Tuesday, December 15, 2009

"Prove My Point Much?"

That’s what’s actually happening, you know. The more atheists try to prove that Intelligence has nothing to do with the rise of life, the more they show that Intelligence was absolutely required.

What I’m looking for is the origin of specified complexity as it’s found in DNA, RNA and Proteins. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Neither Chance, nor Chemical Necessity can produce that type of information.

Ask Gorth. He has no choice but to agree.

Laws of nature (or biochemistry), which denote regular patterns, produce the opposite of specified complexity.

The Chance hypothesis fails because, as we saw, there is simply not enough time nor resources in the whole universe since BB to have brought about the known outcome - specified complexity.

DNA and RNA first scenarios don’t produce specified complexity.

Every model I’ve discussed in these posts either presupposes specified complexity without explaining its origin, or simply moves the problem to another area without explaining its origin. Either way, the origin of specified complexity is ignored, sidestepped or purposely avoided - for good reason. Atheists know that to date, none of their hypothesis provides the Best Evidence for what we observe.

This is especially true for the computer models which I did not spend much time on. In computer models, the input of information (by Intelligence) always exceeds the output UNLESS an Intelligent Agent has intervened.

In origins of the universe, every attempt to prove that it wasn’t Big Bang, has wound up confirming and affirming the validity of Big Bang. In origins of first life, every attempt to prove it was something other than ID has wound up moving the case in the direction of ID; of showing the ID is what BEST EXPLAINS what we observe. We know of no other causes of specified complexity than by an Intelligent Agent. Every experiment created to prove “nothing did it” reinforces the absolute necessity of a Mind to arrange the proper components to impart the needed information.

I’ve had atheists actually point to Miller’s first experiments where “amino acids were actually produced” :-o This is said with and air of excitement yet, we now know that early earth did not have a reducing atmosphere as Miller tried to tell us. That means that experiments using a reducing mixture don’t simulate anything approaching reality. Only and Intelligent Designer (Miller) brought about those amino acids. So intelligent was he that his fraudulent experiments remained in textbooks long after it was known that early earth looked nothing like Miller had told us. As well, we know that without intervention by an Intelligent Agent, unwanted by-products in natural conditions would interact with desirable products to form useless compounds. In these types of experiments, Intelligent Agents must manipulate the conditions before they set up a “simulation” of how “nature” created life.

What’s more, since the topic of these posts is information, manipulation by intelligent agents bring about “profoundly informative interventions.” Polanyi, “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry” 64.

Each and every decision that the scientist makes is an Intelligent Design decision to either remove one by-product and not another or to empower one compound and not another. Each of these actions puts into the system huge amounts of specific information. Any success that these experiments may have, have been achieved by Intelligent deliberate and conscious actions of an Intelligent Mind. The experiments themselves are clearly NOT simulations of actual events and are instead a clear indication of an Intelligent Agent working to bring about a desired outcome.

Computer Based Algorithms are probably the clearest case of Intelligent input. None of the experiments to date would have been possible without functional information being put into the system, information that simply would not have been there in the conditions atheists tell us existed at the primordial earth. Computer programs to simulate natural selection all have a target selection programmed in. There was / IS no such foresight in nature.

“Target selection” does not simulate natural processes.

Rather, it highlights the Intellectual powers of the computer programmers. Every computer algorithm is a testament to Intelligent Design.

I can’t find it now but I think some atheist told me that a ribosyme had been manufactured in Sweden, or something like that. Any ribosyme replication has been brought about by the Intelligence of the Ribozyme Engineers:
. Intelligent Designers are the ones who enable self-replication to proceed.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who select molecules that have a slightly enhanced ligase capacity.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones that preserve the optimal molecules.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones that enrich the molecules by repeated selection and amplification.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who intervene before any of the other ways that polymerases perform.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who anticipate the future function in a way that is not possible in nature.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who choose RNA sequences knowing beforehand the required condition to bring about self-replication.

And then they say, "Look! Life could have arisen by natural means."

That, Ginx, is the atheist influence on science. True science, pure science, science uncontaminated by atheist bias could never make such a statement. Under the bigoted drive to eliminate Creator God, that is the only statement that is allowed.

I find that profoundly sad.

None of this foresight is present in nature.

There is no Intelligent selector or replicator in nature.

Apart from an Intelligent Agent, no molecule capable of acting as a replicator would have existed in the early stages of RNA growth.

Ribozyme engineering experiments show the power of Intelligent Agents to produce the results these supposedly Intelligent Agents say happened naturally.
Lawrence and Bartel, “New Liagase-Derived RNA Polymerase Ribosymes”

5 comments:

Ginx said...

What I’m looking for is the origin of specified complexity as it’s found in DNA, RNA and Proteins. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Wrong, what you're looking for is attention, and we foolishly give it to you.

Laws of nature (or biochemistry), which denote regular patters, produce the opposite of specified complexity.

Wrong, and your spelling makes it difficult to take any of this seriously.

The Chance hypothesis fails because, as we saw, there is simply not enough time nor resources in the whole universe since BB to have brought about the known outcome - specified complexity.

Wrong. You "proved" no such thing. You glibly wrote numbers down and told us your interpretation is clearly more accurate than that of people who study this for a living, many of whom are theists and would be offended by your implication that this is "atheist" propaganda.

If you took your nose out of twenty year old Creationist rhetoric, you might leave your home and meet someone with a cross around their neck who is working on this very thing, and they would be happy to explain to you that you can still believe in talking snakes and zombie carpenters while still acknowledging the laws of biochemistry.

This is especially true for the computer models which I did not spend much time on. In computer models, the input of information (by Intelligence) always exceeds the output UNLESS an Intelligent Agent has intervened.

Wrong, and I'm not doing the homework of finding them for you. You may view them yourself in the scientific journals, "Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres" or "Journal of Molecular Evolution." If you cared so much, you would actually do the research. I already did the grunt work, I got graded on it, and I passed. I can't help the fact that you remain willfully ignorant. A free education awaits at your local library [stay in school, kids].

information that simply would not have been there in the conditions atheists tell us existed at the primordial earth.

I have no fucking clue what information you're talking about. This sentence is just so epically stupid that I feel dumber for having read it. The fact that you don't know the difference between scientists and atheists shows me:

1. You aren't even reading my responses.
2. You have no ability to tell the difference between people who are different than you, ergo anyone who disagrees with you is part of some unclean, unsaved mass.
3. None of this has anything to do with science, it has to do with your perceived war on Christianity waged by evil atheists who lie about the world and call it "science."

There is such a thing as "intellectual integrity." When someone makes repeated mistakes which are glaringly stupid, it is almost expected that people ignore them for what they are: uninformed idiots with time on their hands. There's really only a certain threshold of tolerance someone can take when it comes to dealing with it.

Go ahead and post on my blog if you ever decide to talk about something besides your Creation fetish.

Makarios said...

Maybe it because I'm hungry, but, you weren't quite as funny this time.

Still, you avoided the topic just as well as any other time you comment. Stability is the key - right?

Hugo said...

Yes, Makarios, you proved your point.

I now believe that the fundamental building blocks for all lifeforms cannot have evolved naturally because they are examples of specified complexity.

These building blocks are examples of "specified complexity" because the information require for them to evolve came from an intelligent mind that designed them.

In other words, the building blocks could not have evolved because they are specified complexity designed by a mind, and we know they are specified complexity because they could not have evolved. Oh wait...

Gorth Satana said...

I haven't read the post yet but before I do I want to relate to you two conversations I have witnessed.

The first is the time a group of missionaries from USA came on a boat. They found what must be the only Jehovah's Witness in the entire country. One of the group and the JW started having a "discussion". The missionary started listing all the bad things about Joseph Smith. The J.W. told him that JWs have nothing to do with Joseph Smith. The missionary continued attacking Joseph Smith. The JW told him that Joseph Smith started the Mormons not the Jehovah's Witnesses. He continued attacking Smith and the JW walked away. The missionary went back to the group (which I was at a table near) and triumphantly told the group (in English now) about how he'd gave the JW something to think about. He actually thought he'd "won" the conversation.
This reminds me of Rod.
Dunning/Kruger effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Gorth Satana said...

Prove My Point Much?
That’s what’s actually happening, you know
.

Dunning/Kruger effect. Well, let's get this over with quickly...

What I’m looking for is the origin of specified complexity as it’s found in DNA, RNA and Proteins. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less..

First, "specified complexity"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Criticisms
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI111_1.html

And second. No. You are not just looking for the origin of this, you are looking for gaps to put your god in. When one gap is filled, you will move onto another gap.

Laws of nature (or biochemistry), which denote regular patterns, produce the opposite of specified complexity.
"specified complexity"?

The Chance hypothesis fails because, as we saw, there is simply not enough time nor resources in the whole universe since BB to have brought about the known outcome - specified complexity.
You do not understand statistics and truly large numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Truly_Large_Numbers