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 » Arguments for Gods existence in in short sentences

Arguments for Gods existence in in short sentences

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin
Arguments for Gods existence in in short sentences

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3026-evidence-of-god-in-short-sentences

Origin of life arguments

They are less than 200 letters long. You can use them in YouTube chats

Atoms
Quark masses making up atoms are fine-tuned by 1 in 18000. Mass of quarks influences decay, and if not in the right range, the very structure of the universe would be impossible. 
Having several elements relies on the feature that the up quark, the down quark, and the electron have a particular ordering. Have atomic structures depends on this ordering.
If the up and down quark masses were equal the proton would be heavier than the neutron and hydrogen would not be stable. The down quark is required to be heavier or we would not exist.
The neutron-proton mass difference is 1.29 MeV, and the electron mass is 0.511 MeV. If the electron were heavier than this 1.29 MeV, the hydrogen atom would not be stable, and no life.
There are relatively tight nucleosynthesis constraints on about 5 combinations of parameters and small changes in these combinations lead to major changes and life as we know it would not exist.

Astronomy
Entropy-second law-dictates that energy is decreasing into unusable states THUS dictating to us the universe had a beginning! And therefore a cause. That cause is God.
The Universe is like a giant watch that was wound up and is now winding down. Unless the 2nd law could be violated, that means, the universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.
For those that deny that the universe had a beginning: How do you go from a high entropy state to a low one? Hmmmmm........ ??!!
Crazy is who thinks that the physical universe can be either eternal or emerged from absolutely nothing. Both propositions are impossible, but atheists have to stick to them nonetheless denying God.
The universe cannot be past eternal. Neither could it be self-caused. Therefore, it must have been caused by God.
The physical universe which operates in an interdependent manner with the laws of physics was with high certainty implemented by an intelligent creator.
God is simple, eternal, and uncaused. The Universe is complex and finite.

Atheism:
Suppressing the truth is evil. Atheists suppress the truth of God's existence. Therefore, atheists do unjustified evil by denying God's existence, and God's wrath is justified.
Atheists apply a double standard. They are hyper skeptical and critical of God claims. But apply blind faith towards anything and any argument, no matter how foolish, that supports their views.
Atheism is a religion of death. Christianity of hope and life. An atheist believes that physical death is the end. Christians believe that the end of this life is a transition to eternal life.
Atheism is a failure in every sense. It gives no hope, no meaning, no moral values, no peace, no security, and the worst of all All evidence points to the fact that there IS a God The one in the Bible
Active atheists have most of their time nothing better to talk about than to argue about faith and religion.
Atheism removes hope, morality, makes your life meaningless, from stardust you came, from stardust you go, and what you did in between will be forgotten in one thousand years. Sad
Materialism a belief as theism. How do you know that natural mechanisms are a better explanation for our existence, than a powerful creator, which uses Intelligence?
The fact that we know that the material world exists, does not automatically mean, that materialism is the default and better explanation than our origins by an intelligent powerful creator.
Strong atheism is a worldview, where God has no place, but everything that exists is the physical universe, nothing beyond. That assertion cannot be proven.
Nobody beats a dead horse. Since God exists, atheists and God deniers try to deny his existence, but without success. The natural world points to God.
Atheists: Ask for evidence of God's existence. And when given, reject the evidence. Ask. Reject. Ask. Reject. Ask. Reject. Ask. Reject. And so on. It's never sufficient evidence.....
How do you know, that we are not an experiment of a kid playing a computer game in a parallel universe? Atheism leads to agnosticism, and in the end, to nihilism, and solipsism. 
Atheism: Chance is almost all powerful, , non-life produces life, and chaos codes and information, matter produces consciousness. How does that make sense?
A causeless Bang and the BigBang began, its expansion rate finely tuned in the order of 1 in 10^123 for the universe not to collapse back. By chance, a multiverse, or design?
Matter, for no reason started to obey physical laws. Luck produced the fine-tuning of over 350 ( CODATA) physical constants, and dozens of paramenters to have life on earth. By chance, or design?
I have never seen an atheist providing good reasons for a Christian to deny and renounce Christ, and becoming an atheist. Atheism has nothing to offer, besides uncertainty about eternity.
Why are active atheists so interested in God and talking about God, if they don't believe that God exists, and proclaim that they are unconvinced in his existence?
Many atheists disguise as open minded, but in reality, their only goal is to try to force their religious materialistic beliefs down the throat of those that are skeptics towards their views.   
Materialism must stand on its own. What caused the universe? The physical laws? It's fine-tuning? The origin of life? Biodiversity? Consciousness? Moral values? 
In the world of atheism, random chance is more powerful than intelligence
Atheists can't ground fundamentally nothing: Existence itself The meaning of life The value of human life Moral values Sound reasoning Logic Intelligibility The mind, Uniformity in nature.
Existence cannot come from non-existence. Aquinas: By definition, a non-contingent effect cannot cause itself. If an effect caused itself, it would need to have existed prior to itself.
There can be no fundamental meaning if there is no God which made us for a specific purpose and if our lives will cease one day to exist. It is just a momentary transition out of oblivion into oblivion
Without God, there can be no intrinsic, sanctity, or inherent value of human life, there can be no measure to distinguish why a cockroach is less valuable than man.  
Atheists presuppose objective moral values exist - like it is wrong to torture, rape, and kill babies for fun. But atheists cannot consistently claim that any moral values exist without ought to be's.
If there is no God, there is no reference point for us to know what is ultimately true and real. It can be anything. Our lives are ultimately absurd. That leads to nihilism. 
In order to understand our existence, we need to presuppose an orderly universe, governed by physical laws.  Atheists have to assume it without having an explanation why it is so.  
Selfishness, unbelief, rebellion, pride, and the love of sins, not the lack of evidence for God's existence are the true reasons for people rejecting God and preferring an autonomous life.  

Bible
Romans 1.19-22: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been
clearly perceived,  ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God
or give thanks to him,  but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Check on YouTube on the Intelligent Design Academy channel: The Kalam leads to the God of the Bible
Either you spend your eternity w/ Christ and enjoy unbelievable wonders and paradise or...the fiery hell. And then judgement by Christ...then the lake of fire for all eternity. Choose wisely.
Christianity: Everything to win, nothing to lose. Atheism: Everything to lose. Nothing to win. 
The God of the Bible reveals us truth, gives hope, meaning, love, forgives sin, makes us new creatures in Christ, gives eternal life, and a moral standard. Atheism provides nothing.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain  For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen.
Unbelievers are without excuse. God's divine power has been clearly seen in the natural world. The universe is finely tuned. So it requires a fine-tuner. Physical laws require a lawgiver.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
When you say to an atheist, how AMAZING Christ is, you humiliate his unbelief.
There are over 350 prophecies in the OT pointing to Jesus as the messiah. There are over 40 extrabiblical sources mentioning Jesus. There is also internal consistency in the scriptures
People have a lifetime to think if God exists. Once they die, it's over. No way back. Make the right choice as long as there is time. There will be a time, where you cannot repent anymore.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
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.
Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
God is Supernatural Uncaused, beginningless, and eternal Changeless Timeless Immaterial Spaceless Personal Enormously Powerful Absolutely independent and self-existent Intelligent Purposeful
Supernatural Acts 17:24-25 uncaused, beginningless, and eternal  1 Timothy 1:17 omnipresent & all-knowing Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24 unchanging Malachi 3:6 immaterial (spirit) John 4:24
Personal John 4:24, Powerful Genesis 17:1 timeless Revelation 1:8 necessary Genesis 1:1 omniscient  Psalm 147:4-5 independent and self-existent Isaiah 46:9 intelligent Jeremiah 32:17
John 3:19: " And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather that light, because their deeds were evil."
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Revelation 21 8 The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the immoral those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
​the resurrection has been scientifically confirmed by the shroud of Turin, the image is physically impossible to have occurred naturally and required 34 thousand billion watts
Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
The Kalaam Cosmological argument leads to the God of the Bible. The OT is a catalog of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
Archaeology shows that all events described in the Bible are historical facts. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, Israel as a nation, microchip implant, etc.
After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.

Biocomplexity
Life is based on irreducible, and specified complexity. Chance can't produce neither one, nor the other.
Eugene V. Koonin, page 351: 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.
​We KNOW by experience that intelligence can make blueprints, machines, computers, factories, energy turbines, transistors, production lines etc
A transistor can be considered an artificial Neuron. Every living cell within us is a hybrid analog–digital supercomputer. The brain is like 100 billion computers working together.
Neurons are computers. Only minds make computers.  Therefore, neurons are made by an intelligent designer.
In the same sense as a watchmaker is required to make a watch, a factory maker is required to make a factory. Cells are factories more complex than any manmade factory.
Machines made for specific purposes originates as a mental concept in the mind. Cells host molecular machines, each with a specific purpose. Therefore, they had to be made by an intelligent designer.
Molecules on prebiotic earth would have devolved into asphalts, rather than complexify into complex molecules and macromolecules used in life. Life is an enigma without explanation.
There was NO prebiotic selection of the basic building blocks of life amongst myriads of possible configurations. THIS ALONE is a checkmate situation for the unguided abiotic origin of life hypotheses
Is the origin of the following better explained by chance, or design? blueprints, machines, computers, energy turbines, robotic production lines, factories, transistors, energy production plants?

Consciousness:
The idea that matter, somehow, by evolutionary processes, can become conscious, is absurd to the extreme. Once the truth is rejected, people believe any nonsense.
Albert Einstein: “How can it be that mathematics, being, after all, a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"
Decision-making based on logic is either a) something performed directly by intelligence, or b) programmed by intelligence to be performed by machines, like computers.
Cells process a multitude of input signals to make decisions and operate based on logic gates. Therefore, cell information processing based on logic gates was implemented by intelligence.
Minds are composed of intentional states. Intentional states are normative states that create the possibilities of failure. Good or bad are not natural states. Therefore, the mind is not natural.  
Matter cannot produce logic intelligence  language consciousness imagination thinking thoughts feelings emotions because they are in substance different than matter
Minds are categorically different than matter. Matter cannot produce minds.
Minds exist which have and use objective logic. Objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic. That mind is God.
Existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, charge can’t explain consciousness, which itself is something fundamental, and essentially different than physical things.
Hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves into abstract ideas. The mind cannot be an emergent property of the brain.
To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics.
All electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties. The mind is to the brain what a pianist is to a piano.
If our biological features, and more importantly our cognitive machinery evolved from some random forces of nature can we trust our brain and our thinking?
The mere fact that we can imagine things have memories ( which are not stored in the brain), is evidence of God.  
Living in a universe without god reduces the mind to mere electric discharges in the tissue of the brain Molecules in motion so to speak. Molecules act exclusively in a lawful causeandeffect- relation
The claim that electric impulses in our brain generate thoughts is in contradiction with the laws of physics that consider equivalent all-electric impulses inside or outside our brain
According to the laws of physics, electrons are all equal and indistinguishable, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits.
Paul Davies: From Matter to Life: Our phenomenal experiences are the only aspect of consciousness that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to known physical principles.
Paul Davies: I have come to the point of view that mind-conscious awareness of the world is not a meaningless and accidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality.
This is the “hard problem of consciousness.” Consciousness is an irreducible, fundamental property of mind, with its own laws and principles.
MICHAEL EGNOR, “SCIENCE AND THE SOUL” AT THE PLOUGH The brain can be cut in half, but the intellect and will cannot. The intellect and will are metaphysically simple.
MICHAEL EGNOR It’s sobering to note that neuroscience has utterly failed to explain how the brain and mind relate. It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe
Consciousness englobes the mind, "qualia", intellectual activity, calculating, thinking, forming abstract ideas, imagination, introspection, cognition, memories, 
Awareness, experiencing, intentions, free volition, free creation, invention, generation of  information. It classifies, recognizes and judges behavior, good and evil.
Hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves into abstract ideas.  
To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics
Quantum physics establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties. The mind is to the brain what a pianist is to a piano. 
The former (the pianist) is not reducible to the latter (the piano).
Those are all fundamental discrete indivisible non-quantifiable qualities of substance, which has a different identity from hard physical objects, matter and space. 
Perception, understanding, and evaluation of things adds a quality beyond and absent from natural physical matter and states, and can, therefore, not be reduced to known physical principles.
The mind cannot be an emergent property of the brain. Existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, charge can’t explain consciousness, which itself is something fundamental
They are essentially different than physical things. Therefore, dualism is true, and since the universe had a beginning, the mind precedes and exists beyond the universe. That mind is God.

Common ancestry:
The DNA replication machinery is not homologous in the 3 domains of life. The bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea.
Bacteria and Archaea differ strikingly in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. Cell membrane phospholipids are synthesized by different, unrelated enzymes in bacteria and archaea.
Sequences of glycolytic enzymes differ between Archaea and Bacteria/Eukaryotes. There is no evidence of a common ancestor for the four glycolytic kinases or of the seven enzymes that bind nucleotides
There are at least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways. If common ancestry were true, an ancestral Wood–Ljungdahl pathway should have become life's only principle for biomass production.
There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes, which do not.
A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon, and functions under different physical principles
Pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT), in large part mediated by viruses and plasmids, that shapes the genomes of archaea and bacteria and call for a radical revision of the Tree of Life concept
RNA Polymerase differences: Prokaryotes only contain three different promoter elements: -10, -35 promoters, and upstream elements.  Eukaryotes contain many different promoter elements
Ribosome and ribosome biogenesis differences: The recruitment of individual proteins to this pathway has been largely independent in the bacterial and eukaryotic lineages.

Evolution: 
The most extensive genetics study ever completed the Journal of Human Evolution May, 2018, revealed NO genetic evidence for Evolution.
Instructional complex information encoded in 33 genetic, and 41 epigenetic codes, and signaling networks on a structural level in an integrated interlocked fashion explain organismal architecture.
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution MAY 28, 2018
And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler.
They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin
No currently existing language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Changes must be syntactically lawful ones
The origin of the vertebrate skeleton 16 August 2010 No coherent causative model of morphogenesis has ever been presented.
September 7, 2010, The vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption. A theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.
Foundational Concepts: Evolution “Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today.”
We have a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of genome rearrangements and evolution over the evolutionary timescales being considered when we compare lineages from across the animal kingdom.
20 December 2016 Irrespective of the content of the individual critiques, the sheer volume and persistence of the discontent must be telling us something important about evolutionary biology.
Broadly speaking, the ( evolutionary ) field is seriously deficient, but it shows a peculiar conservatism and failure to embrace ideas that are new, true, and very important
07 November 2017 "...a great deal of evidence from several sources strongly suggests that the overall effects of mutations are to REDUCE FITNESS."
...THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUTATIONS ARE DELETERIOUS. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS, SUPPORTED BY BOTH MOLECULAR AND QUANTITATIVE-GENETIC DATA."
Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612191
Arber: The deeper we penetrate in the studies of genetic exchange the more we discover mechanisms" involved in human genetics that falsify the mutation plus natural selection core of macroevolution.
Margulis:  Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit.
Margulis: No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.
Margulis: The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum.
Margulis: I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
There are a variety of organisms, unrelated to each other, which encounter nearly identical convergent biological systems. This commonness makes little sense in light of evolutionary theory.
Is God's preprogrammed capacity of animals to adapt and speciate not amazing? Without this, life would not be possible. Adaptation is life essential
Phylogenetics is his main argument and yet seems to lack knowledge on orphan genes, ervs, mtDNA and Y chromosome genetic variation
When atheists claim that man and ape had a common ancestor, they claim that their intelligence evolved from non-intelligence. In that case, how can they be certain about any of their claims and thoughts?
Evolution is an argument for atheists to deny God. There is not one real piece of evidence for common ancestry and the tree of life
Natural selection is the greatest enemy of evolution. If a fish has fully operational Finns why would natural selection select mutations giving rise to nonfunctional legs until they would become functional ?
Mutation and natural selection provide one of the explanations of micro-evolution within a species, but it's not a good explanation of the origins of life and of the change in species.
People do not believe in evolution because of science. They believe it because of the religion of naturalism
Adaptation/micro-evolution can optimize, but it cannot invent. In order to have a new biological feature, design is necessary
The incomprehensible precision upon which the universe is fine-tuned to permit life is devastating evidence against naturalism
Hox genes provide positional information to the emerging embryonic axial tissues, thereby instructing them how to undergo appropriate morphogenesis. How could hox genes be due to evolution?
Hox genes are activated in a timed sequence, through time-controlled transcriptional activation (the Hox clock). It synchronizes Hox gene expression. How could this synchronization be due to evolution? 
Hox genes depend on the correct implementation of the Hox clock. This is an all-or-nothing business. How could it be due to evolution?
Evolution is better described as adaptation, and is ubiquitous in nature, and preprogrammed. Organismal form however depends on entirely different mechanisms and is NOT due to evolutionary mechanisms
Gene duplication alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.
Postduplication mechanisms tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fall short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality.

Fine-tuning
Fine-tuning of the Laws of physics, the Big Bang, cosmological constants,  the fundamental forces of the universe, subatomic particles, the Milky Way Galaxy, the earth, the moon requires a fine-tuner.
The expansion rate of the universe: 1 part in 10^55, Initial entropy:  1 part in 10^ (10^123), Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34, Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^123 The mass density of the universe:  1 part in 10^59 The chance to get a universe with stars is 10^229 gravity just right for life to exist is 1 out of 10^21
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.
Without fine-tuning, there would be no BB and no universe AT ALL.
Paul Davies, How bio-friendly is the universe? “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned for life.
The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history. Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe. The likelihood to have the right expansion rate at the Big bang is one to 10^123
The Laws of physics,  the Big Bang, the fundamental forces of the universe, subatomic particles, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Solar System, the sun, the earth, the moon are finely tuned. Why?
Codata lists about 360 different fine-tune constants, which have to be just right in order to have a life-permitting universe. Google: Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018
The mass of a proton is nearly 1836 times the mass of the electron. If this ratio changed by only a small amount, there would be no building blocks of life. How comes? A lucky accident?
If the mass of the down quark was increased 3 times, we would have a hydrogen-only universe. Here, no neutron is safe. Even inside nuclei, neutrons decay. Kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye
Increase the mass by 3 times, and you construct a universe with nothing but hydrogen. Increase the mass of an electron by a factor of 2.5, and we’re in the neutron universe again.
The standard model of physics contains 26 constants. Changing most even a small amount can result in changes to chemistry, nuclear physics, and space itself that would cause life to be impossible.
Small changes in any of the physical constants produce a dramatically different universe and one that is not hospitable to life of any imaginable type.
Over one hundred requirements constrain the selection of the universal constants to a remarkable degree.
The likelihood of a life-permitting universe based on natural unguided events is less than 10^136. This is a vanishingly small number, which makes design a far more plausible explanation. 
The fine-tuning of the universe for life shows that, according to the best physical theories we have, natural unguided causes would overwhelmingly lead to a non-life permitting universe.
The likelihood of a life-permitting universe based on natural unguided causes is less than 10^136. This is a vanishingly small number, which makes theism far more plausible.

First cause arguments
Arthur Eddington English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician stated: The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural

​A eternal universe is not possible. A universe from nothing is not possible. Eliminiative inductions lead to an eternal God which instantiated the physical universe
How does the existence of the universe make sense to you without a Creator? It cannot be eternal, nor come from absolutely nothing. These are your only two alternatives to God.
According to Hawking, Einstein, Rees, Vilenkin, Penzius, Jastrow, Krauss and 100’s of other physicists, finite nature (time/space/matter) had a beginning.
Google: "Death of the eternal cosmos" From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning
Being cannot come from non-being. Since we are, being has always been. Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe. That being is God.
There can be no infinite regress. Everything has to start with an uncreated creator which is eternal, without a beginning, and without an end. Something cannot come from nothing.
The chain of sustained beings cannot regress infinitely. Therefore, the chain of sustained beings must terminate in an independent being that is not itself sustained.
If we are starting to count from now. Whenever we stop counting and look back, there is always a finite number that was counted. That's why the universe is not infinite but had a beginning. 
The Kalam Cosmological Argument leads logically and deductively to the God of the Bible. Only the Bible amongst all religious books describes a transcendent eternal God correctly.
The Second Law points to 1) a beginning when, for the first time, the Universe was in a state where all energy was available for use; and 2) an end in the future when no more energy will be available 
Dawkins The fact that life evolved out of nothing, 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice
Cosmogony accepts finitism in the form of the BB, rather than Steady State th. which allows for a universe that existed an infinite amount of time, but on physical rather than philosophical grounds.
Google: Death of the eternal cosmos From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning
Vilenkin and  Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).
Planck time is the smallest unit of time, and cannot divide further. Therefore, time is a discrete entity. That means Zeno's paradox does not refute the claim that an infinite regress is impossible.  
Time and energy were created at the BB. Therefore, energy cannot be created or destroyed after the BB created it.  
Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose proved in the 1960s, is that time cannot extend back indefinitely. As you play cosmic history backward in time, the galaxies all come together to a single point
Being cannot come from non-being. that has not to be proven. It is true by the mere meaning of what absolutely nothing means. It means absence of anything.
God must be causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang. With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation.
The cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang.
Existence cannot come from non-existence. Reality cannot come from Non-reality. Something cannot come from Nothing. The law of cause and effect is the most universal law of all laws known.
There must be a boundary. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life
Mithani, and  Vilenkin: Did the universe have a beginning?: At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.
Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
This finding means that the observable universe contains only a finite amount of information, so information processing (and life) cannot endure forever  Lawrence M. Krauss
NASA:  The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe.
Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being finite but unbounded
Borde, Guth, andVilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
We do not need to understand how God created the universe, in order to conclude that a creator is the best explanation amongst the possible explanations.
We don't know how exactly a mind might act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm, hand, and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the PC.
I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciousness can interact with the physical world and cause change.
But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe? The theory of intelligent design proposes an intelligent mental cause as the origin of the world.
Herbert Spencer: In regards to the origin of the universe, three hypotheses are possible: self-existence (atheism), self-creation (pantheism), or creation by an external agency (theism).
If the past is infinitely old, then getting from the past to the present would be like trying to climb to the surface of the earth from a hole infinitely deep—from a bottomless pit.
God is Supernatural,  Uncaused, Omnipresent & all-knowing, Changeless, Timeless, Immaterial, Spaceless, Personal, Necessary, self-existent, Purposeful since he created all these things.


The necessary first cause of the universe must transcend the physical universe (since a cause is necessarily separate from its effects) and must be personal 
(since only a personal agent can act discretely to initiate a new line of causation without its action being caused by a prior set of necessary and sufficient material conditions

Fossil record:
A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory.
Raup David: As every paleontologist knows, most new species, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear suddenly, not led up to by gradual transitional sequences.
In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level,

Free will
If God removes evil, he removes free will, and removes the possibility to love Either God avoids all evil altogether, and removes free will, or he permits that free will is possible, and permits evil

Human evolution:
If there were 3,5mio years since the split of humans with apes, then there would be on average 60 mutations per generation, but the add of 200 th. neurons in the brain. How did evolution handle this?
The size of the brain of a chimp is 1/3 of that of humans. That would require the addition of about  67billion neurons in the time period of 3,5 Mio years.
We have found with high probabilty Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat.

Information is fundamental
DECODING REALITY VLATKO VEDRALO:  Our reality is ultimately made up of information. Information (and not matter or energy) is the building block on which everything is constructed.
The grand dispute of worldviews is between mind-first (theism) and matter-first (atheism).If matter came first, chance is more powerful than the mind. How does that make sense?
Werner Heisenberg “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato.
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas that can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
Of course, we all know that our own reality depends on the structure of our consciousness; we can objectify no more than a small part of our world.
But even when we try to probe into the subjective realm, we cannot ignore the central order…
In the final analysis, the central order, or 'the one' as it used to be called and with which we commune in the language of religion, must win out.
Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as "the Vacuum" or "The Zero-Point Field."
Martin Rees: In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it.
Wherever there’s information processing, there’s consciousness. Complex information processing, like in a human, complex consciousness.
Werner Heisenberg “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
Sir James Jeans Mind no longer appears as an intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as a creator and governor of the realm of matter.
Decoding reality: Information is a far more fundamental quantity in the Universe than matter or energy. We look at reality in terms of ‘bits of information’,
Planck: As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
A single, simple, infinite mind (though the logic of even its existence may be perplexing to us) seems an altogether more plausible candidate for something that exists of necessity.
The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental.
Sir James Hopwood Jeans: Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity,
that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality
Sir James Hopwood Jeans:  The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter;
we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as a creator and governor of the realm of matter
These concepts reduce the whole universe to a world of light, potential or existent, so that the whole story of its creation can be told with perfect accuracy and completeness in the six words:
‘God said, Let there be light’.
Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions (1988), p. 18: What philosophical conclusions should we draw from the abstract style of the superstring theory?
We might conclude, as Sir James Jeans concluded long ago, that the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a Pure Mathematician,
and that if we work hard enough at mathematics we shall be able to read his mind.
Physicists of small things and microcosmic states, see matter and energy vanishing, virtual particles popping in and out of apparently 'nothing' and the indeterminacy of any material state. Some are beginning to see that information, that exists but has zero mass and carries zero energy, and therefore not material at all, is primary over both matter and energy and may even give rise to them.

What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality.

Neil Turok: it turns out to describe the universe you need just one number. That number describes the universe — fewer numbers than you need to describe a single atom.
So the universe turns out to be the simplest thing we know."

Laws of physics
Johannes Kepler The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.
Laws and require a lawgiver. And interdependent systems a creator. Therefore, nature, the laws of nature, and their interdependence require a creator.
Jeans, J. : It is true, in a sense somewhat different from that intended by Galileo, that ‘Nature’s great book is written in mathematical language.’
The theory of relativity, the theory of quanta and the wave-mechanics are fundamentally mathematical. Therefore, the set up had to come from a mathematician - God.
Not through blind chance, but through mathematical design, the material universe has arisen. Mathematical design always comes from the mind of an intelligent person.
Sir Fred Hoyle: electrons, protons and neutrons. These are not particles in the everyday sense of the word, but mathematical particles, entities whose properties can be calculated with precision
We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our individual minds which we describe as mathematical. - Jeans, J.
Sir James Jeans: We can also see why energy, the fundamental entity of the universe, had again to be treated as a mathematical abstraction - the constant of integration of a differential equation.
The real origin of our universe, of its matter and energy, of its atoms, particles, and waves, is highest mathematics, is thinking
It takes at least the mind of a human being, trained as a physicist and mathematician, to understand the high mathematics, contained in physics. An ape or an "ordinary" person cannot do that.
Man has only found the physical laws. He has not made them. They have been there already long before him. Why are there laws of physics at all, if a mind did not create them?
The universe operates based on the laws of physics. They are mathematical rules, imposed on the matter. There is no reason it to be so unless a mathematician instantiated them.
If the universe were not orderly, and based on mathematical laws, it would be pure chaos, and not intelligible. ​No universe at all could/would exist.
​Can the laws of physics change ? Yes or no? If they can change, they are a fix. They are set up.
The laws were imprinted on the universe at the moment of creation, i.e. at the big bang, and have since remained fixed in both space and time.
​If laws can be different, it means they are set up. Laws of physics vary throughout the universe, a new study suggests September 9, 2010
Tweak the charge on an electron, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless.

Morality:
If there is no God, moral values are subjective. If that is so, why should someone behave in a socially acceptable range ? Jeffrey Dahmer
If there is no God, based on what objective moral standard can you say that slavery is wrong?
If you do not believe in God and claim that the God of the Old Testament condoned Slavery: Based on what moral standard is slavery wrong?
If a godless moral standard is to seek wellbeing: A unconscious woman can be raped by 50 men. She will not know what happened. Those men will improve their wellbeing. Is therefore rape ok?
Since we have our moral values imprinted in our conscience, we obviously know how to distinguish good from evil.  This standard emanates from God's nature.
If there is no God, then we are ultimately not accountable for anything. From stardust we came to stardust we return, and what we did in between, nobody will remember.  
If objective moral values exist, then God exists. 2. Objective moral values exist. 3. Therefore, God exists.
If there is no God, then morals are a human convention, based on consensus in society. If that is so, nobody can criticize Nazi Germany. Their morals were equally valid. Just different. 
If there is no God, then morals are a human convention. If that is so, nobody can criticize Papua tribes. Their morals are to eat, rather than love their neighbors. Who are u to criticize them?  
If there is no God, there are no objective moral values, since they are prescribed ought to be's. The human convention does not confer objective binding morality, since there are different conventions 
If there is no God, then moral values are just a matter of personal opinion, and as such, no objectively or universally valid at all. Then unbelievers have no standard to judge any moral behavior. 
To criticize God, atheists borrow from the theistic worldview, and as such, their criticism is self-contradicting and invalid. And IF they criticize God's choices, that would not refute his existence.
It's always wrong to torture and kill little babies for fun. Therefore, objective moral standards exist. If objective moral standards exist, God exists. Since they exist, God exists.
If there is no God, there can be no objective moral values, since they can only exist when they are grounded in ought to be's coming from a being above humans.  
Where do you get a standard of right or wrong from? In your worldview, how do you justify what is good or evil without being arbitrary? Why is there good or evil to begin with?
If there is a sense of Evil in our minds, there must be a standard from which we get that sense. The standard has to be from outside of the human experience to be objective.
Without God, there is nor can be no evil. There's neither good. The universe does not care about us, nor our doings, nor what we should do, or lack doing.
Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, or crime as evil
In a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say that you are right and I am wrong.
Our recognition of the moral culpability of the driver (rather than the car) is an admission that materialism (physicalism) fails to explain who we are as humans.
Human Beings Are NOT Simply Physical Systems Our recognition of moral responsibility and our efforts to hold each other accountable are irrational and unwarranted if humans are merely physical systems
​If we, as humans, are only physical systems , we ought to stop trying to hold each other accountable for misbehavior. In fact, there can be no misbehavior if we are only physical brains and bodies
How is it that blind, non-thinking processes manage to produce creatures that apprehend and respond to abstract moral principles? Could a non-thinking moral realm have possibly seen humanity coming?
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.
It would still be more reasonable to defend the Biblical worldview because it shapes humanity to the better. In contrast, without a creator, there can be no enforcing agency of moral good
The only manifestation of atheism in state power is totalitarianism. For two centuries every atheist philosophy that has risen to power has brought hell to earth among the people under its boot.
Atheist 'secular humanism' has one salient characteristic-- it never survives the rise of atheism.

It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man's morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart "there is no God" goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion.
Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI, 1937

Multiverse: 
Like the proverbial bump in the carpet, the popular multiverse models merely shift the problem elsewhere – up a level from universe to multiverse”
Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate.
If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe and if materialism is right, then one is forced to accept the Many Worlds view However bizarre the consequences

Postulating God--a supermind--as the explanation of the fine-tuning is a natural extrapolation from what we already observe minds to do.

Many physicists, such as Albert Einstein, have observed that the basic laws of physics exhibit an extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity.

Noah's flood:
This Flood left many evidences, from the fact that over 70% of the rocks on continents were laid down by water and contain fossils, to the widespread flood legends.
The evidence of the flood is everywhere  There are sea fossils on the highest mountains of every continent. Even the top 1/3 of Mount Everest is all loaded with sea fossils.
The remains of whales have been found in the deserts of nearly every continent. Bones of sharks have been found in Kansas and other "plains states."
The rock strata of the world being found in layers with fossils in a general progression, though with some mixing, is very consistent with a global flood.
Flavius Josephus penned this paragraph: Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus the Chaldean.
It is said, there is still some part of this ship in Armenia; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs."

Pascals Wager
If a Christian is wrong, nothing to lose. If an atheist is wrong, and the Christian God is real, he loses eternity and goes to hell. There is PLENTY of evidence why Christ is God.

Philosophy:
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. If natural mechanisms do not explain the origin of life, a designer does.
Intelligent design constitutes the best explanation of origins based on the fact that competing causal hypotheses will not demonstrate the power to produce information, machines, and factories.
The fathers of science: Copernicus, Kepler, Ray, Linnaeus, Curvier, Agassiz, Boyle, Newton, Kelvin, Faraday, Rutherford all believed that nature reflects the work of a designing mind
Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the floor, so the existence of a non-physical non-created creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe.
The natural world came about either by natural means or by an eternal creator. These are mutually exclusive, absence of evidence for one is evidence of the other.
Christianity means: Loving God, being loved by God, and loving people. It means having meaning in life and hope of eternal life.
Logic cannot be based on our subjective minds, a non-static universe, or immaterial abstractions outside of a mind. Objective logic depends from a preexisting necessary first mind with objective logic
Since there is being, being has always been. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer, Laws require a lawmaker. Creating mathematics requires a mathematician. 
Rational skeptics do good to doubt that the natural world is all there is. How can we exist without a creator? I have never seen a rational answer ever given. 
There is no compelling explanation of how we can exist without a necessary eternal creator.
Life without God is not only meaningless. It's the utmost boring.
Incredulity is reposing in confidence to our finite minds, that it is warranted to reject the infinite than to admit that the infinite is beyond the comprehension of our limited minds.
The in-comprehensiveness of ultimate reality does not justify rejecting it based on our wisdom, and finite perception.
Namecalling is the lowest form of discourse, the last refuge of those who cannot disprove an opposing point of view. The Internet is dominated by crude, the self-righteous, and the shrill.
Little science takes you away from God, but more of it leads you to God.
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Materialism is false, therefore, theism is true.
God is supernatural uncaused, beginningless, and eternal  omnipresent & all-knowing  unchanging  immaterial (spirit) personal  enormously Powerful timeless necessary
God is omniscient ( All-knowing ) absolutely independent and self-existent extraordinarily intelligent  all-understanding God is purposeful
God is Supernatural in nature, Uncaused, beginningless, and eternal, Omnipresent & all-knowing, Changeless, Timeless, Immaterial, Spaceless, Personal
God is Enormously Powerful,  Necessary,  Absolutely independent and self-existent,  Infinite and singular, Diverse yet has unity, Intelligent, Purposeful
If not God then chance is ultimate. The all encompassing powerful mechanism that brought all up. Spacetime, matter, energy, life.
Claiming that there is no evidence of Gods existence is just a personal opinion. It does not say anything about reality, or a factual metaphysical situation.
There is no evidence God was NOT needed to create the world. The beginning of the universe needs a cause. So the physical laws, and its fine-tuning, and so the origin of life.
Atheists must be able to explain how chance has more creative power than intelligence, able to instantiate systems, more complex and sophisticated than ANYTHING ever invented by man.
Francis Bacon: Superficial knowledge of philosophy inclines one to atheism while more knowledge of philosophy inclines one toward religion.
To be ultimate and singular means to be the source of all possibilities. How can you establish what is possible and impossible without referencing God?
We all ask: What must I do about God? Embrace him and believe, or hide and deny him. If there is no God I can do what I want. The mind will follow the heart. We believe what we want to believe
Complex machines derive from the activity of intelligent agents, the much more complex machinery evident in living organisms must also have originated from a designing mind. 
The astonishing complexity and superb adaptation of means to ends in systems seen in nature cannot originate strictly through the blind forces of nature.
A code requires a code inventor. Engineering, an engineer. A machine requires a machine-maker. A factory, a factory-maker. Design, a designer. Cells host all these things.
What is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else comes? If not “acts of mind” or “the plan of creation.”, what is it?
When an atheist says that he is not convinced that God exists, he has not adopted a neutral position. He affirms positively to be convinced to be an accident, coming from slime.
The denial of believing in God entails automatically, even if just implicitly, that we are a random accident in a random accidental cosmos, which happened to occur and to exist just randomly
We can know God exists by the effects. The information in DNA and life , we reason from an effect back to the cause. God does not make himself so obvious that we cannot go our own ways.

Planet formation:
Planets in chaos:  02 July 2014 The discovery of thousands of star systems wildly different from our own has demolished ideas about how planets form. Astronomers are searching for a whole new theory.

Challenges in planet formation 31 OCT 2016:
The origin of planets is a vast, complex, and still quite mysterious subject. . Despite decades of space exploration, ground-based observations, and detailed analyses of meteorites and cometary grains (the only space samples available in our laboratories), it is still not clear how the planets of the solar system formed.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016JE005088

Proofs of Gods existence
Gods eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. His existence does not have to be proven.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
God's existence cannot be proven, in as much as the claim cannot be proven, that the physical world is all there is.
Nobody has proof of whether there is a God or only the physical world. The right question is: How can we best explain our existence?
God's existence cannot be proven. In my view, the combo abduction, and eliminative induction is a good epistemological framework.
When you ask for proofs of God's existence, you show that you don't have a sound epistemological framework. God's existence cannot be proven. Materialism can't be proven either. 

Omnipotence
God has the power to do all things that power is capable of doing. Power can’t make an illogical statement logical; it can’t create, for example, a square circle.

Signs of intelligence
Something has always existed. Intelligence and consciousness comes only from consciousness and intelligence. Therefore, consciousness and intelligence has always existed.
The universe is governed by dependable,  prescriptive immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws. Laws require a lawmaker
Cells are interlocked irreducible factories where a myriad of proteins work together to self-sustain and perpetuate life. We only know of intelligence making such things.
Something purposefully and intentionally developed and made to accomplish a specific goal(s). That includes specifically the generation and making of building blocks, energy, and information.
Repeating a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules.
Only ID makes instructional complex blueprints to make objects ( machines, factories, houses, cars, etc.) that are irreducibly complex, integrated, and interdependent systems
In living cells, information is encoded through at least 30 genetic, and almost 30 epigenetic codes that form various sets of rules and languages.
We do not need to test that only intelligence makes machines and factories. We know that chance cannot do it. Cells are factories full of machines, driven by genetic information
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.
Pelagibacter ubique is one the smallest self-replicating free-living cells, has a genome size of 1,3 million base pairs which codes for about 1,300 proteins. It could never emerge by chance.
Science has unraveled, that cells, strikingly, are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories. Such things could not emerge by a lucky accident.

Slavery:
Atheists bitch constantly against slavery in the Bible. We, Christians, aren't. Do they care in as much about slavery ocurring right now, like sex slavery, child slavery etc?
Have YOU EVER done something to prevent it today ? There are organizations operating to prevent sex slavery.  You could donate to them...

Took me seconds to google and find an organization. How much are you willing to donate against?
https://www.childwelfare.gov/organizations/?CWIGFunctionsaction=rols:main.dspList&rolType=Custom&RS_ID=57

You think you are superior to God ? Are you all-knowing ? Do you think you as limi



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Jul 09, 2021 6:32 pm; edited 197 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Atheism has no moral standard and cannot say a SINGLE thing against God since, in their mind, He does not even exist, so it is speaking about which molecules determine what is right and what is wrong.
No atheist has any business ever speaking about morals, since there can be no objective moral values in the atheistic worldview. All is reduced to social convention, which boils down to opinion.

Special pleading
If logic does not account for justifiable special pleading then such logic is clearly flawed. Of course, an Infinite Creator Who created everything would involve a justifiable special pleading.
Such a Creator would not be like the rest of us. It is as simple as seeing the difference between an Infinite Being (notice I didn't say "existence") and billions of "finite beings."
It is as easy as seeing the difference between "those who have a beginning" who are finite versus an "Infinite Creator" Who has no beginning and alone possesses the attribute of Aseity.
Its not special pleading to say God is eternal since this is exactly what the atheist has traditionally said about the universe: It is eternal and uncaused.

Star formation: 
What came first, the supernova or the star? Science claims that stars form due to the force of the supernova compressing gas so that gravity then takes over, but SUPERNOVAs were once stars.
It takes the death of one star to create another. So how did the first star form?
There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.
Various:
Science CRUSHES stellar evolution; chemical evolution; et al. Science gets in the way of the materialist's worldview of miracles. Biological complexity requires preprogrammed information.
Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a code-maker. Codified information comes always from the mind. Life only comes from life. Logic comes from logic, Consciousness comes only from consciousness, 
Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver. Where was somebody saying something about God of the gaps??
The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Fine-tuning requires a fine tuner. Life cannot come from nonlife. Morality requires a moral giver. Codes require a Code maker.
I just can't understand how people can believe that the universe, life, consciousness, and moral values do not require a creator. How can someone not be convinced based on the overwhelming evidence?
The genetic program instructs how to make new structures, but that program must be precisely programmed, and the genetic regulatory circuits need also to be programmed.
That is, two separate programs need to emerge: 1. the program which defines the physical form and structure, and 2. the program which instructs where to find the genetic
information in the genome, and when to express is during development, that is in the right sequence. Those are different layers of information, which must exist fully developed
in order to make the new anatomical parts in question.

Origin of eukaryotic cells
The divide between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the biggest known evolutionary discontinuity. The origin of the eukaryotic cells; suffice it to say that the picture seems more obscure than 20 y ago.

Dozens of reasons why the Origin of Life problem cannot be solved by natural means

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3026-evidence-of-god-in-short-sentences#8406

Life is Reproduction Metabolism Homeostasis Nutrition Complexity Organization Growth and development Information content Hardware/software entanglement. Permanence and change

The supporters of abiogenesis have powerful imagination, but their imagination and observable reality in fact cannot not be more discordant.
Chance is a possible explanation for the origin of life, but it doesn’t follow that it is necessarily the best explanation.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution
Abiogenesis and primary speciation transition zones leading to macroevolution are both debunked hypotheses. Eliminitavie inductions are one path to substantiate ID.
The generation of energy, a specific set of building blocks, and information to make machines, and factories requires intelligence. Life needs all three of them at once to start.

Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis only sustains itself through pseudo-science and taking advantage of the fact that most people do not have an adequate education to evaluate the claims made by various camps.
A single protein to be expressed in the cell needs a huge number of molecules to interact with one another in exactly the right way, at the right time, and in exactly the right order.
Many unbridgeable hurdles reveal barriers or discontinuities between life and nonlife, as well as between different life-forms on Earth, a problem that cannot be solved unless God is inferred.
No factory has ever built itself, replicated itself, programmed itself, or been able to produce its energy on its own. A cell is not only similar to a factory but IS a factory by all means.
Life comes only from life. All cells come only from preexisting cells,” observed by Rudolf Virchow still holds today. If that is so, why do people not adopt this view as a default position?
Finding sand does not permit concluding that microprocessors (computer chips based upon silicon) can assemble spontaneously. So do also a handful of amino acids not spark life.
In his 2014 book, Undeniable, Bill Nye applies “the spark of life” to dismiss complexity: “The origin of life just requires some raw material that could allow the spark of life to emerge”. LOL
There is a giant leap between the synthesis of the basic building blocks of life and the formation of life. The layers of cellular complexity are unimaginable even among the simplest cells.
Jeremy England: “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant”. That's just a plain stupid assertion.
Carl Sagan: The origin of life must be a highly probable affair; as soon as conditions permit, up it pops! LOL. A perfect example of pseudo-scientific nonsense discordant to observation.
The fantastic complexity of all known life-forms stands in stark contrast to what our schools are teaching, what some scientists believe and claim, and what popular media suggests.
The full scope of abiogenesis requires exclusively abiotic materials and processes for every step—many orders of magnitude more difficult than any abiogenesis researcher could imagine.
Starting from chemistry (raw natural building materials and simple reactions) and ending with biology (a living cell) requires solving thousands of major problems, without a solution so far.
Origin of life researchers and peer-reviewed science papers frequently make powerful proclamations of support for abiogenesis in the absence of any justifiable evidence.
The level of confidence of science in specifying what abiogenesis must accomplish is quite high, while the level of confidence in any proposed mechanism of abiogenesis is low to nonexistent.
For all known lifeforms, a fundamental set of building blocks is necessary ( amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleotides and phospholipids. Prebiotic synthesis of all of them has failed.
Thousands of scientific papers have attempted to address prebiotic synthesis, each eager to claim an important contribution and disinterested in discussing limitations. None have succeeded.
Most abiogenesis studies start with purified reactants from laboratory supply companies. In contrast, in nature, pure and concentrated reactants are highly unnatural but racemic and impure.
In abiogenesis experiments, the sparse chemical products that are used in life are emphasized while the predominant chemical products that are not associated with life are downplayed.
We have some evidence that at least some amino acids can be produced naturally in trace amounts, along with a large majority of interfering, unwanted products.
Life requires: 1. avoiding degradation 2. separating the components, filtering out the undesired ones 3. concentrating the building blocks (only the desired building blocks) in one location.
All the reactions designed to synthesize the building blocks produce complex mixtures of a variety of molecules, “intractable mixtures” or asphalts, which contain mostly unwanted materials.
Building blocks drifting about randomly in an ocean, a lake, or a pond would not achieve sufficient concentration to interact, except by way of evaporation or freezing.

Amino-acids:
Out of at least 27  problems of prebiotic amino acid synthesis, 13 are directly related to the lack of a mechanism to select the right ingredients.
How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right 20 amino acids used in life amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups, so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced/selected and concentrated only left-handed amino acids? ( The homochirality problem )
How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced and concentrated/selected only left-handed amino acids? (The homochirality problem)
How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
How did nature "know" that the set of amino acids selected appears to be near ideal and optimal?

Astronomy
An Old-looking Galaxy in a Young Universe
One of the most distant galaxies ever observed has provided astronomers with the first detection of dust in such a remote star-forming system and tantalising evidence for the rapid evolution of galaxies after the Big Bang

DNA
How would the primitive Earth have generated and maintained organic molecules? All that can be said is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations. 
How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? 
They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.
How did the Synthesis of the nitrogenic nucleobases in prebiotic environments occur?
How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
How did mechanisms without external direction foresee that this specific atomic arrangement would convey one of, if not the best possible genetic system to store information?
How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
How were high-energy precursors to produce purines and pyrimidines produced in a sufficiently concentrated form and joined to the assembly site?
How could the adenine-uracil interaction function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup" considering that its interaction is weak and nonspecific?
How could sufficient uracil nucleobases accumulate in prebiotic environments in sufficient quantities, if it has a half-life of only 12 years at 100◦C ?
How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
How would the functional ribose molecules have been separated from the non-functional sugars?
How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
How could random events have brought all the 3 parts together and bonded them in the right position ( probably over one million nucleotides would have been required ?)
How could prebiotic reactions have produced functional nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution)
How could prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base have occurred if they are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsically unstable?
How was phosphate, the third element, concentrated at reasonable concentrations?. (The concentrations in the oceans or lakes would have been very low)
How would prebiotic mechanisms phosphorylate the nucleosides at the correct site (the 5' position) if, in laboratory experiments, the 2' and 3' positions were also phosphorylated?
How was the energy supply accomplished to make RNA? In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA.
How could  RNA have formed, if it requires water to make them, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place?
How would the primitive earth have produced high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines  in a sufficiently concentrated form? (for example at least 0.01 M HCN). 
How would the bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made? - and the solutions had to be sufficiently concentrated. 
How did formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M build up? 
How did accumulated formaldehyde oligomerise to sugars? 
How did the sugars separate and resolve, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose? 
How did bases and sugars  come together?  
How could phosphate have been activated? — for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate — so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible? 
How could the physical and chemical environment have been at all times suitable — for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations? 

Water is life-essential. But water discourages the polymerization of nucleotides to make DNA or RNA, and amino acids to make proteins; and water naturally degrades DNA, RNA, and proteins.
The “paradox of water,”: water is both essential to life, but RNA, DNA, and proteins are corroded by water. The hydrolytic deamination of DNA and RNA nucleobases is rapid and irreversible
Biopolymers are too long to have arisen spontaneously from the amounts of building blocks that might plausibly (again by theory) have escaped asphaltic devolution in water.
Catalytic biopolymers must be able to catalyze reactions, while genetic biopolymers should not be able to catalyze reactions and, in particular, reactions that destroy the genetic biopolymer.
RNA molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to arise in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences than RNA molecules that catalyze the replication of RNA
In the formation of DNA, the bonds for Watson-Crick base-pairing are essential to maintain the double-helix structure. However, in the presence of water, these bonds do not form.
In life, amino acids and nucleotides require ATP to be linked. ATP is made by transferring electrons from carbon (food) sources to oxygen. That process was not existing prebiotically.
Cells use complex molecular machines to repair or replace biopolymers. Evidently, these were not around prebiotically to eventually fix spontaneously emerged polypeptide chains.  
Natural processes inherently degrade components of life. Living organisms actively work to prevent or correct degradative natural processes. Those processes were not extant on the prebiotic earth.
Making DNA with perfect homo-linkage of the length of a genome (like 1,3 million nucleotides in the simplest known free-living organism’s genome) is impossible w/o molecular machines.
The great difficulty in making polypeptides, even with high-purity homochiral reagents and highly constrained reaction conditions, provides a sobering perspective on making useful proteins.
All empirical evidence tells us that homolinkage of DNA, RNA, and proteins can only be achieved via the highly specific and catalytic activity of enzymes and ribozymes
Reproduction of DNA is a very complex process; even the simplest prokaryotes require the coordination of at least fourteen enzymes (including twenty-five polypeptides) to reproduce DNA
DNA repair mechanisms could not have evolved without the protection of DNA repair mechanisms. And ordinary DNA could not have evolved before DNA repair genes evolved.
Graham Cairns-Smith: a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.
It takes Ribornucleotide reductase enzymes to make DNA. But it takes DNA to make RNR enzymes. Catch22 mutch ?

Devolution:
Steve Benner: Systems, left to themselves, DEVOLVE to give uselessly “asphalts”. There are exactly  ZERO CONFIRMED OBSERVATIONS where evolution emerged from a devolving chemical system.
Steve Benner: It is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living”.

Engineering
Engineering principles such as integral control and robustness were found to be implemented in diverse biological systems. Nature has so far proved to be a superior inventor and innovator over us. 
Biological complexity can be understood in terms of engineering principles. Biological systems can teach us about engineering (and physics and mathematics)
The more we begin to understand biological systems, the more we begin to see engineering principles of abstraction, modularity, redundancy, self-diagnosis, and hierarchy. 
By viewing seemingly random biological design ‘‘decisions’’ through an engineering lens, we have found powerful patterns, intricate mechanical mechanisms, and evolved modularity.
Biology is transforming engineering, as evidenced by the new discipline of Biologically Inspired Engineering, which seeks to leverage biological principles to develop new engineering innovations
Natural designs are simple, functional, and remarkably elegant. Biology is a great source for innovative design inspiration. 
By examining the structure, function, growth, origin, and distribution of living entities, biology contributes a whole different set of tools and ideas that a design engineer wouldn't otherwise have. 
Biology has greatly influenced engineering. The intriguing and awesome achievements of the natural world have inspired engineering breakthroughs that many take for granted.
One cannot simply dismiss engineering breakthroughs utilizing biological organisms or phenomena as chance occurrences.
Governing mechanobiological principles that have been uncovered permits the development of new engineering innovations. 
The level of control that organisms exercise over the materials properties of structural inorganic biomaterials is unparalleled in modern engineering. 
Even more tantalizing is the organisms’ ability to form multifunctional materials that are optimized to perform structural, optical, mechanical and other functions 
These properties originate from a sophisticated structural design achieved by the interplay between inorganic minerals and organic biological macromolecules.  4
Often nature’s solutions to engineering problems are so different from our conventional ways of thinking that the most fruitful way to investigate them is not immediately obvious.
Natural systems frequently exploit intricate multiscale and multiphasic structures to achieve functionalities beyond those of man-made systems. 
Natural biological systems are constrained by a limited number of chemical building blocks, yet through practical material organization and mechanics, fulfil the functional needs of diverse organisms 
by methods that often exceed what is currently achievable using man-made approaches.  Many natural systems and materials have solutions that result in a number of improved properties simultaneously 

Genetic code
E.Koonin “None of the three major theories on the nature and evolution of the genetic code is unequivocally supported by the currently available data…We cannot escape considerable skepticism.”
No information can exist without a code. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics
No information can exist just through statistical processes. No information can exist without a transmitter. No information chain can exist without a mental origin. 
No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. No information can exist without a will.
A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4^999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20^333 possibilities.
Bergeron:  saying that triplet codon sequences come about by spontaneous chemical reactions is false, as they have only been shown to come about through the processes which already exist in the cell.
To say that the genetic code came about because of the chemical properties of these particular molecules is also false and shows a basic lack of an understanding of chemistry. 
You cannot attribute the functional language of the genetic code to chemistry and more then you could attribute the properties of ink and paper to the meaningful sentences on a page
Ventner : All living cells that we know of on this planet are DNA software-driven machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions
Selection pressure cannot select nucleotides at the digital programming level where primary structures form. Genomes predetermine the phenotypes which natural selection only secondarily favors.
Contentions that offer nothing more than long periods of time offer no mechanism of explanation for the derivation of genetic programming.
No new information is provided by such tautologies. The argument simply says it happened. As such, it is nothing more than blind belief. Science must provide rational theoretical mechanisms,
The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable).
The genetic code originated at the time when life first appeared on Earth. And, it must have been deliberately programmed. Natural selection could not have stumbled upon it by accident. 
​The set of one codon being consistent of 3 nucleotides , being assigned to a specific set of 20 amino acids, must be set or specified. Chance can't do that. We have never observed it to happen
The genetic codons are assigned to amino acids. Why should or would molecules promote designate, dictate, ascribe, correspond, correlate, specify anything at all ? How does that make sense?
The assignment of meaning is always tracked back to intelligent input. The genetic code assigns codons to amino acids. Chance does not do this.
​The Ribosome translates the meaning of codons to amino acids. The making of translation is always tracked back to an intelligent agent.


Factory: the cell is a factory
Everything we know tells us that machines, production lines, computers, energy generating turbines, are structures of intelligent design. Accidents do not design machines. Intellect does.
Cells are factories full of molecular machines. Factories full of machines are always the product of a mind. Therefore, cells were created by God.
Cells are factories. Factories do not evolve but are the product of design. Therefore, Cells are not the product of evolution, but design.
Cells are factories in a literal sense, full of machines, production lines, computers, energy turbines, metabolic circuits, error check and repair systems etc.
The Molecular Fabric of Cells BIOTOL, B.C. CurrellThe central theme of both of these texts is to consider cells as biological factories. Cells are, indeed, outstanding factories.
The future of biologically inspired next‐generation factories for chemicals online 2017 Aug 14 Biomanufacturing processes may be performed using cell factories.
Science matters, Robert M.Hazen: Pg.239 Cells act as chemical factories, taking in materials from the environment, processing them, and producing “finished goods”

Hydrothermal vents:
Dr. Stanley L. Miller: What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds? I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them.
In water, the assembly of nucleosides from component sugars and nucleobases, and the assembly of oligonucleotides from nucleotides are all thermodynamically uphill in water.
Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored at any plausible concentrations
Water tends to break chains of amino acids. If any proteins had formed in the ocean 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated
Strong bioenergetic and structural arguments, suggests that the idea that life originated at vents should, like the vents themselves, remain ‘In the deep bosom of the ocean buried’.

Homochirality
DNA could exist in a very wide variety of possible chiral configurations, but all life uses only the right configuration. There was no mechanism prebiotically to sort out the right one.
If only one amino acid is replaced by its chiral counterpart the formed protein will not fulfill its tasks properly because of destabilization effects induced by the distorted structure.
Cell membranes are homochiral in all of life. The glycerol molecule of every phospholipid is exclusively left-handed in bacteria and eukaryotes. But in archaea exclusively right-handed
Cairns-Smith: the ‘abiotic way of circumventing this problem (by prevital resolution of enantiomers) seems hopelessly inadequate, and biotic mechanisms depend on efficient machinery already in action
How L-chiral proteins emerged is unknown. The lack of understanding of the origins of the breaking of demi-chirality found in the molecules of life on Earth is a long-standing problem
The origin of homochirality in L-amino acid in proteins is one of the mysteries of the origin of life. A non-enzymatic aminoacylation reaction has no preference for L-amino-acids over R-amino-acids.  
How homochirality concerning biopolymers (DNA/RNA/proteins) could have originally occurred ( which tended to be chirality-symmetric) is a long-standing scientific puzzle.
Cairns-Smith: It has proved particularly difficult to see any realistic way in which any of the constituents of a 'probiotic soup' would have had predominantly 'left-handed' or right-handed' molecules
Today, amino acids and sugars exist in only one enantiomeric form in most biological systems on earth. This homochirality remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries to scientists.
Left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template.
One of the greatest challenges is to understand the origin of the homochirality of life: why are most essential building blocks present in only one handedness, such as L-amino acids and D-sugars?
Explanation of the homochirality of amino acids in the biosphere is one of the most important mysteries in the origin of life
Today, amino acids and sugars exist in only one enantiomeric form in most biological systems on earth. This homochirality remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries to scientists.
The problem of spontaneously producing a simple homochiral compound, say, l-alanine, from racemic reaction systems has not been solved .
In all living systems, homochirality is produced and maintained by enzymes, which are themselves composed of homochiral amino acids that were specified through homochiral DNA
and produced via homochiral mRNA, homochiral rRNA, and homochiral tRNA. No one has ever found a plausible abiotic explanation for how life could have become exclusively homochiral.

Information comes always from a mind
Mayr:  all manifestations of development and life are controlled by genetic programs, noting that nothing comparable to it exists in the inanimate world, except for manmade computers
The origin of assembly information, directing the fabrication of machines and factories based on these instructions,  are both always the result of intelligent setup.
In the same sense as a watchmaker is required to make a watch, a factory maker is required to make a factory. Cells are factories more complex than any manmade factory.
Machines made for specific purposes originate as a mental concept in the mind. Cells host molecular machines, each with a specific purpose. Therefore, they had to be made by an intelligent designer.
DNA stores the “know-how” for building molecular machines (proteins) in the cell. That comes undoubtedly from intelligence.
DNA stores a precise message. It is clear communication. It directs the cell’s processes. How could it come to be by chance alone?
The hypothesis that instructional information comes only from intelligence has NEVER been falsified
Semiotic functional information is not a tangible entity, and as such, it is beyond the reach of, and cannot be created by any undirected physical process.
Conceptual semiotic information is simply beyond the sphere of influence of any undirected physical process.
To suggest that a physical process can create semiotic code is like suggesting that a rainbow can write poetry... it is never going to happen!
Life is no accident, the vast quantity of semiotic information in life provides powerful positive evidence that we have been designed.
Koonin: 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: The “origins problem” cannot be solved.
Robert Shapiro: The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.
The chance to find a message written on a cloud in the sky: "Jesus loves you" randomly,  is as DNA creating its own software, and upon it, writing a complex algorithm to make a protein by accident.
Give me an example where instructional information, and upon it, machines and factories emerged by random, non-intelligent mechanisms. Just one. Cells store all this.
The genetic code is to the genetic information on a strand of DNA as the Morse code is to a specific message received by a telegraph operator
DNA base sequencing cannot be explained by chance any more than the information in a newspaper headline can be explained by reference to the chemical properties of ink.
The difference between a cloud and a message created from steam by a skywriter is the same as nucleotides and information-rich genes generated through them.
The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.
Biological cells are programmed to be experts at taking inputs, running them through a complicated series of logic gates through circuit-like operations and producing the desired programmed output.
The true mechanisms to explain organismal form and architecture is prescribed complex instructional information stored in the genome, and epigenetic codes, and signaling pathways
The odds to have a minimal genome of 1,3mio nucleotides to have the smallest free-living lifeform is one to 10^722000. That is in the realm of the impossible. Eliminative inductions lead to God.
Instructional information, using symbols and coding systems are abstract representations and non-physical, and always originate from thought—from conscious or intelligent activity. 
DNA  informs the necessary amino acid sequence to make proteins. It does so using instructional, prescribed information. The sequence must be specified and correct. Chance can't do that.
The genetic code and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms, stored in DNA, were most likely created by an intelligent agency.
Codes always have code-makers. Therefore, the genetic code had most probably a code-maker: God.
The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.

Irreducible complexity
Transcription of DNA requires a promoter region, a terminal signal, and the transcription machinery that recognizes the promoter and terminator signal. Without all three are present, no deal.
Translation needs mRNA with an initiation site, translation machinery, and termination site in mRNA. If one is missing, the genetic information cannot be translated into functional proteins.
Code has no value without decoding mechanisms and vice versa. Both appropriate coding and decoding are critical for making a self-replicating cell, and they must arrive simultaneously.
Compatibility between code and the decoding machinery is essential for life, yet code and decoding machinery are typically incompatible between different forms of life.
An essential gene codes for a function that the cell cannot live without. Any missing, or even a simple mutation in an essential gene that interferes with its function, will result in cell death.
The dnaA gene is essential for prokaryote reproduction. A deleted base pair results in a frameshift and a completely dysfunctional gene, thus ensuring that the cell cannot reproduce.
If a dnaA gene turns a cell non-reproducible, what about the at least 600 genes which contain each information to make life-essential proteins, where, if one is missing, no life is possible?
Each essential gene, and each essential protein is indispensable for life to start. A cell cannot exist until all its essential parts are not only available but fully set up and interlocked to start life.
Information-storage molecules like DNA provide no progress toward life unless proteins decode the information into an action and reproduce the DNA.
This requires simultaneous arrival of the information, the decoding process, and the machinery to replicate the information.
No glycine amino acids, no pyrimidines, no DNA - no life.No Watson Crick base pair fine-tuning, no DNA - no life. No topoisomerase II or helicase proteins, no DNA replication - no life perpetuation.
No peripheral stalk, a subunit in ATP synthase nano turbines, no energy supply through ATP for biological cells, no advanced life. Irreducible complexity is a fact.
A minimal amount of instructional complex information is required for a gene to produce useful proteins. A minimal size of a protein is necessary for it to be functional. 
Before a region of DNA contains the requisite information to make useful proteins, natural selection would not select for a positive trait and play no role in guiding its evolution. 
Irreducible complexity is obvious and clear. Subparts like a piston in a car engine are only designed when there is a goal where they will be mounted with specific fitting sizes and correct materials 

Life on other planets
This log log prior can handle a very wide range of PETI values, from 1 to 10^122 while remaining responsive to evidence about extraterrestrial societies. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05931.pdf
The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10^140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros)
Dawkins: It's not obvious that there have to be other living creatures around but if we are unique then what that means is that there's something very special about the origin of life on this planet 
Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All  A new tally proposes that roughly 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets are likely to exist across the observable universe
most vastly different from Earth.that means that either we are the result of a very improbable lottery draw or we don’t understand how the lottery works.” 
None of the 700 quintillion possible planets look like Earth

Membranes:
Determining how the first phospholipids to start life could have formed via prebiotic synthesis is quite a challenge because bacteria and archaea have very different phospholipids.
The membrane requires embedded proteins to achieve its semipermeable functionality, but the embedded proteins require the semipermeable membrane to produce the ATP that fuels their function.
Inserting a protein into the membrane requires proteins that are already in the membrane. And these are inserted by another translocon. How could the first SecYEG translocon have formed?
Membranes and membrane proteins are interdependent. Life could not have emerged without both of them. M.genitalium, has about 140 different proteins integrated into its membrane.
There is no evidence that proto-membranes could meet the requirements for starting life or could complexify over time to successively approximate the complex membranes we observe today.
Cells only come from cells. Membranes only come from membranes. It takes ATP to make proteins. But it takes proteins to make ATP. It takes proteins to make DNA. But it takes DNA to make proteins.

Metabolism: 
Abiogenesis requires chemiosmotic coupling. This requires a membrane, a mechanism for pumping protons across the membrane, and a mechanism for producing or “recharging” ATP.
These 3 parts are highly complex in all of life and are interdependent to provide energy for life. The pumping of protons is of no use unless the membrane is there to maintain a gradient of protons.
A membrane has no function to make energy unless there is a mechanism for pumping protons across it. Similarly, ATP production is not possible without a proton gradient across a membrane.
Biological systems are the result of the expression of genetic and epigenetic information which guides the assembly and operation of cells. Such information has always intelligent origin.
Molecules on prebiotic earth would have devolved into asphalts, rather than complexify into complex molecules and macromolecules used in life. Life is an enigma without explanation.
There was NO prebiotic selection of the basic building blocks of life amongst myriads of possible configurations. THIS ALONE is a checkmate situation for the unguided abiotic origin of life hypotheses
Is the origin of the following better explained by chance, or design? blueprints, machines, computers, energy turbines, robotic production lines, factories, transistors, energy production plants?

Natural selection: 
Koonin:  The emergence of the first replicator system was inevitably preceded by a succession of complex, difficult steps for which biological evolutionary mechanisms were not accessible
RNA /DNA includes a nucleobase, ribose, and phosphate. The right combination of these 3 molecules is a nucleotide. No prebiotic mechanism is known of how to bond the 3 correctly.
A single phosphate group, a ribose, and a nucleobase can combine in hundreds of different ways to make RNA. Life would require millions of nucleotides, all bound in the same correct way.
Ribose exists in 5  forms in water. Adenine could bond to any one of the four hydroxyl groups of ribose, and phosphate could bond with any of the 3 remaining hydroxyl groups.
Adenine has a choice of three NH locations for bonding to ribose. Thus, we have 5 X 4 X 3 X 3 = 180 possible arrangements of an adenine nucleotide, but only 1 is observed in all of life.
Given a “soup” of nucleotides where only 1 out of 180 has the canonical arrangement, the probability of linking a chain to make an RNA of any reasonable length is effectively zero.
Life requires a specific set of phospholipids,  20 amino acids, and 5 nucleobases, yet thousands of other possible configurations would be produced by the same prebiotic conditions.
Knowing that the vast majority of abiotically produced molecules are undesirable and expecting constructive interactions between only the rare desired molecules contradicts reality.
The formose reaction supposedly explains the prebiotic formation of ribose, but ribose is a minor product of this reaction. Ribose would be a small part of a highly complex mix of sugars.
Ribose would have been only a small component of a highly complex mix of sugars resulting from the condensation of formaldehyde in a prebiotic world.
Ribose is more reactive and degrades more rapidly compared with most other monosaccharides. That alone puts in question the feasibility of the RNA world hypothesis.
Out of dozens of problems of prebiotic RNA synthesis, 8 are directly related to the lack of a mechanism to select the right ingredients.

Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seems better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.
How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA  which were grossly impure? They would have been present in mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules
How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures 

Probability arguments
The simplest known free-living life-forms have approximately 600 essential genes and just one single-base deletion in one of the essential genes will result in cell death.
Even the inclusion of all planets in the known universe and all time since the Big Bang is insufficient to overcome the odds of abiogenesis
Rather than accept the small chance of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seems better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act
A cake needs a recipe, the right ingredients, and energy (oven). Cells require a recipe (DNA information), the right building blocks, and ATP. Making all those things, requires always intelligence.
Gerald F. Joyce: A ribozyme made of 160 subunits concatenated by chance has 10^24 possible compositions. This is a highly implausible event. There are 10^22 stars in the whole universe.
A typical estimate of the size of sequence space is 20^100 (approx. 10^130) for a protein of 100 amino acids in which any of the normally occurring 20 amino acids can be found.
The simplest freeliving bacteria is Pelagibacter ubique It has around 1350000 base pairs The chance to get the sequence randomly is 10^722000 There are 10^22 stars in the whole universe
Suppose that a  polymer  (like RNA) that is assembled into four chains of 40 subunits (quaternary heteropolymer) . Then there would be 10^24 possible compositions.
The number of all possible 50-residues peptides that can be synthesized with the standard 20 amino acids is 20^50, namely 10^65.
It is infinitely more likely that life was created by a creator, rather that it emerged spontaneously from a prebiotic soup by random chemical reactions. 
Hoyle: I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even one enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe.
There is a problem namely the emergence of specific sequences among a vast array of possible ones, the huge sequence space leading to the question why these macromolecules and not the others?
One of the main open questions in the field of the origin of life is the biogenesis of proteins and nucleic acids as ordered sequences of monomeric residues, possibly in many identical copies.
Attempts to obtain copolymers, for instance by a random polymerization of monomer mixtures, yield a difficult to characterize mixture of all different products.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no clear approach to the question of the prebiotic synthesis of macromolecules with an ordered sequence of residues.
The number of all possible combinations of the building blocks (20 amino acids, 4 nucleotides) forming copolymers of even moderate length is ‘astronomically’ high
There would be vanishingly small concentrations of even the smallest organic compounds in the oceans. The reactions to synthesize such compounds are much more effective in decomposition.
All the major biopolymers are metastable in aqueous solution in relation to their (deactivated) monomers. Left to itself in water, a polypeptide will hydrolyze to its constituent amino acids.
Doug Axe 2004: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 1^64  signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain.
The prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77.  Functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
Evolution and Functional Information March 05, 2017. The fantastic rarity of functional proteins computed by this approach emboldens some to argue that evolution is impossible.

Possible mechanism of abiogenesis
The Origin of the First Hereditary Replicators.  By itself, this transition is not an evolutionary one because, without hereditary replicators, no Darwinian evolution is possible.
Scientists suspect that the complex life on Earth emerged from a random shuffling of non-living matter that ultimately spit out the building blocks of life.
A. G. CAIRNS: How the molecules of life came together to make the first reproducing evolving being, I say: 'With time. The oceans would have been a nutritious soup. Chance could do the rest.
Anthony D. Keefe & Jack W. Szostak Functional primordial proteins presumably originated from random sequences
LIFE The Science of Biology, TENTH EDITION: Biologists postulate that complex biological molecules first arose through the random physical association of chemicals in that environment.
Koonin:  Evolution by natural selection and drift can begin only after replication with sufficient fidelity is established. Translation is thought to have evolved later via an ad hoc selective 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.
Ann N Y Acad  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.
Dobzhansky, T.G: I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words `natural selection' loosely. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms

RNA self-replication, and catch22 situations:
RNA replication experiments require a supply of pure homochiral nucleotides, and a supply of Qβ replicase, an enzyme that is actually responsible for combining the nucleotides into RNA molecules.
An abiotic origin for Qβ replicase is absurd because it consists of a combination of four protein subunits and more than 1,200 amino acids in a specific sequence—an enzyme of great complexity
Decades of research have failed to provide a scenario for abiotic arrival of self-replicating molecules. In living organisms, no molecule can reproduce itself without involving proteins.
Finding randomly an enzyme with 153 amino acids that performs a similar function as β-lactamase is on the order of one in 10^77 similar to the chance of finding one specific atom in the universe.
The hypothesis that RNA molecules accumulated information toward a first living organism is a dead end because life, as we know it today, is based upon entirely different information.
Replication of DNA requires a minimum of 30 proteins in eukaryotes. The proteins that reproduce DNA are encoded in DNA that they are used to reproduce. Catch22 much?
DNA cannot be replicated without proteins, these proteins cannot be made w/o DNA, and evolution cannot occur without replication. That's another example of irreducible complexity. 
The production of RNA polymerase from the DNA that codes for RNA polymerase require the action of RNA polymerase. What came first? 
DNA that codes for RNA polymerase cannot be reproduced without the replication proteins, but the replication proteins can only be produced from DNA with the help of RNA polymerase. Catch22
The components of a ribosome are encoded in DNA, and production of a ribosome itself requires translation of four dozen proteins, which can only happen via—you guessed it—a ribosome.
The DNA that codes for ribosomes cannot be reproduced without the replication proteins, but the replication proteins can only be produced from DNA via ribosomes.
Because DNA, RNA, and proteins are interdependent, they must all have appeared simultaneously to contribute to a living organism.

The Ribosome
A 3D printer and the data that is sent to the 3D printer can only come into existence involving intelligence. The Ribosome is a 3D printer, which is fed by data through messenger RNA
The ribosome is the most complicated thing that is present in all organisms. But it is even more complex to make a ribosome, than the ribosome itself. It takes over 200 assembly factors.
The minimum for the ribosome about 53 proteins and 3 polynucleotides. You can't get below that. Therefore, it is irreducibly complex. And had to emerge without evolution.
It takes ribosomes to make ribosomes. That's a catch22 problem.
The Ribosome had to be fully operational when life began. It cannot be explained by evolution. No wonder, does science confess that the history of these polypeptides remains an enigma.
Breaking the evolution of the translation system/ribosome into incremental steps with a biologically plausible selective advantage is extremely difficult within a speculative scheme.
Machines, that make machines, that make machines, that make subunits of more complex machines: By evolution, or design? Shq1 => scaRNAs => snoRNAs => rRNA => Ribosome
A machine that makes a machine. That machine makes the elementary components of a 3DPrinter. All that requires know-how to generate the genesis process of the 3D printer. Which is the Ribosome.
When a Ribosome subunit is made, it goes through a "test drive" process. It is only incorporated in the end assembly if functioning properly. This process is either due to chance, or design.
The is no known alternative natural mechanism known for the emergence of peptide bonds from a mixture of α-amino- and α-hydroxy acids (paralleling the mechanism found in ribosomes)

Re-conceptualizing the origins of life  2017 Dec 28 At most, we are lucky to generate short polypeptides or polynucleotides or simple vesicles—a far cry from the complexity of anything living.
Life's Probability Problem May 25, 2017
Although researchers have made great progress on revealing how complex molecules and complex chemical networks can emerge from simpler starter ingredients, the whole story is still a mystery.
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.

All living organisms require enzymes for growth and for the production andutilization of energy which is essential for life.
https://www.enzymetechnicalassociation.org/enzymes/



Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Jul 08, 2021 8:11 pm; edited 98 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Jokes
I'm a theist. I would be atheist, but I left a space for God.
If I agreed with atheists we'd both be wrong.
What do you get when you mix a Jehovah’s Witness with a Atheist? Someone knocking on your door for no reason.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.
Flat earth and atheism go wonderfully together. Atheism, however, makes less sense
If foolishness were bricks, atheism would be the Great Wall of China!
I heard you went to have your head examined but the doctors found nothing there.
Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths?
What are you going to do for a face when the baboon calls and wants his ass back?
When you die, you should have your brain donated to science. I hear they're trying to come up with the perfect vacuum.
Everyone has a right to be foolish but you guys abuse the privilege
God made rivers, God made lakes, God made you, Hell, everyone makes mistakes.
Roses are red. Violets are blue. I have five fingers; The middle one's for you.
Hold still, I'm trying to imagine you with a personality.
I don't mind that you are replying, as long as you don't mind that I'm not reading your crap.
If I was as ugly as you were, I wouldn't say "Hi" to people. I'd say "BOO!"
If I ever need a brain transplant, I'd choose yours because I'd want a brain that was never used.
You're lucky mirrors don't talk, or laugh for that matter.
How can I leave a jackass like you in suspense? I don't know. I'll tell you tomorrow
I hear you are very kind to animals, so please give that face back to the gorilla.
How does Moses make tea? He brews.
"Get in touch with God by knee mail."
Do you know how to make holy water? You take some regular water and you boil the hell out of it.
Contest in a girl's college: write a short story which contains religion, sex and mystery. Winner's story: "Oh god, I am pregnant, I wonder who did it."
Q: What's the difference between a nun and a woman in a bathtub? A: One has hope in her soul and one has soap in her hole.
A Sunday school teacher asked her children on the way to service, "And why is it necessary to be quiet in church?" One little girl replied, "Because people are sleeping."
Religion is like a penis: it's good to have one and it's good to be proud of it, but the problem starts when you begin flaunting it in atheist youtube channel chats.
Why do Mormon women stop having kids at 29? Because 30 is too many!
Whenever your ex says, "You'll never find someone like me," the answer to that is, "That's the point."
I never forget someone! But in your case I'll make an exception!
How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb? None, they like being in the dark.
ATHEISM: Shit happens, therefore, there is no God.
​Q: What is so ironic about Atheists? A: They're always talking about God.
Q: Why can't atheists solve exponential equations? A: Because they don't believe in higher powers.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
How would the primitive Earth have generated and maintained organic molecules? All that can be said is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations. 
How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? 
They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.
How did the Synthesis of the nitrogenic nucleobases in prebiotic environments occur?
How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
How did mechanisms without external direction foresee that this specific atomic arrangement would convey one of, if not the best possible genetic system to store information?
How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
How were high-energy precursors to produce purines and pyrimidines produced in a sufficiently concentrated form and joined to the assembly site?
How could the adenine-uracil interaction function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup" considering that its interaction is weak and nonspecific?
How could sufficient uracil nucleobases accumulate in prebiotic environments in sufficient quantities, if it has a half-life of only 12 years at 100◦C ?
How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
How would the functional ribose molecules have been separated from the non-functional sugars?
How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
How could random events have brought all the 3 parts together and bonded them in the right position ( probably over one million nucleotides would have been required ?)
How could prebiotic reactions have produced functional nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution)
How could prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base have occurred if they are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsically unstable?
How was phosphate, the third element, concentrated at reasonable concentrations?. (The concentrations in the oceans or lakes would have been very low)
How would prebiotic mechanisms phosphorylate the nucleosides at the correct site (the 5' position) if, in laboratory experiments, the 2' and 3' positions were also phosphorylated?
How was the energy supply accomplished to make RNA? In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA.
How could  RNA have formed, if it requires water to make them, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place?
How would the primitive earth have produced high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines  in a sufficiently concentrated form? (for example at least 0.01 M HCN). 
How would the bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made? - and the solutions had to be sufficiently concentrated. 
How did formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M build up? 
How did accumulated formaldehyde oligomerise to sugars? 
How did the sugars separate and resolve, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose? 
How did bases and sugars  come together?  
How could phosphate have been activated? — for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate — so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible? 
How could the physical and chemical environment have been at all times suitable — for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations? 
How could all reactions have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight? that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals. 
If not already activated — for example as the cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate — how were the nucleotides be activated? (for example with polyphosphate) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed 

DNA is more stable than RNA. uracil (U) is replaced in DNA by thymine (T)
At the C2' position of ribose, an oxygen atom is removed by hypercomplex RNR molecular machines. The thymine-uracil exchange is the major chemical difference between DNA and RNA. Before being incorporated into the chromosomes, this essential modification takes place. The synthesis of thymine requires seven enzymes. De novo biosynthesis of thymine is an intricate and energetically expensive process.
All in all, not considering the metabolic pathways and enzymes required to make the precursors to start RNA and DNA synthesis, at least 26  enzymes are required. How did these enzymes emerge, if DNA is required to make them? 
How did random trial and error foresee that this specific atomic arrangement of the nucleobases is required to get the right strength of the hydrogen bond to join the two DNA strands and form Watson–Crick base-pairing?
How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures ( The homochirality problem )
How could RNA nucleotides have accumulated, if they degrade at warm temperatures in time periods ranging from nineteen days to twelve years? These are extremely short survival rates for the four RNA nucleotide building blocks.
How could phosphate have been activated somehow? In order to promote the energy dispendious nucleotide polymerization reaction, and (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside had to be possible.
How could a transition from prebiotic to biochemical synthesis have occurred? There are a huge gap and enormous transition that would be still ahead to arrive at a fully functional interlocked and interdependent metabolic network.
How would the prebiotic synthesis transition of RNA to the highly regulated cellular metabolic synthesis have occurred? The pyrimidine synthesis pathway requires six regulated steps, seven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
The starting material for purine biosynthesis is Ribose 5-phosphate, a product of the highly complex pentose phosphate pathway, which uses 12 enzymes. De novo purine synthesis pathway requires ten regulated steps, eleven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
How were they induced to react to make nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermo dynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides
How was joining base and sugar achieved correctly ? It had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the a- or fl-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms. For nucleic acids it has to be the fl-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 ‘Z, of the correct structure.)
How could phosphate have been present at sufficient concentrations? (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things
How would only the standard nucleotides, the 5’- hydroxyl of the ribose be phosphorylated? (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with.
How did the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) polymerise?. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate ; but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem.
 
(i) While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U) — they are in fact triple helixes — and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid — mainly to di(A) - stable helical structures were not formed when either poly(A) or poly(G) Were used as templates. 
(ii) It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides — ATP or cyclic 2’,3’-phosphates — were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5'-phosphorimidazolides, for example: N/\ n K/N/P-r’o%OHN/\N were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis. 
(iii) Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2’—5’ and the normal 3’—5’ types. Often the 2’—5’ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn“, as well as acting as an eflicient catalyst for the templatedirected oligomerisation of guanosine 5’-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3’—5’ bonds. 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

5Arguments for Gods existence in in short sentences Empty Em portugues Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:01 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Argumento da probabilidade
Os ateus devem ser capazes de explicar como o acaso tem mais poder criativo do que inteligência capaz de instanciar sistemas mais complexos e sofisticados do que QUALQUER COISA inventada pelo homem.
As formas de vida de vida livre mais simples conhecidas têm aproximadamente 600 genes essenciais e apenas uma deleção de base única em um dos genes essenciais resultará na morte celular.
Mesmo a inclusão de todos os planetas no universo conhecido e desde o Big Bang é insuficiente para superar as probabilidades de abiogênese
Em vez de aceitar a pequena chance de a vida ter surgido por meio das forças cegas da natureza, parece melhor supor que a origem da vida foi um ato intelectual deliberado
Um bolo precisa de uma receita, dos ingredientes certos e de energia (forno). As células requerem uma receita (informações de DNA), os blocos de construção corretos e ATP. Fazer todas essas coisas exige sempre inteligência.
Gerald F. Joyce: Uma ribozima feita de 160 subunidades concatenadas ao acaso tem 10 ^ 24 composições possíveis. Este é um evento altamente implausível. Existem 10 ^ 22 estrelas em todo o universo.
Uma estimativa típica do tamanho do espaço de sequência é 20 ^ 100 (aproximadamente 10 ^ 130) para uma proteína de 100 aminoácidos em que qualquer um dos 20 aminoácidos de ocorrência normal pode ser encontrado.
A bactéria autônoma mais simples é a Pelagibacter ubique. Ela tem cerca de 1200000 pares de bases. A chance de obter a sequência aleatoriamente é de 10 ^ 722000. Existem 10 ^ 22 estrelas em todo o universo
Suponha que um polímero (como o RNA) que é montado em quatro cadeias de 40 subunidades (heteropolímero quaternário). Então, haveria 10 ^ 24 composições possíveis.
O número de todos os possíveis peptídeos de 50 resíduos que podem ser sintetizados com os 20 aminoácidos padrão é 20 ^ 50, ou seja, 10 ^ 65.
É infinitamente mais provável que a vida tenha sido criada por um criador, em vez de emergir espontaneamente de uma sopa pré-biótica por meio de reações químicas aleatórias.
Hoyle: Eu era constantemente atormentado pelo pensamento de que o número de maneiras pelas quais até mesmo uma enzima poderia ser construída erroneamente era maior do que o número de todos os átomos no universo.
Existe um problema a saber, o surgimento de sequências específicas entre uma vasta gama de possíveis, o enorme espaço de sequência levando à questão de por que essas macromoléculas e não as outras?
Uma das principais questões em aberto no campo da origem da vida é a biogênese de proteínas e ácidos nucléicos como sequências ordenadas de resíduos monoméricos, possivelmente em muitas cópias idênticas.
As tentativas de obter copolímeros, por exemplo, por uma polimerização aleatória de misturas de monômeros, resultam em uma mistura difícil de caracterizar de todos os diferentes produtos.
Até onde sabemos, não há uma abordagem clara da questão da síntese pré-biótica de macromoléculas com uma sequência ordenada de resíduos.
O número de todas as combinações possíveis dos blocos de construção (20 aminoácidos, 4 nucleotídeos) formando copolímeros de comprimento até mesmo moderado é "astronomicamente" alto
Haveria concentrações cada vez menores mesmo dos menores compostos orgânicos dos oceanos. As reações para sintetizar tais compostos são muito mais eficazes na decomposição.
Todos os principais biopolímeros são metaestáveis ​​em solução aquosa em relação aos seus monômeros (desativados). Deixado sozinho na água, um polipeptídeo se hidrolisará em seus aminoácidos constituintes.
Doug Ax 2004: A prevalência de função de baixo nível em quatro desses experimentos indica que aproximadamente uma em 1 ^ 64 sequências consistentes com assinatura forma um domínio de trabalho.
A prevalência de sequências que desempenham uma função específica por qualquer dobra de tamanho de domínio pode ser tão baixa quanto 1 em 10 ^ 77. As dobras funcionais requerem sequências altamente extraordinárias.
Evolução e informações funcionais em 05 de março de 2017. A fantástica raridade de proteínas funcionais computadas por esta abordagem encoraja alguns a argumentar que a evolução é impossível.



Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:32 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Explain: The origin of 1.the universe 2. The laws of physics 3. Fine-tuning 4. The origin of life 5. Common ancestry 6. Biodiversity 7. Consciousness 8. Objective moral values.
The very demand to provide evidence of God's existence requires the presupposition of uniformity of nature, a logical mind, and sensory perceptions that we can trust. And all three require God
Naturalism cannot ground 1. Existence itself 2. Uniformity in nature. 3. Logic  4. The value of human life 5. Moral values 6. Sound reasoning  7. Intelligibility 8. consciousness
To be ultimate and singular means to be the source of all possibilities. How can you establish what is possible and impossible without referencing God?
God secures what is possible and impossible, and therefore, is required to provide continuity and stability of the universe. Logic and consciousness can not come from matter.
In a recent YouTube stream, an atheist claimed that the brain is the hardware, and the mind, the software. Then I asked: Can the hardware give rise to the software?
In order to see, we need the eye, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex in the brain. if one is missing no deal. If all three have to be there from the beginning, evolution is not an explanation.

Being cannot come from non-being or non-existence. Nor can there be an infinite series of events in the past. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause: God.  
The meaning of life: There can be no fundamental meaning if there is no God which made us for a specific purpose and if our lives will cease to exist one day. 
The value of human life: Without God, there can be no intrinsic, sanctity, or inherent value of human life, there can be no measure to distinguish why a cockroach is less valuable than man. 
Moral values: Atheists cannot consistently claim that any moral values exist if there is no prescribing higher entity that establishes binding "ought to be's". 
Sound reasoning: If our biological features, and more importantly our cognitive machinery evolved from some evolutionary forces of nature, how can we trust our brain and our thinking?
Logic: Objective logic cannot be based on our subjective minds, a non-static universe, or immaterial abstractions outside of a mind. 
Intelligibility: To be ultimate and singular means to be the source of all possibilities. How can we establish what is possible and impossible without referencing God?
Uniformity in nature: In order to understand our existence, we need to presuppose an orderly universe, governed by physical laws.Atheists have to assume it without having an explanation why it is so.



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Jul 09, 2021 6:20 pm; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
You have a loving heavenly Father who created you to be a part of His family... Our purpose is simple and elegant: To love God, love others, and be loved by Him.

Laws of physics
The laws of physics have been imprinted on the universe at the moment of creation, i.e. at the big bang, and have since remained fixed in both space and time. The universe was born with the values of constants, laid down once and for all, from the outset. These are physical quantities that are both universal in nature and have a constant value in time. The existence of these laws of nature is the starting point of science.
There is the mathematical form of the laws of physics,  causal relationships fundamental to reality, and there are various “constants” that come into the equations. Newton’s inverse square law of gravitation is an example. The mathematical form relates the gravitational force between two bodies to the distance between them. But Newton’s gravitational constant G also comes into the equation: it sets the actual strength of the force.
Why does gravity obey an inverse square law rather than, for example, an inverse cubed law? Why are there two varieties of electric charge (+ and −) instead of four?
The form of the law can be different. The Standard Model of particle physics has twenty-odd undetermined parameters. These are key numbers such as particle masses and force strengths that cannot be predicted by the Standard Model itself but must be measured by experiment and inserted into the theory by hand. Why are these key numbers selected to permit a life-hosting universe?
There is no reason why the measured values of these parameters should/could be explained by a deeper unified theory that goes beyond the Standard Model. They are genuinely free parameters that are not determined by any deeper level laws.  the numbers are not fixed but could take on different values without conflicting with any physical laws. By tradition, physicists refer to these parameters as “constants of nature” because they seem to be the same throughout the observed universe. However, we have no idea why they are constant. Since they can take on different values, then the question arises of what determines the values they possess?
The mass or charge of the electron could be different. The electron mass and charge permit our universe propitiously fit for life.
There could be a strong nuclear force with 12 gluons instead of 8, there could be two flavors of electric charge and two distinct sorts of a photon, there could be additional forces above and beyond the familiar four. So the possibility arises of a domain structure in which the low-energy physics in each domain would be spectacularly different, not just in the “constants” such as masses and force strengths, but in the very mathematical form of the laws themselves.

Paraphrasing Hoyle: Why does it appear that a super-intellect had been “monkeying” with the laws of physics?
Why are the Standard Model parameters intriguingly finely tuned to be life-friendly?
Why does the universe look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings?
Why is the universe “just right” for life, in many intriguing ways?
How can we account for this appearance of judicious design?  
Why does beneath the surface complexity of nature lie a hidden subtext, written in a subtle mathematical code, the cosmic code which contains the rules on which the universe runs?
Why lies beneath the surface hubbub of natural phenomena an abstract order, an order that cannot be seen or heard or felt, but only deduced?
Why are the diverse physical systems making up the cosmos linked, deep down, by a network of coded mathematical relationships?
Why is the physical universe neither arbitrary nor absurd?
Why is not just a meaningless jumble of objects and phenomena haphazardly juxtaposed, but rather, there is a coherent scheme of things?
Why is there order in nature?
This is a profound enigma: Where do the laws of nature come from? Why do they have the form that they do?
And why are we capable of comprehending it?
So far as we can see today, the laws of physics cannot have existed from everlasting to everlasting. They must have come into being at the big bang. The laws must have come into being.
As the great cosmic drama unfolds before us, it begins to look as though there is a “script” – a scheme of things. We are then bound to ask, who or what wrote the script?
If these laws are not the product of divine providence, how can they be explained?
If the universe is absurd, the product of unguided events, why does it so convincingly mimic one that seems to have meaning and purpose?
Did the script somehow, miraculously, write itself?
Why do the laws of nature possess a mathematical basis?
Why should the laws that govern the heavens and on Earth not be the mathematical manifestations of God’s ingenious handiwork?
Why is a transcendent immutable eternal creator with the power to dictate the flow of events not the most case-adequate explanation?
The universe displays an abstract order, conditions that are regulated, it looks like a put-up job, a fix. There is a mathematical subtext, then does it not point to a creator?  
The laws are real things –  abstract relationships between physical entities. They are relationships that really exist. Why is nature shadowed by this mathematical reality?
Why should we attribute and explain the cosmic “coincidences” to chance?
There is no logical reason why nature should have a mathematical subtext in the first place.
In order to “explain” something, in the everyday sense, you have to start somewhere. How can we terminate the chain of explanation, if not with an eternal creator?
To avoid an infinite regress – a bottomless tower of turtles according to the famous metaphor – you have at some point to accept something as “given”, something which other people can acknowledge as true without further justification.
If a cosmic selector is denied, then the equations must be accepted as “given,” and used as the unexplained foundation upon which an account of all physical existence is erected.
Everything we discover about the world ultimately boils down to bits of information. The physical universe was fundamentally based on instructional informational, and matter is a derived phenomenon
What, exactly, determines that-which-exists and separates it from that-which-might-have-existed-but-doesn’t?
From the bottomless pit of possible entities, something plucks out a subset and bestows upon its members the privilege of existing. What “breathes fire into the equations” and makes a life-permitting universe?
Not only do we need to identify a “fire-breathing actualizer” to promote the merely-possible to the actually- existing, we need to think about the origin of the rule itself – the rule that decides what gets fire breathed into it and what does not.  Where did that rule come from?
And why does that rule apply rather than some other rule? In short, how did the right stuff get selected? Are we not back with some version of a Designer/Creator/Selector entity, a necessary being who chooses “the Prescription” and “breathes fire” into it?
Certain stringent conditions must be satisfied in the underlying laws of physics that regulate the universe. That raises the question: Why does our bio-friendly universe look like a fix – or “a put-up job”?  
Stephen Hawking: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Who, or what does the choosing? Who, or what promotes the “merely possible” to the “actually existing”?

What are the chances that a randomly chosen theory of everything would describe a life-permitting universe? Negligible.
If the universe is inherently mathematical, composed of a mathematical structure then does it not require a Cosmic Selector?
What is it then that determines what exists? The physical world contains certain objects – stars, planets, atoms, living organisms, for example. Why do those things exist rather than others?
Why isn’t the universe filled with, say, pulsating green jelly, or interwoven chains, or disembodied thoughts … The possibilities are limited only by our imagination.

Why not stick to the view and favor the mind of a creator seriously as a fundamental and deeply significant feature of the physical universe. ?  A preexisting God who is somehow self-explanatory?
Galileo, Newton and their contemporaries regarded the laws as thoughts in the mind of God, and their elegant mathematical form as a manifestation of God’s rational plan for the universe.
Newton, Galileo, and other early scientists treated their investigations as a religious quest. They thought that by exposing the patterns woven into the processes of nature they truly were glimpsing the mind of God.
“The great book of nature,” Galileo wrote, “can be read-only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics.”
James Jeans: “The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.”

In order to explain our existence, there has to be a starting point. How do you begin the sequence of events? What is at the beginning, if not an eternal conscious creator?
If the past is infinitely old, then getting from the past to the present would be like trying to climb to the surface of the earth from a hole infinitely deep—from a bottomless pit.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
​If you deny God, then you have to be friend with chance. Lucky accidents explaining reality. Explaining information that we can observe being required from fine-tuning the forces of an atom, to life.
Photons are the only elementary particle that has no mass… Life is entirely dependent on the fact that the photon has no mass. It could perfectly have mass. How do you explain that?
If the mass of the down quark was increased 3 times, we would have a hydrogen-only universe. Here, no neutron is safe. Even inside nuclei, neutrons decay. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook bye
The mass of a proton is 1836 times the mass of the electron. It could be different. If this ratio changed by only a small amount, there would be no life. Why is there the right life-permitting ratio?
Chance isn't even a mechanism. One has to stick to no mechanism to explain the information that permeates the universe, to permit a life-permitting universe. How does that make sense?
The weak nuclear force; electromagnetic force; up and down-quarks in order to form the protons and the neutrons; and of course electrons have to mesh like a clock - or even a watch or no life.
No helicase, or no ATP synthase, or no DNA, or no Ribosome, or no topoisomerase, or no RNR enzymes, or no Iron Import channels, or no homochirality, or no set of 20 amino acids, no life
No Pauli Exclusion Principle and more than two electrons would occupy the same 'orbit', and electrons would join together as commuters crowded into a Tokyo subway carriage at rush hour - and no life.
Why is it that the electric charge of the electron is EXACTLY equal and opposite to that of the proton when they otherwise share nothing in common?
Atoms have the right configurations to link together to form molecules. If hydrogen atoms couldn't link up with oxygen atoms there could be no water and no water implies no life. Why is that so?
Why are the forces that hold an atom together just right to permit a life-permitting universe? There is no law that prevents them to have different forces of different values.
From the micro to the macro: The atom, in as much the expansion rate of the universe is finely tuned. So are stars, galaxies, our solar system, the earth, the moon. How comes?
Even the entire timespan of the universe, let's say 13,7 bi years, could not explain the right arrangement of the 37 trillion cells that make you. Evolution is a ridiculous explanation.
Neither time nor evolution, can explain the precise engineering and architecture of organisms and body plans. Intelligent design does.
​If something would occur at an infinite period of time from now, then that event would never actualize, because, no matter, how many years from now, it would always be an infinite period of time ahead
If the chronology of events would be infinite, then we would never arrive at the current moment in time from an eternal past back in time.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Shroud of Turin
Google: The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection
A common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus. The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross.
The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate
The Shroud of Turin is NOT A FORGERY FROM THE 14th century. 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
The attributes of the image its this its superficial penetrates only the top two microfibers is no directionality such as with brushstrokes there's no outline to the image there are no traces of paint
- it's uniform and intensity top to bottom front to back you think you need a piece of technology to do that- there's no paint binder present nothing to bind any pigment to the cloth
- 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 image under the blood now
- there's no capillary action no evidence that any liquids were applied to the image to bring forth or to the image area- 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
The blood strains of a tortured man on the Shroud can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist back then ever put blood there which would not be visible, and providing no advantage at all?
Pollen is on the Shroud that is unique to the area around Jerusalem.  Max Frei, a botanist by training, identified spores from forty-nine plants in samples taken from the Shroud.
In 1982, Dr. Kohlbeck compared dirt from the Shroud to travertine aragonite limestone found in ancient Jewish tombs in Israel. The particles of dirt on the Shroud matched limestone found in the tombs.
The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and goes approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) into the inner side. It's not a painting.
The wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles in the blood of the Shroud is related to patients suffering from strong polytrauma-like torture.
What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male type is AB.  
When a person is cruelly tortured, the blood undergoes hemolysis, when the hemoglobin literally ‘breaks up’. In thirty seconds, the reaction reaches the liver and discharges bilirubin into the veins.
The 1988 radiocarbon dating has been disproven. Google: RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA * 15 February 2019
Google: An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin  Bryan Walsh⁎ , Larry Schwalbe  Accepted 24 September 2019
Some of the original Shroud date measurements reported in 1988 were modified from their original ‘raw’ laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an unstated methodology.
Fanti et al.estimated the age of the fabric to a calendar age of 90 AD +/− 200 yrs (Fanti et al., 2015).
Google: New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ March 13. 2013
Google: Shroud Of Turin Real? New Research Dates Relic To 1st Century, Time Of Jesus Christ Mar 29, 2013
Google: New study on Holy Shroud confirms: “It’s the blood of a tortured man.”
Google: The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection
Multiplying the evidence on the Shroud, and the probabilities, the odds that the man buried in the Shroud is Jesus is 1 chance in 82,944,000
Experts agree that facial features identify the man buried in the Shroud as a Caucasian. Carlton Coon, a leading ethnologist, says he has the physical features of a Jew or Arab.
The man’s hairstyle, characterized by a beard and long hair parted in the middle, further identifies him as a Jew.
In addition, the hair in back is cut in the form of a pigtail, a hairstyle very common in firstcentury Jewish men. It is thus probable that this crucified person was a Jew.
The correlation between the wounds inflicted upon the Jewish man buried in the shroud and the wounds the New Testament reports as having been inflicted upon Jesus is remarkable
Comparison of the gospel accounts with the sufferings and burial of the man in the Shroud points to the strong likelihood that the man is Jesus Christ.

Bart Ehrman: There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world, who teaches classics, ancient history, NT, early Christianity, any related field, who doubts that Jesus existed



Last edited by Otangelo on Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:47 pm; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Islam
The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Turkey)
There is not a single statement contained in the Qur'an relating to modern embryology that was not well known through direct observation by the ancient Greek and Indian physicians
Much of what the Qur'an actually does say about embryology is scientifically inaccurate. The ancient physicians' works were translated into Syriac in the century preceding Muhammed
Far from proving the alleged divine credentials of the Qur'an, its embryological statements actually provide further convincing evidence for its human origins.
Sura 86:6-7 – Origin of semen between Backbone and Ribs “He was created from a fluid (ma’in), ejected, Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.” That's scientifically false.
The Quran teaches that Allah made the earth a bed or a carpet which he spread out and placed on it mountains as pegs to keep it stable. Allah also made the heavens as a roof, a dome to cover the earth
The Quran further presumes that the earth is stationary, remaining in a fixed position, not moving.



Better stay alone than to follow Mohammed. • Muhammad said: Allah hates those who don’t accept Islam. (Qur’an 30:4, 3:32, 22:38) • Jesus said: God loves everyone. (John 3:16)
Muhammad stoned women for adultery. (Sahih Muslim 4206) • Jesus said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (John 8:7)
Muhammad permitted stealing from unbelievers (Bukhan 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764) • Jesus said: Thou shalt not steal (Matthew 19:18)
Muhammad permitted lying (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857) • Jesus said: Thou shalt not bear false witness. (Matthew 19:18)
Muhammad murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241) • Jesus preached forgiveness and forgave those who killed Him. (Luke 23:34)
Muhammad said: If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. (Qur’an 2:194) • Jesus said: If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)  Muhammad said: Jihad in the way of Allah elevates one’s position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645)  Jesus said: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9) •
Muhammad married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Qur’an 33:50) • Jesus was celibate, was never married. •
Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236) • Jesus did not have sex with children. •
Muhammad ordered the murder of women. (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995) • Jesus never harmed a woman, He loved and cared for them. •
Muhammad said: O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness. (Qur’an 3:110) • Jesus said: Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. (Matthew 5:5) • Muhammad ordered 65 military campaigns and raids in his last 10 years. (Ibn Ishaq) • Jesus ordered no military campaigns, nor offered any approval of war or violence. •
Muhammad killed captives taken in battle. (Ibn Ishaq 451) • Jesus never took captives; never killed anyone. •
Muhammad encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawud 2150, Qur’an 4:24) • Jesus never encouraged rape; never enslaved women. •
Muhammad was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764) • Jesus suffered torture, but never tortured anyone. (Isaiah 53) •
Muhammad said: “And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah.” (Qur’an 8:39) • Jesus said: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44) •
Muhammad ordered a slave to build the very pulpit from which he preached Islam. (Bukhari 47:743) • Jesus washed His disciples feet. (John 13:5) •
Muhammad demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship. (Qur’an 4:102) • Jesus chastised anyone attempting to defend Him with force. (John 18:10-12) •
Muhammad advocated crucifying others. (Qur’an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131) • Jesus was crucified Himself, and forgave those who killed Him. (Luke 23:34) •
According to his followers, Muhammad had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413) • Jesus gave His life for others and their sins. (John 18:11 & Isaiah 53)



Last edited by Otangelo on Sat May 29, 2021 7:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
If God as a creative agency is removed, what is left? Nothing. How has nothing causal powers?
Blueprints, and machines and factories made upon that blueprint, have always intelligence as source. Genetic information, and proteins and cells made upon genetic information, come from a mind.

Every "criticism" DD makes about his opponents bounces immediately back in his own face, and he doesn't see that? He is a narcissistic monomaniac and it is extremely deplorable his bad behavior and his slaughtering of reasonable discourse get spread on the Internet. This is the kind of intellectual misfits ideologies like Christianity and the likes bring about.

There's three ways to tell if you got to Darth. First, he gets mad at you whenever you show up, calls you a troll before the conversation starts, and then bans you. Second, he often talks about you dismissively after your interaction, like he does with Shannon Q. They're
Third, this is the most subtle, he changes his argument based on his interaction with you without actually acknowledging you.

Listening to Darth Dawkins has changed my opinion on atheism, I am definitely leaning more towards being the I believe that your god does not exist and less the lack of belief in a god. He asks complex questions constantly and gets upset when you try to break it down, but sometimes it's just people misunderstanding the questions asked.

DD is so full of pride - which is on top of the list of the deadly sins according to his magic book - he will definitely go to hell if he forgets to repent immediately after his interrogations and then die by stroke or accident.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
God is supernatural in nature, (As it exists outside and beyond of the natural physical universe). God is supernatural in nature Acts 17:24-25
Uncaused, beginningless, and eternal. God is uncaused, beginningless, and eternal 1 Timothy 1:17
Omnipresent & all-knowing (It created space and is not limited by it)/ God is omnipresent & all-knowing Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24
Changeless ( Change depends on physical being ) /// God is unchanging Malachi 3:6
Timeless ( Without physical events, there can be no time, and time began with the Big Bang )
Immaterial (Because He transcends space and created matter),// God is immaterial (spirit) John 4:24 Spaceless ( Since it created space)
Personal (The impersonal can’t create personality, and only a personal, free agent can cause a change from a changeless state ) // God is personal John 4:24, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Isaiah 25:1
Enormously Powerful ( Since it brought the entire universe, space-time and matter into existence )// God is enormously Powerful Genesis 17:1
Necessary (As everything else depends on it)// God is timeless Revelation 1:8
Absolutely independent and self-existent ( It does not depend on a higher causal agency to exist otherwise there would be infinite regress which is impossible )
God is Infinite and singular (As you cannot have two infinities), Diverse yet has unity //God is One, yet He exists in three persons Matthew 3:16-17
Intelligent (Supremely, to create everything, in special language, complexity, factories and machines) /// God is extraordinarily intelligent Jeremiah 32:17

We are all familiar with the idea of applying a force, whenever we use our muscles to push or pull anything.

Time plus Space plus random chance events in a closed system cannot produce abstract concepts, meaning, purpose, life, ability to choose between perceived options

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Contingency arguments
You cannot have facts without context. Atheists simply don't know the context of the outer layer. If the last link is not attached somehow, you are not going to hang around. The last link to start the chain is necessary.
1. Contingent (dependent) beings exist. 2. Contingent beings require a necessary, self-existent being in order to exist. 3. Therefore, an eternal, non-created, self-existent being must exist
Dependent beings cannot exist independently Since the universe had a beginning,it is dependent on an external necessary cause Aquinas showed us that the attributes of a true God are logically deduced.
The series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused(necessary) There must exist an uncaused necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being That cause must be uncaused. We call it God.
The physical universe exists Existence cannot come from non-existence Since we exist then being has always been in one form or another. A  being must have existed beyond the universe That being is God
The universe cannot be past eternal. Neither could it be self-caused. Therefore, it must have been caused by something else. That cause must be above and beyond physical reality. We call it God.
An eventevent causation leads to an infinite regress A statestate causation would remain static from eternity. In stateevent causation the mind causes an effect without preexisting physical conditions

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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