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

the mind is not the brain. The mind is not made by physical parts. The mind is a completely different entity than the brain. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1662-the-mind-is-not-the-brain?highlight=mind
I've read through some of these arguments, but by no means all. I'm not convinced. Most of them seem to simply be quotes, which may be out of context for all I know. I didn't bother to look at Alvin Plantinga's Youtube because I know that he's a Christian apologist and I've seen the level of his "arguments" in the past. The idea that the brain could suffer damage, yet still retain a mind -- what does that prove, besides that the inner circuitry of the brain is very complex, and in some cases can even rewire itself? What about cases of people who suffer brain damage and their personalities completely change, or they lose the ability to recognize faces, or even lose all memory of people they love? How do you explain that if the mind is somehow not connected with the brain? Likewise, what's so amazing about blind people imagining or dreaming that they can see? Have you ever heard of Anton's syndrome? Blind people have the delusion that they can see. Doctors test them, and find out, surprise, that NO they CAN'T really see at all, but they still insist that they can. More than once you claim (in your link) that "you can easily convince yourself that mind is not the brain by a simple thought experiment..." or words to that effect. But your "thought experiments" strike me as what Daniel Dennett calls "intuition pumps"; the only thing they reveal is your own biases. Yes it's easy to convince yourself if that is what you already believe. The one about the movie projector I didn't even understand. Of course the flickering images on the screen are not all there is to a movie, but then if that's supposed to be an analogy with materialistic brain science, you're off base. You fail to realize that not only the images, but the screen, the projector, the people who made the film as well as the person watching the film are all part of the experience. You must believe that we materialists believe that people are just zombies, lurching around -- that because the brain is a physical object, it is only capable of physical functions like storing and manipulating memories! There is so much more to consciousness than that. Have you ever watched drunk people? If the mind really were a completely separate entity, certainly mere chemicals could not effect it. But when people are very drunk, they lose all inhibitions, all judgment, all discernment, all ability to think and reason. They become stumbling, slobbering, childlike, often belligerent automatons. How do you explain that if the mind is not connected in any way with the brain?
TRANSLATION: 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought– So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came wiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy. 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
Now everything is so much clearer! :D
Adonai88 - maybe you'll respond to my question. The others never did. I'll grant you that there's an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying "it says so in the bible" doesn't count. That's circular reasoning and regardless doesn't address point B or C. Until you prove this, you're just typing words buddy.
I cannot prove you that God is perfect, nor that it is the christian God. Thats a matter of faith. Not blind faith, but reasonable faith based on the evidence. If it were Aliens, we would have to ask what created them. And if you ask for proofs, why do you not ask for proofs, that the natural world is all there is ?So then you are willing to admit that the creator might not be Christian? And that believing in an ID does NOT imply the Christian god exists?
Adonai88 - maybe you'll respond to my question. The others never did. I'll grant you that there's an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying "it says so in the bible" doesn't count. That's circular reasoning and regardless doesn't address point B or C. Until you prove this, you're just typing words buddy.
Why do you grant an *intelligent designer*? Why not a *mathematical function*? Even a *brainless* amoeba such as slime mold knows what you can do with a few mathematical functions. You don't have to be Intelligently designed at all in order to *function* in a successful manner in nature. But your system must function mathematically correct or you get sick. This mathematical law applies to all things. Real or unreal. This emphasis of a higher intelligence and motivated designer wich must create irreducible complex systems to make it all work, seems an inherently false statement, when we know that it all can be broken down mathematically into smaller and smaller components and values, So small, they become fuzzy and only the potential Implicate values remain, yet must be able to act in accordance to the mathematical function. moreover, if an irreducible complex system can evolve, then it is no longer irreducibkly complex. ID proposes a self-contradictory concept. Accrding to ID, the universe itself is an irreducible complex system based on the mathematical function of the irreducibly complex system.(a mathematical construct. a) an irreducible complex system is all there is, and we know this is not true. b) an irreducible complexity able to evolove proposes a contradictory duality c) an irreducible simple mathematical equation, a fundamental law of coming into existence , that allows evolution of complxity from the infinititely subtle to gross expresseion in reality. My pick is *c)*My point in granting an ID is to emphasize that these ID "arguments" are nothing but disguised Christian missionary work. An ID implies nothing other than possibly a very smart alien. Anything else is just disguised missionary work using silly word play. And generally, the IDers won't admit that the Christian God is not THE god, and that's where they're exposed.
Adonai88 - maybe you'll respond to my question. The others never did. I'll grant you that there's an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying "it says so in the bible" doesn't count. That's circular reasoning and regardless doesn't address point B or C. Until you prove this, you're just typing words buddy.
Why do you grant an *intelligent designer*? Why not a *mathematical function*? Even a *brainless* amoeba such as slime mold knows what you can do with a few mathematical functions. You don't have to be Intelligently designed at all in order to *function* in a successful manner in nature. But your system must function mathematically correct or you get sick. This mathematical law applies to all things. Real or unreal. This emphasis of a higher intelligence and motivated designer wich must create irreducible complex systems to make it all work, seems an inherently false statement, when we know that it all can be broken down mathematically into smaller and smaller components and values, So small, they become fuzzy and only the potential Implicate values remain, yet must be able to act in accordance to the mathematical function. moreover, if an irreducible complex system can evolve, then it is no longer irreducibkly complex. ID proposes a self-contradictory concept. Accrding to ID, the universe itself is an irreducible complex system based on the mathematical function of the irreducibly complex system.(a mathematical construct. a) an irreducible complex system is all there is, and we know this is not true. b) an irreducible complexity able to evolove proposes a contradictory duality c) an irreducible simple mathematical equation, a fundamental law of coming into existence , that allows evolution of complxity from the infinititely subtle to gross expresseion in reality. My pick is *c)*My point in granting an ID is to emphasize that these ID "arguments" are nothing but disguised Christian missionary work. An ID implies nothing other than possibly a very smart alien. Anything else is just disguised missionary work using silly word play. And generally, the IDers won't admit that the Christian God is not THE god, and that's where they're exposed. I find this to be true much of the time and the argument goes something like this: Life must have been the result of an intelligent designer, therefore, God exists. If God exists, then Christianity is true!
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.
To which I would argue about the phrase "the best, most causally adequate" in your conclusion. Causally adequate? When you haven't even been able to speculate about what physical form this "intelligent designer" takes, or how it can manipulate matter without such a physical form? Not hardly. I can understand why you want so desperately to convince yourself that this designer exists, and I don't have a problem with that. You are free to believe whatever you like. It's when you try to persuade others that yours is the "best" explanation that you run into trouble.
...On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed. And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms could produce the same result, given enough time. the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.
Given enough time. Like BILLIONS of years. Once self-replication begins, game on. Given enough time, improbable things happen. If the chance of something happening is not zero, then, given enough time, it will happen.
Adonai888 - 03 December 2015 10:10 PM ...On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed. And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms could produce the same result, given enough time. the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.
Are you saying that an Intelligent Designer could make the ball play itself around the course? You'll need to do better than that.
Don't confuse origin of life with blind chance. Different atoms have different properties. The nascent field of abiogenesis deals with this directly, where it studies how molecules essential to life were formed and how the first cell came into existence. There is likely to be many missing links in the chain from atoms to cells, many pre-cell variants (and/or other types of cells) that haven't survived. These missing links would make the cell appear like they have sprung into existence. Much like creationists that had(and some still have) difficulty with the idea that homo sapiens shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but the evidence is now uncontroversial with DNA analysis and the discovery of many hominid and australopithecus species, except we are dealing with a much larger knowledge gap. But there is much hope for future investigation! I think abiogenesis is an exciting field full of possibilities.
Abiogenesis also known as spontaneous generation has been thoroughly discredited. It's pseudoscience. Don't waste your time on dead concepts. Lois
Don't confuse origin of life with blind chance. Different atoms have different properties. The nascent field of abiogenesis deals with this directly, where it studies how molecules essential to life were formed and how the first cell came into existence. There is likely to be many missing links in the chain from atoms to cells, many pre-cell variants (and/or other types of cells) that haven't survived. These missing links would make the cell appear like they have sprung into existence. Much like creationists that had(and some still have) difficulty with the idea that homo sapiens shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but the evidence is now uncontroversial with DNA analysis and the discovery of many hominid and australopithecus species, except we are dealing with a much larger knowledge gap. But there is much hope for future investigation! I think abiogenesis is an exciting field full of possibilities.
Abiogenesis also known as spontaneous generation has been thoroughly discredited. It's pseudoscience. Don't waste your time on dead concepts. Lois Maybe you are confusing the two? Abiogenesis is not the same thing as spontaneous generation, although spontaneous generation could be considered an abiogenic process. Spontaneous generation refers to entire organisms coming into existence during a short observation period(days, weeks), which was disproved by Louis Pasteur by experimentation in 1859. There are modern scientific theories of abiogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.
Made up junk. God was created and evolved. To say otherwise is to ignore history. The god you seem to referring to of the countless gods that have existed since the beginning of the Age of Deities seems to be the faith based god. And he has not been around that long.
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.
This is where the religious DNA kicks in and blocks all logic. I can take your statement and replace “GOD" with any item or object and the statement retains the same idea. What you are describing is how faith works and nothing more. And where on earth do you come up with all this theory. The faith based god only had one power. And that was the “word". John said that the word was god. Ra also created earth and everything with the word. Therefore, at one time in history god was nothing but a tool of the older god Ra. It seems that faith based people have trouble dealing with history. The “Word" came about in the Age of Deities, religion was around tens of thousands of years before deities came to be. History tells us this is so by the Red Ochre burials. I do like the idea that you are searching in the DNA for god. When the god gene is found, it can be fixed and the human race can move forward using logic instead of superstition. But I would like to suggest that before you spend time on trying to understand DNA, a look at the timeline of history will help in the understanding of what you are looking for.

No one who moves the goalposts in any debate will ever admit his argument is shot full of holes. He will keep on beating the same dead horse.

Adonai said: Michael Behe’s testable predictions regarding Irreducible Complexity. Molecular biologist Jonathan McLatchie wrote : An irreducibly complex system is one that (a) the removal of a protein renders the molecular machine inoperable, and (b) the biochemical structure has no stepwise evolutionary pathway. Michael Behe further describes the condition: “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002. Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840).
Th Behe hypothesis has been proven false, time and time again, and finally settled in court which found that Behe's arguments were sufficiently rebutted, so persuasively as to specifically prohibit the teaching of this theory in school.
...On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed. And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms could produce the same result, given enough time. the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.
Given enough time. Like BILLIONS of years. Once self-replication begins, game on. Given enough time, improbable things happen. If the chance of something happening is not zero, then, given enough time, it will happen. Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature. What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process. The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does. http://bevets.com/evolutionevidence.htm A Parable: Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire." You say "Prove it." He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.) You say "What does that prove?" He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them" You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?" "Because it's GREEN" he says. "What else can you show me?" He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire." You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask. "I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?" "Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, The possible probable, And the probable virtually certain, One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles." (Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954) 1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html
Adonai888 - 03 December 2015 10:10 PM ...On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed. And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms could produce the same result, given enough time. the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.
Are you saying that an Intelligent Designer could make the ball play itself around the course? You'll need to do better than that.
There would be no problem to guide it throuth the course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible 1. In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen. 2. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems. 3. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? 4. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning. 5.The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules. 6. all the peptide links to form a proptein must be alpha-peptide bonds, not some mix of alpha and epsilon,beta, and gamma bonds http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA." 7.amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean? 8. Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.
Some may ask, "But who created God?" The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.
Made up junk. God was created and evolved. To say otherwise is to ignore history. The god you seem to referring to of the countless gods that have existed since the beginning of the Age of Deities seems to be the faith based god. And he has not been around that long.
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.
This is where the religious DNA kicks in and blocks all logic. I can take your statement and replace “GOD" with any item or object and the statement retains the same idea. What you are describing is how faith works and nothing more. And where on earth do you come up with all this theory. The faith based god only had one power. And that was the “word". John said that the word was god. Ra also created earth and everything with the word. Therefore, at one time in history god was nothing but a tool of the older god Ra. It seems that faith based people have trouble dealing with history. The “Word" came about in the Age of Deities, religion was around tens of thousands of years before deities came to be. History tells us this is so by the Red Ochre burials. I do like the idea that you are searching in the DNA for god. When the god gene is found, it can be fixed and the human race can move forward using logic instead of superstition. But I would like to suggest that before you spend time on trying to understand DNA, a look at the timeline of history will help in the understanding of what you are looking for. 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.
Adonai said: Michael Behe’s testable predictions regarding Irreducible Complexity. Molecular biologist Jonathan McLatchie wrote : An irreducibly complex system is one that (a) the removal of a protein renders the molecular machine inoperable, and (b) the biochemical structure has no stepwise evolutionary pathway. Michael Behe further describes the condition: “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002. Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840).
Th Behe hypothesis has been proven false, time and time again, and finally settled in court which found that Behe's arguments were sufficiently rebutted, so persuasively as to specifically prohibit the teaching of this theory in school.
The Dover case, a good argument against ID ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1795-the-dover-case-a-good-argument-against-id?highlight=dover everybody who has ever had experience in a courtroom (in ANY country), knows that courtrooms are literally full of lies, nonsense, injustice, and obfuscation. Only a fool would today claim that "truth" is best resolved, or in fact resolved at all in a modern courtroom. It matters not whether the case is big or small, rich or poor, intelligent or moronic. Courtrooms are of course run by lawyers, and without prejudice, lawyers are human beings, most of whom are motivated mainly by money, secondly by political passion, and perhaps as a limping third, justice and truth. Or at least community justice, or perhaps pragmatism. Yet when a court rules in favour of the cause of Evolution, we are suddenly treated to the most amazing fairy-story of all: Courts are now the "ultimate" arbiters of truth: Perhaps even the best discoverers and establlishers of scientific truth. Suddenly, the lawyers have become our heroes, accurately dissecting the bitter pill of Intelligent Design, to discover the horror of Creationism, masquerading as 'science' and daring to "infect our children". Please. If a person born anytime during the post-war baby-boom knows anything, he knows this is pure horse-manure. I'm telling you what everybody already knows: After the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, the Viet Nam war, and Nixon, the Bush elections and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the O.J. Simpson trials and Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Oil spills and Enron, nobody does, nor should they, trust the government, courts, politicians or lawyers. Its not about age groups, its about history. But lest there be any doubt, ask ANY real scientist, if he thinks the best way to proceed in scientific truth, is to have courts of law decide what scientific theories should be accepted. http://www.discovery.org/a/443 Michael Behe : In the context of my book it is easy to realize that I meant there has been little work on the details of the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems by Darwinian means. I had clearly noted that of course a large amount of work in many books and journals was done under the general topic of "molecular evolution," but that, overwhelmingly, it was either limited to comparing sequences (which, again, does not concern the mechanism of evolution) or did not propose sufficiently detailed routes to justify a Darwinian conclusion. Comparing sequences is interesting but cannot explain how molecular machines arose. Mechanisms (such as gene duplication, domain shuffling, and concerted evolution of multigene families) are thought to be involved in evolution at the molecular level, are however not justified in Darwinian terms. The processes like gene duplication, etc., although very significant, are not by themselves sufficient to understand how any complex biochemical system, may have arisen by Darwinian means. Behes claim is confirmed through this peer reviewed paper : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1181 Evolvability. Evolutionary biology’s preferred research strategy consists in taking distinct biological systems and finding similarities that might be the result of a common evolutionary ancestor. Intelligent design, by contrast, focuses on a different strategy, namely, taking individual biological systems and perturbing them (both intelligently and randomly) to see how much the systems can evolve. Within this latter research strategy, limitations on evolvability by material mechanisms constitute indirect confirmation of design.

Well, of course, now that you have explained it, ID still makes absolutely no sense on so many levels that I won’t even bother. I must be one of those lying ignorant fools, who believes humans are just a product of Evolution and Natural Selection.
Nothing sacred about humans. We are the most destructive species on earth. One might say, if humans are the spawn of a god, we are a spawn of the devil. I cannot imagine a benign God creating such a flawed organism.

You did not understand a word I said. You need to step back away from the cult thinking you are using.
I am not trying to promote atheism. I am trying to promote history. You seem to default into atheism because you have no desire to step out of mental theories into solid facts. Everything you posted in #56 has no relationship to my post.
Where does the concept that the universe has anything to do with god come from and when did it come about? If you were really even trying to look at that type of concept in a scientific method. You should first learn about god other than in a faith concept.
Most people who step into the design arena. They try and consume more data and theories than is humanly possible and end up accomplishing nothing. Keep it simple, it is not that difficult.
If you go back to what has been passed down to us from pre-history. This is what our forefathers told us in the Rig Vega’s. How the universe came to be, mankind may never know. Earth was made from star dust. Then man came to be. Then man created god.
At that period of time “god" was a term that meant knowledge.
What you are trying to answer has been ask by mankind for a very long time. And we still have nothing but theories.
Why would you even want to get into atheism or religion until you understand how we got to where we are today?
I know what your points are. And what you are try to convey is that we are here so there had to be a god. That is not true. We have the history of gods and know how the gods evolved. That is not the problem. The problem is that people don’t understand themselves.
Now this post is about DNA replication. So if you want to look at mind boggling stuff that defies naturalistic explanations, just look at the Water Bear (Tardigrade). You share 70% of your genes with the water bear, plus it has the most foreign DNA of any animal. It can survive in space. On top of the highest mountains, and in the deepest trenches in the ocean. In the hottest pools, and coolest temperatures of any creature we know of. Truly mind boggling.