LordReed:


Why is this so hard for you? DNA is not an entity, ribosomes are not entities. It is like calling clouds entities because from them emerges rain, thunder and lightning. They are not intelligent events. They are events obeying and constrained by physical laws. They can into existence by the interaction of the component parts based on the physical laws of the universe.

DNA and ribosomes are not entities ?
What is the meaning of an entity ?

According to my dictionary;

an entity is an existent something that has the properties of being real, and having a real existence.

So are you saying DNA and ribosomes are not real ?

If all these events are constrained and brought into existence by physical law of universe, why all these events only seen in biological cells ? In other words, why scientists have not yet been able to create one living proto cell in their well equipped laboratory and witness all these events in this living proto cell ?

Abdulgaffar22:


DNA and ribosomes are not entities ?
What is the meaning of an entity ?

According to my dictionary;

an entity is an existent something that has the properties of being real, and having a real existence.

So are you saying DNA and ribosomes are not real ?

If all these events are constrained and brought into existence by physical law of universe, why all these events only seen in biological world ? In other words, why scientists have not yet been able to create their proto cells in their well equipped laboratory and witness all these events in these proto cells ?

When people use entity they usually refer to independence of being. DNA and ribosomes are real but are not beings.

There are no earthquakes in biological systems that means what then? Scientists cannot recreate earthquakes, tsunamis or mountains in a lab so that means they are not natural processes? How does inability to recreate something mean it is not a natural process?

LordReed:


When people use entity they usually refer to independence of being. DNA and ribosomes are real but are not beings.

There are no earthquakes in biological systems that means what then? Scientists cannot recreate earthquakes, tsunamis or mountains in a lab so that means they are not natural processes? How does inability to recreate something mean it is not a natural process?

How does existence of natural processes like earthquake and tsunami in the universe mean such processes were not created by God in the first instance ?

Abdulgaffar22:

How does existence of natural processes like earthquake and tsunami in the universe mean such processes were not created by God in the first instance ?

They don't however mere assertion will not do.

LordReed:


They don't however mere assertion will not do.

Now explain to us how UNGUIDED natural process manage to create the FIRST functional MALE and FIRST functional FEMALE organisms ever existed in nature if mere assertion will not do.

Keep running from facts.

LordReed:
How does hydrogen know how to combine with oxygen into water? OMG, hydrogen is not smart therefore intelligent designer! SMH.

Abdulgaffar22:


Now explain to us how UNGUIDED natural process manage to create the FIRST functional MALE and FIRST functional FEMALE organisms ever existed in nature if mere assertion will not do.

Read more here.

Midas01:
Keep running from facts.

Running from what facts? That chemical reactions occur without intelligent guidance? That is already evident, maybe it is you running from it.

LordReed:


Read more here.

I have gone through your reference. But nobody has been able to come up with an adequate explanation as to why body cells reproduce by MITOSIS (thereby maintaining the species’ standard chromosome number in each cell) and why sex cells (sperm cell and egg cells) are produced by MEIOSIS—wherein that chromosome number is halved so that, at the union of the male and female gametes during fertilization the standard number is restored.


You want us to believe that unguided process of nature brought about this INTERDEPENDENT process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through fertilization.

Not only an intricate process is required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place through MEIOSIS, but another equally intricate mechanism is also required to rejoin the genetic information during FERTILIZATION in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn.

The idea that all of these intricate processes “JUST EVOLVED” by chance without any guidance is unworthy of consideration

Abdulgaffar22:


I have gone through your reference. But nobody has been able to come up with an adequate explanation as to why body cells reproduce by MITOSIS (thereby maintaining the species’ standard chromosome number in each cell) and why sex cells (sperm cell and egg cells) are produced by MEIOSIS—wherein that chromosome number is halved so that, at the union of the male and female gametes during fertilization the standard number is restored.


You want us to believe that unguided process of nature brought about this INTERDEPENDENT process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through fertilization.

Not only is an intricate process required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place through MEIOSIS, but another equally intricate mechanism also is required to rejoin the genetic information during FERTILIZATION in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn.

The idea that all of these intricate processes “JUST EVOLVED” by chance without any guidance is unworthy of consideration

What is unworthy of consideration is your ignorance declaring that it is the work of a god.

LordReed:


What is unworthy of consideration is your ignorance declaring that it is the work of a god.

Even if we ASSUME that it is not the work of God, then is it the work of CHANCE ? Or is it the work of your favorite friend, CHEMICAL REACTIONS ?

Abdulgaffar22:


Even if we ASSUME that it is not the work of God, then is it the work of CHANCE ? Or is it the work of your favorite friend, CHEMICAL REACTIONS ?

I am quite comfortable saying I don't know and the fact is nobody knows including you with your bronze age god idea. What we do know is the systems proceed apace without the need for an apparent divine director aka naturally.

LordReed:


I am quite comfortable saying I don't know and the fact is nobody knows including you with your bronze age god idea. What we do know is the systems proceed apace without the need for an apparent divine director aka naturally.

If it is neither the work of chance nor chemical reactions, then it is must be the work of intelligence . Do you have another option ?

But who is the owner of this intelligence ? Of course, this intelligence cannot be the possessor of itself !

Abdulgaffar22:


If it is neither the work of chance nor chemical reactions, then it is must be the work of intelligence . Do you have another option ?

But who is the owner of this intelligence ? Of course, this intelligence cannot be the possessor of itself !

I don't know therefore x, is called argument from ignorance.

LordReed:


I don't now therefore x, is called argument from ignorance.

From our experience as intelligent human being, we know very well that existence of anything can be explained using THREE possible models;

1. By necessity ( i:e something can exist without beginning)

2. By chance ( i:e something can exist by luck)

3. By intelligence ( i:e something can exist by deliberate planning )

But all the complex processes that exist in
living things began to exist. Therefore, we are left with second and third option.

So our "search for the truth" is not an open loop. It is a closed loop; it is either we choose the second option or third option.

It is a kind of prejudice that would make someone to insist that neither of the options are correct and yet not giving his own option.

Abdulgaffar22:


From our experience as intelligent human being, we know very well that existence of anything can be explained using THREE possible models;

1. By necessity ( i:e something can exist without beginning)

2. By chance ( i:e something can exist by luck)

3. By intelligence ( i:e something can exist by deliberate planning )

But all the complex processes that exist in
living things began to exist. Therefore, we are left with second and third option.

So our "search for the truth" is not an open loop. It is a closed loop; it is either we choose the second option or third option.

It is a kind of prejudice that would make someone to insist that neither of the options are correct and yet not giving his own option.

There 2 ways we have observed things come into existence:

1. By natural processes.

2. By the efforts of capable agents/beings. Capable agents/beings are defined as entities able to plan, devise and execute modifications to their environment as opposed to mere impulses and autonomic responses.

In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings we have found none.

It is prejudice to assert that the things we do not yet understand are therefore the work of supernatural beings especially when none has been thus far discovered.

LordReed:


There 2 ways we have observed things come into existence:

1. By natural processes.

2. By the efforts of capable agents/beings. Capable agents/beings are defined as entities able to plan, devise and execute modifications to their environment as opposed to mere impulses and autonomic responses.

In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings we have found none.

It is prejudice to assert that the things we do not yet understand are therefore the work of supernatural beings especially when none has been thus far discovered.

Are you saying your first option ( natural processes) cannot be categorized into any of the three possible models I gave up there ?

LordReed:




In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings WE HAVE FOUND NONE.

It is prejudice to assert that the things we do not yet understand are therefore the work of supernatural beings especially when none has been thus far discovered.

If you're yet to understand some natural processes, how could you have said they cannot be orchestrated by a super natural being ?

Again, what are the yardsticks or factors do you think we can use to distinguish natural processes from supernatural processes if at all we assume they exist ?

LordReed:




In our search for truth every time we have investigated any natural processes thought to have been driven by supernatural beings we have found none.

If I narrate one supernatural event that happened before my eyes to you, would you believe me for the sake of my faith in God I have been arguing for since all this time ?

Abdulgaffar22:


If I narrate one supernatural event that happened before my eyes to you, would you believe me for the sake of my faith in God I have been arguing for since all this time ?

I will believe you had an experience to which you attribute the source to be supernatural. We can discuss how you arrived at that conclusion if you care to.

Abdulgaffar22:


Are you saying your first option ( natural processes) cannot be categorized into any of the three possible models I gave up there ?

I can't say because your meanings are unclear in the 1st 2 and your 3rd is subsumed in my 2nd.

Abdulgaffar22:


If you're yet to understand some natural processes, how could you have said they cannot be orchestrated by a super natural being ?

Again, what are the yardsticks or factors do you think we can use to distinguish natural processes from supernatural processes if at all we assume they exist ?

Because there needs to be positive proof before you put it forward as an explanation. Also anytime we attempt to define what supernatural means it seems to retreat beyond what is measurable which is something of a contradiction since believers in it insist it produces measurable effects. If we must distinguish natural from supernatural you must first produce a working definition of supernatural that will not retreat to beyond measurement.

LordReed:


I will believe you had an experience to which you attribute the source to be supernatural. We can discuss how you arrived at that conclusion if you care to.

If all the naira notes you put inside your pocket turn to equal and similar pieces of blank paper simply because you give out some part of the money to somebody, then can this very transformation be explained by natural or by supernatural process ?

I swear by God I have been arguing for; this happened to my mother some years back.

Abdulgaffar22:


If all the naira notes you put inside your pocket turn to equal and similar pieces of blank paper simply because you give out some part of the money to somebody, then can this very transformation be explained by natural or by supernatural process ?

I swear by God I have been arguing for; this happened to my mother some years back.

Have you seen illusionists and prestidigitators put on a "magic" show before? Do you know how sleight of hand and pickpocket teams work? If you've never seen these up close, you can search out Darren Brown on YouTube. He does "magic" tricks and attempts to reveal something of the psychology behind the tricks. I promise you, you will enjoy the show and learn alot.

These are more plausible explanations than that a supernatural power was used to transform your mother's money into paper.

LordReed:


Have you seen illusionists and prestidigitators put on a "magic" show before? Do you know how sleight of hand and pickpocket teams work? If you've never seen these up close, you can search out Darren Brown on YouTube. He does "magic" tricks and attempts to reveal something of the psychology behind the tricks. I promise you, you will enjoy the show and learn alot.

These are more plausible explanations than that a supernatural power was used to transform your mother's money into paper.

Let me just ask you a simple question; given enough time, can natural process ALONE design an aeroplane ?

Abdulgaffar22:



Let me just ask you a simple question; given enough time, can natural process ALONE design an aeroplane ?

No.

LordReed:


No.

You DISBELIEVED that given enough time, natural process alone can design an aeroplane.


But this is exactly what you BELIEVE by insisting that there is no any supernatural process. Let me explain it to you.

According to your belief;

1. Nature and natural processes is all that exist in the past before the existence of aeroplane.

2. Human brain that designed an aeroplane is also part of the same nature and therefore all brain activities must be as a result of natural processes

3. Hence nature (i:e human brain) and natural processes (i:e all brain activities) is all that exist at this present time when aeroplane is now in existence.

4. This implies that nature has designed an aeroplane by using natural process alone.

See how you have CONTRADICTED your self by saying initially that given enough time, natural process alone cannot design an aeroplane.

Honestly, believing that there is no any supernatural process is a self contradictory belief

LordReed:


No.

Pls don't ever think that you have made a mistake by saying no. Even if your answer is yes, there is another greater problem awaiting your belief. All these facts prove that atheism can never be a true world view.

Abdulgaffar22:

If lawyer decided to believe in an alien as the creator of human being, then we can still refer that alien as the "god" of the lawyer. In that case, the lawyer is no longer an atheist.

Yes, atheism is not science. But science of evolution provide a refuge for the atheists in the sense that it makes them not to worry again concerning how they came to exist. So atheism and science of evolution are closely related

well! believing that aliens created humans does not necessarily mean the lawyer recognizes them as gods.
except you want to use the monotheistic definition as god.

As agreed by all scientists, the probability of harmful mutations being occurred is far greater than that of beneficial mutations. Therefore, a GREAT number of beneficial mutations ( like those require for the transformation of lower to higher species of life ) must be accompanied by corresponding GREATER number of harmful mutations.
In other words, before hundreds of beneficial mutation can become fixed in one place, thousands of harmful mutations would have been implanted elsewhere and before thousands of beneficial mutations can become fixed in one place, millions of harmful mutations would have been implanted elsewhere.
This is exactly the reason why lower species cannot mutate to become higher species .

The reference you quote up there is talking about theistic evolution i:e evolution that has been guided by God from the beginning. It has nothing to do with natural evolution we are discussing.



The only reasonable thing I can find on the reddit you referenced goes thus;

"RNA knows which strand to copy because it finds the sequence of code that says "Here's a gene to read", termed a promoter, which causes an RNA polymerase to bind to the strand and transcribe the code in the 3' to 5' direction, creating mRNA, until it reaches a sequence that tells the polymerase to stop."

But this has not answered my question. This is because every strand of DNA to be copied has its own "promoter" which enable RNA polymerase to bind to the strand. This implies that there are many "promoters" for different strands of DNA.
So my question can now be rephrased as follows; how did RNA polymerase RECOGNIZE the "promoter" of the strand to be copied during the process of transcription of a particular DNA strand ?

Here is the analogy; you are being asked to go and copy a particular information on a particular page of a voluminous encyclopedia. The "promoter" is just like a page number where you are going to see that information. But if you are not told before hand that the information you're looking for is on a particular page, how are you going to recognize that actual page out of many pages of the encyclopedia ?

This parallels the question that says how did RNA polymerase manage to recognize the "actual promoter" of the strand to be copied out of many promoters meant for the different strands of DNA ?

well in my honest opinion there is no way i can successfully convince you about this topic as i am not an expert in the field.

Abdulgaffar22:


Pls don't ever think that you have made a mistake by saying no. Even if your answer is yes, there is another greater problem awaiting your belief. All these facts prove that atheism can never be a true world view.

I am very comfortable saying no or I don't know, I am not compelled to hold unsupported positions like you are.

Also, you inability to absorb information is very telling. No matter how many times we tell you atheism is not a belief or set of beliefs neither is it a worldview, you never change how you address the issues.

Abdulgaffar22:


You DISBELIEVED that given enough time, natural process alone can design an aeroplane.


But this is exactly what you BELIEVE by insisting that there is no any supernatural process. Let me explain it to you.

According to your belief;

1. Nature and natural processes is all that exist in the past before the existence of aeroplane.

2. Human brain that designed an aeroplane is also part of the same nature and therefore all brain activities must be as a result of natural processes

3. Hence nature (i:e human brain) and natural processes (i:e all brain activities) is all that exist at this present time when aeroplane is now in existence.

4. This implies that nature has designed an aeroplane by using natural process alone.

See how you have CONTRADICTED your self by saying initially that given enough time, natural process alone cannot design an aeroplane.

Honestly, believing that there is no any supernatural process is a self contradictory belief

I keep saying it, your inability to absorb information just makes these conversations unnecessarily tedious. I have previously clearly delineated between what we hold as natural processes and what we hold as the works of capable agents. How is it a contradiction? If these capable agents were removed from the scene would any of their works arise naturally?

hakeem4:
well! believing that aliens created humans does not necessarily mean the lawyer recognizes them as gods.
except you want to use the monotheistic definition as god.

But is there any theological difference between what the lawyer pictured as "alien" and what the theists portrayed as "God" ? Pls tell us if there is.

Again, what actually prompted the lawyer in the first place to believe his Creator to be alien and not to be God ?

hakeem4:


well in my honest opinion there is no way i can successfully convince you about this topic as i am not an expert in the field.

This is not the issue of being an expert in a field. Honestly it is an issue of logical reasoning.

Listen very well; DNA contains a lot of information on how to construct different organs of human body like eyes, liver, kidney, heart, stomach etc. This construction has to follow each other in a sequential manner.
Therefore, all the different information for the construction of each organ has to be copied sequentially by RNA polymerase from the DNA template.

Let say for example, after the construction of the lungs the next organ to be constructed is the heart. Now this is my question; how did RNA polymerase manage to recognize the information for the construction of the heart out of a lot of information contains in the DNA? Remember, an ordinary enzyme like RNA polymerase has no intelligence whatsoever. So how did it manage to carry out this difficult task without being guided by any supernatural being ?

There is even another important question; after RNA polymerase copy the encoded information for the construction of the heart from the DNA template, how did stem cells manage to TRANSLATE this encoded information to create the actual shape and size of the heart in its right location ?