The video that proves Intelligent Design

Source

Seeing is believing, and they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Over at Creation.com, Brian Thomas has posted a fascinating article entitled, ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind. ATP synthase is an enzyme that synthesizes an energy-rich compound, ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is used by almost every biochemical process in the body. ATP synthase is also the world’s tiniest rotary motor, and it operates at near 100% efficiency, which is far greater than that of any man-made motor. In his article, Brian Thomas does an excellent job of describing the workings of this enzyme and of exposing the inadequacies of proposed evolutionary explanations for its origin.

But don’t take my word for it. Have a look at this video by Creation.com, and you’ll see at once that ATP synthase is the product of design. It’ll only take 86 seconds of your valuable time.

As Jonathan Sarfati explains in another video, entitled Evolution Vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine:

You couldn’t have life unless you had this motor to produce the energy currency, so it looks like this motor must have been there right from the beginning, and I’d say that because this motor is so much better, so much tinier and more efficient than anything we can design, … the Designer of the motor is far more intelligent than any motor designer we have today too.

My sentiments exactly. Judge for yourself. You might like to have a look at these links here and here, on Uncommon Descent, where ATP synthase has been highlighted previously, as evidence for Intelligent Design.

I’d like to thank Bornagain77, a regular contributor to Uncommon Descent, for bringing this video to my attention, and also Ashby Camp of True.Origin.

Read More

Conservatives have no problems with real science

In his latest attacks against the voices who refuse to worship Darwin, Charles "Darwinist Rage Boy" Johnson reveals his knowledge (or lackthere of) concerning the issue "darwin versus design". I got tired of having him spew the same mantra over and over again, so I decide to make a short post about some of the things he says.

but “intelligent design” creationism has absolutely no legitimacy as a scientific theory

Depends on how you define "scientific theory", Darwinist Rage Boy. If you define "science" as the enterprise which denies a priori any Inteligent Causation for the biosfere, then yes, ID is against "science". However, if by science you mean "knowledge", then ID is a much more robust scientific theory than the theory of evolution.

There isn’t a single peer-reviewed paper that supports it

Oh really? What about these, Darwin Boy? Or what about the article authored by Dr Stephen Meyer, which caused darwinists to go insane? It had peer review, as Dr Richard Sternberg says on his site, but even so, since it advocated ID, darwinists didn't like it one bit.

So what do you mean with "there isn't a single peer reviewd paper that suports it", when there are some around?

there are no reputable scientists who promote it

Who defines what makes a scientist "reputable" or not? The darwinists? Is Scott Minich a "reputable" scientist?

and the most famous (actually, the only) biologist identified with ID, Michael Behe

This is the kind of statement that makes Darwinist Rage Boy look childish.

So in all the world, the only biologist who advocates an Inteligent Cause behind the design in the living world is Michael Behe? What about Jonathan Wells, who has degrees in Biology too? Perhaps he is not a "reputable biologist", right Charlie?

To end, here is another precious gem

This is why so many people believe the GOP has a problem with science — because it does.

Who are those "people"? Liberals? It wouldn't be the same people who advocate global warming, abortion and embrionic steem cell research, would it?

The truth of the matter is that conservatives have no problems with science, but only with naturalism. Darwinist Rage Boy conflates the two as if those are one and the same.

Read More

ACLU and Charles Johnson Agree: Keep God out!

Charles Johnson made a post in which he reproduces Judge Jones' interview. What Charles was careful enough to say that Jones was apointed by Bush. Not only that, Charles was careful enough to cite Jones' words in which he says that he is a "I am a person of faith. I’m certainly not an atheist or an agnostic and I see some divine force somewhere".

Even though Jones sees "some divine force somewhere", he failed to say where does he see that mysterious divine force. Is that divine forse seen through science? Or science belongs to atheism, as many atheists believe?

Anyway, what is important about Charles' post is that he totally "forgot" to mention that judge Jones' decision was almost 90% copied from the ACLU!

Nice going, Charles. Now you are on the ACLU side? Great!

I know that something is wrong when a "conservative" sides with the anti-american, anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, pro-homosexual , pro-infanticide ACLU in a legal decision.

Don't forget this: Charles Johnson sided with the ACLU AGAINST the Christians in a legal case.

Read More