How biosynthesis of amino acids points to a created process
Posted: 19 January 2017 07:05 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  554
Joined  2009-05-03

How biosynthesis of amino acids points to a created process

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1397-how-biosynthesis-of-amino-acids-points-to-a-created-process

Could the oxygen and nitrogen cicle be explained by naturalistic means ? The reason for the abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere is the presence of a very large number of organisms which produce oxygen as a byproduct of their metabolism. Cyanobacteria or blue-green algae became the first microbes to produce oxygen by photosynthesis. They are one of the oldest bacteria that live on earth, said to exist perhaps as long as 3.5 billion years. And their capabilities are nothing more than astounding.  No cianobacteria, no oxygen, no higher life forms. These cianobacterias have incredibly sophisticated enzyme proteins and metabolic pathways, like the electron transport chains, ATP synthase motors, circadian clock, the photosynthetic light reactions, carbon concentration mechanism, and transcriptional regulation , they produce binded nitrogen through nitrogenase, a highly sophisticated mechanism to bind nitrogen, used as a nutrient for plant and animal growth.

The Nitrogen cycle is a lot more complex than the carbon cycle. Nitrogen is a very important element. It makes up almost 80% of our atmosphere, and it is an important component of proteins and DNA, both of which are the building blocks of animals and plants. Therefore without nitrogen we would lose one of the most important elements on this planet, along with oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. There are a number of stages to the nitrogen cycle, which involve breaking down and building up nitrogen and it’s various compounds.There is no real starting point for the nitrogen cycle. It is an endless cycle. Potential gaps in the system cannot be reasonably bypassed by inorganic nature alone. It must have a degree of specificity that in all probability could not have been produced by chance.

A given function or step in the system may be found in several different unrelated organisms. The removal of any one of the individual biological steps will resort in the loss of function of the system. The data suggest that the nitrogen cycle may be irreducibly interdependent based on the above criteria. No proposed neo-Darwinian mechanisms can explain the origin of such a system.The ultimate source of nitrogen for the biosynthesis of amino acids is atmospheric nitrogen (N2), a nearly inert gas. Its needed by all living things to build proteins and nucleic acids. This is one of the hardest chemical bonds of all to break. So, how can nitrogen be brought out of its tremendous reserves in the atmosphere and into a state where it can be used by living things?

To be metabolically useful, atmospheric nitrogen must be reduced. It must be converted to a useful form. Without “fixed” nitrogen, plants, and therefore animals, could not exist as we know them. This process, known as nitrogen fixation, occurs through lightening, but most in certain types of bacteria, namely cianobacteria. Even though nitrogen is one of the most prominent chemical elements in living systems, N2 is almost unreactive (and very stable) because of its triple bond (N≡N). This bond is extremely difficult to break because the three chemical bonds need to be separated and bonded to different compounds. Nitrogenase is the only family of enzymes capable of breaking this bond (i.e., it carries out nitrogen fixation). Nitrogenase is a very complex enzyme system. Nitrogenase genes are distributed throughout the prokaryotic kingdom, including representatives of the Archaea as well as the Eubacteria and Cyanobacteria.With assistance from an energy source (ATP) and a powerful and specific complementary reducing agent (ferredoxin), nitrogen molecules are bound and cleaved with surgical precision.

In this way, a ‘molecular sledgehammer’ is applied to the NN bond, and a single nitrogen molecule yields two molecules of ammonia. The ammonia then ascends the ‘food chain’, and is used as amino groups in protein synthesis for plants and animals. This is a very tiny mechanism, but multiplied on a large scale it is of critical importance in allowing plant growth and food production on our planet to continue. ‘Nature is really good at it (nitrogen-splitting), so good in fact that we’ve had difficulty in copying chemically the essence of what bacteria do so well.’ If one merely substitutes the name of God for the word ‘nature’, the real picture emerges.These proteins use a collection of metal ions as the electron carriers that are responsible for the reduction of N2 to NH3. All organisms can then use this reduced nitrogen (NH3) to make amino acids. In humans, reduced nitrogen enters the physiological system in dietary sources containing amino acids. One thing is certain—that matter obeying existing laws of chemistry could not have created, on its own, such a masterpiece of chemical engineering.Without cyanobacteria - no fixed nitrogen is available.Without fixed nitrogen, no DNA, no amino-acids, no protein can be synthesised. Without DNA, no amino-acids,protein, or cyanobacteria are possible. So thats a interdependent system.


Amino acids are the building blocks that make up proteins. Twenty chemically distinct amino acids comprise the proteins found in every organism on Earth. That is, the set of amino acids used in biology is universal. Yet, hundreds of amino acids exist in nature. Why does nature use the specific set of 20 amino acids, and not others existing, to make proteins ?  1

This question leads to other related why questions:

- Why are proteins built from amino acids? Why not build them from the chemically simpler hydroxy acids?
- Why do only amino acids and sugars only in one enantiomeric form in most biological systems exist on earth ?
- Why are the amino acids in proteins α-amino acids? Why not β- or γ- or δ-amino acids?
- Why do all the amino acids in proteins have an α-hydrogen?
- Why are there no N-alkyl amino acids in proteins?

Many naturally occurring amino acids possess these structural features. Shouldn’t at least some of these alternative compounds have made their way into proteins? Why did they not ? The team conducted a quantitative comparison of the range of chemical and physical properties possessed by the 20 protein-building amino acids versus random sets of amino acids that could have been selected from early Earth’s hypothetical prebiotic soup. They concluded that the set of 20 amino acids is optimal.

It turns out that the set of amino acids found in biological systems possess properties that evenly and uniformly varies across a broad range of sizes, charges, and hydrophobicities. They also demonstrate that the amino acids selected for proteins is a “highly unusual set of 20 amino acids; a maximum of 0.03% random sets out-performed the standard amino acid alphabet in two properties, while no single random set exhibited greater coverage in all three properties simultaneously.” 2

The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. 3 There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment.

Polymer formation in aqueous environments would most likely have been necessary on early Earth because the liquid ocean would have been the reservoir of amino acid precursors needed for protein synthesis. 3

A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.

Sidney Fox, an amino acid chemist, and one of my professors in graduate school, recognized the problem and set about constructing an alternative. Since water is unfavorable to peptide bond formation, the absence of water must favor the reaction. Fox attempted to melt pure crystalline amino acids in order to promote peptide bond formation by driving off water from the mix. He discovered to his dismay that most amino acids broke down to a tarry degradation product long before they melted. After many tries he discovered two of the 20 amino acids, aspartic and glutamic acid, would melt to a liquid at about 200oC. He further discovered that if he were to dissolve the other amino acids in the molten aspartic and glutamic acids, he could produce a melt containing up to 50% of the remaining 18 amino acids. It was no surprise then that the amber liquid, after cooking for a few hours , contained polymers of amino acids with some of the properties of proteins. He subsequently named the product proteinoids. The polymerized material can be poured into an aqueous solution, resulting in the formation of spherules of protein-like material which Fox has likened to cells. Fox has claimed nearly every conceivable property for his product, including that he had bridged the macromolecule to cell transition. He even went so far as to demonstrate a piece of lava rock could substitute for the test tube in proteinoid synthesis and claimed the process took place on the primitive earth on the flanks of volcanoes.

Experimental evidence indicates that if there are bonding preferences between amino acids, they are not the ones found in natural organisms. There are three basic requirements for a biologically functional protein. 4

One: It must have a specific sequence of amino acids. At best prebiotic experiments have produced only random polymers. And many of the amino acids included are not found in living organisms.

Second: An amino acid with a given chemical formula may in its structure be either “righthanded” (D-amino acids) or “left-handed” (L-amino acids). Living organisms incorporate only L-amino acids. However, in prebiotic experiments where amino acids are formed approximately equal numbers of D- and L-amino acids are found. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution (p. vi).

Third: In some amino acids there are more positions than one on the molecule where the amino and carboxyl groups may join to form a peptide bond. In natural proteins only alpha peptide bonds (designating the location of the bond) are found. In proteinoids, however, beta, gamma and epsilon peptide bonds largely predominate. Just the opposite of what one would expect if bonding preferences played a role in prebiotic evolution.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2017 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25

You’re definitely persistent in your foolishness. Ok, let’s try again. I grant everything you say and admit there is or was a creator. Now prove to me that the creator didn’t kill itself after creating a self-sustaining universe. Prove to me that this creator is NOT just a super advanced, godlike being who just appears to us as The God. Prove to me that this creator equals the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God and no other. And you have to do this without referencing religion or a bible, since that’s circular reasoning and doesn’t count.

GO

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2017 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  554
Joined  2009-05-03
CuthbertJ - 19 January 2017 11:20 AM

You’re definitely persistent in your foolishness. Ok, let’s try again. I grant everything you say and admit there is or was a creator. Now prove to me that the creator didn’t kill itself after creating a self-sustaining universe. Prove to me that this creator is NOT just a super advanced, godlike being who just appears to us as The God. Prove to me that this creator equals the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God and no other. And you have to do this without referencing religion or a bible, since that’s circular reasoning and doesn’t count.

GO

Why do atheists try to justify their unbelief in God ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2413-why-do-atheists-try-to-justify-their-unbelief-in-god

 

Why do atheists all the time ask for empirical proofs for Gods existence ? If you lack belief in a deity, yet spend tons of time debating people who DO believe in God and seeking to shoot holes in their beliefs, does this mean they are seeking to find God in a roundabout way (desiring to be persuaded)? Or does it mean that they think they are justifying in their non-belief and making themself feel better and more warranted / justified to disbelieve in God by shooting down the believers in a creator ? 1

A common argument is that there is no evidence or proof for Gods existence, and what cannot be backed up with evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Whatever couldn’t be proven or disproven was in the “realm of fiction or hallucinations…. . But why the demand that proponents of intelligent design / creationism must produce empirical conclusive proofs for Gods existence, as if that is the be-all and end-all of all epistemological inquiry? Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question. What would they consider good or compelling evidence and how would they define what is evidence of design in nature ? The question they must answer is : “what evidence would you find compelling?”

There is a huge body of work from many serious thinkers arguing the theistic God; there is no such body of work painstakingly arguing in favor of Santa Claus (i.e., the mythical figure), the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids. That’s why the theistic claim is a lot more credible.

It is much more plausible that the universe came about by the causal agency of God than by self-causation or random chance. We should accept the claims by virtue of the demands of rationality and plausibility, by which we also determine whether anything else is true.

Its pointless to ask for proofs. Thats on the lowest level of a atheism - theism debate, reserved to the ones that have no education in philosophy and science.

 

1. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/10/atheist-demands-for-empirical-proofs-of-god.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2017 10:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Yawn.gif~c200

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2014-06-20
Adonai888 - 19 January 2017 11:57 AM
CuthbertJ - 19 January 2017 11:20 AM

You’re definitely persistent in your foolishness. Ok, let’s try again. I grant everything you say and admit there is or was a creator. Now prove to me that the creator didn’t kill itself after creating a self-sustaining universe. Prove to me that this creator is NOT just a super advanced, godlike being who just appears to us as The God. Prove to me that this creator equals the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God and no other. And you have to do this without referencing religion or a bible, since that’s circular reasoning and doesn’t count.

GO

Why do atheists try to justify their unbelief in God ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2413-why-do-atheists-try-to-justify-their-unbelief-in-god

 

Why do atheists all the time ask for empirical proofs for Gods existence ? If you lack belief in a deity, yet spend tons of time debating people who DO believe in God and seeking to shoot holes in their beliefs, does this mean they are seeking to find God in a roundabout way (desiring to be persuaded)? Or does it mean that they think they are justifying in their non-belief and making themself feel better and more warranted / justified to disbelieve in God by shooting down the believers in a creator ? 1

A common argument is that there is no evidence or proof for Gods existence, and what cannot be backed up with evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Whatever couldn’t be proven or disproven was in the “realm of fiction or hallucinations…. . But why the demand that proponents of intelligent design / creationism must produce empirical conclusive proofs for Gods existence, as if that is the be-all and end-all of all epistemological inquiry? Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question. What would they consider good or compelling evidence and how would they define what is evidence of design in nature ? The question they must answer is : “what evidence would you find compelling?”

There is a huge body of work from many serious thinkers arguing the theistic God; there is no such body of work painstakingly arguing in favor of Santa Claus (i.e., the mythical figure), the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids. That’s why the theistic claim is a lot more credible.

It is much more plausible that the universe came about by the causal agency of God than by self-causation or random chance. We should accept the claims by virtue of the demands of rationality and plausibility, by which we also determine whether anything else is true.

Its pointless to ask for proofs. Thats on the lowest level of a atheism - theism debate, reserved to the ones that have no education in philosophy and science.

 

1. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/10/atheist-demands-for-empirical-proofs-of-god.html


If you knew the barest of basics about critical thinking—the basis of all modern science—you would know that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim—never to the person(s) to whom the claim is made. Since by your own words you don’t understand this, it is useless to to discuss the issue with you.  You apparently never ask for evidence for anything that comes up in your life, so you are a complete and utter dupe.  The Center of Inquiry uses critical thinking and so do all of the rational members of this forum. I’m sorry you aren’t one of them. When you finally learn what critical thinking is and how it works we can debate. If you are interested in knowing anything about it, which I strongly doubt, you could start with this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot

But you appear to be too sure of yourself to understand it. So, here’s a deal.  I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I can let you have for a rock bottom price. I can see by the fact that you reject the need for evidence but just accept claims at face value—even one as enormous as that a god exists—that you will never ask for proof that the bridge I am offering actually exists nor that I own it and have a right to sell it because you have proven to me and all the members of this forum that you accept any and all claims without a scintilla of proof. So, do we have a deal? I assure you this is a good price and the bridge is beautiful and sturdy. i I can let you have the whole bridge and all of its accoutrements for $2500. You have said in your own words here that it is pointless to ask for proof for anything, including a god.  As soon as your check clears the bank—or you can send cash to expedite the deal—I will send you the bill of sale, signed and sealed. How about it?

Please don’t tell me your claim that a god exists is somehow different. If it were you would accept every god-claim that has ever been made by anyone because it would be pointless to demand evidence for any god claim there is no way for you to tell the difference between them.  Without evidence every claim that a god or gods exist carries exacrly the same weight so you’d be crazy to reject any one of them.

I’ll wait for your check or cash to arrive. I guarantee, you will see that this is will be the best purchase you’ve ever made.

[ Edited: 20 January 2017 10:26 AM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 05:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4058
Joined  2009-10-21

There is an amazing misunderstanding of so many words in that response to Cuthbert. It’s willful ignorance using ignorance to promote ignorance. It’s a freshman student arguing with his professor about how stupid the class is, on the eve of the final, for which he did not study.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2014-06-20
Lausten - 20 January 2017 05:49 AM

There is an amazing misunderstanding of so many words in that response to Cuthbert. It’s willful ignorance using ignorance to promote ignorance. It’s a freshman student arguing with his professor about how stupid the class is, on the eve of the final, for which he did not study.

Psst, Lausten, I’m sure you can find another bridge to sell this guy, and you’ll be on Easy Street. Whatever you do don’t let him get away. A potential buyer like Adonai doesn’t come along every day. He won’t even ask you to prove the bridge exists! He says proof of claims is pointless. This opportunity is too good to pass up.

[ Edited: 20 January 2017 05:58 AM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 08:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1305
Joined  2005-01-14
Adonai888 - 19 January 2017 11:57 AM

Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question.

That’s easy, bunky—independent evidence that a viable “designer” actually exists.  Until you provide that, all you have is a wild guess—“it looks to me like the natural world was designed”, which is on par with saying, “it looks to me like we’re living in a Matrix-type universe”, or “it looks to me like invisible pink unicorns rule the world”.  It’s pure speculation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2014-06-20
Advocatus - 20 January 2017 08:41 AM
Adonai888 - 19 January 2017 11:57 AM

Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question.

That’s easy, bunky—independent evidence that a viable “designer” actually exists.  Until you provide that, all you have is a wild guess—“it looks to me like the natural world was designed”, which is on par with saying, “it looks to me like we’re living in a Matrix-type universe”, or “it looks to me like invisible pink unicorns rule the world”.  It’s pure speculation.

Or it looks to me as if I own the Brooklyn Bridge and that have a right to sell it. So it must be true. Why would anyone doubt me, certainly not anyone who doesn’t accept the burden of proof? Hey, maybe you’ve got a bridge to sell, too!

L

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
Advocatus - 20 January 2017 08:41 AM
Adonai888 - 19 January 2017 11:57 AM

Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question.

That’s easy, bunky—independent evidence that a viable “designer” actually exists.  Until you provide that, all you have is a wild guess—“it looks to me like the natural world was designed”, which is on par with saying, “it looks to me like we’re living in a Matrix-type universe”, or “it looks to me like invisible pink unicorns rule the world”.  It’s pure speculation.

Yeah, this is easy. A maker’s mark somewhere would be an excellent sign. Say something in our DNA or the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The best evidence would be for this designer to drop by once in a while and say hello.

[ Edited: 20 January 2017 08:05 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4058
Joined  2009-10-21
Advocatus - 20 January 2017 08:41 AM
Adonai888 - 19 January 2017 11:57 AM

Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question.

That’s easy, bunky—independent evidence that a viable “designer” actually exists.  Until you provide that, all you have is a wild guess—“it looks to me like the natural world was designed”, which is on par with saying, “it looks to me like we’re living in a Matrix-type universe”, or “it looks to me like invisible pink unicorns rule the world”.  It’s pure speculation.

I’ve seen this in face to face conversations, someone like Adonai asks a question that they have no interest in hearing an answer for. The person answering, pauses for a few seconds, either formulating a good answer, or asking themselves if it is worth their trouble. The person asking points at them and says, “see, you don’t have an answer”, and walks away satisfied. It doesn’t work quite as well on forums because people actually have answers, and all the time in the world to give them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2017 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
Adonai888 - 19 January 2017 11:57 AM
CuthbertJ - 19 January 2017 11:20 AM

You’re definitely persistent in your foolishness. Ok, let’s try again. I grant everything you say and admit there is or was a creator. Now prove to me that the creator didn’t kill itself after creating a self-sustaining universe. Prove to me that this creator is NOT just a super advanced, godlike being who just appears to us as The God. Prove to me that this creator equals the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God and no other. And you have to do this without referencing religion or a bible, since that’s circular reasoning and doesn’t count.

GO

Why do atheists try to justify their unbelief in God ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2413-why-do-atheists-try-to-justify-their-unbelief-in-god

 

Why do atheists all the time ask for empirical proofs for Gods existence ? If you lack belief in a deity, yet spend tons of time debating people who DO believe in God and seeking to shoot holes in their beliefs, does this mean they are seeking to find God in a roundabout way (desiring to be persuaded)? Or does it mean that they think they are justifying in their non-belief and making themself feel better and more warranted / justified to disbelieve in God by shooting down the believers in a creator ? 1

A common argument is that there is no evidence or proof for Gods existence, and what cannot be backed up with evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Whatever couldn’t be proven or disproven was in the “realm of fiction or hallucinations…. . But why the demand that proponents of intelligent design / creationism must produce empirical conclusive proofs for Gods existence, as if that is the be-all and end-all of all epistemological inquiry? Often, when i ask atheists, what evidence would convince them that design explains best the origin of what is observed in the natural world, they give no answer. Truth said, most of them never thought about the question. What would they consider good or compelling evidence and how would they define what is evidence of design in nature ? The question they must answer is : “what evidence would you find compelling?”

There is a huge body of work from many serious thinkers arguing the theistic God; there is no such body of work painstakingly arguing in favor of Santa Claus (i.e., the mythical figure), the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids. That’s why the theistic claim is a lot more credible.

It is much more plausible that the universe came about by the causal agency of God than by self-causation or random chance. We should accept the claims by virtue of the demands of rationality and plausibility, by which we also determine whether anything else is true.

Its pointless to ask for proofs. Thats on the lowest level of a atheism - theism debate, reserved to the ones that have no education in philosophy and science.

 

1. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/10/atheist-demands-for-empirical-proofs-of-god.html

Well you totally missed my point. All those theistic arguments you mentioned add up to exactly nothing. They were a bunch of smart people, who unfortunately had their end result in mind and were very creative in creating logical arguments to reach their conclusion. I’m not versed in other cultures, but something tells me Buddhist theologists always end up proving the existence of Buddha, Hinduists prove Hindu gods, and Christian theologians prove Christian gods.

BUT I’ll even grant you that this creator of yours is the Christian God. How do you know She’s still around? How do you know She isn’t most proud of science as her crowning achievement or gift to humans? How do you know whether or not She believes in prayer and faith? Maybe she’s up there thinking, jesus christ I gave these humans amazing powers of reason so they could figure things out, and still they sit around praying and asking me to step in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2017 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1305
Joined  2005-01-14

In all these posts of his, Adonai continually asks for empirical evidence of evolution, but when it comes to his guess, suddenly “it’s pointless to ask for proofs”.  The point is not so much whether the designer exists or not, but HOW does it perform these miracles?  By what physical mechanism does it cause these amino acids to come together in complex forms?  By what form of complex reasoning did it plan out the arrangement in detail of these molecules without first seeing the living organisms that they were ultimately going to develop into?  When Charles Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection, he could SHOW us the biological mechanisms that made it possible.  It’s there for us to see, to observe, to experiment with and test in the real world.  What has Adonai got to show?  Nothing. 

All he’s saying is:  “I can’t imagine how life could arise without being designed, and I’m so astoundingly brilliant that I would see it if it were possible, trust me.  Therefore it looks to me like life was designed, and you all ought to just take my word for it.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2017 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2014-06-20
Advocatus - 23 January 2017 07:39 AM

In all these posts of his, Adonai continually asks for empirical evidence of evolution, but when it comes to his guess, suddenly “it’s pointless to ask for proofs”.  The point is not so much whether the designer exists or not, but HOW does it perform these miracles?  By what physical mechanism does it cause these amino acids to come together in complex forms?  By what form of complex reasoning did it plan out the arrangement in detail of these molecules without first seeing the living organisms that they were ultimately going to develop into?  When Charles Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection, he could SHOW us the biological mechanisms that made it possible.  It’s there for us to see, to observe, to experiment with and test in the real world.  What has Adonai got to show?  Nothing. 

All he’s saying is:  “I can’t imagine how life could arise without being designed, and I’m so astoundingly brilliant that I would see it if it were possible, trust me.  Therefore it looks to me like life was designed, and you all ought to just take my word for it.”

I wonder why Adonai thinks and all-powerful designer couldn’t have created the universe using science, including evolution. Not smart enough? He needed to do it by hocus pocus, abradacabra means? If he did it using the science he must have created, none of Adonai’s screeds would hold water. Not that they do anyway.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 January 2017 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
LoisL - 23 January 2017 02:33 PM
Advocatus - 23 January 2017 07:39 AM

In all these posts of his, Adonai continually asks for empirical evidence of evolution, but when it comes to his guess, suddenly “it’s pointless to ask for proofs”.  The point is not so much whether the designer exists or not, but HOW does it perform these miracles?  By what physical mechanism does it cause these amino acids to come together in complex forms?  By what form of complex reasoning did it plan out the arrangement in detail of these molecules without first seeing the living organisms that they were ultimately going to develop into?  When Charles Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection, he could SHOW us the biological mechanisms that made it possible.  It’s there for us to see, to observe, to experiment with and test in the real world.  What has Adonai got to show?  Nothing. 

All he’s saying is:  “I can’t imagine how life could arise without being designed, and I’m so astoundingly brilliant that I would see it if it were possible, trust me.  Therefore it looks to me like life was designed, and you all ought to just take my word for it.”

I wonder why Adonai thinks and all-powerful designer couldn’t have created the universe using science, including evolution. Not smart enough? He needed to do it by hocus pocus, abradacabra means? If he did it using the science he must have created, none of Adonai’s screeds would hold water. Not that they do anyway.

Well it’s really because of what all my “ok I’ll grant you XYZ” posts are trying to point out. IDers like Adonais aren’t in it for the truth, they’re in it for some ulterior motive, usually trying to convince people to convert to Christianity. All the sciencey talk is just a cover. In their minds proving that there is an intelligent designer means they’ve proven their point, which of course couldn’t be further from the truth. And of course for most of them, just engaging in so called discussion is scoring points for themselves with Jebus or their God. Very selfish actually.

Profile