Mother Nature vs. God?

[Jose Fly]

Let me ask you this? If I funded 2 million dollars by hiring the brightest minds of science towards the agenda of finding out the all-important question of the origin of life, how long do you think it will take before these scientists are out of work and I am out 2 million dollars. Please show your work.

You totally dodged my questions:

Do you think each research project into the origins of life is intended to "discover the origin of life" once and for all, and barring that, they are each a complete failure?

Have you ever considered the possibility that they might be researching sub-issues within the larger question?

What specific papers on origins research have you read?

And to answer your question, if I were going to spend $2 million on research into the origins of life, I would first I would first make sure I understood what I was funding, which would lead to an understanding that science isn't like a vending machine where you put your quarter in, push the button, and instantly get whatever you selected.

So I certainly wouldn't tell the researchers, "Now go and figure out exactly how life first originated on earth. Anything less and you've totally wasted my money." Anyone who did that would have the researchers laugh at them.

 

[Anonymouse]

Lunakilo-Oh yes!
God the almighty must be the only one who can make bug free software (there may have been a little bug at the time of Noa, but he fixed that).
I guess he could have made Nature.
I wonder what fetures one would get access to if one buys a licence.

The program that I am speaking about probably has many designers and was (thoughtfully) developed over many moments (no deadlines). You have to remember, if this program can be hacked (which evidence shows that it can be) was it designed that way (as in programs that encourage user level designs) or are there safeguards? I would assume that there are many programs being researched to find out exactly how much we can get away with nature and to what extent nature pushes back.

 

[Anonymouse]

All the while using the word 'selection'.....
which would indicate an intelligence making choices.

I'm not sure if science has securely nailed down the paradigms of what is 'natural' and 'unnatural'.

 

[Amill]

No, I am only suggesting that since the scientist does not know how the origin of evolution happened that I can no longer afford to support his conclusion.

So then I take it that you do not support any conclusion on the origin of life? It's not like there's evidence of a programmer or creator. And I would argue that just because we do not have a conclusive argument on the origin of life, it doesn't mean that the evidence for evolution is not still there. Since we can't give you a demonstrable answer of a natural origin for life, are we just supposed to throw aside the patterns we witness in nature and in the fossil record as just coincidences?

And if you look at it from a programming point of you, could you not propose that the programmer set up the rules for the entire universe and started it, and things have progressed from there? He certainly could have set up a system where life could naturally arise on it's own, could he not?

 

[Anonymouse]

Amill-So then I take it that you do not support any conclusion on the origin of life?

As long as there is not a definitive truth, I can encourage as many beliefs on the origin of life as I want. Once the truth is available, I do not mind discarding my beliefs and embracing this established truth.

Amill-It's not like there's evidence of a programmer or creator.

There isn’t? Aren’t you interacting on a forum that was created by a programmer? Why cannot the possibility exist that there were programmers and creators for nature?

Amill-Since we can't give you a demonstrable answer of a natural origin for life, are we just supposed to throw aside the patterns we witness in nature and in the fossil record as just coincidences?

Well how much more time or money do you think you’ll need?
The problem with evolution science is that they are trying to put a puzzle together without knowing how many pieces are missing and what the box art looks like. Most people don’t put puzzles together like this.

Amill-And if you look at it from a programming point of you, could you not propose that the programmer set up the rules for the entire universe and started it, and things have progressed from there?

Anyone could propose anything at this point.

Amill-He certainly could have set up a system where life could naturally arise on it's own, could he not?

How “open-ended” or sandbox style this program is would probably be a matter of getting to know the artists or understanding the purpose of why they created the program that way. I don’t think time was a consideration in how long it took the program to “load”.

 

[Thief]

I'm not sure if science has securely nailed down the paradigms of what is 'natural' and 'unnatural'.

Just saw a science documentary about life after death.

That's right... a science documentary.

It's about time science stepped up to the topic.

And when science makes serious consideration....the word 'natural' will change.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

And when science makes serious consideration....the word 'natural' will change.

Into what? God? No. Nature is not conscious or sentient. Natural selection is not picked and chosen by anybody, it just happens naturally. Naturally, not with any divine intervention.

 

[Thief]

Into what? God? No. Nature is not conscious or sentient. Natural selection is not picked and chosen by anybody, it just happens naturally. Naturally, not with any divine intervention.

In regression Someone had to be First.

I call Him the Almighty and Creator.

Perhaps you 'think' intelligence is purely chemical.
Did you catch the recent science documentary...Life after Death?

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

In regression Someone had to be First.

I call Him the Almighty and Creator.

Perhaps you 'think' intelligence is purely chemical.
Did you catch the recent science documentary...Life after Death?

Where is your evidence for 'him'?
And no, I didn't see it.

 

[Thief]

Where is your evidence for 'him'?
And no, I didn't see it.

Look in the mirror.

You've already admitted you are not an accident.

Yet you deny intent?

 

[PolyHedral]

In regression Someone had to be First.

Why?

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Look in the mirror.

You've already admitted you are not an accident.

Yet you deny intent?

This result was not an accident, no. But I do deny intent, there is no evidence for it. We are the result, but not end result (there isn't one) of non-random natural selection. We weren't created or made.

 

[Thief]

This result was not an accident, no. But I do deny intent, there is no evidence for it. We are the result, but not end result (there isn't one) of non-random natural selection. We weren't created or made.

For something not created...it sure works well.

Five senses all geared to expose your mind to physical reality.

You are here to learn all that you can.

Then back to God you go.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

For something not created...it sure works well.

Five senses all geared to expose your mind to physical reality.

You are here to learn all that you can.

Then back to God you go.

Natural selection has engineered us towards those five senses. Seriously, try to learn about natural selection. Do you want me to tell you how it works?

 

[Thief]

Natural selection has engineered us towards those five senses. Seriously, try to learn about natural selection. Do you want me to tell you how it works?

Already got an above average IQ...and a strong love of science.

Watch science documentaries.... preferably.

But go ahead....see if you can surprise me.

'Engineering' implies intention....btw.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Already got an above average IQ...and a strong love of science.

Watch science documentaries.... preferably.

But go ahead....see if you can surprise me.

'Engineering' implies intention....btw.

Engineering was a metaphor.
Natural selection is the passing on of genes which are good at surviving. Simple as that. Know what that means? Eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongues help to survive very well. If you put 2+2 together, you see that these things came about through this process of natural selection. It isn't random, because random genes don't succeed, only genes that are good at surviving do.

 

[Thief]

Engineering was a metaphor.
Natural selection is the passing on of genes which are good at surviving. Simple as that. Know what that means? Eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongues help to survive very well. If you put 2+2 together, you see that these things came about through this process of natural selection. It isn't random, because random genes don't succeed, only genes that are good at surviving do.

You keep using the word 'random'....as in 'chaos'?

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

You keep using the word 'random'....as in 'chaos'?

No, I mean random as in random.

 

[Thief]

No, I mean random as in random.

So this would be circumstance of one item surviving and another failing....
for 'random' causes?....or random genetics?

A perfectly good copy could fail...for standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A bad copy could continue...for having 'looked the other way'.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

So this would be circumstance of one item surviving and another failing....
for 'random' causes?....or random genetics?

A perfectly good copy could fail...for standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A bad copy could continue...for having 'looked the other way'.

I hope you realise that genes don't work like that?