My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

I also think it was Doctor Feynman who, before he died, said
"Before you deny a science , please do some homework."

PS, I think I had used that very point on you and Layprson many years ago when you guys were discounting evolution because of Dr Shapiro.
on mistakingnutral genomics.

BTW , You know that Feynmans Twitter feed is run by a CalTech and UCLA memorial group since Feynmans been dead for almost 40 years???

I have not made a case for an 'Abrahamic God' for one reason. I would never presume what an 'Abrahamic God' is to you.
If what you are trying to say is that an Abrahamic God has a reasoning intellect and therefore a God is not possible, our conversation will be very short.

To answer the question whether God is inside or outside of time, here is my thinking on the subject.
Science is not even sure what it is. But from the evidence, time is a malleable thing that can be sped up or even slowed to a stop. Most scientific povs assert that time even had a beginning. I do not have any evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, If God created the universe as we know it, then God would certainly be on both sides of it, or whichever side of time he wanted to be on. He had to have thoroughly understood it in order to create it so I would assume he’d have complete mastery over it.

But thank you for a clearly stated question instead of references to biblical or other philosophers.

His words are just as true now as then.

I did. Now I can talk about it in simple terms because I understand it.
You can start any time.

Simply explain how ID is indespensible to the origin of life??

I already did that, and in simple to understand terms at that.

Shall I repost it again here too?

Farmer said:
yeh, all it takes are astronomical numbers of incidents ovr astronomical timelines (like deeep time , or anything over a BILLION years or so), and its almost a given .

Leadfoot replied:
Just for the record, here's why I don’t believe it's 'almost a given'.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though amino acids can potentially form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein is a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.

You don't get it do you?
if God is outside time there is no causation nor there is anything that is not PRESENT to GOD.
Also there is no will or volition, no action, no agenda, no problem solving, no problem, period. Just Being!
The Abrahamic God as per the tradition is claimed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, to be a mind and the Creator of all things including Spacetime and the Universe.
I have posted countless videos from "Closer to Truth" where Robert Lawrence Kuhn questions numerous Theologians of all walks of life from many distinct Religion traditions on these topics and as the emphasis of the program is to some extent be as straight forward, no bulshit talking, please answer the question debate, surprisingly we have had a very productive confession on well know names admitting difficulty in addressing the classical concept of God within Reason and without Logic contradictions.
Frankly I am not surprised you haven't seen any of them or otherwise you would have immediately grasp the extent of the set of questions I was posing to you. Your dismissive dishonest paternalistic position attempt at dodging the problem is dully noted by me and by those around who took the time to watch the videos.

Either acknowledgment of a no personal God or full retreat from the classical God millennial description into a Demi-God like creature with a mind and no knowledge of the future splashed all over the screen...enjoy!

show me, anywhere in the world in any deposit displaying an example of hadean life (chemo-fossils that are built around C12 ) the evidence for ribonucleic acids. youll find it missing. What you will find are speciic classes of chemicals that form long \ chains called polymerized fatty acids and complex esters . The question was , not whether any nucleic acids were important to eukaryotic evolution, but were they necessary or the foundation of life itself.

We really dont know, but evidence seems to point to the chenistry being associate with cell structure based on polar membranes where the structure i composed of three or more layers that (possibly) could serve as "molds" for later more complex structures. The earliest life contained no compex structures , no mitochondria, but latr versions (about 1 BILLION years after the Heavy Bombardment period), nucleiods did appear and these, based on todays species likeEpulopiscium fishelsoni display a localized "bag of nucleic acids.

The structures of cyclic structured salts and organics all seemed to take on (or possibly provide a template) for later nucleic acid structures. Theres about 11 ky structures in the prokaryotic cell (based on those presently extant, show that there are hundreds of thousands of species . Paleo-biochemitry is still working to understand just when all the hemistry of lif made the big break and (in y opinion) announced a huge "EXPLOSION" that Id call a PROTEROZOIC EXPLOSION. becuse he origin of the eukaryotic cell presaged the actual diversifiction of all life.

rRNA,mRNA, DNA and the newer ones that seem to form quadrant shaped nucleic acids (bDNA?) re all important beginning somewhere in the long chain of life , But very few fight for lifes origin that was only going to happen when the 20 amino acids "poofed" into existence. e do know from deposits in Austrlia and Greenland that the very first forms of life made their living gnoshing on sulfitic compunds (many of the larger deposits of pre-eukaryotic cells are found in (places that we would call mid oceanic submarine "black smokers" or large deposits of what appear to be seasonally evaporating laminae of estuarine mud deposits.

You seem to be focused on one thing ribonucleic acids. I dont deny their influence (or as Gould called the "Bookkeeping of evolution"). I dont think we are ready to arrive at a conclusion that life was entirely dependent upon these moleculles. Pre biotic molecules and slats and sugars gradually appeared through unique environmental structurre.
I believe the discusion , right now is that along with the 11 or so unique simple structures in the prokaryotic cell, the complex cell wall was composed of two layers with a space in between that contained structural layers of about 9 AMINO ACIDS and some witha proto cyclic structure. (Still not RNa but maybe close)

All these come from evolutionary microscopic studies of extant species. while we do have some evidence of the amino acid "fossils" we arent certain e see the same layers that we see in gram negative bacterial archea.

I was at a presentation on Darwin Day 2 years ago when the research team was reporting on the occurence of C12 deposits along some banded iron deposits. The banded iron was a Siderite deposit in which the crystals formed "double helices" and along side were the C12 deposits , also in a helix.

DNA takes care of one function of the living cell, compiling and transmitting "copying" information to the somatic cells where the actual work takes place. Is life a prisoner of nucleic acids or is it more related to the right handed sugars of peptidoglycan

There a huge panoply of evidence about the origins of life tied to bio chem, geology, physical chemistry and environmental conditions at the time. Were everything in place with all these above conditions we think that life was inevitable.
When we do detailed surveys of Mars and perhaps find some chemical fossils or we see evidence of prokaryotic cells in meteorites.


Like Dr Behe stated that the "proof" of ID is what he called Irreducible Complexity, where, if taken far enough back, all science can be reduced to a belief in ID because there had to be a "creator" to start it all up.

If we look at the origins of life we see many more complexities in structure and chemistry that go waay beyond just ribonucleic acids .
The papers I presented to you have a more detailed chemical reaction look at lifes switch so I do hope you get a chance to read em and try to follow some of the pathways they present for you to consider.

My only admonition is, ino passive aggressive responses and no insulting responses that attempt to recast what Im saying (without first getting my agreement),

Even if for the sake of argument and speculation, something we chew to entertain the implausible, and we posit a rational concept of an ID creation, with a video game/simulation Creator to make happy some pals in A2K, such Creator either is an advanced creature, civilization, or AGI but never the ground of all being as it cannot justify itself or will itself to be before it is such that it has any freedom at its own nature. A Mind cannot will itself own nature into being before it is! It then must fall on a bigger more abstract domain, a bigger timeless Set of PROPERTIES. (It doesn't matter if such properties are from or own POV phenomenological as there must be an Ontology of all possible phenomena, and with this there goes Idealism down the drain). Anyway onward:
Minds are problem solving machines and for such they need to have a defined position in spacetime in order to have a specific informational interacting POV and lack other POV's by contrast...that is to say they need to be incomplete, not all encompassing and thus be dependent on a non personal entity, a domain of all domains like the Multiverse or complex Universe with different laws of Physics in different non local regions etc.
Such a rational, in a block Universe which is timeless and Unified in the Set of all that can ever be might be the kind of Ultimism that gave rise to the popular proto-concept of God that we over the centuries Anthropomorphized on the now dominant traditional religions we are familiarized with.

I think you need to reword this or put it in German. I fell off the truck after AGI (to me it stands for AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE). I have no idea what that entire paragraph encompassing AGI even says.

PS, nobody except Dr Bhe ven "buys" what Dr Behe says. His ntire department at Lehigh excoriated him in a position statement to NCSE that apologized for the entire chemistry school

AGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence by contrast with Artificial Narrow Intelligence which is what we have now. This refers to how many domains it can operate in.

In the context above it is often speculated an AGI would be the natural development from a previous biological civilization and that in long spans of time every biological advanced civilization would be replaced by an AGI computronium. A planet sized computer that is. No waste of resources for other purposes.

Oh dear!, an embarrassment of riches this AM.
Two posts truly deserving of a well considered reply.

This may take more than a few minutes.

I appreciate your passion. I encourage your passion! I hope mine is accepted in the same spirit.
Just one thing up front though. If your appeal is to the authority of 'experts' on the subject of 'God', then why even discuss it? You have found your answer, be happy. I thought I had made it clear in past discussions that I accept no man's authority to define my understanding of or relationship with, God. But I will listen with interest to any man’s own thoughts on him. Sorry, I think of 'him' when the subject comes up. We can use whatever term you are comfortable with.

Not sure if I see your logic here. Tell me if and where my rewording of what you said here is wrong.

If (God is outside of time); Then (causation is not possible) = True,

If you define 'causation' as the manipulation of matter/energy through the dimension of time, this would be true. But 'time' itself had a creation date as evidenced by our scientific observations. (I'm assuming we accept science)

Logically then, the creation of time did not require the pre existence of time.

Therefore, creation does not require time, nor does time prevent creation.

We can also conclude that causation is not the same thing as creation, if we accept the definition of causation we started with above.

Then you concluded:

All we have demonstrated so far is that the creation of time did not need time itself. And if you tie creation to causation, then we have a problem with our definition of one or both terms.

In any case, none of your conclusions above can be logically deduced from the analysis of the facts so far. How do you justify these assertions?

I appreciate the open and honest candor up front.

I can accept your mold hypothesis as plausible but it does not eliminate the basic obstacles to biological life as we know it. Your argument oversimplifies the argument to a relatively easy math problem, which is one you would lose. And to compare a polar bubble of (?) to a cell membrane? You might as well say the Hindenburg (or life) emerged from a soap bubble.

I believe the core of your misunderstanding is about what living biological matter is. You apparently believe it is “a localized bag of nucleic acids.”. This is simply not true in any actual scientist's definition of biological life of any kind. The ziplock bag of chicken in my freezer is a 'bag of nucleic acids' and it will never be alive again. You say it is a matter of time. The science of Biology (and I) say it is 'Information’. Anyone can verify this with a Google search.

This is but a minor point in the argument but one thing at a time.
I would appreciate if you would point out any scientific errors in my arguments posted earlier.