The Kardi Argument (Official)



[[The Kardi Argument]]: is a formal argument which was developed to prove that life was designed. There are many formal arguments on the market which prove God exists and that atheism is a complete failure, but this particular argument is unique in the fact that it directly speaks to the origin of life. This argument is completely unique and we feel that in very short time it will become one of the most widely used apologetic arguments in circulation. It is officially one of the 15 Pillars of Truth used by the Blue House Apologetic Society and is widely recommended for Christian Apologetics.

Historical Background:

"The Kardi Argument" is a formal argument which was developed in late 2011 by well known Christian apologist Chad A. Elliott (better known as the Atheist Killa or AK). Mr. Elliott is most widely known for his work on the football field (2 time State Champion, All-American, Indoor and outdoor record holder, and his widely publicized You-tube trick shot videos). More recently he has become a major player in the world of Christian apologetics and has created a handful of very useful formal arguments as well as started the Blue House Apologetic Society. The claim made by the author in regards to the "Kardi Argument" is that it was founded on human logic, philosophical understanding, extensive scientific research, observation, and current scientific evidence and facts. Thus the argument would not be able to be defeated until new scientific evidence, observation, and facts become available. ''The Kardi Argument'' has a very unfavorable conclusion (in the eyes of the atheist world-view) and has been a fiery topic on the ''atheism vs. creationism'' debating scene. It has taken the internet by storm and has been the topic of numerous blogs, social media pages, youtube accounts, videos, and formal online debates.

The Formal Argument:

P1: If life is not designed, it's eternal in the past or came from non-life
P2: Life is not eternal in the past and did not come from non-life
C. Life is designed



Content Definitions:


Life - a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not (wikipedia). The quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. A principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings. An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. The sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life). The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism. Of or relating to animate existence; involved in or necessary for living: life processess.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life)

Eternal - (or forever) is defined as endless time according to wikipedia, while [http://www.thefreedictionary.com] defines eternity as ''time without beginning or end''. However, as it pertains to ''The Kardi Argument'' and P1, the word eternal is ONLY in reference to past eternity, or ''time without beginning". It makes no claims or reference to ''time ending'' or the future state of time. It's an important distinction to make to ensure the argument stands up.



Design - Creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system. A specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; (verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates).
Another definition for design is a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective (wikipedia.com). To create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. To conceive and plan out in the mind. to devise for a specific function or end. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design)


Designer - A Personal mind who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail. One who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure. (merriam-webster). A designer is a person who designs. More formally, a designer is an agent that "specifies the structural properties of a design object. In practice, anyone who creates tangible or intangible objects, such as consumer products, processes, laws, games and graphics, is referred to as a designer (wikipedia.com).

Defending the Premises:

How do we know life is not eternal in the past: Here it is important to remember that we are specifically talking about eternity past. This is an important distinction to be made and that is why the word "past" was incorporated. There is absolutely no evidence that life is, or could be, without true beginning. Beyond this, if life were eternal in the past, major philosophical and scientific issues arise which cannot be overcome. For example, if life were eternal in the past, we would have long evolved past our current evolutionary stage. More likely, it would be obvious to assume that we would by now have become some advanced civilization of robots with brains in liquid, who can live long past 200 years, time travel, and have thinking/mental capabilities unheard of. An further point that provides that nail in the coffin (if the previous items haven't been convincing enough), is that if life were eternal in the past, it would logically fall under STE (Space time eternal), and infinite regress. Thus completely destroying this idea.

Can life come from non-life without a designer?  Absolutely, positively, NOT! It is substantiated with overwhelming evidence, scientific facts, timeless amounts of laboratory research, observation, field work, and common sense. These truths are based on current scientific knowledge and cannot be undermined or proven invalid. Science has been trying to get life to come from non-life for years, but they cannot do it; and there's a reason why. "Despite substantial effort by multiple investigators, the formation of the basic building blocks of RNA has not been achievable, nor has a self replicating RNA been possible to design." (Francis S. Collins - Head of the Human Genome Project and one of the worlds leading scientists. The Language of God pg. 91) If you are careful to read this quote you will see that it proves that not only has life never been shown to come from non-life, but also that self replicating RNA can't even be "designed" by any of the greatest minds. This tells us that even in the most forgiving of environments (controlled laboratories), with designers (scientists), life still refuses to come from non-life. If the designers (scientists) could design self replicating RNA, then that still wouldn't solve the atheists problem, but rather compound it. Why? Well it would just further prove P2 (the fact that life needs a designer.) Even if that designer is a scientist or Miller-Urey themselves(who certainly werent around when life begun anyhow).


Probabilities: One calculation that many are familiar with is the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300.   number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 14.5 billion years.

Some assume abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules (which we've already talked about cannot be designed in a lab, let alone happen by random chance on their own from non-life). The odds against such a chance assembly are so astronomically immense that a protein required for life to begin could not possibly have assembled by chance on the early Earth.


We find that, even assigning the minimum possible specificity (m = 1) the probability Pr of assembling the RNA of a (12-14) cell by random processes in 1.11 billion years using triplet codons is no more than one in 10^79. And if the protein tasks are even marginally specific (with m = 2-3, say), the chances of random assembly of RNA for the first cell decreases to less than one in 10^100. In order to improve the chances of random assembly of the first cell, we consider a situation which might have existed in the young Earth. We suppose that proteins could be constructed using asmaller set (numbering Naa) of distinct amino acids: we consider the case of Naa = 5 (instead of the modern 20). If, in these conditions, the number of bases in DNA remained as large as 4 then doublet codons sufficed to encode protein production with the same amount of error protection as occurs in the modern (triplet) genetic code. In such conditions, the probability of randomly assembling the RNA for the first cell in 1.11 by improves. However, it is still small: the optimal probability is no more than one in 10^63. To improve the probability even further, it is tempting to consider the possibility of singlet codons. But we point out that these are not relevant in a realistic biology. In the context of doublet codons, we can improve the probability of random assembly by considering a larger set of distinct amino acids. The number of distinct amino acids for which doublet-codons can encode ranges from 5 to 14 (allowing for start and stop codons). As Naa increases above 5, there is a marked improvement in Pr for a (12-14) cell: in fact, Pr may approach a value of order unity when Naa = 11 provided that the specificity index m is smaller than 1.3. (This is far below the average value of m, and represents very marginal specificity.) And Pr formally exceeds unity for Naa in the range from 12 to 14, provided that m does not exceed 2.5. This value of specificity is still well below the average value. It is not clear that a functioning cell could survive for long with such low protein specificities. Nevertheless, the fact that Pr formally reaches a value as large as unity suggests that we may have found a window of opportunity for random assembly of the first (12-14) cell. However, these cells face a potentially fatal problem: even with 11 amino acids to be encoded by 16 codons in the RNA, there is little redundancy in the genetic code. And for Naa = 14, the redundancy vanishes altogether. As a result, there is a much reduced error protection in the code which translates the information in RNA to proteins. In the limit Naa = 14, there is no error protection at all: transcription from RNA to protein then has no immunity against noise. Moreover, in the limit Naa = 14 (plus a start and stop), proteins would be equally able to encode or RNA, in violation of the Central Dogma of biology. Therefore, although the probability of randomly assembling the RNA for a (1214) cell in such a world may approach unity in a mathematical sense, it is not clear how useful such a cell would be for biology. We stress that our assumptions about a (12-14) cell are minimalist in the extreme. In the “real world”, it is not obvious that a protein containing only 14 peptides will be able to fold into a stable 3-dimensional shape at the temperatures where water is liquid. And in the “real world”, a cell probably requires as many as 250 proteins to function. In such case, even if Naa = 14, Pr approaches unity only if the specificity index m lies in the very restricted range between 1.0 and 1.17. We identify this as a narrow window of opportunity for random assembly of primitive cells. But even this narrow window closes altogether if our estimate of the number of chemical reactions is too large by several orders of magnitude (as it may well be). 

Our calculations refer only to the assembling of a cell in which the genetic code is already at work. We do not address the origin f the genetic code itself. We conclude that, even if we assume that the genetic code was already in existence (by some unspecified mechanism), conditions in the early Earth must have been “finely tuned” in order to “squeeze through” the narrow window of opportunity and assemble the first cell on Earth in a truly random manner. In summary, if the first cell actually originated by random processes, the genetic code must already have existed, and conditions must have been “finely tuned” in order to trace a path through a narrow (and hostile) region of parameter space. The idea that some of the constants of the physical world have been subject to “fine tuning” in order to allow life to emerge, has been widely discussed in recent years (e.g. in the book by J. D. Barrow and F. J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press, 1994, 706 pp). If we are correct in concluding that“fine tuning” is also required in order to assemble the first cell, we might regard this conclusion as a biological example of the Anthropic Principle. (Dermott J. Mullen- International Society for Complexity, Information, and design.) (http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php)


Common Rebuttals:


[[Absolute Certainty]] - In an atheistic world-view nothing can be known with "absolute certainty." Nothing. So bringing it up is a fallacy. An atheist doesn't even know if he himself is real, if his experiences are happening, if he is living in the matrix, or is just a video game character being played by an alien in a distant galaxy. Atheists have no foundation or baseline for truth let alone for absolute certainty. They don't even know if anything they say is correct because at the very core of their world view they have nothing to stand on. Christians on the other hand do have absolute certainty because God provides it to us and reveals certain things to us through scripture, fellowship, nature, experience, and faith. We as Christians can know for certain that we are real, the the universe is real, that God created us, and that our experiences are actually happening, etc. There are many absolute truths that the believer can hold, while an atheist on the other hand can hold none. He is bound to the progression of science and nothing more. At any given moment, the atheist in fact can have no absolute certainty of anything at all. Everything they think and believe to be true can be washed away. So if an atheist brings up absolute certainty as a rebuttal to the "Kardi Argument" I will make an ABSOLUTE mockery of him by pointing out that as an atheist absolute certainty doesn't exist. That is something set aside for us believers. So bringing it up is a logical fallacy on the their part, and a fatal error in understanding their own worldview/postion. It would essentially be the same as saying, "I don't believe or think souls exist. Souls don't support or back up Chad's argument. Therefore Chad's argument is invalid. Luckily this isn't how logic or argumentation works and this apparent rebuttal is easily shot down.

Also one must note that since atheists have no absolute certainty, and disbelieve in a creator, they cannot then believe absolute certainty exists. Everything becomes subjective or opinion based. But what then do atheists base their opinions on? Most will claim scientific facts and evidence. Therefore trying to undermine an argument (such as the Kardi) which is completely based and founded on the best scientific facts, research, evidence, and philosophical understanding available would be counter intuitive and not a sound rebuttal. It would be self refutting to their world-view and everything they hold near to their hearts. The atheist would essentially never be able to believe or accept any argument at all based on such logic. Not even the ones that are based on science facts or evidence. Since of course science is never absolutely certain of anything, rather it's forced into using the best evidence that is available. The atheist would just have to keep saying, "you're not absolutely certain," to everything, if they are going to use this as a rebutal against anything. Paralizing science with this type of reasoning is no way to find truth or allow for progression. One could always fall back on 'could be arguments' even when faced with the strongest of evidences and facts. For example the scientist says to the atheist, "The earth revolves around the sun." The atheist replies, "No no no. You cannot be absolutely certain so your argument for such a case falls apart. It could just be that you havent found the real reason why you think the earth revolves around the sun yet."

[[False Assumption]] - Anyone making the claim that the Kardi Argument makes false assumptions firstly needs to under stand what the word assumption really means. An assumption is a presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, or theory. The acceptance or shouldering. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption). So we must look at this very carefully. Is the argument making any false assumptions with either of it's premises?? The answer is cleary no. Premise 1 is not a false hypothesis, guess, or theory. It's actually a supported fact that can be demonstrated and backed up with scientific fact, evidence, observation, logic, reasoning, and philosophical argumentation. Furthermore P1 is certainly not accepting or shouldering any flawed or false information. Therefore we conclude that there in not a single false assumption made in P1. The same case can also be made for Premise 2.

[[Amino Acids]] -

[[Circular Reasoning]] - One of the best attempts to disprove the Kardi Argument was present by a guy who goes by the handle antithesis314. He attempted to prove the Kardi Argument used circular reasoning in the following way: "If one analyzes the second premise, it becomes obvious that it is semantically equivalent to - Only life that has been designed can come from non-life. Once the semantics are made clear, it is evident that the argument commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Chad presupposes that only life that has been designed can come from non-life, and then concludes that life is designed. The fallacy is made more evident if we put the problem into the form of a hypothetical dialogue:

Antithesis314 - “Why is it the case that life is designed?”
Chad - “Because the only life that can come from non-life is designed.”
Antithesis314 - “But why can only designed life come from non-life?”
Chad - “Well, that’s because life is designed.”

This attempt to disprove the Kardi Argument did take some time on my part to work out. However after a few short days of study, I quickly figured out how to reconcile this apparent issue. The destruction of antithesis314 and his rebuttal can be seen here (http://youtu.be/b1TYk59AeqQ). I have never heard anyone else claim fallacy of circular reasoning since.

[[Abiogenesis]] - or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence.

Just a few of the people who couldn't get abiogenesis to work : Sidney Fox, Alexander Oparin, J. B. S. Haldane, Harold Urey, Morse and MacKenzie, Maher and Stevenson, Leslie Orgel, Stanley Miller, Lazcano, Christian de Duve, Oparin-Haldane,Steen Rasmussen, Jack Szostak, craig Venter,






why it they cant get it to work, why they will never get it to work


[[Scientist will someday get life to come from non-life]] - Some people say it's only a matter of time until scientists get life to come from non-life in the lab and then P2 would be proven false. However, there are two obvious problems with this line of reasoning. First of all the opponent is admitting that at this time they cannot disprove P2 (something that has to happen in order to invalidate the conclusion of the argument), and secondly it it wont invalide P2 anyways, rather it would support it! How you ask? Well, if scientists figure out a way to get life to come from non-life in the lab then guess what, they are the designers!! Again, P2 tells us "life cannot come from non-life with a designer" so if the scientists ever do figure out a way to make this happen they will be the one who designed it. Problem being there were no scientists around when life first began. So this rebuttal clearly falls short for not only one reason but two.


miller-urey -

RNA -While it would be strange for DNA to emerge spontaneously...isn't it quite possible for RNA to emerge? It makes a lot of sense, and of course, RNA doesn't require another additional apparatus to 'read' it or assemble for it the way DNA does. Wouldn't you agree that abiogenesis is more likely with RNA instead of DNA? What do you think?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Elliott Argument (Official)

Progressive Community Church Stockton, Ca. is DANGEROUS (Open Letter)

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa