RE: Being cannot come from Non-being
November 20, 2019 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2019 at 2:56 pm by The Valkyrie.)
(November 20, 2019 at 2:16 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Astronomy and biology have incredibly detailed information about the formation of our solar system and the emergence and evolution of life, and the god hypothesis has no information whatsoever?
Abiogenesis is virtually impossible
James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce a self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization.
It appears that nature itself provides conclusive evidence that natural processes are incapable of assembling a living cell.Wherever one looks there are problems. 8
Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began
The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life's beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago.
Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn't be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God.
Paradoxes in the origin of life. 2015 Jan 22 Benner SA1.
Steve Benner is the founder and president of the Westheimer Corporation, a private research organization, and a prior Harvard University professor. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on abiogenesis. This is his evaluation of what he has observed: Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.
We are now 60 years into the modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which “molecules that look like biology” might arise from “molecules that do not look like biology” …. For the most part, these papers report “success” in the sense that those papers define the term…. And yet, the problem remains unsolved
Long periods of time do not make life inevitable. Molecules rather disintegrate based on the second law of thermodynamics. and randomization turns more complete.
Since prebiotic processes are natural randomizers and abiogenesis requires specific products, it does not appear that prebiotic processes have inherent capability to meet the requirements necessitated for successful abiogenesis. This plausibly characterizes every hypothetical step of abiogenesis and explains why none have succeeded. Claude Shannon showed that randomization is the fundamental behavior and entropy is simply a mathematical expression of certain of its aspects
Observation:
The origin of life depends on biological cells, which perpetuate life upon the complex action of
- factory portals with fully automated security checkpoints and control ( membrane proteins )
- factory compartments ( organelles )
- a library index and fully automated information classification, storage and retrieval program ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network )
- molecular computers, hardware ( DNA )
- software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, ( the genetic and over a dozen epigenetic codes )
- information retrieval ( RNA polymerase )
- transmission ( messenger RNA )
- translation ( Ribosome )
- signalling ( hormones )
- complex machines ( proteins )
- taxis ( dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles )
- molecular highways ( tubulins, used by dynein and kinesin proteins for molecular transport to various destinations )
- tagging programs ( each protein has a tag, which is an amino acid sequence ) informing other molecular transport machines where to transport them.
- factory assembly lines ( fatty acid synthase, non-ribosomal peptide synthase )
- error check and repair systems ( exonucleolytic proofreading, strand-directed mismatch repair )
- recycling methods ( endocytic recycling )
- waste grinders and management ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )
- power generating plants ( mitochondria )
- power turbines ( ATP synthase )
- electric circuits ( the metabolic network )
Biological cells are a veritable micro-miniaturized industrial park full of interlinked and interdependent factories containing millions of exquisitely designed
pieces of intricate molecular machinery. Biological Cells do not resemble factory parks, they ARE an industrial park of various interconnected factories, working in conjunction.
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Complex machines and interconnected factory parks are intelligently designed. Biological cells are intelligently designed. Factories can not self-assemble spontaneously
by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction. The claim can be falsified, once someone can demonstrate that factories
can self-assemble spontaneously by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction.
Experiment:
Since origin of life experiments began, nobody was able to bring up an experiment, replicating the origin of life by natural means.
Eugene Koonin, advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics, writes in his book: The Logic of Chance:
" The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351:
" The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of
the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique
events are not conducive to scientific study.
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the
multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have
coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were
not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives
for the origin of life. "
Scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a
conscious creative agency. The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life…
is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview
of who wants naturalism to be true.
Conclusion:
Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly
improbable, then design is highly probable. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so
a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable, so, by applying Bayesian probability, we can conclude that Life is most probably intelligently designed.
