Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Does God exist ? origin of God - metaphysical reality » 125 reasons to believe in God

125 reasons to believe in God

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:43 am

Admin


Admin
125 reasons to believe in God
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

Creation demands a Creator. Life comes only from life. They physical laws require a law-maker. Design demands a designer. DNA is a storage medium of complex, instructional information. Languages, codes, blueprints, ciphers, software, partitures etc. can always be tracked back to an intelligent source.  From absolutely nothing, nothing comes. If there were no creator, there would still be nothing. According to quantum mechanics, the mind predates matter.  The beginning of the universe requires a cause.  The physical universe and its laws are interdependent. The expansion rate of the Big bang, the fine-tuning of the universe, the four fundamental forces,  and the earth, are fine-tuned and require a tuner. Life comes only from life. Establishing a gene regulatory network and gene regulatory code, a genetic code based information system, the genetic cipher, and coded Information which is complex and instructional/specified found in epigenetic systems and genes require a Coder. Irreducible, interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and molecular production lines in biological systems point to an intelligent creator. And so does conscience, free will, morality, human values, logic, speech, the mind, and beauty. 

Factories, full of machines and production lines and computers, originate from intelligent minds. No exception.
Biological cells are factories.
Factory is from Latin, and means fabricare, or make. Produce, manufacture. And that's PRECISELY what cells do. They produce other cells through self-replication, through complex machine processing, computing etc. 
Therefore, they had a mind as a causal agency. 
The claim is falsified, once someone can demonstrate  a factory that can self-assemble, without the requirement of intelligence. 

The Cell is  a Factory
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2245-the-cell-is-a-factory

There are millions of protein factories in every cell. Surprise, they’re not all the same
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/there-are-millions-protein-factories-every-cell-surprise-they-re-not-all-same

Cells are very similar to factories. To stay alive and function properly, cells have a division of labor similar to that found in factories.
https://www.slcschools.org/departments/curriculum/science/Grade-7-to-8/Grade-7/documents/s3-o2-lesson-cell-as-a-factory-website-pdf.pdf

Comparing a Cell to a Factory: Answer Key
Science NetLinks is a project of the Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

Rough ER is also a membrane factory for the cell; it grows in place by adding membrane proteins and phospholipids to its own membrane.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Print_version



http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-confirmation-of-intelligent-design-predictions

Astronomy

What comes first, mind or matter?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter

Laws of Physics, where did they come from? 
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from

The universe most probably had a beginning
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1297-the-universe-most-probabaly-had-a-beginning

Fine-tuning of the universe
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

Origin of stars and planets
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2461-origin-of-stars-and-planets

Origin of life

Abiogenesis is impossible
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

Biodiversity & Evolution

Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2358-principal-meanings-of-evolution-in-biology-textbooks

Primary, and secondary speciation
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2360-primary-and-secondary-speciation

Is there evidence for natural selection?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2458-is-there-evidence-for-natural-selection

Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes. Really ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1568-eukaryotes-evolved-from-prokaryotes-really

On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1303-challenges-to-endosymbiotic-theory

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2010-unicellular-and-multicellular-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

"Tetrapods evolved" . Really ?  
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2219-the-evolution-of-tetrapods

What are the mechanisms that drive adaptation to the environment, microevolution, and secondary speciation?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2460-what-are-the-mechanisms-that-drive-adaptation-to-the-environment-microevolution-and-secondary-speciation

Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1390-macroevolution#1982

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2239-the-tree-of-life-common-descent-common-ancestry-a-failed-hypothesis

Photosynthesis
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1555-photosynthesis

Bible evidence

Evidence of Noah's flood
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1635-evidence-of-noah-s-flood

A cumulative case for the God of the bible
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism

..............................................
1) Conservation of Energy.
..............................................
Textbooks say "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed". Correct would be:  "Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any Physical Entity". If Energy cannot be created at all, the physical universe could NOT have been created in the first place. The Cause of the Universe has to be a non-physical entity (not matter energy space-time) that has the ability to create energy (to create the universe).
..............................................
2) Entropy
..............................................
Like a Clock that is wound-up. And then it winds down. Similarly, the universe was created with a certain amount of starting energy ( The universe is a closed system ). That energy is constant. However, over time, more of that energy becomes non-usable. Entropy increases until one day the universe will have completely wound down. So, this points to some entity that wound up the universe in the first place.
..............................................
3) The Big Bang (BB)
..............................................
The science indicates that all matter-energy, space and time came into being at the BB. Before this there was no matter-energy, space, time. So the cause of the BB has to be Supernatural (since by definition everything that is nature or natural is composed of matter-energy, space and time).

5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism

Either the cosmos
(1) had no beginning, or
(2) it had a beginning.
(1) If the cosmos had no beginning, then there must be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) If the cosmos had a beginning, then it must have come from (A) nothing or (B) something.
2.A. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being. 
2.B. If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. We may call it the First Cause.

Is attributing eternity to God special pleading?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1539-is-attributing-eternity-to-god-special-pleading

Fine-tuning of the universe
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

1. If our universe is random, then it is very unlikely that it permits life.
2. Our universe permits life.
3. Therefore, the existence of our universe is very likely due to something other than chance.

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss the an as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University

Abiogenesis is impossible
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

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.

Would you  say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor ?
Would you  say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book ?

Objection : Marcello Barbieri writes : Comparing living cells to man-made self replicating machines,  and books is a false analogy
Answer:  Molecular biology has proved that there is a genetic code in every cell, and that genes and proteins are molecular artifacts because they are manufactured by molecular machines. Coding and artifact-making, in other words, take place both in our society and inside the cell, and this does create a parallel between culture and molecular biology. Code Biology A New Science of Life, page 28
In other words. Intelligence produces self replicating machines,  and books. And so only intelligence can produce life, that depends on  coded information, proteins and molecular machines.

If the analogy of two phenomenon are very close and striking while at the same time, the cause of ONE of the phenomenon is very obvious; it becomes scaresely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other phenomenon, though (the cause of the other phenomenon is) not so obvious in itself"
--- in "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy", London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, 1831, page 149.

When you see that:
the way genetic information encoded in the DNA is exactly the same as what we humans would do to encode information in our books, computers, etc;
the way that the nucleus communicates with its ribosome is similar to how we humans has designed computers to communicate with one another,
then one has to AT LEAST stop and wonder whether some intelligent being has designed the genetic code and made the communication system between the nucleus and its ribosomes....
Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0, 1

Although this is not a conclusive proof of the existence of God, it should AT LEAST make one STOP and THINK about the possibility of the existence of God....


A book  requires a author.  Nobody in its sane mind would speculate that a book could be written by chance. The information in a book requires  the physical medium ( paper, ink ) The information requires the storage medium. One requires the other to bear function.  Life requires the setup of a genetic code, and coded Information which is complex and instructional / specified found in epigenetic systems and genes. And it requires the physical storage medium( DNA ), the machinery to extract the information ( RNA polymerase ),  and  translate it ( ribosomes ) to produce functional proteins. Neither , the software, nor the hardware, would have function, one without the other. Nor is there utility of the ribosome and rna polymerase without DNA and mRNA. That is strong indiciation that both had to emerge together. And that requires intelligence. 

What came first, the TATA Box in the promoter region in DNA, or transcription factors, controlling the rate of transcription of genetic information from DNA to messenger RNA ? What use does one have without the other ? Both must have come into existence in the right exact time. 

Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.  

Energy is required to make power plants and factories, that produce energy. What emerged first, energy, or the enzymes that make energy ?

Irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems, and the specific energy supply where its needed, and communication networks and information processing machines in cells point to a intelligent agent as best explanation of their setup and origins.

Confirmation of intelligent design predictions

Coded Information which is complex and instructional/specified found in epigenetic systems  and genes, and irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems point to a intelligent agent as best explanation of their setup and  origins. 

(1) The big bang origin of the universe (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)
(2) The anthropic fine-tuning of the universe/ physical constants of the universe for life to exist (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)
(3) The origin of first-life defies random-chance and natural law (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)
(4) The presence of codes, language, and software in DNA is more in keeping with Intelligent Design than with purely naturalistic-atheistic processes. (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)
(5) Free-will, moral obligations and responsibility; all of these fall apart if atheism is true (atheism expects pure materialism/ physicalism which necessitates determinism, which eliminates free-will, and therefore moral obligations and responsibility; but none of us and no society can live reasonably in a manner consistent with no free-will, no moral obligations, no moral responsibilities, no rewards for good behavior, no punishments for bad behavior, no civil laws, no criminal laws, no justice system).
(6) Mind, consciousness; These flow naturally (are more to be expected) if Theism is true. However, these do not naturally obtain if atheism (physicalism/ materialism) is true. Mind, consciousness have properties that are completely different from mere collections of atoms.
(7) Out of Body Experiences -- where the person's consciousness experiences a change in location (in point of view) and the person sees things at a distance from their body (where there is no line-of-sight). and these things that they saw (events they saw) are independently confirmed by an external third party or parties. This is evidence for mind-body dualism (and against mind-brain monism). And again, this is more in keeping with Theism (it matches more closely with the expectations of theism; and does not match the materialistic/ physicalistic expectations of atheism)... These (above) are some (but not all) of the things that I looked into in some detail, and which convinced me (over time) that Theism is the more rational view (based on the evidence) than Atheism... and that the evidence (as above) supports Theism over Atheism.


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1659-confirmation-of-intelligent-design-predictions

Observation: Intelligent agents  act frequently  with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex  multipart-machines, and  make  exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers   integrate  software/hardware and store  high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store  large amounts of specified/instructed complex information  such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in a interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures  that perform  specific functions -- indicating high levels of  Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide  function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome.   Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely  Splicing Codes,  Metabolic Codes,  Signal Transduction Codes,  Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes , and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducible complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing  and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimal number of parts and complex inter wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A step wise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knock out experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducible complex.
Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and  point out a non-intelligent source  of  Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is   best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.



Are Theists the Only People Who Have the “Burden of Proof”? 

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1873-are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-the-burden-of-proof?highlight=burden

If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have a origin by its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. 


affirmative conclusion from a negative premise  is one of the most frequent logical fallacies seen  in atheism/theism debates,.  This illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Both sides however must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive world view based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism or creationism/Intelligent Design. What the debater must present, is  a positive case for theism/atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a theistic/atheistic interpretation of reality.

Proponents of naturalism  need good answers of how absolutely nothing magically can turn  into something, or if they propose that the universe is eternal, and had no beginning,  how we can reach now from eternity. If you add one event after the other starting  now, whenever you stop, the timelapse will always be a defined timespan. You cannot reach eternity by adding one event after the other. Thats why there cannot be a past eternity, otherwise we would never reach now.

Then the naturalist has to give good reasons of how randomness  finetuned the expansion of the Big Bang, the fundamental forces, and hundreds of physical parameters, and the conditions to permit life on earth, how life can emerge from non-life  through unguided, lucky events, and randomness was able to create the storage device, transcription and translation machinery , invent a optimal genetic code, translation code, and incalculable amount of precise instructions to create the first  irreducible complex self-replicating cell, and  millions of amazingly diverse species with the ability to evolve, and explain the emergence of conscient intelligent minds from inanimated  matter ( quantum mechanics  supports the idea that conscience/mind predates, and permeates all physical being.






In this section of God proofs we use the philosophy of science, a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, since science is to know the truth of the infinities of Time and Space. Science without philosophy is simply a heap of unconnected data. Philosophy is the science of sciences or the mother of all sciences. And Philosophy leads to God, as we prove here. Albert Einstein stated: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." 

The origin of life arguments

1. The origin of the genetic cipher
1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher.  Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA's and  Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.
2. Other translation assignments are conceivable, but whatever cipher is established, the right amino acids must be assigned to permit polypeptide chains, which fold to active funcional proteins. Functional amino acid chains in sequence space are rare.  There are two possibilities to explain the correct assignment of the codons to the right amino acids.
3. If it were a lucky accident happened by chance, luck would have  hit the jackpot  trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using  Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that's universal. Put simply, the chemical lottery lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.
4. We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time.
5. Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet)  being written in English translated  to Chinese  in a extremely sophisticated hardware system. 
6. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.
7. The designer is God.

1a. The software and hardware of the cell are irreducibly complex
1. The cell contains a complex information storage medium through DNA and mRNA.
2. The cell has a complex information processing system ( through  RNA polymerase, transcription factors ,activator proteins, a spliceosome, a ribosome,  chaperone enzymes, specialized transportproteins,, and ATP
3. The cell contains a genetic code which is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space
4. The cell stores complex, specified, coded information ( the software )
5. The cell has a complex translation system through a  universal cipher, which assigns 61 codons ( total 4x4x4=64 - 3 stop and start codons = 61)  to 20 amino acids and permits the translation of the genetic code into functional proteins
6. This constitutes a logical structure of information processing : DNA>>RNA>>>Protein, based on software and hardware. Both aspects must be explained.
7. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.
8. Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex.
9. A irreducible complex system can not arise in a step wise, evolutionary manner.
10. Only minds are capable to conceptualise and implement  instructional information control systems transformed into molecular dynamics
11. Therefore , God exists.


1b.Proponents of evolution believe it is necessary to get chemicals up to the point of replication before Darwinian evolution begins. 1
1.a. A basic property of life is its capacity to experience Darwinian evolution.  The replicator concept is at the core of genetics-first theories of the origin of life, which suggest that self-replicating oligonucleotides or their similar ancestors may have been the first “living” systems and may have led to the evolution of an RNA world.  But problems with the nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication have spurred the alternative metabolism-first scenario, where self-reproducing and evolving proto-metabolic networks are assumed to have predated self-replicating genes.  Recent theoretical work shows that “compositional genomes” (i.e., the counts of different molecular species in an assembly) are able to propagate compositional information and can provide a setup on which natural selection acts.  Accordingly, if we stick to the notion of replicator as an entity that passes on its structure largely intact in successive replications, those macromolecular aggregates could be dubbed “ensemble replicators” (composomes) and quite different from the more familiar genes and memes.
2. But because it is difficult to imagine a chance formation of nucleic acids certain camps imagine metabolism coming into existence first.
a. In sharp contrast with template-dependent replication dynamics, we demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations).  We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.
3. From above statement, “problems with the nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and the origin of template replication,” refers to the impossibility of assembling the required molecules to form on their own.
4. The other problem is the origin of a genetic code that can copy itself.
a. Both schools acknowledge that a critical requirement for primitive evolvable systems (in the Darwinian sense) is to solve the problems of information storage and reliable information transmission.  Disagreement starts, however, in the way information was first stored.  All present life is based on digitally encoded information in polynucleotide strings, but difficulties with the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides and clear-cut routes to an RNA world, wherein RNA molecules had the dual role of catalysts and information storage systems, have provided continuous fuel for objections to the genetics-first scenario.
5. “We now feel compelled to abandon compositional inheritance as a jumping board toward real units of evolution.”
6. As one scientific theory is abandoned, often the new theory is based on faith being not 100% proven.
a. “We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from, but there are strong reasons to believe that it had existed.”
7. The metabolism-first scenario cannot work:
a. “Template-free systems like composomes could only have had the limited role of accumulating pre-biotic material and increasing environmental patchiness.”
8. The genetics-first scenario doesn’t work:
a. “The basic property of life as a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).”
b. The last statement is just restating a well known common-sense principle that without precise information storage and retrieval you can’t get inheritance.
c. Briefly, the genetics-first scenario is falsified because the lack of accurate genetic replication forbids Darwinian evolution.  But also the lack of accurate genetic replication forbids life itself, too.
9. Because both concepts of life’s origin are impossible, the only plausible scenario of complex life’s origin is intelligent design that implies God the best designer.
10. Hence God exists.

References:
1.  Vasos, Szathmary and Santos, “Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks: A constraint on the metabolism-first path to the origin of life,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, January 4, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.091262810


2.The argument of the origin of life 1
1. A strand of RNA can make one simple chemical reaction occur, but that’s not all what is needed. Even a most primitive cell needs essential molecules of life to replicate and thus to continue to exist. If there is no quality control, no inspections, no checks and balances, no feedback, no networks in the system of the cell, what will happen? Only entropy.
2. In order for life to begin there is need of an irreducible complex system even within the simplest cell.
3. God the supreme designer of an irreducible complex system must exist. 

3.The argument of demonstration by information theory that Life cannot arise from matter
1. The laws of physics for matter have low information content because they consist of a few simple mathematical formulas.
2. Living organisms have high information content because they consist of DNA, cells, etc.
3. According to information theory, the information of any system that has evolved from an older system must be contained in the older system.
4. Therefore, according to information theory, no system of high information content can evolve from a system of low information content by random changes.
5. Therefore material science has failed to prove that life has originated from matter.
6. Therefore life comes from life. Every life form can only originate from another life form which must have higher information content.
7. There cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect as a mouse cannot climb a sand dune or a person cannot proceed on a marshy land. There must be a first ground of being.
8. Therefore the original source has the highest information content.
9. This must be a Supreme Living Being.
10. God exists.

4.The argument of the contradicting theories of the origins of life 1
1a. Researchers at Cambridge created an RNA enzyme that worked at freezing temperatures. They said: ”Ice could have aided the emergence of self-replication in the prebiotic chemical world.”
1b. But Jack Szostak1 threw a snowball: the created molecule cannot replicate itself.  “I’m afraid we still have a long way to go to get a self-replicating ribozyme.”
2a. Wayne Roberge, a professor of physics within the School of Science at Rensselaer recently re-introduced a formerly discredited idea where “a new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long-taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how bio-molecules were once able to form inside of asteroids.” 
2b. But Roberg also said: “We’re just at the beginning of this…it would be wrong to assert that we’ve solved this problem.”
3a. A coacervate is a tiny spherical droplet of assorted organic molecules (specifically, lipid molecules) which is held together by hydrophobic forces from a surrounding liquid. The idea of these theoretical bubbles in which the magic of life happened was introduced by Oparin in 1920s.
3b. Dutch researchers Ekaterina Sokolova, Evan Spruijt et al. revisited Oparin’s theory of creation of “artificial cell-like environment in which the rate of mRNA production is increased significantly” however, without explaining the origin of the complex molecular machines DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase. 
4a. “We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions," said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science. (Nov. 5, 2013)
4b. The Bible, the Koran and even Greek mythology has suggested for thousands of years that life began as earth, dust or clay.
4c. New theory is that clay is a breeding ground for chemicals which it ‘absorbs like a sponge’ and eventually leads to proteins and DNA forming.
4d. One little problem remains: “How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained,” the Science Daily article points out.
5. Till now all the contradictory theories of origin of life falsify one another.
The “building blocks of life” can’t be cold and hot at the same time. 
They can’t be at deep sea vents and in asteroids at the same time. 
They can’t be dry and wet at the same time. 
The metabolism-first and genetics-first scenarios are mutually incompatible and impossible.
6. Moreover, none of the above theories answers the question: where did biological information come from?
7. For the origin of life to take place there is a need for a complex system that has all the ingredients for a genetic code, and the machinery to read and translate it, encased in a cell with active transport. These all have to be present and working together from the beginning.
8. Such an irreducible complex system gives evidence for creation with intelligence.
9. That person with super intelligence that only a super scientist can have all men call God.
10. God exists.

NOTES:
1. Jack William Szostak (born November 9, 1952) is a Canadian American biologist of Polish British descent and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Alexander Rich Distinguished Investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

5.The argument of the ancient protein as the origin of life 2
1. The primeval proteins, described (Aug. 8. 2013) in the journal Structure, could reveal new insights about the origin of life, said study co-author José Manuel Sanchez Ruíz, a physical chemist at the University of Granada in Spain.
2. Exactly how life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago is a mystery. Some scientists believe that lightning struck the primordial soup in ammonia-rich oceans, producing the complex molecules that formed the precursors to life. Others believe that chemical reactions at deep-sea hydrothermal vents gave rise to cell membranes and simple cellular pumps. And still others believe that space rocks brought the raw ingredients for life — or perhaps even life itself — to Earth.
3. It seems that the complexity of thioredoxin, a class of small redox proteins known to be present in all organisms, suggests intelligent design.
    a. They then recreated the protein in the lab. The original “fossil” protein was incredibly stable, bound to many different chemicals and functioned well in a highly acidic environment.
    b. “That makes a lot of sense because 4 billion years ago, many people think that the temperature was high and the oceans were acidic,” Sanchez Ruíz told LiveScience.
4. A BBC article pointed out several problems with this resurrected theory.
    a. Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: “A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.
    b. “If our ancestral sequences were incorrectly inferred by having a single mistake, that could have led to a dead gene. Instead, our approach created biochemically active proteins that fold up into three dimensional structures that look like modern protein structures, thus validating our approach.”
5. Even bigger problem is the dismissal of the main tenet of neo-Darwinism namely the gradual evolution.
“The results suggest that biological systems might evolve at the molecular level in discrete jumps rather than along continuous pathways, as has been suggested from studies of the evolution of species.”
6. Finally, Sanchez Ruíz has a great doubt whether the designed protein in the laboratory had anything to do with a hypothetical lonely protein in an imagined hot sea:
“There is no way to make absolutely certain unless we invent some kind of time machine…But we know that the properties we measure for these proteins are consistent with what we would expect of 4-billion-year-old proteins.”
7. One more problem of this earliest thioredoxin protein is that it is not simple, but complex, stable, and possessing multiple functions. And what would it function with, if not a cell filled with many other proteins and genes? 
8. Another speculation in the theory of Ruiz is that thioredoxin arose on Mars and then was transported to Earth in meteorites.  “Four billion years ago Mars was a much a safer place than Earth…Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor (the first life) formed on Mars and transferred to Earth.” 
9. However, no life or products of life have yet been discovered on Mars, and shifting the origin of thioredoxin from earth to Mars still does not explain how a complex protein arose at once.
10. All in all, after considering all the impossibilities and unexplained things, intelligent design by the greatest designer who all men call God is the best explanation.
11. God exists.

6.The argument of the protocells 3
1. “Protocells may have formed in a salty soup,” says chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen. (July 2, 2013) 
2. DNA and RNA molecules, however they emerged, may have clustered together without a cell membrane at first. 
3. But despite the interesting story Wilhelm Huck admitted: “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity.”
4. This conclusion points to the supreme designer all men call God.
5. God exists.

7.The argument of emerging from the ooze 3
1. George Poinar at Oregon State has tried to understand the evolution of nematodes (roundworms) that originated a billion years ago as one of the earliest forms of multicellular life.  He says, “They literally emerged from the primordial ooze.”
2. The article enumerated all the parts that would have had to emerge. In one of the paragraphs we read, “But they are functional animals, with nervous and digestive systems, muscles, good mobility, and they are capable of rapid reproduction and learned behavior.”
3. Although Poinar wrote a book on nematode evolution, he admitted, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about nematodes.”
4. And he did not explain how something so complex could emerge from ooze.
5. This again points to the work of an intelligent designer all men call God. God exists.

8.The evidence of Panspermia 4
1. In 1981, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, published a book, declaring that “directed panspermia” was responsible for life on earth.  
2. Crick admits that this does not explain how nearly all our plant and animal species came into existence. Nor does it explain the transportation problem.  Centuries of travel through the cold of outer space would be required. This theory is a desperate, gasping effort to provide a solution to the question of how living creatures originated, a puzzle which thousands of scientists in 150 years of diligent work have not been able to solve. Very few intellectuals have accepted panspermia.
3.  Life cannot originate from matter. 
4. Panspermia also means that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer all men call God.
5. God exists.

9.The argument of extraterrestrial life origin 4
1. Vladimir I shCherbak of al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan, and Maxim A Makukov of the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute have come to the conclusion after researching for years that we, as human beings living on earth, are not originally from the earth planet, nor that we are alone in the Universe.
2. shCherbak and Makukov say that “our genes could have an intelligently designed ‘manufacturer’s stamp’ inside them, written eons ago elsewhere in our galaxy.”
3. Such a ‘designer label’ is an indelible stamp on our DNA of a master extraterrestrial civilization that preceded us by many millions or even billions of years.
4. Writing in the journal Icarus, the two scientists say that such a signal embedded in our genetic code would be a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. They call it ‘biological SETI’ — the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence — that’s been ongoing for over four decades now without finding anything.

4a. “Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it’s the most durable construct known. Therefore, it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature. Once the genome is appropriately rewritten, the new code with a signature will stay frozen in the cell and its progeny, which might then be delivered through space and time.”
5. Makukov and shCherbak assert that simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of symbolic language. This includes, they say, the use of decimal notation, logical transformations, and the utilization of the abstract symbol of zero. They write: “Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing.”
6. This theory is called panspermia or the theory that life on earth originated from organisms coming from outer space or that it came to our planet carried by meteors and asteroids which got seeded before being flung across space to land here.

7. This latest panspermia theory makes it sound less like serendipitous happenstance and more like a well thought out experimental endeavor with a purpose, by entities who wanted to leave their signature behind on a part of the universe.
8. This theory although un-testable or un-falsifiable is still supported by the view of Anthony Flew, a renowned British philosopher belonging to the analytic school of thought. 
9. For more than half a century he was considered the world’s leading atheist, advocating the need for believing that one should always presuppose the non-existence of God until empirical evidence proves otherwise. However, in December 2004, Flew, aged 81, based on scientific evidence, had changed his mind and accepted the existence of God because a super-intelligence was the only good explanation for the origin of life.
10. Flew specifically stated that biologists’ investigation of human DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved.” That’s exactly what Messrs shCherbak and Makukov are now reporting.
11. God exists.



(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. specified complexity).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. This is because a common designer is known to produce functional parts in various design concepts.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions. This is because designers have been observed to exhibit foresight, having an end goal of purpose or function in mind. Therefore, we can predict much or all DNA has some function.

My mascot teleological argument:
Factories, full of machines and production lines and computers, originate from intelligent minds. No exception.
Biological cells are factories.
Therefore, they had a mind as an origin.


1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3415
2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design?highlight=proteins
3) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-requirement-of-parts
4) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1362-panspermia?highlight=panspermia

http://god-proofs.blogspot.com.br/2014/05/theological-and-scientific-proofs.html
https://www.slideshare.net/kenboa/is-there-really-a-god-does-god-exist



Last edited by Admin on Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:30 am; edited 78 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:43 am

Admin


Admin
The mind predates matter.
Matter cannot produce consciousness.
The universe had a beginning.
The universe works orderly , based on physical laws.
The universe is finely tuned
We have never observed matter to give rise to life.
Cells can be compared to complex factories, full of molecular machines, and assembly lines.
Cells have computer like soft and hardware
and encoding - transmitting - and decoding systems
and a cipher , or translation system , that equals the translation of one language into another
Language , logic, reasoning , free will , and moral values are not grounded in physics.


10.The argument  from transitional fossils 5
The evidence of the words of Charles Darwin
1. “As by this [evolution] theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them in the fossil record? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”—Charles Darwin (1866)
2. Even the few transitional forms claimed by  scientists to be good ones are very questionable and what to say about not finding innumerable transitional forms.
3. The work of a designer and his creation is obvious. All men call him God.
4. God exists.

11.The argument of information  6
1. There is matter or energy.
2. It is useless or inactive to direct the origin and make of complex life forms without information and consciousness.
3. The DNA displays a huge level of coded, specified, complex information. Many DNA strands have 100 million, or even billions of  segments (one segment is called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are the building blocks, namely purines: adenine, guanine; and pyrimidines: cytosine, thymine and uracil).
4. Even  scientists are amazed by the amount of information in the DNA and every day they discover new things about it.
5. Proponents of materialism have no answer to the question what generated the first DNA strands, and the information stored in it.
6. Therefore, there must have been a first, super-intelligent designer of not only of one DNA code but many of them.
7. That creator all men call the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

12.The argument of co-option 7
1. Co-option in microbiology means borrowing parts of systems from different places to form a new system. When in this way a new system is generated it has a new function. This proves evolution.
2a. But in the evolutionary scheme not all the systems were available by co-option.
2b. In the simple example of E-coli only 10 out of 40 components can be traced back as having been developed by co-option.
2c. The rest of the 30 components are unique and new. There are simply no known homologues to them.
      These 30 components were not available for co-option in hypothetic ancestral lines leading from e.g. a bacterium with no flagellum.
3. This again proves the existence of a designer who is no one else then God.

13.The argument of amino acids 8
1.  The arrangements of the amino acids in the  proteins are highly specified and meaningful.
2. They are like the arrangements of letters of the alphabet into meaningful words and sentences of a book.
3. Amino acids on their own have no ability to order themselves into any meaningful biological sequence.
4. Thus, the question is how the first protein could assemble without pre-existing genetic material.
5. The next question is how  further evolutes develop.
6. To this there is no any answer from materialism proposing  scientists. The only option is – it was all designed.
7. That designer all men call God.

14.Proof by self-replicating RNA 9
1. Till now, after more than 50 years of biochemical experiments, there were no self-replicating RNA molecules generated in any different laboratory conditions that resemble the prebiotic period of creation.
2. RNA has no self-replicating power.
3. Without self-replicating RNA there is neither natural selection nor evolution.
4. Therefore, there must have been another original cause of existence and that cause is God.

15.The argument of the complexity of the cell 10
1. At least 239 proteins are required as building blocks for the simplest living cell to come to existence.
2a. Proteins are highly complex structures that are very difficult for scientists to create.
2b. Which scientists created nature’s proteins which human scientists find so difficult to imitate or recreate.
3a. The probability of random creation of complex proteins, the assemblage of the needed 239 in one place in nature without any control is less than 10^50 or impossible.
3b. A question is also: “Who moves the proteins and the building blocks of the proteins into creating and assembling”.
3c. If you leave all the atoms of such structures in an isolated place nothing will happen. If you make nature’s forces working then we must say that you make the gods working, since no force is ever reported to work without thinking, feeling, willing, which is the work of a person, according to the dictionary.
4. Such impossibility of chance indicates the necessity of an intelligent designer.
5. That expert designer all men call God.
6. God exists.

16.The evidence by molecular machines 11
1. DNA Polymerase:
a. “DNA polymerases are spectacular molecular machines that can accurately copy genetic material with error rates on the order of 1 in 10^5 bases incorporated, not including the contributions of proofreading exonucleases.”
b. Part of the machine rotates 50° as the machine translocates along the DNA.  These machines copy millions of base pairs of DNA every cell division so that each daughter cell gets an accurate copy.
c. “Although the polymerases are divided into several different families, they all share a common two metal-ion catalytic mechanism, and most of them are described as having fingers, palm, and thumb domains: the palm contains metal-binding catalytic residues, the thumb contacts DNA duplex, and the fingers form one side of the pocket surrounding the nascent base pair.”  Three phases occur during each step along the DNA chain: the fingers open, the machine moves one base pair as it rotates, then the base in the “palm” is placed into the “pre-insertion site,” while another moving part prevents further movement till the operation is completed.  Then the process repeats – millions of times per operation.
d. In no one of the articles describing DNA polymerase the word evolution was mentioned; no one can give this as an explanation.
2. Torsion springs and lever arms: 
a. “Myosin-Is are molecular motors that link cellular membranes to the actin cytoskeleton, where they play roles in mechano-signal transduction and membrane trafficking.”
b. “Some myosin-Is are proposed to act as force sensors, dynamically modulating their motile properties in response to changes in tension.” 
c. “Tension sensing by myosin motors is important for numerous cellular processes, including control of force and energy utilization in contracting muscles, transport of cellular cargos, detection of auditory stimuli, and control of cell shape.” 
d. The authors found that alternative splicing of the gene produces isoforms of the motor with lever arms of different lengths, with varying response to force.  This “increases the range of force sensitivities of the proteins translated from the myo1b gene” and it “tunes the mechanical properties of myo1b for diverse mechanical challenges, while maintaining the protein’s basal kinetic and cargo-binding properties.”
e. How did these myosin machines arise?  “Myosins have evolved different tension sensitivities tuned for these diverse cellular tasks,” the authors said.  That was all they could say without giving any details of evolution. 
3. Ribosome dynamics: 
a. “Spontaneous formation of the unlocked state of the ribosome is a multi-step process.” 
b. The L1 stalks of the ribosome bend, rotate and uncouple – undergoing at least four distinct stalk positions while each tRNA ratchets through the assembly tunnel.  At one stage, for instance, “the L1 stalk domain closes and the 30S subunit undergoes a counterclockwise, ratchet-like rotation” with respect to another domain of the factory.  This is not simple.  “Subunit ratcheting is a complex set of motions that entails the remodeling of numerous bridging contacts found at the subunit interface that are involved in substrate positioning.”
4. Interactions between molecules are not simply matters of matching electrons with protons.  Instead, large structural molecules form machines with moving parts.  These parts experience the same kinds of forces and motions that we experience at the macro level: stretching, bending, leverage, spring tension, ratcheting, rotation and translocation.  The same units of force and energy are appropriate for both – except at vastly different levels.
5. Every day, essays about molecular machines are giving more and more biomolecular details, many without mentioning evolution and giving details about the process how these machines evolved.
6. These complexities are the work of God.
7. Hence God exists.

17.The evidence through DNA repair 12
1. Broken or mismatched DNA strands can lead to serious diseases and even death.  It is essential that DNA damage be recognized and repaired quickly. 
2. A team at Rockefeller University and Harvard Medical School that found two essential proteins that act like “molecular tailors” that can snip out an error and sew it back up with the correct molecules. 
3. These proteins, FANC1 and FANCD2, repair inter-strand cross-links, “one of the most lethal types of DNA damage.”  This problem “occurs when the two strands of the double helix are linked together, blocking replication and transcription.” 
4. Each of your cells is likely to get 10 alarm calls a day for inter-strand cross-links.
5. The   FANC1 and FANCD2 link together and join other members of the repair pathway, and are intimately involved in the excision and insertion steps.
6. One repair operation requires 13 protein parts. 
7. “If any one of the 13 proteins in this pathway is damaged, the result is Fanconi anemia, a blood disorder that leads to bone marrow failure and leukemia, among other cancers, as well as many physiological defects.”
a. “Our results show that multiple steps of the essential S-phase ICL repair mechanism fail when the Fanconi anemia pathway is compromised.” 
8. In the scientific paper and press release nor Darwin nor the possible way of how this tightly-integrated system might have evolved was mentioned.
9. The absolute necessity of FANC1 and FANCD2 are very much obvious from this discovery not only in one species but in all that has DNA. Their crucial role for survival of the species is undismissable. 
10. Their must have existed as perfectly functional units from the time of appearance of any species on this planet otherwise existence would be not possible.
11. This implies creation what further implies that God necessarily exists.

Reference:
1.  Knipscheer et al, “The Fanconi Anemia Pathway Promotes Replication-Dependent DNA Interstrand Cross-Link Repair,” Science, 18 December 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5960, pp. 1698-1701, DOI: 10.1126/science.1182372.

18.The argument of the highly similar DNA sequences 13
1. If functionally unconstrained yet highly similar DNA sequences were found in different species, then evolution would be false.
2. In fact, the DNA sequences are extremely similar and even identical in different species.
3. There is currently “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”
4. Since some of these sequences are found across a wide range of different species, the sequences, and whatever selective forces preserved them, must have been present very early in history.
5. On the other hand many of these sequences point to evolution’s nemesis, lineage-specific biology.
6. Highly similar DNA sequences in different species are a proof of the same intelligent designer using a similar genetic pattern to design different species. All men call him God.
7. God exists.

19.The argument of the highly similar DNA sequences 13
1. According to the evolutionary paradigm, all life on Earth is related through the process of common descent.
2. An organism called the last universal common ancestor spawned a number of lineages that evolved separately and continued to diverge, ultimately generating the present species of life.
3. Recently evolutionary biologists have turned to DNA sequences to construct evolutionary trees.
4. New work complicates the interpretation of DNA sequence similarity among organisms, for example for bacteria and archaea.
5. Researchers from the University of Connecticut discovered through that horizontal gene transfer among microbes has the same genetic signature as common ancestry.
6. Horizontal gene transfer encompasses any mechanism that transfers genetic material to another organism without the recipient being the offspring of the donor.
7. Many people regard shared DNA sequences as the best evidence for evolution and common descent.
8. New discoveries however suggest that the shared DNA sequences may actually point to something beyond natural mechanism as the explanation for features shared among organisms.
9. Because in many examples the shared genes between two species were not a consequence of horizontal gene transfer via a natural process, the only possible explanation left is that an intelligent designer used a similar genetic pattern to design different species.
10. This highly intelligent designer all men call God.
11. God exists.

20.The evidence of the cooperative cell motors 14
1. Researchers at the University of Virginia said they “found that molecular motors operate in an amazingly coordinated manner” when “simple” algae named Chlamydominas need to move with flagella.
2. “The new U.Va. study provides strong evidence that the motors are indeed working in coordination, all pulling in one direction, as if under command, or in the opposite direction – again, as if under strict instruction.”
3. The phrases: ‘working in coordination,’ ‘as if under command, ’as if under strict instruction,’ all indicate perfect design by a designer, who harmonizes life-important processes in the cell.
4. Hence, God the Supreme designer exists.

Reference:
1.  Laib, Marin, Bloodgood and Guilford, “The reciprocal coordination and mechanics of molecular motors in living cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online February 12, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809849106.

21.The proof by evolutionary storytelling 15
1. “Topoisomerases are essential enzymes that solve topological problems arising from the double-helical structure of DNA.”
2. “As a consequence, one should have naively expected to find homologous topoisomerases in all cellular organisms, dating back to their last common ancestor.  However, as observed for other enzymes working with DNA, this is not the case.”
3. Is common ancestry falsified by this discovery? Although without evidence a new evolution story explains:
4. Topoisomerases could have originated by combining protein modules previously involved in RNA metabolism, such as RNA-binding proteins, RNA endonucleases or RNA ligases.  Alternatively, they could have evolved from protein modules that were already working with DNA, if the first steps in the evolution of DNA genomes occurred in the absence of any topoisomerase activity, i.e. before the emergence of long double-stranded DNA genomes.  Two arguments favour the latter hypothesis: first, whereas RNA polymerases and RNA-binding proteins are obvious candidates to be direct ancestors of DNA polymerases and single-stranded DNA-binding proteins, ‘RNA topoisomerases’ that could be direct ancestor of DNA topoisomerases are unknown.  Secondly, it is likely that double-stranded DNA genomes with complex DNA-replication mechanisms (i.e. concurrent symmetric DNA replication) were preceded by single-stranded or even short double-stranded DNA genomes replicated by simpler mechanisms, such as asymmetric DNA replication, and/or rolling circle (RC) replication (75).  These simple systems probably did not require topoisomerases, as it is still the case for their modern counterparts (the RC replication of some replicons require supercoiled DNA, hence gyrase activity, but only for the recognition step of the initiator protein).  If this scenario is correct, topoisomerases probably originated when more complex DNA genomes (long linear or circular DNA molecules) were selected in the course of evolution, together with more elaborate replication machineries.
5. In the whole story the word suggest occurred 26 times, possible 16 times, could 14 times, and might 10 times.
6. Despite all the network complexity indicating intelligent design the researchers opine:
a. “An intelligent designer would have probably invented only one ubiquitous Topo I and one ubiquitous Topo II to facilitate the task of future biochemists.”
7. In serious scientific circles unsupported storytelling was never accepted as an evidence for truth.
8. So this evolutionary storytelling cannot be accepted as an evidence for disproving the obvious intelligent design.
9. Hence, God the supreme designer exists.

Reference:
1.  Forterre and Gadelle, “Phylogenomics of DNA topoisomerases: their origin and putative roles in the emergence of modern organisms,” Nucleic Acids Research, published online on February 9, 2009, doi:10.1093/nar/gkp032.

22.The argument from protein evolution
1. Pyrrolysine is an amino acid outside the standard 20-amino-acid library of “letters” making up life’s protein code.
2. This uncommon amino acid, found in only 7 microbes, is modified after the protein has been translated in the ribosome. 
3. Scientists say that this fact “gave the researchers a molecular handle by being an extreme example of an amino acid that evolved to serve a highly specific need.”  In other words, “these molecules have evolved to work together.” 
4. There is innate or teleological intelligence.
5. God the Supreme Designer exists.

23.The evidence of the protein origin 16
1. On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro – Doug Axe – January 2012.
I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical.
2. Shapiro admits he has no ‘real time’ empirical evidence for the origin of novel protein domains and/or genes by Darwinian processes (so as to be able to have the ‘protein domains’ to shuffle around in the first place) but must rely, as do neo-Darwinists, on the DNA/protein sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to try to make his case that novel protein domains were created in the distant past so that ‘natural genetic engineering’ can presently create all the diversity we see in life on earth today.
3. The primary problem is never addressed! i.e. Can the novel functional information we see in protein domains and/or genes ever be generated in a ‘bottom up’ fashion by the unguided material processes of neo-Darwinism? The answer to that question, as far as empirical evidence is concerned, is a resounding NO.
4. “Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein” – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 1, 2012
In one study 
Proponents of evolution  estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21.
These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein.
And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences.
Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required.
And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier.
These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins.
5. “Why Proteins Aren’t Easily Recombined, Part 2″ – Ann Gauger – May 2012.
Excerpt: “So we have context-dependent effects on protein function at the level of primary sequence, secondary structure, and tertiary (domain-level) structure. This does not bode well for successful, random recombination of bits of sequence into functional, stable protein folds, or even for domain-level recombinations where significant interaction is required.”
6. The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel – August 2011.
Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.
7. From all this it is seen that research has advanced to the point of falsifying neo-Darwinism and Darwinism.
8. Intelligent design and its greatest intelligent designer God was a must to create DNA, RNA, proteins etc.
9. God  exists.

24.The evidence of Urey-Miller experiment 17
1a. Amino Acid Synthesis (1953). When Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: “Life has been created!” But 
proponents of evolution  hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur.
1b. The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature.
2. Till nowadays life could not be created in any laboratory. Therefore it must have been created by God.
3. God exists.

25.The argument of the zip-codes within the cell
1.  Michael Denton compared the cell to a city in his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 328.  He writes: “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York.  What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.... a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”
2. This has become more then true by discovering new details in the mind-boggling complex life of the cell. One of the recent paper by Richard Robinson reports:
Proteins are the workhorses of the cell, but to get the most work out of them, they need to be in the right place.  In neurons, for example, proteins needed at axons differ from those needed at dendrites, while in budding yeast cells, the daughter cell needs proteins the mother cell does not.  In each case, one strategy for making sure a protein gets where it belongs is to shuttle its messenger RNA to the right spot before translating it.
    The destination for such an mRNA is encoded in a set of so-called “zipcode” elements, which loop out of the RNA string to link up with RNA-binding proteins.  In yeast, these proteins join up with a myosin motor that taxis the complex to the encoded location.
3. It was known that proteins called She2p and She3p were involved, but not how they interacted with the zipcode elements on the mRNA.  There is a new level of quality control, he said, that has come to light:
Based on their results, the authors propose a two-step model of transport complex formation.  Within the nucleus, She2p binds to the mRNA as it is transcribed, and then shuttles it to the cytoplasm.  She2p binds loosely and promiscuously, though, catching up mRNAs both with and without zipcodes.  Once in the cytoplasm, She3p joins on, tightening the grip on mRNAs that contain zipcodes while booting out those without them.  With the myosin motor attached to She3p, the complex motors off to its destination elsewhere in the cell.
    The results in this study indicate that quality control in mRNA transport relies on a reciprocal action: the complex proteins together ensure that only those mRNAs with a destination tag are incorporated into the transport complex, and the mRNA, by binding to each of the proteins in the complex, ensures that all are on board before the journey starts.
4. Muller et al in PLoS Biology4 wrote: “We propose that coupling of specific mRNA recognition and assembly of stable transport complexes constitutes a critical quality control step to ensure that only target mRNAs are transported.”
5. All the above speaks about amazing, irreducible complexity and intelligent design of one of the simplest cells, the yeast.
6. How this complex system evolved was not explained. This complexity found in the simple cell of yeast is one more example out of innumerable complex systems that are necessary for the existence of the cell. 
7. The irreducible complex systems are evidence of an intelligent design that could have been made only by a super intelligent person all men call God.
8. God is a must, He exists.

Reference:
1. Richard Robinson, “A Two-Step Process Gets mRNA Loaded and Ready to Go,” Public Library of Science: Biology, 9(4): e1001047. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001047.

26.The proof of astounding new complex genes
1. The 3-prime untranslated region (3' UTR) gene tails contain a variety of regulatory features. Some of them allow regulatory RNA-binding proteins to attach to the mRNA's tail while others allow small regulatory RNAs—called micro RNAs—to bind. The combination of these bound regulatory molecules fine-tunes and robustly controls genes after the mRNAs are produced. This is a form of regulation called "post-transcriptional," meaning after the mRNA is transcribed.
2. Like the protein-coding areas of the gene, these 3' UTR tails are also alternatively spliced and thus variable. Their size and makeup can vary widely and dynamically between mRNAs from the same gene and between the different cell types in which they are found.
3. While scientists knew that the 3' UTRs of genes had this capability several years ago, they recently discovered that this feature was on a scale much more intricate and massive than they anticipated. In this study, they identified 2035 mouse and 1847 human genes that have 3' UTR tails ranging from 500 to 25,000 bases long. In some cases, they were even longer than the protein-coding areas of the genes themselves. These incredibly long gene tails literally contain hundreds to thousands of genetic switches within each single mRNA.
4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers—each network of genes related to a certain cell process is composed of hundreds to thousands of individual genes, each with this type of intricate regulatory set of features. Not only that, but genetic networks in the cell also overlap and function together dynamically, continually, and robustly as part of normal cell physiology.
5. The level of coordination of such genetic complexity is almost beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.
6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.
7. God exists.

27.The argument from the DNA’s molecular motor 18
1. There is a “very fast and powerful molecular motor” that crams the viral DNA tightly into the capsid with the help of five moving parts.
2. The parts of the motor move in sequence like the pistons in a car's engine, progressively drawing the genetic material into the virus's head, or capsid.
3. The motor is needed to insert DNA into the capsid of the T4 virus, which is called a bacteriophage because it infects bacteria.
4. The T4 molecular motor is the strongest yet discovered in viruses and proportionately twice as powerful as an automotive engine. The motors generate 20 times the force produced by the protein myosin, one of the two proteins responsible for the contraction and strength of muscles.
5. Even viruses, which are not even alive by the scientific definition of being able to reproduce independently, show incredible design.
6. If design is what we observe, then there must be a designer.
7. God exists.

SOURCE:
1. Biologists Learn Structure, Mechanism Of Powerful 'Molecular Motor' In Virus, Sun and Kiran Kondabagil, a research assistant professor at Catholic University of America, professor Venigalla B. Rao, Dec. 26, 2008; Science Daily: http://tinyurl.com/nsls646

28.The argument from molecular motors and their use in nanotechnology 19
1. The cell is best described as a miniature factory where literally thousands of machines perform various specialized tasks.
2. These functions include:
a. allowing the cell to replicate itself in less than an hour,
b. proofreading and repairing errors in its own manufacturing instructions (DNA),
c. sensing its environment and responding to it,
d. changing its shape and morphology, and
e. obtaining energy from photosynthesis or metabolism.
3. The devices engineered by man are similar to these molecular motors.
4. These include:
a. “electric” motors having stators, rotors, shafts, bearings and universal joints;
b. transport “trucks” that provide stepwise motion along “highways” called microtubules or filaments;
c. pumps made from tubes and cams1 that force fluids along the tubes.
5. The major differences between these molecular motors and those made by humans are their size (a billion times smaller) and their efficiency (near 100 percent vs. 65 percent, at best).
6. In the last few decades, research efforts in nanotechnology resulted in making various components of machines, like cogwheels2 or pumps, but have not yet been able to produce the motors needed to make the machinery go.
7. Machines found in cells are absolutely extraordinary in their characteristics, inspiring the creativity of the most advanced researchers. However, the cell machines although almost identical in form but different in size are superior in efficiency to the mechanical devices that the best engineers design for everyday life.
8. This indicates that the biomachines found in cells require a level of intelligent design far greater than what man has accomplished.
9. God necessarily exists.

NOTE:
1. Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) are proteins located on the cell surface involved in binding with other cells or with the extracellular matrix (ECM) in the process called cell adhesion. In essence, cell adhesion molecules help cells stick to each other and to their surroundings.
2. An article on PhysOrg describes "Watching the cogwheels of the biological clock" in living cells. "Our master circadian clock resides in a small group of about 10,000 neurons in the brain, called the suprachiasmatic nucleus," the article begins. "However, similar clocks are ticking in nearly all cells of the body." How appropriate this was discovered by Swiss researchers, who "devised an elegant method to watch directly under the microscope how the clock's molecular 'cogwheels' govern the activity rhythms" of an essential protein.

29.Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation
1. The 64 codons (sequences of 3 nucleotides: adenine, uracil, guanine) and the 20 amino acids are for research by scientists assigned to numerical elements within a system, referred to as the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.
2. It is a mathematical model of the underlining physical/chemical processes related to genetic information processing—a so-called structural isomorphism namely, identity or similarity of form or appearance.
3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic code are both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.
4. The characteristics of the mathematically modeled GCL binary representation are:
a. Palindromic symmetry (a symmetry like that of the word that reads same backward and forward).
b. Parity symmetry.
c. Organized redundancy (Repetition of messages to reduce the probability of errors).
d. A rich mathematical structure.
5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.
6. God necessarily exists.

30.The argument of the double function of the genetic code
 1. An “overlapping language” has been found in the genetic code, according to HealthDay News at MedLine Plus from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
2. One language describes how proteins are made, and the other helps direct genetic activity in cells. One language is written on top of the other, which is why this other language went undiscovered for so long, according to the report in the 2013 Dec. 13 issue of Science.
3. The original paper by Stergachis et al. writes  about “evolutionary constraints” of the overlapping codes. They wrote: “Our results indicate that simultaneous encoding of amino acid and regulatory information within exons is a major functional feature of complex genomes. The information architecture of the received genetic code is optimized for superimposition of additional information, and this intrinsic flexibility has been extensively exploited by natural selection. Although TF [transcription factor] binding within exons may serve multiple functional roles, our analyses above is agnostic to these roles, which may be complex.”
4. According to the research, natural selection constrains or eliminates change (purifying selection) is not helpful for creating new organs or functions. 
5. Thus, for Darwinists to explain unguided physical processes is already impossible and with this new discovery they are even in bigger trouble.
6. The words: information, architecture, optimized, and function are always and only referring to a person with thinking feeling and willing. Other proposed agents cannot on their own give information, design, optimize or execute tasks. This has never been shown.
7. Such an intelligently designed complex genetic code with double or even triple functions could have been created only by God, the Supreme Designer.
8. God exists.

31.Argument from detection/correction codes
1. The GCL binary representation makes possible the existence of error detection/correction codes that operate along the strands of DNA.
2. “An error-control mechanism implies the organization of the redundancy in a mathematically structured way,” and “the genetic code exhibits a strong mathematical structure that is difficult to put in relation with biological advantages other than error correction.”
3. A peculiar and unique mathematical model accounts for the key properties of the genetic code that exhibits symmetry, organized redundancy, and a mathematical structure crucial for the existence of error-coding techniques operating along the DNA strands.
4. The DNA data tested using this model gave a strong indication that error-coding techniques do exist.
5. Such a wonderful design indicates purposeful creation that further indicates the existence of God.
6. God exists.

32.The proof of Rad51 
1. The scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in their essay: “Safeguarding genome integrity through extraordinary DNA repair,” write:
Homologous recombination is a complex mechanism with multiple steps, but also with many points of regulation to insure accurate recombination at every stage.  This could be why this method has been favored during evolution.  The machinery that relocalizes the damaged DNA before loading Rad51 might have evolved because the consequences of not having it would be terrible.
2. If evolution is a chance process with no goal or purpose, it would not care if something emerges or not.  How can a mindless process “favor” a method?  How would a mindless process “know” that the consequences of not having something would be terrible?  How would that motivate a non-mind to produce machinery and complex mechanisms to avoid terrible consequences?
3. Thus instead of saying ‘Rad51 might have evolved’ it is clear that Rad51 was designed by an intelligent designer since without such a complex mechanism with multiple steps with many points of regulation to insure accurate recombination at every stage, life could not exist.
4. The ability of Rad51 that has the ability of extraordinary DNA repair proofs the existence of an intelligent designer all men call God.
5. God exists.

33.The evidence of intron’s fine tuning
1. ncRNAs carry out a function at the interface between DNA and specific chromatin modification marks, through stabilization of the association of PRC2 with chromatin. Intronic RNAs arise as candidates to carry out roles as ‘transcription factors’ that are responsible for fine-tuning mammalian transcriptional programs. (Intronic RNAs mediate EZH2 regulation of epigenetic targets)
2. Intronic sequences contain a number of ncRNAs (conservative estimates suggest that 65% of noncoding transcripts map to intergenic regions and 35% to intronic regions38), including many well-characterized regulatory small ncRNAs, such as snoRNAs, small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs), piRNAs or miRNAs39, 40, their expression being coordinated with the intronic context from which they originate. In addition, a recent study reports close to 80,000 and 40,000 long intronic expressed sequence tag (EST) contigs in human and mouse genomes, respectively41. They suggest that 80% of all spliced human protein-coding genes have transcriptionally active introns.
3. The more complexities and the more complex systems with their complex subsystems are discovered, the more the intelligent design by an intelligent designer is proved. That intelligent designer all men call God.
4. God exists.

34.The argument of the new scientific development 
1. Ken Miller a Brown University biology professor and a staunch propagator of evolution theory said: “Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history...
2. "Chance experiments in gene duplication" means somebody, a person is experimenting. There is no experience of a non-person experimenting.
3. The new discoveries of science teach that the so-called pseudogenes are really functional[1], not to be considered any more as just “junk” or “fossil" DNA. Surely, many functional pseudogenes and novel regulatory mechanisms remain to be discovered and explored in diverse organisms. (RNA Biology 9:1, 27-32; January 2012; G 2012 Landes Bioscience) 
4. God is a must. His intelligence is seen in the mind-boggling complexities.
5. God exists.

NOTES:
1. Functional pseudogenes in mouse and humans:
a. 60% of the processed pseudogenes are conserved in both mammalian species. This suggests important biological functions.
b. "pseudogenes in mouse have been confirmed to produce stable transcripts”… many pseudogenes are known to be transcribed in humans.
c. Discovered functions for pseudogenes include:
i. They may function as "intracellular inhibitors in cell development" where pseudogenes can "suppress the translation of the functional counterparts."
ii. They may regulate gene expression through RNA interference (RNAi), where small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) can be generated by pseudogenes that play roles in RNAi pathways.
iii. They may produce transcripts which serve as "endogenous competitive RNAs to their cognate genes," also helping to regulate gene expression.
iv. They may yield transcripts which produce functional proteins. One example given is the nanog pseudogene which is known to yield proteins in cancer cell lines.

35.The argument of the pseudogenes with function

1. Evolutionary biologists long regarded pseudogenes as nonfunctional junk. They thought these are a class of DNA elements that represents the remains of genes that lost their function due to mutations. Based on their characteristics biologists assumed that pseudogenes lack function solely. Experimentally, this theory was unverified for decades—until the recent advent of genomics. Discoveries by molecular biologists and geneticists have delivered a scientific upset: pseudogenes display function. Specifically, they play a role in regulating gene expression. 1
2. The researchers from Sweden have uncovered a second possible function for pseudogenes. They developed a new method of identifying and determining which genes are used to make proteins. Using their method, they discovered a number of previously unidentified genes in the human and mouse genomes. About 35 percent of the newly identified genes are pseudogenes that the cell’s machinery uses to produce proteins—a completely unexpected result. As one of the researchers noted, “Our study challenges the old theory that pseudogenes don’t code for proteins.”
3. The recognition that pseudogenes display a range of functions mitigates one of the most compelling arguments for common descent and instead of that reflects a common design. In other words, most –the one’s studied-, if not all, of the genome, including pseudogenes have purpose. Such a detailed and purposeful design provides another evidence for the designer all men call God.
4. God exists.

References:
1. Karolinska Institutet, “Protein Coding ‘Junk Genes’ May Be Linked to Cancer,” ScienceDaily, posted November 17, 2013, http:/www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131117155500.htm.

36.The argument by DNA information
1. The combinations of the four acids of DNA: A-adenine; C-cytosine; T-thymine and G-guanine store a tremendous amount of information.
2a. No  human made storage device  can store more information than the DNA molecule.
2b. E.g.: one human DNA has 3 billion individual characters equal to 40 times bigger amount of information than there is in the biggest book of the world – the Encyclopedia Britannica.
2c. DNA is much smaller than a ladder. We measure DNA's dimensions in thousands of millionths of meters, known as 'nanometers'! To put these tiny measurements into perspective: in each cell there are about 6,000,000,000 'rungs' of DNA. That means if the base pairs were as far apart as the rungs on a real ladder, then the DNA from just one cell would stretch half way to the moon!
2d. Humans have about 100 trillion body cells. Thus the total number of DNA rungs in a human body is about 600 trillion. 
3. All the combinations of A, C, T and G are like computer programs but much more complex.
4. Till now the material evolutionary cause of generating  complex DNA molecules by natural selection, self-organizational processes or chance could not be demonstrated at all.




5. The only option is that  only intelligent agents can produce information-rich systems, only an intelligent designer could create  DNA.
6. That creator is God.

5) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1693-transitional-fossils?highlight=transitional+fossils

6) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1312-coded-information-comes-always-from-a-mind#1836
7) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1572-irreducible-complexity-is-an-obstacle-to-darwinism-even-if-parts-of-a-system-have-other-functions#2369
 http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1740-origin-of-the-canonical-twenty-amino-acids-required-for-life?highlight=amino+acids
9) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life
10) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-requirement-of-parts
11) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1289-molecular-machines-in-biology?highlight=molecular+machines
12) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2043-dna-error-checking-and-repair
13) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2191-non-coding-conservation-falsifies-the-theory-of-evolution
14) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1528-the-flagellum#4474
15) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-topoisomerase-ii-enzymes-amazing-evidence-of-design?highlight=topoisomerase
16) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design
17) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2170-the-miller-urey-experiment
18) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2134-the-amazing-design-of-bacteriophage-viruses-and-its-dna-packaging-motor
19) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1449-molecular-motors-amazingly-designed?highlight=motors
20) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2185-the-second-code-of-dna



Last edited by Admin on Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:26 pm; edited 8 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:44 am

Admin


Admin
37.The evidence of DNA storage 1
1. In the scientific magazine ‘Nature,’ in January 2013, Nick Goldman et al. reported a successful use of DNA to store large amounts of data.
2. “Here we describe a scalable method that can reliably store more information than has been handled before. We encoded computer files totaling 739 kilobytes of hard-disk storage and with an estimated Shannon information of 5.2× 106 bits into a DNA code, synthesized this DNA, sequenced it and reconstructed the original files with 100% accuracy. Theoretical analysis indicates that our DNA-based storage scheme could be scaled far beyond current global information volumes and offers a realistic technology for large-scale, long-term and infrequently accessed digital archiving. In fact, current trends in technological advances are reducing DNA synthesis costs at a pace that should make our scheme cost-effective for sub-50-year archiving within a decade.”
3. "DNA-based storage has potential as a practical solution to the digital archiving problem and may become a cost-effective solution for rarely accessed archives," said Goldman. 
4. DNA far surpasses any current manmade technology and can last for thousands of years. To get a handle on this, consider that 1 petabyte is equivalent to 1 million gigabytes of information storage. This paper reports an information storage density of 2.2 petabytes per gram.
5. Scientists needed many decades to find out such an incredibly useful design of the DNA made, as they say, by nature. The discovery of the complex design of the DNA needed intelligence. How one can deny a superior intelligence that designed hundreds of different DNA’s, necessary for the survival of all the species.
6. That intelligence of nature is actually the intelligence of God since intelligence is only a property of a person.
7. Thus God inevitably exists. 

38.The evidence of jumping transposons (=a segment of DNA that can become integrated at many different sites along a chromosome)
Common Ancestry
1. In recent years, evolutionary biologists have increasingly used DNA sequences to construct evolutionary trees. Researchers find transposons particularly suitable for this endeavor.
2. When evolutionary biologists propose evolutionary relationships, they rely on the principle that organisms with shared DNA sequences arise from a common ancestor.
3. But other mechanisms exist that can introduce the identical DNA sequences. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is one.
Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) Mimics Common Ancestry
4. HGT refers to any process that transfers genetic material to another organism without the recipient being the offspring of the donor. HGT occurs frequently in bacteria and archaea. A consequence of this process is that, from an evolutionary vantage point, microbes that are unrelated through common descent will possess the same DNA sequences. In other words, HGT has the same genetic signature as common ancestry.
5. Until recently, most biologists thought that HGT was confined to microbes. Yet, in the last couple of years, researchers have uncovered evidence for horizontal gene transfer in higher plants and animals, which they think is mediated by viruses and single-celled pathogens transmitted from species to species via an insect vector. Because of transposons’ mobility within genomes, they readily take part in HGT events.
6. As with microbes, HGT in higher plants and animals obfuscates the ability of evolutionary biologists to use transposons to establish reliable evolutionary relationships.
7. For example, researchers discovered that when they use two different classes of transposons, called BovB and Spin elements, to build evolutionary trees, absurd relationships resulted. Cows were more closely related to snakes than to elephants and geckos more closely related to horses than to other lizards.
8. Many people regard shared DNA sequences as the best evidence for evolution and common descent. But as this cutting-edge research demonstrates, other mechanisms, such as horizontal gene transfer, can introduce the same DNA sequences in organisms, thus, masquerading as evidence for common descent of HGT.
9. As science continues to unmask understanding of these processes, the case for common design strengthens.
10. The ability of transposons to jump around or move from the genome of one organism into that of another is an evidence for a common designer of all species who is God.
11. God exists.

Reference:
1. John K. Pace II et al., “Repeated Horizontal Transfer of a DNA Transposon in Mammals and Other Tetrapods,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105 (November 4, 2008): 17023–28; Ali Morton Walsh et al., “Widespread Horizontal Transfer of Retrotransposons,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 110 (January 15, 2013): 1012–16.

39.The argument of the hydrogen cyanide
1. Hydrogen cyanide is an organic compound and it is found in large quantities in the universe. It may have helped in producing amino acids and DNA bases, some of life’s basic molecules.
2. If hydrogen cyanide can lead to the formation of amino acids, can it also contribute to the formation of other essential compounds? Can hydrogen cyanide help explain how life originated on Earth? And how it can arise on other planets?
3. “It has taken a long time to find out which molecules of interest can arise out of hydrogen cyanides reaction", explains associate professor Martin Hanczyc from the Center for Fundamental Living Technology (FLinT), Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Southern Denmark.
4. “Preliminary studies have shown that hydrogen cyanide can contribute to the formation of amino acids. This discovery required month-long experiments in the laboratory, where scientists painstakingly monitored the reactions and continuously manipulated the experiment to keep it on track.” This only proves intelligent design. The divine scientists or gods of nature also monitored and manipulated the building blocks.
5. Nothing in the article mentions how this could have happened in nature; what agent was responsible.  Even getting one amino acid is insignificant.  There are numerous great obstacles and difficulties chance would have had to overcome before life began, such as the origin of replication, a membrane, autocatalytic cycles, metabolism, and the genetic code, along with molecular machines able to process and interpret the code for function. In a world of chance and inorganic matter, where natural selection cannot be invoked for help, a building block of a building block has no guidance toward becoming a building block, let alone a building.
6. Wikipedia says “the relationship of these chemical reactions to the origin of life theory remains speculative.…” Just one drop of cyanide can kill an adult human in 60 seconds.
7. There is an intelligent designer to create these molecules. All men call him God.
8. God exists.

NOTE: News from astrobio.net, Origin & Evolution of Life, Posted:   09/08/13

40.The argument of the astounding newly found complex genes
1. The 3-prime untranslated region (3' UTR) gene tails contain a variety of regulatory features. Some of them allow regulatory RNA-binding proteins to attach to the mRNA's tail while others allow small regulatory RNAs—called micro RNAs—to bind. The combination of these bound regulatory molecules fine-tunes and robustly controls genes after the mRNAs are produced. This is a form of regulation called "post-transcriptional," meaning after the mRNA is transcribed.
2. Like the protein-coding areas of the gene, these 3' UTR tails are also alternatively spliced and thus variable. Their size and makeup can vary widely and dynamically between mRNAs from the same gene and between the different cell types in which they are found.
3. While scientists knew that the 3' UTRs of genes had this capability several years ago, they recently discovered that this feature was on a scale much more intricate and massive than they anticipated. In this study, they identified 2035 mouse and 1847 human genes that have 3' UTR tails ranging from 500 to 25,000 bases long. In some cases, they were even longer than the protein-coding areas of the genes themselves. These incredibly long gene tails literally contain hundreds to thousands of genetic switches within each single mRNA.
4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers—each network of genes related to a certain cell process is composed of hundreds to thousands of individual genes, each with this type of intricate regulatory set of features. Not only that, but genetic networks in the cell also overlap and function together dynamically, continually, and robustly as part of normal cell physiology.
5. The level of coordination of such genetic complexity is mostly beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.
6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.
7. God exists.

41.The argument of the genetic piano 2

1. Dr. Kohzoh Mitsuya [University of Texas Health Science Center] who studies genes says the work of epigenetics “corresponds to a pianist playing a piece of music. Like keys on a piano, DNA is the static blueprint for all the proteins that cells produce.”
2. “Epigenetic information provides additional dynamic or flexible instructions as to how, where and when the blueprint will be used.”
3. After watching the response of mice deficient in the RNA, he said, “It shows how one note is played on the piano. The symphony has only just come into view. We can hear it, but we need to learn how all the parts are being played.”
4. Here the questions are: who’s the pianist and who’s the conductor? 
5. The environment cannot be the musician; it is oblivious to the needs of the organism.  Heredity cannot be the musician; it has no foresight to read or comprehend a collection of processes organized into a work.
6. Thus, this discovery and explanation of Dr. Mitsuya causes trouble for Darwin while it fits precisely into the intelligent design theory.
7. There must be an origin of the information required to produce function.
8. A classical answer to this by the 
proponents of evolution is: “this evolved, that’s why it is there.”
9. Answering this we say: “Science is supposed to seek efficient causes, not just-so stories or appeals to chance based on circular reasoning. For example, in his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll writes “the degree of similarity in DNA is an index of the [evolutionary] relatedness of species.” [98] This can only make sense if we first assume evolution is true. But Carroll’s book is a defense of evolution, intended to demonstrate that the theory is true without first assuming it is true. He seeks to prove evolution is true, but he begins with evolutionary reasoning and interpretations. That is circular reasoning.”
10. The alternative and only explanation is therefore intelligent design with a known cause sufficient to produce functional information: intelligence. Only intelligence can organize atoms or building blocks into order and activities. There is no other experience of anything else putting things into order and motion.
11. Intelligent design means intelligence of the greatest scientist all men call God.
12. God exists.

Reference:
1.  Watanabe, Tomizami, Mitsuya et al, “Role for piRNAs and Noncoding RNA in de Novo DNA Methylation of the Imprinted Mouse Rasgrf1 Locus,” Science, 13 May 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6031 pp. 848-852, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203919.   



42.The argument of Francis Collins 3
1. Francis Collins is one of the most respected research scientists in the world and was the head of the Human Genome Project. He authored the book "The Language of God."
2. In the beginning of his book he describes his doubts in God and strong belief in the theory of evolution. He was then an atheist.
3. As the project of the human genome advanced, seeing the wonderful complexities of genes changed his scientific conviction in evolution and he became a believer in God.
3a. The human genome consists of all the DNA of our species, the hereditary code of life. This newly revealed text was 3 billion letters long, and written in a strange and cryptographic four-letter code. Such is the amazing complexity of the information carried within each cell of the human body, that a live reading of that code at a rate of one letter per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night. Printing these letters out in regular font size on normal bond paper and binding them all together would result in a tower the height of the Washington Monument.
4. Announcing the completion of the first phase of the project in year 2000 he said: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life."
5. Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."
6. The book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Thus he follows the footsteps of the Kantian tradition, attempting the great synthesis of the empirical and the spiritual, the pure reason and the practical reason.
7. To give an example: The human genome consists of about 3 billion letters. One letter wrong can cause illnesses like cystic fibrosis. How could anybody generate 3 billion letters describing something capable of living in 3 billion or so years if random mutations are the only thing you have at your disposal?
8. Thus after a detailed research of a reputed scientist, Mr. Collins on the complexity of the genome we must conclude that God exists.


43.The Evidence of Early enzymes
1. At Columbia University the following news was published with a title: “Researchers Resurrect Ancient Enzymes to Reveal Conditions of Early Life on Earth.”  “For the first time [the researchers] reconstructed active enzymes from four-billion-year-old extinct organisms…The results shed new light on how life has adapted to changes in the environment from ancient to modern Earth.”  
2. Julio Fernandez, professor in the Department of Biological Sciences, and his team conducted a detailed biophysical analysis of the reconstructed thioredoxin enzymes, using an atomic force microscope with single-molecule resolution. They engaged in “ancestral sequence reconstruction” by comparing gene sequences of living organisms.  The results were unexpected. Instead of finding a simple enzymes “[they] found that enzymes that existed in the Precambrian era up to four billion years ago possessed many of the same chemical mechanisms observed in their modern-day relatives,” even though the organisms back then supposedly predated the buildup of oxygen in earth’s atmosphere.
3. The putative Precambrian proteins were seen to be highly resistant to changes in temperature and acidity – more features indicating advanced early function instead of simplicity.
4. The surprisingly and unexpectedly advanced features of proteins and the modern looking enzymes from the Precambrian period 4 billion years ago do not fit into the evolution history. Thus, evolution is greatly questioned with this discovery and it rather proves design and creation by a super intelligent designer.
5. That most intelligent designer all men call God.
6. God exists.

The proof of complexity in simplicity


44.Box jellyfish eyes
1. Jellyfish are among the simplest of animals and it is very puzzling why they have two dozen (24) eyes but no brain? 
2. It is baffling how an animal lacking a central nervous system can receive visual input and respond with coordinated movements.  One marine biologist told New Scientist, “We have an under-appreciation for how sensory systems in simple organisms are used for fairly sophisticated adaptation.” It is a puzzle, “Why they have complex eyes, how well they see, and what role vision plays in their mating and feeding behavior remains unknown.”
3. Another agreed in the Live Science entry: “This shows that the behavioral abilities of simple animals, like jellyfish, may be underestimated.” 
4. There is no evolutionary explanation how box jellyfish evolved in the first place, nor how they developed “as many as 24 eyes, capable of sensing light and forming an image of their surroundings.” 
5. The surprising complex eyes of box jellyfish and its unknown origin for 
proponents of evolution can only be explained as the work of an intelligent designer much more complicated then the work of the man who invented the camera.
6. The designer who could make the box jellyfish and its so highly complex eyes all men call God.
7. God exists.


45.Innate immune system
1. The innate immune system, also known as non-specific immune system and first line of defense, comprises the cells and mechanisms that defend the host from infection by other organisms in a non-specific manner. This means that the cells of the innate system recognize and respond to pathogens in a generic way, but unlike the adaptive immune system, it does not confer long-lasting or protective immunity to the host. Innate immune systems provide immediate defense against infection, and are found in all classes of plant and animal life.
2. “Compared to the sophistication of the acquired or adaptive immune system, the innate immune system was considered a rather simple and blunt instrument,” said an article on MedicalXpress. 
3. No longer; Scientists at Max Planck Institute were astonished to find that neutrophils, part of the innate system, are able to spread elaborate networks of DNA-histone filaments to capture intruders.  “When scientists can’t believe their eyes, it is very likely that they are on to something quite extraordinary,” the lengthy article began.
4. Neutrophils were found to form NETs (Neutrophil Extracellular Traps) when summoned to an infection site.  “Under the scanning electron microscope, the NETs appear as fine fibers and particles that link the threads to form more complex structures…This causes the formation of a ball in which the bacteria become engulfed.  The main ingredient of this ball is chromatin.  This mixture of DNA and proteins is normally found in the cell nucleus and contains genetic information.”
4. The unexpected discovery of complexity in a “simple” system subsequently led to other fruitful leads about how the immune system operates, and how serious diseases ensue when mutations muck up the works.  The adaptive immune system is even more complicated.
5. The major functions of the vertebrate innate immune system include:
- Recruiting immune cells to sites of infection, through the production of chemical factors, including specialized chemical mediators, called cytokines1.
- Activation of the complement cascade2 to identify bacteria, activate cells and to promote clearance of dead cells or antibody complexes.
- The identification and removal of foreign substances present in organs, tissues, the blood and lymph, by specialized white blood cells.
- Activation of the adaptive immune system through a process known as antigen presentation.
- Acting as a physical and chemical barrier to infectious agents.
6. All this is proof of an irreducible complex system of the innate immune system. Even one and what to say of more functions lacking would result in the death of the cell due to infections.
7. Because the immune system should have existed perfect from the beginning without any evolution, this means a designer who all men call God created it.
8. God exists.


(NOTES:
1. The term "cytokine" has been used to refer to the immunomodulating agents. They are regulators of host responses to infection, immune responses, inflammation, and trauma. Some of them are proinflammatory; these are necessary to initiate an inflammatory response necessary to recruit granulocytes, and later on, lymphocytes, to fight disease. Excessive inflammation, however, is sometimes the pathogenicity of certain diseases. Other cytokines are anti-inflammatory and serve to reduce inflammation and promote healing once the injury/infection/foreign body has been destroyed.
2. The complement cascade is an array of sequentially interacting proteins that serve a vital role in innate immune responses. See below: d. Complement cascade)


 46.Proteasome
1. The disposal of protein “trash” in the cell is the job of a complex machine called the proteasome.  What could be more low than trash collection?  Here also, sophisticated mechanisms work together. 
2. PhysOrg described a new finding that shows that “two different mechanisms are required to determine which targets to destroy.” The “recognition tag” and “initiator tag.”
3. Both mechanisms have to be aligned properly to enter the machine’s disposal barrel.  “The proteasome can recognize different plugs1, but each one has to have the correct specific arrangement of prongs1,” said a researcher at Northwestern University.
4. This is another example of interdependent irreducible complex systems. One can’t argue for evolution; that first only one system existed.
5. The work of a designer is again obvious and all men call him God.
6. God exists.



1. Based on their data, the researchers concluded that these physical constraints arise because Ub4- and UbL-tagged proteins bind to completely different sites on the proteasome; ubiquitin binds very near to the digestion machinery, requiring the initiation region to be close by (Fig. 1), while the UbL-binding site is considerably farther away, and thus accommodates greater separation. Inobe compares this to how an electrical plug must match its outlet. “The proteasome can recognize different plugs,” he says, “but each one has to have the correct specific arrangement of prongs.”)


47.The argument of the complement cascade

1. The complement cascade is an array of sequentially interacting proteins that serve a vital role in innate immune responses. The complement cascade can be activated via interactions with antibody-antigen complexes. Proteins involved in the complement cascade react with one another and with components of the target cell, marking pathogen cells for recognition by phagocytes or inducing cell membrane damage, leakage of contents, and cell lysis. The accompanying animation shows the formation of the membrane attack complex, which serves to punch a hole in the cell membrane, resulting in cell lysis and death.
2. The complement cascade needs to be very finely regulated to prevent damage to self-cells by antibody-directed complement-mediated lysis. Further, the complement cascade needs to be controlled because degradation products of the complement proteins can diffuse (and thereby cause damage) to adjacent cells. The complement cascade is thus very tightly regulated by several circulating and membrane-bound proteins.
3. There are three major pathways of the complement system. These are the classical pathway, the alternative pathway and the lectin pathway. To give a sense of the complexity and engineering brilliance of the complement cascade, let me briefly describe the classical pathway.
4. The first stage is the initiation phase, and the classical pathway is triggered by antibody molecules bound to antigens. An enzyme called C1, found in blood serum, has an affinity for immunoglobulins. C1 is a molecular complex comprised of 6 molecules of C1q, 2 molecules of C1r, and 2 molecules of C1s (C1qr2s2). The constant regions of mu chains (IgM) possess a C1q binding site. Some gamma chains (IgG) also possess this binding site but IgG is much less efficient than IgM, and many molecules are needed to initiate the pathway (whereas only one molecule of IgM is required).
Since C1 can readily undergo autoactivation, it is ordinarily regulated by a C1-inhibitor protein (C1-In or C1 esterase). This inhibiting activity, however, is overcome upon binding of immunoglobulin molecules to C1q. Upon binding of activators to C1q, the C1r and C1s components of the C1 molecule are activated (C1r* and C1s*), and they are rendered catalytically active.
Two serum proteins, C4 and C2, are cleaved by C1s*. C4 is cleaved to form C4a and C4b. C4a has no further use and diffuses away, while C4b covalently binds to transmembrane glycoproteins. C2 is cleaved into C2a and C2b. C2a has no further use and diffuses away. C2b binds to C4b. By convention, the larger subcomponent is always designated "b" and the smaller subcomponent is designated "a."
The complex that is formed by this association between C2b and C4b is responsible for catalyzing the cleavage of C3, and thus it is named the C3 convertase (C4b2a). C3 is cleaved into C3a and C3b. C3a diffuses into the plasma. When C3b joins the C3 convertase, it forms the C5 convertase (C4b2a3b). The C5 convertase subsequently cleaves protein C5 to form C5a and C5b. C5a diffuses into the plasma, but C5b is responsible for initiating the formation of the membrane attack complex (MAC). The membrane attack complex is assembled by C5, C6, C7, C8, and C9. As many as 18 C9 molecules form a tube that is inserted into the membrane, creating a transmembrane channel. Water osmotically enters the cell, causing it to burst.
There is much more detail that could be given, of course. And I haven't even touched on how this cascade is regulated (which involves many other proteins).
5. It is extremely difficult to envision how an ordered (and tightly regulated) cascade or pathway, such as complement, could have arisen in step-wise Darwinian manner. These are precisely the types of systems that are created by intelligent agents. The more we learn about biology at the micro scale, the more clearly we learn it manifests design.
6. God exists.

48.The argument of increasing knowledge about the complexity of the cell 5
1. Almost 30 years ago, in 1985 Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 328 compared a cell to a large city, filled with “supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”  Nowadays we have not only much more detailed information about the complexity of the cell and how life works, but also every week in the reports/writings of science, new findings are made about regulators, teams, quality controls, checkpoints, conductors, players with starring roles. Let’s see a few examples:
a. Bricks that build:  “Researchers have found in mice that supporting cells in the inner ear, once thought to serve only a structural role, can actively help repair damaged sensory hair cells, the functional cells that turn vibrations into the electrical signals that the brain recognizes as sound.”[1]
b. Master regulator: Whether or not a cell grows is decided by a remarkable protein kinase enzyme called mTOR. As part of two complexes, mTORC1 and mTORC2, mTOR integrates and interprets all sorts of factors that influence cell growth — including nutrients, stressors (=agents that causes stress to an organism) and the outputs of signal-transduction networks (=biological circuits that pass along information) — by targeting a multitude of substrates that drive processes such as protein translation, metabolism and cell division. Research into mTOR-mediated signaling has taken on added urgency since it was discovered that most cancers contain mutations that inappropriately activate this protein.[2]
The newly-uncovered structure of mTOR, made up of 1,500 amino acids, shows that it has a “gatekeeper mechanism that controls substrate access to the active site.”
c. Checkpoint charlies:  “MTBP acts with Treslin/TICRR to integrate signals from cell cycle and DNA damage response pathways to control the initiation of DNA replication in human cells.”[3] 
d. Damage repair: One latest study, performed on yeast cells, describes cooperation between translesion DNA synthesis (TLS), single-stranded DNA repair (ssDNA), and homologous recombination, which rebuilds a damaged strand from the intact strand.  “These findings suggest that ssDNA that might originate during the repair of closely opposed lesions or of ssDNA-containing lesions or from uncoupled replication may drive recombination directly in various species, including humans.”[4] 
2. All these examples indicate the irreducible complex system of the cell’s life and structure. If not assembled all together at the same time even the simplest cell could not survive. There would be no life on this earth.
3. Intelligent design and creation by a superior intelligent person all men call God is the truth..
4. God exists.

NOTES:
1. Lisa Cunningham, Ph.D., National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), July 25, 2013.
2. Structural biology: Security measures of a master regulator by Dario R. Alessi & Yogesh Kulathu, (09 May 2013).
3. Identification of a Heteromeric Complex That Promotes DNA Replication Origin Firing in Human Cells by Dominik Boos, Mona Yekezare, John F. X. Diffley, (24 May 2013).
4. Homologous recombination rescues ssDNA gaps generated by nucleotide excision repair and reduced translesion DNA synthesis in yeast G2 cells by Wenjian Ma, James W. Westmoreland, and Michael A. Resnick  (January 26, 2013).

49.The proof of the IC systems and fault tolerant systems
1. Irreducibly Complex (IC) systems are those systems (man-made or otherwise), where removal of critical core parts results in malfunction.
2. In engineering, fault-tolerant design is a design that enables a system to continue its intended operation, possibly at a reduced level, rather than failing completely, when some part of the system fails.
3. A fault tolerant system can be composed of several irreducibly complex systems. For example, the space shuttle has 5 navigation systems each capable of serving as a sufficient navigation system in case of damage or failure of the other 4.
4. Not only do IC architectures pose a problem for Darwinism, but more so do fault-tolerant architectures, especially when a fault tolerant architecture is itself composed of several irreducibly complex subsystems!
5. Selection fails to construct fault tolerance because not only do all the parts of the subsystem have to be in place for the subsystem to make sense, the existence of the precursors and even functioning subsystems can come at a metabolic (relating to metabolism) cost, especially the large scale fault tolerant systems, making them a liability (making them obliged and responsible) with respect to immediate fitness.
6. Darwinian selection lacks foresight. Construction of a fault tolerant system requires foresight because with respect to immediate fitness, precursors to subsystems are neutral at best, and a liability at worse.
7. “Interestingly, some species have the ability to regenerate appendages, while even fairly closely related species do not,” Poss added. “This leads us to believe that during the course of evolution, regeneration is something that has been lost by some species, rather than an ability that has been gained by other species. The key is to find a way to ‘turn on’ this regenerative ability.” (Key to zebrafish heart regeneration uncovered, Duke University Medical Center, 2-Nov-2006)
8. There are 3 scenes:
a. parts of Irreducibly Complex systems, removal of any of them results in failure,
b. parts of Fault Tolerant systems, removal or malfunction of some of the parts does not result in loss of immediate function but reduces the probability of continued function in presence of continued removal or failure of parts,
c. useless parts or even parts that are a liability which serve no purpose for the benefit of the organism which can be removed.
9. IC poses a challenge for Darwinism, and fault tolerance poses an even greater challenge, particularly if the fault tolerant system is composed of irreducibly complex subsystems.
10. IC systems are those systems, where removal of critical core parts results in malfunction.
11. IC systems could not arise by evolution because a not completely developed system could not serve perfectly its purpose. Therefore IC systems in any species were designed.
12. Thus IC systems and fault tolerant systems composed of irreducibly complex subsystems are from a designer.
13. That designer all men call God. God exists.

50.The argument of the proteins specified complexity
6
1. The number and sequence of amino acids in proteins, such as enzymes, are crucial. One can destroy or randomly replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function of the protein.
2. Only specially-shaped forms (left-handed configurations) of each amino acid are used to form proteins.
3. Amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds to form proteins.
4. To link together, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme.
5. Multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end.
6. Out of many details even these few have specified complexity without which the proteins could not exist. Not even half of the functional proteins could survive without important function.
7. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned.
7. This is creation by an intelligent designer, and this is the dictionary meaning of the word God.

51.The argument of complex and specified information (CSI) 7
1. The scientific method consists of a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. .
2. Performing many scientific experiments upon natural objects, now already for decades, in many of them, scientists discovered so highly complex and specified information (CSI) that it is very difficult or even impossible to make imitation of such complex units.
3. If scientists cannot make copies of complex and specified units what to say about the dull material nature, natural selection, and mutation creating these.
4. Natural objects containing a high level of CSI means they were produced by a super designer.
5. That super designer can be only God.
6. God exists.

52.The argument by cell complexity
8
1. By the advancement of microbiology, the great complexity of the cell is discovered in more and more details.
2. It is also more understood that for the harmonious coexisting of the different particles of the cell all parts are needed.
3. All this reveals the fact that these parts of the cell could not develop independently one by one.
4. No one of them is useful without the existence of another; particles like chromosomes, DNA, RNA, the Amino acids etc.
5. Man did not create such complex cells since according to Darwin’s theory there were no people at the very beginning of life’s coming into being.
6. Thus, the only option is God – the great creator, the one ultimate source who ever exists and gives facility for life for all different kinds of living entities.
7. God exists. 

53.The evidence of the imitation 9
1. The hard work of the scientists to find and make the complex designs of nature is seeing and imitating the creation of the first creator who already created everything perfectly long time ago.
2. Thus, God the primeval supreme designer exists.

54.Argument  from cell communication 10
Proof of the signals in the neurons
1. A reflex signal from a bump on your knee needs to go in the direction of the controlling muscle and on to the brain, not any which way.  What directs the placement of “one way” signs in nerve cells?  According to a press release from the University of Georgia, it’s the enzyme MEC-17.
2. The MEC-17, which they studied in roundworms, zebrafish and human cancer cells, is responsible for placing the traffic signs, called acetylation marks, on the cellular highways made of microtubules.  The paths with lots of these marks are on the sending end, and the paths with few of them are on the receiving end.  When the marks are not set properly, bad things happen: zebrafish develop neuromuscular defects, and humans are subject to debilitating neural diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s.  This discovery may lead to new treatment strategies by enhancing or inhibiting the action of MEC-17.
3. By noticing that MEC-17 works identically in animals as diverse as roundworms, fish and humans, the researchers deduced that “this microtubule acetylation process using MEC-17 is an evolutionarily conserved function.”  Conserved means un-evolved.
4. The following important question however the researchers did not answer:
a. What controls MEC-17, and what would happen to the living beings without having this enzyme fully developed from the beginning.
b. If this enzyme puts up the signs, who is the foreman?
5. We don’t control anything within our bodies. Many different processes happen without our knowledge.
6. If we are not in control of the processes in our bodies than who was the designer of those processes?
7. The infinite regress question is: who is the designer of the designer? However, the hierarchy of design must eventually stop at a Designer who is omniscient and omnipotent and that is God. Aristotle already taught us in his “on the motion of animals” about the Unmoved Mover; No mouse can climb a hill of grain, since it has no basis.
8. Hence God exists.

55.The argument of artificial intelligence computers, human brain and its evolution
1. Computers and robots are very fast in searching particular info through vast amounts of data.  They can also outperform chess champs. Still, even after decades and decades of improving them, computers have no common sense, no prudence, no sound judgment and cannot match some of the mental capabilities of even a 3-year-old toddler.
2. “We’re still very far from programs with common sense — artificial intelligence (AI) that can answer comprehension questions with the skill of a child of 8…Machines can’t yet be programmed to form intuitions about the physical world without doing extensive calculations, and they seem to fail at answering open-ended questions,” says Robert Sloan, a computer scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
3. Not only Neuroinformatics researchers from the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich have now made a breakthrough by making neuromorphic chips to imitate the brain's information processing abilities in real-time, but also Intel succeeded to make the neuromorphic chip that looks to be an improvement over existing ones. However, it is still orders of magnitude away from the computational efficiency that real neurons achieve. Thus there’s a long way to go before synthetic systems can begin to match the capability of natural ones.
4. Human brains have some pretty sophisticated wiring like the method of signaling. For example, exosomes provide a kind of “delivery on call” capability.
In their study, Carsten Frühbeis, Dominik Fröhlich, and Wen Ping Kuo of the Institute of Molecular Cell Biology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz found that oligodendrocytes release nano-vesicles known as 'exosomes' in response to neuronal signals. These exosomes are taken up by the neurons and their cargo can then be used for neuronal metabolism. "This works on a kind of 'delivery on call' principle," explained Dr. Eva-Maria Krämer-Albers, who is leading the current study. "We believe that what are being delivered are 'care packages' that are sent by the oligodendrocytes (=from Greek, meaning cells with a few branches) to neurons."
5. An article on Science Daily1 said that cells have a “zip code” capability that is linked to learning and memory, including redundancy to ensure proper delivery.
According to Trybus, a UVM (University of Vermont) professor of molecular physiology and biophysics, ensuring proper cellular function is challenging. "The proteins responsible for orchestrating this task are not uniformly distributed, but they often need to be in a certain place at a certain time," she says. That's where mRNA (messenger RNA) plays a role; cells employ a unique identifier signal in the mRNA called a "zip code" to ensure it transports to the place where the protein is needed.
6. PNAS2 published a paper that says “Flexible frequency control of cortical oscillations enables computations required for working memory.”
7. In another article of Science Daily3 we read that the brain finds it easy to pick out salient sounds from background noise by tracking frequency and time.
Our ears can effortlessly pick out the sounds we need to hear from a noisy environment -- hearing our mobile phone ringtone in the middle of the Notting Hill Carnival, for example -- but how our brains process this information (the so-called 'cocktail party problem') has been a longstanding research question in hearing science.
Researchers have previously investigated this, using simple sounds such as two tones of different pitches, but now researchers at UCL and Newcastle University have used complicated sounds that are more representative of those we hear in real life. The team used 'machine-like beeps' that overlap in both frequency and time to recreate a busy sound environment and obtain new insights into how the brain solves this problem.
In the study, groups of volunteers were asked to identify target sounds from within this noisy background in a series of experiments.
Sundeep Teki, a PhD student from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL and joint first author of the study, said: "Participants were able to detect complex target sounds from the background noise, even when the target sounds were delivered at a faster rate or there was a loud disruptive noise between them."
8. “The brain’s complexity is beyond anything imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief,” says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology. “One synapse5 [in the brain], by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch.  In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches.  A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
9. So there you have it. A microprocessor with around 1 billion transistors is in the same mental ballpark as … a worm. Rather an underwhelming result, don’t you think?
“What about the Internet as a whole?” you might ask. As we saw above, the number of transistors (N) in the entire Internet is 10^18, so log(N) is 18. log(Z) is log(2) or about 0.3, so C=(18*0.3)=5.4. That’s right: on Deamer’s scale, the complexity of the entire Internet is a miserable 5.4, or 40 orders of magnitude less than that of the human brain, which stands at 45.5.
Remember that Deamer’s formula is a logarithmic one, using logarithms to base 10. What that means is that the human brain is, in reality, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more complex than the entire Internet! And that’s based on explicitly materialistic assumptions about consciousness. (Dr. Torley in December 7, 2012)
10. A typical, healthy [brain] houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses.  Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells.  In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies. . (Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore 2010)
11. Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology (in computers used to try to understand the biological interactions) speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
Improved technologies for observing and probing biological systems has only led to discoveries of further levels of complexity that need to be dealt with. This process has not yet run its course. We are far away from understanding cell biology, genomes, or brains, and turning this understanding into practical knowledge. (Modular Biological Complexity by Christof Koch – August 2012)
12. Human brain contains about 10 billion neurons, and each one can contain thousands of connections with other neurons.
13. “A single neuron can send 1,000 signals per second, each traveling at a sizzling 250 mph (400 km/h).  Then there’s the early growth spurt most people don’t think about – half a million brain cells form every minute during the first five months in the womb.”[4]
14. The goal of the Human Brain Project is to provide the most detailed simulation ever of the complexity of human brain. The computing power for this will require super-computers thousands of times more powerful than what we have available today. So an aim of the larger research initiative is to develop computers with that kind of power. 
Our prediction? Simply this. Much as in the case of the human genome, the study of the physical makeup of the brain will provide remarkable insight into its components and structure. However it will also unlock layers upon layers of (unfathomable) complexity. (Project Brain: Our Prediction – June 28, 2013)
15. James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he reported about a speech of Richard Lewontin who is a Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Lewontin titled his speech, “Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition.” Randerson reported that, in the lecture, the eminent Harvard professor “systematically dismissed every assumption about the evolution of human thought, reaching the conclusion that scientists are still completely in the dark about how natural selection prompted the massive hike in human brain size in the human line” (2008).
16. As the AI scientists are very slowly trying to approach the computer imitation of the brain’s capabilities by careful and thoughtful design, and as more and more discoveries are made about the complexities of the brain, the more and more the fact of its being designed by an intelligent designer is established.
17. Who can really believe that a computer network more vast and complex than the internet, packed into a three-pound lump of wet tissue that grows from a single cell and runs on potatoes, arose by an undirected, purposeless process essentially by chance?
18. Thinking about this fact falsifies Darwin’s evolution theory. The  
proponents of evolution didn’t even begin to try to start to commence to explain how all this astounding complexity evolved.
19. All of man’s internet-like connections in the brain could not develop by an unguided, purposeless, uncaring process.
20. Therefore, the complex design of the brain strongly suggests a much superior designer than any human being. All men call him God.
21. God necessarily exists.

NOTE:
1. Thomas Sladewski, a University of Vermont graduate student working in the laboratory of Kathleen Trybus, Ph.D., and colleagues. (July 15, 2013)
2. Flexible frequency control of cortical oscillations enables computations required for working memory by Mario Dipoppaa et al. approved June 21, 2013.
3. Researchers from UCL and Newcastle University, July 23, 2013.
4. Livescience.com, Inside the Brain: Museum Exhibit Will Blow Your Mind by Jeremy Hsu.
5. In the nervous system, a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell (neural or otherwise)…Synapses are essential to neuronal function: neurons are cells that are specialized to pass signals to individual target cells, and synapses are the means by which they do so. At a synapse, the plasma membrane of the signal-passing neuron (the presynaptic neuron) comes into close apposition with the membrane of the target (postsynaptic) cell. Both the presynaptic and postsynaptic sites contain extensive arrays of molecular machinery that link the two membranes together and carry out the signaling process.

6. Presynaptic terminals are nervous system structures located at the terminal of the axon or sometimes along its length. They are specialized structures that form junctions (synapses) with other neurons and with muscle cells. Presynaptic terminals, seen by light microscope, look like small knobs and contain many organelles.


56.The evidence of the brain cells change over lifetime and the ability to hear, see, smell etc.
1. Previously it was believed that brain cells and the genetic make-up of brain cells remains static throughout life.
2. However, scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, working in collaboration with scientists from the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, Japan and the United States, have identified genes called retrotransposons responsible for tiny changes in the DNA of brain tissue, BBC reported Sunday.
4. The genetic makeup of human brain cells is not static but changes thousands of times during the course of our lifetimes, researchers in Scotland said. (Edinburgh, Scotland, Oct. 31 2011)
3. "If we can understand better how these subtle genetic changes occur we could shed light on how brain cells regenerate, how processes like memory formation may have a genetic basis and possibly link the activity of these genes to brain diseases," Geoff Faulkner of the Roslin Institute said. "This research completely overturns the belief that the genetic make-up of brain cells remains static throughout life and provides us with new information about how the brain works."
4. The researchers said the study shows for the first time that brain cells are genetically different from other cells in the body and are also genetically distinct from each other.
5. Already in 2004 the Harvard University researchers found that 20 genes critical for learning and memory begin to decline in function as early as age 40.
6. As one becomes older, genes became damaged, reducing their effectiveness. "Some genes begin to decline much earlier than expected, as early as the early 40s," says senior author Bruce Yanker, a professor of neurology and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital in Boston.
7. In the older brain samples, the researchers found that genes whose job is to protect and repair neurons from damage had been working overtime. That compensatory activity may delay the effects of the damage, and could explain why damage to cognitive function often doesn't show up until later in life, and why some individuals retain their intellectual acumen longer than others. The effectiveness of the compensatory activity "may be a function of genetics, and lifestyle, probably a combination of both," Dr. Yanker says.
8. As seen from the researches, brain cells and genetic make-up of the brain cells are changing. Moreover all the different cells in the body are changing, or i.o.w all of them have their turnover.
9. The turnover of all cells in the human body proves that we are not the body and that the combinations of chemicals and cells in our brain are not the cause of our consciousness.
10. Consciousness or awareness is not the symptom of the combinations of dead chemicals but only a symptom of life, which everybody calls the soul.
11. The individual self or the soul is not aware nor understands the complex workings of the brain’s functions, namely seeing, hearing, tasting etc. in the different parts of the brain.
12. The different signals in the neurons and brain tissues have to be converted to us (to the soul) into a meaningful message and then we can understand what we see, hear, taste smell etc.
13. The decoder of all the different signals in the brain has to be done by a person who has superior knowledge than us, who understands everything.
14. That person is the Supersoul within the body or God.
15. God necessarily exists. 

57.The argument by hemoglobin 11
Part A
1. The hemoglobin is a protein made of 564 amino acids.
2. The hemoglobin’s three dimensional structure; the amino acid sequence and the 4 iron atoms in the central region of the hemoglobin are all together enabling the special function of the hemoglobin - the transfer of the oxygen.
3. An alteration of any part of this structure of hemoglobin would cause inability to execute its duty of carrying oxygen.
4. Conclusively, such a structure is a proof of perfect design.
5. Behind a design there is an intelligent designer.
6. That designer is God.

Part B
1. If the bond between the oxygen and hemoglobin in the lung would be not enough strong than the oxygen would not combine with the hemoglobin.
    Thus, the oxygen would not be carried to the tissues where it is needed and consequently the tissues would die.
2. Conclusively, there could be no any intermediary development of hemoglobin.
3. To perfectly function it must have been existed from the very beginning in its very perfect state.
4. The natural conclusion of this is that the hemoglobin must have been designed to be able to immediately carry out its important function of giving life to the material body.
5. Where there is a design there is also a designer all men call God.

58.The argument from assassins

1. Moving quietly through the blood streams, the assassins travel around, looking for their targets.
2. Having license to kill, these natural killer cells (NK), part of our immune systems are removing the disease causing bad cells.
3. Scientists do not yet fully understand how NK cells recognize and distinguish dangerous microbes and disease causing cells from friendly, healthy cells. Nor they understand how assassins remember all the infections to speed up their response the second time.
4. However it is understood that NK can make holes in the membranes of the invading bad cells and injecting poisons into them they neutralize and kill the potential danger.
5. Because the living entities cannot control the necessary needful processes within their body, like the supposed development of the defense system and because they could not have survived without a developed immune system from the very beginning of their existence, even 300my ago or earlier, all this points to a designer who knows the necessities of the living beings.
6. That Supreme intelligent designer is God.
7. Hence God exists.

1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2052-the-amazing-dna-information-storage-capacity?highlight=storage

2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2098-epigenetics?highlight=epigenetics
3) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1312-coded-information-comes-always-from-a-mind#1836
4) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1851-proteasome-garbage-grinders#3092
5) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2178-the-complexity-of-the-living-cell#3987
6) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design#3552
7) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1312-coded-information-comes-always-from-a-mind#1836
8  http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2178-the-complexity-of-the-living-cell#3987
9) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1520-biomimetics#2235
10) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2096-the-astonishing-language-written-on-microtubules-amazing-evidence-of-design#3669
11) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1322-the-amazing-hemoglobin-molecule



Last edited by Admin on Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:35 am; edited 4 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:45 am

Admin


Admin
59.The argument from wound healing cilium   1  
1. The cilium that looks like an antenna on most human cells, orients cells to move in the right direction at the speed needed to heal wounds, and so acts like a Global Positioning System (GPS) that helps ships navigate to their destinations.
2. “The really important discovery is that the primary cilium detects signals, which tell the cells to engage their compass reading and move in the right direction to close the wound.”
3. “Protruding through the cell membrane, primary cilia occur on almost every non-dividing cell in the body.”
4. “Once written off as a vestigial organelle discarded in the evolutionary dust, primary cilia in the last decade have risen to prominence as a vital cellular sensor at the root of a wide range of health disorders, from polycystic kidney disease to cancer to left-right anatomical abnormalities.”
5. The unavoidable importance of the primeval cilium for the survival of the cell and its wonderful design proves the existence of the primeval designer God.
6. God necessarily exists.

60.The argument of the development of an embryo 2
1a. During the development of an embryo, everything happens at a specific moment. In about 48 hours, it will grow from the top to the bottom, one slice at a time – scientists call this the embryo’s segmentation. “We’re made up of thirty-odd horizontal slices,” explains Denis Duboule, a professor at EPFL and Unige. “These slices correspond more or less to the number of vertebrae we have.”
1b. Every hour and a half, a new segment is built. The genes corresponding to the cervical vertebrae, the thoracic vertebrae, the lumbar vertebrae and the tailbone become activated at exactly the right moment one after another.”
1c. The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.
1d. “A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics; it is so remarkably precise.
1e. The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of the species.
2. The scientists don’t offer any evolutionary explanations. By discovering more and more complexities, the God arguments are increasing; we can only explain the complexities as being by God’s creation and control.
3. God exists.

61.Arguments from evolution
Proof by origin of life and natural selection
1a. Natural selection can only eliminate the weak members of the particular species but it has no power to create the first living cell or organism and to transform one species into another. Nor is there any other impersonal force, since their existence can’t be proven.
1b. Who is this sir natural selection selecting and eliminating species; this can only be done by an intelligent person.
2. Thus, because natural selection, chance cannot explain the origin and development of life, God exists.

62.Proof from artificial selection
3
1. Performing experiments, from 1975 for 35 years, scientists looked for evidence of a “selective sweep” – the signature of a beneficial mutation becoming fixed in the population – and could not find it.  They did the selection artificially, forcing the fly embryos to evolve toward faster embryonic development.
2. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
3. Despite lots of mutations, they found the flies resistant to change.  Not only that, the experiments showed that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations, which suggests that any soft sweeps in our experiment are incomplete and/or of small effect.”
4. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.  This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations.  Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.  This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations…”
5. Natural or artificial selection cannot create new species.
6. There had to be an intelligent force that could arrange all the varieties of species to exist.
7. Intelligence and power to create belongs only to God.
8. Hence God exists.

Reference: Burke, Dunham et al, “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila,” Nature 467, 587-590 (30 September 2010); doi:10.1038/nature09352.

63.The evidence of human-chimp genome similarity
1. For the past several decades, the standard has been that humans are 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees.
2. The well-known chimpanzee genome paper published  in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated. [1, 2]
3. Geneticist Richard Buggs took an exacting approach in calculating genome-wide DNA similarity using data from both the 2005 chimp genome report and the human genome project in a brief news report published in 2008. Because Buggs’ estimates closely match the outcome of this study, his work is quoted below.
    “To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.”
    “Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.”
    “In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single “letter” is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.”
    “We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This “copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.”
    “This figure does not include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or “scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled (Buggs 2008).”
4. The details of a research study in which the individual chromosomes of chimp were compared to their counterpart in human is available in a privately published, but well-documented and freely available report (Progetto cosmo 2012). This effort employed an algorithm that involved the random selection of 10,000 30-base sequences from the query (chimp chromosome) and then determined their identity based on a query against their human chromosome counterpart. Excluding the Y chromosome, this study came up with an average 63% DNA identity (similarity) genome-wide.
5. The preliminary analyses of Buggs (2008) and Progetto cosmo (2012) indicate that in conflict with evolutionary claims, overall chimp DNA similarity compared to human may be as low as 70% or less.
6. Hypothetical evolutionary processes cannot explain the extremely broad differences between chimp and human DNA when the whole genomes (full DNA sequence of an organism) are considered.
7. The similar regions between genomes indicate the basic reuse of effective code what is known and done by software engineers. Expert DNA engineering in nature points to the Great Designer or God, who has manufactured all the wondrous diversity of life on Earth, and who bridged the gaps between the species.
8. God exists. 

References
1. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2012. Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation. 26 (1): 94-100.
2. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.

64.The argument of the vanishing act of human evolution 

1. There is more and more tension between observation and evolutionary story telling.
A. 1.  Update on the status of the hyoid bone (=U-shaped bone at the base of the tongue that supports the tongue muscles) in a Neanderthal fossil found in 1989.
2a. “It has long been believed that other beings, including the Neanderthals with whom our ancestors shared Earth for thousands of years, simply lacked the necessary cognitive capacity and vocal hardware for speech.”
2b. We humans like to think of ourselves as unique for many reasons, not least of which being our ability to communicate with words. But ground-breaking research by an expert from the University of New England shows that our ‘misunderstood cousins,’ the Neanderthals, may well have spoken in languages not dissimilar to the ones we use today.…
2c. “By analyzing the mechanical behavior of the fossilized bone with micro x-ray imaging, we were able to build models of the hyoid that included the intricate internal structure of the bone. We then compared them to models of modern humans. Our comparisons showed that in terms of mechanical behavior, the Neanderthal hyoid was basically indistinguishable from our own, strongly suggesting that this key part of the vocal tract was used in the same way.
2d. “From this research, we can conclude that it’s likely that the origins of speech and language are far, far older than once thought.”
3. The facts in the article essentially destroy the myth that Neanderthals were sub-human, but then it goes on to assume the origin of language must have evolved earlier.
B. The Laetoli tracks in Africa
1. Everyone acknowledges that the Laetoli tracks “look” like modern human footprints.  But they can’t be, according to the evolutionary timeline, because they date back to almost 4 million years.
2. Science Daily, giving an advertisement for the new book 'Apes and Human Evolution' by Russell Tuttle states “How Apes and Humans Evolved Side by Side.”
3. The article states, “The book explains how apes and humans evolved in relation to one another, and why humans became a bipedal, tool-making, culture-inventing species.”
4. Some excerpts from the article show a striking disconnect between observational evidence and the evolutionary story. Here are few:
    A 1. The footprints are the oldest evidence that early hominids came down from trees and began walking upright.
    A 2. “If you look at the footprints, they are quite similar to the footprints of modern humans,” said Tuttle.
    B. Although apes share some characteristics of humans, such as being able to walk upright and being able to communicate with each other, a notable behavioral gulf separates them from people, Tuttle said.
    C. “They represent one of several early hominid species that evolved, succeeded and then faded away — leaving behind fossils that are the record of our origins.” So is his story.
5. Observational facts are against Tuttle’s story, and against the Neanderthal myth. The tracks are modern.  The hyoid bone is modern.  Nothing evolved!
6. But over and over, Tuttle weaves his tale, using words like developed, emerged, became, grew, or glimpse into the origin of that rather indicate design than evolution.
7. The number of guessing words – could, would, should, may have, might have, maybe, possibly, probably, perhaps, suggests – used by Tuttle is sky-high. This clearly shows how the evolution story is a complete fabrication, a fictional, self-refuting myth. Although there are discoveries against Tuttle's speculations he continues his storytelling as if nothing happened.
8. Evolution is a myth, creation by a creator or God is the truth.
9. God exists.

References:
1. Talking Neanderthals challenge the origins of speech, March 2, 2014, University of New England
2. How apes and humans evolved side by side, March 4, 2014, University of Chicago

65.The argument of no observable evidence 5
1. There is not even one observable evidence that one kind of species changes into another.
2. All different proofs of evolution show only micro-evolution like the Galapagos finches changing the shapes of their beaks, stickleback fishes undergoing genetic change after the ice age.
3. These two species are still finches and fishes that underwent only some adaptation through microevolution or the limited variation that takes place within the species.
4. According to 
proponents of evolution billions of microevolution mutations in the genome can create new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes will result in evolution.
(a) most mutations will be lost due to drift, so a mutation will have to appear many times before it gets fixed in the population;
(b) necessarily, the mutation rate will always be much greater than the fixation rate;
(c1) Kimura is famous for showing that most mutations are nearly-neutral, and therefore are not subject to selection.
(c2) To understand the effect of the near neutral mutation we can give the example of the aging of our bodies. We can repair teeth, do facelifts, even replace hearts. But it is the cumulative aging of the individual cells (principally due to mutations) which places a specific limitation on our lifespan. This is true even though each individual cell is trivial and entirely expendable. Just as the human body rusts out due to countless microscopic mistakes (all of which in themselves are insignificant), the human genome must also be “rusting out” due to near--neutral mutations [that are very subtle]. No selection scheme can stop this process. This is the essence of the near-neutral mutation problem.
5. The explanation of evolution by mutations has a real problem. 
6. Also, experiments on fruit-flies showed that genetic changes are limited and cannot create new species.
6. Macro-evolution or changing of one species into another is not proven. No genetic changes are reported.
7. Evolution is false; creation by an intelligent God is true.
8. God exists.

66.The argument of the broken down evolution tree 6
1. The fundamental tenet of evolution theory is that species evolved according to the evolutionary tree; one after the other evolved, as a genealogical family tree.
2. However, since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern.
-- For example, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which 
proponents of evolution have placed on neighboring twigs of the evolutionary tree, are routinely found to have profound differences. Here is an example:
a. In 2010 an article in the journal Nature[4] released the results of a human-chimp DNA study with implications that was very surprising for the scientific community because the result of the research contradicted the long-held hypothesis of their similarity.
b. Already the title summed up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content."
c. The chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome.
d. The chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome.
c. The researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories and they found a shocking 33 percent difference.
e. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.
f. Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments. I.O.W. 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent.
g. The Nature article we can read, "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."
h. So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.
i. However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures.
-- On the other hand, species that are obviously quite different, which 
proponents of evolution have placed on distant limbs of the evolutionary tree, are often found to have profound similarities.
a. Humans, Arabidopsis (A genus of the mustard-family having white, yellow or purplish flowers), and nematodes (Unsegmented worms with elongated rounded body pointed at both ends) all have about the same number of genes.
a. A research team from Heidelberg from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL][1], compared human and fruit-fly introns[2] with those of a roundworm thought to be 600 million years old. Surprisingly, introns were already in the worms from the beginning of their appearance and remained the same all the way to the human line, changing rapidly and losing many of them only in other species like insects. One of the researchers remarked, “Now we have direct evidence that genes were already quite complex in the first animals, and many invertebrates have reduced part of this complexity.” Yet another said, “The worm’s genes are very similar to human genes…That’s a much different picture than we’ve seen from the quickly-evolving species that have been studied so far.” Additionally, the genome too “has been preserved over the last half a billion years.” In their research they did not explain how the early-Cambrian roundworms got their complexity and ability to remain unchanged for millions of years. The discovery is obviously changing the evolution tree.
b. Molecular evolution trees often do not fit a morphology-based evolution tree. For example, there are several TRAF genes in humans and Drosophila, and obvious prediction of Darwin’s model is that there must be an ancestral gene in a common ancestral organism from which the modern TRAF genes were derived. In reality, however, a TRAF gene from Hydra does not fit criteria of an ancestral gene, which must be somewhat of a mix of all human TRAF families, but rather clearly belongs to the major group of TRAF genes along with human TRAF1, TRAF2, TRAF3 and TRAF 5, while human TRAF4 and especially TRAF6 belong to different groups together with Drosophila TRAFs. [3]
3. For years 
proponents of evolution attempted to explain the growing list of contradictions using their evolutionary tree model. But it is obvious that this was an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the theory rather than the other way around.
4. In recent years proponents of evolution have finally begun to deemphasize their iconic evolutionary tree model. What this does not change, however, is their insistence that evolution is a fact.
5. Thus, even nowadays students are taught that the species fall into the expected tree pattern. But some venturesome writers are beginning to mention this unmentionable, foridden archeology.
6. Few years ago, for instance, the Telegraph reported that “Charles Darwin's tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading.’
-- They believe the concept misleads us because his [Darwin’s] theory limits and even obscures the study of organisms and their ancestries. …
-- Researchers say although for much of the past 150 years biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree it is now obsolete and needs to be discarded. …
-- “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” …
-- More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either. …
-- Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." He says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.
7. Contrary evidences were/are continuously openly discussed. But none of them is allowed to cast any doubt on evolutionary theory itself. As the article reported:
8. "If you don't have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology? At first it's very scary – but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.
9. The theory has to be repeatedly modified and augmented to try to fit the data. At some point the theory becomes little more than a tautology. Namely, whatever discovery is made in biology, evolution must have created it, no matter how contradictory and unlikely.
10. However such tautology is one of the fallacies in logic. By definition:
"Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such."
11. Thus the only logical explanation of differences between similar species and similarities of different species is an involvement of an intelligent designer using similar genetic patterns. This all men call God.
12. God exists.

Notes:
1. Vertebrate-type intron-rich genes in the marine annelid Platynereis dumerilii F. Raible, K. Tessmar-Raible, K. Osoegawa, P. Wincker, C. Jubin, G. Balavoine, D. Ferrier, V. Benes, P. de Jong, J. Weissenbach, P. Bork and D. Arendt.
2. intron - Part of a gene whose sequence is transcribed but not present in a mature mRNA after splicing.
3. Mali B, Frank U. Hydroid TNF-receptor-associated factor (TRAF) and its splice variant: a role in development.Mol Immunol. (2004) 41:377-84
4. Hughes, J.F. et al. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure gene content. Nature. 463 (7280): 536-539.

67.The argument of unexpected evidence
a. Evolution by subtraction.
1. The growth of the evolution tree of life from the root to the top branches should have been accompanied by a huge amount of new genetic information. 
2. Normally, according to the evolution theory, related species should have closely related genomes. 
3. However, the lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre-leaved rock cress are contradictory to these above tenets.
4. In a press release from Max Planck Institute we read, “It would appear reasonable to assume that two closely related plant species would have similar genetic blueprints.”  But the lyre-leaved rock cress has a genome fifty percent bigger than the other. Moreover, these changes arose over a very short period in evolutionary terms.”
5. It doesn’t look at all that the lyre-leaved cress has gained new genetic information; on the contrary, “considerable elements have been lost from some parts of the thale cress genome.”  To the further amazement and frustration of the scientists it was observed that, “A smaller genome appears to offer advantages during the natural selection of individuals.” 
6. One of the researchers is asserted, “We consider the thale cress with its more streamlined genome as the form derived through evolution.” 
7. This contradictory evidence to Darwin’s evolution theory is one of the many where a species in a lower part of the evolutionary life tree has more genes than those on the higher branches.
8. This suggests that species were designed and not evolved from one into another.
9. The ultimate designer all men call God. God exists.

68.The evidence of punctuated equilibrium theory
1. The large gaps between major kinds of organisms in the fossil record is an embarrassment to Darwinists.  It has given rise to radical theories like punctuated equilibria, which tries to explain why the evidence is not there.
2. Stephen Gould of Harvard University, working with Niles Eldredge in 1972 announced a new alternative theory to Darwin’s gradual changes of the species. They named it “punctuated equilibrium.” This term means that for 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an “equilibrium” without any evolution). And then, suddenly (in a very rare “punctuation”) and by total chance, two totally different life-forms will emerge.
3. In 2007 Dean Falk worte: “Punctuated equilibrium argues convincingly that speciation confers stability, with new species emerging only when external factors throw ecosystems into disequilibrium.  A clear example of this, supported by the fossil and geographic record, is the sudden end of the dinosaurs after a meteor hit Earth rendering it uninhabitable by dinosaurs and giving mammals a selective advantage.”[1] 
4. Also in 2007 Gene Hunt undertook a study of “The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages,” and found a lot of stasis.  After his “large-scale, statistical survey of evolutionary mode in fossil lineages,” involving some 250 sequences of evolving traits, he wrote in PNAS, “The rarity with which directional evolution was observed in this study corroborates a key claim of punctuated equilibria and suggests that truly directional evolution is infrequent or, perhaps more importantly, of short enough duration so as to rarely register in paleontological sampling.”[2]
5. Hunt found only 5% of fossil lineages could be attributed to directional evolution.  Of the rest that showed change over time, it was mostly for body size, not body shape.  This does not seem to be a vindication for Darwin’s prognosticative powers.  In the evolutionary rat race, if a bigger or smaller rat wins, it is still just a rat.
6. “Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free ‘just-so stories’ concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists.” (Richard Milner 1990) 
7. Gould’s critics, on the other hand, viewed punctuated equilibria as deficient in mechanisms that could generate functional innovation.
8. So both theories fail completely. We are left with nothing else then the only plausible possibility that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer all men call God.
9. God exists.

Reference:
1. Dean Falk, “Delving into the ancient brain,” Nature 450, 31-32 (1 November 2007) | doi:10.1038/450031a.
2. Gene Hunt, “The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online before print November 14, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0704088104.


69.The evidence from the ribosome 7
a. “Spontaneous formation of the unlocked state of the ribosome is a multi-step process.”
b. The L1 stalks of the ribosome bend, rotate and uncouple – undergoing at least four distinct stalk positions while each tRNA ratchets through the assembly tunnel.  At one stage, for instance, “the L1 stalk domain closes and the 30S subunit undergoes a counterclockwise, ratchet-like rotation” with respect to another domain of the factory.  This is not simple.  “Subunit ratcheting is a complex set of motions that entails the remodeling of numerous bridging contacts found at the subunit interface that are involved in substrate positioning.”
c.The enzyme machine that translates a cell’s DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is “shocking” and reveals just how much of a stickler (insisting) the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis. (Rachel Green, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and professor of molecular biology and genetics: The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors, 2009)
4. Interactions between molecules are not simply matters of matching electrons with protons.  Instead, large structural molecules form machines with moving parts.  These parts experience the same kinds of forces and motions that we experience at the macro level: stretching, bending, leverage, spring tension, ratcheting, rotation and translocation.  The same units of force and energy are appropriate for both – except at vastly different levels.
5. Every day, essays about molecular machines are giving more and more biomolecular details, many without mentioning evolution and giving details about the process how these machines evolved.
6. These complexities are the work of God.
7. Hence God exists.

70.The evidence of the hopeful monster 8
1. Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California had spent most of his adult life trying to prove that fruit flies could change into new species, but without success.
“After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
Richard Goldschmidt was a veteran genetics researcher, and after many of his experiments on the fruit flies he gave up the idea that one-by-one mutations could accomplish the task of evolution.
After all Goldschmidt proposed his new “theory of saltation,” in which no transitional forms would be necessary. (“Saltation” means “sudden leap” in German.)
This theory is also popularly known as the “hopeful monster theory.” It taught that one day a reptile laid an egg and a “brown furry thing” hatched out of it. Chance would have it that, when it grew up, this mammal found a mate that had also suddenly by chance hatched out of another rep-tile egg—and the result was a new species of animal.
2. But Darwin, always said, “Natura non facit saltum” (nature does not take leaps). 
3. In 2010 Tanguy Chouard a senior editor of the scientific magazine Nature, discussed evidence that nature does take leaps – big changes that can occur within a single generation.  “Experimental evidence has shown that individual genetic changes can have vast effects on an organism without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap,” he said. (The evolutionary rubbish heap would be the slow Darwinian evolution). In a bit reconciling way with Darwin theory Chouard continued: “But small-effect mutations still matter – a lot.  They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow.”
4. For evidence, Chouard exhibited an evolutionary pet, the stickleback fish.  Offspring can vary substantially between armored and naked forms.  This is due to a single gene location responsible for 2/3 of the spines.  Chouard explained, “the reigning gradualist dogma regarded these as artificially protected monstrosities that would never survive the harsh hand of natural selection.” Later he continued, “How could a mutation in such a crucial gene result in anything but a hopeless monster?” However, Chouard added, “It remains to be seen, whether such elementary mechanisms of adaptation, often referred to as microevolution, can instruct the higher processes that constitute macroevolution, such as speciation and the emergence of biodiversity or complex organs.”
5. Also Goldschmidt, the hopeful-monster champion, doubted leaps that large could be made.  And Jerry Coyne cautioned generalizing results from asexual bacteria with small genomes and high mutation rates.
6. Chouard admitted, “Large effect or small, evolution begins to look like an endless list of special cases...One reason is the general lack of knowledge about how changes in genes contribute to function and how this affects fitness.”
7. This is really essential for understanding evolution. So it seems way premature to claim that evolutionary biology has settled on a comprehensive theory of speciation, even 150 years after Darwin.
8. Despite the great advancement of science, many experiments and so-called advanced knowledge, all the possible explanations of evolution are still speculative, imperfect, incomplete and not proven by experiments.
9. The truth is that no mammoth mutations can or would occur. None occurred at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl.  Yet, in regard to number of mutations suddenly occurring, they are the monster mutation capitals of the world.
They did not occur in the irradiated budding eyes of research roses or the thousands of laboratory fruit fly jars. If they had occurred, we would have seen new species form. The 20th century, with all its laboratory and nuclear radiation, has been the century—above all others—for new species to arise. But it has not happened.
10. The only plausible theory therefore is that all the species were designed by an intelligent designer. That designer all men call God.
11. God exists.

71.The argument by impossibility of gradual development 9
1. Proponents of neo-darwinism try to proof that the eye, ear, blood clotting and heart could develop in small steps.
2. But in this gradualistic concept each change has to provide some advantage.
3. Natural selection selects only for functional advantage.
4. Natural selection eliminates things that has no function and can even harm the organism.
5. Thus, the half functional blood clotting; flagellum of E-coli; heart etc are impossible scenarios.
6. These must have already existed in their full functionality to facilitate the survival of the living being.
7. Therefore, a creator exists.

Arguments from animal kingdom

72.The argument of the flagellum 10
1. The  flagellum (turning propeller for movement in the water) has about 40 different proteins facilitating the work of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of about 300 atoms.
2. All particles are very important and one cannot exist without another just like parts of the car engine. And the proteins will disintegrate if they are not in the flagellum structure.
3. The proponents of evolution are unable to give any explanation how all these 1200 parts appeared simultaneously in the right position and started to work together out of the cosmic soup or Big-bang. 
4. Therefore, the only option is creation. Just like no car engine has ever come out of an explosion in an oilfield or tank of gasoline.
5. The Supreme Ultimate creator is God.

73.The argument of the ant’s life 11
1. Pheromone is a chemical substance produced and released into the environment by an animal, especially a mammal or an insect, affecting the behavior or physiology of others of its species. For example ants use pheromones to leave chemical trails that can be followed by other members and to also identify which nest an ant is from, along with its social status in the colony.
2. Studying European ants scientists now found that they have “a specialized appendage on their abdomen that it strokes with its hind legs to create sound signals. Other ants can detect and process these signals, resulting in various complex social responses that are key to survival of the colony.”
3, Thirdly, it is now also discovered that the developing larvae back in the nest also use this technique, which is important for the ant colony's survival.
4. In short, all the ants would die in one generation if you remove any one of these features:
a) early maturing abdominal acoustic appendage,
b) instinct to "strum" it,
c) sensors in adults to detect it,
d) ant brains to interpret the sounds, and
e) the instinct to protect the mature larvae.
5. All these necessary complex features of the ants are proof of an intelligent design which could not happen without designer or by chance.
6. Evolution is also impossible because if all these features just partially developed this would either harm the survival of the ants or make it impossible that they come to exist.
7. A designer was a must and all men call him God.
8. God exists. 

74.The argument of astonishing design in animals
1. Peregrine falcons can dive at 200 miles an hour, an article on Science Daily1 says.  Experiments with specially designed wind tunnels shows that their feathers appear to act as “self-adaptive flaps” during dives.  The body also changes shape during descent.
2. Ants are capable of sustaining “astounding pressures” on their necks, Science Daily2 said, calling their necks “amazing” and worth studying for improving robot strength.  These aren’t specially trained ants, either, but just common American field ants.  Measurements with centrifuges show the neck can withstand 5,000 times the ant’s body weight, due to a combination of materials and the structure of the joints.  These leave the muscles free to lift and position objects. 
3. A video clip on the BBC News, and an accompanying article, show that some snakes in Southeast Asia can shape themselves a bit like an S-shaped Frisbee and glide through the air for long distances after flinging itself off tree branches.  “Scientists say that the serpents radically alter their body shape to generate the aerodynamic forces needed to perform this feat.”  A photo caption reads, “The aerodynamic forces are comparable with those generated by a plane’s wing.” 
4. Science Magazine4 reported that bumblebees appear capable of flying higher than Mt. Everest.  “The last thing you’d expect to see out your airplane window is a bumblebee cruising by,” the article says.  “But a new study suggests that the insects might be capable of such high-altitude jaunts.”  Chinese researchers studied some bees found at high altitude, and experimented with their limits, finding some capable of thriving 100 meters above the elevation of Everest.  The bees appear to compensate for the lower air pressure by flapping at the same speed but with greater amplitude. 
5. These are only some of the examples of astonishing designs found in the animal kingdom. The touchy question for the scientists here is how could have any of these attributes and feats develop by a blind, aimless force? And if they weren’t qualified that way, the species would have gone extinct.
6. Good design is a result of engineering. The elegant, exquisite, astonishing design of these animals points to the omniscient, omnipotent wisdom of a person with a plan. That person is God.
7. God exists.

References:
1. Falcon feathers pop up during dive. February 6, 2014, PLOS
2. With their amazing necks, ants don't need 'high hopes' to do heavy lifting. February 10, 2014, Ohio State University.
3. BBC, Secrets of flying snakes revealed, 30 January 2014
4. Sciencemagazine.org, Bumblebees Capable of Flying Higher Than Mount Everest, 4 February 2014

75.The evidence of the mallee bird 12
1. The mallee bird lives in the Australian desert. In May or June, with his claws the male makes a pit in the sand that is just the right size: about 3 feet [9 dm] deep and 6 feet [18 dm] long. Then he fills it with vegetation. As it rots, it heats up. The bird waits patiently until the rains, which increase the heat to over 100o F. [38o C.] at the bottom of the pile. The bird waits until it is down to 92o F. [33o C.]. When the right temperature is reached, he calls for his wife; they mate; she lays one egg a day for 30 days; and then leaves. The male then covers the eggs with sand, and continually checks the temperature with his amazing thermometer bill for 7 weeks. He cannot let the temperature go up or down even one degree. If it cools at night, he piles on more sand. If it overheats in the day, he pulls off sand. At hatching time, the chicks break their shells—and crawl up through as much as 2 feet of sand! Arriving at the top, each one is fully able to fly and is on its own. Neither father or mother mallee bird gives it any further attention or training. When it grows up, it does just as its parents did.
2. Evolution could not do this. If all the required irreducible conditions would be not there like temperature regulation and immediate knowledge without training etc., the continuation of the malle bird species would stop.
3. Intelligent design by an intelligent designer is obvious. Him all man call God.
4. God exists.

76.The tail of the peacock 13
1. Darwin once remarked the tail of the peacock made him sick because the unnecessary extravagance of nature was suggestive of Intelligent Design. What made Darwin sick then still holds true today, he never solved the problem, and it is more in evidence by the problem of Irreducible Complexity (IC).
2. The peacock tail contains spectacular beauty because of the large feathers, bright, iridescent colours and intricate patterns. The colours in the tail feathers are produced by an optical effect called thin-film interference. The eye pattern has a high degree of brightness and precision because the colour-producing mechanisms contain an extremely high level of optimum design. According to the theory of sexual selection, the peacock tail has gradually evolved because the peahen selects beautiful males for mating. However, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful features. In addition, there is irreducible complexity in both the physical structure of the feather and in the beautiful patterns.
3. When a peacock displays his tail feathers during courtship, a magnificent ‘fan formation’ of feathers forms a beautiful backdrop to the body of the peacock. An adult peacock has an average of 200 tail feathers and these are shed and re-grown annually. Of the 200 or so feathers, about 170 are ‘eye’ feathers and 30 are ‘T’ feathers. The ‘eyes’ are sometimes referred to as ocellations (an eyelike spot or marking).
4. It is difficult to determine how many genes would be required to specify the aesthetic features of a peacock tail feather because it is not known how the tail feather grows. However, a conservative estimate can be made by assuming that each separate aesthetic feature is specified by one gene. By assuming that each colour and each shape within the eye pattern represents a separate feature, and taking into account the other features of the feather, the total number of aesthetic features in a single feather comes to about 20…In particular, it may be that many genes are required to produce each shape in the eye pattern since the eye pattern is formed from the coordinated arrangement of over 100 barbs. In addition, the fanning-out of barbs in the top of the feather, where there is no stem, is a complex feature that may well need several controlling genes.
Even if only 20 genes are required to specify the beautiful features of the peacock tail, this still amounts to a lot of genetic information. A gene typically consists of 1,000 chemical units of information (base pairs). Therefore, 20 genes would contain many thousands of chemical units of information. According to proponents of evolution, all of this information has appeared gradually by genetic mistakes and by sexual selection.
5. The problem is that goals are achieved via the simplest means, but via extravagant and irreducibly complex means with great depth of integration.
6. New discoveries might prove that an IC system could be reduced a bit but it is not possible to reduce it too much because the system would stop to be functional. Thus any simplest functional system is an IC system.
7. IC systems prove an intelligent designer who must be a person.
8. That person all men call God.
8. God exists.

77.Argument from the DNA of elephant shark 
1. Even though the elephant shark is much more distantly related to humans than the teleost fish (a subgroup of ray-finned fish) its genome bears a much greater similarity to the human genome.
2. There are a greater number of conserved DNA[1] sequences and more extensive synteny (gene order along the length of the chromosomes) between humans and elephant sharks, than between humans and teleost fishes.
3. According to the evolutionary theory, DNA sequences should increasingly differ and synteny should progressively dissipate as organisms diverge from one another.
4. To explain this anomaly the scientists speculate that after the ray-finned and lobe-finned fish diverged, the genomes of the ray-finned fish must have undergone much more extensive genetic change and rearrangement than did the genomes of lobe-finned fish (including tetrapods) and cartilaginous fish.
5. However, both teleost fish and tetrapods first appear in the fossil record about 385 million years ago. It’s troubling to think that the teleost fish have undergone such extensive changes to their genomes with relatively little morphological and physiological change while in the same time period (385 million years) tetrapods have undergone incredible morphological and physiological change (moving from the water to the land, followed by the transformation from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals, and from shrew-like creatures to modern humans) with relatively limited genetic change compared to cartilaginous fish.
6. Another nail in the atheistic naturalistic evolutionist theories’ coffin. The intelligent designer, all men call God, used similar templates of DNA for the creation of the species.
7. God exists.

NOTE
1. “Conserved DNA” is DNA that is similar across many different species. In the simplistic evolutionary view, DNA that is very important will be very similar in many different organisms, because important DNA cannot change very much.

78.The argument of new living fossil and others that must have changed rapidly or not at all 14
1a. A paper in Geology journal[1] describes the discovery of living cysts of a dinoflagellate (a marine unicellular organism with a flagellum) in southeast Asia, that was supposed to have gone extinct in the early Pleistocene, but then has reappeared today in several spots from Japan to the Philippines.
1b. Proponents of evolution have a difficulty to explain its persistence unchanged for millions of years. It is a unique living fossil, a species discovered first as a fossil and believed extinct, but now found living.
1c. A press release from the University of Ghent commented:
"This unicellular species, with planktonic and benthic stages, was previously thought to have become extinct within the early Pleistocene. It evolved more than 50 million years ago and is the last survivor of a major early Cenozoic lineage. The discovery of living D. pastielsii in the IPWP [Indo-Pacific Warm Pool] suggests that this stable environment served as an important refuge for thermophilic dinoflagellates, and its disappearance from the Atlantic following the early Pleistocene implicates cooling."[2]
1d. The early Pleistocene starts at 2.5 million years ago. That’s a long time for isolated locations on earth to maintain a stable environment while the rest of the world was cooling. It’s also a long time for the creature to escape evolution so much that it is recognizable from fossils more than 50 million years old on the geologic time scale.
2a. Another case. “Polar bear evolution was fast and furious,” a headline from Science Magazine[3] reads. How fast? The new estimate puts the split between brown and polar bears at about 353,000 to 493,000 years ago – a “blink in time” compared to the previous estimate of 600,000 to 5 million years.
2b. The article adds, however, that modern polar bears can interbreed with brown bears. This makes them mere varieties of the same species, according to the widely-trusted “biological species concept.”
3a. Third case. PhysOrg[4] describes how certain genes for butterfly and bumblebee patterns seem to mutate predictably over and over again. These genes affect mimicry patterns only, and sometimes it’s not the gene, but how it’s regulated that causes the effects.
3b. Researchers were somewhat surprised to find that the changes were predictable, not random, implying there are mutational “hotspots” that allow the species to adapt to the environment. Nothing was said about the origin of new organs or functions.
4. None of these cases support Darwin’s view of the world: slow, steady, gradual evolution. For one thing, they militate against millions of years. They all support complete design from the beginning, rapid variation from built-in mechanisms for designed adaptation, and the complete absence of “evolution” for new information or function. In other words, they support the Vedic theistic view of creation by an Intelligent Designer.
5. God exists.

References
1. Living fossils in the Indo-Pacific warm pool: A refuge for thermophilic dinoflagellates during glaciations, Kenneth N. Mertens, Yoshihito Takano, Martin J. Head and Kazumi Matsuoka. (26 March 2014. )
2. Living fossils in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool: A refuge for thermophilic dinoflagellates during glaciations
07 May 2014 Ghent University
3. Science Magazine, Polar Bear Evolution Was Fast and Furious By Elizabeth Pennisi 8 May 2014
4. PhysOrg, Colorful patterns of evolution mark butterflies and bumblebees, May 15, 2014 by David Pacchioli

1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2089-primary-cilium-a-cells-antenna-or-its-brain#3655
2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2192-ontogeny-evidence-of-design#4475
3) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1804-lenski-did-not-provide-evidence-for-macro-change-no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600-generations#2980
4) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1643-chimp-human-dna#2540
5) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1390-macroevolution
6) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2239-the-tree-of-life-common-descent-common-ancestry-a-failed-hypothesis#4451
7) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1661-translation-through-ribosomes-amazing-nano-machines
8  http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1804-lenski-did-not-provide-evidence-for-macro-change-no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600-generations#2980
9) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-irreducible-complexity#2133
10) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1528-the-flagellum
11) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1760-ants-and-suicide-bombers#2861
12) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1778-the-mallee-fowl
13) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1799-the-peacock#2949
14) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1690-living-fossils



Last edited by Admin on Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:41 am; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:45 am

Admin


Admin
Arguments from plants

79.The argument of photosynthesis 1
1. One article in New Scientist magazine about green leaves under the bright sun states: “Catching up with nature’s innovation,” remains tantalizing but frustrating.  “Take sunlight, add water, and there you have it: free energy,” the article teased.  “Plants have been doing this for quite some time, splitting water’s hydrogen apart from its oxygen, but our efforts to turn water into a source of free hydrogen fuel by mimicking them have borne no fruit.”
2. A team led by Dr. Sun who is at work in Stockholm, Sweden is experimenting with different kinds of electrodes that produce more-desirable hydrogen gas instead of hydrogen ions.  Unfortunately, “the efficiency is abysmal” for these and all other electrodes tested so far, said rival John Turner in Colorado at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  Dr. Sun would be happy to get 10% efficiency – far below the near-100% efficiency plants get from the sun. Turner has achieved 12% efficiency, but his electrodes are only stable for a few days.  (The best solar cells achieve 27% efficiency.)
3. The great difficulty of imitating the marvelous structures of the nature is indicative of very complex design.
4. And even if the scientists ever succeed to mimic nature they will only prove intelligent design to account for the exquisite engineering we observe in living things.
5. Hence the supreme scientist and designer who is impossible to be imitated exists.
6. Photosynthesis is a extraordinary evidence of God's creative power.

80.The argument of modern leaves and caterpillars 50 million years ago 2
1. Original material in a fossil has been detected, this time from a leaf that is identical to modern leaves despite an alleged 50 million years age.
2. The fossil leaf examined in X-rays, in the University of Manchester, was identical to modern leaves.  It even had the feeding tubes of caterpillars on it, as if they had munched on the leaf yesterday.  It contained primordial material from the living plant.  The leaf, though, found in the Green River Formation in Wyoming, is supposed to be 50 million years old.
When the researchers shined the equivalent of a “million suns” in X-rays on this leaf, they found details that were exquisite – and familiar.
3. The distribution of copper, zinc and nickel in the fossil leaves was almost identical to that in modern leaves. Each element was concentrated in distinct biological structures, such as the veins and the edges of the leaves, and the way these trace elements and sulphur were attached to other elements was very similar to that seen in modern leaves and plant matter in soils.…
4. “In one beautiful specimen, the leaf has been partially eaten by prehistoric caterpillars – just as modern caterpillars feed – and their feeding tubes are preserved on the leaf. The chemistry of these fossil tubes remarkably still matches that of the leaf on which the caterpillars fed.”
The answer how could this leaf be so well preserved for so long, over millions of years is that copper acts as a natural biocide to preserve the original leaf tissues. 
5. This specimen is a direct evidence that this plant and the caterpillar that ate it had not evolved at all in 50 million years.
6. Another proof that the Darwinists are going to be an extinct species. The only explanation of the existence of leaves and caterpillars 50 million years ago is creation by an intelligent designer everybody calls God.
7. God exists.

Reference:
1. Press release: Million suns shed light on fossilised plant, (26 Mar 2014), Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, The University of Manchester.

81.The evidence of the angiosperms (flowering plants) 3
1. Proponents of evolution since Darwin called the sudden appearance of angiosperms an “abominable mystery” because they could not find any evidence for their evolution.
2. Researchers at Penn State published a paper titled: “Study helps to solve Darwin's mystery about ancient plant evolution.” They wrote: “The evolution and diversification of the more than 300,000 living species of flowering plants may have been ‘jump started’ much earlier than previously calculated…two major upheavals in the plant genome occurred hundreds of millions of years ago -- nearly 200 million years earlier than the events that other research groups had described.”
3. “Upheavals” in the plant genome “produced thousands of new genes that may have helped drive the evolutionary explosion that led to the rich diversity of present-day flowering plants.”
4. Not knowing the cause of the “upheavals” nor having a proof that it really happened they opine that the “upheavals” in the plant genome “produced thousands of new genes that may have helped drive the evolutionary explosion that led to the rich diversity of present-day flowering plants.” No matter what caused these events, these were genetic miracles as they write: “one or more important genetic metamorphoses had occurred in the ancestor of flowering plants, and we also knew that these metamorphoses could explain the enormous success of so many species living on the Earth today.”
5. The metamorphosis was “a special kind of DNA mutation — called a polyploidy event — that revolutionized the flowering-plant lineage.” Polyploidy mutations are generally lethal in vertebrates, but “Plants, on the other hand, often survive and can sometimes benefit from duplicated genomes.” “Some of these new genes led to true innovations and have become vital parts of the genetic toolkit for the regulation of flower development,” Claude dePamphilis explained. He also remarked, “The further we push back the date of when these events happened, the more confidently we can claim that not most, but all flowering plants are the result of large-scale duplications of the genome…It’s possible that the important polyploidy events we’ve identified were the equivalent of two ‘big bangs’ for flowering plants.”
6 The Penn State press release neglected to go into details of how in detail a copy of DNA mutated further to innovate new things full of functional genetic information, leaving their whole ‘big bang’ theory unproven and on the level of mere scientific speculation. Moreover, it is very unclear if the big-bang theory of flowering plant evolution provides understanding on the origin of orchids any more than saying, “Stuff happens,” namely that anything can happen, anywhere, anytime, without any reason, and we can never know why.
7. The sudden appearance of angiosperms is still an “abominable mystery” because there is no evidence for their evolution, only a theory for how things could have happened. A scientific theory can be fully accepted only when proven by an experiment.
8. Conifers and other gymnosperms were already successful before the above mentioned metamorphosis.
9. Because of the complexity of conifers, gymnosperms and angiosperms and their unknown sudden appearance, the only possible explanation of their coming to existence is intelligent design and creation by the intelligent designer all men call God.
10. God exists.

82.The evidence of the plants internets
1. Plants may be mostly stationary, but they have connections.  In fact they have both intranets, extranets and internets.  Inside their own vessels, they communicate with proteins and RNA molecules from root to shoot; outside, they have many social relationships with other organisms.  They even “friend” their partners, just like humans do on Facebook.
2. On the 29th of March 2011, Ferris Jabr wrote about plant communication in New Scientist magazine. “The botanical underground is a social network of powerful alliances and nepotism,” he wrote. “We’ve known for some time that plants respond to one another, but only now are we realizing how subtle and sophisticated their interactions can be.  Plants continually eavesdrop [listen without the speaker's knowledge] on each other’s chemical chatter – sometimes sympathetically, sometimes selfishly.  Some plants, like the Scandinavian rhododendron, assist their neighbors by sharing resources.  Others recognize close relatives and favor them over strangers.  And at least one parasitic plant homes in on its host’s telltale chemical scent....
    “Plants don’t go out to parties or to watch the movies, but they do have a social network,” says Suzanne Simard, a forest ecologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.  “They support each other and they fight with each other.  The more we look at plant signaling and communication, the more we learn.  It’s really incredible.”
3. Beneath the forest floor, each spoonful of dirt contains millions of tiny organisms.  These bacteria and fungi form a symbiotic relationship with plant roots, helping their hosts absorb water and vital elements like nitrogen in return for a steady supply of nutrients.
    Now closer inspection has revealed that fungal threads physically unite the roots of dozens of trees, often of different species, into a single mycorrhizal network.  These webs sprawled beneath our feet are genuine social networks.
4. “When a caterpillar starts to munch on a tomato plant, for example, the leaves produce noxious compounds that both repel the attacker and stimulate neighboring plants to ready their own defenses.”  Plants recognize their own species and work together for the common good.  But plants are also within communities of diverse organisms that benefit from each other’s contributions to the community.
5. Did these capabilities evolve slowly over millions of years?  Darwin’s “abominable mystery” – the emergence of flowering plants, the largest and most diverse group of plants on earth – was already dealt a blow.  Beautiful, detailed leaves that look like they were pressed in a book were found exquisitely preserved in the Jehol strata in China, reported New Scientist.  Being dated at 123 million years old puts an advanced angiosperm “roughly contemporary with the ancestors of all flowering plants around today.”
    Reporter Colin Barras claimed that “Flowering plants had an evolutionary edge over the conifers and other gymnosperms that were around at the time, and rapidly took over.” 
6. The problem with such explanations, though, is not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. 
7. Even assuming their own timeline, proponents of evolution have no explanation for how complex plants, communications networks and all, appeared abruptly, fully formed, without ancestors.
8. The work of an intelligent designer all men call God is obvious.
9. God exists.

Arguments from paleontology

83.The argument of the Cambrian explosion 4
1. The Cambrian period began 570 million years ago and the Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago over 2-3 million years or less. At the time of the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every animal phyla (=the major taxonomic group of animals and plants) on Earth (more than 70) suddenly appeared).
NOTE: “Taxonomic Group” means the distinct group comprising one or more Species based on their taxonomic relationship and common approaches to mitigating adverse effects (i.e., fish, mussels, turtles, snakes, amphibians, birds or plants).
2. Proponents of evolution cannot explain the abrupt “evolution” of diverse life forms all over the world at about the same time, as per the words of Niles Eldredge, “Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” 
3. Dated at about 540 to 515 million years ago, Cambrian rock contains an impressive collection of diverse life-forms without identifiable ancestral forms. 
4. “Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
(Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)) 45-46.
5. Although many paleontologists initially showed interest in the possibility that the Cambrian animal forms might have evolved from the Ediacaran organisms, paleontologist Peter Ward explains that “later study cast doubt on the affinity between these ancient remains preserved in sandstones [the Australian Ediacaran] and living creatures of today” (that is, animals representing phyla that first arose in the Cambrian). (Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, 181)
6. In the last 10 years more than 30 hypothesis were presented about how this biological explosion could have happened. “Most of the hypotheses have at least a kernel of truth, but each is insufficient to have been the single cause of the Cambrian explosion,” says Oxford University’s Museum of Natural History paleontologist Paul Smith.
7. One of the problems with Darwinian evolution is that the Cambrian explosion did not happen in just one spot on the planet. It appeared suddenly everywhere, as if somebody decided to seed the entire ocean with many new species at the same time. If the Darwinian hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see a spreading of the species from one area to another over a certain period.
8. The infinite probabilistic resources of the many world’s scenario actually greatly increases the amount of totally chaotic information one would expect to see appearing in the fossil record. i.e. one would expect to see far more bizarre events “popping” into existence, than the nice tidy “ecologically complete” appearance of fossil forms we do see (where are all those failed experiments of evolution by the way?)
9. “The rapid diversification of animals in the early Cambrian is likely to have been the result of a complex interplay of biotic and abiotic processes.” (Smith, 20 September 2013 issue of Science)
    a. Biological research has never demonstrated that natural processes can convert abiotic, non-living elements into primordial living organisms.
    b. They simply conclude that life must have evolved from non-life long ago and then progressed to become “the earliest members of many animal groups, including sponges, cnidarians1, and bilaterians2, [which] lived  850 million to 635 million years ago.”
10. Evolutionary biologists commonly use molecular clock analysis to estimate the timing of evolutionary events.
11. Molecular clock calculations are, however, based on evolutionary presumptions, the presumption that, in essence, we are here, so molecules-to-man evolution must have happened.
12. Till now proponents of evolution neither could explain any mechanism by which so-called primitive organisms could then evolve into progressively more complex “higher” organisms, nor have biologists ever observed simpler organisms evolve into more complex, new kinds of organisms.
13. Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10-9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million year in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. (Susumo  Ohno,  “The  notion  of  the  Cambrian  pananimalia  genome,”  Proceedings  of  the  National Academy of Sciences USA 93 (August 1996): 8475-78.)
14. Current hypotheses concerning the ancestor-descendent relationship between the Cambrian Period higher-phyla body plans and earlier organisms recognize a definitive lineage isolation between the two and thus beyond argument illustrate the absence of definitive evidence that the later group, and their descendents, connect to a common ancestor.
15. Because there is no common ancestor to the species of Cambrian period, the best explanation of their complex design and  sudden appearance is creation by intelligent design. 
16. W. H. Freeman concludes: “The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.” (Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions, New York: 1992)   
17. Considering all these points, intelligent design is the only explanation for the origin of great diverse animal body plans in the Cambrian fossil record.
18. The ultimate designer of everything in the material world is God. 
19. God exists.
The evidence of 'Guadeloupe Woman'
1. The 'Guadeloupe Woman' is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, complete in every respect except for the feet and head. It belonged to a woman about 5 foot 2 inches [15.54 dm] tall.
2. This skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth!
3. Since such a date does not fit evolutionary theory the "Guadeloupe Woman" is not mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations.
4. When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was first put on exhibit in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed as a proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly taken down to the basement and remains there to this day.
5. The 'Guadeloupe Woman' is burying the evolution theory. She proves creation and intelligent design.
6. God exists.

84.The evidence of fossilized tracks
1. In 1987, paleontologist Jerry MacDonald discovered a wide variety of fossilized tracks from several different species of animals and birds, located in a Permian strata. Among the various fossilized tracks were the clear prints of a human foot.
2. However, the Permian strata has been dated from 290 to 248 million years ago- millions of years before animals, birds, dinosaurs, and yes, man, was supposed to exist. How then can these prints be explained?
3. In July 1992, the Smithsonian Magazine had an article on these tracks called "Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts".[1] The magazine acknowledged the mystery, acknowledging "what paleontologists like to call, 'problematic.'" It described what appeared to be large mammal and bird tracks that, "evolved long after the Permian period, yet these tracks are clearly Permian."
4. While it is commendable that MacDonald and the Smithsonian clearly acknowledge the existence of these tracks in a strata that contradicts the current evolutionary theory, it is noteworthy that they highlight only the mammal and bird prints, and don't mention the human footprint found with them. Of course, mammal includes human, but truthfully they should have listed the human footprint.
5. Interestingly enough, since these tracks been discovered, proponents of evolution have not tried to argue their authenticity or debunk them. Nor have they tried to argue that the footprint isn't human. (Often they claim that it's a print that just "looks like" a human footprint.) 
6. All this again proves the work of an intelligent designer all men call God.
7. God exists.

Reference: [1] See "Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts" by Jerry MacDonald, Smithsonian, July 1992, Vol. 23, Issue 4, p. 70-79

Cosmological arguments

85.Argument by ‘the position of our planet’ 5
1. If the sun where closer to the earth, we would burn up; if farther away we would freeze. 
2. If the earth was not tilted at 23 degrees, the areas near the poles would be dark and cold all year long.
3. If it tilted too much, the seasons would be very extreme for example, on the planet Uranus the winter is 42 years of total darkness!
4. If Earth did not have a large revolving moon, we would have no tides, causing the ocean waters to grow stagnant and produce no oxygen for its creatures.
5. What we see is a planet that is perfectly balanced for our habitation. We see design in the perfect balance.
6. When we see a design we know there is a Designer.
7. The structure of the universe, which is also like a universal clock, can be designed only by a greatest person.
8. That greatest person to design such huge things as a universe can be only God.
10. God exists.

86.The evidence of the plasma shield 6
1. In Science Magazine1, a team of geophysicists found another way that the earth’s magnetosphere protects life on the surface.  When high-energy ions in the solar wind threaten to work their way through cracks in the magnetosphere, earth sends up a “plasma plume” to block them. The automatic mechanism is described on New Scientist2 as a “plasma shield” that battles solar storms. 
2. Joel Borofsky from Space Science Institute says, “Earth doesn’t just sit there and take whatever the solar wind gives it, it can actually fight back.”
3. Earth’s magnetic shield can develop “cracks” when the sun’s magnetic field links up with it in a process called “reconnection.”  Between the field lines, high-energy charged particles can flow during solar storms, leading to spectacular auroras, but also disrupting ground-based communications.  But Earth has an arsenal to defend itself.  Plasma created by solar UV is stored in a donut-shaped ring around the globe.  When cracks develop, the plasma cloud can send up “tendrils” of plasma to fight off the charged solar particles.  The tendrils create a buffer zone that weakens reconnection.
4. Previously only suspected in theory, the plasma shielding has now been observed. As decribes by Brian Walsh of NASA-Goddard in New Scientist:
“For the first time, we were able to monitor the entire cycle of this plasma stretching from the atmosphere to the boundary between Earth’s magnetic field and the sun’s. It gets to that boundary and helps protect us, keeps these solar storms from slamming into us.”
5. According to Borofsky this observation is made possible by looking at the magnetosphere from a “systems science” approach.  Geophysicists can now see the whole cycle as a “negative feedback loop” – “that is, the stronger the driving, the more rapidly plasma is fed into the reconnection site,” he explains.  “…it is a system-wide phenomenon involving the ionosphere, the near-Earth magnetosphere, the sunward boundary of the magnetosphere, and the solar wind; and it involves diverse physical processes such as ionospheric outflows, magnetospheric transport, and magnetic-field-line reconnection.”
6. The result of all these complex interactions is another level of protection for life on Earth that automatically adjusts for the fury of the battle:
“The plasmasphere effect is indicative of a new level of sophistication in the understanding of how the magnetospheric system operates. The effect can be particularly important for reducing solar-wind/magnetosphere coupling during geomagnetic storms. Instead of unchallenged solar-wind control of the rate of solar-wind/magnetosphere coupling, we see that the magnetosphere, with the help of the ionosphere, fights back.”
7. Because of this mechanism, even the most severe coronal mass ejections (CME) do not cause serious harm to the organisms on the surface of the Earth.
8. The necessary timings when this system should be activated and the whole complex, very important protection system of plasma shield, battling the solar storms is an evidence of intelligent design, for the purpose of maintaining the life of the living entities on the earth planet.
9. This intelligent designer, the creator of such a great system, all men call God.
10. God exists.

References:
1. Science 7 March 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6175 pp. 1122-1125, DOI: 10.1126/science.1247212, Report: Simultaneous Ground- and Space-Based Observations of the Plasmaspheric Plume and Reconnection: B. M. Walsh, J. C. Foster, P. J. Erickson, D. G. Sibeck.
2. Newscientist: Earth raises a plasma shield to battle solar storms, 06 March 2014 by Lisa Grossman.

87.The argument of too early galactic clusters

1. A second area in astrophysics that can be construed as a cloud on the horizon is that recent observations in the years 2002-2003 tell astronomers that when the universe was less than 3 billion years old, there were already galactic clusters. Not only were there galaxies but astronomers have discovered, a modest galactic cluster (it has something like 30 some-odd galaxies in it) that goes back to less than 3 billion years after the big bang.  That’s much too much structure to have after only two and a half or 2.7 billion years of expansion. So that is another problem that astrophysics needs to solve. It’s not a small problem, either, because the extent of the structure that we can discover in the universe has implications for whether big bang and inflation are really capable of providing a model of the universe. (Dr. Steven L. Goldman of Lehigh University, 03/12/2003. )
2. Spitzer Clusters:  JPL issued a press release stating that the Spitzer Space Telescope, on a “cosmic safari,” found evidence for clusters of galaxies 9 billion years old.  In the standard dating scheme, this was when the universe was a “mere” 4.5 billion years old.[1]
3. Swift GRBs:  Astronomers reported in Nature2 the discovery, by the Swift satellite, of the earliest gamma-ray burst ever found.  The burst “happened 12.8 billion years ago, corresponding to a time when the Universe was just 890 million years old, close to the reionization era,” they said.  “This means that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes”.
4. Ubiquitous Galaxies:  A press release from the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics announced “Ubiquitous galaxies discovered in the Early Universe.”  Observations in far-ultraviolet and near-infrared found galaxies at redshift z=6.7, assumed to be within 5% of the birth of the universe.  Most of them were spirals, not irregulars as theory had predicted.
5. Too early formation of galactic clusters indicate rather the work of an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling, willing and planning than just a mere spontaneous creation by chance or accident. That person all men call God.
6. God exists.

References:
1. Dr. Peter Eisenhardt et al of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
2. Cusumano et al., “Gamma-ray bursts: Huge explosion in the early Universe,” Nature 440, 164 (9 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/440164a.


1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1555-photosynthesis#2338
2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1690-living-fossils#2649
3) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1756-the-non-evolution-of-the-angiosperms#2851
4) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1275-the-cambrian-explosion#1763
5) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1415-finetuning-of-the-earth
6) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1408-the-earth-s-magnetic-field#2016



Last edited by Admin on Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:43 am; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:46 am

Admin


Admin
88.The argument of rogue planets
1. Stories about rogue planets colliding into Earth planet causing a doomsday are not confirmed to exist by astronomy. Powerful telescopes did not find any great planet the size of Mars or greater within 11.27 billion km of Earth and any planet the size of Jupiter or greater within 160.9 billion km.[1]
2. Some astronomers, taking into the account the fossil records, have speculated that a very distant planet could have been the cause of the mass extinction events of the species that regularly occurred in the intervals throughout a 27-million-year period.[2]
3. Astronomer Kevin Luhman analyzed the database from the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer satellite to search for possible thermal emission signals from gas giant planets and brown dwarfs that may be lurking in the outer limits of the solar system.[3] (Brown dwarfs are bodies ranging in size from 12–75 Jupiter masses.)
4. Luhman determined that no planet the size of Saturn or greater exists within 4.184 trillion kilometers (0.44 light-years) of the Sun and no planet the size of Jupiter or greater exists within 12.23 trillion km (1.30 light-years).4 Such a stringent limit on distant solar system bodies effectively rules out the possibility that a distant planet could be responsible for the mass extinction events noted in the fossil record.
5. This suggests that, over the past several million years, advanced animals on Earth have been relatively undisturbed by events in the extreme outer realms of the solar system.
6. Our solar system’s lack of planets with high-eccentricity orbits, lack of wide orbit planets, and lack of any large body within a light-year of the Sun all suggests an intentional design, in order to make possible the existence of enduring life on Earth.
7. The great cosmic intelligence that designed our solar system belongs to a person who is in control of our universe. This is a description of God.
8. God exists.

References:
1. Lorenzo Iorio, “Constraints on Planet X/Nemesis from Solar System’s Inner Dynamics,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 400 (November 2009): 346–53.
2. Daniel P. Whitmire and Albert A. Jackson IV, “Are Periodic Mass Extinctions Driven by a Distant Solar Companion?” Nature 308 (April 19, 1984): 713–15; Marc Davis, Piet Hut, and Richard A. Muller, “Extinction of Species by Periodic Comet Showers,” Nature 308 (April 19, 1984): 715–17.
3. K. L. Luhman, “A Search for a Distant Companion to the Sun with the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer,” Astrophysical Journal 781 (January 20, 2014): id. 4.

89.The argument of the fine-tuning of the Universe Constants of the Big Bang, the Universe, the fundamental forces, the solar system, and the earth
1
1. Parameter                                                Ratio             
Ratio of Electrons: Protons                         1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity        1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe                        1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1                         1:10^59
Cosmological Constant                               1:10^120
2. These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter or be unsuitable for any form of life.
3. One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. (Dr. Hugh Ross)
4. “If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust the second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity." Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 269
5. The 90 (registered) constants prove an intelligent designer. Without such finely tuned constants, the universe would not exist.
6. This Supreme Designer of these constants and of the universe must be God, the most intelligent person.
7. God exists.

The argument of mathematical precision
1. Einstein once wondered: "How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?" And similarly his book 'The Mysterious Universe,' the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos: "A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician."
Laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in Nature. For example,

a. Pauli’s exclusion principle describes the identity of electrons.
b. Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries.
c. Lorentz transformations correspond to the rotational symmetry of space-time.
2. Every planet in the universe, large and small, is the critically important part of a larger order. Not one of their positions in space or any of their movements is random eg to keep everything circling at particular distances.
3. The distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth, eg the tides flowing, the growth of the flora.
If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space. If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents.
4. There are 93 constants in the fine-tuning of the Universe, Martin Rees discusses six dimensionless constants.[1]
5. N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to Rees, if it were smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[1]
5b. Epsilon, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, the only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[1]
5c. Omega, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[1]
5d. Lambda is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. Lambda is around 0.7. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If it were extremely large, stars would not be able to form. [1]
5e. Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 1/100,000. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees. [1]
5f. D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is three. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were two or four. [1]
6. a. Thus, scientific discoveries of innumerable patterns and many inter-related complexities of the universe cannot be explained as an appearance after mere accidents just as your computer hasn’t appeared by accident. Mathematical and rational symmetries are wonderful designs indicate a designer.
That wonderful designer that designed symmetries in the whole universe can be only God.
6. b. The universe can’t have come into existence without an all-powerful, super-knowledgeable great person the dictionary meaning of the term God.
7. God exists.

Reference: 
1. Lemley Brad. "Why is There Life?" Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.

90.Argument from the formation of the sun in a cluster
1. Scientists determined that the Sun formed in a cluster of stars containing at least one massive star that died in a supernova explosion.
2. The distance to that supernova must have been close enough to enrich the solar nebula adequately, but not so close that it would have destroyed the disk from which the planets formed.
3. Such fine-tuning indicates design of the solar system that could have been done only by The Supreme Engineer, God.
4. God necessarily exists.

91.The Argument of the Evidence for the fine-tuning of the solar system for the development of a life-supporting Earth (from Hugh Ross) 2
1. Galaxy type
    If too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.
    If too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.
    If too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.
    If too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation.
Supernovae eruptions
    If too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
    If too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
    If too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.
    If too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
    If too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.
    If too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
White dwarf binaries
    If too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed.
    If too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated.
    If too soon: not enough heavy elements would he made for efficient fluorine production.
    If too late: fluorine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet.
Parent star distance from center of galaxy
    If farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.
    If closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits.
Number of stars in the planetary system
    If more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits.
    If less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.
Parent star birth date
    If more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; the stellar system would contain too many heavy elements.
    If less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements.
Parent star age
    If older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
    If younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly.
Parent star mass
    If greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly.
    If less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet's rotational period; UV radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
Parent star color
    If redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
    If bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
Parent star luminosity relative to speciation
    If increases too soon: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
    If increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop.
Surface gravity (escape velocity) of the planet
    If stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
    If weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.
Distance from parent star
    If farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle.
    If closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.
Inclination of orbit
    If too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme.
Orbital eccentricity
    If too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.
Axial tilt
    If greater: surface temperature differences would be too great.
    If less: surface temperature differences would be too great.
Rotation period
    If longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
    If shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
Rate of change in rotation period
    If longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
    If shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
Age of the planet
    If too young: planet would rotate too rapidly.
    If too old: planet would rotate too slowly.
Magnetic field
    If stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
    If weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.
Thickness of crust
    If thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
    If thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.
Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
    If greater: runaway glaciation would develop.
    If less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
Asteroidal and cometary collision rate
    If greater: too many species would become extinct.
    If less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
    If larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
    If smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.
Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere
    If greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
    If less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.
Water vapor level in atmosphere
    If greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
    If less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.
Atmospheric electric discharge rate
    If greater: too much fire destruction would occur.
    If less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere.
Ozone level in atmosphere
    If greater: surface temperatures would be too low.
    If less: surface temperatures would be too high; too much UV radiation would be at the surface.
Oxygen quantity in atmosphere
    If greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily.
    If less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe.
Seismic activity
    If greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
    If less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics.
Oceans-to-continents ratio
    If greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
    If smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
Global distribution of continents (for Earth)
    If too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences too severe for advanced life.
Soil mineralization
    If too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
    If too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.
Gravitational interaction with a moon
    If greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.
    If less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak.
Jupiter distance
    If greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
    If less: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
Jupiter mass
    If greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable.
    If less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.
2. Despite these "fine-tunings", which are evidence for a fine-tuner, is it still possible that the universe occurred by chance?
 It is estimated that the probability that all of the necessary parameters would occur by coincidence, allowing the universe to appear by accident, is one chance in 1010e30. (Roger Penrose in Heeren, Show Me God)
This chance theory still needs a first mover who (randomly) pushes the processes and the atoms. Thus God exists.
Thus, the chance is also dependent on God. But then, Einstein said: “God does not gamble” He could as well with one good throw of the dices (or subatomic particles) do it all. Thus save a lot of time, and in that time make love with His Goddess.
3. God the ultimate intelligent fine-tuner exists.

The argument of the anthropic principle
1. Here are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the universe uninhabitable by human beings. (Henry Schaefer)
Average distance between stars (1 part in 101)
If larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form.
If smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized.
Decay rate of 8Be (4 parts in 102)
If slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars.
If faster: no element production beyond beryllium, hence no life chemistry possible.
Strong nuclear force constant (2 parts in 102)
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable.
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen.
Entropy level of the universe (1 part in 108)
If larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies.
If smaller: no proto-galaxy formation.
Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons (1 part in 1010)
If greater: too much radiation for planets to form.
If smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form.
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio (1 part in 1015)
If larger: insufficient oxygen.
If smaller: insufficient carbon.
Decay rate of the proton (1 part in 1032)
If greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation.
If smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life.
Gravitational force constant (1 part in 1040)
If larger: stars too hot; they would burn up quickly and unevenly.
If smaller: stars too cool; nuclear fusion would not ignite; no heavy element production.
Expansion rate of the universe (1 part in 1055)
If larger: no galaxy formation.
If smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation.
Weak nuclear force constant 
If larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars.
If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars.
Electromagnetic force constant
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fusion.
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding.
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
If larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning.
If smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses. hence no heavy element production.
Ratio of electron to proton mass
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding.
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding.
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
If larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star and planet formation.
If smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation.
Mass density of the universe
If larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly.
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming.
Velocity of light
If larger: stars would be too luminous.
If smaller: stars would not be luminous enough.
Age of the universe
If older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy.
If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.
Initial uniformity of radiation
If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed.
If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space.
Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
If larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses.
If smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses.
Average distance between galaxies
If larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span.
If smaller: the sun's orbit would be too radically disturbed.
Galaxy cluster type
If too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit.
If too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time.
Ground state energy level for 4He
If larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen.
If smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen.
Mass excess of the neutron over the proton
If greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life.
If smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes.
Polarity of the water molecule
If greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist.
If smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up.
Supernovae eruptions
If too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet.
If too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
If too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
If too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.
If too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
If too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.
White dwarf binaries
If too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed.
If too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated.
If too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production.
If too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet.
Ratio of the mass of exotic matter (dark matter) to ordinary matter.
If smaller: galaxies would not form.
If larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars can form.
2. All these fine-tunings prove the greatest Fine-Tuner, God.
3. God exists.

92.The argument of Hawking that universe created itself
3
1. Stephen Hawking, leading cosmologist and recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, has co-authored a book, The Grand Design. In it, he claims that the universe did not need God to create it.
2. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."[1]
3. a. This is science, saying:” Things happen”? Science means studying the causes and purposes to come to the perfect knowledge and perfect existence or well-being, living in harmony with the laws of the Complete whole.

b. Perhaps Hawking thinks that gravity has an equal amount of "negative" energy to perfectly balance all other "positive" energies.[2]
4. But even if "gravity" did provide such balance, it could hardly suffice as an adequate cause for the whole universe; can gravity only have been the cause of the subatomic particles moving into the structures of the cosmos?
5. Moreover, pointing out qualities of already-existing energies is not an explanation for their origin and ability to operate as such and the perfecting of life.
6. Hawking may have relied on the common cosmological concept that gravity supposedly can pull matter together from fine dust into nuggets, clumps, large conglomerates, nebulae, planetesimals, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and super-clusters. Physics, however, shows that gravity alone cannot do this.
7. The universe is characterized by vast extraordinary information. The three-dimensional placements of heavenly bodies in space, the life-enabling parameters such as the speed of light and electromagnetic strength are some examples of fine-tuned information.
8. Gravity and energy do not address the question of information and so these two alone form insufficient grounds to reject a supernatural origin for the universe.
9. A basic argument for the existence of God is that since something exists (e.g. the universe), and since something cannot make itself, then there must be a transcendental, first cause, a cause outside that thing, namely God.
10a. Hawking says the universe was just the result of "spontaneous creation," but such reasoning makes no sense. Spontaneous creation means magic and this need a magician. This is our practical experience. The juggling of the subatomic balls and macroscopic planet balls of the universe is performed by a Juggler. Therefore, Sir Isaac Newton formed a reasonable and accurate assessment of the universe's origins: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
10b. To answer Hawking’s question as to what is the cause of God; He is eternal, just as Hawking’s laws are eternal principles.
11. God exists.


References
1. Roberts, L. Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe. Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk September 2, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
2. Gribbin, J. Are we living in a designer universe? Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
Footnotes:
1. Homework for Sir Hawking: Here is a big box of Lego. Take it home and build a universe. Dismantle it. Put all the pieces in a big bag, shake it and throw the content out on the floor. Don't worry about the laws of the universe; they will also be in the big bag, since they are all-pervading. Repeat this process as often as you like. You’ll never get your universe back. Rewrite your book.
2. In Hawking’s hometown, do the “laws” of the town organize it or is it the town bureaucracy or “town people”?



93.The proof from Sir Isaac Newton’s planetarium 4
1. Sir Isaac Newton had made in his house a small replica of the universe with all the planets floating with levers and on threads. His atheist assistant came one day and he said, "Oh, who has made this wonderful replica of the universe?" Sir Isaac Newton, who was sitting there reading said, "Oh, no one." The assistant said, "What do you mean no one?" Sir Isaac Newton didn't look up. He just said, "No one made it." And he kept reading and the assistant, the atheist became very perturbed. He kept saying, "What do you mean? Obviously, somebody made it. He must have great intelligence, and I'd like to know the genius who created this." Sir Isaac Newton put down his book and said, "My friend, this is but a small imperfect replica of the universe, and you're the one who is always declaring that no one has created the universe. And now you're declaring to me that somebody must have created that. I'm saying it just happened, but you don't believe me. So how can I accept your logic when you say that this entire universe just happened?"
2. God, the creator of the universe exists.




1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe#1769
2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1416-fine-tuning-of-the-solar-system#2042
3) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1897-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-extract-from-god-s-undertaker-has-science-buried-god-by-john-lennox#3169
4) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1939-isaac-newton



Last edited by Admin on Tue May 09, 2017 5:50 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

7 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:50 am

Admin


Admin
Big Bang arguments

94.The proof of the failure of the Big Bang theory 1
1. There are many problems with the Big Bang theory as explanation for the moons, stars, and planets.
2. That such a large structure could form so quickly after the Big Bang calls into question some of the traditional theories of how the universe evolved, Williger said, since it is difficult to explain how gravity could pull together such an immense cluster in a relatively short time . . . . “A successful theory has to explain the extremes,” said Williger. (Discovery News Online, Gerard Williger of NOAO,  01/09/2001)
3. Using the Hubble Space Telescope astronomers detected a new galaxy bright with stars almost as old as the big bang.  In the Science Daily magazine this galaxy, with redshift 7.6, was called the “strong contender for the galaxy distance record.”
    According to theory, stars did not form till the end of the “dark ages” about 400,000 years after the big bang.  Young galaxies emerging from the fog of particles might have had enough energy to evaporate the fog and bring the first stars to light, the article says.  Still, to see a galaxy so soon after the dark ages was unexpected.  An astronomer from UC Santa Cruz said, “We certainly were surprised to find such a bright young galaxy 13 billion years in the past.”  The current age estimate for the whole universe is 13.7 billion years. (Feb. 13, 2008 — The NASA/ESA)
4. In the June 2001 issue of Astronomy Magazine, astrophysicist Mark Sincell lists “The Eight Greatest Mysteries of Cosmology:”
a. How multidimensional is the universe?  (We don’t understand gravity.)
b. How did the universe begin?  (How did an explosion produce such smoothness?)
c. Why does matter fill the universe?  (There should be an equal part of antimatter[1].)
d. How did galaxies form?  (“The details are devilishly difficult to understand.”)
e. What is cold dark matter3?  (What is the other 95% of stuff that must be out there?)
f. Are all the baryons[2] assembled in galaxies?  (Astronomers have only found a tiny fraction of what they expect.)
g. What is the dark energy?  “Physicists have tried to calculate the observed dark-energy density from accepted theories of physics, but their results don’t jibe with reality.  So far, the computed value is roughly 10^60 times greater than the observed value.  (Others say the number could be off by a factor of up to 10^130, but let’s not quibble over the details.)”
h. What is the destiny of the universe?
Some answers are known but mostly cosmologists really don’t know very much at all. 
a. For instance, inflation is still the rage, but the author says: “What drove inflation?  Nobody knows.  Physicists have suggested different models to describe the inflating universe, but all the solutions are mathematical conveniences with no particular physical basis.” 
b. Regarding dark energy, “The biggest problem with this idea is that no one has any idea what dark energy is.  ‘So far, all we’ve been able to do is name it,’ says [Michael] Turner.  ‘It could be the energy associated with nothing [sic!], or the influence of hidden spatial dimensions.’”
5. The only sound and logical theory of cosmic creation, a cosmos that works perfectly like a huge Swiss watch, is intelligent design. When there is intelligent design there must have been an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling and willing. That person all men call God. He did it by emanating the atoms, somewhat similar to a Big Bang or Outflow, and controlling these atoms into their specific places in the cosmos.
6. Just as an engineer is rather at home or on holiday then in his office, similarly God transcendent is at home in heaven and God immanent is on duty creating or evolving the cosmic prison house or the material world for us, spirit souls.
7. God exists.

NOTE:
1. Antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge.
2. A baryon is a composite subatomic particle made up of three quarks (as distinct from mesons, which comprise one quark and one antiquark).
3. Cold dark matter (or CDM) is a hypothetical form of matter that interacts very weakly with electromagnetic radiation (dark) and most of whose particles move slowly compared to the speed of light (cold). It is believed that approximately 80% of matter in the Universe is dark matter, with only a small fraction being the ordinary "baryonic" matter that composes stars and planets.

95.The argument of the problems of the Big Bang theory
1 a. In the beginning there was nothing. Then out of nothing appeared matter. “Nothing” in the Big Bang theory does not refer to an absolute nothingness. As seen in the Casimir effect, the so-called empty space is filled to the brim with energy. ”Nothing” means nothing to activate it. Or, “Nothing” means nothing of our material experience.
1b. Problem - The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy says, matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted from one state to another. But there was no known converter. God has nothing material in Him.
1c. This law is in agreement with the description of the Vedas on the creation of the universe, namely the transformation of more subtle material elements (unknown to gross material instruments, and also ultimately moved by God) to gross elements.
1d. Thus, no transformation of matter can take place without an non-gross-material cause.
2a. Nothing decided to pack itself into a tiny dense dot.
2b. Problem - What was the mechanism that packed nothing into a dense dot? Gravity only works on matter. And gravity came later, after the Bang, into existence. Also, when we talk about nothingness, we can't talk about density, for total volume is opposite of total density.
2c. Solution - let's guess that gravity formed in that first split of a second perfectly, to pull it all together.
2d. Problem - the unanswered question then is: “what caused the gravity? Gravity is an energy or function and its existence implies the existence of its source or controller, the energetic. That energetic also has to be conscious of the purpose for what to use the energy of gravity.
2e. Solution – let’s assume it was a random quantum fluctuation that caused gravity.
3a. Problem – The Big Bang is a prediction from the general theory of relativity but it does not take quantum mechanics into consideration. Modern physics has no quantum gravity theory, which is needed to describe the tiny dense dot.
3b. Solution – let's assume physicists will solve the quantum gravity theory sometime in the future.
4a. The tiny dot exploded.
4b. Problem - there could only be two types of explosions, chemical and nuclear. This explosion could not have been chemical, since there were no chemicals yet. It couldn't have been nuclear either, since there were no atoms yet.
4c. Solution - let's assume the dot was able to explode.
5a. Matter expanded rapidly.
5b. Problem - what mechanism would expand it? If gravity formed perfectly in step 2 to condense vacuum, that same gravity would prevent the dot from expanding.
5c. Solution - let's assume there was some sort of a mechanism to send that matter flying outward.
6a. Intense heat caused by the explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons.
6b. Problem - there could be no heat without an energy source.
6c. Solution - let's assume there was some mysterious source of heat.
7a. The explosion followed extremely precise mathematical formulas.
7b. Problem - Explosions follow no formulas, they can only follow chaos. For example, if the universe expanded only 0.1% faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3000 times greater, and not made our solar system. Had the universe expanded only 0.1% slower, the universe would have only expanded to 3,000,000th of its present radius, and then collapsed.
c. Solution - let's assume somehow it happened rightly.
8. Gas clouds begin to condense to form stars.
9a. The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium, other elements were produced from those two.
9b. Problem - there's a "gap at mass 5 and mass 8 problem". There are no stable atoms of mass 5 or mass 8. Neither proton, nor neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Hydrogen bomb explosions can only produce hydrogen 2, which in turn forms helium 4. Because of that gap at mass 5, the chain reaction cannot continue. The same gap is repeated at mass 8.
9c. Solution - let's assume the other elements did get produced.
10a. First generation stars, composed of hydrogen and helium, explode to produce stars with heavier elements.
10b. Problem - no first generation stars have been found. Plus, even over 15 billion years, there would be not enough time to produce all the stars we have today.  Supernova explosions that should have produced new heavier stars occur only once or twice in a century. There are trillions of stars in the universe, which are second and third generation stars (exploded one or two times). They would need trillions of centuries to form. Couldn't they have exploded at a faster rate before? Not according to what we observe. Stars at the outer edges of the universe are, theoretically, snapshots of the beginning of time, and yet, we don't see more explosions when looking at the outer edges of the universe.
10c. Solution - let's assume heavier stars did form somehow.
11a. Intricate structures of solar systems, galaxies, clusters, and super-clusters, are formed.
11b. Problem - How could all the forces in the universe get fine-tuned by themselves to create a universe that works like clock-work?
11c. Solution - let's imagine this still happened.
12. The Big Bang theory is not a bonafide scientific theory. The universe is intelligently designed.
14. God, the Big Mind and Intelligence behind the creation of the universe, is the only plausible explanation.
15. God exists.

96.The arguments of Big Bang theory
A:
1. By the early 1980s these problems threatened the foundations of modern cosmology. 
2a. The horizon problem stated that it was highly improbable to get a uniform universe during an expansion when different sectors had no way to be in thermal equilibrium. 
2b. The inflation theory rescued the big bang: it smoothed out those temperature differences by expanding them to astronomical scales. 
3a. The flatness problem stated that it was highly improbable to get a universe finely balanced (flat) between the extremes of positive and negative curvature. 
3b. The inflation theory diluted any initial curvature by spreading it out to hyper-astronomical dimensions, so that our local region (the “observable universe”) appears flat, like a bacterium on a large beach ball might think it is living on a flat surface. 
4a. The lumpiness problem stated that it is highly improbable to expect an explosion of a sea of particles to condense into stars and galaxies. 
4b. However, the inflation theory generated matter out of vacuum energy that leftover temperature fluctuations in the “comic microwave background” were able to condense into lumps – the seeds of the first galaxies. 
5. To accept the inflation theory to these problems one has to believe that something can come from nothing, and that the something would undergo a one-time, somehow expansion from the size a tennis ball to the size of the whole universe, 26 orders of magnitude, in about a trillion trillionth of a second. 
6. God created the universe. That uncreated mover all men call God.
7. God exists.
B:
1. The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. The text of the letter is as follows:
2. "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
3. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
4. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
5. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
5a. God Immanent did all the magic; adjusting, energizing and engineering while emanating all the multiverses out of His pores.
5b. God Transcendent is in heaven, regularly creating the material world, to function as a prison house for those who, like Adam and Eve, were and will become disobedient to God.
6. God exists, heaven exists.

97.The argument of the Flatness Problem

1. The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat.
2. If the universe were the accidental by-product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big-bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).
3. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point.
4. Balance however testifies for one who created a balance to fine-tune the universe for life. Such a great task could have been done only by God.
5. God exists. 

98.The argument of the “lumpiness problem”
1. Astronomers have found a mind-bogglingly large structure — so big it takes light 10 billion years to traverse — in a distant part of the universe.
The discovery poses a conundrum to a fundamental tenet of modern cosmology, which posits that matter should appear to be distributed uniformly if viewed at a large enough scale.[1]
NOTE: After accounting for potential survey biases -- such as NASA's Swift telescope and other gamma ray trackers looking more often in one part of the sky or another -- scientists found a region roughly 10 billion light-years away in the direction of the constellations Hercules and Corona Borealis that had a disproportionate number of gamma ray bursts.
2. The newly found structure is more than double the size of the previous record-holder, a cluster of 73 quasars referred to as the Huge-LQG, or Large Quasar Group, which spans 4 billion light-years. It is six times larger than the 1.4-billion-light year diameter Sloan Great Wall.
NOTE: Light travels at about 671 million miles per hour, or about 6 trillion miles per year.
3. This is the “lumpiness problem” of big bang cosmology: how do you get lumpy objects from a smooth beginning?  It was hard enough to explain relatively small lumps, like galaxies, or clusters of galaxies.  Now, such an immense structure compounds the lumpiness problem by many orders of magnitude.  The new structure is inferred from the distribution of gamma ray bursts.
4. Istvan Horvath of the National University of Public Service in Budapest, Hungary says: “For now I have ‘no idea’ how something that big could have evolved.”
5. Whether it evolved quickly or slowly the forces or energies for developing something that big must have been designed or created by the greatest brain that has thinking, feeling and willing. This is the description of God’s activity.
6. God exists.

Reference:
1. News: space.com/23754-universe-largest-structure-cosmic-conundrum.html

99.The argument of the “flatness problem”
1. There are a couple of problems with the standard Big Bang model. The first is called the flatness problem---why is the universe density so nearly at the critical density or put another way, why is the universe so flat? Currently, the universe is so well-balanced between the positively-curved closed universe and the negatively-curved open universe that astronomers have a hard time figuring out which model to choose. Of all the possibilities from very positively-curved (very high density) to very negatively-curved (very low density), the current nearly flat condition is definitely a special case. The balance would need to have been even finer nearer the time of the Big Bang because any deviation from perfect balance gets magnified over time. For example, if the universe density was slightly greater than the critical density a billion years after the Big Bang, the universe would have re-collapsed by now.
2. Consider the analogy of the difficulty of shooting an arrow at a small target from a distance away. If your angle of shooting is a little off, the arrow misses the target. The permitted range of deviation from the true direction gets narrower and narrower as you move farther and farther away from the target. The earlier in time the universe's curvature became fixed, the more finely tuned the density must have been to make the universe's current density be so near the critical density. If the curvature of the universe was just a few percent off from perfect flatness within a few seconds after the Big Bang, the universe would have either re-collapsed before fusion ever began or the universe would expanded so much that it would seem to be devoid of matter. It appears that the density/curvature was very finely tuned.
3. Perfect balance and fine tuning always happens under control and control is an ability of a person.
4. Only God could balance and fine tune the creation and maintenance of such a big body like the universe.
5. God exists.

100.The argument of the inflation theory

1. Alan Guth invented the inflationary big bang to explain away the flatness and horizon problems, which indeed suggest the universe is a "put up job."
2. In 1981 he claimed that the universe doubled in size a hundred times in a trillionth of a second, going from the size of a marble to “outta sight” in less than the blink of an eye namely at around 1000 times the speed of light in a process called inflation.
3. In fact Andrei Linde speculated Guth understated the inflation speed by a factor of 10^1,000,000.
4. Overbye has reported that, Guth and another MIT professor, Ed Fahri, found that, “If you could compress 25 pounds of matter into 10^-24 centimeters, making a mass 10^75 times the density of water…a bubble of false vacuum, or what Guth called a ‘child universe’ would be formed. From outside it would look like a black hole. From the inside it would look like an inflating universe.” (page 229, Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality by William C. Mitchell)
5. The original theory of the 80s agrees well with observations. However, the theory has been developed over time to take into account quantum effects and this more advanced version of the theory predicts that one is more likely to end up in regions of space which do not look like ours. So rather than explaining flat space and so on, it transpires that the theory predicts pretty much any kind of outcome and so doesn't explain the appearance of our region of space at all - unless it is argued that we happen to live in a region that inflated by just the right amount to give rise to flat space etc, but then you could argue that without inflation! 
6. Now it is well known that highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.
7. Thus, some of the inflation theory’s creators including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.
8. Even these few things are enough to see that the best explanation for the fine tuning and balance in the universe is intelligent design by the greatest designer all men call God.
9. God exists.

101.The argument of the instant galaxies

1. The z8_GND_5296 farthest and oldest galaxy yet (700 million years after the Big Bang in the material cosmological view, or redshift 7.51) was already fully mature, creating stars hundreds of times faster than the Milky Way does and is “richer in heavy elements” than expected – requiring multiple generations of stars to have formed, aged, and exploded.  This “exceptional” galaxy so near the beginning requires cosmologists to invent special conditions that are not acting or known today.
2. The BBC News echoed the discovery: “there are already quite surprisingly evolved galaxies in the very early Universe.”
3. Fully evolved galaxies in the very early universe exist because of creating powers which can belong only to a person who knows what laws are needed to create and maintain the complex clock like structures of galaxies. Such a great task can be done only by God.
4. God exists.

References:
1. Nature magazine: Light from farthest galaxy yet discovered breaks through cosmic fog, 23 October 2013
2. http://news.sciencemag.org, ScienceShot: The Universe's Farthest Galaxy … So Far, 23 October 2013

102.The argument of the early maturity of galaxies

1. A new Hubble survey “found that the assorted range of galaxy types seen today were also present about 11 billion years ago, meaning that the types of galaxies seen today, which astronomers described as a ‘cosmic zoo,’ have been around for at least 80 percent of the universe’s lifespan.”  The survey pushes back the early maturity of galaxies from 8 billion years to 11.5 billion.
“This is the only comprehensive study to date of the visual appearance of the large, massive galaxies that existed so far back in time,” co-author Arjen van der Wel of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany said in a statement. “The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the universe.” (September 13, 2013)
2. The sudden appearance of various groups of galaxies already in mature states is like the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record (The Cambrian period began 570 million years ago and the Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago over 2-3 million years or less. At the time of the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every animal phyla (=the major taxonomic group of animals and plants) on Earth (more than 70) suddenly appeared). 
3. This discovery falsifies the materialistic scientist’s cosmic evolution theory and proves intelligent design by a great designer who can create the complex structures of galaxies in an instant. This great designer can be only God.
4. God exists. 

103.The argument that the universe is not eternal
 2

(from a discussion between William Lane Craig and cosmologist Sean Carroll on the beginning of the universe and the Kalam Cosmological Argument)
1. Carroll pointed out that the Borde Guth Vilenkin (or BVG) theorem that the universe had a beginning only works within relativity but does not take quantum effects into account. Given a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity, he argued that Craig can not claim that the universe began to exist.
2. This is partly true. One thing known for certain about quantum gravity is something called the holographic principle. Precisely put, the holographic principle tells us that the entropy of a region of space (measured in terms of information) is directly proportional to a quarter or any amount (1/2 complete) of its surface area or any related measurement (radius, diameter). The volume of this region is then actually a hologram of this information on its surface.
3. Another thing that it tells us is that the entropy, or the amount of disorder present, always increases with time. In fact, not only is this law inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy or disorder, destruction i.o.w change, there is no way to discern forwards and backwards in time.
4. However, if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of space-time eventually vanishes to nothing at zero entropy, at the beginning of the creation. Thus Carroll’s argument is unsound.
5. The universe is not eternal but created.
6. By the way this also undermines claims made by atheists like Hawking and Krauss that the universe could have fluctuated into existence from nothing. Their argument rests on the assumption that there was a pre-existent zero-point field or ZPF. The only trouble is that the physics of a ZPF requires a space-time to exist in. No space-time means no zero-point field, and without a zero-point field, the universe can not spontaneously fluctuate into existence.
7. One other point of Carroll’s was his view that regardless of the physics discovered, the sort of supernatural explanation Craig gave could no longer be considered valid. Carroll, being a physicist, naturally believes that whatever the final answer is it will come in physical terms. After all it is not every day that scientists speak of God or supernatural agents. Instead they expect explanations to come in material terms with equations.
8. But Carroll may be ruling something out too quickly. A holographic universe entails a world made of information. And information requires a mind to know it. Information never just floats, information is of a mind, who knows it.
9. “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is a matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck
10. God exists.


104.The argument of the complexity of the Big Bang event
1. Before the Big Bang and very early in the expansion of the Big Bang's beginning, the physical, chemistry and gravitational laws guiding them were very clearly in play - precisely and comprehensively. Otherwise an ordinary bang or explosion always causes chaos. The question is where did they come from?
2. These laws guiding the universe can’t have created themselves.
3. Newtonian or classical physics, and all sciences derived from physics, rest squarely on the principle of locality, the idea that correlated events are related by a chain of causation. And so everything has a cause and no law invented itself.
4. The laws and the mechanisms of the Big Bang had to work comprehensively and in perfect timing and synchronization, otherwise we would not have the universe that eventually developed, or subsequently, an earth habitable for life.
5. Within 10 to the -37 seconds of the Big Bang's beginning expansion, there was a phase transition that caused exponential cosmic inflation or expansion.
6. Afterward, simple atomic nuclei formed within 3 minutes of the Big Bang's beginning.
7. All the necessary primary elements were produced; hydrogen with just the right amounts of helium and lithium, etc. All the critical primary elements came together via the laws of gravity. The question here again is from where and how this law of gravity popped up.
8. The Big Bang had to have just the right extreme temperatures, just the right size, rate and speed of expansion, just the right rate of cooling. Within 10 to the -6 seconds of the Big Bang beginning, protons and neutrons developed, etc.
9. All this is evidence of great precision amongst the required interactive mechanisms, processes, physics, chemistry, laws of motion, energy, etc. The many scientific laws that precisely guided/framed/controlled the many staggeringly complex processes, were already there at the very beginning.
10. If key components had occurred differently immediately even within minutes upon the expansion away from the Singularity the universe that resulted would have been impossible.
11. Thus the complexity of the Big Bang is evidence of a highly controlled event that could have been done only by God.
12. God exists.

105.The argument that Big Bang means Big Brain
1. How all of a sudden there can be an explosion, by chance? Before an explosion takes place, there must be some arrangement. The bomb is prepared by somebody. The bomb is kept by somebody. The bomb is brought and put by somebody. After some time it explodes, activated by somebody. But brainless people give noble prize to rascals speaking: “By chance suddenly there was an explosion.”
2. Explosion was there because God was there. There was somebody, some brain, and that brain is God’s. Explosion is the proof of the existence of God.
Because we can accept something that is going on – what is proven. Can you show us an explosion suddenly by chance?
Because you say “there was explosion” that means there is God.
3. Then where did God come from? That is God. God is eternal, always existing. Just like I am, you are, also eternally existing. We are changing body. We are not the body. We are spiritual atom. Matter or the smallest subatomic particles are also eternal. They also have no “coming from.”
4a. We have never seen a pile or group of particles independently acting or getting into motion.
  b. But persons moving things, balls, particles etc. that we can prove. We see this always within our experience.
5a. The particles in nature are moved, clustered, ordered, kneaded into planets, evolved or grown into plants, animals, humans etc. by super-humans called gods.
5b. Is there one all-pervading God, many gods in a hierarchy or are all equal?
The universes have as their reflection the human states or kingdoms, because this finite material world is the prison house part since the material body is the prison cell of the spirit soul.
Thus there is a hierarchy of gods and on the top is the best God. The best means the Supreme in opulences such as intelligence (The Big Brain behind the Big Bang), wealth, power, good personal qualities, beauty, wisdom, love.
6. God exists.

106.The argument of the universe as a big juggling exhibition
1 . The universe means the total or the whole of the 10^23 planets, stars, moons etc. , according to western science or cosmology, the result of the Big Bang. Beyond this there is maybe some more universes and unlimited darkness, space. According to the Vedic science of the East, beyond these 10^23 circling balls there are 8 round walls so the whole universe looks like a huge ball. The first wall is 10 times thicker than the diameter of the space within. The second wall is 10 times thicker than the first wall. The third wall is 10 times thicker than the 2nd etc. And there are even more than 10^23 planets because there are many subtle, invisible planets.
2. All the 10^23 flying balls are circling. This is put up and kept up by a Supreme Juggler as in our experience only a juggler has balls systematically circling in the air.
3. Thus God immanent exists. But He is also transcendental to all this turmoil and turning. Who likes to live in such a hubble-bubble?

Just as a juggler does his art or work in a circus or theater but his real life of pleasure and love is at home.
Nor does God like to live within this closed small, finite ball-like universe. He likes the freedom in the infinity of the spiritual paradise.
4. God immanent is an expansion of God transcendent. This God in the universe is duty-bound to Generate, Operate and Destroy (G-O-D) the prison-house of matter for the rebel of/in paradise/heaven.
5. God exists. Heaven exists.


107.The argument of the Big Bang ‘explosion’
1. Most people think of the big bang as an explosion in space; however scientists use the term to describe the beginning of space, time, matter and energy.
2. Four characteristics—a singular beginning, cosmic expansion, and constant laws of physics including the law of decay—define a big bang universe.
3. The similarity between the Vedic description of the universe, written thousands of years ago, and the current scientific understanding of the universe is evidence for supernatural inspiration of the bible.
4. That supernatural inspiration about the detailed knowledge of the universe could have come only from God.
5. God exists.

108.The argument of the Big Bang

1. The big bang is NOT a big “bang” as generally people understand the expression. This phrase reminds them of images of bomb blasts or exploding dynamite that yield disorder and destruction.

In  World  War  II,  there  were  many  big  bangs,  but  nothing positive  came  out  of  them.  They were all destructive. 
The atomic explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t create a television, radio or computer. 
Then  why  should  we  think that a  big  bang  created this  precisely  designed  and marvelously  varied  universe?
2. In truth, this “bang” represents an immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions.
3. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude.
4. The power to move dead matter and by that to create a well designed order so great like our universe can come only from God.
5. God exists.



109.The argument of the mind of all matter in the universe
1. “The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘the notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’”
2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe what is for atheists the unbelievable — that the Universe is mental.
3. According to Sir James Jeans an astronomer, mathematician and physicists of Princeton University: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
4. Matter cannot produce mind but rather a thoughtful mind can produce structures of matter. If we leave all the molecules or atoms of the brain on a pile under Mother Nature’s sky no brain or mind will ever be produced by thunderbolts, high pressures or typhoons. But a person with a mind can create e.g. a computer.
5. This means mind pre-existed to matter.
6. A mind is a property of a person and the mind of the universe can only be God’s.
7. God exists.


110.The argument of the supervision of order 4
1. We find in nature many laws like the law of gravitation, the laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Just as in any state, the government or the king makes different laws and supervises their subjects that the laws are carried out, so the laws of nature had to be generated and supervised by some intelligent being.
3. So, for everything that happens according to those laws there has to be a supervisor or controller.
4. Man can create small laws and control limited things in his domain, but nature’s grand laws had to be created by a big brain, an extraordinarily powerful person who can supervise that those laws are carried out.
5. Such an extraordinary, omnipotent person can be only God.
6. Hence, God exists.


111.The argument of the nature of established laws 4
1. Physical or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Law is defined in the following ways:
a. Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
b. Stable. They are unchanged since they were first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws).
c. Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
2. Some of the examples of scientific or nature’s laws are:
a. The law of relativity by Einstein.
b. The four laws of thermodynamics.
c. The laws of conservation of energy.
d. The uncertainty principle etc.
e. Biological laws
i. Life is based on cells.
ii. All life has genes.
iii. All life occurs through biochemistry.
iv. Mendelian inheritance.
f. Conservation Laws.
i. Noether's theorem.
ii. Conservation of mass.
iii. Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum.
iv. Conservation of charge .
3. Einstein said that the laws already exist, man just discovers them.
4. Only an omnipotent, absolute eternal person can give absolute, stable and omnipotent laws for the whole universe.
5. That person all men call God.
6. Hence God exists.

Arguments from Quantum mechanics

112.The argument of quantum mechanics
1. According to some experiments in quantum mechanics it is now proven that there are forces by which information spreads through the universe instantaneously, much faster than the speed of light. This is called quantum non-locality.
2. We know that nothing happens without consciousness or direction.
3. That all-pervading consciousness that is instantly transmitting information belongs to a superhuman person.
4. This is the dictionary definition of the person called God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

113.Argument from quantum physics  
1. Sub-atomic particles seem to come into existence from nowhere. Nowhere means no designations, forms, names, qualities, activities; the quantum vacuum is not empty but has a super high energy density which is undetectable by the material senses and its measuring instruments. Or alternatively, this vacuum is another dimension then gross matter.
2. Either God is creating or manifesting the particles- the position of theism- or nothing is creating them- the position of atheism-. Creating means being brought from non-manifestation to manifestation.
3. It makes no sense to say that nothing is creating them. The particles also cannot come into existence by accident. nihil sine causa. ex nihilo nihil fit- from nothing, nothing comes. There is always causa causens – real cause, causa efficiens – mechanical cause and causa primaria- first cause. Every why has a therefore. There is no accident; we have called something chance for which we can't see a cause. No clock runs strikes or rings just like that. The course of nature is the art of God.
4. Therefore, God does exist.


114.The evidence of the conscious observer
1. How the concept of consciousness is something not material—nonphysical and non-chemical is proven by various experiments. In modern physics this is already a basic principle for the last fifty or sixty years, but not widely admitted or taught in the schools.
2. In modern physics or quantum mechanics the materialistic scientists realize that in order to describe physical processes you have to include the observer in the picture; you can't describe these things without accounting for the observer, and so they made an analysis. This was, for example, done by von Neumann, one of the modern physicists.
3. He analyzed the difference between the observer and the observed. For example, when a man looks through a microscope at some object, you can draw the line between the observer and the observed object.
4. Now, according to the physicist's idea, physically there are equations which describe all the molecules and forces of interaction on the observed side. And there's another kind of equation that goes in quantum mechanics, which corresponds to the observer's side, and this equation is completely different from the first equation.
5. So this indicates that the observer must be something different in nature from the observed.
6. The boundary between the observer and the observed can be moved and is kind of arbitrary. You can move the boundary back so now the observed becomes the eyeball and the microscope and the object, and the observer is still on the other side. And the basic idea is you can move this boundary back, step by step, and on one side you can put, at least in principle, more and more of the parts of the body into the observed system, but on the other side you still have the observer, and he continues to be described by an equation that can't be reduced to the force laws that are used to describe the observed.
7. So the conclusion is that the observer must be something nonphysical. He's not part of the physical body at all and that is basic in quantum mechanics.
8. There's also another line of evidence here. It's the inspiration. For example the mathematician Gauss who lived in the nineteenth century was solving various mathematical problems.
9. A very difficult mathematical problem, the person never solves by figuring it out consciously, step by step. What happens is that one tries very hard to figure out the solution for a long time, but nothing happens, and then all of a sudden the answer comes to him.
10. This is what many times happened to Gauss and he wrote down how, when and where. 
11. There are many examples of sudden inspiration of various people in the fields of mathematics, art, philosophy, science etc.
12. The intelligence from where a sudden inspiration comes is the form direction of the nonphysical, transcendental Supersoul or God who is the observer of our soul’s desires, and rewards these according to karma.
13. God exists.

115.The proof of consciousness that preceded material reality
1. Materialism stated that consciousness is an 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality.
2. However: “The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (The mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - Johns Hopkins University)
3. Thus consciousness preceded material reality and Quantum Mechanics (QM) reveals that consciousness has a special, even central, position1 within material reality.
4. The consciousness that preceded material reality is a property of a person all men call God.
5. God exists.

NOTE:
1. QM represents reality in terms of wave functions or probability functions. So how do we get from probability to actuality? That occurs by observation or conscious awareness, which shrinks probability down to a singular perception. All measurements or observations therefore depend on consciousness.

116.Arguments from history


The proof of the 3.8 Billion year-old photosynthesis
1. “What we concluded is that, by discounting hydrogen peroxide oxidation, anoxygenic photosynthetic micro-organisms are the most likely mechanism responsible for Earth’s oldest iron formations,” Ernesto Pecoits of the Université Paris Diderot and lead author on the study told astrobio.net.
2. Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III).
3. “In other words, they oxidize the iron,” explains Pecoits. “This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Billion year-ago).”
4. The abstract of the scientific research paper: "It is widely accepted that photosynthetic bacteria played a crucial role in Fe(II) oxidation and the precipitation of iron formations (IF) during the Late Archean–Early Paleoproterozoic (2.7–2.4 Ga). It is less clear whether microbes similarly caused the deposition of the oldest IF at ca. 3.8 Ga, which would imply photosynthesis having already evolved by that time. Abiological alternatives, such as the direct oxidation of dissolved Fe(II) by ultraviolet radiation may have occurred, but its importance has been discounted in environments where the injection of high concentrations of dissolved iron directly into the photic zone led to chemical precipitation reactions that overwhelmed photooxidation rates. However, an outstanding possibility remains with respect to photochemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere that might generate hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), a recognized strong oxidant for ferrous iron. Here, we modeled the amount of H2O2 that could be produced in an Eoarchean atmosphere using updated solar fluxes and plausible CO2, O2, and CH4 mixing ratios. Irrespective of the atmospheric simulations, the upper limit of H2O2 rainout was calculated to be pay-wall."
5. Atheistic science says the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 
Atheistic science teaches that it took 2 -2.5 billion years for the first life forms to come; the marine- or sea life.  Atheists say 4.5 billion because they see in the strata the marine fossils 2 billion years old, so they calculate it took 2- 2.5 billion years for these to come, so the earth is 4.5 billion. 

6. Atheistic science says that the Big Bangs in the quantum field started 10-15 billion years ago. From the Bang to gasses, condensing, etc to the earth planet is 5.5 billion years, by a gradual process.
7. Directly south of the Caucasus spring the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. This area is the country of origin of Abraham's family. This is where Adam and Eve lived after they lost paradise or the Garden of Eden. The mountain "Ararat" in the southern part of the Caucasus is the mountain where Noah's Ark released the surviving species.

8. This is the homeland of the Indo-European Caucasian (white) race.



Arguments from philosophy of science

117.The proof that there is no proof that God does not exist; there is no evidence, and experience that non-gods (chance, forces, energies, nature) control the events in the cosmos. It can only be done by divine persons.
1. No scientists has been able to show or prove by experiment or even by theory all the steps from beyond the Big Bang to the molecules, amino acids, proteins, microbes, plants, fishes, reptiles, mammals to the 7 billion humans as per the year 2015.
2. Even if some scientist could imitate some steps of the process in nature then it was he, the person, who in his laboratory did, what the gods are already doing in nature; he made it in his laboratory, proving that there is no chance or mechanistic evolution in nature.
3. In human society no events are done by chance, forces, energies or nature.
4. The cosmos is created, maintained and active because of Gods, unseen power. That is the only way it can be explained.
5. The hierarchy or system of divine managers of the cosmos ends with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in heaven as the hierarchy of managers of the prison house and state has at the top the king in his palace.
6. There is no logical problem or argument against God’s existence
7. God exists.

118.The argument of the supreme scientist
1. When we think calmly and carefully about this wonderful universe, we can see that everything is working under the control of a supreme brain. The arrangements in nature are perfectly ordered. Things would be at random without the careful planning of a scientific and engineering brain. It is a common understanding that there is a cause behind each action. A machine cannot run without an operator. Modern scientists are very proud of automation, but there is a scientific brain behind automation also. When we talk about “brain” and “operator,” these terms imply a person.
2. Examples of the wonderful creations of the Supreme Scientist, the Supreme Creator.
- The energy the sun emits in one second is greater than the whole amount of energy the human species has consumed throughout its entire history. Yet it is only one of the countless number of stars floating in the sky. This material universe is running like intricate, well-oiled clockwork according to great natural physical laws and principles. Scientists have gained great acclaim for making a few spaceships, whereas God effortlessly produces gigantic spaceships, such as planets and stars, which are perfectly equipped and maintained. Each year the seasons change quite periodically, producing symptoms unique to each season.
-The molecular framework for each definite color or aroma is wonderfully unique. A little change in position of a few atoms in the molecule, a little variation in the geometry of the molecule or a slight change in the size of the molecule can cause a color to change from orange to red, a mild, pleasing aroma to become repellent and pungent, and a flavor to change from sweet to bitter.
-Charcoal, graphite and diamonds are all derived from the same element, carbon, and yet the shining and transparent diamond is extremely hard, whereas graphite is soft, black and opaque. This is due to the difference in the crystalline forms of these molecules. In the crystal lattice of the diamond, each carbon atom is tetrahedrally surrounded by four other carbon atoms at a distance of 1.54 angstroms (one angstrom = 10<-8> cm.). In graphite, by contrast, the three bonds of each carbon atom are distorted so as to lie in the same plane, the fourth bond being directed perpendicularly to this plane to link with a carbon atom of the neighboring layer.
In this way we can cite innumerable examples of molecular networks so fantastically and delicately arranged that chemists cannot but wonder about the most expert hand and brain who is making all these wonderful artistic arrangements in His laboratory. *
-Professor R.B. Woodward of Harvard, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1965) and Professor A. Eschenmoser of Zurich took eleven years to synthesize the vitamin B12 molecule. Altogether, ninety-nine scientists from nineteen different countries were involved just to accomplish this one small task. Yet the God of the bible  is making all these complex molecules at will, in a moment.
3. The Supreme Scientist (Inventor and Creator), God exists.


119.The argument on the first cause
1. Atheists often argue that theists are trapped in an infinite regress.  They challenge, “If God made everything, who made God?” as if the only answer is a God-maker, who required a God-maker-maker, and so on.  But the argument clings just as much, if not more so, to the atheist.  Since nobody can think the universe came from absolutely nothing (i.e., no mass, no energy, no categories, no information, no concepts); since nothing or no-thing does not exist, everybody has to start with an eternal reality – an uncaused cause.  The question then becomes if the eternal reality is personal or impersonal.  But why then or how would an impersonal reality ever give rise to personality? We have no experience of such a happening; this has never ever happened. But personalities being productive of persons and impersonal or matter we see only and always. And how would a personal being be able to know it to be true, unless truth also presupposes personal cognition?  The personal uncaused cause is therefore a superior starting point.
2. A supreme person who is the uncaused cause of everything is a definition of God.
3. God exists.




1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1963-the-big-bang-theory-is-bogus#3288
2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1297-the-universe-most-probably-had-a-beginning#1799
3) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter#1967
4) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from#1879



Last edited by Admin on Tue May 09, 2017 8:50 pm; edited 3 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

8 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:39 pm

Admin


Admin
120.The argument of the magician of the hyper quantum mechanics
1. Lawrence M. Krauss is a theoretical physicist and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University.
2. In his latest book, he claims to have shown why the latest physics proves that God is not necessary to explain the universe’s existence and features.
3. Krauss claims to demonstrate how quantum gravity not only allows our universe and other universes to pop into existence out of nothing (that is, without the agency of a divine being), but that quantum gravity actually appears to require nothing.
4. In the flyleaf, the publisher writes that Krauss has provided an “antidote to outmoded philosophical and religious thinking,” and a “game-changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists.”
5. But has Krauss really proven that “God is dead”?
6. His fans may say so, but Krauss himself backs away slightly from such a bold claim. Rather, he admits that “one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature.” This deistic view “bears no logical connection to the personal deities of the world’s great religions.” In other words, God may not be dead, but, according to Krauss, he certainly is not personal or presently active.
7. One reason why God, if he exists, may not be personal is that the universe appears to add up to nothing.
8. Only in a flat geometry universe (like ours appears to be) does the total “Newtonian gravitational energy” of each cosmic object equal zero. This happens because the negative energy of gravitational attraction cancels out the positive energy of motion. Therefore, the net energy of the universe is zero and if that’s the case, then the universe is essentially nothing. Krauss implies that if the universe really adds up to nothing, why then must we feel compelled to invoke “Someone” (like God) to explain its cause?
9. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite established the spatial curvature of the universe, Ωk, to be between -0.0174 and +0.0051, where 0.0000 represents perfect flatness. Consequently, Krauss does have a strong case for the total Newtonian gravitational energy of the universe being zero or very close to zero. However, there is more to the universe than Newtonian gravitational energy.
10. Imagine someone throwing a shot put straight up in the air, at one point when the shot’s upward kinetic energy exactly equals the downward gravitational energy, although its motion energy is zero, we cannot say the shot put is nothing. It is still a sphere of metal that weighs sixteen pounds.
12. Similarly, though the total Newtonian gravitational energy of the universe is zero, the universe still contains a huge amount of heat left over from the cosmic creation event and enormous quantities of dark energy, exotic dark matter, ordinary dark matter, and visible galaxies, stars, planets, dust, and gas.
Energy movements may be neutralized but we see movements and the substance and its order need a cause. Thus Krauss’s theory is very limited.
13. Further, Krauss proposes that virtual particle production serves as an analogy for how the universe came to exist.
14. Virtual particle production is a natural outcome of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.
15. The quantum fluctuations in the universe’s space-time fabric generate particles, provided those particles revert to quantum space-time fluctuations before any human observer can detect their appearance. Since these particles cannot be detected directly, physicists refer to them as virtual particles. Krauss suggests that the entire universe may have popped into existence by the same means.
16. However, on this idea we have to make a note. For a system as massive as the observable universe, the time for it to arise from nothingness (the space-time fabric) and revert back to nothingness (the space-time fabric) must be less than 10-102 seconds (101 zeroes between the decimal point and 1). Arising, Generating Operating, reverting and Destroying can be only done by G-O-D (Generating-Operating-Destroying) or God doing this magic. The probability of a quantum outcome occurring increases in proportion to the passage of time. That is, the larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum outcome, like the production of a virtual particle, will take place. This principle implies that if the time interval is zero, the probability for any quantum event is zero.
17. The space-time theorems prove that time has a beginning coincident with the beginning of the universe. Thus, the time interval at the beginning of the universe is zero. This eliminates quantum mechanics as a possible candidate for being the natural generator of the universe.
18. Krauss proposes that—in addition to the observable quantum mechanics constrained to space and time—there is an unobserved hyper quantum mechanics that exists beyond our universe. The Vedas call this pradhana (part of the causal ocean) the original stock of matter. Here some dimension (or dimensions) of time, entirely distinct from cosmic time, would permit space-time bubbles, independent of the space or time dimensionality posited to exist beyond our universe, to pop into existence spontaneously. In the Veda this is done by time (kala) personified – Maha Vishnu.
19. However, if the hyper quantum mechanics is anything like the quantum mechanics we observe, then the space-time bubbles must also disappear spontaneously within extremely brief time episodes.
20. Krauss acknowledges that his appeal to some imagined hyper quantum mechanics to explain the origin of the universe leads to a time episode problem. He suggests that the problem might be solved if the universe experiences a very aggressive inflationary expansion event before the hyper quantum mechanics forced the newly generated space-time bubble (our universe) to disappear.
Only God can do this. Only an engineer expands. There is no proof of another agent.
21. Inflation, the integral part of big bang cosmology, refers to the brief but rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume.
22. For our universe, the inflation epoch lasted between 10-36 and 10-33 seconds. It occurred near the very beginning of the electroweak era, during which three forces of physics existed: gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electroweak force.
23. The electroweak force is actually a blending of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force. This blending occurs only when the universe is very young and, hence, very hot.
24. However, if the universe is too young, the electroweak force will blend with the strong nuclear force. When our universe was about 10-35 seconds old, the strong-electroweak force separated into the strong nuclear force and the electroweak force.
25. Accordingly, an inflation episode cannot begin in our universe until the universe is 10-35 seconds old. This albeit extremely brief time interval is 1067 times longer than the time duration for a universe like ours to appear and then disappear via the quantum pathway that produces virtual particles. This means it cannot/doesn’t exist anymore before it can start to expand. Thus the theory of Krauss disappears into nothingness.
26. Thus the space-time theorem establishes that in all viable inflationary big bang models the universe is subject to a beginning in finite time. The implication is that they thus require a causal Agent beyond space and time to explain their existence.
27. That causal agent can be only God.
28. God the Supreme Engineer and Magician exists.

121.The argument of the Ultimate Boeing 747
1. Richard Dawkins in his book God Delusion turns around the famous example of the ‘The Boeing 747’ first used by Fred Hoyle against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth.
2. This is the example: “It is improbable that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would ever assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner.”
3. Dawkins tries to say that just as the Boeing 747 is designed and has therefore a designer so also God who shows design had a designer. Briefly in syllogism:
        a. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.
        b. God shows evidence of design in himself.
        c. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself.
4a. Now, here is the argument of Dawkins how it actually works against himself; What is the cause of the Big Bang, the energy movements turning into order, the subatomic particles whirled into structures, the quantum wave function or quantum vacuum. If these have a cause, what is their cause.
4b. Aristotle already defeated this infinite regress. As a mouse cannot climb a hill of grains since there is no basis or support to take off from.
5. Thus the syllogism should be like this:
        a. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.
        b. The universe(s) show evidence of design.
        c. Infinite regressions are not possible because then no universes come into existence.
        d. The first cause was an Intelligent Designer.
Infinite regressions are paradoxical to reality, simply not true. Thus the whole argument of Dawkins falls flat because ‘infinite regressions’ are not possible. There would be no first cause and so nothing would happen ever without a first mover and controller, God.
6. God, the first cause of all causes, exists.


122.The Argument from Design
Or The Classical Teleological Argument
1. Whenever there are things that cohere only because of a purpose or function (for example, all the complicated parts of a watch that allow it to keep time), we know that they had a designer who de- signed them with the function in mind; they are too improbable to have arisen by random physical processes. (A hurricane blowing through a hardware store could not assemble a watch.)
2. Organs of living things, such as the eye and the heart, cohere only because they have a function (for example, the eye has a cornea, lens, retina, iris, eyelids, and so on, which are found in the same organ only because together they make it possible for the animal to see).
3. These organs must have a designer who designed them with their function in mind: just as a watch implies a watchmaker, an eye implies an eye-maker (from 1 and 2).
4a. These things have not had a human designer.
4b. Some may argue that proto forms replicated themselves but to replicate is to design. The first one to replicate needs an eternal designer– the soul or super-soul, god. Alternatively, there must be a first one to replicate– that is God. In other words, if there is a system which replicates that begs the question, because how that system came into being? Just by itself? In nowadays genetics it is very well known how complex is the replication system and even one small part taken away from a replication system will result in failure of the system. Only an intelligent being could create such a complex replication system and not dull matter without thinking, feeling, willing.
5. Therefore, these things must have had a non-human designer (from 3 and 4).
6. God is the non-human designer (from 5). God the creator of the primeval replications system exists.
7. God exists.


123.The Argument from the Paucity of Benign Mutations.
1. Evolution is powered by random mutations and natural selection.
2. Organisms are complex, improbable systems, and by the laws of probability any change is astronomically more likely to be for the worse than for the better.
3. The majority of mutations would be deadly for the organism (from 2).
4. The amount of time it would take for all the benign mutations needed for the assembly of an organ to appear by chance is preposterously (contrary to reason, absurd, outrageous) long (from 3).
5. In order for evolution to work, something outside of evolution had to bias the process of mutation, increasing the number of benign ones (from 4).
6. Something outside of the mechanism of biological change—the First to Mutate—must bias the process of mutations for evolution to work (from 5).
7. The only entity that is both powerful enough and purposeful enough to be the First to Mutate is God.
7a. Darwinists theorize that mutations can have small effects (tissue that is slightly more transparent, or cells that are slightly more sensitive to light), and mutations contributing to these effects can accumulate over time; that the necessary mutations do not have to have occurred one after another in a single line of descendants, but could have appeared independently in thousands of separate organisms, each mutating at random, and the necessary combinations could come together as the organisms met and exchanged genes; life on Earth has had a vast amount of time to accumulate the necessary mutations.
7b. We counter that you cannot show anything within your experience which has come about by chance. You cannot find anything by chance.
8. One can try to counter, “so many things in nature are by chance.”
8a. We answer “not yet, go to nature – you don’t understand Her powers.”
Just analyze all the human/animal/plant artefacts, and then we must conclude that this chance theory is simply foolish.
9. What about gambling? Somebody wins, somebody looses.
9a. We answer “that is not chance.”
You don’t know which forces give our muscles the exact power to loose or win as we don’t control our digestion, heart beat, immune system, brain processes.
But these are exactly controlled as are the processes in our computers, factories, medical machines, cars, heating systems, airplanes.
You don’t know therefore you say “chance” and want to cover your ignorance by this chance theory. You want to become very intelligent by chance.
10. Wherefrom the brain come? Materialistic scientists will say it has evolved.
10a. Then we answer: “you prepare a brain or keep something that by chance there will be a brain.”
Great scientists like Einstein, Newton, Chandra Bose had such great brains but who has created their brain.
Even that big man cannot create such brain. The big scientist, before dying, he should have considered, “now I will die soon. Let me create another brain and body like me and that will work.” That they cannot do.
So there must be a second man, a second brain who has created the brains.
Evolutionists say: “Nature is doing”, so nature means superior control. We say that nature is working under the superintendence of God. E.g. the sun, the moon, the seasonal changes are some of the parts and parcels of nature's working. So many things, nature is working very systematically. The summer season will appear exactly in the month of June and July. The fall begins in September every year. One can foretell that "Next September this will happen," because nature's routine is very fixed up. So this systematic work of nature, how it is possible if there is no supervision?
You have to accept there is superior administration. You may not know who is administrating, but you have to accept that there is some brain, that is the brain of God.
10b. A scientist may argue “In the test tube we have made some tissues, and the tissues are sustaining themselves and are living. So in due course, they’ll be able to create some functioning brain.”
10c. We answer “that proves that in nature a scientist created the brain and body.”
11. Another example defying chance: Cows are eating dry grass and giving you nice milk. There are no such vitamins in grass which produce milk when a human mother eats them. Rather she will die. So who made this arrangement?
12. Another example. One process of protein synthesis in science is called “The magic factor.”
12a. We comment. Magic is also chance. That must have been the God factor. And the scientists originating and steering the process of synthesis proofs that the proteins in nature are also synthesized by a scientist.
13. One more. There is a coconut tree, the hard nut and water. There must be pipe, pumping, the material in the right shape and water which nature and the master of nature arranged. You do something that water comes in the coconut up there or make such coconut root, tree and fruit.
14. The atheist argues “God to fill up the gaps”.
14a. No, we can proof that in human society nothing was done by chance. For a child there are gaps but an educated person knows that all dead matter is moved by human masters. A child may see a car driving.
and think “automatic”. Similarly, dead matter of nature is moved by the Master Scientist, God.
15. As the scientist of our human world invents and operates from his office but enjoys at home, so, God immanent created and controls the material energy but enjoys in heaven as God transcendent.
16. God and heaven exists.

124.The Argument of the Original Replicator 1
1. Evolution is the process by which an organism evolves from simpler ancestors.
2. Evolution by itself cannot explain how the original ancestor—the first living thing—came into existence (from 1).
3. The theory of natural selection can deal with this problem only by saying that the first living thing evolved out of non-living matter (from 2).
4. That original non-living matter (call it the Original Replicator) must be capable of:
(a) self-replication,
(b) generating a functioning mechanism out of surrounding matter to protect itself against falling apart, and
(c) surviving slight mutations to itself that will then result in slightly different replicators.
5. The Original Replicator is complex (from 4).
6. The Original Replicator is too complex to have arisen from purely physical processes (from 5 and The Classical Teleological Argument). For example, DNA, which currently carries the replicated design of organisms, cannot be the Original Replicator, because DNA molecules require a complex system of proteins to remain stable and to replicate, and could not have arisen from natural processes before complex life existed.
7. Natural selection cannot explain the complexity of the Original Replicator (from 3 and 6).
8. The Original Replicator must have been created rather than have evolved (from 7 and The Classical Teleological Argument). Biologists and chemists have a theory with many ‘maybe’ which not everyone accepts as conclusive saying that it is theoretically possible for a simple physical system to make exact copies of itself from surrounding materials. Since then they have identified a number of naturally occurring molecules and crystals that can replicate in ways that could lead to natural selection (in particular, that allow random variations to be preserved in the copies). Once a molecule replicates, the process of natural selection can start creating, and the replicator can accumulate matter and become more complex, eventually leading to precursors of the replication system used by living organisms today. 
9,"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself," Joyce and Orgel note, "that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template." Copying any given RNA in its vicinity will lead to an error catastrophe, as the population of RNAs will decay into a collection of random sequences. But to find another copy of itself, the self-replicating RNA would need (Joyce and Orgel calculate) a library of RNA that "far exceeds the mass of the earth."In the face of these difficulties, they advise, one must reject the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and polynucleotide phosphorylase!
10. Where you get the idea that from matter life is possible. Evolutionist: "In the future we will do it." But in the original condition you show something. Just like formerly they were flying balloons. So because they were flying, they could say that "in the future we shall fly a big city– a Boeing 747." And in the history we can see that that is not impossible, because in the beginning condition or initiative condition we see that big things can be flown. But here and now you cannot even prepare an ant. You have not been able to prepare even a small ant, germ. Show me. So why do you say, "In future I shall do it"?
11.  Anything that was created requires a Creator.
12.  God exists.

125.The Argument from the Hard Problem of Consciousness 2
1. The Hard Problem of Consciousness for materialists consists in the difficulty in explaining why it subjectively feels like something witnessing the functioning brain and body. (This is to be distinguished from the so-called Easy Problem of Consciousness, which is to explain why some brain processes are unconscious and others are conscious.) Just like you reader, suppose you are young man. You had a body of a child. You remember that you had a body of a child, but that body is no longer existing. But you remember; therefore you, the owner of the body, is existing. Otherwise how do you remember, "I had a body like this with this measurement? But that body is no longer existing, but you are remembering. So you are the owner and witness, transcendental to the body. Just like you have now for example a black coat. Say after two days you may put on another colored coat, but you remember that "I was putting on one black coat on that day." So you are existing; the coat is changed. Similarly, the soul is existing; the body is changed. Therefore it is natural to know that when you are an old man and will die, then I change this body, I get another body. A text from Bhagavad-Gita (2.13) says: “As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.” Because he has witnessed during the life in this body, many reincarnations literally changes of flesh, in science called turn-over times of ALL the parts of the body. He knows:”Many bodies have died, new bodies came, now this old body will go, I know already I am eternal,” so he has no fear.
2. Consciousness (in the Hard-Problem sense) is not a complex phenomenon built out of simpler ones; it consists of the irreducible substrate or basis of “raw feels, thoughts and desires” like seeing red, tasting salt, experiencing feelings, having thoughts.
3. Science explains complex phenomena by reducing them to simpler ones, and reducing them to still simpler ones, until the simplest ones are explained by the basic laws of physics.
4. The basic laws of physics describe the properties of the elementary constituents of matter and energy, like quarks and quanta, which are not conscious.
5. Science cannot derive to consciousness by reducing it to basic physical laws about the elementary constituents of matter and energy (from 2, 3, and 4). Science doesn’t have a theory of neuroscience that explains how consciousness emerges from patterns of neural activity
6. Material science will never solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness (from 3 and 5) because it is not an emergent of matter (see 1) since it is the eternal transcendental spectator of matter
7. The explanation for consciousness is that it is beyond physical laws (from 6).
8. Consciousness, lying outside physical laws, must itself be immaterial (from 7). Every measurable manifestation of consciousness, like our ability to describe what we feel, or let our feelings guide our behavior (the “Easy Problem” of consciousness), has been, or will be, explained in terms of neural activity (that is, every thought, feeling, and intention has a neural correlate). Only the existence of consciousness itself (the “Hard Problem”) remains mysterious, for materialists.
9. God is also immaterial. When you reader understand that "I, the proprietor of the body, I am different from this body," then you will understand God also, very easily. Because you are the proprietor of this body, and you are given the controlling power of the body by thinking, feeling, willing, by acting. You have your body. You are sitting. You can say, "Now I am going away." The body is under your control. You can do that. Similarly, when you understand this fully, then you'll understand that in this huge, gigantic body, material cosmic manifestation, there is also an immaterial proprietor and controller, easily. God is not different in quality than you. God means like you in huge, unlimited quantity. As you have got little intelligence—you can create a wonderful thing, Boeing 747 airplane flying in the air—so God has got unlimited brain. Millions and trillions of universes are floating or flying in the air. The process is the same. You are teeny. You are very much proud that "I am so advanced that I have manufactured the 747." Now compare with the intelligence of God? Such a huge lump of matter, the sun, is floating also there. That is the difference between you and God. You have got brain, He has got brain, but your the brain is very teeny, little, and His brain very big. That is difference between you and God. So if you understand yourself, sample of God, then you understand the Supreme God.
10a. Consciousness and God both consist of the same immaterial kind of being (from 8 and 9). Consciousness comes from a spark of the divine, the soul.
10b. God has not only the means to impart consciousness to us, but also the motive—namely, to allow us to enjoy a good life, and to make it possible for our choices to cause or prevent suffering in others, thereby allowing for morality and meaning.
11. God exists.

1) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#3090
2) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1370-consciousness-evidence-of-god#1946



Last edited by Admin on Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

9 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:52 pm

Admin


Admin
Evidence for God’s Existence


A “Just Right” Universe

There’s so much about the universe, and our world in particular, that we take for granted because it works so well. But Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross has cited twenty-six different characteristics about the universe that enable it to sustain life. And there are thirty-three characteristics about our galaxy, our solar system, and the planet Earth that are finely-tuned to allow life to exist.{1} I do well to make the meat, potatoes, vegetables, and bread all come out at the same time for dinner; we’re talking about fifty-nine different aspects all being kept in perfect balance so the universe hangs together and we can live in it!
Our Earth, for instance, is perfectly designed for life. It’s the “just right” size for the atmosphere we need. Its size and corresponding gravity hold a thin, but not too thin, layer of gases to protect us and allow us to breathe. When astronaut John Glenn returned to space, one of the things that struck him was how thin and fragile our atmosphere is (only 50 miles above the Earth). If our planet were smaller it couldn’t support an atmosphere, like on Mercury. If it were larger, like Jupiter, the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, which is poison for us.{2}Earth is the only planet we know of that contains an atmosphere that can support human, animal, and plant life.
The Earth is also placed at a “just right” distance from the sun and the other planets in our solar system. If we were closer to the sun, we’d burn up. If we were farther away, we’d freeze. Because Earth’s orbit is nearly circular, this slightly elliptical shape means that we enjoy a quite narrow range of temperatures, which is important to life. The speed of Earth’s rotation on its axis, completing one turn every 24 hours, means that the sun warms the planet evenly. Compare our world to the moon, where there are incredible temperature variations because it lacks sufficient atmosphere or water to retain or deflect the sun’s energy.
Speaking of the moon, its important that there is only one moon, not two or three or none, and it’s the “just right” size and distance from us. The moon’s gravity impacts the movement of ocean currents, keeping the water from becoming stagnant.{3}
Water itself is an important part of a “just right” world. Plants, animals and human beings are mostly made of water, and we need it to live. One of the things that makes Earth unique is the abundance of water in a liquid state.
Water has surface tension. This means that water can move upward, against gravity, to bring liquid nutrients to the tops of the tallest plants.
Everything else in the world freezes from the bottom up, but water freezes from the top down. Everything else contracts when it freezes, but water expands. This means that in winter, ponds and rivers and lakes can freeze at the surface, but allow fish and other marine creatures to live down below.
The fact that we live on a “just right” planet in a “just right” universe is evidence that it all was created by a loving God.


The Nagging Itch of “Ought”

As a mother, I was convinced of the existence of a moral God when my children, without being taught, would complain that something wasn’t “fair.” Fair? Who taught them about fair? Why is it that no one ever has to teach children about fairness, but all parents hear the universal wail of “That’s not fa-a-a-a-a-air!” The concept of fairness is about an internal awareness that there’s a certain way that things ought to be. It’s not limited to three-year-olds who are unhappy that their older siblings get to stay up later. We see the same thing on “Save the Whales” bumper stickers. Why should we save the whales? Because we ought to take care of the world. Why should we take care of the world? Because we just should, that’s why. It’s the right thing to do. There’s that sense of “ought” again.
Certain values can be found in all human cultures, a belief that we act certain ways because they’re the right thing to do. Murdering one’s own people is wrong, for example. Lying and cheating is wrong. So is stealing. Where did this universal sense of right and wrong come from? If we just evolved from the apes, and there is nothing except space, time, and matter, then from where did this moral sense of right and wrong arise?
A moral sense of right and wrong isn’t connected to our muscles or bones or blood. Some scientists argue that it comes from our genes — that belief in morality selects us for survival and reproduction. But if pressed, those same scientists would assure you that ultimate right and wrong don’t exist in a measurable way, and it’s only the illusion of morality that helps us survive. But if one researcher stole another’s data and published results under his own name, all the theories about morality as illusion would go right out the window. I don’t know of any scientist who wouldn’t cry, “That’s not fair!” Living in the real world is a true antidote for sophisticated arguments against right and wrong.
Apologist Greg Koukl points out that guilt is another indicator of ultimate right and wrong. “It’s tied into our understanding of things that are right and things that are wrong. We feel guilty when we think we’ve violated a moral rule, an “ought.” And that feeling hurts. It doesn’t hurt our body; it hurts our souls. An ethical violation is not a physical thing, like a punch in the nose, producing physical pain. It’s a soulish injury producing a soulish pain. That’s why I call it ethical pain. That’s what guilt is — ethical pain.”{4}
The reason all human beings start out with an awareness of right and wrong, the reason we all yearn for justice and fairness, is that we are made in the image of God, who is just and right. The reason we feel violated when someone does us wrong is that a moral law has been broken — and you can’t have a moral law without a moral law giver. Every time we feel that old feeling of, “It’s not fa-a-a-a-a-air!” rising up within us, it’s a signpost pointing us to the existence of God. He has left signposts pointing to Himself all over creation. That’s why we are without excuse.


Evidence of Design Implies a Designer



If you’ve ever visited or seen pictures of Mount Rushmore (South Dakota USA), you cannot help but look at the gigantic sculpture of four presidents’ faces and wonder at the skill of the sculptor. You know, without having to be told, that the natural forces of wind and rain did not erode the rock into those shapes. It took the skilled hands of an artist.


William Paley made a compelling argument years ago that the intricacies of a watch are so clearly engineered that it cannot be the product of nature: a watch demands a watchmaker. In the same way, the more we discover about our world and ourselves, the more we see that like an expertly-fashioned watch, our world and we ourselves have been finely crafted with intentional design. And design implies a designer.
Since we live in our bodies and take so much of our abilities for granted, it’s understandable that we might miss the evidence of design within ourselves — much like a fish might be oblivious to what it means to be wet. Dr. Phillip Bishop at the University of Alabama, challenges us to consider what would happen if we commissioned a team of mechanical engineers to develop a robot that could lift 500 pounds. And let’s say we also commissioned them to design a robot that could play Chopin. They could probably do that. But what if we asked them to come up with a robot that could do both, and limit the robot’s weight to 250 pounds, and require that it be able to do a variety of similar tasks? They’d laugh in our faces, no matter how much time or money we gave them to do it. But you know, all we’d be asking them to do is to come up with a very crude replication of former football player Mike Reid.{5}
Probably the greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet. One of the startling discoveries about DNA is that it is a highly complex informational code, so complex that scientists struggle hard to decipher even the tiniest portions of the various genes in every organism. DNA conveys intelligent information; in fact, molecular biologists use language terms — code, translation, transcription — to describe what it does and how it acts. Communication engineers and information scientists tell us that you can’t have a code without a code-maker, so it would seem that DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world that there is an intelligent Designer behind its existence.
Dr. Richard Dawkins, a professor of biology who writes books and articles praising evolution, said in his book The Blind Watchmaker, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”{6} Even those who desperately fear the implications of design keep running into it.
Those who deny the evidence of a designer are a lot like the foolish fisherman. If he fails to catch a fish, he says, “Aha! This proves there are no fish!” He doesn’t want to consider the possibility that it might be he is an inept fisherman. Since science cannot measure the intangible or the supernatural, there are many people who say, “Aha! There is no Creator.”{7} Foolish fishermen deny the evidence that God exists and has left His fingerprints all over creation.


The Reliability of the Bible

Every religion has its own holy book, but the Bible is different from all the others. It claims to be the very Word of God, not dropped out of the sky but God-breathed, infused with God’s power as He communicated His thoughts and intent through human writers.
The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, by about forty different writers, on three different continents. They addressed a wide variety of subjects, and yet the individual books of the Bible show a remarkable consistency within themselves. There is a great deal of diversity within the Bible, at the same time displaying an amazing unity. It presents an internally consistent message with one great theme: God’s love for man and the great lengths to which He went to demonstrate that love.
If you pick up any city newspaper, you won’t find the kind of agreement and harmony in it that is the hallmark of the biblical books. A collection of documents that spans so much time and distance could not be marked by this unity unless it was superintended by one Author who was behind it all. The unity of the Bible is evidence of God’s existence.
One other aspect of the Bible is probably the greatest evidence that God exists and that He has spoken to us in His holy book: fulfilled prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of details of history which were written in advance before any of them came to pass. Only a sovereign God, who knows the future and can make it happen, can write prophecy that is accurately and always — eventually — fulfilled.
For example, God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel against the bustling seaport and trade center of Tyre. In Ezekiel 26:3-6, He said He would bring nations against her: “They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her soil from her, and make her a bare rock.” Ezekiel 26-28 has many details of this prophecy against Tyre, which would be like Billy Graham announcing that God was going to wipe New York off the map.
Tyre consisted of two parts, a mainland city and an island a half- mile offshore. The first attack came from the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, who laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years. Finally, his battering rams broke through the walls, and he tore down the city’s towers. But the island part of the city wasn’t yet destroyed, because this prophecy was fulfilled in stages. For 250 years it flourished, until Alexander the Great set his sights on Tyre. Even without a navy, he was able to conquer this island city in what some consider his greatest military exploit. He turned the ruined walls and towers of Old Tyre into rubble, which he used to build a causeway from the mainland to the island. When he ran out of material, he scraped the soil from the land to finish the land- bridge, leaving only barren rocks where the old city used to be. He fulfilled the prophecy, “They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters”(Ez. 26:12).
Fulfilled prophecy is just one example of how God shows He is there and He is not silent. How else do we explain the existence of history written in advance?


Jesus: The Ultimate Evidence

The most astounding thing God has ever done to show His existence to us is when He passed through the veil between heaven and earth and came to live among us as a man.
Jesus Christ was far more than just a great moral teacher. He said things that would be outrageous if they weren’t true, but He backed them up with even more outrageous signs to prove they were. Jesus claimed not to speak for God as a prophet, but to be God in human flesh. He said, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9), and, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30). When asked if He was the Messiah, the promised Savior, He said yes.{8} He told his contemporaries, “Before Abraham was, I am”(John 8:58). The fact that His unbelieving listeners decided then to kill Him shows that they realized He was claiming to be Yahweh, God Almighty.
When Jesus told His followers that He was the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-18), they would immediately be reminded of a passage in the book of Ezekiel where Yahweh God pronounced Himself shepherd over Israel (Ez. 34:1-16). Jesus equated Himself with God.
But words are cheap, so Jesus backed up His words with miracles and signs to validate His truth-claims. He healed all sorts of diseases in people: the blind, the deaf, the crippled, lepers, epileptics, and even a woman with a twelve-year hemorrhage. He took authority over the demons that terrorized and possessed people. He even raised the dead.
Jesus showed His authority over nature, as well. He calmed a terrible storm with just a word. He created food out of thin air, with bread and fish left over! He turned water into wine. He walked on water.
He showed us what God the Father is like; Jesus was God with skin on. He was loving and sensitive, at the same time strong and determined. Children and troubled people were drawn to Him like a magnet, but the arrogant and self-sufficient were threatened by Him. He drenched people with grace and mercy while never compromising His holiness and righteousness.
And after living a perfect life, He showed His love to us by dying in our place on a Roman cross, promising to come back to life. Who else but God Himself could make a promise like thatand then fulfill it? The literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the final, greatest proof that there is a God, that Jesus is God Himself, and that God has entered our world and showed us the way to heaven so we can be with Him forever. He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me” (John 14:6).
God exists, and He has spoken. He made a “just right” universe that is stamped with clues of its Maker. He placed eternity in our hearts, as Ecclesiastes tells us, and all people have a strong moral streak because we are made in the image of a moral God. The evidence of design in our bodies, our world and the universe is a signpost pointing to a loving, intelligent Designer behind it all. The unity of the Bible and the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in it show the mind of God behind its creation. And we’ve looked at the way Jesus punched through the space-time continuum to show us what God looks like, and opened the doorway to heaven. Jesus is the clearest evidence of all that God does exist.




http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223621/k.A408/Evidence_for_Gods_Existence.htm

A "Just Right" Universe

There's so much about the universe, and our world in particular, that we take for granted because it works so well. But Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross has cited twenty-six different characteristics about the universe that enable it to sustain life. And there are thirty-three characteristics about our galaxy, our solar system, and the planet Earth that are finely-tuned to allow life to exist.{1} I do well to make the meat, potatoes, vegetables, and bread all come out at the same time for dinner; we're talking about fifty-nine different aspects all being kept in perfect balance so the universe hangs together and we can live in it!

Our Earth, for instance, is perfectly designed for life. It's the "just right" size for the atmosphere we need. Its size and corresponding gravity hold a thin, but not too thin, layer of gases to protect us and allow us to breathe. When astronaut John Glenn returned to space, one of the things that struck him was how thin and fragile our atmosphere is (only 50 miles above the Earth). If our planet were smaller it couldn't support an atmosphere, like on Mercury. If it were larger, like Jupiter, the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, which is poison for us.{2} Earth is the only planet we know of that contains an atmosphere that can support human, animal, and plant life.

The Earth is also placed at a "just right" distance from the sun and the other planets in our solar system. If we were closer to the sun, we'd burn up. If we were farther away, we'd freeze. Because Earth's orbit is nearly circular, this slightly elliptical shape means that we enjoy a quite narrow range of temperatures, which is important to life. The speed of Earth's rotation on its axis, completing one turn every 24 hours, means that the sun warms the planet evenly. Compare our world to the moon, where there are incredible temperature variations because it lacks sufficient atmosphere or water to retain or deflect the sun's energy.

Speaking of the moon, its important that there is only one moon, not two or three or none, and it's the "just right" size and distance from us. The moon's gravity impacts the movement of ocean currents, keeping the water from becoming stagnant.{3}

Water itself is an important part of a "just right" world. Plants, animals and human beings are mostly made of water, and we need it to live. One of the things that makes Earth unique is the abundance of water in a liquid state.

Water has surface tension. This means that water can move upward, against gravity, to bring liquid nutrients to the tops of the tallest plants.

Everything else in the world freezes from the bottom up, but water freezes from the top down. Everything else contracts when it freezes, but water expands. This means that in winter, ponds and rivers and lakes can freeze at the surface, but allow fish and other marine creatures to live down below.

The fact that we live on a "just right" planet in a "just right" universe is evidence that it all was created by a loving God.

http://powertochange.com/students/godexist1/

The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface.If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.(4) Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up.Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.

Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life…It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.Water is a universal solvent. Take a full glass of water, add a cup of sugar, and nothing spills over the edge; the water simply absorbs the sugar. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.(6)Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth’s water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

10 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:54 pm

Admin


Admin
WAS THERE A BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE?

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

It is important as we start to be careful about the meaning of words. We titled this booklet A Practical Man's Proof because we believe that most rational people hold common-day understandings of words. Some atheist writers evade issues by taking unusual understandings of common words which change the understanding of what the concept is that is being discussed. A classic example of this is the word “vacuum.” In the laboratory a vacuum is a region of space in which everything has been removed. The common idea is one of complete emptiness. On a cosmological level a vacuum would be even more severe, because anything that could send something through a cosmological vacuum would also not exist. In quantum mechanics the term “vacuum fluctuations” has been used in various models, but these applications are in theories about particles that build the physical universe in which we exist and of which we are made. Stephen Hawking has boldly proposed that his model based on these concepts eliminates any consideration of there being a God (see The Grand Design) and atheists have tried to capitalize on this idea, but quantum mechanics simply has a different set of rules and its own vocabulary to describe theories of how particles like quarks, leptons, bosons, etc., may function.

In addition to these kinds of proposals we have a number of writers proposing multiple universes in other dimensions in which a parallel is made with what we see in the universe in which we live. These are fanciful and interesting proposals, but they are not testable or falsifiable in any way and thus have no evidence of a direct or indirect nature to support them. On any kind of a practical level, they are more fantasy than serious scientific proposes. A number of books by scientists have been written dealing with this point (see The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin and Hiding in the Mirror by Lawrence Krauss). New discoveries will obviously alter this discussion, but we can only function on the basis of physical evidence, not proposals that are untestable or guesses about what we do not know.

So we come back to our original question of whether the cosmos in which we live had a beginning.

Evidence 1: The hydrogen issue. Hydrogen is believed to be the starting point for all of the matter that exists in the cosmos. Hydrogen is fused to make helium and other products, ultimately giving us a picture of how every element in the periodic chart may have been formed. The big issue here is that hydrogen is a non-renewable resource. There is no process operational in the cosmos today that produces hydrogen. We have models and experiments that show that under incredibly extreme conditions, hydrogen could be produced from energy, but that is not happening today.

Throughout the cosmos we see hydrogen being consumed (fused into heavier elements), so the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos continuously decreases. The cosmos cannot be eternal in nature, because the hydrogen would have all been fused and we would not see the massive clouds of hydrogen we see through the cosmos.


Evidence 2: Every grade school child knows that the cosmos is expanding. Numerous experiments show that galaxies are not only moving out away from each other, but modern measurements also show that the rate of movement is increasing. The cosmos is accelerating in its expansion. The expansion of the cosmos is from a apparent single point, and a variety of forms of evidence support the idea that the cosmos began with an incredibly hot, incredibly small point in space/time called a singularity. The fact that it is accelerating suggests to us it will not collapse or oscillate in any way. Most students of the evidence will suggest that time, space, and energy/matter had their beginning at this singularity referred to in the past as “the big bang.” What banged or who did the banging is not a question science can answer at this point, and we do not invent a God to explain it, but it is another evidence that there was a beginning.

Evidence 3: The second law of thermodynamics. One of the most fundamental laws of science is the law that states that in any closed system things tend to move toward a condition of disorder. This law explains everything from diffusion to refrigerators. In space we see many examples of the second law. The term “heat death” is used to refer to a star or galaxy in which the disorder of the system has reached such a level that normal heat processes cannot operate. Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time devoted a whole chapter to the implications of the second law and its support of the fact that there was a beginning, and then attempted to undo that conclusion by proposing something he called “imaginary time” which he really could not even define very well.

Carl Sagan used to define the cosmos as “All that is or ever was or ever will be” (Cosmos, 1980, 257). That is a pretty good definition of a closed system in which no organizing energy is added from the outside. An eternal universe which had no beginning would be a universe in heat death — void of available energy to carry on any planetary system.

In 1967, scientists built an “Atomic Clock.” It uses Cesium 133 atoms because they oscillate (vibrate) at the rate of 9,192,631,770 times per second. This produces accuracy within one second every 30 million years! Wouldn’t you love a watch that accurate? Cesium 133 atoms never vary a single vibration. They are steady—constant—reliable—and cannot be an accident of nature that just “happens” to always turn out exactly the same. God had to design the complexity and reliability of these atoms. No honest mind can believe otherwise. Men merely learned how to capture what God designed, for use in time measurement.

Scientists in Boulder, Colorado, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have built an optical clock that is even more accurate. How? By measuring time with light. Time is now measured in what are called femtoseconds—or a

million-billionth of a second. These clocks use mercury ions at their “heart” to count the number of times they vibrate in a second.

Optical frequencies regularly oscillate at one million-billion (1,000,000,000,000,000—one quadrillion) times per second. By using lasers and “cooled down” mercury ions, scientists have harnessed God’s precision to better measure time. Optical clocks only slip by one second every 30 BILLION years! This is 1,000 times more accurate than atomic clocks!

http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/#1

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.


   We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
   Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.
   Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
   Then right now nothing would exist. For
   If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But
   From nothing nothing comes. So
   The universe could not have begun.
   But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But
   If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
   There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
   Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not    derived, that
is, an absolutely necessary being.
   This absolutely necessary being is God.

The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
Not chance.
Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Desig

http://godevidence.com/

We can infer what might be true about God from what we observe in the universe. We look at the physical universe, human nature and culture and we observe things which may be clues to the existence or nature of the supernatural.

God may have entered the Universe and told us true things about himself, morality, meaning and how to have a relationship with him. This is called Revelation. 

http://rcg.org/books/dge.html

Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine).

Tiny Engines” Inside Cells

We need to look at one more example of molecular machines to better appreciate the complexity of cells.

Japanese and German scientists have now discovered the smallest of nature’s machines, called “tiny engines.” Consider this advanced research on these remarkable little engines.

As you read this quote, ask yourself where they came from: “A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature’s own rotary engine—no bigger than ten billionths by ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. The tiny motor includes the equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0 revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow.

The Bigbang Doctrine

#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

http://realtruth.org/articles/070601-006-teog.html

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

http://rcg.org/books/dge.html

cells, even in their simplest and most rudimentary form, are extremely complex. Consider: “The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech” (Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson, p. 102). The next source is equally powerful in explaining both the complexity of the cell and its origin: “The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G., p. 15).

Will skeptics ignore the truth that it is impossible to have life without a lifegiver? Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in Himself. But is this God merely some kind of blind power, some kind of dumb “first force?” Let’s reason together.
https://pastorbrianchilton.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/30-abbreviated-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/

Daniel Quinones : A CREATOR IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR WHAT EXISTS: However the proof for a creator of the universe and life CANNOT be said to be primary in nature....that is the creator himself cannot be observed.

However one does not need such primary evidence to establish existence of a SUFFICIENT AND NECESSARY CAUSE.
Existence can be established INDIRECTLY by observing the effects on that which can be observed in conjunction with eliminating all other reasonable alternatives for explaining given phenomena!

This is called indirect evidence or secondary proof...it is a legitimate tool used in the study of LAW, FORENSICS, ANTHROPOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, and COSMOLOGY. Life and the complex functional information it contains demonstrate the necessity for a designer's existence as surely as an encyclopedia necessitates an author...the information in your DNA contains more information than a set of encyclopedias stretching the greater length of a football field. Such coded information and operational functionality has never been observed to be the product of an undirected process, while intelligence has historically and observationally been seen to create such information. Therefore the case for an intelligent designer is an inference to the best explanation for the phenomena of life.

Footprints in the sand on a deserted beach point to a personal and intelligent presence...you need not ever have to see or produce that person to know he or she exists...all you have to know is that nature is unable to historically produce such evidence and that an intelligent presence can produce that evidence. While I cannot claim it's IMPOSSIBLE for wind, rain, and sun to produce footprints that is not relevant to the discussion...we are talking about sufficient causes not impossible ones.

C.S. Lewis nicely described the cumulative nature of the evidence for Christian Theism when he wrote about the basis for his belief, “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun
has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Virtually every field of study contributes to the veracity of the Christian worldview, as illustrated
by the following brief list:

1.Cosmology The universe had a singular beginning (big bang cosmology);
there was a beginning of time.
2.Astrophysics Nature‟s laws appear to be engineered (fine tuned) to allow for human life (anthropic principle); so do the universe‟s content and systems (galaxies, stars, planets, chemical elements, etc.).
3.Biology/Chemistry Life systems and ecosystems yield evidence of having been intelligently engineered.
4.Anthropology/Psychology Human beings are richly endowed intellectually but morally flawed.
5.Neuroscience Humans possess consciousness and a capacity for intentionality and rational reflection.
6.Mathematics Mathematical theories correspond with physical reality.
7.Logic As abstract entities, the laws of logic are universal, invariant, and independent of human conventions.
8.Ethics Moral absolutes seem intuitively authentic, and moral relativism is self defeating.
9.Religion Belief in the divine is a universal phenomenon and religious experience seems intuitively real and consistent with biblical revelation.
10.History Credible historical reports corroborate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
11.Philosophy Human beings crave meaning purpose and immortality




20 Arguments For God’s Existence

1. The Argument from Change
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
3. The Argument from Time and Contingency
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
5. The Design Argument
6. The Kalam Argument
7. The Argument from Contingency
8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
9. The Argument from Miracles
10. The Argument from Consciousness
11. The Argument from Truth
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
13. The Ontological Argument
14. The Moral Argument
15. The Argument from Conscience
16. The Argument from Desire
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
18. The Argument from Religious Experience
19. The Common Consent Argument
20. Pascal's Wager


http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/
http://www.asee.org/documents/sections/midwest/2008/403-3.pdf

http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/SAR/ScienceAndReligion.htm
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/cumulative-evidence-and-the-case-for-gods-existence-free-bible-insert/
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5816488&highlight=breckmin#post5816488
http://www.evidence-for-god.com/
http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.h
http://discoveryseries.org/ten-reasons/in-the-existence-of-god/
http://realtruth.org/articles/070601-006-teog.html
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/a-cumulative-case-for-gods-existence/
https://www.probe.org/evidence-for-gods-existence/



Last edited by Admin on Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

11 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:56 pm

Admin


Admin
by Breckmin

Death will be our final reality and we will realize how much we lived in
this temporary creation (mulifaceted for learning/testing/working/rewarding
learning about God's faithfulness and love, etc. etc.) like living a fantasy
where we are blind to what is eternal.

There is a day to day relationship with the Heavenly Father (Infinite Creator)
that millions of people have/experience that is the eternal reality. This
life is temporary and less than a hundred years for most. There is either
justice (not good for the sinner) or grace after this.

To receive grace/mercy you have to KNOW to beg for it now. Unless
you are humble enough to beg God for mercy now...you will never
understand how you are infinitely small in comparison to God's Infinite
existence - and how humility is completely logical.

The logical reason you go to hell is because you did not receive God's
forgiveness. You didn't believe that He became a Man and demonstrated
His Self-Sacrificing Love to you. Your sin/disobedience/object guilt of
His Law "stays with you" at the judgement of God. Everything in life 
teaches you that there are consequences for actions. If you are not
perfect...then literally...there will be hell to pay - and this is not said by
me flippantly(do not isolate this sentence from the next sentence). If 
you do not have Christ's perfection in your place then there will be hell
(eternal) hell to pay. Why? Because your sin/disobedience is actually
a horrible violation against the Perfect Nature of God. You don't realize
how bad your sin is because you don't realize how incredibly Holy God is.
Also, your sin would remain in the historical record of the temporary
creation as a mockery against the Nature of God and a Creator than
never gave you justice as He should have done.

It won't happen. Everyone who sins will be judged fully and eternally
unless they receive absolute forgiveness through Jesus Christ and His
Perfect Sacrifice. Yes. Only born-again Christians will receive forgiveness
or those who had faith and trusted in God prior to His death and Resurrection.
The reasons for this are multi-faceted and you can not isolate on "torture"
for a single finite sin or thousands of finite sins. You are created in the
Image of God and you are an eternal being. An eternal being of choice 
(limited of course by circumstances). As an eternal being you will be eternally
separated from the Glory of God IF NOT forgiven. This is just one more
reason why hell is eternal. There is another Christian theory that there will
be sin/evil going on in hell which will just add to yet again another reason
why hell is eternal...especially when you can no longer have Jesus' Perfect
Sacrifice to apply to you and forgive you. There are other reasons why
hell is eternal as well, such as the violation being against an infinite Creator
which would/could make it an infinite violation itself... in which case you
could never pay for it as a finite created being. You would be eternally
damned on your own to attempt to pay for it, etc.

These are some of the logical reasons why hell is logically eternal.

Forgiveness and loving God/Jesus is everything.


It is the Holy Spirit of God that spiritually regenerates the born-again Christian
so that they can see the Perfect Logic of God (the beauty of the Glory of
Love and the Cross).

We don't currently see ALL of the Logic of God...but we CAN see the 
important part as it relates to salvation and the necessity of salvation.



Logic = The Infinite Creator will indeed rise to the occasion and declare
His Righteousness and demonstrate His Perfect Justice by distributing
consequences for actions (choices/disobedience) in this temporary
lifetime.

You should have every reason to expect it. You should also have every
reason to expect that there are LOGICAL answers to your objections which
you will know factually when you die and are judged (or saved if you
accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior).



Trust is indeed earned and Jesus Christ clearly earned it when He gave His
Life as a willing Sacrifice.

Whether you believe this or not...doesn't change the fact that Jesus
proved Who He was. 

Proof and evidence are not exactly the same thing. If you set parameters
that eliminate all historical evidences and claim "they are not proof" then
you will never trust in anything historical. You can't change the way in
which history was recorded (not with 20th Century or 21st Century standards).

Your "sin" alone should bear witness through your conscience of "objective
guilt" and the need to not suffer the consequences of all the things you
have done wrong in your lifetime. This should point you to the need for
a Savior.

I teach my children to Trust in the Infinite Creator because it is logical
to do so. I can teach them to Trust in Jesus Christ, BUT ultimately
their faith is their own.

I pray that God will reveal the Truth to them, by His grace.

I will go through 5 different evidences.

Evidence 1.

Information comes from Intelligence. The code come from a Code Maker.
Messages (mRNA) are clearly the result of an Author.

The most important aspect of understanding the RNA/DNA evidence is to
look explicitly at the identifiable code and its arrangement. This is NOT
an argument which specifies "born-again Christianity" and Jesus Christ
as the exclusive truth of the universe...no...that is not the argument.
That comes later, once you know absolutely that there is a Creator.

These five evidences I will list are evidences which first lead us to
"agnostic theism." They fully demonstrate that "intelligence" is required
for creation and for complex mechanical working systems such as life.

Back to Information: We know based on our uniform and repeated experience
that all information comes from intelligence. When we find information, we know
that it came from an intelligent source.

This Law of Information is falsifiable. If you can produce useful information
without intelligence then you will have falsified the Law of Information.

This is not an appeal to ignorance because we KNOW the answer. The
fact that when we find information anywhere in the universe we conclude
it comes from intelligence does not stop when we enter into biochemistry
and genetics...unless we are dishonest and have agenda against the clear
evidence of intelligence and the identifiable sequences we see with codons
and amino acids.

So let's discuss the arrangement of this information and how it is NOT just
a complexity argument (that is building a straw man).

This is just one of five basic evidences for "a" Creator that lead us to
the honest conclusion of agnostic theism (unless we have an agenda to
deny that information comes from intelligence). 

Biological information at the sequence level in the genome can be a simple
as the arrangement of codons in an identifiable sequence which can be
transcribed and then translated into amino acid sequences to provide
instructions for protein synthesis and biochemical functions.

It is specifically the identifiable sequences of both codons (as a
template of information) - and the amino acids (identified sequences)
which make up specific polypeptides which we need to talk explicitly
about - and specifically those synthesized by translation.

The Law of Information is open for falsification. We know based on
our uniform and repeated experience with all detailed information,
schematic information or complexed arranged information that it
comes from intelligence. That is how we can make a basic deduction.

When we find information - we know that it comes from Intelligence.

This is just one of five evidences for a Creator that lead us first to
agnostic theism. 

Biological information at the sequence level in the genome can be a simple
as the arrangement of codons in an identifiable sequence which can be
transcribed and then translated into amino acid sequences to provide 
instructions for protein synthesis and biochemical functions.

It is specifically the identifiable sequences of both codons (as a
template of information) - and the amino acids (identified sequences) 
which make up specific polypeptides which we need to talk explicitly 
about - and specifically those synthesized by translation.

The Law of Information is open for falsification. We know based on
our uniform and repeated experience with all detailed information,
schematic information or complexed arranged information that it 
comes from intelligence. That is how we can make a basic deduction.

When we find information - we know that it comes from Intelligence.

This is just one of five evidences for a Creator that lead us first to
agnostic theism.
by Breckmin

We can start all over from the beginning if need be.....starting with the logical
fallacy of hard/explicit/strong atheism....and how the starting point with no
assumptions should be agnosticism/technical atheism.

Defining what we see as "natural" and independent of a Creator is "aw-theistic" (atheistic) and materialistic in its philosophy.

It is the philosophy of materialism/naturalism and defining the empirical
world as natural and independent from the Creator which is truly circular.

The steps in the progression go as follows.
1. Logical fallacy of Strong Atheism
2. Logical starting point of agnosticism
3. Proper understanding of science and searching for truth and not
eliminating theistic implication.
4. Falsifiable evidence which clearly points to Intelligence
5. Intelligent Causation leads to agnostic theism.
6. Specifics about various evidence leads to the conclusion of Infinite
Creator.
7. Comparative religions and historical evidence points to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
8. Internal evidence gives the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and
born-again Christianity.

Clearly steps 6 through 8 are going to be impossible without common
agreed assumptions which are first substantiated through points 1 through
5.

The fact is I have continually given evidence for point # 4 and still it is
asserted that no evidence has been provided in this thread.

If we didn't know any better we might think that there is an agenda 
against there being evidence for an Infinite Creator. Q.E.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

12 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:34 pm

Admin


Admin
Evidence of Gods existence


Cumulative Evidence and the Case for God’s Existence

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1276-evidence-of-gods-existence

Cold cases are typically built on circumstantial evidence. Cumulative circumstantial cases are incredibly powerful when considered in their totality; the more diverse the forms of evidence (and the more abundant their existence), the more reasonable the conclusion. As jurors consider these large collections of evidence implicating a particular suspect, they must ask themselves a simple question: “Could this guy just be incredibly unlucky, or is he the cause of all this evidence because he is truly guilty?” The more the evidence repeatedly points to the defendant, the less likely it is merely a matter of coincidence. The cumulative case for God’s existence is similarly powerful. There are a number of circumstantial lines of evidence pointing to the existence of God, and the diverse, collective nature of this evidence is most reasonably explained by the existence of a Creator. This month, we’re featuring a free downloadable Bible insert summarizing a brief cumulative case for God’s existence, built on just five lines of circumstantial evidence:

(1) The Temporal Nature of the Cosmos (Cosmological)
(a) The Universe began to exist
(b) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause
(c) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause
(d) This cause must be eternal (uncaused), non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (having the ability to willfully cause the beginning of the universe)
(e) The cause fits the description we typically assign to God

(2) The Appearance of Design (Teleological)
(a) Human artifacts (like watches) are products of intelligent design
(b) Many aspects and elements of our universe resemble human artifacts
(c) Like effects typically have like causes
(d) Therefore, it is highly probable the appearance of design in the Universe is simply the reflection of an intelligent designer
(d) Given the complexity and expansive nature of the Universe, this designer must be incredibly intelligent and powerful (God)

(3) The Existence of Objective Moral Truth (Axiological)
(a) There is an objective (transcendent) moral law
(b) Every law has a law giver
(c) Therefore, there is an objective (transcendent) moral law giver
(d) The best explanation for this objective (transcendent) law giver is God

(4) The Existence of Absolute Laws of Logic (Transcendent)
(a) The laws of logic exist

i. The laws of logic are conceptual laws
ii. The laws of logic are transcendent
iii. The laws of logic pre-existed humans

(b) All conceptual laws reflect the mind of a law giver
(c) The best and most reasonable explanation for the kind of mind necessary for the existence of the transcendent, objective, conceptual laws of logic is a transcendent, objective, eternal Being (God)

(5) The Unique Nature of Our World and Universe (Anthropic)
(a) Our universe appears uniquely designed so:

i. Life can exist
ii. This same life can examine the universe

(b) This unique design cannot be the result of random chance or unguided probabilities
(c) There is, therefore, a God who designed the universe to support human life and reveal His existence as creator of the Cosmos

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

13 Re: 125 reasons to believe in God on Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:40 pm

Admin


Admin
Disclosure: I am an Ex-Atheist, a Philosophical Theist, and a Mere-Christian. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation (re Philosophical Theist):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we consider Theism and Atheism to be metaphysical hypotheses (explanations of reality) then we can use the relevant guidelines/ methods to come to a reasonable inference to choose between the two.

There are certain features about reality that make more sense (or flow more naturally from) a Theistic Worldview than from an Atheistic Worldview. 

And there is a reasonable argument for the existence of God from the wonder and order of the natural universe.

The key areas of evidence (features about reality) that struck me are:

(1) The big bang origin of the universe (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)

(2) The anthropic fine-tuning of the universe/physical constants of the universe for life to exist (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)

(3) The origin of first-life defies random-chance and natural law (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)

(4) The presence of codes, language, and software in DNA is more in keeping with Intelligent Design than with purely naturalistic-atheistic proceses. (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)

(5) Free-will, moral obligations and responsibility; all of these fall apart if atheism is true (atheism expects pure materialism/physicalism which necessitates determinsim, which eliminates free-will, and therefore moral obligations and responsibility; but none of us and no society can live reasonably in a manner consistent with no free-will, no moral obligations, no moral responsibilities, no rewards for good behavior, no punishments for bad behavior, no civil laws, no criminal laws, no justice system).

(6) Mind, consciousness; These flow naturally (are more to be expected) if Theism is true. However, these do not naturally obtain if atheism (physicalism/materialism) is true. Mind, consciousness have properties that are completely different from mere collections of atoms.

(7) Out of Body Experiences -- where the person's consciousness experiences a change in location (in point of view) and the person sees things at a distance from their body (where there is no line-of-sight). and these things that they saw (events they saw) are independently confirmed by an external third party or parties. This is evidence for mind-body dualism (and against mind-brain monism). And again, this is more in keeping with Theism (it matches more closely with the expectations of theism; and does not match the materialistic/physicalistic expectations of atheism)...

These (above) are some (but not all) of the things that I looked into in some detail, and which convinced me (over time) that Theism is the more rational view (based on the evidence) than Atheism... and that the evidence (as above) supports Theism over Atheism..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation (re Ex-Atheist):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am an ex-atheist, in part, as a result of my recognizing the intellectual poverty of Atheism. And, I moved to Theism because of the totality of the Evidence, (a) scientific, (b) philosophical, and (c) personal evidence. I.e.

For me, the existence of God is a Reasonable Inference to a Rational Explanation of the totality of the evidence (a) scientific, (b) philosophical, (c) personal. And, for me, the existence of God is the Best Inference to the Best explanation of the totality of the evidence (a) scientific, (b) philosophical, (c) personal evidence.

And this is the case for me beyond a reasonable doubt. And, with a level of certainty that is high enough for me to bet my life (and eternity) on the existence of God, and the truth of Mere-Christianity (cf: Pascal's Wager).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation (re Mere-Christianity):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mere-Christianity is very simple. 

(A) there is ONE God, creator of the universe.

(B) Jesus is God in human form; He came to earth to set an example in behavior for us, and to experience pain & suffering at the cross, to express solidarity with our pain & suffering and to set the stage for and to enable reconciliation between us and God. 

(C) if we accept this and commit our lives to God based on this, we can be in relationship with him today, in this life, and in the life to come.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

14 The laws of logic on Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:17 am

Admin


Admin
The laws of logic

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/

(1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist
We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place.
The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws
These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes.
The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent
The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location.
The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind
The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans.
(2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver
All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind.
(3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God
The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.

Inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.
Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.
However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by random chance? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “random molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being perfectly inconsistent in his thinking. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.
How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense to the Christian. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality.




http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum