Just Putting Things in Perspective....

[Polymath257]

Except that cause and effect did not become a phenomenon until shortly after creation ergo a creator would not be subject to cause and effect.

Hence creation still would not have a cause?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hence creation still would not have a cause?

Correct.

 

[Deeje]

Post-menopausal pregnancies are (or rather, were) exceedingly rare and extremely dangerous. Thanks to modern science and medicine it's becoming less risky, but there's still that pesky biological fact that a woman's eggs are numbered.

All species have a "use by" date. Females are born with all their eggs, but they can produce many offspring in their lifetime to more than replace themselves. We are speaking in generalities because there are exceptions to every rule.

No it's not.

Here is a list of creatures who are monogamous....

• Gibbon apes
• wolves
• termites
• coyotes
• barn owls
• beavers
• bald eagles
• golden eagles
• condors
• swans
• brolga cranes
• French angel fish
• sandhill cranes
• pigeons
• prions
• red-tailed hawks
• anglerfish
• ospreys
• prairie voles
• black vultures

Animals That Mate for Life - See Who Made the List

We as a species are also programmed to be monogamous. Its the reason why mates feel 'betrayed' if their partner is 'unfaithful'. It is also the reason why "marriage" is found in almost all cultures. Marriage creates families and these form the fabric of any society.....with families fragmenting so often these days, the fabric is becoming unraveled.

Everybody but the few nuts who - like Flat-Earthers - continue to deny clear and concise evidence.

Do you really have reason to believe the Pharma-financed research?
This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Have you ever done any research into this issue yourself? Hearing both sides is very enlightening.

What do you know about the pros and cons of vaccinations and their long term outcomes?

Six Reasons to Say NO to Vaccination - The Healthy Home Economist

Then you are a danger to society and your children, and a direct aid to the resurgence of many preventable diseases.

Let me ask you this...if vaccinated children are protected, then why is my unvaccinated child a risk to them? This question never seems to be asked....but its logical to ask...isn't it?

Except for the ones that are free, $10, or no more than $100. But oh, those Pharmaceuticals! Better off to just give that money away in tithing, right? At least that's not going to waste and not being taxed.

There is nothing "free" in the drug company world. You think the pharmaceutical companies donate these?
If drug companies were so benevolent then why is cancer treatment their most lucrative treatment regime?
Ask why people can't have access to promising new cancer treatments without the ability to pay a hefty sum? Why do people need to sell their homes to pay rich drug companies for treatments that in 90% of cases, don't even work? Have you never asked these questions? They hope you won't.

It is often the government who pays for free or subsidized vaccination programs, so the rich stay rich and the sick get sicker. With all the advances in medicine, wouldn't you think they could just boost people's immune systems to fight disease? That's why we have an immune system, but drugs are designed as a 'band-aid' to suppress symptom to give you the illusion that you are getting better. Drugs are designed to keep you sick so you will be their customer for life. Propaganda works.

FYI....I don't tithe...that was a Jewish requirement. It is governments who do not tax religious charitable organizations. For the help they offer to others, they save the government money in the long run.

Kind of like all the logically bankrupt troglodytes who proudly tout the "My Faith Votes" bumper stickers? I've seen more sense from 18 year olds than I have 58 year olds at times.

I don't vote either so your comment does not apply to me. My faith votes in better ways than supporting corrupt politics.

So often when I see this said, it rather means "in the right way, but only this right way." Free will being used "the right way" would mean people doing things that you disagree with and that are, at times, incredibly foolish. It's not a matter of maturity and understanding consequences.

It is society that demands adherence to a set of accepted standards. That is why there are laws. Those laws are usually based on their potential for people to do harm to others. To teach your children to adhere to those standards, not only makes them decent citizens of their nations, but also keeps them out of prison.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except that cause and effect did not become a phenomenon until shortly after creation ergo a creator would not be subject to cause and effect.

That does not logically follow as if there is always a cause to bring forth and effect, there must be a cause for the creator. It's also arbitrary to stop at the creator and assume that's where it must stop.

 

[Deeje]

There is no design necessary though. Our ancestors have always bonded and functioned as groups, and it is how we evolved.

If that is what you want to believe then please explain families and troupes of animals that are not related to humans or each other, forming strong family groups. Explain how animals that are related to them do not have this aspect to their lifestyle. These are not chosen...they are programmed for this.
Who programmed them? What evolutionary purpose does it serve for some to be in 'families' and others not?

And yet despite tons and tons of research this link between vaccines and autism has never been found. It's also damning for such claims that we can usually diagnose autism before a child is old enough for the vaccines.
And, even if they did, I'd much rather have the autism I do have than having a childhood that knew polio and iron lungs.

The 'tons and tons of research' are all done by the very people who produce the vaccines....co-incidental then perhaps?

As far as polio is concerned, this is an interesting look into that whole scenario from the 'other side".
It makes you shake your head. Not at all like 'they' tell the story.

Poliomyelitis (Polio) | Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network Inc.

Considering they tend to be highly isolationists, they probably have a low rate of everything as they aren't going to psychiatrists.

The Amish live their lives according to strict Bible standards and grow their own food the way nature intended. Healthy immune systems do not need vaccines to do what immune systems are designed to do. They have a low rate of mental illness because they live a simple family life and remain relatively unaffected by the stresses of modern life.

The brain, however, does not reach full maturation until about early-to-mid 20s.

Maturity does not depend on age.....there are a lot of older people who haven't advanced much past the mentality of 10 year olds.

Conversely, there are many teenagers who have developed maturity way beyond their years by simply being raised by informed, mature parents.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2265640173461999

When we consider the world that we live in and how we compare sizes of things to what we see on our own planet, then to compare the smallest thing we know with the biggest thing, I find my mind has difficulty processing this information.

From microscopic to enormous on earth is one thing....but to then go from "small" to "gargantuan" in the universe outside our world.....just mind boggling!

Can these heavenly bodies just come from nowhere?

It's also fascinating how things work on completely different mechanisms at vastly different scales, yet they all integrate seamlessly with each other - just grasping the fraction of it we can... that's some mind bogglingly brilliant engineering.

 

[Deeje]

That is because you have never studied biology. Females do not "usually have to fight competing males off". They very often pick and choose. It is very common in bird populations. That is why in many species of birds it is the male that is the good looking one. He has to attract a female.

Thank you for confirming what I already said. The very fact that in birds, the female can choose which of many suitors she wants to father her offspring, is based on things that only a birdbrain can verify. Who knows how she evaluates the prospective father? No bird has ever told us. Science makes guesses about these things though. Animals of other species usually have an alpha male to do the job. It isn't the female who has problems reproducing....and it isn't the males who stand back and let the other fellow have his way. (unless of course he gets beaten up by the opposition) The drive to reproduce is extremely strong in all species.
We had a bull on our farm who used to "bulldoze" fences to get to the neighbors cows who called to him relentlessly....shameless hussies!

some have claimed that natural selection is so obviously true it is almost a tautology.

No one is suggesting that natural selection does not take place...its the extent to which it does that is in question.....something science makes guesses about as well. If adaptation explains small changes, then evolution must explain big ones. If natural selection does "this", then it must of necessity do "that"....but no actual proof is ever forthcoming for any of it. Their guesses become facts and are then taught to school children who carry their fantasy into adulthood.....how is this kind of science any different to a religion?

Why did you not look into how the original claim was totally blown out of the water? You should do your own research, just try to use reliable sources.

Oh dear...it must have been a very small puddle then.

Perhaps you can look at both sides of this issue and see for yourself what is stated. I know what rings true for me. I know how the desire for money corrupts everything.

Your friend may have lied to you. The chickenpox vaccine is extremely effective, and when it fails the cases tend to be mild:

Oh please....if someone disagrees with what you have been led to believe by those with vested interests in hiding the truth, and they must be lying....? Seriously?

Both the children were vaccinated and both had a bad dose of the infection. She didn't even twig until I asked if they had been vaccinated...then she started to look puzzled because she said they had.....I know she wasn't lying.

I believe that your trust in the medical system is seriously misplaced. Like many other 'systems' in this world, it is run by a very wealthy, politically powerful and corrupt few.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for confirming what I already said. The very fact that in birds, the female can choose which of many suitors she wants to father her offspring, is based on things that only a birdbrain can verify. Who knows how she evaluates the prospective father? No bird has ever told us. Science makes guesses about these things though. Animals of other species usually have an alpha male to do the job. It isn't the female who has problems reproducing....and it isn't the males who stand back and let the other fellow have his way. (unless of course he gets beaten up by the opposition) The drive to reproduce is extremely strong in all species.
We had a bull on our farm who used to "bulldoze" fences to get to the neighbors cows who called to him relentlessly....shameless hussies!

No, some species have an alpha male. That/is usually because one male can take care of multiple wives. But that is not found in species where both parents must raise the offspring. in wolves, which are pack animals, there is often an alpha male AND an alpha female. They are the only ones that breed. Meercats follow this geneeral rule too. Females that do not toe the line can be kicked out from the group and that is quite often a death sentence for a communal species. And science does not make "guesses" in the sense that you have to. They study a subject and then at worst make educated guesses. But that is only the beginning. They test and retest their original idea and change it as needed until it works. Science works because they do much much more than merely guess.


I grew up on a small "dairy farm" too. My father bought a Grade B dairy farm in Minnesota when Grade B was just about done. Grade B milk was the old fashioned kind where one did not have a large refrigerated tank, but rather a milkhouse and milk cans. He got a quarter section (about a half mile on a side) farm for a rather low price. It was a terrible farm with all sots of things that were not conducive to farming. It had hills, woods, a lake, a couple of creeks. Terrible for farming but an absolute fantastic place to grow up.

My father worked in a nearby city and we did some farming. A couple of fields were planted with crops, and we would baby city heifers during the spring and summer for a dairy farmer. Unlike cows that have been bred heifers liked to roam. We did have to maintain the electric fence, but even so they broke out now and then. Then we had to heard them back to the farm after their damage was repaired. Meanwhile we had a garden that started small and it grew and grew, and grew, until we grew almost all of our own produce. Store bought vegetables were just not the same. Also my dad made a series of cross country ski trails through the woods. When he sold the farm and had people looking at it for a retreat center when going through the woods they had to walk over swaths of protected flowers. They could not legally be picked but it was fine to walk on them.

When the farm sold he made a mint on it because he sold it as a retreat center and not as a working farm. I still miss that place.

No one is suggesting that natural selection does not take place...its the extent to which it does that is in question.....something science makes guesses about as well. If adaptation explains small changes, then evolution must explain big ones. If natural selection does "this", then it must of necessity do "that"....but no actual proof is ever forthcoming for any of it. Their guesses become facts and are then taught to school children who carry their fantasy into adulthood.....how is this kind of science any different to a religion?

Again you are making false claims about your fellow man. And though you may not understand it, concepts in science are "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem is that some people can be very unreasonable. It would help if you learned how science is done. Would you like to go over the basics?

Oh dear...it must have been a very small puddle then.

Perhaps you can look at both sides of this issue and see for yourself what is stated. I know what rings true for me. I know how the desire for money corrupts everything.

It was. It was an idiotic claim made by a dishonest person. I am surprised that you have no clue about this. Here is an article on how it was done. By the way, the people with a vested interest were those making the false claims about vaccines:

The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud

Oh please....if someone disagrees with what you have been led to believe by those with vested interests in hiding the truth, and they must be lying....? Seriously?

Did you check out the links? They were not honest about the vaccinations. Once again, you are blaming the wrong people when it comes to a vested interest.

Both the children were vaccinated and both had a bad dose of the infection. She didn't even twig until I asked if they had been vaccinated...then she started to look puzzled because she said they had.....I know she wasn't lying.

Right by the way, I used that smiley correctly. You didn't. There are several possibilities. One she did not get the vaccine. Or two, they did not have chicken pox. Did she go to a doctor? Were they diagnosed? You have shown that you are not the best judge when it comes to people lying so your claim is rather worthless here.

I believe that your trust in the medical system is seriously misplaced. Like many other 'systems' in this world, it is run by a very wealthy, politically powerful and corrupt few.

The statistics tell us that you are wrong. And you really should not be so paranoid. It reflects poorly upon you.

 

[Deeje]

The reason we can deduce an artist is that we know that natural processes do not produce things like paintings, symphonies, or sculptures like what we see from artists.

But natural processes produce many beautiful things.....the subject matter for paintings for instance......

the sounds of the forest are a symphony of creatures all singing in perfect harmony....

sculptures in nature are also beautiful.

But nobody made them.

And the difference is that we know in all of these cases that natural processes *do* form structures like what we see. The galaxy you showed is formed by the natural processes of gravity. The nova remnant from thenatural processes that destroy stars and the nebula from the natural processes when gases from one source impinge on those from another.

So what are these "natural processes" and how do you define them?

What is "gravity"? Where does gravity originate? What makes gravity work? What would happen on earth if there was no gravity? Is it just a fluke or was it designed?

Where do the gases come from? What is their source? What makes up the 'gases' in the air we breathe? What determines the right balance of these gases?

What does science really know about origins?

On the contrary, given the types of feedback that genetics produces, evolution is inevitable given the fact of life.

Where does that feedback originate? Isn't it from people who want to promote evolution? Isn't that the same as religious people promoting religion?

You guys seem to take so many things for granted, but without those things that you treat as "natural", made by nobody, nothing would work. You think they all come together as one gigantic fluke?

Actually, very few things have an *intelligent* cause. The vast majority of causes are natural ones that follow the basic laws of nature (such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc). Even on Earth, there are very few things that are made by an intelligence. Most structures have no designer behind them.

The science of biomimetics is interesting because scientists look at the amazing designs in nature and tries to copy them.

Who Designed It First?

If it takes scientific minds to copy what is seen in nature, then why doesn't it take a scientific mind to invent these things in the first place? Why is the genius in the copy and not in the originals?

That doesn't mean they are uncaused. it just means the cause isn't an intelligence, but is a natural process.

So no one caused the cause...these things just....are. Really? Like the originals that scientists are endeavoring to copy....they just exist for no particular reason...undesigned and uncreated yet they are so ingenious that they are worth copying? That makes no sense.

There are two different things going on when populations adapt: the average value for some properties shifts, which eats up variability. But with mutations, that variability is restored and adaptation can continue once it is.

Tell me how many beneficial mutations it would take to produce what science is suggesting...from the beginning of life to now?

Google "beneficial mutations" and see how many science has come up with that they actually have proof for.

According to Wiki..."They [beneficial mutations] are "random" in the sense that the changes are not preferentially distributed with respect to the result — they are not "goal-oriented"....it goes on to say....."It is safe to say that the vast majority of mutations in an organism are not beneficial. Often a mutation is neutral, producing neither a beneficial effect nor a negative effect, although it could be a potentiating mutation. Many are negative mutations - producing a disorder in the organism that significantly lowers its survival and reproductive capabilities."

So any of these "beneficial mutations" are just a fortunate accident? How many fortunate accidents does it take to make any real difference to any species? If most mutations are not beneficial but actually detrimental, then what should we expect to see?
I think science is kidding itself personally. It is suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking IMO.

It provides the hypotheses that we then go out to test.

A hypothesis is an idea. The idea then becomes a possibility and if enough scientists contribute to a pool of educated guesses, then voila! it gets presented as a fact! That is how I see things.

Not all things inherent are inherited. Nor vice versa. The inherent nature of, say, water, is not inherited in any way.

What is "inherent" in human nature is passed down from one generation to another. The next generation "inherits" what was in the gene pool. Some of it is good, some not so good. I am not misunderstanding the words but rather synchronizing them.

Speaking of water.....since it is such a vital part of life on this planet, can science explain how we have such an abundance of it here on Earth but no other planet does?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But natural processes produce many beautiful things.....the subject matter for paintings for instance......

the sounds of the forest are a symphony of creatures all singing in perfect harmony....

sculptures in nature are also beautiful.

But nobody made them.

Right, there is no evidence nor reason to think that anyone made them. "I don't understand" is never a reason to claim that someone was involved.

So what are these "natural processes" and how do you define them?

What is "gravity"? Where does gravity originate? What makes gravity work? What would happen on earth if there was no gravity? Is it just a fluke or was it designed?

Where do the gases come from? What is their source? What makes up the 'gases' in the air we breathe? What determines the right balance of these gases?

What does science really know about origins?

"Science" does not know anything. Scientists can learn about origins by using the scientific method. You rely on a book that has refuted ideas, bad morals, countless contradictions, why would anyone accept that? We can answer many questions about origins using the scientific method. Not know something has never been a valid excuse to claim that a god exists.

Where does that feedback originate? Isn't it from people who want to promote evolution? Isn't that the same as religious people promoting religion?

You guys seem to take so many things for granted, but without those things that you treat as "natural", made by nobody, nothing would work. You think they all come together as one gigantic fluke?

Umm no, just no. And no, nothing is taken for granted. That is if anything your crime.

The science of biomimetics is interesting because scientists look at the amazing designs in nature and tries to copy them.

Who Designed It First?

If it takes scientific minds to copy what is seen in nature, then why doesn't it take a scientific mind to invent these things in the first place? Why is the genius in the copy and not in the originals?

Sorry, I am very sure that is not a science. Here is a question, if there is no answer for it what they are doing is not science:

What reasonable test could refute their idea if it was wrong? If a person does not have that he does not have a scientific idea.

And your last question makes no sense.

So no one caused the cause...these things just....are. Really? Like the originals that scientists are endeavoring to copy....they just exist for no particular reason...undesigned and uncreated yet they are so ingenious that they are worth copying? That makes no sense.

Why does it "make no sense"? Part of the problem is that you are asking improper questions. If you asked proper questions there would be no problem. In case you do not know what an improper question is it is one where you have an assumption buried in the question. For example if I were to ask you:

:Have you quit beating your mother yet?" That would be a very improper question. It assumes that you were beating your mother. You are assuming a creator without realizing that there is a burden of proof upon you if you want to claim that there is one. All scientists will tell you is that the can't find any evidence of a creator.

Tell me how many beneficial mutations it would take to produce what science is suggesting...from the beginning of life to now?

Google "beneficial mutations" and see how many science has come up with that they actually have proof for.

According to Wiki..."They [beneficial mutations] are "random" in the sense that the changes are not preferentially distributed with respect to the result — they are not "goal-oriented"....it goes on to say....."It is safe to say that the vast majority of mutations in an organism are not beneficial. Often a mutation is neutral, producing neither a beneficial effect nor a negative effect, although it could be a potentiating mutation. Many are negative mutations - producing a disorder in the organism that significantly lowers its survival and reproductive capabilities."

So any of these "beneficial mutations" are just a fortunate accident? How many fortunate accidents does it take to make any real difference to any species? If most mutations are not beneficial but actually detrimental, then what should we expect to see?
I think science is kidding itself personally. It is suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking IMO.

First off that article did not say that most mutations are harmful. In fact it said that they are not. Most mutations are neutral. They make no difference in an organism. And there is to even begin to guess how many beneficial mutations are needed. They are much more common than you seem to think and most will be very noticeable. You are merely distracted by some of the obvious bad mutations.

Also whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful is dependent upon the environment that they are found in.

And once again, the wishful thinking is upon your side. Remember, scientists can support their claims. Creationists can't. They have no science. It is one of the reasons that they constantly lose court cases in the U.S.. They have no science and they have no evidence. Even conservative judges can see that.

A hypothesis is an idea. The idea then becomes a possibility and if enough scientists contribute to a pool of educated guesses, then voila! it gets presented as a fact! That is how I see things.

Then you have no clue as to what a hypothesis is. Please pay attention. A hypothesis is a testable idea. It can be tested to see if it is wrong. That makes it infinitely better than a mere guess. It is tested and tested and corrected as needed. That is why the scientific method works. Bad ideas are corrected until they are good ideas.

Tell me, how would you test the Bible to correct its errors? A huge problem with it is that there is no way to edit and correct the Bible.

What is "inherent" in human nature is passed down from one generation to another. The next generation "inherits" what was in the gene pool. Some of it is good, some not so good. I am not misunderstanding the words but rather synchronizing them.

Speaking of water.....since it is such a vital part of life on this planet, can science explain how we have such an abundance of it here on Earth but no other planet does?

Equivocation error.

And on water, Life is going to be found in the "Goldilocks Zone" of a solar system. Though rather large it does not go all of the way to either Venus or Mars. Ours is the only planet in that zone. Other solar systems are likely to have one planet in their Goldilocks Zone. So life is very likely to be found elsewhere in the universe. But in our Solar System life is probably limited to Earth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Deeje, I guess since according to most biologists, natural selection governs our (human) evolution, it apparently at first selected for our monogamy, but now has de-selected the behavior, as many humans now seem to not exhibit the characteristic for a one-mate-only life.

I wonder why evolution "changed it's mind"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Deeje, I guess since according to most biologists, natural selection governs our (human) evolution, it apparently at first selected for our monogamy, but now has de-selected the behavior, as many humans now seem to not exhibit the characteristic for a one-mate-only life.

I wonder why evolution "changed it's mind"?

Your post makes no sense. Perhaps because you used a strawman.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

All species have a "use by" date. Females are born with all their eggs, but they can produce many offspring in their lifetime to more than replace themselves.

And yet those eggs are numbered, and from their first bleed to their last, an egg is lost one by one.

Here is a list of creatures who are monogamous...

We'll get more into this, but you really need to read your own sources more carefully. From the blog that you link:

"Update: Petful did a bit more digging into this subject, and — stop the presses! — there’s more disagreement about animal monogamy than we might think. In fact, David Barash, a psychology professor at the University of Washington, wants to shatter the “myth of monogamy” altogether. He claims that almost every darn reported case of monogamy in the animal kingdom has been proved wrong at some point upon closer inspection, with infidelity by one or both partners in the coupling."

We as a species are also programmed to be monogamous.

Apparently not. Also in many places of the world, polygamy is a thing and is the social normal. You cannot take your social bias and apply it to the whole world.

Have you ever done any research into this issue yourself? Hearing both sides is very enlightening.

This coming from you, who didn't even finish reading your own source. Yes, I have heard all the inane fears and poorly-researched objections. They do not stand up.

Let me ask you this...if vaccinated children are protected, then why is my unvaccinated child a risk to them? This question never seems to be asked....but its logical to ask...isn't it?

It's asked all the time. And the answer is quite simple. Also very easy to find.

Vaccinated children may be protected, but children too young to receive vaccinations (e.g. infants) are completely vulnerable. Also people who have immune system disorders or diseases (for which there are no vaccinations). Not only this, but while vaccinations greatly assist in warding off diseases (notice a lack of polio?) they are not 100% effective. So your germ-factory vaccine-less child become a threat in that they are carrying a living and virulent strain of the virus. Viruses are living things, and if you give them an unprotected host they thrive, evolve, and become strong enough to where vaccines might not be as effective as they are.

There is nothing "free" in the drug company world.

Actually there is. In fact, vaccines are only 1.5% of all pharmaceutical revenue. Pediatricians (doctors for children) even sometimes take losses in administering vaccines to children in need. So yeah, they do practically donate them.

If drug companies were so benevolent then why is cancer treatment their most lucrative treatment regime?

Probably because there are so many different forms of cancer, and a great deal of study still needed to find an effective method of treatment. Research does require money, deeje.


Ask why people can't have access to promising new cancer treatments without the ability to pay a hefty sum? Why do people need to sell their homes to pay rich drug companies for treatments that in 90% of cases, don't even work? Have you never asked these questions? They hope you won't.

That's why we have an immune system, but drugs are designed as a 'band-aid' to suppress symptom to give you the illusion that you are getting better. Drugs are designed to keep you sick so you will be their customer for life. Propaganda works.

Do you have any proof for that propaganda, or just fear-mongering? Yes, we have an immune system. Yet relying fully on it wagers immunity with death. Vaccines provide the immune system with a template to fight against without the risk of death; they train your immune system to fight the viruses before they have a chance to do real damage to you.

I don't vote either so your comment does not apply to me.

Oh yes, I forgot your group are those kind of people. My point still stands in that being "of age" does not guarantee maturity or wisdom.

To teach your children to adhere to those standards, not only makes them decent citizens of their nations, but also keeps them out of prison.

There are plenty of people who adhere to social standards that your faith wouldn't - and doesn't - consider "decent". Also decent citizens vote to contribute to the active government of their society so... mull on that one.

 

[Polymath257]

But natural processes produce many beautiful things.....the subject matter for paintings for instance......

the sounds of the forest are a symphony of creatures all singing in perfect harmony....

sculptures in nature are also beautiful.

But nobody made them.

Good. You got the idea.

So what are these "natural processes" and how do you define them?

What is "gravity"? Where does gravity originate? What makes gravity work? What would happen on earth if there was no gravity? Is it just a fluke or was it designed?

Gravity is a force that occurs between any two masses (actually, between any two things with energy or momentum, but the effect is smaller if there is no mass). EVERY pair of masses attract each other by a force that depends on the mass and the distance between them (Newtonian approximation). So the only way the Earth could be without gravity is if it didn't exist. This is an *inherent* aspect of mass.

Where do the gases come from? What is their source? What makes up the 'gases' in the air we breathe? What determines the right balance of these gases?

The origin depends on which gases are present. Hydrogen and a good deal of the helium were formed during the nucleosynthesis stage of the Big Bang. Others were formed in the cores of stars in nuclear reactions there. Some were formed in supernovas when a star becomes unstable and explodes. Which process is relevant depends on where the elements are in the periodic table and the nuclear processes involved in the formation.

What does science really know about origins?

Actually, a fair amount. Does it know everything? Certainly not. But it is learning more every day.

Where does that feedback originate? Isn't it from people who want to promote evolution? Isn't that the same as religious people promoting religion?

No, you misunderstood. Genetics -> proteins -> structure -> different rates of survival -> different genetics

That is a feedback loop that happens whether there are humans around or not. Again, this is a natural process and not a designed process.

You guys seem to take so many things for granted, but without those things that you treat as "natural", made by nobody, nothing would work. You think they all come together as one gigantic fluke?

No, they come together via natural laws. Many of these laws are known and their consequences can be determined quite accurately. ANYTHING that happens in the universe is because of those laws. And causality is one aspect of those laws, so talking about a cause for the laws themselves is unproductive: you need a law for a cause.



T

he science of biomimetics is interesting because scientists look at the amazing designs in nature and tries to copy them.

Who Designed It First?

If it takes scientific minds to copy what is seen in nature, then why doesn't it take a scientific mind to invent these things in the first place? Why is the genius in the copy and not in the originals?

Evolution has done the testing and tweaks already: It is a wonderful way to optimize certain types of processes (those on which survival depends for some species).

So no one caused the cause...these things just....are. Really? Like the originals that scientists are endeavoring to copy....they just exist for no particular reason...undesigned and uncreated yet they are so ingenious that they are worth copying? That makes no sense.

Maybe no sense to you, but it does make sense. No intelligence was the cause: the cause(s) were natural forces like gravity, and electromagnetism, and natural selection, etc. Those can and do produce wonderfully complex structures without a designer. Those complex structures can and do solve engineering problems that are relevant for humans.

Why is that a difficult concept?

Tell me how many beneficial mutations it would take to produce what science is suggesting...from the beginning of life to now?

First, whether a change is beneficial or not depends on the specific circumstances (a heavier coat of fur is an advantage in the arctic, but not in the tropics).

Google "beneficial mutations" and see how many science has come up with that they actually have proof for.

According to Wiki..."They [beneficial mutations] are "random" in the sense that the changes are not preferentially distributed with respect to the result — they are not "goal-oriented"....it goes on to say....."It is safe to say that the vast majority of mutations in an organism are not beneficial. Often a mutation is neutral, producing neither a beneficial effect nor a negative effect, although it could be a potentiating mutation. Many are negative mutations - producing a disorder in the organism that significantly lowers its survival and reproductive capabilities."

Actually, the vast majority of mutations are neutral: they produce very little effect on the resulting protein. That is partly due to the ambiguities in the genetic code. And yes, most of the rest are harmful. But that is to be expected when a species is well adapted to its environment, right? If it is doing well, it is more likely that and change will be bad. But now, if the environment changes (which it will), some of those harmful mutations (heavier coat in the tropics) will now be beneficial (heavier coat in the arctic). And so the species will adapt to the cold genetically.

That is evolution.

So any of these "beneficial mutations" are just a fortunate accident? How many fortunate accidents does it take to make any real difference to any species?

We have examples where a single mutation makes a huge difference. It all depends on which gene is changed.

If most mutations are not beneficial but actually detrimental, then what should we expect to see?

Pretty much what we *do* see: a population that is fairly well adapted, with variation around the average (produced by mutations) and that is stable until the environment shifts (making formerly harmful mutations beneficial).

I think science is kidding itself personally. It is suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking IMO.

Except that science actually goes out to test its ideas. It compares them with reality to see when they work and when they fail. If a scientist has a good argument against the 'established' view and can support it with evidence and observation, they will get fame and acclaim. So the way for a scientist to rise in the ranks is to challenge accepted ideas with actual evidence.

A hypothesis is an idea. The idea then becomes a possibility and if enough scientists contribute to a pool of educated guesses, then voila! it gets presented as a fact! That is how I see things.

You forgot the essential aspect: testing. It isn't just a pool of guesses. Those guesses have to be tested against new observations and challenges from scientists with different ideas. And there are *always* scientists with different ideas. Like I said, to have an idea that differs from the standard and can be demonstrated with observation is how a scientist rises in the ranks.

What is "inherent" in human nature is passed down from one generation to another. The next generation "inherits" what was in the gene pool. Some of it is good, some not so good. I am not misunderstanding the words but rather synchronizing them.

But, for example, the inherent properties of water are NOT inherited. Your merger only works for living things (and only barely works for them). There are a great number of things in the universe that are not alive.

Speaking of water.....since it is such a vital part of life on this planet, can science explain how we have such an abundance of it here on Earth but no other planet does?

Water itself is pretty common in the universe. The difference is that the Earth is in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for the sun: where water can be a liquid (as opposed to ice or steam).

There was certainly a great deal of water on Mars at one point. Where it went is a good question, but we find the erosion patterns from when water was abundant there.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why is that a difficult concept?

I think that a lack of understanding of cause and effect makes it difficult.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That does not logically follow as if there is always a cause to bring forth and effect, there must be a cause for the creator. It's also arbitrary to stop at the creator and assume that's where it must stop.

Affect is a better term than cause for the change that occurred within the singularity that is evidenced by the ecpamding universe.

 

[Deeje]

Good. You got the idea.

So a reproduction is worthy of praise because of the talent of the artist in replicating someone's else's work? Isn't that just copying?
Imagine if the Creator had copyrighted everything he made?

Gravity is a force that occurs between any two masses (actually, between any two things with energy or momentum, but the effect is smaller if there is no mass). EVERY pair of masses attract each other by a force that depends on the mass and the distance between them (Newtonian approximation). So the only way the Earth could be without gravity is if it didn't exist. This is an *inherent* aspect of mass.

Where do these gravitational forces originate? Why does gravity exist....and what would happen to the universe if it wasn't there?
It is so vital, it looks planned to me.

The origin depends on which gases are present. Hydrogen and a good deal of the helium were formed during the nucleosynthesis stage of the Big Bang. Others were formed in the cores of stars in nuclear reactions there. Some were formed in supernovas when a star becomes unstable and explodes. Which process is relevant depends on where the elements are in the periodic table and the nuclear processes involved in the formation.

Again where does hydrogen or helium come from? Why do they exist? All the gases that make up our atmosphere in just the right balance, simply happened by accident, did they?

Who do we have to thank that there is not more oxygen in the atmosphere so that we can light a fire to keep ourselves warm or cook our food without being blown to bits? Another fortunate fluke?

Why do nuclear processes take place? Who made the rules for their operation? Who made the laws by which the universe operates? Mr Nobody?

Actually, a fair amount. Does it know everything? Certainly not. But it is learning more every day.

The more science learns, the more it realises how much it doesn't know. That, I believe, will continue to be the case.

That is a feedback loop that happens whether there are humans around or not. Again, this is a natural process and not a designed process.

I think science takes way too much for granted. "Natural" seems to be a blanket cover like "natural selection". "Natural" doesn't mean it has no cause. Everything unexplainable in science is explainable with an Intelligent Creator. No missing bits, no guesswork, no unsolved mysteries or unanswered questions.

No, they come together via natural laws. Many of these laws are known and their consequences can be determined quite accurately. ANYTHING that happens in the universe is because of those laws. And causality is one aspect of those laws, so talking about a cause for the laws themselves is unproductive: you need a law for a cause.

Is the preciseness of those laws also just another fluke? Laws require a lawmaker who has a full awareness of why those laws are necessary.....it requires intelligence and wisdom to make laws. What does "natural" mean in this context?

Evolution has done the testing and tweaks already: It is a wonderful way to optimize certain types of processes (those on which survival depends for some species).

All done without a modicum of intelligence directing any of it? If that sounds reasonable to you then I guess you believe in miracles more than I do.

No intelligence was the cause: the cause(s) were natural forces like gravity, and electromagnetism, and natural selection, etc. Those can and do produce wonderfully complex structures without a designer. Those complex structures can and do solve engineering problems that are relevant for humans.

How many different structures with amazing complexity do you see in our world that was not designed and made by someone? When did engineering not require an engineer? Who can build a complex structures without one?

A termite's nest is not exactly attractive aesthetically, but it's design is brilliant. How did brainless insects devise such a clever piece of architecture, which includes the ability to maintain oxygen levels, and control temperature and humidity. Human architects and engineers want to adapt that ingenuity to their own designs.

Bee hives too demonstrate intelligent planning. Is it the intelligence of the bees or termites...or does it seem like programming to you? Isn't instinct just programming? Who is the programmer?

Water itself is pretty common in the universe. The difference is that the Earth is in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for the sun: where water can be a liquid (as opposed to ice or steam).

What real evidence is there for water on other planets? And even if there is water, what makes scientists think that life has to be present? They have not found life anywhere in our solar system or anywhere else in the universe.

There was certainly a great deal of water on Mars at one point. Where it went is a good question, but we find the erosion patterns from when water was abundant there.

Can a planet lose all its water? Has earth lost any? Isn't it all beautifully recycled within our atmosphere?
Why is the vast majority of water on this planet salty? What would happen if it wasn't?
What would happen if ice sank to the bottom instead of floating on the surface of a body of water?
Is that all just accidental as well?

 

[metis]

He is an infinite being with no beginning or end.....we cannot comprehend such a being....everything we know is finite.

If "we cannot comprehend such a being", then why did you write that "He is an infinite being with no beginning or end"?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't believe so. He is an infinite being with no beginning or end.....we cannot comprehend such a being....everything we know is finite.

I can imagine infinity.
It's not only fun, it's useful !

 

[Deeje]

If "we cannot comprehend such a being", then why did you write that "He is an infinite being with no beginning or end"?

I was speaking about the concept of infinity, not the concept of God as an all powerful, all knowing entity who has interacted with his human creation. We don't have a clue "what" God is or even "where" God is.....we only know "who" he is from what he has told us. You might be able to wrap your head around an infinite being, but since everything I know is finite, then I can only try to imagine, and even that is difficult.