How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

[Subduction Zone]

those who deny the Creator God and His Creation, can never give an answer to a very simple question. If not creation, then how did the universe begin? If you say "big bang", then I reply, "what banged"? Nor can you say, "it all just happened", to which I again reply, "how, what/who caused" it? And once there is "a cause", it requires that there must be "a first-cause", and the Bible says that Almighty God is that First-cause, Himself being "the beginning...". There is NO other way!

You are making the error of assuming that your god exists. One cannot "deny" that which does not exist or has not shown itself. Your version of God fails in at least one of those.

And an answer of "I don't know" is never an excuse to invoke a god. The fact that someone does not know something mean that a god has to be involved.

You don't seem to understand that when it comes to belief the null hypothesis condition would be that of atheism. That means the burden of proof is upon you to prove that a god exists, not the other way aroudn.

 

[Mark Corbett]

What evidence?

The OP actually provides detailed evidence with links to sources. You don't have to interact with the evidence if you don't want to. But simply saying it is not there does not make it go away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LMXO. And who made that rule up? Sounds impressive but cite your source please. And we'll need proof I don't know what evidence is while we are at it.

I mean if you can't back up what you claimed, at least back up those things.

Oh, and saying there "is evidence for your claim" is not stating it "clearly" as you want from us. To be more precise, that's not evidence. Stop stalling, either post it or not, or stop claiming it or expecting it from others. Or do you also have a double standard rule where we have to explain but you so not?

I made it up. And since I do understand evidence far better than you do I am in a far better position to make up rules than you are.

You made up your bogus rule, I overruled it.

But I am still willing to help you understand the concept of evidence.

And I am not stalling. You have denied clear and undeniable evidence in the past. You lost the ability to demand evidence when you did so.

What are you afraid of?

 

[pitabread]

"To the best of my knowledge", but you are meant to be an "agnostic"!

My personal philosophy is that my opinion on the existence of a supernatural creator being doesn't change what is. If a creator exists then they exist. If they don't exist, then they don't.

My personal belief doesn't change that.

That said, I personally don't believe in a divine creator and certainly not one that has a vested interest in humanity. At best I could see adopting a deist position.

That is why it's really a stretch to me to argue ID in favor of a specific Western religious belief in exclusion of all others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP actually provides detailed evidence with links to sources. You don't have to interact with the evidence if you don't want to. But simply saying it is not there does not make it go away.

I really doubt if you have any evidence at all. Here is a simple challenge. Find your best piece of evidence.

By the way, if you think that you have evidence then you must have a testable hypothesis. What reasonable test would show you to be wrong if you are wrong?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I made it up

Thought so.

And since I do understand evidence far better than you do I am in a far better position to make up rules than you are.

That was one of my questions, now prove that or stop claiming it, ir in short, and once again...stop stalling.

But I am still willing to help you understand the concept of evidence.

Good, what are you waiting for...post it as you are expecting from us. You aren't done yet?

And I am not stalling.

Of course you are...still waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thought so.

Just as you made up yours. But I am a far better source.

That was one of my questions, now prove that or stop claiming it, ir in short, and once again...stop stalling.

Sure, as soon as you quit running away and learn what is and what is not evidence.

Good, what are you waiting for...post it as you are expecting from us. You aren't done yet?

I am waiting for you.

Of course you are...still waiting.

Nope, I gave you a more than reasonable condition. You are running away from that condition.

It will not take long.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just as you made up yours. But I am a far better source.



Sure, as soon as you quit running away and learn what is and what is not evidence.



I am waiting for you.



Nope, I gave you a more than reasonable condition. You are running away from that condition.

It will not take long.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

You're doing a terrible job at talking your way out of this one. I expected more from you (not really .

Tsk, tsk.

 

[Mark Corbett]

That is why it's really a stretch to me to argue ID in favor of a specific Western religious belief in exclusion of all others.

Pitabread, we agree on something! I agree that evidence from creation (ID) only gets us as far as a great, super-intelligent, super-powerful (compared to us, at least) being.

Other lines of evidence are needed to demonstrate that the Creator is the God of the Christian Bible. Those other lines of evidence exist, but would take us away from the topic of this thread. Of course, not all rabbit trails are bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're doing a terrible job at talking your way out of this one. I expected more from you (not really .

Tsk, tsk.

What are you talking about? You are the one avoiding a more than reasonable offer.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pitabread, we agree on something! I agree that evidence from creation (ID) only gets us as far as a great, super-intelligent, super-powerful (compared to us, at least) being.

Other lines of evidence are needed to demonstrate that the Creator is the God of the Christian Bible. Those other lines of evidence exist, but would take us away from the topic of this thread. Of course, not all rabbit trails are bad.

Ad hoc explanations and hand waving is not evidence.

 

[pitabread]

Pitabread, we agree on something! I agree that evidence from creation (ID) only gets us as far as a great, super-intelligent, super-powerful (compared to us, at least) being.

Actually is doesn't even get you that far, and certainly not to the point of invoking the supernatural.

For all we know, life on Earth could have come from an alien space probe that crashed here 4 billion years ago.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What are you talking about? You are the one avoiding a more than reasonable offer.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

Still talking I see...produce.

 

[Mark Corbett]

I notice that in the first 29 comments those who disagree with the position of the OP have not interacted with any of the specific evidence in the OP. The specific evidence includes:

1. A claim by scientists to have produced a cell which contains approximately the smallest POSSIBLE genome.
2. An analysis which shows that evolution is woefully inadequate to produce such a cell.
3. Explanations and analogies which show how the problems which evolution cannot solve are well solved if there is an Intelligent Designer.

 

[pitabread]

I plan to give a more thorough rebuttal later, when I'm not posting from my phone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still talking I see...produce.

As soon as you learn.

Kenny, if you had actually tried to learn you might know what evidence is by now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I notice that in the first 29 comments those who disagree with the position of the OP have not interacted with any of the specific evidence in the OP. The specific evidence includes:

1. A claim by scientists to have produced a cell which contains approximately the smallest POSSIBLE genome.

You do not seem to understand what evidence is either. Why do you think that this is necessary at all?

2. An analysis which shows that evolution is woefully inadequate to produce such a cell.

Wow, this is not even evolution that you are discussing. This is abiogenesis. No wonder you are so confused.

3. Explanations and analogies which show how the problems which evolution cannot solve are well solved if there is an Intelligent Designer.

What problems cannot be solved by evolution?

You appear to be very confused about the science that you are opposing. Perhaps if you brought up your ideas one at a time.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Actually is doesn't even get you that far, and certainly not to the point of invoking the supernatural.

For all we know, life on Earth could have come from an alien space probe that crashed here 4 billion years ago.

You are in good company when it comes to the alien theory. Francis Crick (one of the key scientists who discovered the nature of DNA) once very seriously suggested the possibility of directed panspermia.

A couple of thoughts about this option.

It only moves the problem to another planet.

Is there more evidence for super-intelligent aliens existing at least 4 billion years ago who were able to travel between stars than there is for God?

Even ID alone does not favor what we normally think of us aliens. There is another aspect to ID aside from biology. Namely, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics to produce a universe capable of sustaining advanced life. If these laws and physical constants were indeed fine tuned, that requires a Super-Powerful Being who existed BEFORE the big bang. By any reasonable standards, such a being would be a god compared to us. But, not necessarily the Christian God of the Bible.

As I mentioned, there are other lines of evidence aside from ID which favor God of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are in good company when it comes to the alien theory. Francis Crick (one of the key scientists who discovered the nature of DNA) once very seriously suggested the possibility of directed panspermia.

You did not understand the post. The point was that you are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. It does not matter what the original source of life was for evolution.

A couple of thoughts about this option.

It only moves the problem to another planet.

Is there more evidence for super-intelligent aliens existing at least 4 billion years ago who were able to travel between stars than there is for God?

Even ID alone does not favor what we normally think of us aliens. There is another aspect to ID aside from biology. Namely, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics to produce a universe capable of sustaining advanced life. If these laws and physical constants were indeed fine tuned, that requires a Super-Powerful Being who existed BEFORE the big bang. By any reasonable standards, such a being would be a god compared to us. But, not necessarily the Christian God of the Bible.

As I mentioned, there are other lines of evidence aside from ID which favor God of the Bible.

Then why have you not posted any supposed evidence? All that you have posted so far are an endless series of PRATT"S.

 

[Mark Corbett]

What problems cannot be solved by evolution?

The specific problems addressed in the OP (which have been ignored by ID opponents in this discussion) include:

1. The ability to produce a genome (a set of bps in DNA) needed for the very smallest possible living cell.
2. The ability to provide all the cellular machinery necessary to process such a genome without the the genome. The cellular machinery depends on the genome and the genome depends on the cellular machinery.
3. Or, more modestly, the ability to produce a string of bps in DNA capable of producing even ONE average sized biologically functional protein. Many such proteins are needed for even the simplest reproducing life, and without reproducing life there is no evolution.