Just Accidental?

[Valjean]

If was to go for a walk in the woods and I came across a well maintained house with a sign on the door that said "come in, all welcome" and I entered to find a tastefully decorated home with carpeting, lighting, air conditioning, plumbing, a fully stocked pantry and a note to say "make yourself at home." Would I automatically assume that this house just evolved over millions of years with no designer or construction engineer to oversee the project? If I went back into suburbia and told people that I found this amazing place in the woods, would they believe that it had no designer or builder? What would I look like to them if I stuck to my story?....and what would the provider of that house think of me if I continued to spread that assumption, based on the fact that I had never met him and assumed that he did not exist? The philanthropic builder just wanted his visitors to treat the house he provided with respect. He asked nothing in return except that I be mindful that others too would want to enjoy what he had provided.

If in my walk in the woods I also come across a gold Rolex watch.....I assume too that it had no maker, so I marvel at the evolutionary process that created it and take it home.

The watchmaker theory assumes a finished creation ex nihilo. Life is a different kettle of fish. Life reproduces divergent copies of itself, weeds out the less functional designs and repeats the process with the successful design changes. Changes -- "improvements" -- accumulate.
Houses and watches don't reproduce.
Google "watchmaker theory debunked" and watch some videos.

The burden of proof is on those who deny the existence of the builder, when the genius of his construction is everywhere. The evidence for his existence is in the complex workings of every living thing on this planet, as well as the planet itself.

The burden of proof is on he who posits a magical 'explanation' with no empirical support. The scientific explanation is reasonable and based on actual observation and evidence.

It's just logic to me.

You don't understand what 'logic' is, apparently.

Using a brain the size of the tip of a ballpoint pen, the monarch butterfly migrates up to 1,800 miles from Canada to a small patch of forest in Mexico. This butterfly relies on the sun to help it navigate, and it has the ability to compensate for the movement of the sun across the sky.

And a boy can catch a baseball without a course on the calculus. Natural selection incorporated these basic survival capabilities into our operating systems.

The laws that are seen in the universe have a source.....what is the source of those laws?

You're projecting your own, limited experience of this world onto Reality. Why must there be a source?

Why is Earth the only planet to host life in our solar system? Why is earth the only planet to have an abundance of water? An abundance of vegetation to feed the life that exists here? How does it have just the right mixture of gases and the right temperatures for life to exist in all zones?

Why is any feature what it is? Why is there a liquid water sea under Enceladus' (moon of Saturn) surface? Is there life there? With trillions of probable planets, the chance of some of them being earthlike is pretty good.
You're putting the cart before the horse. You're marvelling at the intricate design of a ditch, conforming in every minute aspect, with the water it contains.

Adaptation is seen in species that inhabit different regions, but no species ever evolved into a completely different species.

This is just absurd. Endless small changes can never accumulate into big changes? How does evolution know where to stop this microevolution, so as to avoid becoming macroevolution?

If we had to choose a “next-door neighbor” for the earth, we could not improve on the moon. Its diameter measures just over a quarter of the earth’s. Thus, when compared with other moons in our solar system, our moon is unusually large in relation to its host planet. This, however, is no coincidence.
For one thing, the moon is the principal cause of ocean tides, which play a vital role in the planet’s ecology. The moon also contributes to earth’s stable spin axis. Without its tailor-made moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, perhaps even tipping right over and turning on its side, as it were! The resulting climatic, tidal, and other changes would be catastrophic.
Just an accident you say.....?

I do.
Had the moon never been formed life would have evolved differently, but it still would have evolved. We might have has people pointing to Earth's unique lack of a moon as evidence for pro-life design.[/quote]

 

[Deeje]

What guidance system do migratory birds use to navigate their flight path? Do humans have a method of navigation, that will take them over 10,000 miles, that they do not have to learn?

National Geographic reported.....
"A female shorebird was recently found to have flown 7,145 miles (11,500 kilometers) nonstop from Alaska to New Zealand—without taking a break for food or drink.

It's the longest nonstop bird migration ever measured, according to biologists who tracked the flight using satellite tags.

• Great White Breaks Distance, Speed Records for Sharks (October 6, 2005)
• Longest Animal Migration Measured, Bird Flies 40,000 Miles a Year (August 8, 2006)
• Birds: Photos, Video, Fast Facts, More

The bird, a wader called a bar-tailed godwit, completed the journey in nine days.

In addition to demonstrating the bird's surprising endurance, the trek confirms that godwits make the southbound trip of their annual migration directly across the vast Pacific rather than along the East Asian coast, scientists said.

"This shows how incredible and extreme birds can be," said Phil Battley of New Zealand's Massey University, who took part in the study.

"The prospect of a bird flying all the way across the Pacific was so much further than what we thought possible, it seemed ludicrous," he said.

"Like Running for a Week"

The long haul was documented during a study of godwit migration conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and PRBO Conservation Science, a California-based nonprofit dedicated to bird research.

Some 70,000 godwits make the epic journey from their northern summer breeding grounds in Alaska down to New Zealand each September, before flying all the way back the following March.

To study this annual trek north, Battley and his colleagues fitted satellite transmitters to 16 godwits at two locations in New Zealand last summer.

Battley was amazed, he said, to find that one of the birds, dubbed E7, flew some 6,340 miles (10,200 kilometers) directly to a wetland on the North Korea-China border (see map).

After feeding and resting there, she continued another 3,000 miles (5,000 kilometers) to Alaska."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-longest-flight.html

Who teaches birds and marine creatures to migrate so that they reach a specific destination, tens of thousands of miles away, year after year? If man is a superior being, the most fully "evolved" species on the planet, then why does he not have a built in GPS like even a butterfly?
And why did the birds, insects and marine creatures have this capacity before man even entered the picture?

 

[Deeje]

Not a "reasonable alternative." Just as they can't prove a magical personage didn't do it, they can't prove it's not all a computer simulation or that cosmic ants didn't set everything in motion. Presenting anything "not proven" as a legitimate possibility is not reasonable.
Current 'reasonable' ideas are based on mechanisms already observed and known to exist.

I think that all 'constructions' that have numerous components require a builder and designer, even a structural engineer is required for some designs. There is no "magical personage" who builds houses or high-rises. When you see something that is engineered, you assume it has an engineer.....don't you? And if something demonstrates genius in the workings of a particular mechanism, you assume an intelligent mind produced it.....the human body has many interconnecting mechanisms that work for the benefit of the whole organism.....the fact that we often praise genius when it is evident, proves that it is no accident; that is just logic....isn't it?

This is like dismissing the science of chemistry because we don't know know how atoms came to be.
As yet, there is no evidence of a conscious creator, but even if one were to show up, it would still leave the question of mechanism -- the only question science deals with -- unanswered.

Even atoms are complex structures. Evolutionary science deals in its own fantasy, not true facts as far as I can see. If I have to rely on an artist's impression for everything I believe then I'm sorry, but that is an idea out of the minds of men.....you think mere humans know all there is to know? Filling in the blanks with imagination is what you accuse us of doing.

If the Creator was to show up, do you think he'd be thrilled that you gave the credit for his work to blind chance? Do you think he'd be impressed with what science has done to this planet? For every good thing science has given us, I can show you many more that have contributed to bringing life on Earth to the brink of extinction. If science is your god....he's doing a worse job than you think mine is doing. At least mine gives me a hope for the future.....what hope do you have?

A planet or moon in a different orbit, of a different size, spin, tilt, &c; with a different atmosphere around a different Sun, might well have different 'life' or something similar.
You're arguing from incredulity, based on improbability, but everything is mind-bogglingly improbable.

Everything except a highly intelligent "Intelligent Designer" that is.....this to me is the most probable scenario because of what I observe with my own eyes.

The mathematical chance of anything occurring as and when it does is astronomical; the chance of a particular rock being in a particular position and place on your lawn is astronomically unlikely, but no-one's positing a magical personage to account for it.

That is a rather childish analogy, don't you think? The rocks that orbit our sun are not accidentally placed there by an undirected big bang. The unchanging laws of the universe accomplish a purpose.....only intelligence demonstrates purpose.

 

[Sonofason]

I know of nothing designed that did not have a designer....these are exquisitely designed.

Who can deny that?

I can't.

 

[Sonofason]

You don't understand the "selection" part of Natural Selection, Deeje. It's not random chance.
This is simply hogwash. Where did you get this idea?
Nature's interactive mechanisms are just that -- mechanical, they demonstrate function, not intentional design, and you seem fixed on this idea of "random chance." There is more to Natural Selection than chance. The deck is not reshuffled with each iteration.
When you understand the mechanics, the diversity of life is almost inevitable -- but only if you understand the mechanics.
No it doesn't. Mechanisms of change aren't dependent on how the raw material got there.
No. You're putting the cart before the horse. Life adapted to planetary conditions, not vice versa, and inasmuch as only a planet in the Goldilocks zone could produce a life form capable of these questions, the argument becomes circular. Who knows how many planets turned out to be duds.
I think ADA was referring to the fact that the pharyngeal anatomy of humans renders us uniquely prone to choking.
You haven't really researched this, have you?
We've learned a lot in the century-and-a-half since Darwin. The steps of ocular development, from primitive eyespots to modern vertibrate eyes are now known and are easily observable in a range of different organisms.
And just FYI, your images show only two types of eye.
What on Earth are you talking about? Humans have always got old and died, just like other animals, and by the same mechanisms.

There is only one planet with life on it. If this is not the case, I need someone to show me another.

 

[Deeje]

The watchmaker theory assumes a finished creation ex nihilo.

Doesn't evolution teach that life just appeared mysteriously one day by some unknown process? Just because you avoid the question of abiogenesis, doesn't mean that life can simply appear magically somehow, and you can brush that aside and say what matters is how it changed.
Surely how life began is a much more important question to answer?

A scientific fact is completely ignored....."all life springs from pre-existing life". Why can't that pre-existing life be an all powerful Creator? Do you know enough in your limited human knowledge to completely discount his existence? Can science say that for a fact? Or is it yet just another assumption?

Life is a different kettle of fish. Life reproduces divergent copies of itself, weeds out the less functional designs and repeats the process with the successful design changes. Changes -- "improvements" -- accumulate.
Houses and watches don't reproduce.

Houses and watches don't just magically spring into existence either.

Yes, life self replicates. That in itself is a miracle. Conception and reproduction in the myriad life forms on this planet is mind boggling. "Nature" is a miracle worker.....only don't call it God.

Google "watchmaker theory debunked" and watch some videos.
The burden of proof is on he who posits a magical 'explanation' with no empirical support. The scientific explanation is reasonable and based on actual observation and evidence.
You don't understand what 'logic' is, apparently.

I know that watches and computers need a designer and maker. I know that they both require intelligent minds to design and manufacture the intricate components and that correct assembly is required for things to function as intended.....producing something even more complex without intelligent design is to me, patently ridiculous.

And a boy can catch a baseball without a course on the calculus. Natural selection incorporated these basic survival capabilities into our operating systems.

But can a boy get selected by the Olympic team unless he is trained by professionals? You use natural selection like a blanket cover for everything, yet it explains very little.

What role does natural selection play in man's creativity? What survival advantage is there in art, theater, music or literature?
How does natural selection explain the unique sense of humor that humans naturally possess? We alone can cognitively plan for the future by assessing the past and present outcome of our activities.....it goes way past Pavlov's dog.

You're projecting your own, limited experience of this world onto Reality. Why must there be a source?

Because all laws have a purpose and purpose indicates intelligent direction for something purposeful to take place.

This is just absurd. Endless small changes can never accumulate into big changes? How does evolution know where to stop this microevolution, so as to avoid becoming macroevolution?

There are genetic barriers that prevent creatures from adapting past their genetic "kind". This is what I observe with the horse for example. Adaptive change within a species does not mean that endless accumulative changes can produce a completely different "kind" of creature. Since we all know that mutations are rarely beneficial to any species, I think science relies far too heavily on them as a reasonable explanation.

Had the moon never been formed life would have evolved differently, but it still would have evolved.

You say that with such assurance.....but you really don't know that for a fact, do you? You "suggest" that it "might be" possible.

I suggest that a highly intelligent Creator is more possible in my way of thinking. You can believe whatever you like...just don't present them as "facts" when no one was there to observe or document what science wants to assume.
Your assumptions do not outweigh my assumptions....OK?

 

[sayak83]

I think that all 'constructions' that have numerous components require a builder and designer, even a structural engineer is required for some designs. There is no "magical personage" who builds houses or high-rises. When you see something that is engineered, you assume it has an engineer.....don't you? And if something demonstrates genius in the workings of a particular mechanism, you assume an intelligent mind produced it.....the human body has many interconnecting mechanisms that work for the benefit of the whole organism.....the fact that we often praise genius when it is evident, proves that it is no accident; that is just logic....isn't it?



Even atoms are complex structures. Evolutionary science deals in its own fantasy, not true facts as far as I can see. If I have to rely on an artist's impression for everything I believe then I'm sorry, but that is an idea out of the minds of men.....you think mere humans know all there is to know? Filling in the blanks with imagination is what you accuse us of doing.

If the Creator was to show up, do you think he'd be thrilled that you gave the credit for his work to blind chance? Do you think he'd be impressed with what science has done to this planet? For every good thing science has given us, I can show you many more that have contributed to bringing life on Earth to the brink of extinction. If science is your god....he's doing a worse job than you think mine is doing. At least mine gives me a hope for the future.....what hope do you have?



Everything except a highly intelligent "Intelligent Designer" that is.....this to me is the most probable scenario because of what I observe with my own eyes.



That is a rather childish analogy, don't you think? The rocks that orbit our sun are not accidentally placed there by an undirected big bang. The unchanging laws of the universe accomplish a purpose.....only intelligence demonstrates purpose.

I will repeat my earlier criticism that you jump for topic to topic without looking into any in detail. I invite you to choose one topic in evolution and see if the explanation and the evidence is good or not.

My second point is simpler. What in the world makes you think that other people share your intuitions that living systems are designed? Since I remember looking at living things and nature (5 years old and up) I considered the idea that any of this was purposely designed completely ridiculous. I never saw anything in living things (flowers, ants, butterflies, lizards, trees, cats, mountains, seas..) that even remotely suggested to me that these things were designed. I always always thought (quite rightly in my view) that these are complex self-sustaining phenomena in a highly diversified and extremely ancient (probably eternal) natural world. And I came to this conclusion by my own self. I have never even heard of biological evolution till when I was 16 (it is not taught in India in my time for non-biology majors) , but when I did, it nicely complemented my own intuitions about the natural world and added the idea that it's historical transformations in the past ages can be known and explained.

And here is the key issue. My family and culture told me nothing whatsoever of whether evolution happens or not or how old this world is (my parents and relatives did not know nor care). So I believe that your intuitions are not "natural" at all, but completely influenced but what you were taught or what you absorbed from your religious environment as a child or an young adult. Either that, or you are mistakenly presuming what you think about living things is intuitive, when it is absolutely not.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What law has no law-giver that doesn't have an intent and a purpose for giving it?

The laws of physics, most likely.

Why is Earth the only planet to host life in our solar system?

What deity only gives one planet life, and make all the other planets useless?

Why is earth the only planet to have an abundance of water? An abundance of vegetation to feed the life that exists here? How does it have just the right mixture of gases and the right temperatures for life to exist in all zones?

The fact that it's the only planet we know of that has these conditions, suggests it happened by chance. If the universe were designed, I'd expect most, if not, all planets to host life.

I see that you assume so much about nature. Mountains, rivers, rainforests, deserts, all have life exclusive to their environments. Adaptation is seen in species that inhabit different regions, but no species ever evolved into a completely different species. The early horse for example....(if science is even correct about it being an early horse) was still a four legged creature with fur. The eons that it supposedly took to get to our modern horse did not alter its basic structure. And if you look at their proof, what you see is an artist's impression, but nothing real. The reality is in a few bones or teeth, but nothing that is substantial proof of anything. Imagination makes up for what the fossil record lacks.

You don't listen to a word we say, do you? You've said all this stuff already, and I've given you an answer. But instead of addressing that answer or even trying to tackle any problems with it, you just ignore it and repeat what you say.

Just an accident you say.....?

If it weren't an accident, I'd expect more planets like Earth. The fact that Earth is the only planet we know of with the right conditions, makes your argument worse, not better.

Its a big universe and I am certain that the Creator has plans for all of it eventually. But he has to deal with the "bugs" created by the abuse of free will here first. In order to keep it as the beneficial quality it was meant to be, and allow it to be freely exercised within the boundaries he set for it, the Creator is demonstrating what happens when you delete him. This is the godless world we live in. Is free will being exercised in a beneficial way? Not that I can see. The lesson learned will extend into eternity if anyone ever wants to cancel out the Creator again.

Are you actually suggesting that our abuse of free will, is the reason the countless other planets out there don't have life? As if it's somehow our fault?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

There is only one planet with life on it.

How does that help your world view at all? Trillions of trillions of planets where only one has life, doesn't do service to the view of a grand design.

 

[Valjean]

Who teaches birds and marine creatures to migrate so that they reach a specific destination, tens of thousands of miles away, year after year? If man is a superior being, the most fully "evolved" species on the planet, then why does he not have a built in GPS like even a butterfly?
And why did the birds, insects and marine creatures have this capacity before man even entered the picture?

No-one teaches the birds and butterflies. This capacity, astonishing as it is, was acquired naturally, through the slow accumulation of features supporting it and the extension of existing, more familiar habits. You let your personal incredulity overshadow your analysis of biology.
Your apparently axiomatic premises that man is "a superior being," and "the most fully evolved species" are telling. This is unsupported religious doctrine, not biology,
I am no more evolved than my cat, and all species evolve the features that promote their reproductive success -- through the various evolutionary processes you seem unfamiliar with.

I think that all 'constructions' that have numerous components require a builder and designer, even a structural engineer is required for some designs. There is no "magical personage" who builds houses or high-rises. When you see something that is engineered, you assume it has an engineer.....don't you?

I do -- and when I see something that is evolved I assume a non-intentional, natural process to account for it.
You don't seem to understand the mechanisms by which biological complexity came about. You're ascribing it to intentional magic, patterned after the engineering you see in your everyday life.

Even atoms are complex structures. Evolutionary science deals in its own fantasy, not true facts as far as I can see. If I have to rely on an artist's impression for everything I believe then I'm sorry, but that is an idea out of the minds of men.....you think mere humans know all there is to know? Filling in the blanks with imagination is what you accuse us of doing.

If you don't see the "true facts" it's because you haven't researched the discipline, and I don't know where you're coming up with this "artists impression" thing. The interpretation of observed facts precede any artistic rendering. Any "imagination" is grounded in empirical facts. The facts are there weather anyone illustrates them or not.
No, I don't think humans know all there is to know, and scientists, more than anyone, are aware of this.
It's the religious who tend to think they know all they need to know, not the scientists.

If the Creator was to show up, do you think he'd be thrilled that you gave the credit for his work to blind chance? At least mine gives me a hope for the future.....what hope do you have?

I have no idea what He'd think, and I don't seek understanding of reality as a psychotherapeutic modality. It's not science' job to confer hope.
If it's all His design, after all, and not a sparrow falls without His consent, He has to accept some of the blame.

Doesn't evolution teach that life just appeared mysteriously one day by some unknown process? Just because you avoid the question of abiogenesis, doesn't mean that life can simply appear magically somehow, and you can brush that aside and say what matters is how it changed.
Surely how life began is a much more important question to answer?

No. Evolution teaches nothing about origins, just the mechanisms of an extant biology. That's not to say the question isn't being investigated, it's just not the focus of evolutionary biology.
And no, life didn't just pop into existence fully formed. Features and components of life developed, step by step, gradually assembling into something like life.

A scientific fact is completely ignored....."all life springs from pre-existing life". Why can't that pre-existing life be an all powerful Creator? Do you know enough in your limited human knowledge to completely discount his existence? Can science say that for a fact? Or is it yet just another assumption?

Science can only work with observations and facts. As soon as there is concrete evidence of a magical personage, it will be incorporated into the equation.

I know that watches and computers need a designer and maker. I know that they both require intelligent minds to design and manufacture the intricate components and that correct assembly is required for things to function as intended.....producing something even more complex without intelligent design is to me, patently ridiculous.

You're arguing from incredulity -- incredulity arising from ignorance of alternatives.
You really need to brush up on your ToE. There are multiple mechanisms, observable and easily understood, to account for the complexity you find so astonishing.
An appeal to magic is not a reasonable explanation.

But can a boy get selected by the Olympic team unless he is trained by professionals? You use natural selection like a blanket cover for everything, yet it explains very little.

It explains everything -- you clearly are unfamiliar with it.
For me, God explains nothing. "Goddidit" is an assertion of agency -- not an explanation.

Because all laws have a purpose and purpose indicates intelligent direction for something purposeful to take place.

All (natural) laws have a purpose?! Where do you come up with that? You're projecting your own magical ontogeny onto reality.

kmThere are genetic barriers that prevent creatures from adapting past their genetic "kind". This is what I observe with the horse for example. Adaptive change within a species does not mean that endless accumulative changes can produce a completely different "kind" of creature. Since we all know that mutations are rarely beneficial to any species, I think science relies far too heavily on them as a reasonable explanation.

What are these genetic barriers? An Eohippus didn't pop, fully formed, into existence, it evolved from previous forms. Again: how do adaptive changes know when to stop so as to avoid becoming a new species?
Mutations usually have no obvious effect. Harmful mutations are eliminated and helpful ones retained, by an unintentional, unguided process. Nor is mutation the only mechanism of evolution. If your dog has puppies they're not all identical, are they? Yet none of them are mutations.
]quote]You say that with such assurance.....but you really don't know that for a fact, do you? You "suggest" that it "might be" possible.[/quote] I'll concede your point. Perhaps life would never have developed, but to suggest that what happened was consciously guided, when there are natural explanations for the process, begs for evidence. Again, you're appealing to magic as a reasonable explanation.

 

[Sonofason]

How does that help your world view at all? Trillions of trillions of planets where only one has life, doesn't do service to the view of a grand design.

Until it is proven that life exists elsewhere in the universe, it is nothing more than speculation. I'd like to know why you think that the earth and human kind ought not be viewed as special in the eyes of God. He adores us. He became a man like us and died for us. How does the earth being the only planet with life not do service to the view of a grand design?

 

[Deeje]

The laws of physics, most likely.

Is that another guess?

What deity only gives one planet life, and make all the other planets useless?

Because this deity chose to give life to intelligent beings who reflected his own qualities (rather than beings only programmed for survival and reproduction) he had to give those beings time to work out how to 'drive' conscious, pre-meditated free will.

Giving us the right to choose, the Creator had to work through the probability of abusing the privilege. If free will was used incorrectly, then the blessing it was intended to be would become a curse, with humans imposing their will on others, to their detriment. Humans were not designed to rule over other humans......if you give a man power, it will corrupt him every time. Look at the current state of world politics and see for yourself.....humans cannot rule themselves independently of their Maker....corruption always rears its ugly head. The only way to settle the issues was to allow all eventualities to arise and then deal with them. At the end of a defined period, (God set a deadline) once we have exhausted all avenues of self rule and failed, God will have precedents set for all eternity to come. Free will can then never be abused again. The Creator can never be usurped by a pretender, stating that humans are better off without God. Look where this has got us.

The fact that it's the only planet we know of that has these conditions, suggests it happened by chance. If the universe were designed, I'd expect most, if not, all planets to host life.

It suggests the opposite to me. If God was going to eventually populate other planets in his vast universe, what better thing to do than to iron out all the 'bugs' on this one first. I believe that we are only the beginning.

You don't listen to a word we say, do you? You've said all this stuff already, and I've given you an answer. But instead of addressing that answer or even trying to tackle any problems with it, you just ignore it and repeat what you say.

You don't seem to realize that I have heard it all before and I disagree with the way science explains it. There are no "facts"...there is only conjecture presented as fact. Do you even know the difference?

If it weren't an accident, I'd expect more planets like Earth. The fact that Earth is the only planet we know of with the right conditions, makes your argument worse, not better.

I disagree for the reasons cited above.

Are you actually suggesting that our abuse of free will, is the reason the countless other planets out there don't have life? As if it's somehow our fault?

No, not our fault, but the fault of our first parents....our present situation is just the natural consequence of a training exercise...a learning curve that will serve us for all time to come.
Do we undervalue the importance of training when so much is at stake? When the abuse of free will can cause the present deplorable state of mankind and his impact on the earth itself, don't you think it was wise to wait and get it all sorted so that free will can be given confidently in times to come with no excuse to abuse it? Only then can God populate the rest of his vast universe as he pleases.....and he has forever to do it.
We can all see that he is in no rush.

 

[Deeje]

No-one teaches the birds and butterflies. This capacity, astonishing as it is, was acquired naturally, through the slow accumulation of features supporting it and the extension of existing, more familiar habits. You let your personal incredulity overshadow your analysis of biology.
Your apparently axiomatic premises that man is "a superior being," and "the most fully evolved species" are telling. This is unsupported religious doctrine, not biology,
I am no more evolved than my cat, and all species evolve the features that promote their reproductive success -- through the various evolutionary processes you seem unfamiliar with.

The "evolutionary process" that you adhere to has not a single shred of solid evidence to back it up. All science has is "adaptation" within species to base their assumptions on. One does not necessarily prove the other.

I do -- and when I see something that is evolved I assume a non-intentional, natural process to account for it.

That is the way you have been conditioned by the teachers that you chose for yourself....what is mysterious about that? This is what we all do.

You don't seem to understand the mechanisms by which biological complexity came about. You're ascribing it to intentional magic, patterned after the engineering you see in your everyday life.

Here we have this word surfacing again...."magic" inferring myth and legend. You do know the power of suggestion and how it is used in the world of the godless, don't you? Suggestion sells all manner of deception. We have no idea how much we are influenced by suggestion couched in deliberately misleading speech.

If you don't see the "true facts" it's because you haven't researched the discipline, and I don't know where you're coming up with this "artists impression" thing. The interpretation of observed facts precede any artistic rendering. Any "imagination" is grounded in empirical facts.

"Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."

Tell me what "experimentation" or "sense experience" can be carried out or observed with something that happened tens of millions of years ago? If there is no documentation or possible way to know for sure, then your "assumptions" are not more supported than mine.

The facts are there weather anyone illustrates them or not.

The illustrations are not photographs. The illustrations are designed to lead the student to a conclusion as if they were in fact looking at photographic evidence. The power of suggestion is stronger than you imagine. Perception management is what this world does with great expertise.That could have something to do with who controls it.

No, I don't think humans know all there is to know, and scientists, more than anyone, are aware of this.
It's the religious who tend to think they know all they need to know, not the scientists.

There is a confidence knowing something is right and will never change no matter what humans minds invent. Science is only as accurate as today's beliefs...tomorrow could be another story.

I have no idea what He'd think, and I don't seek understanding of reality as a psychotherapeutic modality. It's not science' job to confer hope.
If it's all His design, after all, and not a sparrow falls without His consent, He has to accept some of the blame.

Please refer to my previous post which covers this point.

Evolution teaches nothing about origins, just the mechanisms of an extant biology. That's not to say the question isn't being investigated, it's just not the focus of evolutionary biology.

As I have said, what is the point of arguing over how life changed if you don't know how it began? The origin of life is the more important question because the answer will shoot down evolution like a popped balloon.

And no, life didn't just pop into existence fully formed. Features and components of life developed, step by step, gradually assembling into something like life.
Science can only work with observations and facts. As soon as there is concrete evidence of a magical personage, it will be incorporated into the equation.

You think? Science will never admit anything that can make them appear foolish. Reputations and egos must be preserved. Frauds in science are as numerous as frauds in religion. Only the gullible swallow them.

You're arguing from incredulity -- incredulity arising from ignorance of alternatives.
You really need to brush up on your ToE. There are multiple mechanisms, observable and easily understood, to account for the complexity you find so astonishing.
An appeal to magic is not a reasonable explanation.

Creation is not "magic"...it is another view, supported by the findings of archeologists where whole species appear suddenly with no transitional forms to indicate previous ancestry.......but you cannot accept it because of your own "ignorance of alternatives".

It explains everything -- you clearly are unfamiliar with it.
For me, God explains nothing. "Goddidit" is an assertion of agency -- not an explanation.
All (natural) laws have a purpose?! Where do you come up with that? You're projecting your own magical ontogeny onto reality.

There is that word again .....as far as I can see, "Evolution" is simply science's version of "Goddidit".
"Holy spirit" is replaced "Natural selection" as the "how" it was accomplished.
You see we both have belief systems that neither of us can prove, so we choose sides based on what we want to believe.

What are these genetic barriers? An Eohippus didn't pop, fully formed, into existence, it evolved from previous forms. Again: how do adaptive changes know when to stop so as to avoid becoming a new species?

Science cannot even prove that "Eohippus" was even an ancestor of the modern horse, let alone what it evolved from. But it needs the artist's illustration to help "prove" that it happened like that.

Mutations usually have no obvious effect. Harmful mutations are eliminated and helpful ones retained, by an unintentional, unguided process. Nor is mutation the only mechanism of evolution. If your dog has puppies they're not all identical, are they? Yet none of them are mutations.

What a strange analogy. I think anyone with a smattering of genetics understands inheritance and gene pools.

You say that with such assurance.....but you really don't know that for a fact, do you? You "suggest" that it "might be" possible.

I'll concede your point. Perhaps life would never have developed, but to suggest that what happened was consciously guided, when there are natural explanations for the process, begs for evidence. Again, you're appealing to magic as a reasonable explanation.

If there is a Creator whose power is not understood by mere mortals, what makes you think he needs to direct much at all in beings that he designed to be self-replicating and self-sufficient? He clearly intended that all life on this planet would succeed without the need for much intervention from himself at all. He placed humans here as his representatives, who were given the tasks of caretaker and zoo keeper. We have failed miserably at the assignment, so he is allowing us to experience the folly of disobeying him in the ridiculous notion that we neither need him nor require him to live on this planet successfully.

Here we are in 2016 and we have brought the planet and every living thing upon it to the brink of extinction......one false move on "the button" by some deranged maniac, and its all over. How clever is man really?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I'd like to know why you think that the earth and human kind ought not be viewed as special in the eyes of God. He adores us. He became a man like us and died for us.

That doesn't mean there should be a bajillion other useless planets out there. How about just make the the Moon, Sun and Earth with life on it, and make nothing else if he wants to make something special.

How does the earth being the only planet with life not do service to the view of a grand design?

Seriously? Having countless other lifeless planets out there is utterly redundant. It suggests a lack of purpose, and by extension, a lack of a creator for this universe.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Is that another guess?

No. It's a lack of one. There's no reason to assume physical laws have a law-giver until it's proven.

You can't prove a negative.

Because this deity chose to give life to intelligent beings who reflected his own qualities (rather than beings only programmed for survival and reproduction) he had to give those beings time to work out how to 'drive' conscious, pre-meditated free will.

That doesn't answer why there's countless other lifeless planets out there.

If God was going to eventually populate other planets in his vast universe, what better thing to do than to iron out all the 'bugs' on this one first.

Saying he has to "iron out" something, suggests effort. Which suggests a lack of omnipotence. There would be no "ironing out" for an all-powerful being. There would only ever be him willing something to happen, followed by that thing happening. Utterly effortless.

You don't seem to realize that I have heard it all before and I disagree with the way science explains it.

That's all you do is disagree. You don't explain what's wrong with the argument or the data.

Actually, you do up to a point. There are particular points you chose to address, while there are others you don't. So I doubt you ignore certain points simply because you've heard them before. You ignore points because you don't have an answer to it.

No, not our fault, but the fault of our first parents.

I'm sorry, who? When I say "our" I'm referring to all of mankind.

 

[Sonofason]

That doesn't mean there should be a bajillion other useless planets out there. How about just make the the Moon, Sun and Earth with life on it, and make nothing else if he wants to make something special.



Seriously? Having countless other lifeless planets out there is utterly redundant. It suggests a lack of purpose, and by extension, a lack of a creator for this universe.

Or, having countless other lifeless planets out there demonstrates to us just how special we are in the eyes of God.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Or, having countless other lifeless planets out there demonstrates to us just how special we are in the eyes of God.

It's a good way to make something look like a fortunate accident, more-so than to make it feel special.

If billions of raindrops fall from the sky, and one lands on a bullseye laying on the ground, I'd have a difficult time assuming that some grand being wanted that raindrop to feel special.

 

[Olinda]

I think that all 'constructions' that have numerous components require a builder and designer, even a structural engineer is required for some designs.



Even atoms are complex structures. Evolutionary science deals in its own fantasy, not true facts as far as I can see. If I have to rely on an artist's impression for everything I believe then I'm sorry, but that is an idea out of the minds of men.....you think mere humans know all there is to know? Filling in the blanks with imagination is what you accuse us of doing.

Do you think he'd be impressed with what science has done to this planet? For every good thing science has given us, I can show you many more that have contributed to bringing life on Earth to the brink of extinction. If science is your god....he's doing a worse job than you think mine is doing. At least mine gives me a hope for the future.....what hope do you have?
.

Hi @Deeje, I've been observing as there are many other good points being made, but must ask your thoughts on these two.

Even atoms are complex structures. Evolutionary science deals in its own fantasy, not true facts as far as I can see. If I have to rely on an artist's impression for everything I believe then I'm sorry, but that is an idea out of the minds of men.....

So you readily accept that atoms are complex structures? Yet earlier you objected to macro-evolution because no-one had witnessed it. So as no-one has actually looked directly at the atomic structure, are you holding different scientific disciplines to different levels of verification, or have I misunderstood?

If the Creator was to show up, do you think he'd be thrilled that you gave the credit for his work to blind chance?

In a thread on parenting, you stated that God was the perfect example of a parent. Therefore I must assume that he would be understanding of his children's limited comprehension. Even of those who still, 16 pages in, conflate natural selection with "blind chance".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here we have this word surfacing again...."magic" inferring myth and legend. You do know the power of suggestion and how it is used in the world of the godless, don't you? Suggestion sells all manner of deception. We have no idea how much we are influenced by suggestion couched in deliberately misleading speech.

Wondering why you included 'in the land of the godless' here...
Surely the power of suggestion can sell all manner of deception universally?

 

[Deeje]

No. It's a lack of one. There's no reason to assume physical laws have a law-giver until it's proven.

You can't prove a negative.

Evolution is a negative. It isn't "proven"...it is suggested. It can't be proven any more than my Creator God can be produced at my bidding. You won't admit this though, will you? Science has become your deity.

That doesn't answer why there's countless other lifeless planets out there.

If this is the base planet; the starting point where all the 'bugs' attached to free will get ironed out first, then yes it does. Since creation is a process that the Bible says took a very long time, (not 6 literal days) and since this Creator is not constrained in any way by time, there must be a reason why he created life on this tiny speck in the first place. Other solar systems and galaxies open up a whole lot of possibilities.....

Saying he has to "iron out" something, suggests effort. Which suggests a lack of omnipotence. There would be no "ironing out" for an all-powerful being. There would only ever be him willing something to happen, followed by that thing happening. Utterly effortless.

Yes indeed, if God had created robots with no free will, it would have made things a lot easier for him, but what satisfaction is there is having children who can't do anything of their own volition? God can't make us love him...only we can choose to do that. Love is is primary quality. His power cannot be questioned...we can see the results of it everywhere, but he doesn't want us to fear him because of his power, he wants us to willingly submit to his sovereignty out of love and respect for his qualities. You think he asks too much?

That's all you do is disagree. You don't explain what's wrong with the argument or the data.

Actually, you do up to a point. There are particular points you chose to address, while there are others you don't. So I doubt you ignore certain points simply because you've heard them before. You ignore points because you don't have an answer to it.

I cannot accept suggestions as facts and I can dismiss everything that is suggested when it has nothing to back it up except the power of suggestion and some good computer graphics.
I personally do not see evolution as a science that is built on knowledge, but on imagination and wishful thinking.

I'm sorry, who? When I say "our" I'm referring to all of mankind.

So am I.