The seven ''wonders'' of the world

[jes-us]

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

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?

Since we cannot provide any real life examples of chemical reactions that demonstrate the formation of complex ''builds'' with a specific design and placed components , then this shows they didn't originate from natural processes .

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.

When nothing in the known universe demonstrates how animal design can form , then the answer must be an answer that doesn't involve the known universe .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since we cannot provide any real life examples of chemical reactions that demonstrate the formation of complex ''builds'' with a specific design and placed components , then this shows they didn't originate from natural processes .

You need to define what you mean by complex builds and that natural chemical processes are not involved. There is no claim in science that existing living things were formed as they are spontaneously.

When nothing in the known universe demonstrates how animal design can form

We know a lot about the development of living things. I'm still not sure what you are trying to say. You don't seem to have a coherent idea of what you are claiming.

, then the answer must be an answer that doesn't involve the known universe .

That is a god of the gaps argument with a default paradigm. You are saying that if science cannot demonstrate something, then the answer must be your default belief that it was God.

Not knowing something and the impossibility of something are two very different things.

What we know is that the evidence indicates that life did not exist at some point in the past and then evidence shows it to exist as comparatively simple, unicellular life. Over time complexity increased and multicellularity and eukaryotic organism arose. Then vertebrates, plants, all the extinct and existing large animals, and so forth. This is demonstrated by the evidence.

How life originated is an unknown at this point, but the focus of increasingly more research.

So far, there exists no evidence for any supernatural source of life or even what that evidence would consist of. Trying claim an argument from ignorance in the God of the gaps argument is a logical fallacy that has never held up.

 

[jes-us]

You need to define what you mean by complex builds and that natural chemical processes are not involved. There is no claim in science that existing living things were formed as they are spontaneously.

Ok , let me explain in sarcasm of science .

Two atoms got married and became a strawberry seed

Two atoms got married and became an apple seed

Two men build a grand design house


This is what I mean about complexity and specific .

Natural physics or chemistry can't build a house

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is a strawberry

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is an apple

The product and placement is too precise to be natural .

A mountain is natural and so is a river etc , they have no complexity of the design .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok , let me explain in sarcasm of science .

Two atoms got married and became a strawberry seed

Two atoms got married and became an apple seed

Two men build a grand design house


This is what I mean about complexity and specific .

Natural physics or chemistry can't build a house

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is a strawberry

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is an apple

The product and placement is too precise to be natural .

A mountain is natural and so is a river etc , they have no complexity of the design .

Your terminology is too loose to make any reasonable sense out of this.

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology are all specific disciplines that look at different aspects of the study the natural world. They describe the subjects on the discipline and aren't expected to do anything beyond that.

Natural processes produce caves that have been lived in by many different organisms including people. Why would you expect houses to be formed spontaneously for no reason? I don't see any sense in the claim.

Theories explain. They aren't part of the mechanism that they are used to explain.

People named it apple. But apples don't breed with lions, so something is happening there. Genetics, physiology, chemistry, physics all describe what is happening and why apples and lions don't interbreed.

Snowflakes are natural and complex. Ecologies are natural and complex. Living things are natural and complex. Mountains and rivers are not so simple as you claim and can form through a number of different mechanisms.

At best, you are claiming an argument from ignorance and at worse you are claiming an argument from ignorance. You can't declare that something is too complex to originate from natural processes without demonstrating that it can't and that complexity doesn't. Claiming it is not a demonstration. Pointing out something that is unknown is not a demonstration that it cannot be known or that some supernatural source is responsible.

At one time, we didn't know we could get the heart of one person to work in an entirely different person, but we do it all the time now. At one time we didn't know that there were microbial organisms. Now there are entire disciplines devoted to the study of them. We use them to make food. We manage them to prevent the spread of disease. By your logic, none of this should have happened.

 

[jes-us]

Your terminology is too loose to make any reasonable sense out of this.

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology are all specific disciplines that look at different aspects of the study the natural world. They describe the subjects on the discipline and aren't expected to do anything beyond that.

Natural processes produce caves that have been lived in by many different organisms including people. Why would you expect houses to be formed spontaneously for no reason? I don't see any sense in the claim.

I think you missed the metaphor !

Do you agree to build any house a specific way , that the building blocks have to be placed in a specific way ?


The house represented a human body , the building blocks are placed in a specific way like the design of a house .

Caves are a part of the natural process , no caves are probably the same , they are not designed in a specific way .

This is my point , chemistry or physics can't ''build a house'' in a specific way , it takes intervention to do that .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you missed the metaphor !

I'm certain I am missing much, but that is only because there is also much missing.

Do you agree to build any house a specific way , that the building blocks have to be placed in a specific way ?

People build things. That is evidence that people build things and nothing more. It is not evidence for a designer of natural systems. This is a long dead claim that didn't survive prior scrutiny. It does not logically follow that that the construction of a house demonstrates a universal designer. It assumes that all structures in living things arise from the same origin and followed the same processes from beginning to end. This is not so.

The house represented a human body , the building blocks are placed in a specific way like the design of a house .

Caves are a part of the natural process , no caves are probably the same , they are not designed in a specific way .

Caves form as the result of volcanism or solution formation. A natural process that results in a house or a wine cellar or...

This is my point , chemistry or physics can't ''build a house'' in a specific way , it takes intervention to do that .

The natural laws are intervention. Your conclusion does not derive naturally from your premises.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok , let me explain in sarcasm of science .

Two atoms got married and became a strawberry seed

Two atoms got married and became an apple seed

Two men build a grand design house


This is what I mean about complexity and specific .

Natural physics or chemistry can't build a house

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is a strawberry

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is an apple

The product and placement is too precise to be natural .

A mountain is natural and so is a river etc , they have no complexity of the design .

You say that living things must be built by a designer, but you cannot demonstrate that or show the designer. Mountains form by natural processes, but Mount Rushmore was designed. By humans with evidence of the design and the construction. You don't offer that evidence for what you claim except by logical fallacy.

I can see that this won't deter you from believing you have done something, but you haven't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok , let me explain in sarcasm of science .

Two atoms got married and became a strawberry seed

Two atoms got married and became an apple seed

Two men build a grand design house


This is what I mean about complexity and specific .

Natural physics or chemistry can't build a house

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is a strawberry

Naturally physics or chemistry can't tell the seed it is an apple

The product and placement is too precise to be natural .

A mountain is natural and so is a river etc , they have no complexity of the design .

Specified complexity is another dead end. It has gone no where.

Just to let you know, this isn't the first time these attempts have come up. Others have tried this many times long before you came here with the same defunct ideas.

 

[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 .

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 .

Reading through your posts, what you seem to believe science says appears to be a list of erroneous creationist notions based on logical fallacies like straw man arguments and arguments from ignorance.

Science does not say that living things spontaneously formed as whole and complete by some entire random process. The origin of life is not expected to be an entire random process by any scientist. The evolution of life is not an entirely random process.

When the first living organisms reproduced with variation (the random) it was acted on by selection (the non-random). No one other than creationists claim that chemicals got together and randomly and without any reason, different living things started forming and running around. In many ways, that is what literal creationists are essentially claiming did happen.

 

[jes-us]

Reading through your posts, what you seem to believe science says appears to be a list of erroneous creationist notions based on logical fallacies like straw man arguments and arguments from ignorance.

They do the same with some other things too but it is best we get back on track with the seven wonders , in aim of world peace .

 

[ratiocinator]

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 ?

Of course, that's what evolution does. It produces organisms that are good at surviving in their environments. That is precise.

I have but you have failed to see the proofs .

That's because they were all easily refuted and obviously written from a position of ignorance. Even the use of the word 'proofs' shows an ignorance of science.

Your parroting present information rather than using logic

I'm giving you well established scientific explanations.

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

I've been busy countering your rather silly objections and ignorance of basic science. Here are some links to a tiny sample of supporting evidence:

The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists

Despite recent polls showing that the majority of young Americans accept evolution, there is still more work to be done. There is still a…

rcarmona43.medium.com

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - BioLogos

We who accept Descent should admit that there are some observations that can be explained equally well by Design. But there are other observations which seem to clearly favor Descent.

biologos.org

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - BioLogos

biologos.org

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...

journals.plos.org

Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry

While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received...

www.biorxiv.org

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)

I did show the reasoning unless I am mixing my threads up .

None of your 'reasoning' was actually sound, for reasons I've pointed out.

Physics or chemistry cannot form precise formations naturally .

False. Evolution does just that. Even large molecules are complex and precise formations. Very complex and precise in organic compounds.

For example a building is a precise formation , the building blocks are placed specifically .

Irrelevant.

Atoms form natural shapes by the laws of physics

You claimed that collections of atoms was due to gravity. That's laughably ignorant in the context. Gravity can safely be ignored on the scales involved; it's far, far too weak to have any influence. You also keep on going on about atoms and physics. You seem to be ignoring molecules and chemistry, which is a much more appropriate level of abstraction for this subject.

A crystal is absolutely nothing like a humans body...

Straw man fallacy. I never made that claim. The point is that they are much more simple structures that do things you claim can't be done naturally.

Provide one example where physics or chemistry can construct a ''building'' .

Another straw man. Nobody made that claim.

When you rule out every logical possibility then the illogical becomes the answer .

You haven't ruled any of the science out. Even if you had, you cannot just pick a particular baseless superstition and say that it must be the answer, that is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot possibly rule out as yet unknown physics, for example.

There is a huge difference in proofs and evidence .

Yes. Proof is only relevant to mathematics and pure logic. It is not available in science - except in the legal sense of "beyond reasonable doubt" - which is definitely true for evolution.

Evolution has to start from cells because of the unique design that is contrary to physics or chemistry .

This is simply false. All you need is reproduction with variation and inheritance and a limited environment. You can get a simple computer model to evolve.

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

Same old straw man.

 

[jes-us]

The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists

Despite recent polls showing that the majority of young Americans accept evolution, there is still more work to be done. There is still a…

rcarmona43.medium.com

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - BioLogos

We who accept Descent should admit that there are some observations that can be explained equally well by Design. But there are other observations which seem to clearly favor Descent.

biologos.org

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - BioLogos

biologos.org

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...

journals.plos.org

Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry

While there is no doubt among evolutionary biologists that all living species, or merely all living species within a particular group (e.g., animals), share descent from a common ancestor, formal statistical methods for evaluating common ancestry from aligned DNA sequence data have received...

www.biorxiv.org

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)

You have provided some links that are an arrangement of words that scientists produce conceptually to fit in with others from before them , for acceptance . None of what you have provided is realism or evidence of how animal bodies have precise cell placement , such as eyes .

If you can point out which part of your alleged evidence demonstrates the position of eyes , then I will agree with you .

A few splodges on a petri dish isn't any sort of proof of complex 3d form with specific placement and multiple components .

 

[ratiocinator]

You have provided some links that are an arrangement of words that scientists produce conceptually to fit in with others from before them , for acceptance .

So you didn't read any of it.

This is yet another absurd and unargued assertion.

If you can point out which part of your alleged evidence demonstrates the position of eyes , then I will agree with you .

This is a complex subject that requires a lot of studying. I fear it is well beyond the ability of somebody who thinks all groups of atoms are formed by gravity and who dismissed many pages of solid evince with the one, totally absurd, sentence quoted above.

You could start here, but there are many links and references to other sources.

Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A few splodges on a petri dish isn't any sort of proof of complex 3d form with specific placement and multiple components .

No idea what you even mean by this.

 

[jes-us]

So you didn't read any of it.

This is yet another absurd and unargued assertion.


This is a complex subject that requires a lot of studying. I fear it is well beyond the ability of somebody who thinks all groups of atoms are formed by gravity and who dismissed many pages of solid evince with the one, totally absurd, sentence quoted above.

You could start here, but there are many links and references to other sources.

Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No idea what you even mean by this.

Do you understand the difference between theories and real facts ?

I could read enough from you links shown to see it was a standard science stuff , mostly somebodies imaginations and ''story'' .

I already know the type of stuff your link will show and I already know it is mostly supposition .

Science says all life started from a single cell , I watched a video once .

I also watched one where they did the fish out of the sea , it grew legs , started to walk etc,

All this is speculation , show me proof of how random mutation can place eyes in animals and I will agree with you .

Sorry I am also tired , been awake all night .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They do the same with some other things too but it is best we get back on track with the seven wonders , in aim of world peace .

I have difficulty understanding what you mean in your posts. I don't know who you are referring to as "they" or what other things they do the same what with.

I take it that English may not be your first language?

 

[jes-us]

I have difficulty understanding what you mean in your posts. I don't know who you are referring to as "they" or what other things they do the same what with.

I take it that English may not be your first language?

You mentioned science , ''they'' was referring to science .

Let me try to explain the ''seven'' wonders , this is for world peace .

Let us say , a man from China, a man from England and a man from Pakistan had a meeting and they all brought with them a box .

On one side of each box was their nationality flag and on another side was their religion , on another side there was a colour that represented the visual colour of how they appear to others .

Ok , the flags , the nationality , the visual colour are just abstract , formed from localised origins .

In the beginning before humanity was formed all the boxes were just ''blue boxes'' , they had no face ''values'' .


If the Chinese man had been born in England , his box would not show a Chinese flag for example .


Well anyway , when we make the boxes transparent , we can all see they are empty boxes and have equal contents .


As it stands the different nationalities of the world have different contents in their boxes and wars are caused by a set of words arguing with other sets of words . These bodies are all innocents .


So anyway if we can get all the world leaders to listen and see the empty boxes , then we can find world peace .


For example if we all each place the word God or Allah etc into the empty boxes , there is no need to add further sentences that is speculation of what is God like etc . We can just all agree on the one word , regardless of language . Allah does mean God etc .