Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 1:26am

the existence of life permitting carbon molecules are much better explained through design, than chance, as Holye pointed out :

F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.

From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has "monkeyed" with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature

you have still to show evidence that information can be created through evolution.

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

Information cannot originate through chance plus time , no matter how many chances or how much time is available. There is no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/20-typing.htm

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143). (8)

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 9:35am

you should be able to expose here, why you think i am wrong. No ?

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 10:23am

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the...

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 3:30pm

If you want to figure out, if God is needed or not, you need to start with the universe, and explain, how the over 120 cosmological constants could be just right.

The extreme fine-tuning of the universe

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the...

1) If our universe is random, then it is very unlikely that it permits life.
(2)Our universe permits life.
(3)Therefore,the existence of our universe is very likely due to something other than chance.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking2

In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Fine-tuning begins with the Big Bang.

Explosive power of the creation event precisely matched to power of gravity; density precisely matched with critical density, cosmological constant

If the force of explosion was only slightly higher, the universe would only consist of gas without stars, galaxies, or planets. Without stars, galaxies and planets, life could not exist. The matching had to be to the remarkable precision of one part in 1055. ... Some physicists believe that one explanation can be found in a model of an inflationary epoch at about 10-35 of the first second where a short period of accelerated expansion caused the perfect balance between gravity and the rate of expansion and density and critical density. This could explain the very flat characteristics of the universe given by these precise matchings, but the inflation required in this model would itself require an extraordinary fine tuning to yield the precisely balanced result. If the inflationary model is true, the inflationary epoch would contain enormous fine tuning and the precision of values issue is only removed one step.

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 15, 2010 at 5:45pm

I was pretty tormented... now I look back and wonder how the hell I could've ever believed such nonsense!

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 10:27am

i have no proofs, and neve make claims to present proofs. What i present, are scientific facts, which lead rationally to deduce theism as the best explanation for our existence.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

In the very first cell what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously.

Permalink Reply by Sophie on August 14, 2010 at 11:15am

I think I just fell in love with you Adriana!

Permalink Reply by Reggie on August 14, 2010 at 12:14pm

What took you so long? I've been in love with her for months!

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on August 14, 2010 at 10:25pm

Me too. I wish I was Adriana <3

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 12:05pm

This sentence makes no sense, if you have no "proof" then you're not presenting a scientific fact by definition.

The proof i mentioned does not refere to the scientific facts per se, but about Gods existence, which can only be deduced based on different lines of reasoning. As you can deduce a designer of grand mamas car, you can deduce a designer of the universe based on known scientific facts.

Science requires evidence to support the conclusions, not just induction or deduction in the absence of observations or experimental conclusions.

Go a step further. The scientific conclusions need a explanation.
Why is there something , rather than nothing ?
Why is there life, if naturalism fails to explain our existence ?
Why is there consciousness, ability of thinking and speak, if science cannot explain the phenomena ?
Why do we have a moral conscience ? Science cannot explain it.

You can just stop, and ignore God as explanation, and say : we don't know ( yet ). But is that really true ? Why should there be no designer, if the universe appears designed /?

I also teach genomics at a graduate school, and your musings on nucleic acids or cell biology are completely incorrect and demonstrate a complete lack of even minimal knowledge of the field.

I am humble enough to recognize i am not a expert on the field. What i know, i know from the net. I will be more than happy to learn more through you. If you are a expert of DNA, then you certainly agree on
Francis Crick speech, when he received the Nobel price :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-o...

The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information,"

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.



I might not have the knowledge you have, but as long as you cannot provide a example of a code or language, that occurs naturally, my case stands, and i can continue to believe, DNA is STRONG evidence for a creator, which created DNA.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on August 14, 2010 at 12:11pm

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?
This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on August 13, 2010 at 10:37pm

Let me postulate, for discussion purposes, that your assertions are correct. Clearly you wouldn't choose a religion that bases it's claims on Genesis. You would agree that even using the parallax method we can triangulate stars out 20 million light years. If you don't mind science and numbers, you'll agree that the coral reef at Isle LaMotte is 450 million years old due to the ring counts. The generations in the Bible only take us back 6000 or so years. Adam had Children at 130 years old with a 130 year old Eve. This isn't science, so you'd reject those claims on their face. So what form of theism do you choose?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 18
• Next ›
• Page