Joined: Oct. 2015
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2015,21:46)|
|Wrong. Abiogenesis is an extremely well studied subject. One in which every single molecule and system needed for life has been observed to occur without an intelligent agent given the right conditions. |
haha. Thats precious...
|Here's a hint. Even if you were to prove evolution 100% totally wrong, right now... it still doesn't make ID true. |
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design
BTW: Are you also GIBHOR, banned from the international skeptics forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him and that's not right either.
Are you also GodExists, banned from the thethinkingatheist forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him too.
Yes, i am both.
That's true. But that has nothing to do with before there was life on Earth does it? We know that there a period with no life. And we know there was a period with life. We know that a large variety of chemical reactions results in concentrations of chemicals that can self-assemble into complex long chain structures, that even have the ability to self-reproduce.
No, we do not know that.
No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities
OOL theorist Leslie Orgel notes that
an "RNA World" could only form the basis for life, "if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence, and much materialist philosophy: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.
The best claimed evidence of an "RNA World" includes the fact that there are RNA enzymes and genomes, and that cells use RNA to convert the DNA code into proteins. However, RNA plays only a supporting role in the cell, and there is no known biochemical system completely composed of RNA.
RNA experts have created a variety of RNA molecules which can perform biochemical functions through what is commonly termed "test tube evolution." However, "test tube evolution" is just a description for what is in reality nothing more than chemical engineering in the laboratory employing Darwinian principles; that does not imply that there is some known pathway through which these molecules could arise naturally.
In order a molecule to be a self replicator , it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. On the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.
Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said,
"We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA."
That lead Leslie Orgel to say :
It would take a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth.
(Dover, 1999, p. 218).
I would have thought it relevant to point out for biologists in general that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences
How could the first living cells with DNA-based molecular biology have originated by spontaneous chemical processes on the prebiotic Earth? Primordial DNA synthesis would have required the presence of specific enzymes, but how could these enzymes be synthesized without the genetic information in DNA and without RNA for translating that information into the amino acid sequence of the protein enzymes? In other words, proteins are required for DNA synthesis and DNA is required for protein synthesis.
This classic "chicken-and-egg" problem made it immensely difficult to conceive of any plausible prebiotic chemical pathway to the molecular biological system. Certainly no such chemical pathway had been demonstrated
What's your explanation and what is the evidence for it.
Just because something is complex doesn't mean it needs a designer. That's an anthropomorphic assumption on your part and it's a false assumption that you are NOT THINKING CRITICALLY about.
For instance, thats not how we formulate our arguments.
What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications?” Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
But today, there are many such cases observed in nature.
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex and interdependent structures, of which photosynthesis, the eye, the human body, nitrogenase, the ribosome, the cell, rubisco, photosystem II, the oxygen evolving complex etc. are prime examples, are commonly found in nature.
Since Evolution is unable to provide a advantage of adaptation in each evolutionary step, and is unable to select it, 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.
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.
You an reject naturalism all you want. Hypocrite.
you can namecall me as much as you want. That does not make your position become more true. Provide better explanations for origins, and we talk.
But if you do, then you should be living in a cave, eating carrion and rotten fruit. But you aren't. You're enjoying the results of all that naturalistic thinking all the while complaining about it.
I dont think its the moment to elucidate the consequences of your world view on humanity.
Great. Provide the evidence that god exists and I will accept him. But it'll take a lot of evidence.
What evidence do you expect ?
Here's the deal. No one here cares about your god. And, if you use god as a basis for your science, then it can never be taught in a school. Thanks for that own goal, BTW/
Well, i believe God certainly cares about you and has shown his love to you, too. And he has proven it.... But it might come a time, when he will not care about you either, anymore, since you rejected him. But then it will be too late.
But not ALL the time and that's where the entire argument fails.
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Provide one, just ONE example of coded information arising by natural mechanisms, without intelligence involved, and you top my proof. Just one.
Code, by definition, implies intelligence and the genetic code is real code, mathematically identical to that of language, computer codes etc. all of which can only arise by intelligent convention of symbologies. The genome contains meta information and there is now evidence of meta-programming as well. Meta info is information on information and we now know the genome contains such structures. But meta information cannot arise without knowledge of the original information.Meta programming is even more solid evidence of intelligence at work.