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

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes
DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins, enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their complexity and efficiency.
How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a “protein compound … ready to undergo still more complex changes"? Dawkins has to admit:
“Darwin, in his ‘warm little pond’ paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin’s ideas. … But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can’t make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein." (pp. 419–20)

Life is too complex. Therefore it must be supernatural.
That is not a compelling argument, as it leaves out what might happen, naturally, over the course of (let’s say) a BILLION years.

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins, enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their complexity and efficiency. How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a “protein compound … ready to undergo still more complex changes"? Dawkins has to admit: “Darwin, in his ‘warm little pond’ paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin’s ideas. … But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can’t make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein." (pp. 419–20)
So what is YOUR explanation, oh wise one?

design.

design.
This tired argument has used to support religion and gods since the beginning of time ie. What we don't understand can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being. The argument relies on a supreme lack of imagination and complete ignorance of the history of science.
design.
What is the origin of the designer? All you've done is move the goalposts. You have answered nothing and you are using a circular argument.
design.
This tired argument has used to support religion and gods since the beginning of time ie. What we don't understand can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being. The argument relies on a supreme lack of imagination and complete ignorance of the history of science. Is intelligent design and irreducible complexity merely an "argument from ignorance? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance#3320 In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the form: Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E. Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows: Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information. Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information. If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form: Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example. Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form: Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E. Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X. 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
design.
What is the origin of the designer? All you've done is move the goalposts. You have answered nothing and you are using a circular argument. Who or what created God ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348 Scripture reveals a self existing power. That's unfathomable to the finite mind. Nonetheless, there are wonders of a caliber the time and coincidence argument is hard pressed to attempt to contain. http://carm.org/if-everything-needs-creator-then-who-or-what-created-god Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. God is not complex http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1332-god-is-not-complex http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors." A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!" No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.
design.
What is the origin of the designer? All you've done is move the goalposts. You have answered nothing and you are using a circular argument. Who or what created God ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god#1348 Scripture reveals a self existing power. That's unfathomable to the finite mind. Nonetheless, there are wonders of a caliber the time and coincidence argument is hard pressed to attempt to contain. http://carm.org/if-everything-needs-creator-then-who-or-what-created-god Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. God is not complex http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1332-god-is-not-complex http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors." A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!" No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity. If a creator can be eternal, the universe can be eternal. Nothing you have said here is backed up by a scintilla of objective evidence.
If a creator can be eternal, the universe can be eternal. Nothing you have said here is backed up by a scintilla of objective evidence.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2049-you-will-not-live-an-eternity
As we've done our little mind experiment here, our experiment in thinking and reflection on the nature of eternity and how one gets there, we realized that you can't really get to eternity by adding events together, one upon another. Because at every point you still have a finite number, even though it is much larger than it used to be. In other words, time proceeds forward as one event is added to another and that time that proceeds forward is always a finite amount of time. Do you see that? Now if you grasp that, and it's not really as hard as it may seem at first, I am just simply saying that when you count numbers are potentially infinite, but you can never count to infinity because you can't get there by adding one number after another because at any point in your count you are still dealing with a finite number. The same applies to events in time Which means with regards to your eternity, though you will live forever and ever, you will never live for an eternity. Because you cannot accomplish an eternity by adding one event upon another. Now this has very significant applications for the concept of the existence of God. It's really quite simple. Our little experiment took us from the present into the future. We realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past. Correct? In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that. Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal. That it has existed forever. But it is not possible that it has existed forever. Here is the application. This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past. We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is not infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time. Only a finite number of events. Which means the universe is not eternal. Which means the universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning, but it in fact had a beginning.
5 Easy Steps to refute Atheism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-5-easy-steps-to-destroy-atheism#3144 STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN). Surely no one seeking real truth would accept a absolutely nothing hypothesis. A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that AN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved. B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing. C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can. D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0. E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view. F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism) H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!! STEP 2: The universe had a beginning http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf Two cosmologists, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin both from Tufts University in Massachusetts, have stuck their necks out with a mathematical paper that considers the mathematics of eternity. In it, they take a close look at the concept of a universe that has no beginning or end. Currently, there are two main descriptions of the universe's existence that suggest that the universe is eternally old—without a Big Bang. The first is the eternal inflation model, in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. Then, there's the idea of an emergent universe—one which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands into life. Thing is, it turns out that the idea of an eternal universes can only allow certain types of universe expansion to occur—and then they go on to show that the current inflation models that have been suggested have to have a begining. Needles to say, some of the math in their paper is pretty complex—you can read it here, though, if you'd like—but they manage to sum the whole thing up rather neatly: "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past." They also manage to scupper the idea that an emergent model of the universe can't stretch back eternally—but they choose to do that using quantum mechanics. Agains, neatly summing it up, they say: "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse." Basically, they've taken aim at the two current models of the universe that asume it's eternally old, and conclude that "none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal." Which means the universe definitely had a beginning. STEP 3: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must be spaceless and timeless. Infinite regress is impossible. Why ? Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition. The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed. STEP 4: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must also be personal. The truth is that we know the event (the creation of the universe) must have been beyond space and time. The cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].{2} Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; Therefore it cannot be physical or material. There are only two types of things that fit this description. Either abstract objects (like numbers), or some sort of intelligent mind…But we know abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations and are causally impotent. Therefore the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe, must be an unembodied, personal, space-less, immaterial, timeless, intelligent mind. Secondly, only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an non-personal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions. One of the main questions we frequently ask is how could a timeless, non-personal cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? You see, if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect... If the cause were permanently present without beginning, then the effect would be permanently present as well. And finally, since GOD would be the personal uncaused first cause, he is self-directed and self-motivated, and acted volitionally…If the cause were not personal it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action. Preventing it from being the first cause. STEP 5: A supernatural, timeless, immaterial, personal, eternal, uncreated creator must be responsible for the existence of the universe.
... Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form: Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E. Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X. 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
First off, get rid of the term "irreducible complexity". It is a fallacious concept, in the way you are using it. Next, you are, basically, saying that since intelligent humans have been able to produce really complex things, AND because really complex things exist (that humans didn't produce), AND because natural explanations for all of the complexity have not yet been discovered... THEN, the best explanation is that some mysterious intelligent entity did it. Accepting that explanation, inhibits further discovery, as the explanation that you suggest suffices, is pretty much "God did it. So let's move on." Also, historically, such thinking has proven, over and over, to be a dead end, in the process of actually understanding the natural processes of our universe. e.g., Caveman asks "Why wind blow?" 2nd caveman answers "God." 1st caveman replies "Oh."
... As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts...
A mind is a concept that basically refers to all of our thinking processes. Our thinking processes are behavior much like other behavior, except that it occurs inside our skin. It is nevertheless produced by physical parts. So, here, you have again made the mistake of attributing something that is a natural process, to a mysterious-to-you concept. e.g., 1st caveman philosopher: "How me think?" 2nd caveman philosopher: "Mind". 1st caveman philosopher: "Oh."
... Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form: Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E. Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X. 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
First off, get rid of the term "irreducible complexity". It is a fallacious concept, in the way you are using it. Next, you are, basically, saying that since intelligent humans have been able to produce really complex things, AND because really complex things exist (that humans didn't produce), AND because natural explanations for all of the complexity have not yet been discovered... THEN, the best explanation is that some mysterious intelligent entity did it. Accepting that explanation, inhibits further discovery, as the explanation that you suggest suffices, is pretty much "God did it. So let's move on." Also, historically, such thinking has proven, over and over, to be a dead end, in the process of actually understanding the natural processes of our universe. e.g., Caveman asks "Why wind blow?" 2nd caveman answers "God." 1st caveman replies "Oh." no. Is intelligent design and irreducible complexity merely an "argument from ignorance? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance#3320 In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the form: Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E. Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows: Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information. Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information. If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form: Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example. Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form: Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E. Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X. 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
... As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts...
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1662-the-mind-is-not-the-brain?highlight=mind A mind is a concept that basically refers to all of our thinking processes. Our thinking processes are behavior much like other behavior, except that it occurs inside our skin. It is nevertheless produced by physical parts. So, here, you have again made the mistake of attributing something that is a natural process, to a mysterious-to-you concept. e.g., 1st caveman philosopher: "How me think?" 2nd caveman philosopher: "Mind". 1st caveman philosopher: "Oh." You can know for sure just with a moment's reflection that your brain is not your soul. The headline in the article says, "A memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern." In other words, they are saying that a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern. It is not correlated with a mind state such that the brain cells firing causes your mind or soul to have a memory. It is saying that that's all it is. That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light. Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation. When one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity, but isn't the mental activity itself, it is the same as trying to say that a movie is merely the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can't capture the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid, which shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. What's more, if you look at the light on the celluloid, you will never, ever even see the movie.

Adon, please re-configure your last post. You have me saying what you said and vice versa.

...You can know for sure just with a moment's reflection that your brain is not your soul. The headline in the article says, "A memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern." In other words, they are saying that a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern. It is not correlated with a mind state such that the brain cells firing causes your mind or soul to have a memory. It is saying that that's all it is. That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light. Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation. When one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity, but isn't the mental activity itself, it is the same as trying to say that a movie is merely the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can't capture the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid, which shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. What's more, if you look at the light on the celluloid, you will never, ever even see the movie.
The mental activity (physical processes) in your movie projection analogy, encompasses more than just the film and projector, it is also the movie and the narrative. Our sensing anything involves neurons firing in a certain way. Our remembering involves neurons firing in a certain way. Our imaging something involves neurons firing in a certain way. Our dreaming involves neurons firing in a certain way. Our thoughts that involve what we say to ourselves involves neurons firing in a certain way. We do not have a mind or soul that is separate from our physical being. That's just how it really is. It is awesomely complex, but it is not necessary to make up a non-physical concept to explain it. I suggest that you go to the Philosophy section and ask GdB what dualistic thinking is.

I would add in the movie projector analogy, that what we refer to as mind, encompasses more than just the film and projector, it is also the movie and the narrative AND it also encompasses the inherent nature of all living creatures to respond to their environment. So there need be no magical outside force or existing mystical entity.

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes
Simply quoting your own opinion again doesn't make it so. (I assume this website you link to is your own website since no one else seems to post there except the "Admin".) Please tell me that you're not a police detective. I can see it now: "Well, all the circumstantial evidence seems to point toward one obvious suspect, but since we don't have a video tape of him committing the crime, complete with his commentary telling in detail how he did it, the obvious conclusion is that he didn't commit the crime! The real perpetrator must be this three-headed albino I read about in this book. Case closed!" :)

deleted due to my own confusion

deleted again. Sorry. Maybe I should have a cup of coffee.