• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, yes. I might have overdone it from some of the posters here, but not all as far as I can tell.

But off course it is real that you are objectively useless. ;) Just because I feel/think so subjectively, then it is real. ;)
The rambling vague Nihilism continues unabated.

You are indeed stuck in a perpetual subjective frame of reference.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Science has no idea what happened, and is not even capable of investigating it. Science is totally dependent on the functional fact of it happening and cannot therefor look beyond it. I don't resent science. But neither do I deify it and pretend it's capable of something that it is not.
Intentional ignorance based on an ancient tribal text without provenance and science.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The rambling vague Nihilism continues unabated.

Well, since I have a positive faith in that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable, I can't understand what version of nihilism it is. And further I believe in that humans have postive worth and that human rights matter. Again what that has to do with nihilism I can't make out.
But yes, I am a global skeptic but that is not the same as a nihilist.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Even as an atheist, I understand how your position makes sense, but as a skeptic we might not agree on the finer points of logic. :)
That's easy. It's logical to assume that some source must exist in some sense, even if we have no way of comprehending the what, or how, or why of it. While the alternatives: that there is no source, and it all just spontaneously happened from nothingness and for no reason, or, that existence is eternal in spite of the fact that nothing that exists is eternal, are both just patently illogical propositions.

"God" is just a placeholder term we use for what we imagine and refer to as this presumed mystery source of existence.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That's easy. It's logical to assume that some source must exist in some sense, even if we have no way of comprehending the what, or how, or why of it. While the alternatives: that there is no source, and it all just spontaneously happened from nothingness and for no reason, or, that existence is eternal in spite of the fact that nothing that exists is eternal, are both just patently illogical propositions.

"God" is just a placeholder term we use for what we imagine and refer to as this presumed mystery source of existence.

Well, as long as you understand that "God" is that with your logic, a placeholder term and nothing else, then we agree on that "God".
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Where are you seeing any ancient tribal text references? Cause I'm sure not listing any.
You need not list anything since you make it extremely clear your anti-science agenda.

Your entire history of posts is most definitely related to anything close to relevant science.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?
I sincerely can’t. Even something less complex as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly boggles my mind and, imv, challenges random mutations.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You need not list anything since you make it extremely clear your anti-science agenda.

Your entire history of posts is most definitely related to anything close to relevant science.
I am not the least bit anti-science. I just don't make an idol of it as the scientism crowd here does.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yeah, I know. The problem of justification is as old as Christianity and it has never in recorded history been solved by anybody. And that is regardless of religious or not.
So we are as per the header of the thread doing justification. And unless you claim that you are special, then that also applies to you. And everybody else including me. But the joke about me as a skeptic, is that I will state that I am not special and that I can't do justifiaction in the strong postive sense.
In other words I accept a negative as an answer, just as per natural science as falsifiable and falsification.
If you ask is it possible to in effect objectively justify in a strong sense any explanation, then you might want to consider that you could get a negative answer. That is what in the end makes you a skpetic. Not that you doubt religion, but that you doubt any understand as to whether it has limits.

So are you a skeptic or what?
Yes yes, we know, in your opinion nothing can be rationally justified, we get it.

Yawn.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am simply pointing out that the God answer is as much a possibility as any other we might imagine.
And you are wrong about that.

And when considered properly, it is the more logical.

No... the undetectable and unfalsifiable is never the "more logical". Especially not when there are options that ARE (even only in principle) detectable and falsifiable.

Certainly compared to the random accident theory that most atheists try to push forward.
Strawman. Again.

And even then: a "random accident" that does not require violation / suspension of natural law and which actually CAN occur, is far more likely then undetectable, unfalsifiable magic.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
While the alternatives: that there is no source, and it all just spontaneously happened from nothingness and for no reason, or, that existence is eternal in spite of the fact that nothing that exists is eternal, are both just patently illogical propositions.

Do you honestly think this an accurate characterization of how abiogenesis or diversity of life potentially occurred according to the scientists who research this phenomenon?

"God" is just a placeholder term we use for what we imagine and refer to as this presumed mystery source of existence.
In that case, you should just say "we don't know" if what you REALLY mean is mere ignorance.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?
The idea of random principles driving all this order is ridiculous. For example, randomly rearrange the words in a paragraph or the parts in your car and see if you can improve it or add new improved ordered meaning. Order requires an ordering principle or two, such as a knowledge of grammar or knowledge of car making and car function. If you know these things, you have a shot to improve and not do damage via change. There more things thing that can go wrong then right with a random approach. One genetic defect can be life threatening.

The best two ordering principles I could find for life are water and the 2nd law. The second law states that the entropy of the universe; complexity, has to increase. We have a science based law and potential for change and complexity increase. Science has very few laws but theories are a dime a dozen, so why not use a law for credibility? While water and oil or water and the organics of life, do not mix, but rather tend to separate when they interact; compartments and organelles. If I mixed water and oil and try to combine them into a solution, once I stop shaking, they will mutually separate, imposing repeatable order. When proteins are manufactured by a cell, the water packs and folds them into repeatable packages; water-oil effect. This is not randomness achieving the same order each time. We need a set of natural ordering potentials and not random hocus pocus, since repeatable order is observed in life. How can mother cells make two daughter cells that both become ordered using random?

Water is very effective at ordering life because water is the majority component of life with 50 times as many water molecules as all the organics combined. Each water molecule can form up to four hydrogen bonds, with hydrogen bonds the strongest secondary bonding forces in life. Life is fluid and hydrogen bonding is king of these fluid structures. Water comes first and organics needs to evolve to maximize the water, with the water pushing for change via its secondary bonding dominance. When water and oil separate, the water is imposing this, so it can maximize its own hydrogen bonding matrix. The oil has to follow suit since it is being displaced by water. Water is what makes the DNA form a double helix to shield the bulk water from the organic bases and sugars.

Water is very stable and the product of combustion or fire. Water does not change over time, even over billions of years. The system of water and organics, when subjected to the 2nd law; change and complexity, has to focus change on the organics in light of the dominance of water. The net result is water stays the same while the organic of life do all the changing to accommodate the needs of water. Life has one stable and stationary bookend and one moving bookend. The stable bookend imposes order on all change.

The DNA will not work without water. There is a double helix of water inside the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. The base pairs of DNA have twice as many hydrogen bonding sites for water, then are needed by the base pairs, to pair up. Water is twice as valuable to the hydrogen bonding structure and function of the DNA. The DNA is not bioactive without this water. The amount of hydrated water will define the conformation of the DNA with B-DNA the most common and having the most hydration.

In most textbooks, this water is not shown. Do a Google search and try to find it! This omission of the water; dominant principle, results in the illusion of needing a random placeholder to explain the ordering nature of water upon the evolving DNA oil. Once you add the water to the analysis it is not random at all. The problem is science malpractice, due to using the same math for science that is used by gambling casinos, politics and marketing. Random is more like a campaign slogan oracle than rational science.

In my experience, if one does not fully understand how things work it appears more random than it is. The black box approach is a tell since the black box means you start in the dark of ignorance, and apply a math method or oracle to help you see something. That is middle ages science before the age of reason. My guess is science was hijacked by politics and the free market, who imposed their math on science, to dumb it down and control it, for the needs of an assembly line workforce. Random is a useful applied science tool, being used for pure science, and it does not belong there. The result is manufactured theory and not pure rational theory. This is OK in a factory or casino, where manmade it the gaol, but not if the goal is to explain the natural order in the natural world.
 
Top