Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

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


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Christian and secular science writers » Aron Ra So you're Christian

Aron Ra So you're Christian

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Aron Ra So you're Christian Empty Aron Ra So you're Christian on Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:20 am

Otangelo


Admin
Aron Ra So you're Christian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnY_zKOm6fg&lc=z22jwtw4qzyugnshe04t1aokgvhp1z44quj1ivu4tyxdrk0h00410.1577318360360949


Aron : " God make the first man as a golem out of raw materials the same way we made this phone or this car ".

Reply. Indeed. Life is an all or nothing business.

The cell is irreducibly complex

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1299-the-cell-is-irreducibly-complex

chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity
http://www.ru.nl/english/@893712/protocells-formed/

Information has independent existence from the structures. The information, the code, and hardware to process the information and to use it to accomplish a specific task all need to appear simultaneously. None have value without the others in place. This requires single step first appearance of all of them. Required tasks for simultaneous first appearance include replication, information storage and processing, metabolism, organic compartments with active transport, and various additional miscellaneous functions 4

chicken and egg scenarios in cellular function can be discovered at will. The essential components of a minimal cell cooperate with each other, such that when all work together life appears and missing any one of them prevents its appearance. If one tries to explain the appearance of any component through the gradual step by step process of natural selection, he will quickly find himself facing a chicken and egg scenario, a catch-22 situation, a paradox, a conundrum. Ignoring the fact that natural selection doesn’t work for large genome systems before replication appears, there is another basic issue. How could natural selection define a proper genetic structure to produce a protein so that the protein could provide a step in the production of an essential product before all of the other proteins for the others steps have appeared? There is a long list of products essential to the appearance of the first cell. Pick any one of them and try to explain how this product could appear apart from single-step, sudden first appearance. You will find that emergence leads you straight to the chicken and egg scenario. This is the impact of emergence on abiogenesis.

How Structure Arose in the Primordial Soup
About 4 billion years ago, molecules began to make copies of themselves, an event that marked the beginning of life on Earth. A few hundred million years later, primitive organisms began to split into the different branches that make up the tree of life. In between those two seminal events, some of the greatest innovations in existence emerged: the cell, the genetic code and an energy system to fuel it all. ALL THREE of these are ESSENTIAL to life as we know it, yet scientists know disappointingly little about how any of these remarkable biological innovations came about.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-structure-arose-in-the-primordial-soup/

Behes definition of  Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only  to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man,  that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well  to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing  steps must be gone through. That applies in special to  processes in living cells, where  a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive.

Karen Fliegel MacDougall    If we are to assume all life came from a single cell way in the past, then that cell, from it's very first moment had to have all the machinery capable of :

1. reproduction
2. the means of obtaining energy in whatever form that may have been
3. the means of converting that energy source to a useable form
4. the means of ridding itself of toxic waste
5. the means of protecting itself from environmental dangers ex, radiation, temperature fluctuations, acid/base conditions
6. means of cellular repair of all of these mechanisms
7. The means of intracellular communication between all its parts the prior knowledge that it would need all these components and the ability of ALL of these to function fully and simultaneously from day one because malfunctions of, or incomplete versions or not fully "evolved" parts would have lead to immediate or almost immediate death.

AronRa: Ridiculing a pastor by endorsing his supposed says: I will keep and defend the faith against all reason :

Reply: That is the most pathetic and ridiculous section of your video, and a blantant misrepresentation.

The christian faith is based on reasonable faith.

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

AronRa: Ridiculing a pastor by endorsing his supposed says: I will keep and defend the faith against all reason :

Reply: That is the most pathetic and ridiculous section of your video, and a blantant misrepresentation.

The christian faith is based on reasonable faith.

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

Claim: the unnecessarily convoluted patterns we see throughout living systems indicate a natural evolution not intentional creation

Reply: First, you need to have a self replicating cell. Which origin cannot be explained through evolution.
The possible mechanisms to explain the origin of life

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2515-abiogenesis-the-possible-mechanisms-to-explain-the-origin-of-life

Evolution by mutations and natural selection do not explain the origin of life, since evolution depends on DNA replication. The only alternative to design are random unguided lucky events.

Prebiotic processes inherently function as random product generators, using an external energy source to rearrange the chemical elements of substrate into a random set of new product molecules. 1

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.

Rational Wiki states about abiogenesis:
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Natural selection is not a possible mechanism to explain the origin of life, since evolution depends on DNA replication

Functional proteins from a random-sequence library
Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak
Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences
https://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Keefe_Szostak_Nature_01.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0giOg_aZfFRKQALk7CB22nVIx32ShiN0Vp78cwtAYwmwQ_0RJicfxpR1M

When we consider how life might have arisen from nonliving matter, we must take into account the properties of the young Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and climate, all of which were very different than they are today. Biologists postulate that complex biological molecules first arose through the random physical association of chemicals in that environment.
LIFE The Science of Biology, TENTH EDITION, page 3

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication. The only two alternatives are either a) creation by an intelligent agency, or b) Random, unguided, undirected natural events by a lucky "accident".

Koonin, the logic of chance, page 266
Evolution by natural selection and drift can begin only after replication with sufficient fidelity is established. Even at that stage, the evolution of translation remains highly problematic. The emergence of the first replicator system, which represented the “Darwinian breakthrough,” was inevitably preceded by a succession of complex, difficult steps for which biological evolutionary mechanisms were not accessible . The synthesis of nucleotides and (at least) moderate-sized polynucleotides could not have evolved biologically and must have emerged abiogenically—that is, effectively by chance abetted by chemical selection, such as the preferential survival of stable RNA species. Translation is thought to have evolved later via an ad hoc selective process. Did you read this ???!! An ad-hoc process ??

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication, you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction, you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;901:139-47.
The scientific origin of life. Considerations on the evolution of information, leading to an alternative proposal for explaining the origin of the cell, a semantically closed system
MARIO VANEECHOUTTE
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.bz/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06273.x/full
We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis.
The hypothesis espoused here states that it is virtually impossible that the highly complicated system cell developed gradually around simple self-replicating molecules (RNA-hypercycles or autocatalytic peptide networks) by means of natural selection; as is proposed by, for example, the RNA-world hypothesis. Despite searching quadrillions of molecules, it is clear that a spontaneous RNAreplicator is unlikely to occur. Reports of nucleotide and peptide self-replication still depend upon human intervention (for instance, by changing the environmental conditions between two rounds of replication or by denaturing the double strands). The problem of denaturing the double-nucleotide strand in a nonenzymatic manner has been overlooked and has contributed to a failure to establish molecular self-replication. The first cell, life, was born and natural selection (selection among variations on the theme of autonomous duplication) commenced.

Claim: imagining that there must be a magic invisible man behind everything is the simplest and most infantile excuse that people have ever made up to explain anything and it doesn't explain anything in fact it prevents you from understanding because creation ex nihilo requires you to ignore everything the science has shown to be true

Reply: Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.

The Kalaam leads to the God of the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOcACl_tJ2c&t=142s

1:08 Properties of the first cause
5:11 Event causation or Agent causation?
8:00 How can a mind exist in a timeless dimension, trigger a Transition from timelessness to time?
13:12 How can a mind exist without a body beyond the universe?
15:06 How could God have created the universe without time?
16:11 Is claiming that God is eternal, special pleading?
18:06 Properties of the first cause
30:29 Philosophical and scientific considerations match with the biblical account about the origin of the Universe
30:53 End notes

The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9UMDiiE0kY&t=75s
1:15 The claim: Something cannot come from nothing does not need to be proven
3:15 Virtual particles do not come from absolutely nothing but require a quantum vacuum
7:36 Premise two: The universe began to exist
9:35 Scientific reasons to conclude that the universe has a beginning
16:32 Further scientific evidence why the universe cannot be past eternal
18:35 Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal

Replication: First you have to explain how self replication emerged.

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes


The Argument of the Original Replicator
In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule.
Each of these proteins is essential and required for the proper replicating process. Not a single one of these proteins can be missing, otherwise the whole process breaks down, and is unable to perform its task correctly. DNA repair mechanisms must also be in place, fully functional and working properly, otherwise the mutation rate will be too high, and the cell dies. 18
The individual parts and proteins require by themselves complex assembly proteins to be built.
The individual parts, assembly proteins, and proteins individually would have no function by their own. They have only function interconnected in the working whole.
The individual parts must be readily available on the construction site of the rna replication complex, being correctly interlocked, interlinked, and have the right interface compatibility to be able to interact correctly together. All this requires information and meta information ( information that directs the expression of the genomic information for construction of the individual proteins, and correct timing of expression, and as well the information of the correct assembly sequence. )
Evolution is not a capable driving force to make the dna replicating complex, because evolution depends on cell replication through the very own mechanism we try to explain. It takes proteins to make DNA replication happen. But it takes the DNA replication process to make proteins. That’s a catch 22 situation.
DNA replication requires coded, complex, specified information and meta-information, and the DNA replication process is irreducibly complex.
Therefore, DNA replication is best explained through design.

Question begging fallacy:

Where is it here ?

1. The universe is either eternal, or it had a beginning. Most probably it had a beginning, based on philosophical and scientific considerations.
2. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

1. The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics, a specific set of equations, upon which it can exist and operate. That includes Newtonian Gravity of point particles, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. Everything in the universe is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical.
2. The implementation of laws of mathematics and physics depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.
3. Therefore, most probably, an intelligent creator of the universe exists.

1. Physical laws are descriptive of what has never been observed. But there is no particular reason or physical necessity for why they are the way they are, and making a life-permitting universe possible. In fact, these sets could take any value, and be different.
2. The explanation of why the universe obeys in specific these life-permitting laws and set of equations can be due to either the existence of an infinite set of laws in an infinite number of universes, each obeying a different set of physical laws, which are not life permitting, or the set-up by a powerful intelligent creator.
3. Multiverses are undetectable and unobservable, and there is no evidence of their existence. Furthermore, it would take 10^123 attempts to fine-tune the cosmological constant, to have a universe, either life permitting, or non-life permitting. There are about 10^80 atoms in the known universe. And either our universe or a set of multiverses had to have a beginning, so a cause cannot be avoided. So the multiverse proposal is not only entirely unscientific but disregarding Occam's razor, where the least speculation is usually better.

1. The physical universe is governed by physical laws. Both are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
2. Laws and require a lawgiver. And interdependent systems a creator
3. Therefore, nature, the laws of nature, and their inderdependence require a creator.

1. The initial conditions of the universe, subatomic particles, the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth and the moon, are finely tuned to permit life. Over 150 fine-tuning parameters are known.
2. The Finetuning is either due to chance, necessity or design.
3. Finetuning is extremely unlikely due to chance or necessity. Therefore, it is most probably due to a powerful creator which did set up the universe in the most precise exact fashion to permit life on earth.

1. Either high levels of complexity seen in the living is due to a designer, or random chance.
2. The enemy of the arise of complex self-replicating energy demanding physico-chemical structures is entropy
3. Therefore, it is far more likely that a intelligent designer did setup life, rather than chance.

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

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

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

There is no demonstrable truth:

What atheists must believe:

Faith that design observed in nature need no designer
Faith that the natural world needs no creator.
Faith that magical nothing can create the universe or
Faith that the cosmos is eternal despite the impossibily
Faith that the physical laws need no lawgiver.
Faith that fine-tuning requires no fine-tuner
Faith that non-living matter can produce life
Faith that codes can emerge randomly
Faith that instructional information can emerge by luck.
Faith that machines can self-assemble
Faith that factories can self-assemble
Faith that evolution explains biodiversity
Faith that matter can produce consciousness
Faith that matter can produce morality
Faith that we can give ourself meaning to our lives
Faith that there is no afterlife
Faith that there is no evidence of Gods existence

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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