The seven ''wonders'' of the world

[jes-us]

Seven different religions arrived at the table , each one carrying an empty box and placing the empty box on the table .

Jerimiah asked the seven religions , ''I wonder how did we get here'' ?

The Christian jumped to his feet and wrote down on a piece of paper the word God , then placing it in the empty box before him , he said the word God .

Next to him jumped up to his feet , was a Muslim , he wrote down on a piece of paper the word Allah , then placing it in the empty box before him , he said the word Allah .

Several minutes later all the rest of the religions had done the same thing , explaining God as a word in their own language .

Jerimiah then said , '' Each and everyone of you is now wondering what God is like and each and everyone of you will try to describe God in your own image, but if these boxes were clear like water , you'd all see God as the same and not try to describe God in your own image''

The seven different religions then left the table , wondering whether Jerimiah was right .

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think so. For starters, defining religions by way of their god-conceptions is dysfunctional at best.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seven different religions arrived at the table , each one carrying an empty box and placing the empty box on the table .

Jerimiah asked the seven religions , ''I wonder how did we get here'' ?

The Christian jumped to his feet and wrote down on a piece of paper the word God , then placing it in the empty box before him , he said the word God .

Next to him jumped up to his feet , was a Muslim , he wrote down on a piece of paper the word Allah , then placing it in the empty box before him , he said the word Allah .

Several minutes later all the rest of the religions had done the same thing , explaining God as a word in their own language .

Jerimiah then said , '' Each and everyone of you is now wondering what God is like and each and everyone of you will try to describe God in your own image, but if these boxes were clear like water , you'd all see God as the same and not try to describe God in your own image''

The seven different religions then left the table , wondering whether Jerimiah was right .

I'm sure that bodes well for theists.

Not everyone else however.

 

[jes-us]

I'm sure that bodes well for theists.

Not everyone else however.

If I put science in each box explaining that human form cannot be a random formation because chemistry and physics can't create complex formations , then even the atheist can see the truth .

To me , space and the planets are no mystery , humans formed themselves within animal bodies , that leaves one question , where did these bodies come from in the beginning ?

Chemistry didn't create them and neither did physics ! I have searched the entire Universe for an answer and the only possible answer is cell placement via coding that is way above our skill levels .

God is the creator of animal life .

 

[ratiocinator]

If I put science in each box explaining that human form cannot be a random formation...

Science doesn't claim it is. Evolution does not produce random formations.

...because chemistry and physics can't create complex formations...

Yes they can, via evolution (and some other processes too).

To me , space and the planets are no mystery , humans formed themselves within animal bodies , that leaves one question , where did these bodies come from in the beginning ?

Chemistry didn't create them and neither did physics ! I have searched the entire Universe for an answer and the only possible answer is cell placement via coding that is way above our skill levels .

What do you think "cell placement" even means? The various abiogenesis hypotheses do not start with cells. All you need is something that can reproduce itself, but not perfectly every time, so you have variation, and an environment with limited resources, then evolution can begin. One possibility is a simple RNA molecule like this:

NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN

(N means 'don't care')

God is the creator of animal life .

The evidence says that evolution produced animal life. Abiogenesis is not yet solved but there are many reasonable hypotheses and even if it was a total mystery, claiming "therefore god" is both an instance of the incredible shrinking god of the gaps and an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[jes-us]

Science doesn't claim it is. Evolution does not produce random formations.


Yes they can, via evolution (and some other processes too).


What do you think "cell placement" even means? The various abiogenesis hypotheses do not start with cells. All you need is something that can reproduce itself, but not perfectly every time, so you have variation, and an environment with limited resources, then evolution can begin. One possibility is a simple RNA molecule like this:

NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN

(N means 'don't care')


The evidence says that evolution produced animal life. Abiogenesis is not yet solved but there are many reasonable hypotheses and even if it was a total mystery, claiming "therefore god" is both an instance of the incredible shrinking god of the gaps and an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Evolution is a mediocre minded arrangement of words that attempts to explain animal form but it fails in so many ways . You are welcome to believe it but I can easily show that it doesn't work .

Let me explain cell placement .


An egg in the womb has a specific set of instruction coded within it and when the little fish enter the egg , that adds more information and activates the egg into starting to grow into a fetus .

The egg isn't made of atoms, atoms cannot grow .


These eggs are not only programmed to grow , they are programmed in constructing a complex formation , placing all the parts in the exact same place time after time . Example your eyes , ears , nose , finger nails , toe nails .

The cells are precisely placed by order .

I know in chemistry and physics that any work done , can't do this, the results are more random , example - no two mountains are the same ,


Evolution is a generalised idea and doesn't touch the precise details . When we consider the precise details ,that implies a creator .


There is no other explanation that can work .


A man walks along a beach and he see's a sand castle , the man knows somebody had created this because it was a complex form compared to everything else .

 

[ratiocinator]

Evolution is a mediocre minded arrangement of words that attempts to explain animal form but it fails in so many ways . You are welcome to believe it but I can easily show that it doesn't work .

Go on then. And don't forget to get a paper published and claim your Nobel prize.

The egg isn't made of atoms, atoms cannot grow .

Collections of atoms can.

These eggs are not only programmed to grow , they are programmed in constructing a complex formation , placing all the parts in the exact same place time after time . Example your eyes , ears , nose , finger nails , toe nails .

The cells are precisely placed by order .

I know in chemistry and physics that any work done , can't do this, the results are more random , example - no two mountains are the same ,

Personal incredulity fallacy.

Evolution is a generalised idea and doesn't touch the precise details .

Simply untrue. Evolution can be modelled on a computer, used as a 'design' process for practical applications, has a spectacular amount off evidence, and is directly observable in nature and in experiments. We can even work out the exact mutations involved in many cases observed in nature, and, of course, in experiments. We can see it happening and see in detail how the process actually works.

When we consider the precise details ,that implies a creator .


There is no other explanation that can work .

Unargued assertion (another fallacy). Show your working.

A man walks along a beach and he see's a sand castle , the man knows somebody had created this because it was a complex form compared to everything else .

No it isn't, there are many natural objects that are more complex (even non-biological ones) and it's also trivially easy to distinguish between things designed by intelligence and those 'designed' by natural selection. You've also set up an infinite regress of designers. Cue the equivalent of "but god is magic!"

Also:

Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think so. For starters, defining religions by way of their god-conceptions is dysfunctional at best.

I dunno about dysfunctional exactly, but certainly a bit too limited in scope. Religion broadly deals with the relationship humans have to the other-than-human, greater-than-human, and to each other. Sometimes that involves asking questions like "how did we (humans) get here" but often it doesn't. Assuming various religious traditions all ask this question as equal priority or that they fill that space with some sort of creator-god is a bit odd to me. Probably because the response of my tradition would be "I don't wonder this, actually - we're here. The real question is what now?"

 

[jes-us]

Go on then. And don't forget to get a paper published and claim your Nobel prize.


Collections of atoms can.

A collection of atoms does not grow , a collection of atoms is formed by gravitational force between the masses of the atoms . These formations are not complex , they are most often spherical in nature unless formed by mother nature , such as mountains .


Have you heard of smarties , the different coloured sweet/chocolate?

Take an handful of smarties and throw them into a box , they will land flat with no particular order .

Repeat this several times using different boxes and different handfuls of smarties , they will always land flat in no particular order or arrangement .

Each boxes pattern will differ , the physics can't repeat or clone the patterns .


The only way to repeat and clone the pattern would be to precisely hand place the smarties .


That is what God did when creating animals .

 

[ratiocinator]

A collection of atoms does not grow , a collection of atoms is formed by gravitational force between the masses of the atoms .

You have to have a vast number of atoms for gravity to be involved and it plays no part in producing molecules or on anything of scale of humans. The relevant force is electromagnetism. The reasons molecules form is the chemical properties of the atoms, which, in turn, are due to quantum mechanics.

Obviously you are speaking from near complete ignorance.

Have you heard of smarties , the different coloured sweet/chocolate?

Take an handful of smarties and throw them into a box , they will land flat with no particular order .

Repeat this several times using different boxes and different handfuls of smarties , they will always land flat in no particular order or arrangement .

False analogy and more personal incredulity.

...the physics can't repeat or clone the patterns .

Total nonsense. Many chemical reactions can and do produce repeated patterns. Ever heard of crystals?

I also gave you an example of a molecule that can produce copies of itself in #5. This happens for purely chemical reasons and has been demonstrated by experiment.

 

[jes-us]

Total nonsense. Many chemical reactions can and do produce repeated patterns. Ever heard of crystals?

Thank you for adding proof to what I said .

Crystals are random shapes , they have no eyes , no ears , no arms , no legs . Crystals don't grow , they form by gathering more mass in no specific order or positioning .

 

[ratiocinator]

Crystals are random shapes...

Obviously not. They exhibit repeating patterns.

...they have no eyes , no ears , no arms , no legs .

I didn't claim they did. I was responding to your claim that "physics can't repeat or clone the patterns".

Crystals don't grow...

False.

Crystal growth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A crystal is a solid material whose constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are arranged in an orderly repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions. Crystal growth is a major stage of a crystallization process, and consists of the addition of new atoms, ions, or polymer strings into the characteristic arrangement of the crystalline lattice. The growth typically follows an initial stage of either homogeneous or heterogeneous (surface catalyzed) nucleation, unless a "seed" crystal, purposely added to start the growth, was already present."​

Also noted that you totally ignored most of my post (and the one before that) that showed how little you understand and how your claims are simply false. You also ignored my requests to justify your unargued assertions and personal incredulity.

 

[jes-us]

Obviously not. They exhibit repeating patterns.

I didn't claim they did. I was responding to your claim that "physics can't repeat or clone the patterns".


False.

Crystal growth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"A crystal is a solid material whose constituent atoms, molecules, or ions are arranged in an orderly repeating pattern extending in all three spatial dimensions. Crystal growth is a major stage of a crystallization process, and consists of the addition of new atoms, ions, or polymer strings into the characteristic arrangement of the crystalline lattice. The growth typically follows an initial stage of either homogeneous or heterogeneous (surface catalyzed) nucleation, unless a "seed" crystal, purposely added to start the growth, was already present."​

Also noted that you totally ignored most of my post (and the one before that) that showed how little you understand and how your claims are simply false. You also ignored my requests to justify your unargued assertions and personal incredulity.

Every one of those crystals is a different formation , if I placed them into a grid form , every pattern would be different . It astonishes me what poor semantics humans have .

I thought I had answers all your questions , my apologies if I have missed the question or you have not understood the answer was there !

We were talking about human formation and you reply with content that is totally irrelevant to human formation .

Not much of a comparison sorry to say , is that all you have in defence ?

 

[ratiocinator]

I thought I had answers all your questions , my apologies if I have missed the question or you have not understood the answer was there !

We were talking about human formation and you reply with content that is totally irrelevant to human formation .

Not much of a comparison sorry to say , is that all you have in defence ?

The point I have been making is that many of your objections to evolution are falsified even in non-biological systems, not only in evolution.

Things you have ignored:

1. You said you could "easily show that [evolution] doesn't work". I requested that you did. You haven't.
2. You said an egg "isn't made of atoms, atoms cannot grow ". Not only is the claim that eggs aren't made of atoms clearly false - we know exactly what atoms they are made of - but you then claimed that collections of atoms can't grow either. I pointed out that they did, even outside of biology. They crystal example proves this. Collections of atoms do grow - by adding more atoms - that is how crystals and eggs grow, it's just more completed in the case of eggs.
3. In #7, I pointed out that much of your post was nothing more than personal incredulity.
4. You claimed that "Evolution is a generalised idea and doesn't touch the precise details ." I pointed out multiple reasons to show that this is simply false.
5. You claimed that "When we consider the precise details ,that implies a creator ." I pointed out that that was an unargued assertion and asked you to "show your working".
6. I answered your claim about recognising sand castles as designed. You didn't respond.
7. I pointed out that your claims about how collections of atoms formed was simply false (except for very large objects that are irrelevant).
8. You claimed that "physics can't repeat or clone the patterns ." I pointed out both crystals and gave an example of a specific molecule that could reproduce itself for purely chemical reasons. You ignored the latter.
9. Going back to #5, I pointed out that evolution did not start from cells, let alone animal life. I gave the same molecular example as a hypothetical start of the evolutionary process.

Like all people who claim that they can falsify evolution, if they could give any solid evidence for any of their objections, they'd be up for a Nobel prize, not posting nonsense on an internet forum...

 

[ratiocinator]

The point I have been making is that many of your objections to evolution are falsified even in non-biological systems, not only in evolution.

Things you have ignored:

1. You said you could "easily show that [evolution] doesn't work". I requested that you did. You haven't.
2. You said an egg "isn't made of atoms, atoms cannot grow ". Not only is the claim that eggs aren't made of atoms clearly false - we know exactly what atoms they are made of - but you then claimed that collections of atoms can't grow either. I pointed out that they did, even outside of biology. They crystal example proves this. Collections of atoms do grow - by adding more atoms - that is how crystals and eggs grow, it's just more completed in the case of eggs.
3. In #7, I pointed out that much of your post was nothing more than personal incredulity.
4. You claimed that "Evolution is a generalised idea and doesn't touch the precise details ." I pointed out multiple reasons to show that this is simply false.
5. You claimed that "When we consider the precise details ,that implies a creator ." I pointed out that that was an unargued assertion and asked you to "show your working".
6. I answered your claim about recognising sand castles as designed. You didn't respond.
7. I pointed out that your claims about how collections of atoms formed was simply false (except for very large objects that are irrelevant).
8. You claimed that "physics can't repeat or clone the patterns ." I pointed out both crystals and gave an example of a specific molecule that could reproduce itself for purely chemical reasons. You ignored the latter.
9. Going back to #5, I pointed out that evolution did not start from cells, let alone animal life. I gave the same molecular example as a hypothetical start of the evolutionary process.

Like all people who claim that they can falsify evolution, if they could give any solid evidence for any of their objections, they'd be up for a Nobel prize, not posting nonsense on an internet forum...

Oh, I also forgot your claim that "...human form cannot be a random formation..." and I pointed out that nobody thinks it is.

 

[jes-us]

Oh, I also forgot your claim that "...human form cannot be a random formation..." and I pointed out that nobody thinks it is.

I will start with this before I reply to the more lengthy post . So you agree with me then that the formation of the humans body is not random , it is very precise ?

 

[jes-us]

The point I have been making is that many of your objections to evolution are falsified even in non-biological systems, not only in evolution.

Things you have ignored:

1. You said you could "easily show that [evolution] doesn't work". I requested that you did. You haven't.

I have but you have failed to see the proofs .

1. You said an egg "isn't made of atoms, atoms cannot grow ". Not only is the claim that eggs aren't made of atoms clearly false - we know exactly what atoms they are made of - but you then claimed that collections of atoms can't grow either. I pointed out that they did, even outside of biology. They crystal example proves this. Collections of atoms do grow - by adding more atoms - that is how crystals and eggs grow, it's just more completed in the case of eggs.

Your parroting present information rather than using logic

1. In #7, I pointed out that much of your post was nothing more than personal incredulity.
2. You claimed that "Evolution is a generalised idea and doesn't touch the precise details ." I pointed out multiple reasons to show that this is simply false.

You have not provided anything to support evolution that is logical .

1. You claimed that "When we consider the precise details ,that implies a creator ." I pointed out that that was an unargued assertion and asked you to "show your working".

I did show the reasoning unless I am mixing my threads up . Physics or chemistry cannot form precise formations naturally . For example a building is a precise formation , the building blocks are placed specifically .

1. I answered your claim about recognising sand castles as designed. You didn't respond.
2. I pointed out that your claims about how collections of atoms formed was simply false (except for very large objects that are irrelevant).

Smaller objects don't endure the same sort of pressure as large objects , they have less mass etc most often . Atoms form natural shapes by the laws of physics

1. You claimed that "physics can't repeat or clone the patterns ." I pointed out both crystals and gave an example of a specific molecule that could reproduce itself for purely chemical reasons. You ignored the latter.

A crystal is absolutely nothing like a humans body , the comparison is null and void , find a better argument . Provide one example where physics or chemistry can construct a ''building'' .

1. Going back to #5, I pointed out that evolution did not start from cells, let alone animal life. I gave the same molecular example as a hypothetical start of the evolutionary process.

Like all people who claim that they can falsify evolution, if they could give any solid evidence for any of their objections, they'd be up for a Nobel prize, not posting nonsense on an internet forum...

When you rule out every logical possibility then the illogical becomes the answer . There is a huge difference in proofs and evidence .

Evolution has to start from cells because of the unique design that is contrary to physics or chemistry . These are programmed as if nano technology , to grow or transform into animals .

The thing is , if science can't prove something contrary , then the information provider must be telling the absolute truth based on observations .

We don't observe physics or chemistry creating ''buildings' , I am telling the truth .

I have also worked out the quote system

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I put science in each box explaining that human form cannot be a random formation because chemistry and physics can't create complex formations , then even the atheist can see the truth .

Complex structures and mechanistic constructs have been demonstrated to arise from the actions of the laws of nature described in chemistry and physics.

To me , space and the planets are no mystery , humans formed themselves within animal bodies

What does this mean? It seems a lot confusing.

, that leaves one question , where did these bodies come from in the beginning ?

They evolved over time from prior living things.

Chemistry didn't create them and neither did physics !

The origin of life is considered to have been derived from chemical reactions over time.

I have searched the entire Universe

That is interesting and astounding.

for an answer and the only possible answer is cell placement via coding that is way above our skill levels .

You'll have to explain what that means.

God is the creator of animal life .

Ultimately, I believe God is the Creator, but I can't demonstrate that and claiming it doesn't really tell us anything about the process.

 

[jes-us]

Complex structures and mechanistic constructs have been demonstrated to arise from the actions of the laws of nature described in chemistry and physics.



Ultimately, I believe God is the Creator, but I can't demonstrate that and claiming it doesn't really tell us anything about the process.

The complex structure of human anatomy or other animals has not been demonstrated by chemistry or physics in any way .

Chemical reaction or physics cannot create these unique designs that grow , that have different components .

We can demonstrate a creator very easy because science knows very well , human anatomy is very different than anything formed naturally by chemistry or physics .

I have mentioned already in another post , that building designs require the building blocks to be placed in a specific position . Science would have to prove that isn't true to prove human anatomy isn't the product of a creator .

Cell placement is no different than placing the building blocks , they are placed in a specific place to form the design .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The complex structure of human anatomy or other animals has not been demonstrated by chemistry or physics in any way .

I'm still not sure what you are saying. Animal bodies operate using chemical reactions subject to the laws of physics.

Chemical reaction or physics cannot create these unique designs that grow , that have different components .

Chemistry and physics explain aspects of living things. Still not sure what you are saying. Are you trying to say that since we cannot create a person from a box of chemicals, that this shows that they didn't originate from natural processes?

We can demonstrate a creator very easy because science knows very well , human anatomy is very different than anything formed naturally by chemistry or physics .

How does that demonstrate a creator? Still not understanding what you are trying to say. No one in science is claiming that organisms spontaneously arise fully formed from the action of chemistry and physics. That was an old creationist idea that was refuted by Pasteur and Redi using science.

I have mentioned already in another post , that building designs require the building blocks to be placed in a specific position . Science would have to prove that isn't true to prove human anatomy isn't the product of a creator .

I'm not clear what you are describing or what you think would need to be demonstrated.

Cell placement is no different than placing the building blocks , they are placed in a specific place to form the design .

You seem to be talking about cell and tissue differentiation and declaring that it cannot arise naturally. That is a claim that demands evidence.

Given that natural processes in the evolution and development of living things is all we have, good luck to you.