Evidence of an Intelligent Creator ?

@sonship said
I don't have enough faith in conspiracies to count Matthew's record as after the fact. That requires more a leap of blind faith then I am willing to make.

How does your own "faith" and your personal opinion of what does or doesn't constitute "blind faith" provide evidence of an intelligent creator ?

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

You clearly lack the ability to grasp scientific methodology or you are simply a dishonest troll who has latched onto the idea of a god in order to place yourself above your fellow creatures.

How am I confessing that I am a helpless sinner in need of God's salvation putting myself above my fellow creatures? I am a recipient of His mercy! I ...[text shortened]... id the first iteration of this cycle of natural selection kick off with the very FIRST living thing?

You could try reading this if you want an theory about the start point for RNA and DNA.
But be warned it’s not a religious text so there are no false certainties just a reasonable theory that might in part explain the chain of events leading to evolution and creatures complex enough to seek out a creator.

https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117380&org=NSF

@kevcvs57

Are you saying persuasion of intelligent design is only likely to religious types?
I know that would be a handy generalization for dismissal of ID.
Then again if one follows the evidence where ever it leads one's metaphysical world view might just be changed leaning towards theism.

I don't think that tactic will survive long into this 21rst century.
The information age is likely to produce more skeptics of the Darwinian
paradigm.

Darwinists admit that a process of natural selection requires an organism to be self-replicating. It requires the organism to reproduce offspring for variations to occur. The better adopted offspring then pass on their more survivable characteristics to a subsequent generation.

Now to have reproduction cell division is required. And that in turn requires information rich DNA and proteins. But those are the things Darwinists are trying to explain.

Stephen Meyer explains the chicken and egg dilemma involved.

"In other words, you've got to have a self-replicating organism for Darwinian evolution to take place, but you can't have a self-replicating organism until you have the information necessary in DNA, which is what you're trying to explain in the first place. Its like the guy who falls into a deep hole and realizes he needs a ladder to get out. So climbs out, goes home, gets a ladder, jumps back into the hole, and climbs out. It begs the question."

@suzianne said
You know that DELIVER backwards is REVILED, not RELIVED, right?

These ridiculous word games, gematria, etc., in "proof" of some transcendental TRUTH are only valid in the ancient Hebrew language of Earth, and to hell with any other languages that might have emerged throughout the Cosmos. 😉

@Kevin-Eleven

You're missing the point of the original illustration completely.

The lecture stated that DNA was so ingeniously arranged at times that it produces useful protein synthesis when read frontwards, and useful protein synthesis when read backwards.

The lecturer said entire long strains of DNA like book chapters can do this. The English words DELIVER and REVILED were an elementary illustration of this phenomenon.

It is like a cell phone company wanting to save on paper instructs its technical writers - "Write a manual on how this cell phone works. But to save on paper make it so when your manual is read in reverse you explain how to operate the cell phone."

Take an animation break everybody.
Maybe your abiogenesis answer is here?

ABIOGENESIS rescore
YouTube&ab_channel=MarkusVenehsalo

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

Are you saying persuasion of intelligent design is only likely to religious types?
I know that would be a handy generalization for dismissal of ID.
Then again if one follows the evidence where ever it leads one's metaphysical world view might just be changed leaning towards theism.

I don't think that tactic will survive long into this 21rst ...[text shortened]... imbs out, goes home, gets a ladder, jumps back into the hole, and climbs out. It begs the question."

And here you are back at the god of the gaps stance. It’s like you never really left. You have zero evidence for ID, you have zero evidence for god or gods and it doesn’t matter how much you twist and squirm your only ever left with your god of the gaps.
Science does not offer absolute truths regarding the ultimate nature of reality it offers best guesses regarding the observable nature of reality and is ever ready to recalibrate those guesses / theories whilst you claim certainties based on a warm fuzzy feeling you get about a supernatural or super intelligent being for which there is not one shred of evidence or even a theory with its own internal logic.
Lastly unless you and the super alien designer crew both agree that the designer magically poofed everything into existence you still need to figure out what kick started the super alien designers evolution phase and if you cannot agree on that then they are just as opposed to your model of reality as I am.

@kevcvs57

And here you are back at the god of the gaps stance. It’s like you never really left. You have zero evidence for ID, you have zero evidence for god or gods and it doesn’t matter how much you twist and squirm your only ever left with your god of the gaps.

Somewhere you referred me to an article on RNA and origin of life research.
I am reading it a few times.

I don't see though that a few questions you have yet taken a stance on.
I don't mind you saying "Not ready to answer yet. I am thinking about it."

I'll take it as a legitimate answer.
Its OK. these things take time.

My stance on the MIND / MATTER question is that I think
MIND preceded MATTER. That is a philosophical musing.

And if MIND preceded MATTER and MATTER did not evolve to produce MIND, THEN it is more likely that the Intelligence of SOME mind was involved in something like the wisdom laden algorithm of evolution or even origin of life.

You have to deal with that bud. Otherwise you believe that matter somehow became aware of itself, contemplating its existence, purpose, origin, destiny and even arguing about whether there is God or not.

Science does not offer absolute truths regarding the ultimate nature of reality it offers best guesses

I realize that. And it also does not offer absolute PROOFS either.
And what the scientists say today maybe changed in a minute tomorrow.

I have told of a funny cartoon I saw once. It showed a group of white coated scientists standing around a chalk board which had complex formulas all over it.
And one of the scientists was saying -

"The most depressing thing is that everything we believe to be true here today will one day be shown to be wrong. "

That is why I do not elate when something is pronounced scientifically which confirms my biblical faith. Neither do I sweat when something is pronounce seeming to contradict it. "Wait and see what they will say next."

The more we discover the more we realize what we do not know.
Even if a scientists takes a position of Intelligent Design she still can be assured of a life time of happy study trying to figure out HOW a thing works.

That ID will make scientists throw up their hands and be lazy is hype.
Look at James Tour who has patented and invented chemical machines and done cutting edge research in chemical engineering. Believing in intelligent design and even the Christian God hasn't dulled his energy to invent nano-machines which are useful to the advancement of technology.

Episode 12.2/13: Cell Construction & Assembly Problem // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour

YouTube&t=2444s&ab_channel=DrJamesTour

regarding the observable nature of reality and is ever ready to recalibrate those guesses

That's right.
However, with financial support and entrenched issues of funding and educational agendas it is not always that easy for the old guard to change.
Many times new theories only advance not because minds CHANGE.
Old stubborn devotees die off. The old theories only change because with their deaths newer minds gain more prominence.

I expect Richard Dawkins to die insisting that his people not agreeing with his evolution are either wicked or mental cases. Unfortunately people like that may have influenced minds around here telling me the chemical issues or psychological problems are the cause of any theism or even leaning towards ID.

He's not going to advance. He's going to die and advancement will take place in spite of him by younger scientists.

/ theories whilst you claim certainties based on a warm fuzzy feeling you get about a supernatural or super intelligent being for which there is not one shred of evidence or even a theory with its own internal logic.

We are dealing with a couple of issues here. And sometimes they overlap.
1.) Intelligent Design.
2.) Belief in God.
3.) Fellowship and Communion with God through Jesus Christ.

Just isolating the logic and the biosphere issue? Logic pure and simple calls me to think a mind had a PLAN in order for the systems in the DNA molecules to accomplish the language ridden directives and instructions they produce.

Logic tells me that there is not enough TIME in 13 billion years for meandering around of chance interactions of atoms to produce this ability.
You referred me to an article that I am studying about mechanisms which accomplished the job of replication before the standard method we observe in DNA.

It is logic that informs me that something "doing the job before hand" as a stand in UNTIL something ELSE can come in to do it as we see" requires PLANNING. This requires forethought of concept. It requires a long distance view of teleological goal desired to be arrived at. The step by step by step arrival TO the outcome needed requires something to COMPARE the present result to the INTENDED result for correction, adjustment, tuning.

Like you don't accidently win a chess match against a chess master.
You do not accidently stumble into checkmating a formidable force opposing advancement towards that goal.

If life is inevitable mechanically then why is it so astronomically restricted to the limited zone of one planet, and that in one "goldilox zone" exquisitely calibrated for its possible arrival?

If there is a predestination of chemicals making long time cause DNA to stumbled and groped around to why don't we see the whole universe teaming with life in many more places maybe on every planet and moons too?

How many trillion times would you expect a tornado to blow through a junk yard before one time a Saturn rocket was assembled by the commotion?

How many explosions in a print factory would you logically think to have to occur before out of the wreckage a fully bound set of Encyclopedia Britannica came flying out?

I think what you ask to believe happening by chance over billions of years requires more time then the universe is believed to have existed. I am not sure infinity could overcome the odds working against the outcome.

You need another theory then Darwinian gradualism.

Lastly unless you and the super alien designer crew both agree that the designer magically poofed everything into existence you still need to figure out what kick started the super alien designers evolution phase and if you cannot agree on that then they are just as opposed to your model of reality as I am.

Why rule out a SUPER intelligent atheist inventor from Altar-4 ?

Once again. Believing in ID still allows the science minded personality to many many happy hours in their life time discovering HOW it was done.

Some people are just cut out to want to do that kind of livelihood.
Until some stubborn older minds die off who want to hoot them out business
in order to protect their own religion, this tension will go on. Don't be too naïve
when financial benefit, grant money and employment opportunities are up for
fierce competition.

Look how they threatened Dr. Mary Switzer to cut her off at the knees is she didn't come up with some explanation of how soft tissue in dinosaur bones was still present after what? sixty MILLION years.

@sonship said
Once again. Believing in ID still allows the science minded personality to many many happy hours in their life time discovering HOW it was done.

Some people are just cut out to want to do that kind of livelihood.
Until some stubborn older minds die off who want to hoot them out business
in order to protect their own religion, this tension will go on. ...[text shortened]... n financial benefit, grant money and employment opportunities are up for
fierce competition.

Oh the irony.

@fmf said
Oh the irony.

Yeah, poor scientists, actually having to prove their theorems to keep their funding!

So much easier to be a preacher and have people take everything on your say-so.

@sonship said
If not an alternative explanation of the workings the phenomenon of the language of a DNA molecule demonstrated in this little program are welcomed.


Origins: Fingerprints of Our Creator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7DgQmXrszU&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork

Shouldn't this have been a link in Genesis? 😉

@sonship said

/ theories whilst you claim certainties based on a warm fuzzy feeling you get about a supernatural or super intelligent being for which there is not one shred of evidence or even a theory with its own internal logic.

We are dealing with a couple of issues here. And sometimes they overlap.
1.) Intelligent Design.
2.) Belief in God.
...[text shortened]... explanation of how soft tissue in dinosaur bones was still present after what? sixty MILLION years.

Spelling correction:

Dr. Mary Schweitzer.

Soft Tissue Found Inside a Dinosaur Bone!
YouTube&ab_channel=StatedClearly

Hey! Get in line or lose ALL your funding and reputation Gal.
- The High Priests of Darwinian Evolution