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

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. Except this was not a case argued by lawyers but by scientists. No jury, just a judge who found that Behe and a number of his followers did not "prove" their case for ID. OTOH, the scientific proofs provided by evolutionists clearly demonstrated that every part of an *irreducibly complex system* can in fact be broken down into seperate functional parts. The judge weighed the evidence presented and found that Behe's arguments were lacking in demonstrable facts and therefore held in favor of evolutionary science. I posted it before, but here it is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ?
just a judge who found that Behe and a number of his followers did not "prove" their case for ID.
Thats the problem. A judge has no competence to judge the evidence and the scientific claims.
just a judge who found that Behe and a number of his followers did not "prove" their case for ID.
Thats the problem. A judge has no competence to judge the evidence and the scientific claims. Well, it was more of a case that Behe pesented no evidence at all, whereas the scientists provided proofs from several related disciplines. More to the point is that the judge, in summary, recognized ID as a more nuanced version of Creationism (and the Establishment Clause).
just a judge who found that Behe and a number of his followers did not "prove" their case for ID.
Thats the problem. A judge has no competence to judge the evidence and the scientific claims. Well, it was more of a case that Behe pesented no evidence at all, whereas the scientists provided proofs from several related disciplines. More to the point is that the judge, in summary, recognized ID as a more nuanced version of Creationism (and the Establishment Clause). Is Intelligent Design Science? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t242-is-intelligent-design-science?highlight=science
just a judge who found that Behe and a number of his followers did not "prove" their case for ID.
Thats the problem. A judge has no competence to judge the evidence and the scientific claims. Well, it was more of a case that Behe pesented no evidence at all, whereas the scientists provided proofs from several related disciplines. More to the point is that the judge, in summary, recognized ID as a more nuanced version of Creationism (and the Establishment Clause). Is Intelligent Design Science? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t242-is-intelligent-design-science?highlight=science If done by an intelligent motivated designer, for a specific purpose. But a broader form of a mathematical, *pseudo-intelligence* is indistinguishable from intentional intelligence. There simply is no proof of an intentional Creator or Intelligent Designer. But mathematically It was inevitable.
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ? That would be like putting the computer here before books. The good thing about history is you have to deal with facts and timelines. Just look at history. Religion, heaven and the soul was around a long time before gods were around. There are still some of those religion without gods around today. Of course we are talking deity gods. In the old genesis stories, you had people known as the gods. They had upper and lower gods. A caste system of management.
There simply is no proof of an intentional Creator or Intelligent Designer. But mathematically It was inevitable.
I disagree. 125 Arguments for God's Existence http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1276-125-arguments-for-god-s-existence
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ? That would be like putting the computer here before books. The good thing about history is you have to deal with facts and timelines. Just look at history. Religion, heaven and the soul was around a long time before gods were around. There are still some of those religion without gods around today. Of course we are talking deity gods. In the old genesis stories, you had people known as the gods. They had upper and lower gods. A caste system of management. These are still baseless assertions
There simply is no proof of an intentional Creator or Intelligent Designer. But mathematically It was inevitable.
I disagree. 125 Arguments for God's Existence http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1276-125-arguments-for-god-s-existence Every one has been shown to be invalid.
Every one has been shown to be invalid.
haha
Every one has been shown to be invalid.
haha "Also sprach Adonai888" Well, actually it was Nietzsche who wrote " Also sprach Zarathustra…"
This masterpiece of philosophical literature Friedrich Nietzsche utters the famous phrase "God is dead!" This powerful book spells out Nietzsche's belief in the will to power, and serves as an introduction to his doctrine of eternal return. One of the most influential books of philosophy ever written.
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. These are all good questions and points and I don't have the answers, nor do I have the time to respond to each point(I am not evolution you know, hehe). I think you'd agree that it's all very, very fascinating. These are all very difficult problems without an easy solution. It is kind of hard to design an experiment that will create life because of the large number of variables and the time needed and our lives are very short in comparison with the age of life. We do not know what all of the intermediate steps were, hence the reason scientists try to recreate them, and why they fail. The answer may lie in superior computing power, which can calculate the molecular possibilities. Again, I think the key is trying to discover what the pre-cell looked liked. The cell on its own is very sophisticated and highly evolved. We need to discover more(not less) about the history of the cell.

The above summation and the numerous conclusions that “it could not have” done this or that are completely assumptive.
Every statement begins with if this, then that, which does not constitute proof of anything. Generally speaking, in Natuure, if something is possible, it will happen. It has nothing to do with design other than a permittive condition and a mathematical function.
In the deep oceans, there are many organisms, such as
Loricifera (Credit: Wikipedia)

Like the water bear, loricifera are teeny tiny microscopic animals that live in marine sediment. There are 22 species in the loricifera phylum, but there are three species in particular that stand out. In the Mediterranean Sea, about 3,000 meters down, live these strange organisms. What makes them so strange? They live their entire lives without oxygen or sunlight. These little critters live in almost completely salt-saturated brine, which has the effect of not mixing with less salt-saturated water above it. They can live this way because, unlike us, they don’t rely on mitochondria for energy. Instead they use something called hydrogenosomes, which don’t need oxygen to create energy.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/5-creatures-that-can-survive-the-most-extreme-conditions.html#ixzz3tpJQVMyR Why does the Silvery Salamander still exist? Every Silvery is female and a clone of its mother, because mating actuates the cell division, but without the male sperm, which is prevented from entering the egg. Thus off-spring are not only all female, they are exact copies of the mothers DNA, IOW, clones, an evolutionary dead-end. But somehow........they're still around.
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ? That would be like putting the computer here before books. The good thing about history is you have to deal with facts and timelines. Just look at history. Religion, heaven and the soul was around a long time before gods were around. There are still some of those religion without gods around today. Of course we are talking deity gods. In the old genesis stories, you had people known as the gods. They had upper and lower gods. A caste system of management. These are still baseless assertions Just the type of answer from someone with none scientific views. Disregard history and timelines. They really mess up your theories don’t they?
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ? Ironically, it's in the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God." (Thus God is a product of complex verbal behavior - a concept formed by humans.)
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ? Ironically, it's in the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God." (Thus God is a product of complex verbal behavior - a concept formed by humans.) So you do not realize that God IS the word ? Read John chapter one.....
Y Then man created god.
How do you know it was not the other way around ? That would be like putting the computer here before books. The good thing about history is you have to deal with facts and timelines. Just look at history. Religion, heaven and the soul was around a long time before gods were around. There are still some of those religion without gods around today. Of course we are talking deity gods. In the old genesis stories, you had people known as the gods. They had upper and lower gods. A caste system of management. These are still baseless assertions Just the type of answer from someone with none scientific views. Disregard history and timelines. They really mess up your theories don’t they? Science messes up with naturalism. Not the other way around.

Yes, the universe no longer works as God intended because of these meddling scientists. Like children messing with your computer and now it doesn’t work anymore?
I don’t know what chapter, but is that not also explained by Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden, because they broke God’s command?
Adam and Eve must have been atheists or scientists. Always breaking God’s rules.
Well, Carlin had the answer and explained it: George Carlin --- Religion is Bullshit - YouTube

Trying to discover the reasons for such divergence of thought in experiencing the same reality is really fascinating. While thinking about this I looked up the definition of the word Meme.
I see a similarity in the current discussion. The word God is a meme;

Meme, noun
Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme’s reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts

This started some bells ringing in my mind.