Some questions about evolution.

[jarofthoughts]

Uh.....no. Oh, you mean if something is living, it can spring into existence by itself, modify itself endlessly in response to external stimuli, and grow increasingly more complex and remarkably designed... just give it enough time...
Do you see where you went wrong?

Things that are alive and reproduce DO modify over the generations, CAN grow increasingly more complex and CAN give the illusion of design... ...given enough time.
Houses and bottles do not reproduce, and whether you like it or not, that is actually a very fundamental difference between living and non-living things.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Natural laws are used by evolutionists to try to explain the beginning of life and the mechanics of the ToE.

True.

All things are subject to the laws of the universe.

Also true.

So where they came from is relevant to me.

Sure, but it is irrelevant to the topic we're discussing, i.e. biological evolution.

Laws require a lawgiver, and universal laws require a universal Sovereign, God.

Also irrelevant to the question of whether ToE is correct or not.
ToE says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god.

 

[camanintx]

Sorry, I must have missed the reasons that statement (not mine, btw) is patently false. Can you restate so a simple mind like mine can understand?

Evolution does not say that the simplest living bacteria came about by random chance. Is that simple enough for you?

 

[Matthew78]

Natural laws are used by evolutionists to try to explain the beginning of life and the mechanics of the ToE. All things are subject to the laws of the universe. So where they came from is relevant to me. Laws require a lawgiver, and universal laws require a universal Sovereign, God.

Rusra02,

You are confusing two different types of laws. There is a difference between descriptive laws and prescriptive laws. The law of gravitation is a descriptive law; it describes the natural attraction between two or more massive bodies. The Basic Speed Law of California is a prescriptive law. The law tells drivers what they ought to do. It doesn't describe something they do, given their nature.

Presciptive laws can be overturned by democratic or legal fiat. Descriptive laws cannot be overturned, voided, or what-not through some kind of democratic or judicial process. You should really learn differences of these sorts.

Most atheists that I know of believe that the cosmos is eternal. The laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the universe are also eternal. It might prove helpful if you tried to study what atheists believe and why, not just what you think or suppose they believe.

 

[outhouse]

and universal laws require a universal Sovereign, God.

only in myth alone

 

[rusra02]

Evolution does not say that the simplest living bacteria came about by random chance. Is that simple enough for you?

That's not what I hear. But OK, if not by random chance, then how?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not what I hear. But OK, if not by random chance, then how?

By a combination of random chance and the chemical properties of certain substances.

At some point molecules that reproduce themselves imperfectly came to be and started what eventually became known as life. While there is an element of random chance there at the start (or perhaps of divine intervention, although I don't take that stance), after the point where the molecules reproduce themselves there is already natural selection at work, for those who better adapt are bound to last for more generations.

 

[Matthew78]

That's not what I hear. But OK, if not by random chance, then how?

I noticed that you completely overlooked my correction of your misunderstanding. You don't even have the courtesy to thank me for educating you? If I made a serious mistake, I'd expect people to correct me and I would thank them for it, even if I didn't like the people doing it.

In case you don't know what I am referring to, please reread the posts about where natural laws came from and the difference between prescription and description.

 

[painted wolf]

The non-random elements of evolution have been explained to rusua over and over... It's not lack of information or simple misunderstanding that is the issue.

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

By a combination of random chance and the chemical properties of certain substances.

At some point molecules that reproduce themselves imperfectly came to be and started what eventually became known as life. While there is an element of random chance there at the start (or perhaps of divine intervention, although I don't take that stance), after the point where the molecules reproduce themselves there is already natural selection at work, for those who better adapt are bound to last for more generations.

OK, so it was either random chance or divince intervention. That clears that up...
But many scientists and others have said life could not arise by random chance. Harold Morowitz calculated the chances of getting the simplest bacterium by chance is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros. Yet, as Origins: A Skeptic's Guide states: Evolutionists "have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology."
Appropriate again are the words of Romans 1:20,21,28: "Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity-however invisible-have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse...They made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened...In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behaviour." - The Jerusalem Bible.

​

​

​

 

[rusra02]

I noticed that you completely overlooked my correction of your misunderstanding. You don't even have the courtesy to thank me for educating you? If I made a serious mistake, I'd expect people to correct me and I would thank them for it, even if I didn't like the people doing it.

In case you don't know what I am referring to, please reread the posts about where natural laws came from and the difference between prescription and description.

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period. The law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Stuff just doesn't happen. Houses don't build themselves, and the universe doesn't either. (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[cottage]

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period. The law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Stuff just doesn't happen. Houses don't build themselves, and the universe doesn't either. (Hebrews 3:4)

What you saying here is that things happen in the material world (cause and effect) and therefore God (the cause of all causes and effects) is like the material world. But the contingent world doesn't have to exist (no contradiction involved) and therefore, according to your argument, neither does God!

 

[lunakilo]

...
At some point molecules that reproduce themselves imperfectly came to be and started what eventually became known as life. While there is an element of random chance there at the start (or perhaps of divine intervention, although I don't take that stance), after the point where the molecules reproduce themselves there is already natural selection at work, for those who better adapt are bound to last for more generations.

OK, so it was either random chance or divince intervention. That clears that up...
But many scientists and others have said life could not arise by random chance. Harold Morowitz calculated the chances of getting the simplest bacterium by chance is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros.

...

LuisDantas isn't actually claiming that a bacterium came about by random chance.
There is a big step from molecules to bacteria.

And why 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros exactly?

 

[camanintx]

But many scientists and others have said life could not arise by random chance. Harold Morowitz calculated the chances of getting the simplest bacterium by chance is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros.

As has been pointed out before, evolution doesn't say that life arose by random chance. Natural processes like chemistry and evolution are anything but random. But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about yourself.

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period. The law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Stuff just doesn't happen. Houses don't build themselves, and the universe doesn't either. (Hebrews 3:4)

So simple processes like natural laws require someone to establish it but something as complex as your God doesn't? That makes perfect sense. :sarcastic

 

[painted wolf]

LuisDantas isn't actually claiming that a bacterium came about by random chance.
There is a big step from molecules to bacteria.

That doesn't matter... it's not what he wants Luis to believe. Facts only get in the way of the preaching.

If he wanted "evolutionists" to believe that the sky was purple, no amount of our telling him that we don't believe the sky is purple would change his insistence that "evolutionists believe the sky is purple".

And why 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros exactly?

Because it's a big scary number! :cover:

wa:do

 

[Looncall]

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period. The law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Stuff just doesn't happen. Houses don't build themselves, and the universe doesn't either. (Hebrews 3:4)

A reference to some old book of campfire tales does not constitute support for your statement. Do you have some respectable evidence to back up your statements?

By the way, a law in science is just some observed regularity. No mysticism is required.

 

[johnhanks]

OK, so it was either random chance or divince intervention. That clears that up...

That is shabby and dishonest, even by the standards you have previously set.

But many scientists and others have said life could not arise by random chance. Harold Morowitz calculated the chances of getting the simplest bacterium by chance is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros. Yet, as Origins: A Skeptic's Guide states: Evolutionists "have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology."

The Morowitz calculation is debunked here:

Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life.

It has, in any case, been repeatedly explained to you that theories of abiogenesis do not involve cells arising "by random chance". This will not, of course, prevent you from continuing to claim that they do.

Appropriate again are the words of Romans 1:20,21,28: "Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity-however invisible-have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse...They made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened...In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behaviour." - The Jerusalem Bible.

​

​

​

Appropriate? What authority do the superstitions of ANE writers bring to bear on this issue?

 

[Photonic]

OK, so it was either random chance or divince intervention. That clears that up...
But many scientists and others have said life could not arise by random chance. Harold Morowitz calculated the chances of getting the simplest bacterium by chance is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000 zeros. Yet, as Origins: A Skeptic's Guide states: Evolutionists "have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology."
Appropriate again are the words of Romans 1:20,21,28: "Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity-however invisible-have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse...They made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened...In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behaviour." - The Jerusalem Bible.

​

​

​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period. The law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Stuff just doesn't happen. Houses don't build themselves, and the universe doesn't either. (Hebrews 3:4)

Okay then. Name one physical law of the Universe and demonstrate that it was made by an intelligent agency.

If you can't do that, then your assumption is baseless.

 

[Matthew78]

I do appreciate your comments. However, I don't agree with them. Whatever you call a law, it is still a law. And laws require a lawgiver. Period.

Then it should be easy for you to prove this. I defy you to prove that all laws require a lawgiver.

The law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Stuff just doesn't happen. Houses don't build themselves, and the universe doesn't either. (Hebrews 3:4)

Prove that the law of gravitation requires someone to establish it. Even if it was an effect in need of a cause, prove that the cause is a "someone" as opposed to a "something".

You say "stuff just doesn't happen". I'm not clear as to what you mean by this.

I never said that houses build themselves. You say that the universe didn't "build itself". How would someone like myself be able to infer that the universe is designed? I haven't seen enough designed universes and opposed to nondesigned universes to demarcate the difference(s). But since you're arguing that the universe is designed, what does it have that makes it an object of design as opposed to a universe that wasn't?