-
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!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
scott777
Member
Hello and welcome to RF........I think....
And yet the machinery used to produce the image is designed by an intelligent mind......the mind that can comprehend the algorithm is also uniquely and intelligently human.
Kaleidoscopes are not new either and can produce patterns in much the same way....but who had to make the Kaleidoscope? The mirrors did not assemble themselves. The computer that processed the fractal is the product of an intelligent mind. I believe that the algorithms are the product of an intelligent mind as well.
That does not explain why we collectively interpret beauty in much the same way. We are designed to interpret beauty in a way that animals are not. Animals are programmed by instinct and beauty to them ends up as either food or to trigger reproduction. Hormones and pheromones also play a crucial role in reproduction. None of which I see as "accidental".
And yet this does not explain why we are the youngest on the evolutionary tree but have advance way passed many species that were around for millions of years before us....go figure.
I have never seen an animal stop to admire the scenery unless it had an attraction such as a scent which conveyed information to that animal of prey or predator or rival. In each case a programmed response kicks in....no planning is required. Very few animals can identify themselves in a mirror, meaning that they lack imagination. Very intelligent animals can recognize their own reflection, but still do not exhibit anywhere near the capabilities of humans.
Conscience is a purely human faculty. It comes from our unique moral capacity. We alone possess the ability to contemplate past, present and future, as concepts beyond the now. Conscience operates in all three realms. We can express regret with pangs of conscience over past wrongs, contemplate what a present action might result in, avoiding a bad conscience as a result, and plan never to act in a certain way in the future by applying past and present knowledge.
I do not know of any other creature on earth who can do any of that....except us. We alone mirror the traits of our Creator.
God does not classify us as animals BTW.....science does that to support its theory. It is also justification for humans to behave like animals......sadly.
Thank you for the welcome. Always nice to have a civilised chat.
It is probably true that this fractal was produced by a computer. However, it does not REQUIRE a computer and could be produced by hand. When a person or a computer creates a fractal, they are not DESIGNING anything at all. The process is entirely automatic, based on the initial algorithm.
The point about fractals is that a complex and beautiful pattern can come naturally and automatically from a simple rule. We only use computers to do so, because it takes a very long time to do them by hand.
Fractals demonstrate that if they can have this effect, then so can the laws of physics, given a very long time.
By the way, even if algorithms are the product of an intelligent mind (which they probably aren’t), the fact remains that an algorithm is not complex or beautiful. Only the result is.
Animals DO find beauty in things, as someone has already pointed out. Bees are attracted to flowers, birds are attracted to other birds, etc, etc. Just because an animal cannot tell that to you, doesn’t mean they don’t experience it.
We interpret beauty in a similar way because we are the same species and share the same genes which give us our interpretation of beauty. Our ancestors required the desire to explore and understand in order to survive. That desire has triggered our advanced development.
What do you mean “youngest on the evolutionary tree”?
I won’t address the other points because you’ve made a lot of points which all take time to explain. Maybe another time.
According to evolutionists, life is accidental. There is no reason for life to exist except that it accidentally popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and then cleverly reproduced itself. But since there was no cleverness or intelligence involved, it must all have been accidental.
Last edited:
scott777
Member
It seems you are now talking about the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution and is not part of the Evolution / Creation subject.
My point is that something complex and beautiful can come through an automatic process from something simple and non-beautiful. Do you still disagree with that?
Looncall
Well-Known Member
If it was accidental, so what? What difference does that make? Does it upset you because it contradicts your favourite superstition?
Does anyone want to take a bet on WHO will post that evolution isn't about the first protein molecule?
Oh, it was me!
Oh, it was me!
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
thanks! I was wondering how the other side could even refute my post.
they might say that the laws of physics and not chance inevitably produce life, but Science in the mainstream insists that those laws are driven by chance.
and then that there might be a multiverse of infinite possibilities and we just happen to be in the right place.
all of which I find totally dissatisfying and speculative.
It always amazes me when people treat these as separate subjects......to me how life began is the more important question because it answers all the rest. To separate them just allows evolutionists to disavow any connection to that more important question. How life changed pales into insignificance by comparison IMO.
The minute you mention abiogenesis, watch the evolutionists duck for cover.
"Automatic processes" are almost taken for granted in 'evolution speak'. But what constitutes "automatic" in your estimations?
My car is 'automatic'....I jump in and start the engine and put the stick in "drive" and away I go. I don't have to worry about what gear I'm in.....the car knows it all for me. Do I assume that this automatic" transmission just popped up out of nowhere for no apparent reason? Or do I appreciate the ingenuity of the engineering?
Do I assume that snowflakes exhibit design for no reason? Why are they like fingerprints.....no two the same? Is it just a fluke?
This is what various pollen spores look like under a microscope.....
7 Totally Awesome (and Terrifying) Objects Under a Microscope
Look how absolutely perfect they are. Don't you have to wonder why there is perfection and obvious design even in things we can't appreciate with the naked eye?
What about the eyes of an insect....?
microscopic flies eyes - Google Search
Do these look like they are just flukes of nature? Or do they look designed....crafted even?
How can evolutionists look but not see?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Bingo-
The origin of life certainly was not irrelevant to it's nature for Darwin, the whole point of ToE was to provide an explanation for all life without creative input, cells were mere fuzzy blobs in microscopes at the time, but even then- he acknowledged that if these could not be accounted for by natural processes, it was a major hole in the plot. He was in many ways far less dogmatic about his own theory than his followers 150 years on
This should give the evolutionists some perspective on the subject....probability of life arising by chance.....zero.
scott777
Member
It always amazes me when people treat these as separate subjects......to me how life began is the more important question because it answers all the rest. To separate them just allows evolutionists to disavow any connection to that more important question. How life changed pales into insignificance by comparison IMO.
The minute you mention abiogenesis, watch the evolutionists duck for cover.
"Automatic processes" are almost taken for granted in 'evolution speak'. But what constitutes "automatic" in your estimations?
My car is 'automatic'....I jump in and start the engine and put the stick in "drive" and away I go. I don't have to worry about what gear I'm in.....the car knows it all for me. Do I assume that this automatic" transmission just popped up out of nowhere for no apparent reason? Or do I appreciate the ingenuity of the engineering?
Do I assume that snowflakes exhibit design for no reason? Why are they like fingerprints.....no two the same? Is it just a fluke?
This is what various pollen spores look like under a microscope.....
7 Totally Awesome (and Terrifying) Objects Under a Microscope
Look how absolutely perfect they are. Don't you have to wonder why there is perfection and obvious design even in things we can't appreciate with the naked eye?
What about the eyes of an insect....?
microscopic flies eyes - Google Search
Do these look like they are just flukes of nature? Or do they look designed....crafted even?
How can evolutionists look but not see?
I agree it is more important how life begun. I also agree that we don’t have the answer. But I am not separating that from Evolution. It IS a separate thing by definition.
For the purpose of this thread, which is about Evolution vs Creationism, I’m agreeing with Evolution. I’d prefer to stick to one discussion at a time, rather than to keep changing the subject. It seems more like you don’t want to consider the Evolution argument at all. Why don’t you consider the possibility that God DID create life, then Evolution brought about the variety of life?
For the purpose of this argument, the automatic process of fractals basically means a process that does NOT require thinking, but only physics. Such processes exist everywhere. Circles form through an automatic process, because of gravity. So from no shape, you get a shape. Waves on a beach often create interesting patterns in the sand. Do you agree these are non-thinking physical processes or is God making the shapes and patterns all the time?
Last edited:
scott777
Member
In fact everything regarding the WHOLE universe is speculative. Scientists may have good theories about the OBSERVABLE universe, but the idea that the WHOLE universe is finite is just as speculative as the idea that it is infinite. The same applies to time.
scott777
Member
I thought the point was to explain the diversity of life, not the origin. Evolution is about change, not origin. Wikipedia calls it "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". So it agrees with my basic understanding.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Ironically, I've lost count of the number of times I've explained how bogus these probability calculations are. They are as easy to refute as bouncing a ball - literally.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Indeed. For something to have been accidental, it must be presupposed that there was an actor making the accident. Basically, to say life is 'accidental' is to say life has a creator, but he's a bumbling fool that 'oopsed' life into existence.
Literally nobody is claiming that.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yet Darwinists believe that the origin of man was derived from accidental changes in animals- likewise chemical evolution is the belief that biology itself was originated by changes in physical/chemical compositions.
So while the two are easy to separate semantically, it's not so easy in practical reality is it?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Then go start a thread about abiogenesis, if you think that is the more interesting field of study.
Uh no, it's separate because it's a different field of study. It's the same reason say, gravitational theory isn't lumped in there too. It's a different thing. It's really as simple as that. [/quote]
Actually they're just kinda annoyed that some people still can't seem to understand that abiolgenesis and evolution are different things, despite the fact it's been pointed out to them ad nauseam.
Is your car a biological organism capable of reproducing?
Snowflakes form via natural processes. What's the alternative? The god you worship creates each individual snowflake every single time it snows somewhere on the planet?
More pretty pictures and shallow analyses based solely on "looks." This is getting really old. Do you think tape worms and flesh eating bacteria are also "perfect?"This is what various pollen spores look like under a microscope.....
7 Totally Awesome (and Terrifying) Objects Under a Microscope
Look how absolutely perfect they are. Don't you have to wonder why there is perfection and obvious design even in things we can't appreciate with the naked eye?
What about the eyes of an insect....?
microscopic flies eyes - Google Search
Do these look like they are just flukes of nature? Or do they look designed....crafted even?
How can evolutionists look but not see?
I still find it baffling that you claim that god created everything we see but you can't even fathom the idea that the same god could have designed evolution.
Last edited:
How did your god originate? Did it
a) Evolve?
b) Was it designed and created?
c) Did it appear by accident?
d) Something else?
What is the current theory of origin?
- Status