday, John Lennox said some wonderful things. One was, that Skepticism means that someone is looking to things only from distance, but not from the near.
In order to convince yourself that God exists, you need to make an a priori commitment based on faith. When you do so, you can start examining reality from the lens of a believer.
If you do not want to believe in God, suppress the truth, and live autonomously apart from him, you will build up a whole epistemological framework to make sense of your world without acknowledging a God.

The problem is, that origins only makes sense in light of a creator. Insatisfaction, and cognitive dissonance, emptiness guaranteed. The gospel of atheism is that one day you will be dead. That's a frightening idea. So live your live intensely, as much as you can, here on earth. And if we will never see justice, be it.....

186My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:45 am


Light-harvesting Complexes, a marvel of molecular engineering

Photosynthesis is one of the most fascinating biosynthesis pathways in nature. Every leaf does photosynthesis and produces oxygen as a waste product, and at the same time, fixes carbon dioxide from the air through the most abundant protein in nature, Rubisco:

Rubisco's amazing evidence of design

You would not be in front of your screen, reading my line, without this marvel of molecular engineering. There are many aspects worth to give a closer look. All 26 protein complexes used in the pathway are irreducible. That is, all are ESSENTIAL, and must be there, fully setup. But not any arrangement will do.

Yesterday i posted about Chlorophyll. Chlorophyll must be inserted in just the right way in so-called Light-harvesting Complexes. Imagine a Photovoltaic solar energy station, where many solar panels are arranged circularly, capturing light, and transmitting the energy to the central point of the circle.

Light-harvesting complexes do basically the same, but in a far far more sophisticated manner, than humans could ever imagine, invent, and set up. My following write-up exemplifies how life is depending on many millions of essential factors, where if just ONE is missing, no life. In our case, if Chlorophylls are not ordered in a functional way around the reaction center of photosystem two, no function, no advanced life would exist on earth. But let's give a closer look.

Following article is best read at my library:

Light-harvesting complex

A light-harvesting complex has a complex of subunit proteins that may be part of a larger supercomplex of a photosystem, the functional unit in photosynthesis. It is used by plants and photosynthetic bacteria to collect more of the incoming light than would be captured by the photosynthetic reaction center alone. Light-harvesting complexes are found in a wide variety among the different photosynthetic species. The complexes consist of proteins and photosynthetic pigments and surround a photosynthetic reaction center to focus energy, attained from photons absorbed by the pigment, toward the reaction center using Förster resonance energy transfer. 14

Blankenship, Photosynthesis, page 62:
All chlorophyll-based photosynthetic organisms contain light-gathering antenna systems. These systems function to absorb light and transfer the energy in the light to a trap, which quenches or deactivates the excited state. In most cases, the trap is the reaction center itself, and the excited state is quenched by photochemistry with energy storage. In some cases, however, the quenching is by some other process, such as fluorescence or internal conversion. The antenna pigments are arranged in well-defined, three-dimensional structures, so that only a few energy transfer steps are required to connect any two pigments in the array.

If chlorophylls would be arranged so that the energy had to diffuse along a linear, or one-dimensional, array of chlorophyll pigments, then the concept of energy transfer in photosynthesis would not be feasible. One-dimensional diffusion is very inefficient because many, many transfers are required to move the excitation from one point in the array to another.

Question: How could the right arrangement have emerged in a gradual, stepwise, evolutionary fashion, if only the arrangement in well-defined, three-dimensional structures, where only a few energy transfer steps are required to connect any two pigments in the array is feasible?

One-dimensional and three-dimensional antenna organization models.

In the one-dimensional model, excitation must be transferred by many steps before encountering a trap where photochemistry takes place. In the three-dimensional model, the trap is always no more than a few energy transfer steps from any of the pigments in the antenna complex.

A chlorophyll molecule, which is roughly square with dimensions of ∼10 Angstroms per side, will be illuminated by approximately 1100 photons per second, although not all of these photons will be absorbed. Calculating the target size that a chlorophyll molecule presents to this incoming rain of photons determines how many photons will actually be absorbed.

A photon is a strange combination of particle and wave, with a physical size that is roughly similar to the wavelength of the photon, which in the visible region is much larger than a molecule. The photon interacts with a molecule and has its energy deposited in the molecule, whereupon the photon ceases to exist and the molecule is left in an excited state. Even with full sunlight, there is approximately a tenth of a second between photons being absorbed by any given chlorophyll molecule, and it can easily be several orders of magnitude longer under most conditions. A tenth of a second is an eternity on the molecular scale. If every chlorophyll had associated with it the entire electron transfer chain and enzymatic complement needed to finish the job of photosynthesis, then these expensive components would sit idle most of the time, only occasionally springing into action when a photon is absorbed. This would obviously be wasteful, and ultimately such an arrangement would be unworkable. It is as if a factory were to have a number of expensive manufacturing machines sitting idle most of the time while a key raw material is being brought in at a slow pace. It makes more sense to buy only a few expensive machines and somehow to improve the delivery system of raw materials. This is what antennas do for photosynthetic organisms.

My comment: Did you observe the language employed? " It makes more sense". This is teleology. Goal orientation. Why would unguided evolutionary mechanisms produce chlorophylls wherein an inadequate arrangement and chaotic position would be of no use at all? - but only, in a workable arrangement? This is once again a formidable example where only intelligent setup explains rationally the very specific arrangement of the biological system in question.

In addition, in all cases, photochemistry produces unstable initial products that will be lost if a second photochemical event does not take place in a relatively short time. If all pigments were functionally independent, most of these unstable products would be lost. All these factors demand that photons be collected and their energy delivered to and used in a central place. Because of these considerations, every
known photosynthetic organism has an antenna of some sort associated with it.

Designed or not designed ? You decide.

My articles - Page 8 F2BR7Lt

187My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:47 am


Mind and brain: A scientific discussion leading to the existence of the soul

Certainly the problem of consciousness has been widely discussed in philosophy. Since the aim of this article is to discuss the subject of consciousness from a scientific point of view, I will not dwell upon the different definitions and conceptions adopted by philosophers. I limit myself to define consciousness or psychical life as our capacity to feel sensations, emotions, thoughts etc. I will use the word "intelligence" because today this word is often combined to the concept of artificial intelligence, which does not imply and kind of consciousness. Science, contrary to philosophy, is always based on the observation of phenomena; the possibility of an experimental check is basically what distinguishes a scientific theory from a philosophical idea. Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon, of which we have then a full experimental evidence (indeed, it represents the foundations of every other experimental observation, since if we were not conscious, we could observe no phenomena); the phenomenon "consciousness" deserves then to be analysed from a scientific viewpoint. 

What is the brain?
Now we know that our brain is only a set of particles, such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagnetic field. Every biological process is due only to the chemical reactions, which in their turn, are due only to the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons and the protons of the atoms forming our organism. Every neuron and every cell are nothing but sets of electrons, protons and neutrons, in a given spatial arrangement; the electromagnetic interaction may in fact be attractive so that particles may attract one another and form certain geometrical arrangements in the space. The properties of every (including also DNA molecules) and every biological process are due only to the laws of physics; more precisely, since in our organism no nuclear reactions occur and gravitational forces are too weak to interfere with molecular processes, every biological process is due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics.
   Science has proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness; so, materialism is incompatible with science. On the other hand, every materialistic attempt to explain the existence of consciousness implies that what suffers, loves, desires, feels etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc. Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom. There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed. In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.
  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.
  Besides, the laws of physics establish that electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields; so the materialistic hypothesis that the electric impulses in the brain generate sensations, emotions and thoughts is in striking contradiction with the laws of physics. The electromagnetic waves generated by the electric impulses in our brain are absolutely equivalent to the ones generated by any other electric impulses; such waves go out of our brain and travel in the external space at the velocity of light, as every electromagnetic wave.
  The laws of physics establish which kind of processes occur in the physical reality; excluding nuclear and subnuclear reactions, that do not occur in biological systems, the only possible processes are the movement of particles and the exchange of energy among particles (collisions) or between a particle and the electromagnetic field (absorption and emission of photons). The only possible physical processes are determined by a mathematical operator called "Hamiltonian", which determines also the only possible kind of energy of the physical reality; in fact, the Hamiltonian is formed by the sum of a few terms, each determining a specific kind of energy, such as the kinetic energy of the electron or the energy of the photon. In order to have new processes or other kind of energy it is necessary to add some new term to the Hamiltonian; however, this would modify the equations of physics, and consequently it would change all their solutions (see the paragraph entitled "The laws of physics and History").
   In conclusion, the laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by cerebral processes. The laws of physics do not allow us to explain (neither conceptually ), the existence of consciousness; they allow to explain neither the existence of the most banal sensation.

Biological life does not imply consciousness
Science has proved that our brain is only a set of particles (that is an object), and that biological life consists uniquely in a succession of chemical reactions, which, in their turn, consist uniquely in physical processes (more precisely, in quantum-electromagnetic processes). On the other hand, consciousness transcends the laws of physics and cannot then be considered the product of biological and cerebral processes. This implies that our mind and our brain are not the same entity, but two different yet interacting entities. I use the word "psyche" to indicate this non-physical/non-biological element, necessarily present in man, that is man's component responsible of the existence of our consciousness and psychical life. Of course, other words could be used, such as mind, spirit or soul.
  At this point, we should try to understand whether there is a scientific evidence of the existence of some sort of consciousness also in animals. Now we know that it is possible to simulate with a computer every feature of the behavior of animals, including their capacity to learn and their apparent capacity to recognize their image in a mirror. An adequate software can allow the computer to record input data, analyze them and give specific outputs; all these operations occur automatically, without any consciousness, any sensations, any emotions, any thoughts. For example a computer, connected to a camera, can analyse the external images; this occur automatically through some mathematical algorithms, and the computer has no visual sensations. This proves that the fact that a dog can distinguish a bone from a stick, does not imply that the dog has a visual sensation.
  Therefore it is not possible to exclude from a scientific and rational point of view, that the life of animals is only a purely biological/chemical process without any kind of consciousness (neither sensations or emotions). In other words, science cannot exclude the possibility that the animal is only a biological robot, feeling nothing at all, which actions and reactions are uniquely determined by a chemical software implanted in its brain. It is also possible to explain those behaviors of animals, which are usually considered as an indication of emotions. For example, the dogs which, because of some genetic mutations, presented some affectionate behaviors, had a greater probability to be adopted by man, and consequently, to survive. It was sufficient that the animal presented those behaviors also towards only a member of the family (even not the one who gave it food) to be accepted by the family. It would be only a case of natural selection, even if unawares induced by man, who has programmed the behavior and the reactions of the dog. Since we have no way to observe directly the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, and the hypothesis of existence of consciousness in animals is not necessary to explain the observable phenomena in animals, we can conclude that there is no experimental or scientific evidence of the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, neither sensations or emotions.
  The idea that animals have sensations and emotions is then only an arbitrary hypothesis, without any scientific or rational foundations. Such an hypothesis can be considered only a reminiscence of childhood, since all children tend to ascribe to animals thoughts, sensations and emotions. Besides, primitive peoples were used to anthropomorphize many natural elements; the sun, the moon, the mountains, animals, etc. During history man has then understood that natural phenomena occur automatically because of specific natural laws: man has understood that nature is only an object and not a person. The anthropomorfic concept of animals is then only the last residue of this inclination to anthropomorphize natural processes. Now the technological and scientific progress allow us to explain the behavior of animals without ascribing them any anthropomorphic features.

Cerebral activity and consciousness
I would like to point out that the fact that brain damages or drugs induce changes in our mental capacities simply proves the existence of an interaction between the brain and the psyche. By no means this can be considered a proof that the brain is the origin of consciousness and the capacity to feel sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc. If you have a problem in your eyes, your visual capacities would be altered, but this certainly does not mean that it is your eye which has the visual sensation; this simply proves that your eye has a preliminary role in the process of generation of the visual sensation. The eye is only an instrument used by the psyche to see, but the eye can see nothing at all and has no visual sensations. In the same way, the brain has only a preliminary role in the process of generation of sensations or emotions, and it can be considered an instrument used by the psyche. All neurological studies on brain only prove the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain. But the existence of this interaction is obvious; in fact, without this interaction, our psyche would be completely isolated from the external reality, and we could not interact with the external reality.
  It must be stressed that the physical stimulus and the sensation we feel are two completely different phenomena. For example, the vibrations of the molecules of the air are not the sensation "sound" we feel; the molecules of the air hear nothing, and it would be absurd to say that the molecules of the air are an auditory sensation. The sensation "sound" exist only in the psychical reality, and not in the physical reality; the auditory sensation is generated only by the psyche and is the psychical elaboration of a physical stimulus. In the same way, the chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness; they are only physical stimuli. It is the our psyche who elaborates and translates these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc.

The laws of physics and the other natural sciences
Now I would like to give some considerations about the reliability of our scientific knowledges. First of all I would like to explain the difference between a phenomenological theory and a first-principle theory. A phenomenological theory is only an approximated and simplified version of a first-principle theory, that represents the exact explanation of natural phenomena. Biology and neurology are examples of phenomenological theories, while physics is the only first-principle theory, from which all the other natural sciences derive. Of course, since first principle calculations are very lengthy and arduous, we need also simplified theories in order to treat more easily systems formed by many atoms.
  The laws of physics have a general validity, but in their application to specific systems, it is possible to use simpler rules, specific for that kind of system; these rules are neither extraneous, nor independent from the laws of physics, but they are a direct consequence of the law of physics. A result of these phenomenological theories cannot be accepted if it results to be in contradiction with the laws of physics, which are the only true principles at the origin of the phenomenological theory. Only the laws of physics represent the first-principle explanation of the material reality, both inorganic and organic matter. Obviously, an approximated theory (such as biology and neurology) cannot be used to deny the exact theory from which the approximated theory derives.
  All natural sciences are then subordinate to physics. We can also point out that all natural sciences (biology, neurology, etc.) use in their studies and in their microscopic analysis only instruments that have been designed uniquely on the basis of the laws of physics. The data studied and analysed by these natural sciences have sense only because the laws of physics assure the correct working of their instruments. If the laws of physics are questioned, all other natural sciences would immediately fall down to pieces, because all the microscopic data used by these sciences to support their theories, would lose any meaning. Therefore , no natural sciences can elaborate theories in contradiction with the laws of physics. This would mean to make all data to lose sense, data on which the phenomenological theories have been built; it is an obvious logical contradiction. The laws of physics are then the foundations of all natural sciences.
  To understand better the relationship between Physics and the other natural sciences, consider the following example: to open a combination lock, we need know the combination. Even if we do not know the combination, and therefore we cannot open the lock, we already know what kind of process will occur when we find the combination. The laws of mechanics establish that the only kind of process we will get is the opening of the lock; the laws of mechanics establish that the combination will not make the lock begin to think, feel pain or pleasure, feel sadness or joy. Similarly, Quantum Electrodynamics establish that every biological process consists only in some successions of chemical reactions, which, in their turn, consist in successions of kinetic and electromagnetic processes, that is movement of particles, emission and absorption of photons. We do not know yet the exact successions of chemical reactions occurring in all biological processes, and biology has the task to discover these successions; however, exactly as in the case of the combination lock, the laws of physics establish that no successions of chemical reactions can generate consciousness, sensations, emotions or thoughts. Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.

The laws of physics and history
  The laws generating all chemical, biological, neurological processes are now perfectly known. Never before in history, science has been able to explain the principles by which all biological processes are originated. This represents a true turn in history. All that physics will discover in the future will have nothing to do with the biological processes in our organism, or any other organism. Even if there are still some things not perfectly known in astrophysics, these astrophysical process do not affect biological processes, which are due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics. There is then no reason to question the validity of the laws of physics in the explanation of biological or neurological processes.
  The laws of physics consists of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.

First principle Calculations
  Today we are able to do first-principle calculations for molecular systems formed by many atoms; this means that we can calculate the solutions of the equations of quantum physics also for macroscopic systems. The point is that we already know what KIND of information we can get from a first-principle calculation for every possible molecular system. In fact from the solution of the Schroedinger equation for a molecular system we know that we can obtain information such as charge distributions or energy spectra. By no means we can obtain consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. These are not possible outputs of a first-principle calculation. Even if we had a supercomputer with the capacity to find the wave function for our brain, we could find from the wave function only properties such as charge density or energy spectra. We could not find consciousness from the wave function calculated with the super computer. In fact we already know what KIND of properties can be obtained from every possible wave function. We are already able to do first-principle calculations for many different molecular systems, but the kind of properties we can find from their wave functions does not depend on which molecular system we have studied, because they are general outputs of every first-principle calculation, and it is independent from the kind of atoms or the number of atoms of the system. If the psyche did not exist as a non-physical component of man, according to our scientific knowledges we should be only a sort of biological robots, without any consciousness and without feeling anything, which actions and reactions were due only to chemical reactions . All the neurological studies prove only the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain, but they reveal nothing about the nature of the psyche.

   Materialism is incompatible with the scientific view of biological processes. Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. This view of biological processes does not allow (neither conceptually) to account for the existence of consciousness;nor it allows to account for the existence of the most banal sensation. This result acquires a very deep meaning if we analyse the state of our present scientific knowledges. First of all, all natural sciences are subordinate to the laws of physics, which represent the principles from which they derive and of which they are only approximative versions. Today in fact we know the laws which determine all molecular, electromagnetic, chemical, biological and neurological processes: they are the laws of Quantum Electrodynamics, the scientific laws which have received the most wide, general, systematic, numerous and precise experimental confirmations in all history. The laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the explanation of molecular systems, and in particular, of biological systems.
    On the other hand, the rigidity of the mathematical structure of quantum electrodynamics, makes absolutely unreasonable the hypothesis of a possible change of such laws, since this would have dramatic consequences on all the correct solutions we have presently obtained. This means that quantum electrodynamics can be considered the ultimate theory for the explanation of molecular processes, and, consequently, for the explanation of biological processes.
    The laws of quantum electrodynamics can be considered the first principles which determine all molecular and biological processes. The point is that such principles give (at least conceptually) a mechanicistic explanation of all molecular and biological processes, but they do not allow to explain (neither conceptually ) the existence of consciousness. The laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by biological or cerebral processes. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, and therefore, the cause of the existence of consciousness cannot be identified with the brain; consciousness is necessarily originated by a non-physical/non-biological (that is, a supernatural) component: the psyche or soul. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical and biological process; the psychical reality, which transcends such laws, and consequently, transcends the physical reality.
  At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the physical reality. We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent. This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God. I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved.

A note about the theory of evolution
  I would like to add a brief consideration about the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can be applied only to biological organisms. We do not have sufficient elements to establish whether the human biological organism is the result of an evolution process; neither we have sufficient elements to exclude this possibility. However, the point is that consciousness is transcendent to the physical/biological reality and requires the existence in man of a transcendent component (the psyche or soul).
  Since no fossils of psyche exist, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the origin of consciousness and human psychical life. So, even if our organism derived from a previous animal organism, we could have no conscious psychical life if God had not created in each of us a soul. Without a soul, we would be only biological robots, able to act and react, but without any consciousness and incapable of feeling any sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.

Materialists deny the existence of the psyche as an entity transcendent to physical reality and claim that sensations, emotions and thoughts are generated by cerebral processes, that is by matter. In my previous article I have explained how these ideas are denied by modern science, but here I will analyze in detail the logical and scientific inconsistencies of materialistic arguments.
   In materialism, consciousness is considered a complex, emergent or macroscopic property of matter, but this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called macroscopic properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes. An example of macroscopic property often used by materialists is roughness; the materialist claims that quantum particles have o roughness, and therefore roughness is a new property, emerging only at the macroscopic level. This is completely wrong; in fact, roughness is only a concept used to describe a certain kind of geometrical distribution of the molecules in a surface. The laws of physics establish that there is an infinity of possible geometrical distributions of particles, and we can classify such possible distributions with different names, and elaborate the concepts of roughness or smoothness, etc. However these are only arbitrary and subjective concepts and classifications,used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is .
   Also the concept of a macroscopic rigid and compact object is only an optical illusion, and not a physical entity. The image of the object we see is in fact only an approximate representation of the real physical object. No object exist in nature as we see it; solid objects appear to us as if they were uniformly filled with motionless matter, while they are only sets of rapidly moving particles; matter is concentrated in a very small fraction of the space occupied by the solid object, mostly in the atomic nuclea, and it has no uniform distribution as it appears to us. The laws of physics establish that the possible properties of every particle or molecule are the same, that is the property of exchange energy with other particles or photons, and the property of movement; these are the properties of every quantum particle, and no aggregate of quantum particles can have new properties. Therefore, no real macroscopic properties exist. The macroscopic properties quoted by materialists, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only abstractions or concepts used to describe our sensorial experiences; in other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes, and these ideas exist only in a conscious and intelligent mind. Therefore, the macroscopic property, being only an abstraction, presupposes the existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property of the physical reality, because the macroscopic property itself presupposes the existence of consciousness. We have then a logical contradiction. No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.
  Another argument used by materialists is the hypothesis that psychical life could be generated by the fact that in the brain there are many exchanges of information. Also this is a case of logical contradiction, because the concept itself of information presupposes the existence of consciousness, and so this concept cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness. Materialists often say that also in computers there are many informations, but this is an improper language. In fact, in computers there are only electric impulses. It is the human mind who has established a conventional code that allows to identify specific successions of electric impulses as pieces of information. It is the same for the Morse alphabet: a succession of points and lines is not by itself an information; it becomes an information only if a conscious and intelligent mind has established a conventional code to attribute a given meaning to that succession of points and lines. So, every information is always the product of conscious psychical life, which proves that the concept of information cannot be used to explain the existence of consciousness.
  I would like to add a comment on a typical argument used by materialists: the psychical life exists in the brain because of its complexity. The invalidity of this argument can be easily proved with the following considerations. First of all, the concept of complexity refers to a problem; but a problem exists only as a question which someone is trying to answer. It is then man who, being conscious and intelligent, puts a problem and tries to solve it; the man then decides to classify such problem as easy or complex. So, consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any problems and complexity; in absence of consciousness, no problems and no complexity would exist, which proves that complexity cannot generate consciousness. Besides, the concept of complexity is an arbitrary and subjective; a given problem may be considered complex by a person and simple by another person. Since subjectivity presupposes the existence of consciousness, no subjective concept (such as the concept of complexity) can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Also this is sufficient to prove the invalidity of the argument of complexity from a logical point of view. In mathematics some definitions of complexity are used, but, as every mathematical definition, they are only arbitrary definitions, without any scientific value. In mathematics, in fact, it is possible to invent infinite definitions, equations, properties, and give them any kind of name, but they are only abstract concepts which existence presupposes the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The equations of physics are the only mathematical equations which have a scientific value because they are the only ones which have been attested by experiments. A common definition of complexity is the following: "a complex system is a set where the evolution of the single elements is predictable while it is not possible (or it is very difficult) to predict the evolution of the system". From the above definition we can clearly see how complexity has an intrinsic conceptual nature, and therefore it cannot exist independently from an intelligent mind. If fact complexity is defined in relation to the capacity to predict the evolution of a system. Only an intelligent mind can try to predict the evolution of a system. Therefore, the existence of the psychical life is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of complexity. Hence complexity cannot generate psychical life. We can also observe that typical examples of complex systems are ecosystems, meteorologic phenomena, the Earth Crust in relation to the possibility to predict earthquakes. If by absurd we hypothesized that complexity is the cause of existence of psychical life, then also the Earth Crust or every ecosystem would have a psychical life. The concept of complexity does not exist in the laws of physics, where only concepts such as charge, mass, velocity, etc. are present. The laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science and every natural process is determined uniquely by the laws of physics; in the laws of physics there is no law of complexity and no law establishing that complexity generates consciousness! The concept of complexity is necessary to explain no chemical, biological or cerebral processes, being all these natural processes explainable by the only laws of physics.
   Let us analyse some typical examples quoted by materialists in the attempt to prove that the properties of the whole are not reducible to the properties of the parts. The first example is the electric conductor, where the electrons are free to move along all the crystal; in quantum terms, one says that their wave function is delocalized. The materialist claims that this delocalization is a new property, not-reducible to the ones of the components. This is clearly false. In fact, also the wave function of a single free electron can be delocalized, and therefore the delocalization is by no means related to the complexity of the system.
   The materialist usually claims that the whirling motion of fluids is not reducible to the properties of the components, which is clearly false. In fact the motion of fluids is nothing but the motion of the particles making up the fluid. Since the calculation of the motion of all the particles would be too difficult, one usually make use of some simplified models to describe the fluid from a macroscopic point of view. However the properties of these models are not real properties, existing in nature, but they are only approximate descriptions of the real phenomena, which consist only in the motion of the particles, forming the fluid.
   Another typical argument is the existence of some energy gaps in the electronic structures of crystals. By no means this property is related to the complexity of the system, since also in the hydrogen atom, which is made of two particles only, the possible values of energy are separated by gaps. Actually, the existence of permitted and forbidden values of energy is a typical feature of all quantum systems. The materialist usually claims that the bicycle is not only the sum of its components, which is clearly false; the bicycle is in fact only the set of its components in a given geometrical arrangement. Obviously, consciousness is not a geometrical figure, and cannot be explained as a geometrical arrangement of mechanical pieces.
   In general, one can observe that the definition of every set is arbitrary, as well as it is arbitrary to establish which element is to be considered as a part of the set and which not. The holistic or collective properties, i.e. the properties of the whole set, are necessarily subjective and arbitrary, because they depend on the definition of the set. Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of arbitrariness (and consequently of every arbitrary property), it follows that consciousness cannot be considered an holistic or collective property.
   The incapacity to give any valid example of real properties, not-reducible to the properties of particles and the laws of quantum physics, proves the failure of the holistic (that is, antireductionist) philosophies. The laws of physics always allow to explain directly all the properties of atomic and molecular systems; both in macroscopic and microscopic systems, there are no properties which are not directly reducible either to ordinary geometrical properties (since matter is placed in the space) or to the properties of elementary particles and to the laws of quantum physics. The only observable phenomenon, not-reducible to the laws of physics is consciousness.
  Man can establish arbitrary criteria to classify natural phenomena, but these criteria exist only in human mind, and not in the physical reality, which is determined only by the laws of physics. All processes occurring in our brain are uniquely determined by the laws of physics, and it is not possible to use concepts extraneous to such laws (the concept of complexity or information etc.) to try to explain consciousness as a product of some cerebral processes. Such concepts presuppose the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind, transcendent to the physical reality; therefore, such concepts cannot be used to deny the existence of a reality transcendent to the physical reality. Let me give an example: if we put some bricks one over another, we will get always a heap of bricks, regardless of the fact that we can call it "house", "bridge" or "tower". The concepts of "house", "bridge" or "tower" exist only in the human mind; what exists in the physical reality are only quantum particles, such as electrons. These particles may occupy different positions in the space, so we may obtain sets of particles with different geometrical shapes. Since the electromagnetic interaction may be attractive, these particles may attract one another, and remain close to one another, forming some solid macroscopic objects. We may then choose to call a set of particles with a given shape "chair" and another set of particles with a different shape "table", etc. However these names and concepts are only abstract ideas which do not exist in the physical reality; these names and concepts presuppose the existence of consciousness, that is the existence of a conscious and intelligent person who analyses the external reality and conceives arbitrary concepts to classify it.
  The fact itself that to try to explain consciousness, materialists need resort to such concepts, extraneous to the laws of physics, is a further evidence of the transcendent nature of consciousness. No concept extraneous to the laws of physics is in fact necessary to explain chemical, biological, neurological or cerebral processes; all these processes are perfectly explained by the laws of physics. It is correct to say that the laws of physics are the cause of every physical, chemical and biological process. If the explanation of consciousness requires the introduction of some new principle, extraneous to the laws of physics, this means that consciousness transcends the laws of physics; this is equivalent to say that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, unless we changed the laws of physics. As I have already explained, any change in the equations of physics implies the radical change of all their solutions, and then the lost of all those billions and billions of correct solutions obtained in this last century by the law of physics. Since the laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science, to change the laws of physics would imply the lost of all modern science and new start from zero. To hypothesize a change in the laws of quantum electrodynamics means to get out of science and get into purely speculative philosophy.
  The logical process of materialism is the same of idolatry; in fact, the idolater thinks that the object (idol) under certain circumstances has a psychical life, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material; this is exactly what the materialist thinks, because he thinks that the object (brain) has a psychical life under certain circumstances, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material (electrons, electromagnetic fields, etc.)
  A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in the brain generate consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in our brain are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of our brain (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields. Actually, materialists simply take some key words from the language of physics, such as "electric impulse", "energy", etc. and then attribute to these words new properties incompatible with the laws of physics; this is a clear abuse of scientific language.

188My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:43 am


The image-forming mirror in the eye of the scallop

" All the ways of making an eye that physicists have thought of have been thought of by evolution in in rather interesting ways I mean the comp the compound eye works and it could have totally different way from the camera eye which is what which is what we have there are molluscs which have a reflector eye a parabolic reflector you mean like a radio dish out there yes yeah ".
After 20.00 min

New research published this week in Science (and described in the New York Times ) demonstrates that the concave mirror of each scallop eye is tiled with more than 100,000 square mirror tiles. Did you get that? They are squares! Outside of the human built environment, right angles are scarce. So to find squares in the eyes of scallops is remarkable. The properties of the tiles making up the mirror has implications for the scallop’s ability to see in the particular wavelengths of light in its surroundings and can inspire improved human optical devices. 1

The scallop sees its world with hundreds of eyes. Arrayed across the opening of its shell, the eyes glitter like an underwater necklace. Each sits at the tip of its own tentacle and can be extended beyond the rim of the shell. 2 Now, a team of Israeli researchers has gotten a look at the hidden sophistication of the scallop eye, thanks to powerful new microscopes. On Thursday, they reported in the journal Science that each eye contains a miniature mirror made up of millions of square tiles.

Light can also be focused using arrays of mirrors, as is commonly done in telescopes. A biological example of this is the scallop, which can have up to 200 reflecting eyes that focus light onto two retinas. spatial vision in the scallop is achieved through precise control of the size, shape, and packing density of the tiles of guanine that together make up an image-forming mirror at the back of each of the eyes.

Although multilayered retinas have infrequently been observed in other animals, in these cases, they are used to enhance light sensitivity or act as spectral filters. In contrast, in the scallop, the upper and lower parts of the retina seem to be specialized for discriminating different fields of view. Thus, at the highest hierarchical level of organization, the complex 3D shape of the scallop eye mirror appears to be controlled to focus light from a broad field of view onto two retinas placed at different heights above its surface.

How Is the Scallop Eye Constructed?
Unlike other eyes in the animal kingdom, the scallop’s visual system uses mirrors in addition to a weakly refracting lens. The light path passes through a cornea, then an iris, then a lens, then through crystals of guanine stacked like tiles. The crystals form a biological concave mirror that reflects the light back through the system and onto a unique two-layered retina. 4

Understanding the strategies that organisms use to control crystal morphology and arrangement for complex optical functions paves the way for the construction of novel bio-inspired optical devices. In particular, the resemblance of the scallop’s tiled, off-axis mirror to the segmented mirrors of reflecting telescopes provides inspiration for the development of compact, wide-field imaging devices derived from this unusual form of biological optics.


189My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:13 am


Genesis 1: the highest possible semantic information density.

There is a dictum: “Truth does not require many words, but a lie cannot use enough words”,

" I don't knowers " are extremely skilled and intelligent people which use all their efforts of thought of imagination and rationalisation to defend at the end that they don't know how we came to be, and why there is something rather than nothing.. That's why I call them: " I don't knowers". How did the universe come to be? " I don't know". How did life start? " I don't know". What do you think, does God exist? " I don't know" - there is no evidence of his existence.

THAT, IMHO, they know !!! Is it not remarkable, that at the only lucid moment of thinking, that in all their ocean of self-declared wilful ignorance, they suddenly have a bright shine of intensive and affirmative thought, where they are able to come to a very succinct, clear conclusion which they are willing and able to shield and defend against all kind of attacks from the theist side? Amongst all the ignorance, there is one issue, one point, they are EXTREMELY lucid about: There is no evidence of Gods existence. THAT, they know almost as if it were a fact. And defend that claim like a mother defends its offspring. WOW !!

Can the ' I don't knowers" deny that they value their claim a lot, and put a lot of efforts to defend it? - No, they can't, its too evident. Their claim sounds like a Buddhist mantra. " There is no evidence of Gods existence". " There is no evidence of Gods existence". Aummmmm........ Aummmmmmm.........

Well. Let me tell you something. Your freely chosen ignorance is not justified. Sad for you. Good for us, the believers. We have PLENTY of evidence which points to a creator.

It is truly not justified to resort to ignorance if we consider the easy to comprehend fact that:

A universe ( or multiverse ) could not have emerged out of absolutely nothing, or the absence of anything. If that were so, there would still be no thing at all. The often cited virtual particles emerge out of a quantum vacuum, which is not absolutely nothing so the existence of the vacuum would have to be explained, too.

The universe ( or multiverse ) cannot be infinitely old. It is a physical object existing in time. This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past. You cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past.

Therefore, as much counterintuitive as it is, as much incomprehensible as it is to the finite mind as ours, the only rational, possible alternative is that an uncaused, eternal powerful cause brought the universe into existence.

William Dembski: Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true.

As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straightforward and judicious blows. But in our case, we CAN. Yes , we can eliminate the two competitors. We know there are just these two, and they are not possible. Isn't that an easy play, easy to follow and to understand? But no. Unbelievers prefere to stick to their beloved " I don't know".

Hey, do not call God unjust, if he says in his word in Romans 1 that:

" since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

You won't be able to die in disbelief, come to the great white throne of the judge, and claim that you did not know. You will not be able to say that. You will be fully responsible for your willingly chosen ignorance and denying of God. YOU choose to live autonomous to God, and you will carry the responsibility for that for all eternity. No responsibility shifting... I hope you hear me clear and loud.... and think about it. My recommendation. Take five minutes, and be honest to yourself. Is it really worth it to deny your creator, which loves you, and did everything in order to save you, and you say no? Why ?!! He is good, loving, merciful, graceful and just.

Could it be, that you reject God based on prejudice and because the character that is in your head in regards of his Character and nature, could be a strawman, a caricature that does not exist, and which developed in your head based on superficial, inaccurate information? I can tell you, the God I know for over 34 years, which revealed himself in the Bible, is AMAZING. Worth of worship and adoration. You might not comprehend it, but if you try, if you search him with an honest heart, he will make himself known to you, and you will be flabbergasted. Promise !!

The origin of the universe is, coincidently ( or not ) in full accordance with Genesis 1. 1, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. While all ancient near eastern religions and philosophical constructs in antiquity claimed that the universe was non-created, the Bible for millenia said, what science in recent times confirmed. The Universe had a beginning.

You might never have thought about this, but Genesis 1 has exceptional semantic information content

In information theory, semantics can be defined as the weight of the meanings” per sentence or per paragraph. There are literally thousands of books about origins, the beginning of the universe, life, and biodiversity, but none provide genuine answers. Max they can say is; " probably, most likely, we suggest, it seems, it appears " etc. That extends through ALL evolutionary biology. Nobody provides clear certain answers. The Bible, on the other hand, describes the origin of the physical universe in one remarkable sentence: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 2:7). And the origin of man: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being” (Gen 2:7). These few words comprise a remarkable information content since they provide answers to many questions. A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space, and matter.

Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

The sentence can be divided in two categories: the physical universe: time, matter, and space
And the second:
God = the cause
action = the creation event.

Everything that BEGINS TO EXIST ( action ), has a cause. ( God ).

Once this is compared with the scientific evidence, and philosophical considerations, it provides an intellectually SATISFACTORY explanation of our origins. An epistemological sound triple team in action: science, philosophy, and theology.

In order to understand our place in the cosmos, and the reason for our existence, we need to know about our origins. The Bible gives that answer in an epic, remarkable, unique sentence in Genesis 1. The highest weight of meaning in one sentence.

What we have here represents the highest possible semantic information density. Other passages in the Bible also exhibit superlative semantic densities (e. g. John 3:16 contains all the information necessary for man’s salvation).

Genesis, vs secular science explanations of origins

My articles - Page 8 Sem_tz18

190My articles - Page 8 Empty The Cellular internet network Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:10 am


The Cellular internet network

Multicellular organisms have a sophisticated  internet-like communication system and cargo delivery service, all in one

- The setup and implementation of sophisticated, complex and advanced communication networks like the internet depend on the invention of highly intelligent, skilled communication network engineers.
- Multicellular organisms use several extremely advanced communication systems, like Tunneling nanotubes (TNT's),  Extracellular Vesicles ( VT's) which are, on top of that, also cargo carriers ( there are, furthermore, cell-cell gap junctions and exosomes ). The size of the communication and cargo delivery network of the human body is 75 thousand times the size of the entire internet of the whole world, if there would be just one communication connection between each cell ( in reality, things are far more complex: each neuron cell computer in the brain is connected  up to 10,000 other neurons )
- This is amazing evidence that multicellular organisms and their communication systems were definitively created by an extremely intelligent designer.

Imagine the internet not only as a world wide web for an interchange of information and communication but also a courier delivery service carrier of goods, like FedEx. That would be pretty convenient, wouldn't it?

In 2018, there are an estimate of 4 billion computers connected through the internet, worldwide.  Most recent data estimates the number of human Cells to 3.0·10^13.  If we put that each cell uses just one communication channel to interact with other cells, then the size of the communication and cargo delivery network of the human body would be 75 thousand times the size of the world wide web !!

When biting into an apple, the body will immediately signal a complex sequence of messages and processes to break down the apple into energy and essential structural nutrients for cellular repair and replacement. That initial signal activates communication throughout the entire body, enabling metabolism to send support to every facet of the organisms function, be it mental, emotional or physical. Health and performance are completely dependent upon how efficient that signalling and communication process works.  

Cell-Cell interactions are performed in multicellular organisms through a sophisticated intercellular communication machinery. There are many ways like gap junctions and exosomes. But recently, it has been discovered that Cells talk and help each other via tiny tube networks. Cells are known to use intracellular microtubules, veritable nanotubular highways which direct proteins to their correct final destination inside of Cells. But, remarkably they are also used for intercellular communication, from Cells to Cells, and furthermore, for organelle Transport between Cells.

In 2004, for the first time, Hans-Hermann Gerdes as a researcher at EMBL Germany reported novel cell-to-cell communication channels that he called tunnelling nanotubes. They are thin tube structures which protruding from one cell and connecting with another to form a nanotubular network with the surrounding cells. These intercellular bridges are not empty membrane tubes but filled with cytoskeletal filaments, like actin, microtubules and motor proteins.

Tunnelling nanotubes (TNT's) and other bridges between cells act as conduits for sharing RNA, proteins or even whole organelles. These cryptic conduits between cells, long tubes in mammalian cells, transport not just molecular signals but much larger cargo, such as viral particles, prions or even mitochondria, the cell's energy-generating structures. They transfer all kinds of cargo, microRNAs, including messenger RNAs, proteins, viruses and even whole organelles, such as lysosomes. Moreover, ions like calcium (Ca2+) and different proteins lipid components of the membrane have all been identified to have the ability to cross TNTs in various cell types. Moreover, the latest findings demonstrate functional roles in physiological and pathological processes, such as signal transduction, micro and nano-particles delivery, immune responses, embryogenesis, cellular reprogramming, and apoptosis.  They are a critical requirement for development, and tissue homeostasis and regeneration. Recent studies have been shown the important role of TNTs in mechanical and signalling processes during embryonic patterning and development. ATP and motor protein kinesin, dynein and myosin are required for the cargo transfer by TNTs.

Interestingly, gap junctions, as an important cell-to-cell communication for electrical conductivity and Ca2+flux, were found to have a role in TNT-mediated Ca2+transfer between cells. TNT's associated with gap junctions were shown to support the bi-directional spread of electrical signals, leading to the activation of low-voltage-gated Ca2+channels in the coupling cell. Electrical synchronization between distant cells through TNTs leads to activation of downstream target signalling. The results of different studies implicate the importance of electrical signalling in control cell behaviour and developmental processes, such as the establishment of left-right pattern in embryos, tail regeneration of Xenopus, and wound healing. Electrical signalling is important in embryogenesis.TNT's associated with gap junctions induce bi-directional spread of electrical signals between cells.

TNT-mediated communication can induce immune responses in target cells. They have as well an essential role in mechanical and signalling processes during embryonic patterning and development and a significant role in vertebrate gastrulation. They mediate the transfer of proteins between distant cells.

These observations demonstrate an awe-inspiring level of sophisticated connectivity between cells.  

These fragile structures are appearing in normal embryonic development. And stressed or ailing cells induce them by sending out signals to call for help. It’s unclear yet, though, how healthy cells sense that their neighbours need help or how they physiologically “know” what specific cargo to send.

To make things even more remarkable, TNT form among several cell types, including neuronal cells, epithelial cells, and almost all immune cells.  There are many different types of cells which are able to communicate using TNTs, and their functions are impressive. In myeloid cells (e.g., macrophages, dendritic cells, and osteoclasts), intercellular communication via TNT contributes to their differentiation and immune functions. Importantly, TNT enables myeloid cells to communicate with a targeted neighbouring or distant cell, as well as with other cell types, therefore creating a complex variety of cellular communication and cargo exchanges. TNT mediate even long-range communication, independent of soluble factors. They are membranous structures displaying a remarkable capacity to communicate with selected neighbour or distant cells.

It has also been reported TNTs can contribute to cellular differentiation and reprogramming by providing a highway to transfer cellular components from one cell to a target cell.

Moreover, if TNTs are akin to skywalks, the enclosed footbridges that connect separate buildings, then gap junctions — gated pores that pass through the membranes of neighbouring cells — are like doorways between adjacent rooms. Exosomes, small vesicles shed by cells, were long thought to be cellular trash bags carrying debris, but scientists now recognize them as vehicles for carrying microRNAs and other signalling molecules between cells, sometimes over long distances.

Cells use different means of biological communication and signal transduction constituting direct physical contact between cells such as receptor-mediated interaction or cellular junctions between neighbouring cells. Receptor-mediated cellular interactions are facilitated by certain transmembrane proteins and cell adhesion molecules such as integrins, tetraspanins, and cadherins. The direct coupling of the cytoplasm of two cells through gap junctions (GJs) and concomitant transport of cytoplasmic material is also considered essential process in cellular cross-talk and is important for maintaining tissue homeostasis, development, and cellular differentiation.

In the absence of direct physical contact, cells may convey biological messages in paracrine fashion through secreted factors such as cytokines, chemokines, and secreted growth factors.

Cell-to-cell communication is a critical requirement to coordinate behaviours of the cells in a community and thereby achieve tissue homeostasis and conservation of the multicellular organisms. Tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs), as a cell-to-cell communication over long distance, allow for bi- or uni-directional transfer of cellular components between cells. During the last decade, research has shown TNTs have different structural and functional properties, varying between and within cell systems.

Direct cell-to-cell communication is a critical requirement for development, tissue regeneration and conservation of normal physiology of multicellular organisms. Plants share their cytoplasmic contents through intercellular channels called plasmodesmata, whereas animal cells possess analogous gap junctions and tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs)

191My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:25 am


The human body hosts 37.3 trillion cells. The first fertilized Cell orchestrates the development of each of these cells in regards to the type it will become and what function it will perform during its time-being, amongst about two hundred different cells. At each division, the next replicated cell will become more specialized, and electromagnetic fields, amongst other very specialized precise coordinated mechanisms, will conduct the newly made cell to its destination. During development, some cells die and give place to new ones. Everything is precisely coordinated by cell-intrinsic timing, which directs the whole process, and knows when what has to happen. Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes, and so, each cell is directed to its correct place. Body symmetry is by no means the result of amateurish trial and error, but precise coordination and correctly orchestrated instructions based on genetically preprogrammed mechanisms.

The ability of cells to receive and act on signals from beyond the plasma membrane is fundamental to life.  This conversion of information into a chemical change, signal transduction, is a universal property of living cells. Signal transductions are remarkably specific and exquisitely sensitive. Specificity is achieved by precise molecular complementarity between the signal and receptor molecules.

During that development, an internet network, faster and more sophisticated that 5G is build up, an extremely advanced communication system, composed by Tunneling nanotubes (TNT's),  Extracellular Vesicles ( VT's) which are, on top of that, also cargo carriers ( there are, furthermore, cell-cell gap junctions and exosomes ). The size of the communication and cargo delivery network of the human body is 75 thousand times the size of the entire internet of the whole world, if there would be just one communication connection between each cell ( in reality, things are far more complex: each neuron cell computer in the brain is connected  up to 10,000 other neurons )

Development involves not only the differentiation of cells, but also their organization into multicellular arrangements such as tissues and organs. When we observe the detailed anatomy of a tissue such as the neural retina of the eye, we see an intricate and precise arrangement of many types of cells. How can matter organize itself so as to create a complex structure such as a limb or an eye?

Morphogenesis is brought about through a limited repertoire of variations in cellular processes within these two types of arrangements:

(1) the direction and number of cell divisions;
(2) cell shape changes;
(3) cell movement;
(4) cell growth;
(5) cell death;
(6) changes in the composition of the cell membrane or secreted products.

Differential cell affinity

Many of the answers to our questions about morphogenesis involve the properties of the cell surface. The cell surface looks pretty much the same in all cell types, and many early investigators thought that the cell surface was not even a living part of the cell. We now know that each type of cell has a different set of proteins in its surfaces and that some of these differences are responsible for forming the structure of the tissues and organs during development. Observations of fertilization and early embryonic development made by E. E. Just (1939) suggested that the cell membrane differed among cell types, but the modern analysis of morphogenesis began with the experiments of Townes and Holtfreter in 1955.

Taking advantage of the discovery that amphibian tissues become dissociated into single cells when placed in alkaline solutions, they prepared single-cell suspensions from each of the three germ layers of amphibian embryos soon after the neural tube had formed. Two or more of these single-cell suspensions could be combined in various ways, and when the pH was normalized, the cells adhered to one another, forming aggregates on agar-coated petri dishes. By using embryos from species having cells of different sizes and colours, Townes and Holtfreter were able to follow the behaviour of the recombined cells

Transmembrane Proteins Mediate Cell-Cell Adhesion

Animal cells use specialized adhesion receptors to attach to one another. Many of these adhesion proteins are transmembrane proteins, which means the extracellular portion of these proteins can interact with the extracellular portion of similar proteins on the surface of a neighbouring cell. Although diagrams of adhesive structures may suggest that they are static once assembled, they are anything but. Cells can dynamically assemble and disassemble adhesions in response to a variety of events.

This seems to be an essential requirement for function right from the beginning of multicellularity.
Many adhesion proteins are continuously recycled: Protein at the cell surface is internalized by endocytosis, and new protein is deposited at the surface via exocytosis. In addition, adhesion proteins serve as key sites for

1.assembly of signalling complexes in cells and for
2.dynamically assembling cytoskeletal structures at sites of cell adhesion.
In this way, cell adhesion is coordinated with other major processes, including
1.cell signalling,
2.cell movement,
3.cell proliferation, and
4.cell survival.

We now know that cell-cell adhesion receptors fall into a relatively small number of classes. They include

1.immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) proteins,
3.selectins, and, in a few cases,

This is relevant to the hypothesis of macroevolution. In a naturalistic evolutionary view, their transitions were from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multicellular individuals.

To the blind believer in evolution, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely unguided evolutionary process by selection purely based on environmental condisionts seems plausible. But to the Intelligent Design proponent the idea is an affront of reason.

192My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:30 pm


You are an atheist?

look down

to the palm of your hand.

The hand moves by a sophisticated and coordinated relationship between bone, muscle, tendons, nerves and the brain. Bones have no power to move themselves; they are moved by muscular exertion through tough cord-like fibers called tendons. One end of a tendon comes from the end of a muscle. The other end attaches to a bone. Tendons attach the muscles of your forearm to the bones of your fingers. When the brain signals muscles in the arm, wrist and hand to move the hand, some muscles contract while others relax. Extensor muscles straighten the fingers. Flexors permit the fingers to bend and grip. The thumb has two flexors that help us to hold objects.

Stephen Jay Gould:
The digit structure in the tetrapods does not conform to the common descent pattern.

Science admits that :

"The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.

Isaac Newton also said:
In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence.

Topics on the structural complexity of the human body

Now look to a tree and its leaves:

EVERY leaf on earth hosts more high tech complexity, than the large hadron collider.

“The leaf is an amazingly complex landscape, where water and gases flow in many directions depending on variables such as temperature, light quality and wind. 3D images give you an understanding of what is really happening,” said Professor Evans, who is a Chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Translational Photosynthesis (CoETP).

Photosynthesis is the most vital bioenergy-generating process, without which life on earth and the existence of our biosphere would be impossible. Photosynthesis, the basic process that feeds the world, begins when the pigments in the antenna complex capture the sunlight and transfer the energy to the pair of chlorophyll molecules that make up the reaction center of a photosystem.

The photosynthesis pathway is interdependent and irreducible. Take any of the individual parts out, and the process ceases to function. Neither do most individual parts and proteins have any function, unless in this remarkable pathway. We can, therefore, infer that design explains best the origin of photosynthesis through a creator.

And now look up at night to the stars:

The Life of the Cosmos (1999), Lee Smolin:
The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229 .

Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229. To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains about 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

If you assume a grain of sand has an average size and you calculate how many grains are in a teaspoon and then multiply by all the beaches and deserts in the world, the Earth has roughly (and we're speaking very roughly here) 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand.

To make a universe with stars randomly, the odds are far greater, than to find one special grain of sand painted in red and signed with an X, on any of all beaches on earth.

I gave you three examples that point to God:

- the palm of your hand
- a leaf
- stars

You are still an atheist? Then, this time, look at the mirror. Look at yourself, and say, in loud voice, together with Charles Darwin:

I am the product of descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habit, and an inhabitant of the Old World. This creature, if its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist, would have been classed among the Quadrumana, as surely as would be the common and still more ancient progenitor of the Old and New World monkeys.

Question: Are you sure your cognitive faculties and the ability of reason and understanding have not been lost in time and remained conserved on the level of your hairy quadruped progenitor?

What does the Bible say about atheism?

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

193My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:40 am


Molecular and biomolecular logic gates point to intelligent design

Complex life forms need to have the ability to perceive and correctly respond to the environment, cell differentiation, tissue development and tissue repair during development, immunity response, as well as maintain normal tissue homeostasis. Nothing of this can happen without the precise orchestration of the gene regulatory network ( dGRN) 2

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. 

Molecular and biomolecular logic gates and their networks process chemical input signals similarly to computers. The similarities in the processing of information by biological systems and human-designed devices are broadly recognized by many researchers.

The task of information processing, or computation, is performed by man-made ‘, and interestingly, natural devices’. Man-made computers are made from silicon chips, whereas natural ‘computers’, such as the brain, use cells and molecules. Computation also occurs on a much smaller scale in regulatory and signalling pathways in individual cells and even within single biomolecules. Indeed, much of what we recognize as life results from the remarkable capacity of biological building blocks to compute in highly sophisticated ways. Rational design and engineering of biological computing systems can greatly enhance our ability to study and to control biological systems.

DNA can be compared to a huge orchestra composed of a myriad of players, each of them with a book of notes, which they are instructed to play, and the director can be compared to the Gene regulatory network, which directs each player when to play, and others when to keep quiet. These instructions follow a specific logic. In the same sense, as the correct directing of the Orchestra provides a harmonious whole of the partiture, the correct directing of genes,  turning them on an off at the right time, produces the precise specification how to build a complex multicellular organism.

The gene is the fundamental unit of biological information.  The DNA double helix is beautiful not only because it is an elegant structure but because that structure reveals that DNA can act as a digital information storage device that can be precisely copied. At the structural level of the cell, we observe phenomena such as general cellular homeostasis and the maintenance of cell integrity, the generation of spatial and temporal order, inter- and intracellular signalling, cell ‘memory’ and reproduction. Information is managed in living systems which is evidence of a higher level biological phenomena.

The gene regulatory network dGRNs is based on logic. the architecture of dGRNs is based on developmental logic which is generated at the system level.  dGRNs can be represented as complex logic maps that state in detail the interactions between developmental control genes (transcription factors and components of cell signaling pathways) and cis-regulatory modules (promoter, enhancers, and insulators) which visualize how differentiation and structural genes (target genes) are turned off or on at a given time and location during development.

Regulatory information at different levels of network organization, from single node to subcircuit to large-scale GRNs depends on regulatory design features such as network architecture, hierarchical organization, and cis-regulatory logic which contribute to the developmental function of network circuits.  In cells, regulatory networks encode logic operations that integrate environmental and cellular signals. Cellular regulatory networks are robustly designed for their functions.

Transcriptional regulatory circuits are engineered to perform a wide range of logic functions. dGRNs have a modular architecture, consisting of multiple sub-circuits—each in charge of individual regulatory tasks defined by a set of specific developmental control genes. For example, the components controlling the initial stages of development are at the top of the hierarchy, while the portions governing intermediate processes, such as spatial subdivision and morphological patterns are in the middle, and the components controlling more specific functions, including cell differentiation and organogenesis/morphogenesis, are at the periphery.

The subcircuits perform biologically meaningful jobs, for example, acting as logic gates, interpreting signals, stabilizing given regulatory states, or establishing specific regulatory states in given cell lineages. The logic circuits that operate within cells can be broken down into the individual segments that carry out specific computational functions. These segments are ‘logic modules’.

Genes encode transcription factors which act like switches turning genes on and off for expression are included in dGRNs, components of signal transduction pathways, and often effector genes as markers of differentiated cell states. dGRNs have the potential of providing a causal understanding of how upstream specification controls downstream events (i.e. differentiation or cell biological functions).

The control regions associated with transcription units may be considered the logic unit where input signals from various regulators are integrated to govern the rate of transcription. Some things never change, and a principle is that developmental jobs are controlled through the logic outputs of genetic subcircuits. Subcircuit function depends exclusively on topological design.

Logic gates evoke images of circuit boards, but cells are arguably equally good in relying on logic computations.  A classic example is the Lac operon, which activates itself upon the condition “lactose AND NOT glucose”. In recent years, there have been multiple reports on rationally designed, genetically encoded logic gates and circuits in living cells.

Named after George Boole, a 19th-century mathematician, Boolean logic is the basis of digital circuit design. For example, the AND function means that both conditions must be on to trigger the circuit. In notational form, where 1 means present and 0 means absent. Digital circuits make extensive use of logic elements which are interconnected to create logic gates, capable of executing Boolean logic functions including NOT, OR, AND, and all their possible combinations

These interdependent networks of genes and gene products present a striking appearance of design. What emerges, from the analysis of dGRNs is almost astounding: a network of logic interactions programmed into the DNA sequence that amounts essentially to a hardwired biological computational device.

Once established, the complexity of the dGRNs as integrated circuits makes them stubbornly resistant to mutational change—a point he has stressed in nearly every publication on the topic over the past fifteen years. "In the sea urchin embryo," he points out, "disarming any one of  these subcircuits produces some abnormality in expression."  Developmental gene regulatory networks resist mutational change because they are organized hierarchically. This means that some developmental gene regulatory networks control other gene regulatory networks, while some influence only the individual genes and proteins under their control. At the center of this regulatory hierarchy are the regulatory networks that specify the axis and global form of the animal body plan during development. These dGRNs cannot vary without causing catastrophic effects to the organism.

Eric H. Davidson 2011 Feb 12
The neo-Darwinism ‘erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in a developmental program, and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual.’

Biochemistry demonstrates teleology - that is -  goal orientation on every level, which is getting alive, survival, and reproduction.   
Following are three of the most important Laws of Logic: Things “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time. Statements are either true or false. 3

Control of Gene Expression and gene regulatory networks point to intelligent design

My articles - Page 8 6uDIqYe

My articles - Page 8 W8J1Qld


194My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:58 pm


What are the odds, based on current data of the minimal proteome size, to get life by the unguided aggregation of amino acids sequentially in a correct manner without external direction?

This article is best read at my library with far more indepth information:

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 living self-replicating cell.  
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.
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 form would be 1 to 20^400 or 1 to 10^520. A truly enormous, super astronomical number. That's a one with 520 zeroes. There are about 10^80 atoms in the universe.
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 560/10520.  We arrive at a probability far beyond  of 1 in 10^100.000  ( A proteome set with 239 proteins yields odds of approximately 1/10^119614 )

Above calculation does not take into consideration that there are about 500 naturally occurring amino acids known. So let us suppose that they were extant on the prebiotic earth, and somehow, a selective process did chose and select, and concentrate just the 20 used in life. These 20 could still come in two versions, left-handed, and right-handed. Life uses only left-handed amino acids, so they would also have to be sorted out. Now let us suppose, that by freaky accident and crazy shuffling trillions of trillions of times, suddenly, the right protein set would be there, the right proteins, the right assortment. It is claimed, that there was no oxygen in the prebiotic earth's atmosphere. If that was so, then there would be no protection from UV light, which would destroy and disintegrate prebiotic organic compounds rapidly.

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 have 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.

195My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:07 am


The Solvay Conference, founded by the Belgian industrialist Ernest Solvay in 1912, was considered a turning point in the world of physics. Located in Brussels, the conferences were devoted to outstanding preeminent open problems in both physics and chemistry. The most famous conference was the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons, where the world’s most notable physicists met to discuss the newly formulated quantum theory. The leading figures were Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. 28 out of 29 were Nobel prize winners. One will soon be indicated to win it.

My articles - Page 8 48270210

196My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:32 pm


Believers all around the world in any kind of deities will have their views refuted once for all and forever when unbelievers can make a convincing case for naturalism, where no God is necessary to explain all relevant questions of origins and our existence. So far, this never happened.....Of course. They can turn the wheel around and ask us the same question - which they always do. The mantra " there is no evidence of Gods existence " is the standard claim, we hear it all the time.


The "I don`t see any evidence of Gods existence" mantra - and why it's not justified. 

It is very common to see unbelievers claiming as follows: 

I don`t see any evidence of Gods existence.
I don`t know how everything came to be.
I don`t know how I would recognize Gods signature in nature, but if God exists, he knows how he could convince me.
That's a perfectly honest justifiable position.  And what we don`t know yet, science is working on it.

My response:  I see no evidence of how we can exist without God.

I see overwhelming evidence of Gods existence, through his direct revelation in the Bible, and the natural world.
I believe there are many good reasons to recognize that the natural world was made by a powerful intelligent creator. John 1.1 states that in the beginning was the word. Words are information. God has left his signature and imprint in the Cosmos, which is fundamentally a mathematical structure, governed by physical laws, and balanced on a razor's edge to permit life by fine-tuning the fundamental forces. All conditions on earth to permit life on earth are as well finely adjusted and set up. The Moon orbits the Earth in 27.3 days. Of course, a day is one Earth rotation on its own axis. 366.3 x 27.3 = 9999.99 At the same time, the Earth is 366.3% the diameter of the Moon and the Moon is 27.3% the diameter of Earth. 366.3% x 27.3% = .999999. The combined diameter of all the planets in our solar system is 10 times greater than the Earth’s circumference. This has astonishingly high accuracy at 99.99%. The distance between the moon and the sun is 400 times greater than the distance from the earth and the moon. The Sun happens to be 400 times the Moon’s diameter, and 400 times as far away. This means the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth.

Is this not astonishing? Should that not make you stop and think, and ask yourself, what is behind all this? Is believing, that this kind of order is just a lucky accident, not a position of incredulity? Would it not make far more sense, to recognize, there is someone behind it all, who set it all up in this preciseness?

Cells are governed by recognizing and reacting to external environmental cues, nutrition supply and demands, inbuild signal networks and codes and languages, which had to be pre-established and created. Development of organisms also depends on codified information, which directs how organisms are built.  Gene regulatory networks work based on logic gates.

Using Mathematics, logic, codes, languages are a faculty of mind, intelligence, conscience, not matter.

It takes Proteins to make the basic building blocks of life. But it takes the basic building blocks of life to make proteins.
It takes ATP to make proteins. But it takes proteins to make ATP ( the energy currency of the cell).
It takes proteins to make amino acids ( the monomers that make proteins ). But it takes amino acids to make proteins
It takes DNA to make proteins. But it takes proteins to make DNA ( a great number of the cell machinery is actually employed to make DNA).
It takes proteins to make RNA. But it takes RNA to make proteins
It takes proteins to go from RNA to DNA.
It takes RNA and DNA to make proteins that turn RNA into DNA
It takes signalling networks to produce the right rate of products required in the cell
It takes these products to construct signalling networks
It takes Glutamate synthetase proteins ( veritable molecular computers ) to sense the right rate of nitrogen uptake, required in the cell.
It takes nitrogen to make Glutamate synthetase proteins

The unbeliever claims that there is no evidence of God. But i see no evidence that we can exist without God. In order to refute a creator, and explain the fine-tuning of the universe, the unbeliever has as only alternative an assemblage of multiple universes with different laws, and one eventually is life permitting. That does however not remove the fact that even such a multiverse would require a beginning, and therefore a non-physical eternal cause. Virtual particles require a vacuum, which also would have required a cause. The Big Bang had a beginning and requires a cause. The accretion theory to explain the origin of stars is bunk. Gas does not clump. Gravity acts only on mass. Rather, gaseous particles would have distanced each other more and more with the expansion of the universe. Abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis. The probability to get a minimal proteome for a minimal Cell by random chemical reactions is far beyond of 1 positive occurrence in 10^150.000 negative attempts. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.  Evolution by mutations & natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow has been proven false. The true contributor to explain organismal complexity is preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various languages and communication through signalling by various signalling networks  that act  on a structural level, which are pre-instructed to respond to environmental cues, development, and nutrition demands, and they are apt to communicate, crosstalk, signal, regulate, govern, control, recruit, interpret, recognize, orchestrate, elaborate strategies, guide and so forth. All codes, blueprints, and languages are inventions by intelligence. Therefore, the genetic and epigenetic codes and signalling networks and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

Based on the evidence at hand, the believer is justified to see a powerful intelligent creator behind it all, while the unbeliever is left without justification to keep his skepticism, agnosticism, and disbelief in a creator

198My articles - Page 8 Empty Helicase. A case of intelligent design Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:26 pm


Helicase. A case of intelligent design

Theists not rarely struggle in their debates with atheists, having a hard time making a clear case. I said it before, and I say it again. The topic which you decide to debate, hugely influences how your debate will go. If you debate evolution, there are so many incognitas and intricacies, and it is very hard to draw a clear picture and line where you can demonstrate undeniable positive evidence for creationism or intelligent design, and make a clear enough case, that the opponent has nothing else to say.

Abiogenesis is an entirely different 'animal'. Unbelievers cannot shoehorn mutations and natural selection into their explanations,  and claim consensus in science etc. The believer can start already from a strong position: It has never been demonstrated that abiogenesis works. But there is a beauty of an argument, which is a true ace in your play cards.

EACH of the minimal proteome set in LUCA, the so-called & supposed common ancestor, is indispensable. But you just name one. For example Helicase.

Hexameric helicases some of the most complex machines on Earth

DNA helicases are essential during DNA replication because they separate double-stranded DNA into single strands allowing each strand to be copied.

The helicase rotational speed of up to 10,000 rotations per minute !!!!! How astonishing and marvellous.
Helicase must have emerged before life began, since its essential for DNA replication

So you probably "smell" already where I wanna go with this. If helicase is missing, replication cannot occur, cells cannot replicate, and life cannot perpetuate.

So we can elaborate a syllogism:

Science estimates a minimal proteome set to kick-start life of about 560 proteins, that must be interconnected in a functional way to start all life essential functions of the cell.
If just ONE, like Helicase, is missing, no life.
Therefore cells are irreducibly complex.

Question: How would helicase emerge on prebiotic earth, if it has no function by its own? It works only if embedded and fully operational in the DNA replication process, where at least 30 proteins are required in prokaryotic replication?

DNA replication, and its mind-boggling nanotechnology  that defies naturalistic explanations

So, just one question and you corner a proponent of naturalism.

How did helicase emerge on early earth, before the replication of life began, if, by itself, it has no use nor function, but only, if embedded in the replication machinery, and in a fully operating cell?

There is NO way a proponent of abiogenesis can rationally explain this. No way !!

You can comfortably drop this bomb, sit comfortably in your chair, and smile, while your opponent will side-step right away and try to move goal-posts to another topic, since this one, he will have no argument to refute your case. But.... keep him right there.

Maybe he will start the more than worn out: " We don't know, but science is working on this".

Well, science can work on this another thousand years, and will not provide any answer to the dilemma. LIfe is a designed process. That's it.

If life is not possible by natural unguided means, then intelligent design, creationism, and deism or theism is the better explanation. This is NOT an argument from incredulity or ignorance, but positive evidence and knowledge.

They will probably not admit defeat, but you will have done a tremendous job because nobody wants to believe in something that is not possible......

Good luck. And to my atheist friends: Deal with it !!

199My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:09 am


How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent actions

If you see a blueprint to make a factory, it is obvious and evident that somebody made that blueprint, rather than coming to be by chance.  DNA contains precise instructions/ a blueprint / specified - instructional - complex - codified information to make biological Cell factories. This evidence alone is the signature of God, is a stumblingblock of naturalism, and corners ANY unbeliever.

The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life

In an attempt to explain the origin of life, scientists propose a two-stage process of natural chemical evolution: formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules; self-organization of these molecules into a living organism. The origin of life can not be explained through biological nor chemical evolution. Adaptation, mutation, and natural selection depend on DNA replication. Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. Neither can it be explained through physical laws. Life depends on codes and instructional complex information. This information can only be generated by when the arrangement of the code is free and unconstrained, and any of the four bases of the genetic code can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence to generate the information. The only alternative, if the action of a creative agency is excluded, would be spontaneous self-assembly by orderly aggregation of prebiotic elements and building blocks in a sequentially correct manner without external direction.

Biological Cells are equal to a complex of millions of interlinked factories
1. The implantation and construction of factories for specific goals depend always on planning, elaborating blueprints and codified instructions.
2. The make of cell factories and living things are due to blueprints for the development and function, genetic instructions, which are stored in DNA 
3. All information storage devices, blueprints and factories known, are of intelligent origin. Biological cells, DNA and genetic information, are the result of Intelligent design

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
- Fine-tuning
- objective moral laws

When we say something is “designed,” we mean it was created intentionally and planned for a purpose. Designed objects are fashioned by intelligent agents who have a goal in mind, and their creations reflect the purpose for which they were created. We infer the existence of an intelligent designer by observing certain effects that are habitually associated with conscious activity. Rational agents often detect the prior activity of other designing minds by the character of the effects they leave behind. A machine is made for specific goals and organized, given that the operation of each part is dependent on it being properly arranged with respect to every other part, and to the system as a whole. Encoded messages and instructional blueprints indicate an intelligent source. And so does apply mathematical principles and logic gates.  

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent actions

Creation is evidence of a Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

My articles - Page 8 8Im3l8Z

200My articles - Page 8 Empty Re: My articles Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:32 pm


Intelligent design arguments, based on ignorance or incredulity?

The more knowledge we gain about the natural world, and the more obvious it is that a creator is behind this space-time continuum, the more responsible we are to respond based on that knowledge about how we position ourselves towards God. If it was unjustifiable not to believe in God when knowledge about the natural world was a fraction of what it is today, how much more are we responsible today?

Let us suppose someone presents you a blueprint to make a factory with 500 complex, interlinked machines, but you have no idea about the origin of that blueprint, do you think its rather rational to suppose that very intelligent people made the planning and project of the blueprint of the factory, or trial and error of ink randomly splashing on the paper trillions of times, and suddenly, somehow, the blueprint emerged on the paper ?

If we calculate an astronomically high number of random trial and error attempts to make a minimal proteome for a first hypothetical cell, which I mentioned, is a theoretically lucky occurrence of one in 10"150000 trials, this is just a fraction of the picture. The odds are far far greater if we consider the probability to connect everything in the right order, like an electric circuit.

A minimal metabolic network for a first Cell is enormously complex. Following link gives an idea.

How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks  point to design

If an atheist wants to tell me that my reasoning is based on ignorance or incredulity, i have to ask, where that person learned about the basics of logic.

God of the gaps and incredulity, a justified refutation of ID arguments?

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.

Sorry. NO. I have not enough faith to be an atheist.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 8 of 10]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

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