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

My articles

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

Go down  Message [Page 11 of 12]

251My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:31 pm



The Gods of antiquities were Gods of the gaps, for example, explaining thunder and lightning. The God of the Bible, however, is the creator, and sustainer of the universe. So, in a totally different league and category.

252My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:08 am



The Lord is righteous in all His moral judgments. He is all-knowing and knew as well how he had to inspire the authors of the Bible to write the revelation of Him and instructional manual for us, how we ought to live. He is not like us. As the creator, he has the right, to give and to take lives. To judge and order judgment not only in the afterlife but also in the history of this age. I commonly see atheists attempting to justify their rejection of the God of the Bible, giving various reasons, like claiming that the Bible condones slavery, and genocide. They really think, based on their limited minds, and knowledge, they are in the position to do this.
No, they are not. We do not know a fraction of the implications that each command in the Bible and macro-decision would have and influence the history of humanity. God also does not have the duty to comply with what we think is righteous and should be done in certain situations. Rather than flooding the world, could God not have done like with Passover?
Just killed everybody besides Noah's family? And even let the animal and plant world be alive? Yes, he could have done that. Why did he not? Nobody knows. So what? Does that give us the right to criticize God based on our subjective understanding of all facts, implications, and in special, God's goals? Arrogance is one of the sins committed by atheists, and one of the reasons why they will not enter the gates of heaven.
Isaiah 13:11
I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 16:5
Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.

253My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:14 am



Genesis 2: And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.

The amount of information required to make the universe, stars, planets, life, all life forms cannot be fathomed but was obviously unimaginably large.

So did God require some efforts to create the world?

Shabbat: Why Did God Need to Rest on the Seventh Day?

While it is true that many translations of the Bible such as the New Revised Version Standard (NRSV), the King James' Version (KJV) and others render the word Shavat as "rested" a more accurate translation of Shavat is "abstained," i.e., "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because He abstained from all His work which God created to make" (Gen. 2:4). Nachmanides (12th century) interpreted these words to mean "he ceased to perform all His creative work."

I think that governing the world that God has created takes even more effort. Imagine the meta-information entailed by our actions. God has billions of angels that serve Him. God's angels write down everything we do. I have calculated, that so far, about 70 billion people have lived during the 7 thousand years since God created the heavens and the earth, during the creation week. Each of us, in average talking 800 million words in an average lifetime, means 10^22 words spoken in human history. About the number of stars in our universe.

Matthew 12: 36 But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.

That means, that God will judge each sentence that has even been spoken, which amounts to the evaluation, processing, and thinking about 10^22 of words spoken by us. That is truly flabbergasting.

And His judgments will be PERFECT. No errors in judgments. While human judges will often condemn people for crimes that they did not commit, God, being all-knowing, will not give himself to that luxury.

"For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." Romans 14:11

That means, even His enemies, and those that blaspheme the Lord, and speak against Him, and judge and criticize God's righteousness, will bow and recognize His perfect judgment and righteousness. They will not do it against their will, but freely, because God will prove to them that all his judgments are perfect and righteous.

So for God, the creation week was just the beginning, but his government means far more information processing !!

Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

254My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:30 am



The more science has advanced to elucidate and understand the inner workings of the cell, and mechanisms, interactions, and state of affairs on the biochemistry level, the more, surprisingly, it has unraveled new layers of more and more complexity and sophistication. Anyone that tries to describe these things in simple terms, and ascribe this sophistication by nonguided, natural mechanisms, has fallen into the pseudo-science trap. Usually, when I challenge atheists in regards to the origin of life, and biodiversity, the more they talk to give their explanations and narratives, the more they hang themselves, and what comes out of their mouth, is crap.

Nothing is simple in biology. Mutations by natural selection explaining organismal architecture? Poppycock. It is specified complex information, or instructional assembly information, that directs the making and operation of the cell and its structures, organelles, proteins, and metabolic pathways. Proteins, which are composed of a multitude of subunits, which work together in a joint venture, like a clock, or a machine, composed of several interlocking and functional parts. In other words, irreducible or interdependent complexity.
It is the genome, proteome, interactome, metabolome, interactome, and other "ome's" that play and work together in an orchestrated manner to convey to make us. The anatomy of animals, the organismal structure is always composed of multiple independent points in a complex system out of where function emerges and from an engineering standpoint that requires its cause being able to visualize a distant functional endpoint. In our experience, only intelligence is capable of that kind of causal process.

Every engineered system is the product of a mind that anticipated and visualized the end goal, and the problems involved to achieve that goal and knows how to figure out a multi-step way of addressing the necessities to achieve that goal. All biological systems are marvels of engineering. They're works of beauty, sophistication, goal-orientedness, and art. Why should/would we attribute a star-nosed mole, or a mandarin duck, to anything other than an artist, an engineer with intelligence and a mind?

Oh. Of course. An all-knowing God and creator, that looks above your shoulders and knows your thoughts, and about your sex life, is better not to exist... 😉

255My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:30 am



How does the No-God proposition make any sense whatsoever, in face of the teleological argument, which is in my view, one, if not the most powerful for the existence of a creator God?

One of the silliest propositions is to claim that movement and change require no prime mover, beginning no cause, existence, no necessary eternally existent being, creation no creator, power, no powerful source, design, no designer, laws, no lawgiver, mathematics no mathematician, fine-tuning no fine-tuner, codes no coder, selection, no selector, translation no translator, logic, no logic source, consciousness, no conscious source, setting up prescriptive information, no agency with intent, will, foresight, and know-how, machine blueprints, no machine-designer, architecture, no architect, coordination no coordinator, recruiting no recruiter, regulation, no regulator, controlling, no controller, factories no factory-makers, engineering no engineer, orchestration no director, organization no organizer, elaborating a strategy, no strategist, setting up programming languages no programmers, translation programs no translators, logistics no manager, creating a language no intelligence.

Do communication systems require network engineers? electrical networks electrical engineers? the modular organization modular project managers? Setting up recycling systems recycling technicians? setting up power plants systems engineers of power plants? nanoscale technology nano processes, development engineers? product planning and control production control coordinators? product quantity and variant flexibility control, product management engineers? waste disposal and management, managers? interpretation, and response, intelligence which creates an interpretation program? setting up switch mechanisms based on logic gates, intelligent setup? setting up transport highways, transportation development engineers? controlled factory implosion, explosive safety specialists? Does setting up irreducibly complex systems require agency? Yes or no?

The origin of life depends on most things mentioned above. Does life require no creator of life? To create and instantiate the things above requires know-how, foresight, intention, and will. The obviousness of Creation is hidden from those who reject God. There is no evidence that we can exist without a creator, and that unguided, blind, random stochastic events can bring forward all these things.

Biological Cell factories point overwhelmingly to set up by intelligent design

256My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:20 am



I see it all the time. We bring the most logical, eloquent ( in our eyes) obvious arguments that should be clear for a ten-year-old, and the logical inferences warranted, but atheists answer like bots with: nuh, duh, argument from ignorance, not convincing to me, that is not evidence, I don't believe what you are saying, etc.
It does not surprise me. Christ himself said that the majority of people are walking on the wide way that leads to destruction. Atheists justify their disbelief and say: God knows what would convince me of his existence, and if he is not providing that evidence, it is not my fault, it is his.
The thing is, God has already provided everything we need to rationally conclude his existence. He is not hidden from those that diligently seek him. So atheists are inexcusable ( Romans 1.19-22)
Why do some atheists invest decades of their lives and huge amounts of time to do just this: Reject reasons to believe in God?
I think, in some cases, it is for self-aggrandizement. They want to prove to themselves, how smart they are. Of course, there are many other reasons.
Some, I think, however, have brought themselves genuinely to think that they have a sufficiently warranted belief to reject God claims. But to get to that stage, they need to have gone through sufficiently self-brainwashing. They think like bots. They have made up their minds, and any new information is processed based on the information that they already have, they do not think further, and that hinders them to change their minds.
I think that is when someone has sinned to the point, where the holy spirit retracts completely, and God simply grants them what they want. He hardens their hearts.
God wants ALL people to find salvation and eternal life. But he hardens the heart of those that reject Him. When these people die, after a life-long denying His existence, they will have a hard awakening on judgment day. God will be glorified, and his truthfulness confirmed. And atheists will feel shame for their rejection of the great Lord and creator.
God is glorified because he IS truth. Truth always wins. We will feel and experience the joy to have believed in the ONE that says that he IS truth. Our faith will be transformed in seeing, and that seeing is the fulfillment of our lifelong hope. Unbelievers will have their final answer: They believed in the lies of the enemy of man. The devil. And they served the devil by becoming themselves agents, spreading lies. Their destiny will be to curve and knee to God, give him glory, and then go to experience the result of their rebellion. Eternal hell and destruction. The second death.
What stance do you take in that scenario ?

257My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:59 am



How can we explain our existence without a Creator?

A compelling answer to the question of Ulrich J.Becker has in my view NEVER been provided by ANY atheist. Usually, when this question is being asked, the direction goes to poking holes and criticizing organized religions, pointing out the supposed shortcomings of religious books, in special the Bible. Claiming that the God of the Bible does not keep up his own moral standard ( genocide, slavery, etc. ). Arguing that every God concept is illogical or impossible ( ShannonQ ), most often I hear: There is no evidence of Gods existence, etc., or arguing that God has to show up and prove himself, or saying: I don't know what evidence would convince me that God exists, but God knows, so it's up to Him to provide it so I will believe ( nice blameshifting btw.). Other atheists claim not to be atheists, so not ruling out Gods existence, but being agnostics, that simply have not yet made up their minds, but soon after, when pressed hard, they start defending evolution, abiogenesis, that the universe can be eternal, that the brain can produce consciousness, etc. So they are atheists in the closet.

My answer to this is: None of these answers are GOOD justifications to be an atheist. The ONE and ONLY good reason in my view would be, starting to demonstrate how creation needs no creator. How a non-intelligent mechanism or agency can mimic and produce things better, that have the appearance of design and intelligent setup. That entails causing something from nothing physical ( the universe ), the implementation of the laws of physics which impose order, stabilize, and secure the forces that operate in the universe, permitting stable atoms, the fine adjustment of the universe on several levels, from the universe itself, to the earth, and biochemistry, to permit life, Instructional assembly information stored in DNA, using the genetic code (software) that directs the making of machines made of interlocked parts ( proteins ) assembly lines ( metabolic pathways ), and factories ( chemical cell factories ), membrane proteins ( factory portals ), DNA, amino acids, phospholipids, carbohydrates, the building blocks of life ( hardware ), RNA polymerase ( information retrieval/encoding ) messenger RNA ( transmission ) Ribosome ( translation/decoding ) dynein, kinesin ( taxis ) tubulins ( molecular highways ) mitochondria ( power generating plants ) ATP synthase ( power turbines ) the metabolic network ( electric circuits ), computers ( neurons) and so on.

In my understanding, calculating, forming abstract ideas, inventing, intending, having foresight, generating information, classifying, and last not least, being aware of beauty are all faculties that are essential and required to instantiate the described things above, which we have been discovered operating in the natural world. I have yet to see how non-intelligence can mimic intelligence, to be, in the end, a superior explanation to a designer.

Some try to sidestep that crucial question, starting to ask secondary questions, like: But how did God do it? How could he create from nothing? ( that's magic ), or arguing that I am using an argument from ignorance ( Because nobody has disproven the God claim, it must be true ). Well, the thing is, I am using inference to the best explanation, and my proposition stands, until proven that a non-intelligent causal mechanism is a more case-adequate explanation.

So again. Be my guest, and feel free to answer Ulrich Becker's question. I am all ears.

My articles - Page 11 No_ans10

258My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:05 am



The greatest scientific problem that demands an answer is not if evolution by natural selection actually explains biodiversity, ( a claim, that falsly, has been asserted to be a scientific fact ) but how to get a self-replicating factory, a Von Neumann constructor., to begin with, that then eventually could lead to evolvability.

The most brilliant minds since Von Neumann, 80 years ago, have far from achieved to invent, construct, and assemble such a factory. Millions of brilliant minds , scientists working on the problem solving for decades, see no light in the tunnel to arrive there. They have not even a glimps of how it could be achieved.

But life does it, already, supposedly for billions of years, but random lucky events, undirected mindless processes, should/could have led to such a feat ? I am incredule towards such an irrational nonsensical proposition, rightly so. And i cannot understand, how intelligent, educated, trained minds believe that it could happen, despite the odds.

Despite the facts that we are talking about a factory, that is irreducible and made of parts that only have function, once interconnected in a functional way, full of instructional information, that directs the making and operation of itself, and that self-generates its energy, basically operating in the opposing direction of entropy, namely negentropy.
I have not enough faith like Lee Cronin for such a proposition.

259My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:05 am



In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities,
in the expert’s mind there are few. Shunryu Suzuki Zen Master. Maybe that explains, why teenagers are more open to receive the gospel, while older people they have already made-up their minds, and as soon as they are confronted with something that contradicts their already dearly held beliefs, they respond with barriers, that protect what they already believe. They do not trigger the compartment in the brain, that makes them think more deeply, and unconventionally ( for them ), that could provoke a change. In other words: An expert has already made up his mind, and it is more difficult that such a person goes back to the basics.
Today, since a big part of humanity lives in the westen world, where the predominant religion is Christianity, and we grow up being teached about Christ, and the cross, it does not provoke a deeper thinking. But in the first century, the cross was deeply and extremely offensive. The cross was reserved to the worst criminals, as the worst and most painful punishment. The condemned were also nailed on the cross naked ( and so was most likely Jesus as well). To imagine that a God, the creator of the universe, the almighty, the all powerful, the eternal, could humble himself to become man, and to die the worst imaginable death, and being tortured, was unimaginable. It went against all common imagination about Gods nature.
1.Corinthians 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Yes, if we think about it deeper, our faith, our belief is a crazy belief, and many, still today, reject the gospel. Islam rejects the gospel, and opposes it diametrically.
Thats why we, believers, are a miracle of God, and his power. That crazy message reached and touched us. God revealed Christs truthfulness into our hearts, and we believed. That is the greatest gift any of us can ever find here on earth. It radically changes everything in our lives, and gives us a new perspective, a new worldview, that penetrates every aspect of our lives. We gain childhood, meaning, perspective, hope, and a foundation which is Christ, which directs our walk, our fate, our destiny.
Where are you in this picture?
A mind, and a heart, that is touched by the experience of knowing God by the message of the gospel, Christs sacrifice, proof of the unfathomable love of our heavenly father, and HIS amazing grace, is born again, can not and will never get back to its old dimensions.

260My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:12 pm



The dispute is not between science and religion. The dispute is between the proposition: God, versus no God. Once this is made clear, it is easy to outline why the no God proposition is irrational.
When i say God, the foremost description of God is: An eternal, powerful, intelligent, conscious, moral agent. There is no contradiction in this description, therefore, the objection that the God concept is illogical fails, and falls short.
Of course, unbelievers can move the goalpost and claim, that since we don't know, how God could create the physical from the non-physical, and how a spirit can exist without a physical brain, therefore, the God proposition is not rational.
But these are not only secondary questions, but the God proposition has to be compared to the no-God proposition, and weighted against each other.
Once this is done, the naturalistic cardhouse falls down very easily. Once a non-believer is confronted with these facts, and in the corner, soon soon, the escape claim will be: We don't know, but not knowing doesn't mean: Therefore God.
True. As a believer, i don't hold to God because there are gaps in the no-God claim. I hold to God, because the no-God claim is totally impossible, irrational, nonsensical, and foolish, and because what we see and observe around us is best explained through the existence of a necessary eternal being, that grounds everything else.
I believe in God, because God has revealed himself in the Bible, and because the natural world points to a creator. Period.

261My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:26 pm



Watching right now: Ask Me About Hell, linked below. It made me ask myself: Why, if this is the best world God could have created, is there so much suffering? As you probably know, many are atheists, because they are unable to reconcile a loving God with so much evil observed in the world. All these days, i ask myself: Why are russian soldiers inflicting so much suffering to ukranians, that did not do anything to them. Torturing, raping children, killing innocent civilians just for the sake of performing harm. Why?!! I also struggle with my own shortcomings. Things in my life that i know i should/could do/be better, but simply accomodate and keep it as is. Jesus said to those that anger children, it would be better if they had never been born.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

It is interesting, that even knowing before God created the world, that the majority would end up in hell, he decided to go for it. So, it would seem that the quantity of suffering would outweight the quantity of happyness of those saved.

It is also incomprehensible, that Jesus, being the second person of the triune God, went for it, creating the world, knowing that it would fall, and that he would have to go through incomprehensible pain on the cross, to provide salvation.

Atheists make that stupid "joke", that Jesus gave up his week-end, while hell is eternal. Yes, i understand those like Rebekah , from breadoflife, that struggle with the thought that hell has no end. Frankly speaking, i don't understand it either.

There are so many things that i don't understand, that it is a bit frustrating. But what can i do about it? I think, the only answer is: Those that are in the rain, are to get wet. I live. I did not choose to be born, nor when, where, by whom. But i can do good choices during my life. One is to belong to the Lord. And to proclaim his salvation.

Creation, God takes care of it. I cannot understand everything, but as a child of God, i trust Him. I trust his wisdom, justice, and love. He, the great I AM, knows what he is doing. Who am i to question his affairs ?

262My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:28 pm



Humanistic morality proposes human well-being as the goal. Matthew 7:12: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Both core versicles in the Bible promote well-being. Therefore, the proposal of the God of the Bible meets the humanistically set standard.
Nonetheless, atheists commonly ignore, neglect, and dismiss it, and focus on other things, that they think to blow wind in their sails, to substantiate their rejection of the God of the Bible.
Once done so, what is left, once the God of the Bible is removed and dismissed, is autonomy. Autonomous reasoning. But once there is no God that looks upon our shoulders, and there is a feeling of "freedom", men also focus on their own desires. And they are ego-centered. Ego-centrism is the opposite of love. I first. And that is the source of wars, greed, and all human manifestations of evil.
Humanism is evil. Christianity is good. A God-centred life produces good. An ego-centered life produces evil.
That has been observed and confirmed in all human history.

263My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun May 22, 2022 7:04 am



Even if there was a multiverse, or if our universe would be eternal, that, on its own, would still not be a sufficient alternative to a creator. They both would still demand an explanation. One could resort to ignorance, and answer: I don't know, in as much as we don't know why God exists eternally, rather than not. But that proposition that the universe/multiverse is eternal entails that we have to answer subsequent questions: Why is the expansion rate of the universe just right? Not too fast, not too slow?

Why is it astonishingly fit to provide the razor-edge, just right conditions to host life? Why is there the law-like behavior of fundamental things, that have no deeper grounding, that permits a stable, intelligible universe, that permits to make predictions? That permits us to expect that tomorrow the sun will rise? How is it that the four fundamental forces, and masses of protons, neutrons, and electrons, are just right to have stable atoms, permitting the existence of stars, galaxies, and planets?

How is it, that carbon nucleosynthesis was finely adjusted to permit carbon atoms and carbon-based life? How is it that there are over 200 fine-tune parameters just to have the right galaxy, that permits our life-permitting planet to exist? At the right distance from the center of the galaxy? The earth alone requires many parameters just right to permit advanced high-tech civilizations like ours. How comes?

If I ask someone, why X won 200 times in the lottery if it was rather because the game was fixed, or just luck, anyone would immediately answer: The game was fixed. I called in some time ago and talked to Matt Dillahunty. He said immediately: The game most likely was fixed. But when asked why all these fine-tune parameters of the universe are just right to permit life, he said: We don't know. Science is working on it. You see a clear double standard here.
Why is that? Because atheists do not want to permit God to put his footsteps into the door. Frank Wilczek said it was a "temptation" to permit God into the door. Why a temptation? Because he is unwilling to give up his "golden standard", namely that math alone, which is not a conscious creator, is the most fundamental, making God unnecessary. Unfortunately for Wilczek, math does not select the right numbers to be put into the equations to have the fundamental laws that permit our universe to operate in a lawlike manner. Math is not a causal agent. Math has no power. Math has no selecting force. Math depends on conscious minds to be used as a tool. A tool by itself does not cause things to exist. Intelligence makes tools and uses them to make things. God used math as a tool to instantiate the laws that permit us to be here.

God is the greatest mathematician, phyisicist, chemist, biologist, engineer, and lawyer above and far beyond anything that we could imagine, conceptualize, or fathom. He has given us an immensely complex universe and living beings to explore. He has entailed us with intelligence to imitate his awe-inspiring creations. How is it, that he does not deserve our honor and praise? He is worthy of endless admiration, reverence, and prostration.

Psalm 21:13 Be exalted, O Lord, in your strength! We will sing and praise your power.

Psalm 19:1
To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

264My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sat May 28, 2022 8:31 pm



In a naturalistic worldview, everything starts with death and ends with death.
In the Christian worldview, life is what grounds everything and is eternal. Christ is the alpha and the omega. The first and the last. Since he is life, it all starts and ends with life.
So we have clear opposites here.

In a naturalistic worldview, life starts from nonlife. Nonlive somehow evolves during long periods of time and becomes alive.
The first life evolves, and becomes more complex over a long period of time, to arrive where we are, with a man as the most complex living being in the universe.
In a Biblical worldview, God created everything from scratch. There is interdependence all over. Cells are interdependent. It is like a great circle. An interplay of matter, energy, and information that has to be instantiated all at once.

And there is a higher ecological order, that is also formed by cycles. Energy cycles. Microorganisms and plants are essential to forming the energy cycles. But the energy cycles are necessary to have life. So life and the energy cycles also had to emerge all at once. They are interdependent.

It is the dispute between the proposition: Time and evolution, and the proposition: God created interdependent systems.
Which makes more sense? You decide.

265My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun May 29, 2022 5:22 pm



The genetic code, and the amino acids alphabet are the best of all alternative options: By design, or non-design?

The ‘alphabet’ of 20 amino acids represents unusually well the chemistry space available to this class of molecule.
Melissa Ilardo and colleagues:  Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids 2015:
We compared the encoded amino acid alphabet to random sets of amino acids. We drew 100,000,000 random sets of 20 amino acids from our library of 1913 structures and compared their coverage of three chemical properties: size, charge, and hydrophobicity, to the standard amino acid alphabet. We measured how often the random sets demonstrated better coverage of chemistry space in one or more, two or more, or all three properties. In doing so, we found that better sets were extremely rare. In fact, when examining all three properties simultaneously, we detected only six sets with better coverage out of the 100 Million possibilities tested. Sets that cover chemistry space better than the genetically encoded alphabet are extremely rare and energetically costly. The amino acids used for constructing coded proteins may represent a largely global optimum, such that any aqueous biochemistry would use a very similar set. 1

That's pretty impressive and remarkable. That means, that only one in 16 million sets is better suited for the task.

The standard genetic code that binds these two molecular languages into a defined, functional relationship is one that appears to have been selected to minimize the deleterious impact of mutations. S J Freeland writes in the paper: The genetic code is one in a million:

if we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors, but also that its structure reflects biases in these errors, as might be expected were the code the product of selection. 2

Shalev Itzkovitz: The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These “parallel codes” include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code—minimization of the effects of frame-shift translation errors. Whereas many of the known regulatory codes reside in nontranslated regions of the genome, the present findings suggest that protein-coding regions can readily carry abundant additional information. 3

The codon bases have a non-random correlation with the kind of amino acids which they code for.  The first of the three letters relates to the kind of amino acid the codon stands for, giving the language a consistent meaning.
This undoubtedly helps the error-checking machinery just as the quickest kind of computer program to debug is one in which variable names include a consistent reference at the start classifying it as holding a date, integer, text, array, database value, or whatever.  Without this, you can’t debug it at a rapid pace because every variable name needs to be consciously checked.  The effect of mistranslations is called the “load on the code”.  It is minimized by its current arrangement to such an extent that only 3 in 100,000 other possible mappings might have a safer error rate, depending on their deleterious effect on the overall DNA function, as a single change in the codon mapping would cause huge atomic changes throughout the length of the three billion base pair system.  Any changes to the mapping would need modifications to all the interpretation and duplication machinery, which seems geared up for this specific arrangement. But this 3 in 100,000 statistic assumes all 100,000 alternatives already have the advantage of the type-significant first letter of the codon.  If you had a trillion planets around every star in the Universe, you could try a different arrangement on every planet, and have one chance – over all of these attempts combine – to get a more fault-tolerant system. The coding system is given further weight by the discovery that within the ribosome, anticodons are enriched near the areas relative to their function, to a level such that the probability of this being a random setup is minuscule.  Not minuscule the way a likelihood of 6.9 is a very small step away from an impossibility level of 7, but less than .0000000000000000001 % or less than one-millionth of a trillionth. In other words, the ribosome behaves as if it’s already geared up and ready to work with the existing code – and is assumed to be one of the most ancient parts of the whole DNA engine.


266My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Mon May 30, 2022 9:27 am



Atheists: " We need to improve our communication skills with theists".
Translated: " We need to improve our communication skills to convince them that there is no convincing evidence for God's existence".
Question: Why would they wanna do that?
What I often hear:
"The religious legislate about our civil rights, and we need to protect ourselves and our children from what they want to impose upon us."
Question: Is this a legit motivation, or just a cop-out for their REAL motivations, whatever they might be?
My experience: I have never met more intolerant, more militant people than atheists on YouTube atheists channels. They often block or time me out in side chats just for expressing a different opinion that they don't like.
So the question is: Who is attempting to impose values and morals and worldviews on others?
Last Friday, I called in at Truth Wanted. One of the shows of the ACA. You can go and watch my interaction with the hosts, Nate, and Paul ( Paulogia). Nate, afterward, commented that he would not take a call from me again. Why is that?! I was not rude. I was not disrespectful. I was polite and calm. I just made my case...
I tell you why. Because I exposed his lack of scientific understanding. I exposed why his worldview is not based on sound evidence and arguments. He even resorted to: We can IMAGINE. Literally, imagination. I called him out on it. In order to upkeep their Zombie worldview, they resort to literally fantasy, imagination, and making up things for which there is, YES, no evidence.

267My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Mon May 30, 2022 11:32 am



Stochastic genetic mutations in the coding sequences of a gene should confer the allele variations, that natural selection picks from, and fixes in the gene pool of the population if it confers an advantage of survival, and adaptation to the environment. Gene mutations result in codon mutations, and rather than one, another amino acid is translated and incorporated into a protein amino acid chain. Then, that different sequence should/would theoretically either a) not cause any functional change of a protein, b) deteriorate the protein function, or b) improve or confer a new protein or enzyme function.

In order to say that macroevolution through natural selection, genetic drift, or gene flow is what actually promotes biodiversity, science should be able to detect what genetic mutations, and consequently, altered amino acid sequences provoke. Guess what??
Scientists have no clue!!

Proteome-wide identification of amino acid substitutions deleterious for protein function April 09, 2022.

" DNA sequencing has led to the discovery of millions of mutations that change the encoded protein sequences, but the impact of nearly all of these mutations on protein function is unknown. "

Yes. You heard that right !!! If it is unknown how mutated protein sequences impact protein function, it also cannot be known if evolutionary mechanisms are those that provoke new protein functions, and as such, new body plans, new species, and new functions in new organisms !!

Another point: Proteins have a zip code, a tag, which is like a GPS system, directing them to the place of operation. And there is other genetic information, that directs how proteins have to be inserted in, let, say, for example, a cell membrane. If somehow, the genetic mutation would produce a protein with a new function, that new function would maybe be useful at an entirely different place in the cell, then its genitor. That means, there would have to be completely new information to direct the novel protein to another place in the cell, and more new information to insert it where it is operational.

In order to have a new function, for a new working biological system to be built, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the system, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of individual parts, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.
C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.
C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time, they are needed.
C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if subsystems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

268My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:59 am



Complex assembly lined, by design, or non-design?

Imagine a factory full of interconnected complex machines. Each performs an essential processing and manufacturing step producing an intermediate product that is necessary to yield a functional end product made of different necessary functional parts, that are integrated, contributing to the higher end function.
In several cases, each of these machines depends on complex manufacturing in different compartments. Once made, they are conducted to their place of operation and joined with the other machines. The end product is a self-replicating factory. All this is made based on instructional blueprints, that direct the making of the machines, and the interconnection, and everything is precisely coordinated, monitored, error checked and if something goes wrong, it is repaired, recycled, or discarted. Once that factory is assembled, it will start operating, repeating all the processes, upon which itself was made.
How is such a device best explained? By positing an intelligent, or a non-intelligent cause?

Jessica Wimmer and William Martin elucidate what a minimal metabolic network of a first living cell might be.

Specifically, we looked at core metabolism, the reactions that generate the basic building blocks of life. For this, we identified a set of roughly 400 ancient reactions that cells use to synthesize the 20 amino acids of proteins, the four bases of genes, and the 18 vitamins that cells need to make those 400 reactions work. Those core chemical reactions are conserved across all microbial lineages, hence they were present in the last universal common ancestor of all life, LUCA. They provide a window into the source of building blocks.,early%20Earth%20chemistry%20and%20life.

Autocatalytic chemical networks at the origin of metabolism,early%20Earth%20chemistry%20and%20life.

269My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:12 am



In order to investigate origins, one needs to be willing to go to the bottom. and there, carefully research the details of how things work. And it has to be in comprehensive way. Just investigating one small part of the hole, and applying inductive reasoning, to claim a win, is a fail. Every pathway, the hole trajectories, let's say of a signal transduction pathway in biochemistry, has to be elucidated. If you look at the surface, you will find fossils & bones. You can do comparative anatomy, search for transitional fossils, and draw phylogenetic trees. They will give you a picture. But only a very superficial one. One needs to take a microscope and zoom in to the molecular world to figure out how things work. Once THAT is done, you are ready to start thinking about how things came to be. The more complicated, the more it is evidence of design. ID predicts, that more and more layers of complexity will be uncovered. So it has been in the past, so most likely it will be in the future.

Science is still at the surface of unraveling how epigenetic codes & languages work. But what we already know, is, that information is not only contained in genes, but spread out in the entire cell, and in entire organisms. There are places of information, that are hosted in one cell, and other, different information in distant cells, and these cells, distant from each other, coordinate each other through signaling languages and vesicles in the body that are shuttled back and forth to various distant destinations, where information is exchanged. Organisms use even light, and quantum mechanisms, where the information exchange occurs instantly, without basically no time-laps at all. How cool is that?

In 1871, Haeckel wrote in Nature magazine, that cells are just a blob of simple protoplasm. Today, we know that a neuron is made of 100 billion atoms, precisely arranged in the right order. They have tens of thousands of communication channels that are interconnected with other neurons and form roads in squared arrangement, organized like in manhattan. How magnificent is that? And yet, we are still just on the surface of exploring how all that works. Human cells host 2,3 billion proteins. Twenty thousand human genes are spliced over 300 times, giving rise to over 6 million protein species. Each can be expressed to adapt perfectly to the environment and nutritional conditions. Scientists specialize to investigate just one of these proteins during a lifetime. Ben Goult for example studies Talin codes for decades. Here is a short animation of binary information being written into a talin memory molecule.
God loves surprises. God is smarter than any one of us can fathom. He gave us Genesis describing in superficial brushes how he created everything. If he had given a detailed account, nobody would have understood it. So he left it to the smartest scientists to figure out what he did on a macro and microscale. He must be smiling while watching hundreds of thousands of scientists desperate in attempting to cancel Him out of the picture as a causal agent, and failing. Facts are facts, and the fact is that God shows his glory in creation.
Romans 9.32 -35: They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]

The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true.
But for us, science & evidence in nature points to an awe-inspiring God. Stop focussing on finding honor for yourself. Look up to the Lord. Glorify him, and he will honor you.

270My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:17 am



Atheists disbelieve that  Christ rose from the dead, despite all the evidence, but believe we all came from a dead toxic prebiotic slime despite no evidence. The resurrection of Christ that was once alive is far-fetched, but molecules that were never alive transformed to life, no problem, that's warranted to believe? How much sense does that make?  The miracles involved in unguided events &  evolution are extremely unlikely compared to those described in the  Bible.

Mt 27:59: “Joseph took the body, wrapped (ἐντυλίσσω—wrap) it in a clean linen cloth (σινδών)...”

Mark 15:45-46: “(Pilate) gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth (σινδών) took down the body, wrapped (ἐνειλέω—wrap up) it in the linen (σινδών) and placed it in a tomb...

Luke 23:53: “(Joseph) wrapped (ἐντυλίσσω) it in linen cloth (σινδών) and placed it in a tomb...”

The shroud of Turin is EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection

The Shroud of Turin is NOT A FORGERY FROM THE 14th century, as following amazing evidence will demonstrate. It is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man,  which based on overwhelming evidence points to be Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after the crucifixion.

The attributes of the image it's this:

- it's superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes
- there's no outline to the image
- is no cementing of fibers as with paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that
- there are no variations in density as with known artworks every artist gets a little bit more they're a little bit less there
- there's no evidence of that there are no particles between the threads such as some kind of a dust rubbing
- there's no capillary action no evidence that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area
- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- it's a negative image with distance information encoded into it
- it's blood from the actual wound it's a AB+ blood with human DNA and
- there's no image under the blood now

"At the beginning of the investigation - said Schwortz -, I knew of God, but it was not very important in my life. I had not thought of God, when the avevo 13 years. I was not very religious, it was almost a requirement for my family. Since then I have moved away from the faith, religion and God, until I reached the 50 years. When in 1995 I came to the conclusion that the Shroud was authentic, I built the site . I started to collect the material and put it to the public. I began to speak publicly about the Shroud around 1996 ".
This dualism, however, could not continue: "When people started asking me if I was a believer, I could not find the answer. At that point I questioned myself and I realized that God was waiting for me. I was really surprised to see that within me there was a belief in God. Fino a 50 years I had pretty much ignored the faith, and suddenly I found myself face to face with God in my heart. Basically I can say that the Shroud was the catalyst that brought me back to God ". He concluded amused: "How many Jews can say that the Shroud of Turin has led them to faith in God"?

Schwortz runs as well the website:

Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible

Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 252:
" Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.

Steve Benner:  Paradoxes in the origin of life
Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

Graham Cairns-Smith: Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

Garrett: Biochemistry, 6th ed,  page 665
Key compounds, such as arginine, lysine, and histidine; the straight-chain fatty acids; porphyrins; and essential coenzymes, have not been convincingly synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions.

Robert Shapiro: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life
A profound difficulty exists, however, with the idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start of life. Existing replicators can serve as templates for the synthesis of additional copies of themselves, but this device cannot be used for the preparation of the very first such molecule, which must arise spontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.

Kenji Ikehara Evolutionary Steps in the Emergence of Life Deduced from the Bottom-Up Approach and GADV Hypothesis (Top-Down Approach) 2016 Mar; 6
(1) nucleotides have not been produced from simple inorganic compounds through prebiotic means and have not been detected in any meteorites, although a small quantity of nucleobases can be obtained.
(2) It is quite difficult or most likely impossible to synthesize nucleotides and RNA through prebiotic means.
(3) It must also be impossible to self-replicate RNA with catalytic activity on the same RNA molecule.
(4) It would be impossible to explain the formation process of genetic information according to the RNA world hypothesis, because the information is comprised of triplet codon sequence, which would never be stochastically produced by joining of mononucleotides one by one.
(5) The formation process of the first genetic code cannot be explained by the hypothesis either, because a genetic code composed of around 60 codons must be prepared to synthesize proteins from the beginning.
(6) It is also impossible to transfer catalytic activity from a folded RNA ribozyme to a protein with a tertiary structure.

My articles - Page 11 Prebio10

271My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:25 am



Those that believe in the Bible, stand on firm ground. We can know about our origins: Genesis 1 informs us: that God created heaven and the earth. He is the origin of everything outside of himself. He is the creator. We are his creatures. We can know about good and evil. Evil came into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. They became bound to sin, and we inherited their broken nature. We are born into a team of losers.

But God himself did incarnate in Jesus Christ. He was the second Adam, who resisted all temptations of the evil one. He paid the price for all sin on the cross and screamed out loud: It is fulfilled. He won the victory over evil, sin, and death. His resurrection was the ultimate sign of His victory. He is Lord over all the universe and all nations. He sits to the right of the father, and to Him, all power has been given, and he rules over everything. Our fate, our eternal destination is in His hands. If and when we surrender to His Lordship, his grace, and receive what he did for us, he paid for our sins, we change ownership. While, as bonded to sin, and as sinners, we were belonging to the devil, and were on the highway to hell, surrendering to Christ, we changed family: Christ bought us through his blood. Yes, there is power in the blood of Christ. His wounds were the payment to rescue us and free us from the bond of our sinful nature. We are born again in the spirit of God, once we surrender to Him, and we change teams. From the team of losers to the team of winners. From children of the devil, we become children of the highest. We receive his nature, and as children, we inherit God's kingdom. We can live with hope, and know our future. It will be with the Lord, and the father, all angels and heavenly creatures in a new heaven, and a new earth, that he will create for those that love Him.

He also gave us a perfect moral code, expressed in the Golden rule: Love God above everything, and love your next as yourself. That includes the deepest and the only real meaning of our lives: To be loved by God, to love God, and to love our next. Love is the essence of God's kingdom. In this world, what reigns, is egoism, selfishness, greed, all kind of unlawfulness, bitterness, and all kind of expressions of sin that results in death. In God's world, there is peace, love, justice, and true happiness.

God's children know where they came from, and why we are here, and we can have hope for the future. It will be glorious, and our hope is not invane.
In contrast, the godless have no knowledge of their origins, do make up their own meaning, which is basically founded on self-delusion, and cannot have any hope whatsoever that goes beyond the grave. Their expectation is to get from life, what it offers here and now, and tomorrow, we will become worms and stardust. And he also has to fear that he might be wrong, and eventually have to face the God he disbelieved in, be judged, and condemned. He can never be 100% sure, that this will not be the case. No wonder, do ex-believers take years to overcome the fear of hell. Christianity is a worldview that offers knowledge, meaning, and hope for eternal life to its fullest. Atheism offers no knowledge, no meaning that is grounded in God, eternity, and no hope. It offers nothing.
Or maybe it does. It offers the grounding to hate the God that atheists disbelieve in. Why are so many eagerly attempting to drag us down to their misery? Maybe, because misery likes company.

But it will not be mine. Yours? I hope not. Don't let persuade you that there is no evidence for God and that the God of the Bible is evil. Those are lies from the pit of hell. Satan is a liar and a murderer. He wants you destroyed. Who seeks, finds. Seek knowledge, and it will permit you to stand on firm ground. Science, theology, and philosophy, will not only lead you to God, but permit you to stay on firm ground, and leave no doubts.

272My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sat Jul 23, 2022 7:00 am



Most commonly, when I debate an atheist, and he challenges me, and claims that there is no evidence for God, and I provide irrefutable, compelling evidence, his reaction is not gratitude, because his demand has been met. He responds with anger and rejection. He does ask for evidence because he hopes to find something else that he is looking for. He is not looking for evidence for God, but he hopes for a confirmation that your view is unwarranted, unsupported, insufficient and irrational, and worth being rejected. He wants you to fail, so he can keep his confidence that no God exists, which is what he desires. It's called confirmation bias.

This is confirmed by the fact, that most, if not all if asked if they would worship the God of the Bible if he was proven to exist, they answer with a resounding no. The reasons are almost all the same.

God is a moral monster, he condones genocide, and slavery, he drowned babies, the problem of evil, and animal suffering. They claim that God is not benevolent and that he could have created a better world without suffering, or having spared any kind of suffering altogether. He could have created us like angels, rather than letting us go through this fallen world.
I think there is not much more than prayer that we can do, so people can recognize that God's goodness and righteousness demand punishment for sins, otherwise, he would be unjust, and he would have created an unjust world.

Yesterday I was on an atheist channel, where they were discussing how to overcome the fear of hell. They prefer to live in uncertainty if they will be punished by God, rather than surrender to a loving, righteous creator. There is only one way to get peace of mind and heart. Surrender to Jesus, and receive his grace and forgiveness. But that comes when we recognize who he really is. When we do so, we start feeling attracted.

You cannot love what you do not know. So we need to know God up to the limit that he permits us. in order to recognize his love, kindness, goodness, and righteousness. A right understanding of who he is, brings us closer to him. A false, superficial understanding, can be self-delusional and lead us away and astray.

273My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:36 pm



I have heard repeatedly that inferring that God did it, is a science stopper. I never thought that way. On the contrary. Precisely believing that God did it, has been a driving motor for me to investigate deeper, and further, unraveling more and more awe-inspiring things, that God created. Einstein said: I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details.

Unraveling how the natural world works, means unraveling God's thoughts. And the more sophistication we encounter and unravel, the more we can recognize God's sublime, unique, unparalleled grandeur, glorify Him for that, and give Him thanks for living in an age, where we can actually unravel, explore, and understand these things, that were hidden for millennia.
God's revelation in Genesis was very short. He describes in a few sentences how he made all plants, animals, and humans, but man is filling entire libraries to describe God's creation. God the father or Christ did never boast about how smart they were. But God's greatness shows also how small and finite we are.

Recognizing that God did it, is not the end: It is the beginning of an awe-inspiring intellectual journey. Those that invest and endorse the effort to learn and educate themselves, are highly rewarded. Knowing God's creation means knowing more about God. It means expanding your mental, and intellectual horizons in various faculties: Theology, philosophy, and science.
Excluding God, means running in circles, running on roads leading to dead ends. Leading to cognitive dissonance, and frustration. Be smart. Acknowledge God. Give Him glory. And you will do well.

274My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:54 am



I hear from time to time, that simplicity, not complexity, is the hallmark of design. What can be observed, is designed simplicity giving rise to complexity in the universe and in biological systems. All the awe-inspiring diversity of stars, galaxies, planets, life forms, ecological systems, and so forth is built based on just four fundamental forces of energy, six fundamental mathematical equations, four basic building blocks of life, a genetic alphabet of four letters, and a genetic code, that assigns 64 códon words to 20  amino acids (22 in some cases)

On top of that, the fundamental physical forces and laws, and Watson-Crick base-pairing are fine-tuned. And the genetic code and the amino acid set are optimal amongst millions of less adequate alternatives.

The fundamental forces must be finely adjusted to the extreme to permit life

The laws of physics must also be finely adjusted to permit carbon-based life

No DNA double Helix, no life

And that depends on the hydrogen bond forces for Watson-Crick base pairing being finely tuned, and they depend on the isomeric configuration of the nucleobases of purines and pyrimidines. There is almost an infinite number of possible setups.

If we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative genetic codes generated is more efficient than the natural code.

In 2015, a scientific investigation was performed to test 100 million different sets of twenty amino acids. They measured three chemical properties: size, charge, and hydrophobicity, and compared it to the standard amino acid alphabet. Only six are better able to explore “chemistry space” than the twenty amino acids that life uses. That suggests that life’s set of amino acids is finely tuned to one part in 16 million.

Parsimony, Fine-tuning, and optimality of sets confer cumulatively strong evidence for a designed setup. 

My articles - Page 11 29596210

275My articles - Page 11 Empty Re: My articles Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:38 am



Atheism is a faith-based worldview, a cult of death - and its adherents are not aware of it.

Unbelievers that actively reject God with the excuse that there is no evidence of his existence are dead in their sins and want to remain so. They love the world and its corrupt moral values, that are tailored to condone their sins.  Disbelief is the core of all sins. The unbeliever's hearts are darkened  They don't acknowledge it, IMHO. They think they are wise, but according to the Bible, they are fools ( Psalm 14.1;  Romans 1. 19-21) They are self-deceptive. Those atheist YouTube atheism content creators are blind, leading the blind. All day long - they wake up in the morning and say to themselves: There is no God. They go to bed at night and say to themselves: There is certainly no God - so nothing to worry about. And during the day, they try to convince others: There is no evidence for God. The Bible is untrustworthy, corrupted, and an invention of men - so they say. But they hide, that they are empty as an empty bag. They offer no alternative to a creator.

And those that have the courage to do so, do their best to hide the fact that what they have as alternatives to put on the table, is worse than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, and Farting Pixies. Those would at least still be causal agents, even if ridiculous since obviously, an invention of man. But they come up with quantum tunneling, virtual particles, multiverses, bubble universe, oscillating eternal universes, string "theory", and all sorts of fancy stuff, that is packed in scholarly, sciency-sounding words, but it's all rotten tomato. It's all stupid nonsensical made-up foolishness, transvestite as serious scientific hypotheses, that should be taken seriously. No, they should not. It's all bad philosophy, and worth being ridiculed.

The universe and biological systems that appear designed were not designed?
The universe came from nothing, or had no beginning?
Nothing did wound up the universe to start ticking - its energy to perform work came from nowhere?
Did nothing instantiate the laws of physics, based on mathematics, that ordains the stability and operation of the universe, making it life-permitting?
Good old Saint named Lucky finely adjusted the fundamental forces to permit stable atoms, stars, galaxies, and planets to exist?
Matter started spontaneously to comprehend math and calculus,  language, using the laws of logic, abstract thought, and recognize beauty?
Did stardust create beings recognizing that it's wrong to torture babies for fun?
Did stardust create us with a sense of teleonomy, that our lives, what we do, have meaning, if, in the end, we will return to stardust?  
Did a lucky random accident select the right atmosphere of the earth, the right size of our planet, the moon, or the UV shield that protects life?
No computer scientist created our cells that have hardware/software entanglement?
No engineer created the molecular machines in our cells?

I mean, how irrational are you willing to sound, to be able to warrant your autonomy from God?
Disbelief in God means spiritual death, and eternal death ( Revelation 21:Cool

I am sorry, my atheist friend. I am not attacking you. I am attacking your worldview that excludes a creator God. I do have not enough faith to believe in nonsensical atheistic claims. Atheists claim that we are the gullible and the fool ones.  I am not prepared, and might never be, to declare myself an atheist.

My articles - Page 11 Sem_tz37

Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:45 pm; edited 2 times in total

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 11 of 12]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

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