The creator did it.

[Rapture Era]

I don't get the bit about the "perilous situation", unless it is code for: "You'll go to Hell if you believe in evolution". Is that what you mean? Well perhaps I will - and perhaps I'll meet you there, some day.
As for the information question, I've given a solid thermodynamic answer to that.
I notice you indulge the usual creationist misrepresentation of stating that evolution is just "chance". It isn't: the clue is......... NATURAL SELECTION.
Look, I go to church every Sunday, just as I am sure you do. But, as someone with a degree in physical science, I simply do not accept that science is totally wrong about these things when the evidence is overwhelming. Nor do I find it aesthetically acceptable to imagine that God needs to keep tinkering with his own creation, as if it were a badly made car, in order to bring about what we see around us.

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion
Dictionary result for natural selection
noun
BIOLOGY
noun: natural selection
The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Would you say that this is a proper definition of natural selection or "trial and error" ? If so, the definition uses words "organisms", "better adapted", "tend to survive" and "produce more offspring." My question all along has been, how does meaningless, purposeless matter adapt, survive and produce offspring without the genetic information in the DNA to tell it to do that? It's impossible. Science has revealed this truth.
When you say "Nor do I find it aesthetically acceptable to imagine that God needs to keep tinkering with his own creation, as if it were a badly made car, in order to bring about what we see around us", absolutely right. That is exactly why God created all living creatures perfectly and whole, able to survive in the environment he says he created and reproduce which is exactly what we see today in life. Do you go to a Bible teaching church or some other? That shouldn't be too hard to grasp for one who goes to a Bible teaching church because right from the start, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ". . . . . . and then goes on to describe that he created all the things that would sustain life, and then created all of the life forms wholly able to reproduce after their kind. There is no evolution here. Also if in fact you attend a Bible believing church every Sunday you would know that death never entered the picture until Adam and Eve sinned. There was no death. With Darwinian evolution there was death and bloodshed and suffering for millions of years?
So which is it? They both cannot be true.
Oh, and by the way, "perilous situation" is reference to those who do not accept Gods gift of eternal life in heaven. This is the whole point when God said he gave his only begotten Son that no one should perish meaning spending an eternity separated from him. Not that if you believe in evolution you'll go to hell.
And no, I will not be there

 

[SkepticThinker]

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion
Dictionary result for natural selection
noun
BIOLOGY
noun: natural selection
The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Would you say that this is a proper definition of natural selection or "trial and error" ? If so, the definition uses words "organisms", "better adapted", "tend to survive" and "produce more offspring." My question all along has been, how does meaningless, purposeless matter adapt, survive and produce offspring without the genetic information in the DNA to tell it to do that? It's impossible. Science has revealed this truth.
When you say "Nor do I find it aesthetically acceptable to imagine that God needs to keep tinkering with his own creation, as if it were a badly made car, in order to bring about what we see around us", absolutely right. That is exactly why God created all living creatures perfectly and whole, able to survive in the environment he says he created and reproduce which is exactly what we see today in life. Do you go to a Bible teaching church or some other? That shouldn't be too hard to grasp for one who goes to a Bible teaching church because right from the start, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ". . . . . . and then goes on to describe that he created all the things that would sustain life, and then created all of the life forms wholly able to reproduce after their kind. There is no evolution here. Also if in fact you attend a Bible believing church every Sunday you would know that death never entered the picture until Adam and Eve sinned. There was no death. With Darwinian evolution there was death and bloodshed and suffering for millions of years?
So which is it? They both cannot be right.
Oh, and by the way, "perilous situation" is reference to those who do not accept Gods gift of eternal life in heaven. This is the whole point when God said he gave his only begotten Son that no one should perish meaning spending an eternity separated from him. Not that if you believe in evolution you'll go to hell. And no, I will not be there

Oh, no death. Okay. I'm curious then, what did Adam and Eve eat before the fall?

 

[exchemist]

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion
Dictionary result for natural selection
noun
BIOLOGY
noun: natural selection
The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
Would you say that this is a proper definition of natural selection or "trial and error" ? If so, the definition uses words "organisms", "better adapted", "tend to survive" and "produce more offspring." My question all along has been, how does meaningless, purposeless matter adapt, survive and produce offspring without the genetic information in the DNA to tell it to do that? It's impossible. Science has revealed this truth.
When you say "Nor do I find it aesthetically acceptable to imagine that God needs to keep tinkering with his own creation, as if it were a badly made car, in order to bring about what we see around us", absolutely right. That is exactly why God created all living creatures perfectly and whole, able to survive in the environment he says he created and reproduce which is exactly what we see today in life. Do you go to a Bible teaching church or some other? That shouldn't be too hard to grasp for one who goes to a Bible teaching church because right from the start, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ". . . . . . and then goes on to describe that he created all the things that would sustain life, and then created all of the life forms wholly able to reproduce after their kind. There is no evolution here. Also if in fact you attend a Bible believing church every Sunday you would know that death never entered the picture until Adam and Eve sinned. There was no death. With Darwinian evolution there was death and bloodshed and suffering for millions of years?
So which is it? They both cannot be right.
Oh, and by the way, "perilous situation" is reference to those who do not accept Gods gift of eternal life in heaven. This is the whole point when God said he gave his only begotten Son that no one should perish meaning spending an eternity separated from him. Not that if you believe in evolution you'll go to hell. And no, I will not be there

Haha, I don't suppose either of us will, and I am relieved to discover you do not think I'll go to Hell just because I have a science degree. So there is no real peril then. Good.

However I do think a reading of the bible that seriously maintains there was no physical death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned, is extraordinarily naive. To think that, you have to throw out not only all of evolution but geology as well. Not even in the very early church was the Garden of Eden story seen as literal. I've quoted Origen (one of the fathers of the church, who lived in about 200AD) before on this. Suffice it to say I'm with Origen: the bible is a literary work and uses literary devices to communicate its message, including allegory. My views on this are in accord with most of the main Western denominations of Christendom.

Back to the science: Yes, natural selection is well described by your quote. Darwin got the idea by considering how humanity selectively breeds domestic animals: racehorses for speed, cattle for milk yield, or whatever. He observed in any population of creatures there is natural variation and that processes can select from this variation- either artificially or in nature - to boost the prevalence and extent of some characteristics and diminish others. So it's not rocket science or counterintuitive - just common sense. The key is variation and selection. This is not "random", please note!

Darwin knew nothing of DNA of course. But with DNA we see confirmation of his ideas of evolution. We can see how animals which he regarded as having a recent common ancestor have very similar DNA, while those with a more ancient common ancestor have DNA that differs to a greater extent. Just as one would expect.

 

[sealchan]

I think that is quite wrong actually. There are many, many things that we model very accurately in science that we cannot recreate ourselves, including the very stars and galaxies that you mention. Where is the mystery in those?

Any physical scientist is thoroughly used to the idea that order arises spontaneously out of random statistical processes at the molecular level, due simply to the way the so-called "laws of nature" constrain the system. It is what is known as "emergence". Statistical thermodynamics is a case in point, but so too, at a simple level, is the formation of structures such as crystal lattices. We do not just "accept" that these ordered systems arise: our theories of science explain and accurately predict how they do so in the way they do.

So no, there is no intrinsic mystery in order arising out of "lack of intention". I think this idea is a myth.

The mystery, if there is one, is why there are laws of nature in the first place.

I've studied a bit of introductory level complexity science, so I have "faith" that science will make great progress in this area. My sense of mystery is perhaps practical in that we do not have such an understanding of why order arises from chaos to help our common, folk understanding of why we should accept this. There is enough mystery, IMO, that we cannot break many of the intuitions with practical demonstrations to convince "the common man". And until we do so we are resorting to our faith that science will provide more "concrete" examples or technologies based on the "order for free" nature of our Universe.

Now this is the impression I get from reading introductory books on the subject so those who are writing for the masses are communicating the field of complex, adaptive systems as new and exciting and even paradigmatic and the systemic nature of our reality as potentially transformative. Let's not cheat this excitement with diminishing the wonder at how the Universe does seem to be able to pull itself up by its own bootstraps even if on a mechanistic level no cheats are being employed.

 

[Bear Wild]

Then why can't the scientist just duplicate the process? If nature can do it without a mind then surly scientist can do it with their smarts? Think about what you are agreeing to, just because an educated person with a PhD. says they believe this is how it happened doesn't mean that they can prove it...or can they?

That is too of a simplistic request for a complex question. Consider the effort and time just to understand electricity, gravity, human physiology and any scientific theory of discovery. The evidence is being pieced together with increasing understanding to how it occurred. There is no better evidence so far for the development of life on earth. I am not just agreeing with a PhD, I am agreeing with the accumulating evidence from many research studies and knowledge of cellular physiology. There is no other explanation that has any evidence.

 

[Rapture Era]

Oh, no death. Okay. I'm curious then, what did Adam and Eve eat before the fall?

Genesis 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food."

 

[Bear Wild]

Thank you for taking the time to comment. Commenting on your first sentence, I wouldn't tell you "Its just because I believe it." What I do believe is that we should follow the facts no matter where they lead, I would think that you would also. The staggering evidence of all various types of life on this planet and the scientific evidence to support super natural creation is so obvious, I have to tell you, there is no other logical, reasonable and rational answer. You say you know the bible. As I mentioned in the above post and I'll mention it again here,
“What may be known of God is manifest in them (them-speaking of mankind) for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”
We are told through Genesis our origins. Is there any other belief system on the planet that matches the explanation of our origins, our purpose and our destiny?

Yes there are even better belief systems on the planet that are superior to genesis and explain our origins with a better understanding of the planet we live on. Yes I know the bible very well and it is a collection of myths for the followers of the Jewish faith to teach of their faith not as an explanation to explain the natural world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Genesis 1:29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food."

So there was death before the fall, contrary to your claim that, "death never entered the picture until Adam and Eve sinned.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Rapture Era]

So there was death before the fall, contrary to your claim that, "death never entered the picture until Adam and Eve sinned.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Well alrighty then

 

[Rapture Era]

Do you have anything to offer that isn't just proselytization? Like say, evidence?

Would you agree that we all have the same evidence? You ask for evidence and it’s all around you! Human beings are the greatest evidence
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

 

[exchemist]

I've studied a bit of introductory level complexity science, so I have "faith" that science will make great progress in this area. My sense of mystery is perhaps practical in that we do not have such an understanding of why order arises from chaos to help our common, folk understanding of why we should accept this. There is enough mystery, IMO, that we cannot break many of the intuitions with practical demonstrations to convince "the common man". And until we do so we are resorting to our faith that science will provide more "concrete" examples or technologies based on the "order for free" nature of our Universe.

Now this is the impression I get from reading introductory books on the subject so those who are writing for the masses are communicating the field of complex, adaptive systems as new and exciting and even paradigmatic and the systemic nature of our reality as potentially transformative. Let's not cheat this excitement with diminishing the wonder at how the Universe does seem to be able to pull itself up by its own bootstraps even if on a mechanistic level no cheats are being employed.

This makes no sense to me. You appear to argue that, because I cannot explain statistical thermodynamics to the man on the Clapham omnibus, therefore science's understanding of it must be incomplete and so some degree of mystery remains. Well it may still be a mystery to the man on the Clapham omnibus, but then so is how his smartphone works. Just because something is not understood by untrained people does not make it a mystery to humanity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Would you agree that we all have the same evidence? You ask for evidence and it’s all around you! Human beings are the greatest evidence

So, if an individual or a population believe that humans are born from kilns assembled by magical Dwarves, does that mean that the existence of humans is evidence for the existence of magical Dwarves?

 

[Polymath257]

Would you agree that we all have the same evidence? You ask for evidence and it’s all around you! Human beings are the greatest evidence
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

What are human beings evidence of? What is the universe around us evidence of?

You seem to think they are evidence of the existence of your particular vision of a deity. Others think they are evidence of some other vision of a deity. Still others think they are evidence of the intricacy of the natural laws.

I have found that it is very common among some religious believers to think that any structure or non-randomness must be caused by an intelligence. They think that anything *we* consider to be beautiful must be produced by some mind.

But, looking around me, I find that the parts of the universe known to be produced by minds are very few and localized to this small planet of ours. Instead, the vast majority of the beauty in the universe is produced by the action of fairly simple natural laws without any need for a guiding intelligence.

So, yes, we all have access to at least some of the same evidence. I find that many ultra-religious people don't really look at *all* the evidence against their position, so what they base their views on tends to be limited, but I also find they are much more prone to jumping to the conclusion that an intelligent agent is operating than is really justified.

Just because we see faces in the clouds doesn't mean the clouds are watching us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well alrighty then

You do know plants are alive, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Would you agree that we all have the same evidence? You ask for evidence and it’s all around you! Human beings are the greatest evidence
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

"Just look at human beings" or "just look around at the world" is definitely not evidence for any god(s).

Some empirical evidence would be nice.

 

[sealchan]

This makes no sense to me. You appear to argue that, because I cannot explain statistical thermodynamics to the man on the Clapham omnibus, therefore science's understanding of it must be incomplete and so some degree of mystery remains. Well it may still be a mystery to the man on the Clapham omnibus, but then so is how his smartphone works. Just because something is not understood by untrained people does not make it a mystery to humanity.

Certainly the truth of something (like various topics in quantum physics) is not based on how well untrained people can make sense of it. But to expect the untrained to follow your argument when it is based on such knowledge also doesn't make sense. So let's treat such things as mysterious for the sake of the audience.

Actually, rather than debate this further, it seems I recall reading a comment suggesting that there was much more than the Miller-Urey experiment to demonstrate the ability of scientists to show such things. Did you make this comment? Or can you point to more recent findings? Please give me search terms rather than taking too much of your own time.

I will try 'experiments in abiogenesis' to see what I find.

 

[sealchan]

I found this textbook of a forum answer...

Experiments on abiogenesis in laboratories

 

[exchemist]

Certainly the truth of something (like various topics in quantum physics) is not based on how well untrained people can make sense of it. But to expect the untrained to follow your argument when it is based on such knowledge also doesn't make sense. So let's treat such things as mysterious for the sake of the audience.

Actually, rather than debate this further, it seems I recall reading a comment suggesting that there was much more than the Miller-Urey experiment to demonstrate the ability of scientists to show such things. Did you make this comment? Or can you point to more recent findings? Please give me search terms rather than taking too much of your own time.

I will try 'experiments in abiogenesis' to see what I find.

I don't think it would have been me, as I have long seen it as a classic piece of creationist misdirection to demand experiments replicating a phenomenon in the lab, in order to demonstrate a theory. (The notion that science has to be done in labs, by people in white coats, is pretty silly and the idea that a theory is not valid until replicated in a lab is even more daft. Palaeontology, Astronomy and the Earth Sciences would not be science at all on that basis! )

The kind of lab research that I tend to refer to is like my post 194, in which one piece of the puzzle is analysed and potential solutions found. There was another good one not so long ago, about finding conditions under which all 4 "bases", of the types used by DNA and RNA, could be synthesised together. Previously it had been assumed different conditions were needed for the purine and pyrimidine bases, which obviously makes it harder to think of a scenario in which they could have arisen together, as needed for for life. The interesting thing was the catalyst system they found did the job: sulphur analogues of alcohols ("thiols") and Ni and Fe cations - just the sorts of chemicals you find around volcanic vents. There is a link here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ly_2018-10-18&et_rid=432455128&et_cid=2437392

But I'm afraid that easy tabletop demonstrations to impress the man in the street with what we know, or suspect, about the origin of life are not something I can help you with. It's about the most complex challenge in modern science and has to be taken step by step.

 

[ecco]

The virus is a hard one to explain without a Creator. Because a virus needs a host in order to replicate. How did it even begin to exist? I think the humble virus is similar to the humble flagellum that Dr. Behe has pointed out, in that it also needed all the parts to be present in order for it to function. I am no scientist, but I do think logically and reasonably.

That you are not a scientist is apparent from your comments.

However, one does not have to be a scientist to understand and accept the basics of ToE. All that is necessary is to put aside deeply ingrained fundamentalist religious beliefs.



ETA: Which is something you will never be able to do.

 

[exchemist]

The virus is a hard one to explain without a Creator. Because a virus needs a host in order to replicate. How did it even begin to exist? I think the humble virus is similar to the humble flagellum that Dr. Behe has pointed out, in that it also needed all the parts to be present in order for it to function. I am no scientist, but I do think logically and reasonably.

Behe's bogus argument about the bacterial flagellum was exposed at the Kitzmiller trial. That was back in 2005. Behe is thoroughly discredited nowadays.