Why do humans have genes for full body hair?

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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.



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.

Okay, so you say here "We aren't that stupid, we know that these laws are descriptive and not prescriptive." And then right after that you go on to show that you don't understand that.

Of course we need evidence of a thing to "speak about" it when it comes to science. That's the only thing that matters!! Good grief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was talking about what a conclusion of "God did it" might explain.

Still nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is obviously order there. There is also purpose in those things we see in nature and science tries to tell us what that purpose is. But taking "purpose" a step further, it is believers who see God as having put purpose into the design and it is non believers who say that is not true because there is no designer.
Science is neutral on this theoretically but if someone in science says that something indicates an intelligence behind it, it is called pseudo science even if some things do look like they have had an intelligence behind them. So even neutral science mandates that evidence for an agent in the design of things is not allowed to be called out for what it is.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is order and purpose in the universe, created by the specific god you worship. It's not on anyone else to prove it wrong. It's your job to demonstrate that it's true.
Please, please explain to my why you cannot comprehend this. Please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think it is. They often use language that indicates design.

Like "law?"

 

[wellwisher]

Still nothing.

How did civilization appear from natural selection, if civilization was not natural to the earth, before it appeared?

It is easy to see how the cold of the Arctic or the hot and humid of the tropical rain forest, can lead to its existing flora and fauna; selective pressures and natural selection. One can use logic to infer that cold will require better insulating fur for animals and plants that need to handle deep freezes and short summers.

Civilization is an exception, in that it was not there to begin with, to apply natural selective pressures for its own appearance. The natural selection theory breaks down, and another theory needs to be added.

I am not claiming God, for the sake of discussion. But this change can be explained if the human brain reached a state, where it learned internally; innovations, to alter the environment, so natural selection becomes less important, as the primary driving force for selection. The first modern humans were the ones able to escape only natural selection. A new inner drive appears connected to the brain's operating system for a secondary path of selection; will and choice.

We should stop teaching evolution as a full explanation for humans, since it cannot answer the civilization and natural selection paradox; chicken or the egg. This change required will and choice apart from natural selection. Nature, for example, does not put resources into the sick, other than earmark them for predator food. Through human will and choice and cultural selection, humans have decided that all life is precious, so we change nature, by choosing a new outcome. This new layer of choice, beyond natural selection, had a beginning; first modern humans not entirely at the mercy of natural selection. How can you even know natural selection if you live in the city? What you know in terms of selection is defined by man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was talking about what a conclusion of "God did it" might explain.

It does not explain anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did civilization appear from natural selection, if civilization was not natural to the earth, before it appeared?

It is easy to see how the cold of the Arctic or the hot and humid of the tropical rain forest, can lead to its existing flora and fauna; selective pressures and natural selection. One can use logic to infer that cold will require better insulating fur for animals and plants that need to handle deep freezes and short summers.

Civilization is an exception, in that it was not there to begin with, to apply natural selective pressures for its own appearance. The natural selection theory breaks down, and another theory needs to be added.

I am not claiming God, for the sake of discussion. But this change can be explained if the human brain reached a state, where it learned internally; innovations, to alter the environment, so natural selection becomes less important, as the primary driving force for selection. The first modern humans were the ones able to escape only natural selection. A new inner drive appears connected to the brain's operating system for a secondary path of selection; will and choice.

We should stop teaching evolution as a full explanation for humans, since it cannot answer the civilization and natural selection paradox; chicken or the egg. This change required will and choice apart from natural selection. Nature, for example, does not put resources into the sick, other than earmark them for predator food. Through human will and choice and cultural selection, humans have decided that all life is precious, so we change nature, by choosing a new outcome. This new layer of choice, beyond natural selection, had a beginning; first modern humans not entirely at the mercy of natural selection. How can you even know natural selection if you live in the city? What you know in terms of selection is defined by man.

Nope. Now you have gotten into the realm of archaeology, not evolution. You are trying to ban the wrong science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it is. They often use language that indicates design.

So now you are just going to lie about what they say?

You sound very desperate.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So now you are just going to lie about what they say?

You sound very desperate.

No I'm being honest. When someone who believes in design reads the descriptions of the science of anatomy for example, he is going to see design all over the place. When the individual whose mind is closed to the possibility of design reads it of course he won't see it. But that's actually a very small percentage of people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

It is not chance alone or even significant in every step.

Using science, we can only conclude what there is evidence and reason to conclude. There is no room to include belief in this due to the subjective nature of believed views. This means that everyone does have the same evidence and conclusions even if some refuse to acknowledge and recognize that. Or use logical fallacies to justify distorted views of reality to themselves and attempt to with others.

You can follow God and still accept science on a rational, practical level. Neither has to compromise the other if a person is not locked in some box that supersedes God and demands that life be viewed through some preconceived human notion.

If life arose through natural means it was not completely under the control of blind chance. It could not be. Blind chance would go in too many directions to achieve the patterns of living things we see today. The patterns of living things, of even the Earth, do not support blind chance as the sole creative force. Chance plays a part, but it is limited and without selection.

If life arose thought natural means, as the evidence suggests, that does not mean that God does not exist nor does it mean that He had no hand in it. The reality is that we cannot say that God didn't use natural means to create and the story in Genesis is an allegory of that with hyperbolic description to emphasize that creation to a primitive culture with limited education.

The evidence for the existence of God is unavailable to us. The only thing I see from those that reject the facts are personal incredulity, arguments from ignorance and behavior that is not becoming of a follower of Christ.

 

[Brian2]

What if there is a Creator and he/she/it created us by accident?

That would imply chance also.

 

[Brian2]

You just agreed with me that "God did it" doesn't have any explanatory power.
And now you're stating the opposite. So how does "God did it" explain where life came from and that "life is spirit based?" How did you get to that conclusion. Oh, and what's a spirit?

I did not agree that "God did it" does not have explanatory power.
Spirit is non physical.
If there was a conclusion that God did it, it would explain that life came from God and so it spirit based.

And we don't know that we need a God at all. And as agreed above, "God did it" doesn't offer any explanatory power whatsoever. Good thing we have the scientific method.

You know what does offer explanatory power? Scientific theories like evolution and germ theory of disease. Stuff we got from doing science. In fact, that's where we've come up with all the explanations we currently hold about everything around us. "God did it" doesn't explain a single thing. Plus, you get to just decide God exists without any demonstration whatsoever.

I get to decide God exists, it's called faith. You get to reject that belief. We demonstrate to ourselves that our beliefs are true. I try to offer some sort of demonstration to skeptics that God is real but what I offer is not good enough. Nothing has demonstrated that God does not exist of course and you don't need to demonstrate that, and you don't, you just reject evidence for God.
Science has explained a lot we did not know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

How did civilization appear from natural selection, if civilization was not natural to the earth, before it appeared?

It is easy to see how the cold of the Arctic or the hot and humid of the tropical rain forest, can lead to its existing flora and fauna; selective pressures and natural selection. One can use logic to infer that cold will require better insulating fur for animals and plants that need to handle deep freezes and short summers.

Civilization is an exception, in that it was not there to begin with, to apply natural selective pressures for its own appearance. The natural selection theory breaks down, and another theory needs to be added.

I am not claiming God, for the sake of discussion. But this change can be explained if the human brain reached a state, where it learned internally; innovations, to alter the environment, so natural selection becomes less important, as the primary driving force for selection. The first modern humans were the ones able to escape only natural selection. A new inner drive appears connected to the brain's operating system for a secondary path of selection; will and choice.

We should stop teaching evolution as a full explanation for humans, since it cannot answer the civilization and natural selection paradox; chicken or the egg. This change required will and choice apart from natural selection. Nature, for example, does not put resources into the sick, other than earmark them for predator food. Through human will and choice and cultural selection, humans have decided that all life is precious, so we change nature, by choosing a new outcome. This new layer of choice, beyond natural selection, had a beginning; first modern humans not entirely at the mercy of natural selection. How can you even know natural selection if you live in the city? What you know in terms of selection is defined by man.

Natural selection is the mechanism for biological evolution and not for cultural evolution. Civilization is a consequence of our sociality and our emergent intellect. Cultural selection perhaps. In fact, I would say that civilization confronts and confounds natural selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How did civilization appear from natural selection, if civilization was not natural to the earth, before it appeared?

It is easy to see how the cold of the Arctic or the hot and humid of the tropical rain forest, can lead to its existing flora and fauna; selective pressures and natural selection. One can use logic to infer that cold will require better insulating fur for animals and plants that need to handle deep freezes and short summers.

Civilization is an exception, in that it was not there to begin with, to apply natural selective pressures for its own appearance. The natural selection theory breaks down, and another theory needs to be added.

I am not claiming God, for the sake of discussion. But this change can be explained if the human brain reached a state, where it learned internally; innovations, to alter the environment, so natural selection becomes less important, as the primary driving force for selection. The first modern humans were the ones able to escape only natural selection. A new inner drive appears connected to the brain's operating system for a secondary path of selection; will and choice.

We should stop teaching evolution as a full explanation for humans, since it cannot answer the civilization and natural selection paradox; chicken or the egg. This change required will and choice apart from natural selection. Nature, for example, does not put resources into the sick, other than earmark them for predator food. Through human will and choice and cultural selection, humans have decided that all life is precious, so we change nature, by choosing a new outcome. This new layer of choice, beyond natural selection, had a beginning; first modern humans not entirely at the mercy of natural selection. How can you even know natural selection if you live in the city? What you know in terms of selection is defined by man.

While I don't agree with your conclusions, it is an interesting point you pose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would imply chance also.

You may be redefining "chance". Either way it does not appear that a god is needed for anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not agree that "God did it" does not have explanatory power.
Spirit is non physical.
If there was a conclusion that God did it, it would explain that life came from God and so it spirit based.

Demonstrate a need for a god and then your claims might be right. Until you do "God did it" has zero explanatory power

I get to decide God exists, it's called faith. You get to reject that belief. We demonstrate to ourselves that our beliefs are true. I try to offer some sort of demonstration to skeptics that God is real but what I offer is not good enough. Nothing has demonstrated that God does not exist of course and you don't need to demonstrate that, and you don't, you just reject evidence for God.
Science has explained a lot we did not know.

No, you do not get to decide if God exists any more than I get to decide that he does not exist. You can "decide" to believe in him. But that itself is an irrational act.

 

[Brian2]

Wait, so all of a sudden, now "God did it" has explanatory power because some other explanation doesn't? "God did it" doesn't suddenly become explanatory when some other explanation seems to fail. That's nonsense.

If we got to the end of the line and natural explanations could not answer anything (creation, life) and it was admitted, then the alternative (God) explains a lot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and it has always done so,,,,,,,,,,,, so it is not a matter of becoming explanatory.

You mean like prayer? Which is "answered" at the same rate as chance?

No I was not referring to prayer and studies on the effectiveness of prayer don't tell us that God does not answer prayer.

Yep, see how "God did it" is useless as an explanation for anything? Just as useless as inserting "the flying spaghetti monster" into it.

Plugging anything in to take the place of God would be just like saying that God is that thing. It is only God who can create and give life. If you want to say that God is a flying spaghetti monster that is your prerogative.

No, it doesn't. "God did it" has no good evidence and no explanatory power whatsoever. Again, you seem to think you win by default if some other explanation is unsatisfactory.
Well no, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You still have to demonstrate the veracity of your claim and explain why we should believe it and what it actually explains.

Brian2 said: 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.

As you can see, you have done what skeptics commonly do and have dissembled what I said into parts so that the point of what I said is lost. I consider that to be dishonest.
But I suppose you may not realise what you are doing and may not even understand the whole quote of what I said.
But it is a common practice amongst skeptics/atheists for some reason.
So after a short post by me of a few lines, I end up with a lengthy reply because my post has been broken up into phrases so that the overall meaning is lost.

 

[Brian2]

Okay, so you say here "We aren't that stupid, we know that these laws are descriptive and not prescriptive." And then right after that you go on to show that you don't understand that.

Of course we need evidence of a thing to "speak about" it when it comes to science. That's the only thing that matters!! Good grief.

There is evidence for God that is not scientific evidence. I believe it, you do not, and say that it is not real evidence, science cannot use it.
In today's science, scientific evidence is needed even if scientists accept evidence for God and believe in God.
You otoh accept only evidence that science accepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we got to the end of the line and natural explanations could not answer anything (creation, life) and it was admitted, then the alternative (God) explains a lot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and it has always done so,,,,,,,,,,,, so it is not a matter of becoming explanatory.

What did that ever explain? It was always just a claim. And as time goes on there are fewer and fewer "God did it" claims.

No I was not referring to prayer and studies on the effectiveness of prayer don't tell us that God does not answer prayer.

It was Christians that said that prayer is effective. Tests indicate otherwise. One should not make claims of that sort without clear evidence.

Plugging anything in to take the place of God would be just like saying that God is that thing. It is only God who can create and give life. If you want to say that God is a flying spaghetti monster that is your prerogative.



Brian2 said: 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.

As you can see, you have done what skeptics commonly do and have dissembled what I said into parts so that the point of what I said is lost. I consider that to be dishonest.
But I suppose you may not realise what you are doing and may not even understand the whole quote of what I said.
But it is a common practice amongst skeptics/atheists for some reason.
So after a short post by me of a few lines, I end up with a lengthy reply because my post has been broken up into phrases so that the overall meaning is lost.

You did it wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I'm being honest. When someone who believes in design reads the descriptions of the science of anatomy for example, he is going to see design all over the place.

We aren't talking about people who have a priori beliefs before even asking the questions.
We are talking about scientists who follow the evidence.

When the individual whose mind is closed to the possibility of design reads it of course he won't see it.

It's not "closed minded" to not go in with your mind already made up.
It's not "closed minded" to only follow the evidence.

But that's actually a very small percentage of people.

No. The majority, even among christians, have no issue with evolution theory.
And in case of scientists, which is the point here, it is an overwhelming majority.
Among biologists (or sub-fields), it is like 99.7%

So the "very small percentage" of scientists, a minuscule percentage for that matter, are cdesign proponentsists. And curiously, NONE of them have ever written a single science paper arguing for that.

Instead, it's just their religious belief.