Life depends on matter, energy, and information

rationalist

New Member
Life depends on the structural complex arrangement using

- matter
- energy
- information

- Matter has to be arranged into basic building blocks of life, selected and joined amongst myriads of different atoms, and chemical molecules.

- Living systems need to recruit Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce their own entropy. Simple chemicals can't self-organize into instructions for building hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase) producing energy-rich molecules, like ATP, essential for the supply of energy in all life-forms.

- Without information, the inflow of energy would not lead to self-organization. Information in this sense is more than information in the Shannon and Weaver sense; it is functional and can be thought of as information in both an “ instructional ” and “ control ” sense; it requires:

- the creation of codes, words, and languages to assign arbitrary values
- the creation of instructional complex information upon these codes
- the creation of information storage mediums, encoding, transmission, and decoding

Cells use sophisticated information selection ( the Gene regulatory network ) encoding and transcription ( DNA & RNA polymerase machines ) transmission (mRNA), and decoding ( Ribosome ) systems

All this is required to make complex structures — for example, enzymatic proteins — and metabolic pathways that productively channel the flow of energy both within an organism and between the latter and its environment.
If any of those ingredients is missing, there can be no life.

The making of repetitive building blocks for distant purposes by controlled instructional complex processes, and the arrangement of those thereof, using the purposeful flow of energy and higher layers of multidimensional information, to make complex machines, production lines, and self-replicating factories, is best explained by intelligent setup.
 

Nesslig20

Member
Life depends on the structural complex arrangement using

- matter
- energy
- information

- Matter has to be arranged into basic building blocks of life, selected and joined amongst myriads of different atoms, and chemical molecules.

- Living systems need to recruit Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce their own entropy. Simple chemicals can't self-organize into instructions for building hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase) producing energy-rich molecules, like ATP, essential for the supply of energy in all life-forms.
ATP synthase is not a hydro electric damn. The only sort-of "electricity" that happens is the electron transport chain that is used to pump H+ across the membrane, forming a proton gradient. From this gradient, ATP-synthases produce ATP, whereas hydroelectric damns use the gravitational potential energy from water. I understand that you could describe the two analogously, but it is obvious that you want to describe it LITERALLY in order to argue for design. It is not.

- Without information, the inflow of energy would not lead to self-organization.
Self-organisation can happen even without the inflow of energy (or what you call 'information'). Molecules organise themselves often BECAUSE it increases the total amount of entropy. Good examples are lipids forming micelles or vesicles and protein folding.


The making of repetitive building blocks for distant purposes by controlled instructional complex processes, and the arrangement of those thereof, using the purposeful flow of energy and higher layers of multidimensional information, to make complex machines, production lines, and self-replicating factories, is best explained by intelligent setup.
You haven't given any reason for why this is "best explained by intelligent setup."
 

rationalist

New Member
life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes, etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever "get off the ground". It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce its own entropy. That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail "figuring out" how to spontaneously rust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion. Unintelligent simple chemicals can't self-organize into instructions for building solar farms (photosystems 1 and 2), hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase), propulsion (motor proteins) , self-repair (p53 tumor suppressor proteins) or self-destruct (caspases) in the event that these instructions become too damaged by the way the universe USUALLY operates. Abiogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism
 

rationalist

New Member
How Cells Hack Entropy to Live

3:35
Proteins can’t just assemble themselves into a simple sheet like a membrane. Proteins are how cells do… like, nearly everything. But to do their job correctly, they need to take the proper shape. And that’s harder than it sounds… or it should be. Every protein starts out as a linear strand of amino acids that has to fold into an incredibly specific 3-dimensional shape. And there are trillions of wrong ways you could fold one of these bendy ribbons to end up with a non-working protein. A researcher named Cyrus Levinthal once postulated that if an average protein randomly tried out all of these wrong shapes, it would take more time than life has existed on Earth. We are pretty sure they manage to fold correctly somewhat faster than that. So the question is, how do these proteins consistently not only get it right but do it fast?

Scientists began wondering if protein folding might be able to fast-forward the early steps using entropy. In the 1980s, they proposed something known as the molten globule state. And subsequent studies have provided evidence that this is really happening. The molten globule is an intermediate form similar to the protein’s final 3D shape, in which hydrophobic amino acids essentially fall into a flexible blob at the center of a baby protein -- away from the water.

My comment: That is correct, but why is it so? In order for hydrophobic amino acids to locate at the center or inside, or the pocket of the protein, hydrophobic amino acids must be located in the right position in the polypeptide chain - and that is specified in the genetic code. So the right question is: Where does the information come from, which specifies the right sequence, permitting the hydrophobic amino acids to be in the right place, which promotes the right folding, amongst - as the narrator correctly outlines - trillions of wrong ways you could fold one of these bendy ribbons to end up with a non-working protein? Foresight is necessary. Random chance is not a viable option - too big is the sequence space to get non-functional amino acid arrangements, which will not fold the chain into a useful 3D shape. The narrator conveniently left that explanation out.

The idea behind this model is similar to membrane assembly: If you cram most of the hydrophobic amino acids into the center of a protein, it allows the water molecules to move freely. And even though this means the amino acids are then restricted in how they can move, the net gain of entropy for the water should still be favorable. Since we do see a lot of proteins that keep their hydrophobic regions tucked away, it makes sense that that’s how they start folding.

Most importantly, this would also partly explain how proteins fold so fast. They skipped a bunch of steps by eliminating a bunch of wrong scenarios. At some point in trillions and trillions of years, entropy might be the undoing of life altogether, as everything in the universe becomes completely uniform. But for the last four billion years or so, it’s made life possible, which is a little bit paradoxical, but definitely very cool.

My comment: a little bit paradoxical, but definitely very cool - I would say, the least. In my understanding, this is awe-inspiring evidence that a super-intelligent intellect with foresight knew what amino acids would be functional, and how they had to be sequenced to bear functional 3d folding. Another amazing evidence of Intelligent Design.

More:
Forces Stabilizing Proteins - essential for their correct folding
https://reasonandscience.catsboard....-proteins-essential-for-their-correct-folding
 

BrachioPEP

New Member
Rationalist, you seem to be adamant about ID to the extent that you do not seem to be interested in answers or anything that contradicts your assertion that there are no explanations or that the only explanations stop at your amazement. You present biological strings of words and try to hijack them for your beliefs. You appeal to incredulity (laziness) rather than have an openness to answers or explanations or seeking them because, presumably you have a pre-conceived belief.

Better to show humbleness and recognise valid explanations and work with the evidence and see where it leads.

If you feel that others do the same as you from the other side, you must also recognise that two sides do not necessarily reflect two equally valid presentations or likelihoods, as so many other conspiracy theories (which you no doubt reject) will testify to. Whilst something that is of minimal scientific recognition is not in itself a conspiracy (and science has a history of this) but very many are. This video from P Z Myers offers some evidential perspective and begs the question about why ID is so afraid of peer review but happy to challenge the masses of those who do not understand much about science in order to sound clever.

It is perfectly reasonable to know something about the history of a person or argument before discussing it, so as not to give oxygen to a wasted cause and turn it into something (e.g. scientific) which it isn’t.

Is there a conspiracy or bar against anyone who supports ID in publishing quality research? It is not the populous that needs convincing (though I am sure that that is the purpose of presenting here) but academia. Michael Behe (and one or two others) have made a decent effort, but you must understand that gap, negative or (as yet) unknown claims or arguments are not valid but merely food for thought in the search for answers. ‘So how do you explain this then?’ is not a scientific argument, and quite often, the legitimate answer (from any side) may be, ‘we don’t know’. Later we may. For well over a century there has been an adapted, growing, solitary model that seems to fit so perfectly to the absence of any other and that is supportive across all related disciplines and no contradiction has yet been found to refute it (and so much could be presented, each one of which would refute the theory in and of itself). If you relate all of this to a 1 million-piece jigsaw, and there are relatively few missing pieces, then you have to come up with something pretty impressive and radical that fits all this evidence (collated by science so far) better and shows that the clear landscape jigsaw (that we can see in great detail) is actually a portrait and have been greatly confused or missed it. Possible, but very unlikely. And to be clear on the word unlikely, Elvis landing on the head of the loch ness monster in an alien spaceship on ther second of his 50th death anniversary is relatively likely by comparrson.

I am not that knowledgable and no expert, so I may be a lot less able than you to present a compelling argument, but your arguments are better addressed by those who have expertise in that area, but better to present any good, worthwhile science to the scientific literature and see what specialists have to say.

 

rationalist

New Member
Nothing of what you wrote refutes anything of what wrote.

Peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1406-peer-reviewed-papers-on-intelligent-design

http://www.discovery.org/f/10141

Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?

Darwinists use a similar rule—I call it “Catch-23”—to exclude intelligent design from science:
intelligent design is not scientific, so it can’t be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. How
do we know it’s not scientific? Because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Catch-23!

http://www.discovery.org/a/1212

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1163

‘So how do you explain this then?’ is not a scientific argument, and quite often, the legitimate answer (from any side) may be, ‘we don’t know’.

Limited causal alternatives do not justify to claim of " not knowing "

Confessing of not knowing, when there are good reasons to confess ignorance, is ok.

But claiming of not knowing of something, despite the evident facts easy at hand and having the ability to come to informed well-founded conclusions based on sound reasoning, and through known facts and evidence, is not only willful ignorance but plain foolishness.

In special, when the issues in the discussion are related to origins and worldviews, and eternal destiny is at stake.


If there were hundreds of possible statements, then claiming of not knowing which makes most sense could be justified. In the quest of God, there are just two possible explanations. Either there is a God, or not. There is however a wealth of evidence, which can lead us to informed, well-justified conclusions.

We KNOW HOW to detect the action of intelligence by a mind when we see :

- written messages
- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- something purposefully made for specific goals
- specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message
- irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artifacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- order or orderly patterns
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts
- artifacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )
- Fine-tuned things


We KNOW by observation and experience that the origin of blueprints containing the instructional complex information, and the fabrication of complex machines and interlinked factories based on these instructions, which produce goods for specific purposes, are both always the result of intelligent setup, and never the result of the spontaneous emergence through self-organization by unguided natural events in an orderly manner without external direction, chemical non-biological, purely physicodynamic processes and reactions.
Living Cells store very complex genetic and epigenetic information through the genetic code, and over twenty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms. Each cell hosts millions of interconnected molecular machines, production lines and factories analogous to factories made by man. They are of unparalleled gigantic complexity, able to process constantly a stream of data from the outside world through signaling networks. Cells operate robot-like, autonomously. They adapt the production and recycle molecules on demand. The process of self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and sophistication.
Therefore, the origin of biological information and self-replicating cell factories is best explained by the action of an intelligent designer, who created life for his own purposes.


This is a question, to which I have yet to see an atheist give a consistent, rationally sound reply, and not the usual " I don't know ":

If God is not the metaphysical, supernatural, primary ultimate essential eternal necessary irreducible personal being upon which all other temporal natural things, humans with personality, consciousness, and rationality causally derive and depend, what is, and why? If there was not an eternal being, an agency with a will, that caused all physical and contingent mental conscient beings, the cosmos and/or our universe into existence, how could an alternative substance without qualia be an explanation, and on top of that, a better explanation? That, in special, in light of the fact that consciousness, an irreducible, fundamental property of mind cannot, even in principle, be reduced to known physical principles? To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.
 

Nesslig20

Member
life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes, etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever "get off the ground". It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce its own entropy.
All thermodynamic processes that perform 'work' uses energy. Although life appears to do it very efficiently, it accelerates the increase of entropy in the universe, which is actually one of the reasons WHY life may not be surprising at all from a thermodynamical point of view.

That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail "figuring out" how to spontaneously rust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion.
Not really, since there are naturally occurring systems are far from getting towards thermodynamic equilibrium, hence useful energy (or gibbs free energy) is constantly supplied, at least for a significant amount of time, such as sunlight shining down on earth to support photosynthesis, or hydrothermal vents supplying chemical energy that was in turn produced by heat from the earth's core. To put an more accurate analogy, life is a slinky tumbling down an continuously running escalator, driven by nature.


Unintelligent simple chemicals can't self-organize...
Wrong...add some lipids to some water, and mix them real good, let it settle down and you get the following structures.
1593451101000.png
Automatically, as previously explained.

Abiogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism
Not really. We have made great advancements in abiogenesis research. First it was thought that organic compounds are impossible to be produced without life. That was wrong. Then it was thought that some compounds essential to life couldn't be produced. We know that is wrong too. Now we are on the cusp of demonstrating that the physics itself not only makes life plausible, but inevitable under the right conditions (as explained by J. England). What is left it finding out exactly what the environmental conditions are. That latter part is still a mystery.

Any so called alternative...such as "intelligent Design" has NOTHING to show to argue for its case. All the advocates for it can do is complain about the problems of abiogenesis, even if some of them were already solved ages ago. But even still, let's for the sake of argument say that abiogenesis is completely false. We are living in the middle ages and we have not a single idea about how life could originate. Does that mean that it is intelligent design? Nope, that's an argument from credulity.

That's why I pointed out that you have given no reason why we should lend any credence to your proposition. Saying "ooh, just how nifty and complex life is. Scientists do not know its materialistic origins" does not cut it.

My comment: That is correct, but why is it so? In order for hydrophobic amino acids to locate at the center or inside, or the pocket of the protein, hydrophobic amino acids must be located in the right position in the polypeptide chain - and that is specified in the genetic code. So the right question is: Where does the information come from...
That would be natural selection. Although, you missed the point.

You said "Without information, the inflow of energy would not lead to self-organization"
Although, after the "information" is in place, the protein folding happens automatically. The process of self-organisation is not driven necessarily by the specific arrangement of the amino acids. Rather, the arrangement specifies HOW it will self-organise in what way. Of course, some arrangements won't self-organise.

But then again, a better example that does not use this "information" is provided by the aforementioned lipids forming sheets and vesicles.

Or here is an even better example. How entropy BY ITSELF can organise stuff, without any additional forces such as hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity.

Random chance is not a viable option - too big is the sequence space to get non-functional amino acid arrangements, which will not fold the chain into a useful 3D shape. The narrator conveniently left that explanation out.
Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides
It is generally assumed that new genes arise through duplication and/or recombination of existing genes. The probability that a new functional gene could arise out of random non-coding DNA is so far considered to be negligible, as it seems unlikely that such an RNA or protein sequence could have an initial function that influences the fitness of an organism. Here, we have tested this question systematically, by expressing clones with random sequences in Escherichia coli and subjecting them to competitive growth. Contrary to expectations, we find that random sequences with bioactivity are not rare. In our experiments we find that up to 25% of the evaluated clones enhance the growth rate of their cells and up to 52% inhibit growth. Testing of individual clones in competition assays confirms their activity and provides an indication that their activity could be exerted by either the transcribed RNA or the translated peptide. This suggests that transcribed and translated random parts of the genome could indeed have a high potential to become functional. The results also suggest that random sequences may become an effective new source of molecules for studying cellular functions, as well as for pharmacological activity screening.


Furthermore (I helped producing the script for this video below):

My comment: a little bit paradoxical, but definitely very cool - I would say, the least. In my understanding, this is awe-inspiring evidence that a super-intelligent intellect with foresight knew what amino acids would be functional, and how they had to be sequenced to bear functional 3d folding. Another amazing evidence of Intelligent Design.
How? No logical reason is given for this conclusion.

The argument can be summed up as such:
Premise 1: "oh how nifty"
Conclusion: "therefore design"

???How is that of any use???

Conversely, I know of several papers that study the properties of amino acids and deduce from that what they can potentially do in the absence of living systems. Like it has been pointed out that aromatic amino acids are likely biotic in origin, meaning life had to start with a reduced amino acid "alphabet", but they are still able to produce foldable proteins. I actually had a conversation with one of the authors of that paper, Liam Longo, along with a few others, because he saw the video (the one linked above which I helped with the scrip) and was interested in talking to us. Longo's research is on the abiogenesis of proteins and protein folding. This was one of the best conversations I ever had, but it was private and not recorded. He explained in detail how proteins fold and about his recent research on the most ancient protein folds, which turns out are rather simple and can easily form (at least that is what I can recall from memory. You need to ask him if you are interested).

More recently, this paper came out that points to small, and rather simple, protein folds that are plausible for the origin of life and could play a role in the origin of metabolism. I tweeted about this, since these protein folds reminded me of what Longo talked about during our conversation.
Screen Shot 2020-06-29 at 20.11.00.png

Well THAT is definitely very cool!! Research on abiogenesis constantly cranks out interesting findings like this, constantly improving our understanding of how life could have originated.

Meanwhile, what has "intelligent design" provided? I mean, besides constantly arguing against abiogenesis and then proclaim victory by default. I specifically mean research with results that supports their hypothesis POSITIVELY?

Well...
 
Last edited:

rationalist

New Member
That would be natural selection. Although, you missed the point.

There was no natural selection prior DNA replication.

All you have to work with, is coincidence.
 

Nesslig20

Member
That would be natural selection. Although, you missed the point.

There was no natural selection prior DNA replication.

All you have to work with, is coincidence.
When I gave that answer, it was in reference to modern proteins encoded in the genome, which did indeed evolve through selection.
However, in reference to the origin of the first protein folds, look a bit further down in my previous comment.
 

BrachioPEP

New Member
On peer reviewed stuff.

There are a lot of claims that creationists publish in peer reviewed journals. Niles Eldridge claimed that none who publish in the CRSQ (which I used to subscribe to) have done so. Eldridge (a popular evolutionist who co-authored on punctuated equilibrium with SJ Gould) is wrong. This might seem to be a tick for creation/ID and a cross for evolutionists. But it is merely a bad phrasing. What I suspect was meant, if not clear, is that creationists have not produced peer reviewed work on creation. Consider the authors of the Genesis flood, Morris and Whitcomb. One was a theologian and the other an engineer and none have anything of note to offer biological science or peer review on the topic. There are probably millions of PhDs and peer reviewed papers out there by creationists and Christians. Some are lawyers, some are engineers, but most are not life/earth scientists. Furthermore, those that are, either toe the line on creationism (i.e. don’t get involved or just sign up to add numbers to imply that creationism is scientific and doctors and dentists are included). Of those who are life/earth PhDs/post docs, most if not all will not have published work that demonstrates Creation or refutes evolution. Of the genuine (real qualifications) few left who are directly (professionally) involved in creationism, the numbers are miniscule and I challenge you to provide a list of peer reviewed science, specifically on creation. Given the numbers of life/earth scientists in the world, and the time that has been available to demonstrate creation or refute evolution, a pie chart comparison would be most convenient.

I have address later, explanations for work being rejected by journals and for every one of the VERY few claims or examples of unfairness towards ID/Creationist authors on being rejected, there are 1000 scientists who are evolutionists (because evolution works) who have been rejected, so don’t your sob trump card if your work just doesn’t cut it or interest the public. You cannot make a case or a norm from a few exceptions or by omitting all the others or just being selective. Being a creationist or ID proponent does not automatically make your article good, worthy, of interest or relevant. Merits count a lot, but with a subscription to customers, they have a reputation and may freely choose and controversy sometimes sells and sometimes does not or gives bad credibility. You may want to use this and put it at the top of your list, but then flat earthers et al would equally argue that it is their minority and badly perceived belief that is holding them back. Would you, as an editor let a flat earth research paper in? I’m sure that you would say that it would be based on merit, and I hope it would, just like any other paper.

If/as ID has nothing to do with science, why use it? If it says nothing about science, why mention it? If it has no measure in science, why weigh it or with what? If God of one of millions of denominations within a particular religion from a particular time as envisioned by a particular individual, created everything, in what way does that change anything we know of science or how we do it or investigate? If everyone had accepted this (ID), then science would have stopped investigating rainbows and snowflakes, the northern lights and bacteria flagellum and acknowledged that God did it, and we would have been so wrong for not taking our understanding further. Are you suggesting we stop exploring at a particular stage? Each stage at which an ID proponent claims is naturally impossible, instead of getting off your arse to see if it really is, you leave that to scientists who, perhaps you feel should better spend their time prostrating in awe and wonder than finding out how. And each time science finds/explains a new how, this unravels another gap to plug with, ‘how did this happen then?’. How many of the claims of IDers from the past that have been explained, have been explained by IDers as opposed to scientists (many if not most are Christians)?

Flat earthers will no doubt share your explanation of why science rejects them. If there is something scientific to say or argue, present it to those who are able or qualified to consider its merits. Such highly qualified and learned people as you no doubt are yourself should not waste your words on the likes of me. If you are a chess grandmaster, play a grandmaster, not school kids. If I had a huge, radical claim, winning over gullible or Mr. average over is not going to cut it or get me anywhere.

I’m a big fan of WLC myself. He is a debater second to none, extremely eloquent, nice, persuasive and very bright. But I have learned to recognise the flaws in his arguments, which he also disguises (mostly) very well. I recognise the same in Christopher Hitchens btw. Both of whom win most debates as this is their arena, but the arguments are less able to stand rigorous scrutiny.

Each of your ID arguments on various biological entities or origins are weak links, which together are aimed to look persuasive. Having a long list of arguments for the existence of God (for example) does not harden the case for a God because it is long. It doesn’t even make a case if each argument is poorly or not supported. The moon landing deniers have hundreds of reasons against it, but does that make a strong case? Add a conspiratorial trump card and it, ‘seems’ to add weight.

The case for ID has not persuaded most scientists (or most Christians, who one might think would more favour such a view than not), so one has to consider the very real possibility that it is the evidence that does not support you/them, not a lack of belief in a god or the belief in a theory that you/they don’t like.

The summary of what you are saying/believe seems to be that you have a belief in God, you find so much of science amazing and have many examples of this and try to find the ones that have not always been solved yet, to try to argue and support your belief that there is no natural explanation, therefore God did it. And you can also somehow infer that this God is personal, male and not an, ‘it’ or they or a what. A strategy that crosses many disciplines and would need volumes to present and link, yet you seem to believe you have demonstrated it in this post.

You will be very aware from the literature and as often presented on talkorigins that (and how) even inorganic matter can demonstrably and in labs and on computer programme simulations, arrange itself and how each step provides further opportunity and how simple organic matter can so much more and quickly re-arrange itself and add complexity and order, of and by itself under existing conditions, naturally.

ID is a pretty new concept. Previously it was a limited number of Creation options or full blown evolution. Now, following so much weight of evidence, YECists have either stuck, in spite of it, fled, accepted evolution or taken the ID compromise to justify the faith (which is not necessary). Even the most evangelical of states have rejected the concept/teaching as an excuse to try to resurrect or retain remnants of theology in science, despite the separation of the two.

I would like you to present a steel man rebuttal of any of your arguments/claims about any impossibility of natural explanation that science is capable of explaining. In other words, locate and present, to the best of your ability, the counter argument to your argument (or again state that there is none). If you don’t or can’t, I would assume that you have not found it or refuse to present it. If someone else then locates an explanation, it demonstrates your bias and/or incompetent research.

This approach will better demonstrate any open mindedness you have or desire to seek the truth or get answers to your questions or obstacles. If there is a God or evidence of it/them/him/her, then I’m sure many would love to see it. You must also respect those who have been here before and have seen so many examples presented, only to find out that there are perfectly natural explanations, and they hear the crying of wolves and can get fed up of wasting time investigating each new one. This might be a shame if there is something worth looking at, so people will just wait for the published data, which would be a lot more persuasive than a book professing the authors un-contestable claims which make her/him/them money, too.

I can list many wonders of the world in nature, many that I can’t explain, and it is no wonder that so many posit a supernatural explanation or buy into one. But science has been able to explain so many of these. Were you convinced by Paley’s rehashed irreducible complexity and the many examples presented a few decades ago? Did you try to find answers or sit back and defend them and put God in those holes? Have you published or acknowledged anywhere that previous God holes have been replaced by scientific explanations? It is often more telling by what is not published than what is.

Gish galloping lots of seemingly complex and inexplicable events together, as you know, could require multiple pages for each one and makes your audience look like there are clever (or justified and scientific) arguments, when there are not. This gives credence and airtime to a theologically inspired/motivated conspiracy. And it means there is more opportunity for you to move goalposts in your response. Best to stick to one, single, clear point and focus con just that before moving on.

There are obviously so many missing possibilities you omitted from the options and scenarios. You made little effort to fill in the huge gaps in reasoning between one proposition and the next moving form, ‘this is clever, I wonder how it was done?’ to, ‘therefore God (the He) did it. Do you believe vin God? Is there any similarity between the God you claim to have exposed in your ID and your own personal God? Are there any contradictions? I will let readers guess the answer.

If any of your inexplicable examples have not been considered, then at least wait for them to be so examined (and agreed, challenged or refuted) and for the ones that have been examined and responded to, be fair to your audience and show the responses they offer as they would expect to be presented, in fullness and fairness. If, after scientists in the related fields are baffled and blown away by your claims, then consider taking it further. If it is science (or philosophy), the world is waiting and willing to review it. There is no conspiracy in this. But remember that not every idea is a good or clever one (as businesses and many a researcher has discovered to her/his embarrassment) and not every one will be jumped upon by a journal. Of course those who do not get selected may think it unfair, as failed beauty contestants and auditioners will testify. Being left out because of a conspiracy and being left out because you are (or it is) shit are different things.

I wonder what would change your mind? if you had your questions answered, would that change anything for you? Your approach to questions, your belief? If it is founded on other things, I doubt it. Perhaps make a clear list of your challenges and send them to people who are knowledgeable in the related fields and see what they say and publish those and rebut them, in the interest of fairness (as I notice that you say you have yet to get a reasonable response on at least one question from an, ‘atheist’ – why atheists? That sounds conspiratorial. Can’t anyone attempt to explain?).

Again, do consider the VERY limited peer reviewed stuff published (from IDers) and note that most people who believe in the very same God that you do AND are scientists in these specialist fields, do not agree or see things your way, because of/based on the (same) evidence. And (again) two views do not make it a 50/50 choice. After all, Elvis could return today, or he could not. You could win the lottery, or you could not. And ID, (in whatever cloak it is disguised) may be correct or not.

Darwinist (as a term) will not bode well with many biologists or those in related fields. Darwin was a person, he is not a theory and what he knew and presented over 150 years ago has changed, developed and been updated a lot since. Darwin’s work is there to see, as is all the most recent scientific knowledge which is constantly open to challenge and update. Best to simply use the term, ‘evolution’ (or an expanded or defined and agreed version of the word).

The generalisation of Darwinists also implies a conspiracy, as though it is a huge secret or club that post grads go to on completion of their degree and get initiated into and tow a line of allegiance to a man or his old, basic theory. This is entirely unfounded, demonstrably untrue and only adds to your potential motive and one-way valve on this.

I recall being involved in a conspiracy theory and how it occurred and developed and how I escaped from it. On the part where I came to accept it, it was a series/bombardment of pieces of evidence, testimony and literature that convinced me. It all seemed so persuasive and it appeared much bigger and more widely accepted than it actually was, and getting into it with others only enhanced that, and then the conviction grew of why the establishment did not accept it. It is hard to see the wood for the tress whilst climbing one. Just saying.

If any/all of this is a confused mess, I will again follow your lead and suggest that you present one clear challenge or biological anomaly that you think can only be explained by ID and see what you get back. There may not be answers here, but there are places who would welcome your challenge, but may, from experience feel that the back and forth is an endless rabbit hole that doesn’t address the point or get anywhere, so be careful how you present it and be clear what you expect back and don’t nit-pick, stick to the point. Try presenting the case as wanting to find out, ‘how’, rather than stating that it cannot, and be willing to accept reasonable answers and not ignore them and just move on to something else, which would be seen as rude or dismissive or biased and unwilling to listen or reason. Even the worst government or leader does something you agree with and this can and should be acknowledged by the most fervent opposition.

You have some reasonable questions that deserve answers and not all answers will be forthcoming or even available, (but may or may not in the future) but most of your questions are explained naturally in the literature. Are you aware of this? Is there a reason you have not said so? It is your presentation/motive that makes me wonder if you really are open minded or do seek answers or just want to proselytize a deity.

Suggested approach (one at a time).

I was looking at the process of X and found that I couldn’t quite understand how it could have gotten from A to B. I tried asking people (e.g. I posted here and here) and doing some research (e.g. here and here – have I missed some?). I found two possible responses to something similar, both from people in the field, but both seemed to exclude the key factor that I could not understand, namely they start with 1 and just jump to point 5 and there seems to be such a huge gap/jump between the points without explanation. I don’t want to presume anything and I am sure there are lots of bright people out there who no doubt could explain it to my satisfaction. I have numerous other queries or concerns that make me wonder if we are perhaps missing an ingredient here. I may well be wrong, so can anyone put me right?



The thinks you attribute, ‘we KNOW…’ to, are not knowns, and are often explained or shown to be known with alternative explnations, so anything thereafter is a non sequitur. You have stated that certain things are known and facts, when both are untrue and/or not demonstrable.

Note: I would add that in the interests of your valuable time and energy, you don’t waste too much time on me. I am a nobody and if you take my responses, they should be duly noted that they are totally worthless to anyone. Do try to get a response from someone of note with whom you can, ‘have a conversation’ J or tell others about.

Your question.

"If God"

Yes, that’s a big, ‘IF’ that needs justifying.

"is not the metaphysical, supernatural, primary ultimate essential eternal necessary irreducible personal being upon which all other temporal natural things, humans with personality, consciousness, and rationality causally derive and depend, what is, and why?"

You are appealing to something you can’t explain or don’t understand or want to, and replacing it with a big bag of lego/mecano complexity that is conveniently already fully assembled and able to do anything, and say that, ‘that did it’. This simply puts your questions (that probably has been answered or can be by others) into a mixing bowl that you can put all of your difficulties in, and out pops god. Condensing your problems into a god shaped figure and hiding him outside of time or space is well packaged comic book mentality, wholly without reason or evidence but great fun to imagine and play with in your head and develop over millennia, as are many theological deities which each have various explanations to the problems of man.

It’s like those who believe that we are aliens, which merely moves the problem of abiogenesis elsewhere in the solar system or beyond.

All of the problems that science has dealt with and will do, if heaped on a god or spread evenly all over him, may look like a condensed or dispersed problem more easily dealt with, but without justifying that God with incredible evidence, you are doing nothing.

‘The God you believe in is unable to lie. That is an attribute (deficiency) his god gave him when he created him. The true, ultimate god. Your god is the god of this solar system (or maybe universe) but his god is the god of all universes. This accounts for everything your god and holy book claim and add a layer of betterness to Anselm’s lesser god. And the elephants go down and down.’



"If there was not an eternal being, an agency with a will, that caused all physical and contingent mental conscient beings, the cosmos and/or our universe into existence, how could an alternative substance without qualia be an explanation, and on top of that, a better explanation?"

Where have you demonstrated that the universe is not eternal or that nothing can or cannot exist or that everything needs an origin except when you decide that something is exempt? Who decides the best explanation for things? If it is science, then it (a world largely composed of people who are theists) is not convinced by your argument, which it presumably would be if it were purely the evidence, especially when they have a belief that supports it. The absence or lack of something, like some knowledge on some things does not equate to God being or doing or existing. You have not demonstrated the need or necessity of anything and I do not know how you even could. Many do not think this/yours, to be the best or only or any explanation. You can’t string a few things together to pretend that it creates a full or powerful presentation, it doesn’t. Take each one on its own and deal with that. Then, the culmination of what you are left with, put it through a sieve and use that and fairly.



"That, in special, in light of the fact that consciousness, an irreducible, fundamental property of mind cannot, even in principle, be reduced to known physical principles?"

Can you demonstrate as claimed, that consciousness is factually irreducible or fundamental or what mind is? Are you rejecting the evolutionary or scientific explanations so far put forward (in peer reviewed work e.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/) and on what basis and what was the response to your critique? Did you consider any of these before declaring the fact that it can’t happen naturally? I can clearly bsee how keen you are to believe something, but declaring facts without demonstration is not the way to present an argument or look or or demonstrate any possibility that you will consider an explanation.



"To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties."

I am simply unqualified and not well versed in this (or frankly, any other) area so I cannot comment. You might be totally correct and have made the holy grail of questions that no-one can answer. It may also of course be possible that plenty of others can explain your query and it may be that no-one knows, I simply don’t know myself, but unless there is some slam dunk point you have omitted to mention, the points you do mention seem to have various explanations. Can you think of one or don’t you want to? By placing an argument and the response(s), it lays a foundation for others to follow, see both sides of and research or comment on. You seem to have come to the table as judge and jury, with an axe, a decision and a closed mind, but I may have misjudged you and I love good arguments and I think you have the basis of some here, though many will not be convinced and undoubtedly for reasons different from my own.

Disclaimer. I reserve the right to be a hypocrite, illogical, make mistakes, write without thinking and not practise what I preach.
 
Life depends on the structural complex arrangement using

- matter
- energy
- information
I have really come to hate so much the Creation vs Evolution debate.

Assuming you are a Christian and a Creationist, like myself, I wonder if you really even believe what you are saying here. I believe the life God has given us lasts forever and that God is living and I will live with him forever. I don't believe God is dependent on an endless source of energy to accomplish this. I think energy is something God created so that universe could work. Do you not agree with this? Are you a Christian?

Sorry if I am sounding like a dick here. I am not the most intelligent or educated person on this forum.
 
Top