Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[Dan From Smithville]

If you were more polite, instead of making rude false statements, perhaps people would be more willing to answer your questions.

Bingo!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Try to understand.
The universe obeys certain rules, precise mathematical rules about how things function.
If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a accidental expansion of energy, then why should it obey any rules?
The law of biogenesis states that life always comes from life. Evolution theory tells us to believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals, with no evidence that this is possible.

Aren't you claiming that everything is pure blind chance? Haven't you been claiming all along that the universe is the product of accident and creating itself out of nothing?

The law of biogenesis states that living things do not arise fully formed out of non-living material. It refutes the creationist belief of spontaneous generation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Try to understand.
The universe obeys certain rules, precise mathematical rules about how things function.
If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a accidental expansion of energy, then why should it obey any rules?
The law of biogenesis states that life always comes from life. Evolution theory tells us to believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals, with no evidence that this is possible.

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything like that. No where. Just because some nonsense internet site says that sort of nonsense doesn't make it true. Surely, you can find a popular account of the science that you can understand and find out what is actually claimed by scientists and the evidence used to support it. There are a number available. Go to the library.

The phenomena of evolution would occur in living things whether created naturally or divinely. Evolution is not dependent on the type of origin of living things.

There is evidence for abiogenesis. A growing body of it. What you basically have going is an argument from ignorance. A gap argument. We don't know so whatever I believe can fill the gap is all you are saying. Your personal views do not win by default.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There were no laws. And there can't be any laws without an intelligent being creating them.
Did the chemicals and rules create themselves?

No wonder you have such a difficult time understanding. You are all over the place. There are laws. There are no laws. Which is it?

I understand that you want our belief to be objectively true and not faith-based, but it just can't be. The only thing we can do using science is to rationally conclude on the evidence. If it isn't there, scientists can't just make it up to please people that want their beliefs to be used as fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't "obey" rules. It just exists and does what it does. And us humans do our best to measure, study and describe what it does, sometimes using math, which we also created. We call those descriptions laws but it doesn't mean they come from some lawmaker.

Evolution "says" no such thing. It deals with life once it already exists.

I said that too, but I don't expect that fact will be considered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because that's what they are.

The more of your stuff I read, the more convinced I am that you don't understand what scientific theories and laws are. They are not judicial laws. They describe phenomena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see it now, the gravity police pulling a rock over for falling at 20m.s^2 in a 9.8m/s^2 zone.


Whoa sonny! Where's the Black Hole?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can see it now, the gravity police pulling a rock over for falling at 20m.s^2 in a 9.8m/s^2 zone.


Whoa sonny! Where's the Black Hole?

When its all blind chance nobody knows what is going to happen. It could be anything. It could be falling up or sideways.

Those gravity police and their "laws".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you don't know how it started, the rest really doesn't matter.

Nonsense.

Life exists and we can study it. Regardless of how it came about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There were no laws. And there can't be any laws without an intelligent being creating them.

Sounds like you don't even know what laws are.
They aren't things that required any "creating".

They are mere descriptions of how things interact. And how that interaction occurs is determined by the properties of the things in question.

Laws of physics aren't prescriptive. They are descriptive.

Did the chemicals and rules create themselves?

Again, they didn't require any "creating".

 

[Brian2]

So then "God did it" is a useless "explanation" because it explains exactly nothing.
Also, it isn't required to understand the natural processes involved, because they work just fine without the assumption.

"God did it" does not explain how God created everything exactly no.
"God did it" explains where life came from and that life is spirit based.
We are here and we got here whether we believe God did it or not.
We don't know that we could be here without a God and we don't know we could be alive without a God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Try to understand.
The universe obeys certain rules, precise mathematical rules about how things function.

That's an inacurate description of what laws are.

Again, laws aren't prescriptive.
They are descriptive.

If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a accidental expansion of energy, then why should it obey any rules?

Because regardless how things come about, they will always act a certain way. Physical things have properties and that determines how they interact with other things.

It seems to root of your misunderstandings / ignorance seems to be that you don't really understand what physics and chemistry actually is all about.

You seem scientifically illiterate to boot.

The law of biogenesis states that life always comes from life.

That's not a law.

Evolution theory tells us to believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals, with no evidence that this is possible.

No, evolution doesn't say diddly squad about the origins of life itself.

This has been brought to your attention multiple times now.

Why do you insist on arguing strawmen?
What do you hope to accomplish with such deliberate intellectual dishonesty?

It's like trying to argue against gravity because hammers float in the international space station.
It's a ridiculous fallacious "argument" that will amount to nothing but you looking desperate, scientifically illiterate and closed-minded.

I suggest you drop the strawmen and properly read up on evolution before you continue your vain attempts at arguing against such a widely established scientific theory with nothing but misrepresentations and fallacious reasoning.


However.... I'm guessing that you don't actually care that you are arguing a strawman. You don't actually care what evolution really is about. All you care about is doubling down on your incompatible religious beliefs. Amirite?

 

[Brian2]

You seem sort of agitated. Like someone all riled up.

Is it your opinion that negatively mischaracterizing others and insulting them is an example of Christian values? This sort of thing is becoming typical of your responses.

I regularly provide answers. I think what you wanted to say was "no answer I like as usual".

Why wouldn't you listen to someone that knows what they are talking about? For one, i don't post nonsense like living things creating themselves from nothing or everything is blind chance.

No one knows how abiogenesis took place. Yet. Maybe never. Having it worked out isn't required to refute your wild claim that everything came to exist on blind chance.

Have you ever considered reading some actual science or learning some basic statistics and probability?

It is true however that without a creator that it is not through purpose or design that we and everything exists, it is through chance.

 

[Brian2]

Again, they didn't require any "creating".

How do you know that the chemicals and rules did not require any creating? Is that a guess or a belief or what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"God did it" does not explain how God created everything exactly no.
"God did it" explains where life came from and that life is spirit based.

No. It's just an empty claim (which raises even more questions then it answers).
An explanation is supposed to make things understandable.
To clarify things.

"god did it" clarifies NOTHING and is of equal value as saying "undetectable dragons did it".
It answers nothing. Clarifies nothing. Makes nothing more understandable. Doesn't give us any useful intel about anything. Doesn't give us the ability to make testable predictions about anything.

It's just an empty assertion of no knowledge value whatsoever.

There's ZERO explanatory power in empty unsupported claims.

We are here and we got here whether we believe God did it or not.

You can take that statement and replace "god" with ANYTHING your imagination can produce and it will not make any difference.

We don't know that we could be here without a God and we don't know we could be alive without a God.

And there's zero actual reason to think any gods were involved or that gods are even real.
So what gives?

Once again, you can take that statement, replace "god" with ANYTHING your imagination can produce and it will not make any difference whatsoever.

That's the first hint that your empty assertion is utterly useless with zero explanatory power.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is true however that without a creator that it is not through purpose or design that we and everything exists, it is through chance.

Chance is surely involved.

I would even argue it is involved either way.

Consider this your own existence for example.................

I'll take myself as an example.

It's 1953. My dad's family are political refugees, ending up in Austria. There, they have a choice between 3 countries as their final destination: Canada, Germany or Belgium.

They chose Belgium and end up in Brussels, in a rather ghetto type area. That's where my dad grows up.
My mom is from Antwerp. Her mom, while pregnant, barely escaped a german bombing during WW2.

In the early 70s, they end up in the same place at a festival in Brussels. There's a spark and eventhough they come from vastly different backgrounds, they end up together. Against all odds I might add, as back in those days, it was really not "the norm" for a white middle class woman from Antwerp to begin a relationship with an 11-year younger muslim political refugee from the ghetto's of Brussels. And neither was it for that muslim for that matter...... His dad basically ended up kicking him out of the house over it.

Fast forward another decade. As a couple, they have sex. Each time, millions of sperm cells are deposited. Among those millions, plenty of "potential" humans exist. Only one of them will end up being "me". And likely also only at that particular time. The "odds" of me, or anyone else, being born knowing how many sperm cells are deposited are already on par with winning the lottery.

Then add the pre-history to that of the odds of 2 such people actually meeting up and ending up together. We can go a step further even and add all the odds also of each of their ancestors, which made them exist in the first place.

Go back just 200 years and contemplate the odds of me existing.
They are nothing short of astronomical.

What were the chances of all those ancestors meeting up and ending up together?
What were the chances of each and every one of those ancestors being born in context of the millions upon millions of sperm cells?



So you see.... in that sense "chance" is part of everyday life.
Every day, millions of "unlikely" things happen.

You could even make a case that almost everything that happens at any time, happens by chance (in the sense of every individual event, in the greater scheme of things, having astronomical low odds of ever occurring).


So really.............. I wonder why you think that "chance" is an argument against reality and "for" your god.

The above is true regardless of your god existing or not.
The a priori probability of me (or you, or anyone else) actually existing was astronomically small to the point where we would consider it as good as "impossible".

This goes for any human.

Consider getting dealt a poker hand. The odds of getting a royal flush are really small. Yet, the odds of getting any other specific hand, is just as small.

Think about it.
EVERY outcome you would get, would be equally (un)likely as any other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that the chemicals and rules did not require any creating? Is that a guess or a belief or what?

1. my statement was about laws, not about chemicals

2. there are no "rules". There are instead physical manifestations of physical entities and those manifestations affect other physical entities. How they affect them, completely depends on the properties of said entities. What we call "laws" are in fact just descriptions of those interactions.


I'm sorry if you guys can't comprehend this.

Creationists, or scientifically illiterate folks in general, hear the word "law" in context of science and they confuse it with like "laws" in matters of justice. Rules that need to be "made up" by "someone" and then "imposed" upon things. But that's a terrible misconception.

That's not at all what scientific laws are.

Laws in matters of justice are prescriptive: they impose how things should work
Laws in matters of science are descriptive: they describe how things actually work.

 

[Brian2]

No. It's just an empty claim (which raises even more questions then it answers).
An explanation is supposed to make things understandable.
To clarify things.

"god did it" clarifies NOTHING and is of equal value as saying "undetectable dragons did it".
It answers nothing. Clarifies nothing. Makes nothing more understandable. Doesn't give us any useful intel about anything. Doesn't give us the ability to make testable predictions about anything.

It's just an empty assertion of no knowledge value whatsoever.

There's ZERO explanatory power in empty unsupported claims.

When we get to the end of the line when it comes to naturalistic explanations then the God explanation explains a lot.
If people want to test whether they can do what God said He did then that is a testable prediction, the prediction being that they won't be able to do it. But it might take a long time before people give up trying to do things that God said that He did. Present day Science, in such a situation, would just say that they already know that God did not do anything because God has not been detected and science cannot accept the Bible as evidence. Certainly atheists and skeptics would be saying that.

You can take that statement and replace "god" with ANYTHING your imagination can produce and it will not make any difference.

Yes, so?

And there's zero actual reason to think any gods were involved or that gods are even real.
So what gives?

Once again, you can take that statement, replace "god" with ANYTHING your imagination can produce and it will not make any difference whatsoever.

That's the first hint that your empty assertion is utterly useless with zero explanatory power.

You could replace "god" with ""spaghetti monster" and you would just be saying that God is a spaghetti monster.
There of course is zero evidence that a spaghetti monster is real but there is evidence that a god is real.
There is no evidence that all of this came to be all by itself.
All this means that "God did it" has the most evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When we get to the end of the line when it comes to naturalistic explanations then the God explanation explains a lot.

It does not and you are replying to a post where it is explained how it does not.

If people want to test whether they can do what God said He did then that is a testable prediction, the prediction being that they won't be able to do it. But it might take a long time before people give up trying to do things that God said that He did. Present day Science, in such a situation, would just say that they already know that God did not do anything because God has not been detected and science cannot accept the Bible as evidence. Certainly atheists and skeptics would be saying that.

Your argument from incredulity / ignorance, is noted.

Yes, so?

So, that proves that it has zero explanatory power.

You could replace "god" with ""spaghetti monster" and you would just be saying that God is a spaghetti monster.

And the explanatory power would be just as non-existent.
The point. You keep missing it.

Consider for example the original code of Windows.
"bill gates did it".

Could you replace "bill gates" here with "michael jackson" while having the same merit?

No, you could not. The reason is simple... there's actual evidence / explanatory value in the Bill Gates claim, because that claim does not consist of just "bill gates did it". It is instead followed by "...here's how we know that and how he did it..."

Which is stuff that is not present if we say "Michael Jackson did it".

The Bill Gates claims as explanatory power.
The Michael Jackson claim, does not.
And in fact in this case, we actually KNOW that BOTH Bill Gates and Michael Jackson are actually real entities............

Yet, your god claim is completely on par with any other unfalsifiable thing your imagination can produce

This is why it is not an explanation and instead just an empty assertion without meaning, value or explanatory power. Aka, not an "explanation". Instead, just a random unsupported empty unfalsifiable claim. Utterly useless.

There of course is zero evidence that a spaghetti monster is real but there is evidence that a god is real.

No, there isn't. Beliefs aren't evidence. Claims aren't evidence.
Beliefs and claims require evidence. And you don't have any.

There is no evidence that all of this came to be all by itself.

Nobody says that. Creationist strawman arguments notwithstanding, off course.

What does that even mean?
When water freezes into ice, did the ice then "came about by itself" because there is no conscious entity manufacturing the ice with pre-planned intent?

All this means that "God did it" has the most evidence.

It has none.

 

[Brian2]

1. my statement was about laws, not about chemicals

Post 234
Wildswanderer said: Did the chemicals and rules create themselves?
TagliatelliMonster said: Again, they didn't require any "creating".

Maybe you spoke about laws but it looked like chemicals also.
But my question applies to just laws also.

2. there are no "rules". There are instead physical manifestations of physical entities and those manifestations affect other physical entities. How they affect them, completely depends on the properties of said entities. What we call "laws" are in fact just descriptions of those interactions.

Atheists and skeptics seem to be good at double talk. But fair enough, we just see mathematical formulas as laws and even if they are, that does not mean that anyone had to make them. They have always been. But I hear that the laws break down close to the BB so it seems they did come into being with the BB and they could possibly have been other laws, interactions, between things. And really, possibly way back then the laws, interactions, were different. But that just complicates things and we would not want to do that, that would mean more things to answer when science has enough things as it is and which it cannot answer.

I'm sorry if you guys can't comprehend this.

Creationists, or scientifically illiterate folks in general, here the word "law" in context of science and they confuse it with like "laws" in matters of justice. Rules that need to be "made up" by "someone" and then "imposed" upon things. But that's a terrible misconception.

That's not at all what scientific laws are.

Laws in matters of justice are prescriptive: they impose how things should work
Laws in matters of science are descriptive: they describe how things actually work.

We aren't that stupid, we can understand what you guys are saying. We can also understand that you don't know that the laws did not require any creating (that they are descriptive only).
We have discovered an orderly universe governed by laws and Western science began with scientists predicting this because of their belief in an orderly creator who is not capricious in what He does and how He does things and so desired to find out the truth of that prediction, based on that God. Sounds like a scientific prediction of a God hypothesis, and guess what, it is true.
But no, we need more than that, we need evidence for this God before we can even speak about Him in science these days, so toss that true prediction out.