Two of the most convincing arguments for Intelligent design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2276-two-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-intelligent-design

  1. The origin of the genetic cipher 1
    1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher. Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA’s and Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.
  2. Other translation assignments are conceivable, but whatever cipher is established, the right amino acids must be assigned to permit polypeptide chains, which fold to active funcional proteins. Functional amino acid chains in sequence space are rare. There are two possibilities to explain the correct assignment of the codons to the right amino acids. Chance, and design. Natural selection is not a option at this stage, since DNA replication is not setup at this stage.
  3. If it were a lucky accident happened by chance, luck would have hit the jackpot trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using Borel’s law, in the realm of impossibility. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that’s universal. Put simply, the chemical lottery lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.
  4. We have not even considered that there are also over 500 possible amino acids, which would have to be sorted out, to get only 20, and select all L amino and R sugar bases…
  5. We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time.
  6. Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being written in english translated to chinese in a extremely sophisticared hardware system.
  7. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
  8. The software and hardware of the cell are irreducibly complex 2
  9. The cell contains a complex information storage medium through DNA and mRNA.
  10. The cell has a complex information processing system ( through RNA polymerase, transcription factors , a spliceosome , a ribosome, chaperone enzymes, specialized transport proteins , and ATP
  11. The cell contains a genetic code which is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space
  12. The cell stores complex, specified, coded information ( the software )
  13. The cell has a complex translation system through a universal cipher, which assigns 61 codons (4x4x4=64-3 stop and start=64) to 20 amino acids and permits the translation of the genetic code into functional proteins
  14. This constitutes a logical structure of information processing : DNA>>RNA>>>Protein, based on software and hardware. Both aspects must be explained.
  15. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.
  16. Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex.
  17. A irreducible complex system can not arise in a step wise, evolutionary manner.
  18. Only minds are capable to conceptualise and implement instructional information control systems transformed into molecular dynamics
  19. Therefore , a intelligent designer exists.

Well that’s one smart intelligent designer. How many billion years ago do you think he, she, it, or they existed? What do you think became of him, her, it or them? Who might have designed them?

Well that's one smart intelligent designer. How many billion years ago do you think he, she, it, or they existed? What do you think became of him, her, it or them? Who might have designed them?
(sorry didn't notice this thread til after I commented at your other thread.) I like Tim's questions: Would love to hear your answers. How many billion years ago do you think he, she, it, or they existed? What do you think became of him, her, it or them? Who might have designed them?

Argumemts amd perceptions are not evidence. If they were, we’d believe the sun revolves around the earth and that bacteria doesn’t cause disease (as many doctors thought at one time–they refused to believe bacteria existed), and that there was no danger in radiation, among many other fictions believed by people–in fact by most of the population at one time until the scientific method established the truth.
You have learned something about science and have tried to force god into it. You’ve gone about it in nexactly the wrong way. There is no evidence that a god exists–absolutely none, and trying to manipulate known science to support your claim with no evidence is not science. It is twisted. Real scientists don’t start with a claim and try to find scientofic principles to prove it. They let evidence lead the way, not a priori claims.
Lois

I’ll admit that these points are all ones that make me wonder how life began. It’s probably the most interesting question I can think of.
That being said, the solution is never a ‘designer’ since that designer requires a designer who requires a designer who requires a designer ad infinitum. The implication that the designer is undesigned is a cheat and a cop-out that makes the argument useless to anyone who is interested in what the real answer might be.
I’ll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.

I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
You don't even have to take insanely unlikely odds if you don't want to.
I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
You don't even have to take insanely unlikely odds if you don't want to.True, but if Adonai888 is stuck using the odds he/she has used, then I thought it best to contrast them with the infinitely worse ones associated with their designer. Big numbers sometimes annoy me because my tiny mind can't comprehend them and I feel like I'm missing out on lots of the wonder available when thinking about these things (but at least I know I can't comprehend them.) But I also know that infinity is literally infinitely larger than them, so the odds thing is only a stumbling block, not a brick wall.
I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
You don't even have to take insanely unlikely odds if you don't want to.True, but if Adonai888 is stuck using the odds he/she has used, then I thought it best to contrast them with the infinitely worse ones associated with their designer. Big numbers sometimes annoy me because my tiny mind can't comprehend them and I feel like I'm missing out on lots of the wonder available when thinking about these things (but at least I know I can't comprehend them.) But I also know that infinity is literally infinitely larger than them, so the odds thing is only a stumbling block, not a brick wall. Roger that.
I'll admit that these points are all ones that make me wonder how life began. It's probably the most interesting question I can think of. That being said, the solution is never a 'designer' since that designer requires a designer who requires a designer who requires a designer ad infinitum. The implication that the designer is undesigned is a cheat and a cop-out that makes the argument useless to anyone who is interested in what the real answer might be. I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
the alternative to a eternal designer is ? i see basically two. the universe created itself. or it is eternal. Both options are not viable.
the alternative to a eternal designer is ? i see basically two. the universe created itself. or it is eternal. Both options are not viable.
How is an eternal designer viable?
I'll admit that these points are all ones that make me wonder how life began. It's probably the most interesting question I can think of. That being said, the solution is never a 'designer' since that designer requires a designer who requires a designer who requires a designer ad infinitum. The implication that the designer is undesigned is a cheat and a cop-out that makes the argument useless to anyone who is interested in what the real answer might be. I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
the alternative to a eternal designer is ? i see basically two. the universe created itself. or it is eternal. Both options are not viable.You're conflating the origin of the universe and the origin of life. They are completely different questions. Concerning the Universe If the universe has a beginning, which may or may not be what you mean by "the universe created itself", then it came out of nothing, so it doesn't have a designer. If it's eternal, then by definition it doesn't have a designer. Either way, no designer. Concerning the Origin of Life As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."
I'll admit that these points are all ones that make me wonder how life began. It's probably the most interesting question I can think of. That being said, the solution is never a 'designer' since that designer requires a designer who requires a designer who requires a designer ad infinitum. The implication that the designer is undesigned is a cheat and a cop-out that makes the argument useless to anyone who is interested in what the real answer might be. I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
the alternative to a eternal designer is ? i see basically two. the universe created itself. or it is eternal. Both options are not viable. Or it evolved as a result of materials and events in space, and billions of years. If you want to call that the universe "creating itself," or that it is eternal, go ahead. Both ideas beat a designer theory. You will always be presented with the question, "Who created the designer?" Did he create himself or is he eternal? There is no evidence of either. You are left with an unanswered and possibly unanswerable question. All you've done is move the goalposts. You have answered nothing. Your idea of a designer is nothing more than a god of the gaps answer, whether you call it a god or a designer. I suggest you quit while you're ahead. Nothing valid can come out of trying to devise an answer to an unaswerable question. You are bound to fail. There is no way to know what the answer is in your lifetime. Use your limited time and energy on things that can be shown to be valid and are likely to be shown to be valid in your lifetime. Everything else is a waste of time and energy. Use your talents on answerable questions. There is a limitless number of them.

Well I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. I’ll grant you there was an intelligent designer, just for yucks. How does that help? There’s no possible way to proceed to prove that the designer is the guy who accords with the Christian god, or the Hindu chief god, or Allah, etc. There MIGHT be an argument in fact that this ID can’t be THE god you’re trying to fit things to because the designer’s design is so obviously flawed. At best you can argue that the designer is super intelligent but not perfect, so more likely some higher being unimaginably “better” than humans, but still not the Big God. Bottom line - you lose.
Oh ya, and to add to the above questions, Is the ID a boy or a girl? If It’s an it, then are you comfortable refering to it as It? Do you think Christians would be praying to It instead of He/Him? Would they be okay with Almighty It, Our Thing That Art in Heaven?

Well I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I'll grant you there was an intelligent designer, just for yucks. How does that help? There's no possible way to proceed to prove that the designer is the guy who accords with the Christian god, or the Hindu chief god, or Allah, etc. There MIGHT be an argument in fact that this ID can't be THE god you're trying to fit things to because the designer's design is so obviously flawed. At best you can argue that the designer is super intelligent but not perfect, so more likely some higher being unimaginably "better" than humans, but still not the Big God. Bottom line - you lose. Oh ya, and to add to the above questions, Is the ID a boy or a girl? If It's an it, then are you comfortable refering to it as It? Do you think Christians would be praying to It instead of He/Him? Would they be okay with Almighty It, Our Thing That Art in Heaven?
Or worse, a her. Whatever would the male theists do then? They'd lose the foundation of their religion--misogyny. Lois
I'll admit that these points are all ones that make me wonder how life began. It's probably the most interesting question I can think of. That being said, the solution is never a 'designer' since that designer requires a designer who requires a designer who requires a designer ad infinitum. The implication that the designer is undesigned is a cheat and a cop-out that makes the argument useless to anyone who is interested in what the real answer might be. I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day.
the alternative to a eternal designer is ? i see basically two. the universe created itself. or it is eternal. Both options are not viable.
How is an eternal designer viable?
Well that's one smart intelligent designer. How many billion years ago do you think he, she, it, or they existed? What do you think became of him, her, it or them? Who might have designed them?
I take it from your silence that you've got nothing explanatory to add. All you have is your disbelief at the vastness of time and space. It takes more than a conviction in your disbelieve to understand the creation unfolding around us. As for "design" seems to me there's plenty embedded within the matrix of matter - that would be laws of nature and matter both recognized and unrecognized. At least it's enough for me - well maybe not enough because I still enjoy learning from folks like Hazen, Deamer, Addy Prose Who's "What Is Life" keeps getting more interesting with every new chapter.
How is an eternal designer viable?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism
As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."
Why is the existence of a deity impossible ?
How is an eternal designer viable?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism They went astray at Step 1.
As I said before, "I'll take insanely unlikely odds over an impossible being any day."
Why is the existence of a deity impossible ? Nobody has said it's impossible. There is simply no objective evidence of one so far. Should any be presented and hold up to scrutiny, we skeptics would accept that a deity exits. Without that, any deity is highly improbable and not worth believing in. Lois
Well I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I'll grant you there was an intelligent designer, just for yucks. How does that help? There's no possible way to proceed to prove that the designer is the guy who accords with the Christian god, or the Hindu chief god, or Allah, etc. There MIGHT be an argument in fact that this ID can't be THE god you're trying to fit things to because the designer's design is so obviously flawed. At best you can argue that the designer is super intelligent but not perfect, so more likely some higher being unimaginably "better" than humans, but still not the Big God. Bottom line - you lose. Oh ya, and to add to the above questions, Is the ID a boy or a girl? If It's an it, then are you comfortable refering to it as It? Do you think Christians would be praying to It instead of He/Him? Would they be okay with Almighty It, Our Thing That Art in Heaven?
Or worse, a her. Whatever would the male theists do then? They'd lose the foundation of their religion--misogyny. LoisExactly! Somewhere in the deep recesses of Christians minds they know they're living a lie. So guys like Mr ID-poster here tries to come up with intelligent sounding smoke and mirrors to make everyone feel better. Unless IDer's can prove that their ID is Mister Santa Christian god, i.e. "the crutch" they require psychologically, it does them no good.