Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!

[The Architect Of Fate]

A intelligent designer creates  through power, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work ?


We don't know how exactly a mind might can act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm , hand and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer  I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciusness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents -- of "conscious activity" as "a cause now in operation"-- provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of biological organisms  in the past. In other words, our experience of the cause-and-effect structure of the world -- specifically the cause known to produce large amounts of specified information in the present -- provides a basis for understanding what likely caused large increases in specified information in living systems in the past. It is precisely my reliance on such experience that makes possible an understanding of the type of causes at work in the history of life.

Bold mine.

Then I suppose, by your own saying so, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation of evolution by natural selection, despite the fact that we actually have one, lol. Right? We even have some decent examples of how abiogenesis might have kicked off thanks to some ‘oopsies’ in the lab involving a forgotten Petrie dish plus time. You’re going to have to do better than regurgitating “It looks designed, therefore design.” Was a snowflake designed? Do you have any idea how many times we’ve refuted this garbage argument? How does an immaterial thing exist, Otangelo? How does a spaceless, timeless being be? How does it act in the absence of time and space? Not only are you burdened with providing those mechanisms of action, you are burdened with the evidence to support them. Otherwise, they’re simply bald assertions. Care to try again?

Yup the "design inference" is the laziest apologist tool next to "mysterious ways"

---

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. 

Please provide me with concrete evidence of this intelligent/conscious/rational agent. Not argument, not "I can't think of anything better", not "because I need there to be" but evidence. 

Until you can do that, go away fantasy boy.

Or any agent at all that can create life or even a star .Of course is going to be likely dumb analogy were he compares man made objects to something that's not  then insist they are the same due to some variation of "complexity ' then he will make another unsupported comparison .Then end it with an Argument for ignorance mixed with a lack of imagination and lots of personnel credulity and a non sequitur .

[Deesse23]

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. 

Life was either caused by an intelligence or not. So far we have absolutely no data that points towards intelligence.
Therefore intelligence is the best explanation?

[The Architect Of Fate]

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. 

Life was either caused by an intelligence or not. So far we have absolutely no data that points towards intelligence.
Therefore intelligence is the best explanation?  

And pointing to humanity extremely limited ability to manipulate preexisting features of he universe comes nowhere near implying any intelligence created life the universe and everything .Let alone one who did it by non natural means .

---

So far his "best explanation" seems to be one of ideological and apologetic convenience

[Abaddon_ire]

A intelligent designer creates  through power, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work ?


We don't know how exactly a mind might can act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm , hand and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer  I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciusness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

And there's your problem. Science does not yet have a definitive explanation for how abiogenesis happened (although the are more than a few candidate hypotheses). Thus the correct scientific answer to abiogenesis is "We don't know (yet), but we have promising lines of research".

You are claiming to have a full explanation from out of nowhere with no supporting evidence of any kind. All you have is an argument from ignorance. You don't know how it could happen therefore it must be "GOD".

And besides, it has already been long established that amino acids (the building blocks of life) spontaneously form given the right conditions. As do lipids ( the constituents of cell walls) Which said lipids then go on to spontaneously form a cell wall of their lonesome merely by chemistry.

It seems clear that you are ignoring everything that science has already established simply to concentrate your attention those things science has not yet established. With those blinkers in place, you miss each and every step in the scientific process and it's progress.

Somehow, you seem stuck right the way back in the state of science in the 19th century as though nothing had happened since.

It is more than a little odd.

[Duty]

hang on...

[Otangelo]

Bold mine.

Then I suppose, by your own saying so, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation of evolution by natural selection, despite the fact that we actually have one, lol. Right? We even have some decent examples of how abiogenesis might have kicked off thanks to some ‘oopsies’ in the lab involving a forgotten Petrie dish plus time. You’re going to have to do better than regurgitating “It looks designed, therefore design.” Was a snowflake designed? Do you have any idea how many times we’ve refuted this garbage argument? How does an immaterial thing exist, Otangelo? How does a spaceless, timeless being be? How does it act in the absence of time and space? Not only are you burdened with providing those mechanisms of action, you are burdened with the evidence to support them. Otherwise, they’re simply bald assertions. Care to try again?

Yup the "design inference" is the laziest apologist tool next to "mysterious ways"

---

Please provide me with concrete evidence of this intelligent/conscious/rational agent. Not argument, not "I can't think of anything better", not "because I need there to be" but evidence. 

Until you can do that, go away fantasy boy.

Or any agent at all that can create life or even a star .Of course is going to be likely dumb analogy were he compares man made objects to something that's not  then insist they are the same due to some variation of "complexity ' then he will make another unsupported comparison .Then end it with an Argument for ignorance mixed with a lack of imagination and lots of personnel credulity and a non sequitur .

BAYESIAN PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2721-bayesian-probability-and-science

A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would certainly have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. 

Science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data.

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.

Science observes the Universe, records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has happened in the past, is happening now, and what will potentially happen in the future, given the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate. The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.

Luke A. Barnes writes:
Theory testing in the physical sciences has been revolutionized in recent decades by Bayesian approaches to probability theory.
Wiki: Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law.  .......and......... historical sciences, including intelligent design theory which tries to explain how most probably past events occurred. That is similar to abductive reasoning :
Wiki: Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand the abductive reasoning as "instant-deduction to the best explanation". 3

No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false.  It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him.  Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up.  The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science.  The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. 4

For, we did not – and cannot -- directly observe the remote past, so origins science theories are in the end attempted “historical” reconstructions of what we think the past may have been like. Such reconstructions are based on investigating which of the possible explanations seems "best" to us on balance in light of the evidence. However, to censor out a class of possible explanations ahead of time through imposing materialism plainly undermines the integrity of this abductive method.

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. 5

The first difference is that historical study is a matter of probability. Any and all historical theories are supported by evidence that is not deductive in nature. We might consider them to be inferences to the best explanation, or Bayesian probabilities but they cannot be deductions. historical theories are not based on experiments, – repeatable or otherwise – nor are historical theories subject to empirical verification. The evidence for a historical theory may be empirical, but the theory itself is not. These differences mean that one cannot simply treat science and history as similar disciplines. 6

Stephen Meyer writes: 
Studies in the philosophy of science show that successful explanations in historical sciences such as evolutionary biology need to provide “causally adequate” explanations—that is, explanations that cite a cause or mechanism
capable of producing the effect in question. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly attempted to show that his theory satisfied this criterion, which was then called the vera causa (or “true cause”) criterion. In the third chapter of the Origin, for example, he sought to demonstrate the causal adequacy of natural selection by drawing analogies between it and the power of animal breeding and by extrapolating from observed instances of small-scale evolutionary change over short periods of time. 7

2. [/url]http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3726
3. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.01680.pdf
4. http://iose-gen.blogspot.com.br/2010/06/introduction-and-summary.html#methnat
5. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
6. [url=http://simplyphilosophy.org/methodological-naturalism-science-and-history/]http://simplyphilosophy.org/methodological-naturalism-science-and-history/
7. Darwin's Doubt pg.162:

---

It just cant include God , right ?
The factory maker argument


1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.  

2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.

3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Herschel 1830 1987, p. 148:
“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”

---

The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. 

Life was either caused by an intelligence or not. So far we have absolutely no data that points towards intelligence.
Therefore intelligence is the best explanation?  

can being come from non-being ?

[Paleophyte]

Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

So not only have you failed to even show that your Creator exists but you can't even begin to conceive of how it could possibly Create. This is why ID isn't a theory. It has all of the explanatory capability of a steaming dog turd.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So your counter is

A bad article about  Bayesian probability theory and a guy with a dubious track record of misusing it for his Christian apologetic s (Luke)

A Quote from an ID propagandist 

A Gish's Gallop of links which don't address my point 

Trying to use the factory maker argument to pop up your bad comparison and unsupported conclusion   and opinion quote from  Herschel to further boost it 

Truly incredible all that effort to write that wall of text and your point is  still as vapid as before you wrote it .

---

can being come from non-being ?

A whole thread made a mockery out of his tactic

---

Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

And you have failed to show even this

[brewer]

Yup the "design inference" is the laziest apologist tool next to "mysterious ways"

---

Or any agent at all that can create life or even a star .Of course is going to be likely dumb analogy were he compares man made objects to something that's not  then insist they are the same due to some variation of "complexity ' then he will make another unsupported comparison .Then end it with an Argument for ignorance mixed with a lack of imagination and lots of personnel credulity and a non sequitur .

BAYESIAN PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2721-bayesian-probability-and-science

A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would certainly have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. 

Science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data.

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.

Science observes the Universe, records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has happened in the past, is happening now, and what will potentially happen in the future, given the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate. The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.

Luke A. Barnes writes:
Theory testing in the physical sciences has been revolutionized in recent decades by Bayesian approaches to probability theory.
Wiki: Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law.  .......and......... historical sciences, including intelligent design theory which tries to explain how most probably past events occurred. That is similar to abductive reasoning :
Wiki: Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand the abductive reasoning as "instant-deduction to the best explanation". 3

No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false.  It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him.  Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up.  The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science.  The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. 4

For, we did not – and cannot -- directly observe the remote past, so origins science theories are in the end attempted “historical” reconstructions of what we think the past may have been like. Such reconstructions are based on investigating which of the possible explanations seems "best" to us on balance in light of the evidence. However, to censor out a class of possible explanations ahead of time through imposing materialism plainly undermines the integrity of this abductive method.

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. 5

The first difference is that historical study is a matter of probability. Any and all historical theories are supported by evidence that is not deductive in nature. We might consider them to be inferences to the best explanation, or Bayesian probabilities but they cannot be deductions. historical theories are not based on experiments, – repeatable or otherwise – nor are historical theories subject to empirical verification. The evidence for a historical theory may be empirical, but the theory itself is not. These differences mean that one cannot simply treat science and history as similar disciplines. 6

Stephen Meyer writes: 
Studies in the philosophy of science show that successful explanations in historical sciences such as evolutionary biology need to provide “causally adequate” explanations—that is, explanations that cite a cause or mechanism
capable of producing the effect in question. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly attempted to show that his theory satisfied this criterion, which was then called the vera causa (or “true cause”) criterion. In the third chapter of the Origin, for example, he sought to demonstrate the causal adequacy of natural selection by drawing analogies between it and the power of animal breeding and by extrapolating from observed instances of small-scale evolutionary change over short periods of time. 7

2. [/url]http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3726
3. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.01680.pdf
4. http://iose-gen.blogspot.com.br/2010/06/introduction-and-summary.html#methnat
5. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
6. [url=http://simplyphilosophy.org/methodological-naturalism-science-and-history/]http://simplyphilosophy.org/methodological-naturalism-science-and-history/
7. Darwin's Doubt pg.162:

---

It just cant include God , right ?
The factory maker argument


1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.  

2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.

3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Herschel 1830 1987, p. 148:
“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”

That's more argument you butt head. You can't argue a god into existence. Provide me with concrete evidence of god's existence or piss off. 

Do you have a learning disability that needs to be addressed?

[Deesse23]

Life was either caused by an intelligence or not. So far we have absolutely no data that points towards intelligence.
Therefore intelligence is the best explanation?  

can being come from non-being ?

Do you always respond to questions with deflections?
Show the data that points towards intelligence as a source for life, data other than founded in your lack of imaginations or abundance of ignorance.
Do you have any original thoughts or do you often copy pasta walls of text to impress the (other) gullible?