“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Harris]

If the universe has a beginning then it should has a cause and that cause should be immaterial and beyond space and time. There are only two things, which can fit to explain this cause.

a. Abstract objects and
b. Embodied mind.

How does an embodied mind outside of space and time cause a universe from nothing?
I want details.
If you don't have an idea of what the process might be you are just throwing around empty ideas with no merit.

Your question is similar to, “why big bang happened? I need details.”

Within our beings and in the known universe, there are many phenomenon, which science cannot depict. We simply agree with them because they are part of us or we are part of them.

No one quarrels on the idea that man (the designer) designs all manmade objects. Logically, this concept is sufficiently plausible to lead to the conviction that behind every intricate structure and complex function there must be a designer. Objects and phenomenon in nature cannot pop out by chance just as manmade object cannot happen as of chance. Therefore, Who is the Embodied Mind behind every design and how that looks? We do not have any clue just as we do not have any indication why big bang happened, despite we know there was a beginning.

Does that lead to the concept, if the law says; gravity controls the motion of earth around the sun so is it the gravity that endeavoured the creation of sun or other celestial objects or is it other way round. Law is descriptive and predictive but not creative. It is even worse as laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. It is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being into existence.


You do know what a "law of nature" is don't you.
Its a description of what we observe not us telling the universe what to do "or else".

I agree with that statement which is a bit of surprise for me. Sure, how we observe the same way we describe. And, no quarrels over “not us telling the universe what to do”. However, I did not get your contentions behind this statement.

Nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world famous scientists.


True, but nonsense is also nonsense when spouted by religious blow hards.

Theist or atheist makes no difference for stupidity.

And world famous scientists are wrong less often.


“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Stephen Hawking.


I bet this was wrenched from a much larger quote along with some fancy maths stuff that showed some evidence for this.

Google google.... I see it is from a book which is about this subject from which you have pulled one sentence.

Does your comment makes any difference for the quote I pulled out

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in mammalian bodies. There are some 30 animal phyla on Earth by estimation. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million proteins in all life. Now let us consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations of proteins forming by chance: Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. Twenty commonly occurring amino acids join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices! Randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the success of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology clearly supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a “Director” behind the success of life.

You seem to be poorly educated on the subject of evolution. An american I guess.

I do not mind having few lessons on evolution from you.

No serious scientist think that life is a matter of chance.


No one will disagree with the above sentence, evolution is not random.

Postulates rule Darwin’s theory of Evolution. Both he and his present day colleagues fail to show transient animals as scientific evidence in support to theory of evolution.

We know information comes only from intelligent source. When we see coded information in a DNA, the most logical thing to conclude, that too, has an intelligent source.

This is just a bald assertion and is wrong. Evolution provides a viable mechanism to create information without the need to invoke an outside agent.

So why Boings, refrigerators, computers … do not pop out of nothingness.

“… If you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”
Richard Dawkins
The R. Dawkins Foundation
R. Dawkins Answers Questions


You know I have seen him answer like this before in a debate where he then went on to explain that the only way to get the higher intelligence from elsewhere was by evolution.

You need to read this book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable

In other words, Evolution is Dawkins’ God.

And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge.
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 22-
Quran


And in the earth are neighbouring tracts, and gardens of vines, and green crops (fields etc.), and date-palms, growing out two or three from a single stem root, or otherwise (one stem root for every palm ), watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs) for the people who understand.
Ar Ra'd (13)
-Verse 4-
Quran


And He shows you (always) His Signs: then which of the Signs of Allah will ye deny?
Al Mu'min (40)
-Verse 81-
Quran


Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs.
Al 'Ankabuut (29)
-Verse 49-
Quran

What does this have to do with anything?
[/quote]

The verses I quoted for those who after comprehending the truth of the marvels in nature deceive everyone by hiding plausible information by unjust reasoning only for their cheap personal interests.

---

It is rather hard to estimate what the probability is, but it is clearly very, very unlikely that those fine tunings, which allowed this Pyramid of complexities to arise, would be there as consequence of chance.


But I imagine you have no problem with the "probability" of an all-powerful being who exists outside of time and space and who one day suddenly decided to poof everything into existence, huh?

Every Genetic fact, every physical law, and every new discovery in science is attesting only one fact; Chance has no place in Science.

---

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of an idiot.

The intelligent designer argument uses the eye as a problematic structure for evolutionists. However given the structure of the eye is arse-to-front, just how intelligent was the designer? Evolution is not intelligent but came up a working structure and each step of its evolution bestowed advantage on the organism.

Your understanding of molecular biology and DNA is abysmal. I can't be arsed about educating you except to say, it doesn't need a God - some structural proteins and other macromolecules are self assembling.

Go chant some Koranic verses and remain in blissful ignorance.

I have seen the video where Dawkins explain evolution of eye. There he gave examples of animals from today’s world to define how eye evolved. He started with an example of euglena that has only an eyespot then Planarian worms that has cup shape eyes. Then he demonstrated how the cup shape evolve into a pinhole. Nautilus pompilius was the example. About lense formation he brought in sea snails. Then formal complex eye that humans have. He claimed all that happened through slight cumulative changes through time.

The first thing what I noticed, he had not given any example of transient animal where this evolution of eye is happening. In whole of his talk, he has not defined at which step of embryogenesis what evolutionary part of eye appeared. Mostly, he talked based on “Ifs”.

The main tactics of an evolutionist when defining evolution is to use phrases like how well documented evolution is, this is beyond question, only ignorant people question it, etc. However, they do not give any scientific evidence.
When scientists today, express an overwhelming level of confidence that evolution is true I believe it reflects several realities. One reality is that for the most part evolution has not been subject to critique for over a hundred years. That means the scientific process has effectively been short-circuited. The normal corrective process in science where some scientists observed problems with the current theory, they analyse it and changes are made where appropriate. That process is not operating as far as theory of evolution is concerned. Therefore, for the most part Theory of evolution has survived without that type of critique. Many people assume that theory of evolution has a solid foundation simply because they are not hearing scientific critiques. At the level of laboratory, evolution is not demonstrable whether using natural selection or mutation. I do not think there is a single scientist including (Prophet Dawkins) who can give a rational, coherent defence on evolution.

---

The phrase “Well, it could come about … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that,” is an utter guesstimate. It is just an epigram, which has no scientific value.
The phrase in bold, “if you look at the details of our chemistry … elsewhere in the universe,” is a scientific fact based on knowledge that comes through scientific discoveries.
The phrase “But that higher intelligence … it couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously,” is begging the question who created God?

A scientist who is atheist, talks about Deity without using the word GOD this way. Scientific facts force every scientist to ponder over the marvels in nature. Whether to expose those thoughts with sincerity or disguise them behind unjust reasoning is the choice of that scientist.


Unjust reasoning? What is that? There is no ambiguity, dissembling, or dishonesty in what you quoted.


The development of the genetic science at the beginning of 20th century proved that only genes transmit to subsequent generations and not acquired physical traits. The discovery made it clear that it is implausible that acquired traits accumulated from generation to generation and generated different living species. In other words, in Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, there is no room for inheritable variations.


That is one of the more ignorant assertions I've seen here. Every offspring of sexual reproduction is different from either parent. There is gene mixing. And, of course, there are mutations. Every one of us has dozens of mutations in our DNA.

Darwin proposed that with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. If enough of these selections occurred on different beneficial traits you could end up with completely new species. However, Darwin did not have an explanation for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. At the time, the prevailing theory of inheritance was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. Nevertheless, this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait. Mendel had the answer to Darwin's impasse. Traits were not blended, but inherited whole. And because of Mendel's proposition of recessive and dominant traits, a trait that might disappear in one generation might reappear in the following generation. Gregor Mendel’s work was incorporated into Darwin's original theory to produce modern Neo-Darwinism.

Mendel studied seven pairs of traits in the garden pea. In each of these, he showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation, they were never lost, and when new traits appeared, it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds.

All the efforts made by evolutionists of 20th century only confirmed that natural selection has no evolutionary power. At this failure, evolutionists endeavoured a rescue challenge by making an introduction of phenomenon called mutation to the fundamental structure of this theory. However, the problem with mutation is that no beneficial results has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories.


Your ignorance is epic. Do you even Google?


Mutation do not generate new genetic information. It is impossible for living beings to acquire new organs through mutation. To support this idea of evolutionary mutation, evolutionists should come up with a mechanism that generates new never-before-existing information that can produce bigger and better structure which supposedly never existed before. This mechanism should work on a single cell that gives rise to all the diversity of life through a process of genetic mutation or an evolutionary process.
Any evolutionist (including Dawkins), cannot give a single example of any process in nature that increases genetic information by mutation.


More ignorant babble. A change to the DNA is information.

Mutation, how the evolutionist presents, do not generate the kind of changes that he predict, in fact most mutations are very deleterious, very negative to the organism and hardly get rid of. Those are the concepts when presented to an evolutionist he just kind of slips away.

When a mutation is injurious, to which part it happened that particular organ disappear. It is a fearful phenomenon and people avoid x-rays, radioactivity, asbestos, and various mutagenic agents to protect their selves from this type of mutation. No scientist look forward to mutation to promote positive ideology (say evolution) because a knowledgeable person fear mutation.

Evolutionist publicise positive mutation to justify evolution. Positive mutation says there is something new and different. Something that would be selected for and not against. However, this is only a postulate not a documented evidence. The entire modern theory of evolution is based merely on this postulate. If that is true then let us see some example. Here we have difficulties because examples are absent. The only examples that are given by the evolutionists are the changes that bring resistance to manmade chemicals like antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, etc. However, these changes only defend the existing order and function. Most of such changes occur by recompilation of existing genes. Recombination is the process in nature that allows having variations. Recombination comes through sexual reproduction and exchange of genes during meiosis and reduction division. The whole of biology is based upon creation of diversity through sexual reproduction and through meiosis. Therefore, the variation that is obtained through recombination may provide variants. Further, we know that immunological adaptation is the process of natural defence to deal with alien bodies. This system produces antibodies to make a disinfection. Immunological system is part of natural biology in the functioning of an organ.

Hence:
Race formation and mutation cannot produce new organs and functions and so evolution cannot produce new organs and new functions.
Whoever propagate:
Race formation as microevolution
Adaptation to antibiotics or herbicides as positive mutation
Is simply a misinformation.

Please download documentary from the following link and check out what eminent scientists, philosophers, and mathematician of our time say about evolution. They are giving solid scientific evidences for their justification on Intelligent Design.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7JspPJ...sp=sharing

Dr. Werner Gritt, who is an information specialist wrote in his book, “In The Beginning Was Information,”

“A code system is always a result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasised that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, to produce a code. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information by itself in matter.”
Pages (64, 67, 79, and 107)


It's Werner Gitt, and he is a YEC git. He is not credible.

Gitt is over-interpreting the word 'code' there - or you have taken the quote out of context.

You do not understand the nature of information.

You are free to check whether I am quoting out of context or not. Here is another one;

“The six feet of the DNA coiled inside every one of our bodies 100 trillion cells contain a four-letter chemical that spells out precise assembly instructions for all proteins from which our bodies are made … No hypothesis come even close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means.”

Lee Strobel
Former legal editor of Chicago Tribune

---

The fantasy sections of most holy books, the bible and koran included, is the section between the covers.

Quote from them is only evidence that someone botthered to sit down and write them.

The same argument I can use to criticise the Holy Scripture produced by Prophet Darwin.

---

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”

Christian De Duve said no such thing, and was well aware that evolution does not posit that the first bacterium appeared from a random assemblage of atoms, but evolved from more primitive forms. Abiogenesis starts with one self-replicating molecule, not a whole organism.

You can verify by checking page 356, volume 2 of the famous textbook A Guided Tour of the Living Cell by Christian De Duve.
Whether you are ignorant or trying to mislead the world on purpose. Based on this fact I reckon any of your comments meaningless.