Does God micro-manage life at the atomic level?


#21

You are comparing apples and oranges so the comparison is meaningless.

Says who? A cell is a remarkable self assembling machine AFAIK.


#22

But we do know how these bases are selected, read any undergrad molecular biology textbook and you will see. Moreover, if God micromanaged this systems you would expect no deleterious mutations, but they happen.


#23

GodsBiology/Thomas W. Rogers has been here before back in June 2016. He became involved in the thread Biological Information and Intelligent Design: Amino Acids and Apologetics, which was written by Dennis Venema. It might be instructive to read that thread first, since there are only 24 hours in a day.

As for me, I’m wondering why God can’t stop so many wonderful cells from becoming cancerous. And I’m wondering how the research program is going.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #24

Thanks @beaglelady for the reference. In this post, it was recommended that @GodsBiology pick up a basic molecular biology textbook over two years ago in that thread. Have you done that yet @GodsBiology? Your thoughts still seem to be the same several years later.


(Thomas W. Rogers) #25

I will forgive the insult regarding the textbook.

Since 2016, the evidence proving that super-intelligence is essential for creating cell-parts, cells, and us, has
been established, (probably unintentionally by the three 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry.

Through 33 years of research and development they finally managed to knit together a few simple molecular machines that are almost infinitely more simplistic than any of the molecular created for our new cells every day of the week.

What this proves is that even with mankind’s vast accumulation of scientific knowledge and sophisticated equipment, we don’t have anywhere near enough intelligence to create even the simplest molecular machine for any of our cells.

Therefore, why would one expect that a theoretical process having no intelligence at all, could do this super-intelligent work?

Add this to our other seven principles and eighteen essential works for life that Darwinisms cannot perform and the theory of evolution is really falsified as the cause of life.

We are not saying that mutations do not exist but that even mutant cells have to be physically constructed of atoms.

When the textbooks say “there are mechanisms that assemble cell-parts” this just opens up more problems for evolution because now these mechanisms that have to be more intelligent that a Nobel Prize Winner have to be created.

We understand that making this change in the way the “cause of life” is taught will take time, plus open, logical, and unbiased minds at the top.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #26

A textbook could at the very least demonstrate that we understand the mechanisms and natural processes that underly many many different aspects of the world of cells. I’ve shared the very easy step of making a lipid bilayer for example. Here is a paper/collection of essays outlining the question of what determines cell size:
https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-10-101

The fact that we can even understand the natural mechanisms that make up many parts of the process is something you could learn in a textbook.

We also can’t make stars either. How could stars be made by anything other than super-intelligent work?

What do you mean the theory of evolution is not the cause of life? Do you mean that in the sense it fails as an explanation of the “endless forms most beautiful” that we see all around us?

Giving God credit for designing the laws of nature is extremely different from what you have argued at different points in this thread and in the 2016 thread.


(Thomas W. Rogers) #27

Hi BeagleLady:
Thank you for your interest in our research and for your open-hearted concern regarding cancer.

I think many would like to believe that if God is in charge, there should be Heaven on earth.

That is obviously not the case, so what is His plan?

If we read His book, one of His points is that His ways are far above our ways. I can agree with that, knowing what I know now about the super-intelligent physical work with atoms that it takes to make us from the dust.

Two of my best earthly mentors have explained why we will not understand everything about Him while here on Earth but will receive explanations when we meet Him later. But one thing I have had proven to me is that He can use all situations for a good purpose to those that love Him.

To try to answer your question about cancer cells and other problems, we learn from His book that He has the power to destroy the enemies of His children. He can totally wipe them off the face of the planet with a flood, plague, or whatever.

Another important point is that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” I used to substitute ‘fear’ with ‘reverence’ but now I am back to fear because of His great power to correct and discipline His children with tough love, and as usual it is for the good of the child in the long run.

He has said that the sins of the father can become a problem for the third and fourth generation.

We know some of the ways we can bring on cancer ourselves by smoking, drinking too much, and probably some other things that we haven’t discovered yet like some food additives, etc.

We have been given free will and are often easily tempted by youknowwho to do things that turn out badly for us.

My wife who was in charge of the operating theatres in a big hospital in our city, can tell many stories of Christian patients healing faster and better than others, and some being brought back to life while being prayed for.

Non-believers will probably say, “OH, just a coincidence” but in the medical field these factors are well known.

Apparently, a large portion of medical practitioners are skeptical of Darwinisms as the cause of life.

I hope that helps a little, BeagleLady.


#28

In other words, God sometimes actively regulates cells and sometimes he doesn’t bother. If you’re exposed to carcinogens, often through no fault of your own, God might abandon your cells.

What research? Please tell us about your research program. Have you published your work in peer-reviewed scientific journals?


#29

It was honestly not an offense or an attempt of irony. You asked “how could cells distinguish the nucleotides when they are so chemically similar?”. That is literally answered in the first chapters of most molecular biology textbooks I’ve come across. I’m not calling you dumb, just answering your question. If you find the explanations given in the books insuficient, you can appoint the problems you see and we can discuss it, but you can’t just pretend there are not already naturalistic answers to that question.


(Mark D.) #30

I probably shouldn’t encourage you but I wonder if you actually believe that the approaches to creation available to God are restricted to the those which make sense for human beings? If you think God could not have created the life on this planet by way of evolution as described by science, could you say why you think that? Thanks.


(Ronald Myers) #31

Video’s don’t replicate much less replicate nearly but not completely perfectly. No analogy works without replication or progeny.


(Thomas W. Rogers) #32

Hi Mark:
Sorry to have taken a while to get back to you. We are busy launching The Atomic Biology Institute in two countries as well as getting our second book out, this one called “Darwin’s Replacement”.

Over the last 31 years, we have (with the help of 45 scholars including 20 PhDs) researched deeper than cellular biology and deeper than molecular biology, down to where the action is at the atomic level.

To answer your question regarding why we believe evolution cannot cause life, some of the reasons are outlined in my previous posts in this thread. The reasons also take up about 200 pages of our second book. With little space here, we can supply just a few of the basics.

Let’s go down to a cell construction site near the end of your right hand forefinger, for example. The first choice and decision has to be what type of cell to build at this particular position on the atom supply line (the adjacent blood vessel carrying the building block atoms from your digestive system).

Perhaps a fingernail cell, or a bone cell, or a skin cell, or a muscle cell, or a nerve cell, or a vessel cell - these are some choices from which to make a decision. Other decisions are where to stop making one type of cell and begin building another type of cell.

Obviously, cells cannot just replicate because we would just be a bunch of sperm and egg cells.

So let’s decide that a muscle cell is required at this particular cell construction site. Now billions more decisions, choices have to be made for selections of the counted right numbers of the right elemental atoms from the vessel. Also, the sequence of cell parts has to be decided in order to carefully construct the exterior cell membrane, nucleus, nuclear membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, nucleolus, RNA, DNA, chromosomes, ribosomes, proteins, vacuole, cytoplasm, protoplasm, golgi, lysosomes, wiring to our brain for control, etc., etc., etc.

The phenomenal numbers of choices, decisions, and super-intelligent physical works with atoms must be carefully and speedily performed at each cell construction site.

Remember that the three 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry received their reward for developing over a 33 year period, a few very simplistic molecular machines by knitting together a relatively few atoms. These little units are almost infinitely more simplistic than the simplest molecular machine among those listed above.

Three of our brightest scientists in this field over 33 years using sophisticated equipment which would never fit into any of our cell construction sites. Call these three scientists, “molecular machine building mechanisms”. They showed that, bright as they are, they did not have anywhere near enough intelligence or skills to build even the simplest molecular machine for any of our new cells that are made for us every day of the week.

So saying “Oh, our ‘natural mechanisms’ build our molecular machines” just opens up another huge batch of problems for evolution. These “mechanisms” have to be built, and they need to be built with more intelligence and skills than the Nobel Winners.

As evolution has no intelligence to use, it is thus actually falsified as the cause of life.

That is where this evidence leads.

Now we have to convince the science community that our society is best, and most honorably served, when science goes where the evidence leads, and without reprisal.

We believe the Christians in science groups will have to unite on the points of science we can agree upon and drop the points we cannot agree upon. In this way we can develop a single new science as the best, most logical, and verifiable life-science to present to education departments.

As a start along this road we have begun gathering single sheets of “Science Agreeables” to form the basis for this new united science. See www.atomicbiology.com


(Mark D.) #33

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question and I should apologize for its ambiguous wording:

I didn’t mean to ask why God couldn’t have used evolution to create life from scratch. Evolution is just about how life gets articulated into all the forms we see today. How the inorganic/organic threshold got crossed is pretty much a mystery, though I assume natural means given my presuppositions while I’m pretty sure you start from different assumptions.

I think you make a great case for why life was not assembled in the manner you describe. But you are essentially just assuming -as far as I can tell - that which you should be arguing for: that life was created on purpose in a deliberate, watchmakerly manner. But of course I don’t think that. Why do you?

Wow, you just go right on assuming that no matter how many natural mechanisms we discover, each and every one of those must also reflect the tinkering of the cosmic watchmaker. Again, you are assuming your conclusion in order to argue for it. That doesn’t work.

Correct, assuming life can only arise as a result of the direct, intentional tinkering of a consciousness much like our own except for all the omni-powers, then indeed evolution just wouldn’t have what it takes … assuming what you assume.

The only thing leading in your direction are your assumptions. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Yours is an argument from incredulity.


#34

@GodsBiology Again, please describe your research. Have you published your results in anything that resembles peer-reviewed journals?


(Ronald Myers) #35

“GodsBiology”

How is your position on the origin and development of living organisms differ from the Intelligent Design position as enunciated by the Discovery Institute.

Both appear to say that “since we don not now fully understand how life arose and changed that God must have done it” Both appeal to improbabilities without reference to the number of times something could have happened. This goes back to my comment playing the lottery once a second for a year with a one in a million chance of winning. if you didn’t win several times the system was rigged against you.

Why are you duplicating effort with the ID movement?


(Thomas W. Rogers) #36

“The only thing leading in your direction are your assumptions. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Yours is an argument from incredulity.”

We are providing the details (evidence) of what Super-Intelligent physical work with atoms has to be performed at every cell construction site (finding in the adjacent blood vessel all the right ‘building-block’ atoms, selecting and counting them, assembling and fastening them in the right sequence to make every cell-part (which the 2016 Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry proved mankind does not have enough intelligence to do).

It seems you are the one making assumptions, Mark, if you believe there is no intelligence required to perform these essential tasks for building each cell-part, cell, and entity.

Just think through what work has to be performed with available atoms at each cell construction site.

I have a feeling that the reason evolutionary science has not focused on the atomic level of cell-part assemblies before is for this very reason of the essentiality of super-intelligence to do this work, and there are huge implications to making this admission.

Do you think our Creator may be upset when something else is given the credit for doing this massive amount of brilliant work 24/7 for each of us?


(Thomas W. Rogers) #37

Hi Ronald:
I have been a member of the Discovery Institute for several years.

The difference is that with our Atomic Biology Institute, we show the essentiality of a Super-Intelligent force to do the physical work with atoms to build our cell-parts, cells, and us. We also point out that the majority of the population and the Governments of the four nations we are addressing (the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada) all call this force, “God”.

Unfortunately, with the dictatorial teaching of evolution-only as the taught cause of life, the image of God has been intentionally made very fuzzy for many people.

The consequences of this reducing respect for our Creator (who knit us together in our mother’s womb and has been building our best foods from the dust and has been using the atoms from those foods to grow us up, and to sustain, maintain, and repair us ever since conception), the consequences of this increasing disrespect are becoming more and more evident.

Would you agree?

This story is not new as the Bible records the repetition of the Israelites getting into deep trouble over and over again as they drifted away from respecting Him and went their own way into trouble until they could no longer stand it and called out to Him for help, which He will provide if we sincerely ask.


(Thomas W. Rogers) #38

“Again, please describe your research. Have you published your results in anything that resembles peer-reviewed journals?”

Our research began in 1987 on a part-time curiosity basis. As we discovered new remarkable points of Godly science over the years, it became a full-time project about 11 years ago.

Now we have established The Atomic Biology Institute in two countries, and are moving forward with development of further applications of the new science.

Our second book on atomic biology is out now with the help of 20 PhDs, 3 MDs, 9 DScs, 3 Mathematicians, 2 MScs, and 8 Independent Researchers.

We have reviews and endorsements by several other PhDs and are gathering more with our “Science Agreeables” forms.


#39

You can’t describe your research?


(Ronald Myers) #40

First of all I thank you for a direct answer to a question. On discussion boards this is more the exception than the rule. And I appreciate the desire but not the method of witnessing about God
OK I see the differences (I can be dense at times)
a) An explicit identification of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as the designer
b) God working on an atom by atom basis which indeed is the name of this thread
Apart from the previously noted misuse of probability theory, I see three problems with your approach. The first is observational and the second is theological and the third is thermodynamics
For the observational, if God is involved at the detail you propose, He chooses to mimic natural processes. Using procreation as an example, an abused, starved, ill or alcoholic mother will give birth to an ill child which if the omnipotent and loving God were so closely involved would never happen. In the extreme, abortions would be impossible. Alas all of the above happen. For that matter, one would need to assert that God usually only acts in the womb after a couple had mated and can only use genetic material that the parents have even to the point of using bad genes when there is a good gene available eg hemophilia or color blindness. Recapping this in a slightly different way , if God were doing this 24/7 in the primary active way, there would be no birth defects, no cancer, no autoimmune diseases and the immune system would be able to fight off all infectious diseases.
On the Theological side there other verses to contend with. For example
Psalm 51:5 If God were so involved how could David say that he was conceived in sin?
Gen. 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creaturesa….
More generally every baby would be born at full term healthy or one would need to ask why God chose to mimic natural i.e. no-direct-intervention processes
As to the third, several of the others in this discussion seem to be addressing this. Living systems obey thermodynamics, they/we take in energy and increase entropy following the same rules as for inanimate objects. dE= -TdS+PdV is true in our cells. For us, we use 100 to 200 joules per second.
So I do not think our Creator is upset when something else is given the credit for doing this massive amount of brilliant work 24/7 for each of us because his role is to a large extent hidden. He is the author of creation and sustains it by His word .
As to alienation from God, a better critique is found in Galatians 5:19-25 our spiritual selves not our physical selves