• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Death and Evolution

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
However, wouldn't many people - those who came before those lab experiments I cited in my previous post - have said that RNA was "irreducibly" complex as a standalone molecule? Basically stating that it would be impossible for such a long-strand molecule to have come about of its own accord? Very likely yes. The point being, you don't know whether something is "irreducibly complex" until you do. You can, of course, throw your hands up saying "Gah! I just can't understand how it could have come about without an intelligence behind it!", but that still doesn't mean you KNOW.

This overlooks something incredibly obvious, and something you have already called to in your own defense - irreducibility. At some level, NO MATTER WHAT COMPRISES REALITY, things simply are as they are, and have to be accepted as such. At some level there IS NO "WHY" to be answered in any meaningful sense. Because there is a reality to experience at all, it has to have some fundamental rules/bindings/workings. Why not those that we see in front of us? Especially considering that is all we can see?

Positing an intelligence behind it all only adds another layer on top of that... one that also has to have some BASIS to its reality... some level at which nothing can be further reduced - a level at which things simply are the way they are, with no need for further explanation... and no need for guessing at directorial intelligence.


I take your point and it sounds quite logical.

But...!

the exact same argument can be made for looking at the word "HELP' spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, with no evidence of anyone ever being there, and concluding that the waves probably washed them up that way.

After all you are using the simple proven natural mechanism that you CAN see, rather than defer to an invisible complex intelligence that you cannot- adding another layer of mysterious complexity and asking more difficult questions.

And of course proposing QM behind classical physics, rather than sticking with simple superficial laws, opened a very tricky can of worms- but a very necessary one


The simplest explanation is no doubt always the most tempting, but reality has shown little regard for Occam's razor!
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Gravity is always gravity, but life has changed from bacteria to
what we have today, how that is comparable?

There is just as much life in that bacteria as there is in any living thing.

Btw, bacteria exist today
 
I find it funny that the people arguing that death is so essential to life it must be programmed by a creator are the same ones who believe the same creator will give them eternal life. I think if he was gonna do that he wouldve done it the first time. Since theists see purpose in everything that is created and everything created has a purpose in the lives of humans. I would like to know what was the purpose of dinosaurs?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I take your point and it sounds quite logical.

But...!

the exact same argument can be made for looking at the word "HELP' spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, with no evidence of anyone ever being there, and concluding that the waves probably washed them up that way.

The letters of "HELP" are an abstract set of objects that, having experienced the natural/usual form of things like beaches and rocks, one comes to understand do not simply form themselves out of un-moving objects like rocks. Or, to be clearer, the understanding we have due to exposure to usual/normal beaches is that such an occurrence is so extremely unlikely so as to warrant further investigation into what is behind the formation - regardless whether one understands the lexicon or not. Expecting an intelligence behind it becomes easier the more you've experienced the usual/natural state of things, and the more exposure you've had to abstract concepts like lexicons and what uses them.

However, what do you think the first person who ever came across a crystal thought? Let's say a growth of amethyst. Because it didn't conform to the usual landscapes and understanding of their reality, they probably thought it was formed via some type of magic, or that spirits were behind its formation. In fact, curios shops yet today love to sell crystals as some form of magical healing or balance-inducing agent. Some people STILL think there is some kind of spiritual power attributable to them.

The knowledge we have about the universe by now is that it is ever-moving, ever creating things on its own. That the natural/usual state of matter is that it is in flux - interacting and reacting with other matter, forming new and complex relationships - crystals grow by themselves, and are doing so at all times throughout the entire universe. It seems funny or odd now to attribute a spirit to crystal formation. Especially when you can pick up a box at your local Toys 'R Us to go and grow some yourself.

My point being that there is a tendency is to attribute spiritual involvement or invoke some "higher powered" intelligence of some kind to explain something abnormal that you're not used to seeing in your reality. So, we're currently at the stage where a lot of people look at DNA and, fathoming the possibility that it came about via natural means, it becomes nearly impossible for them to accept - because it appears to be part of an abstract lexicon - and the only thing we know of that utilizes lexicons is, of course, intelligent beings. So we extrapolate that idea onto the formation of DNA - ignoring the fact that other complex arrangements of matter, like crystals, create themselves all the time. The hardest part for people to get past in the case of DNA is that it IS part of an abstract lexicon - because its specific formations dictate (via a type of "language") what an organism will be like as it forms. To my mind, we simply lack the experience with DNA to make it part of the usual/natural landscape enough to understand what could, or could not, truly be interpreted as a manifestation of evidence for a controlling/instantiating intelligence.

The simplest explanation is no doubt always the most tempting, but reality has shown little regard for Occam's razor!
And why is it you seem to believe that the "simplest explanation" is that matter forms these sorts of relationships on its own? And that, by process of elimination, this means that you feel the most complex explanation would be that some sort of spiritual realm is at work? I have never known a single advancement or achievement of mankind that has relied solely on the assumption that a spiritual realm was involved in the processes being utilized or examined for discovery. Can you name one? Instead, what I have witnessed is the converse... that people flock first to the spiritual explanation for things that seem to have no explanation, and that once the understanding or explanation is found, people stop putting stock at all in their original spiritual assumptions. To my mind, this means that the "simpler" explanation is the spiritual, unknown, "God" explanation, because the explanation based on reality as we experience it requires time, work, effort, trial and error, and constant review and revision.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Did I say "change"?
Death is certainly a "change" from life. But have it your way. That something dies says absolutely ZERO about whether that death was "planned." (But by the way, if it was, that would come under the heading of "premeditated murder." Certainly one of the things that the biblical God is frequently guilty of.)
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Is becoming old and die was good for the species?
You are a gene dispersal unit, you are a means to an end for you genes, which are potentially immortal. You must die so that you don't starve out your progeny, so that you can be recycled back into the ecosystem, only the copies of your genes in them really matter, without death there cannot be variation or natural selection, few evolutionary processes can occur on an immortal species, it is at a dead end.
Sorry to sound so nihilist about it but basically that's the way it is so in the meantime we may as well live a little. I value life highly, because I know it most likely the only shot of awareness we get as contingent and highly breakable sentient bags of water and hydrocarbons blundering about doing what nature wants us to do, get born, survive to adulthood, have sex, raise kids, get old, and then finally **** off. The time in between nothingness and nothingness, is ours, to do as we see fit.
In my view the universe doesn't much care what we think. So we have no reason to be anyone else's creature, unless we want to be, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
ignoring the fact that other complex arrangements of matter, like crystals, create themselves all the time
Self emergent properties and the manifestation of complex orderly structure we see happening even in the naked depths of space with amino acids essential to life, forming spontaneously in giant inter stellar molecular clouds, energized by radiation, powering the chemical reactions.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Death is certainly a "change" from life. But have it your way. That something dies says absolutely ZERO about whether that death was "planned." (But by the way, if it was, that would come under the heading of "premeditated murder." Certainly one of the things that the biblical God is frequently guilty of.)

Death is a must because resources are limited, it isn't about murdering
but about a good plan for life on earth to success.

As I can see that no satisfactory answers have been mentioned other than it just happened to be so and it was good for life on earth but why to think that such thing was planned, but it's planned as I don't believe in coincidences.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Death is a must because resources are limited, it isn't about murdering
but about a good plan for life on earth to success.
And there's no other way to cope with limited resources than killing people? How about not making any new ones? And don't get me going, because apparently I can conjure up dozens of more workable scenarios than you god seems able to. (Of course, as always, I attribute the failings of your god to your own lack of real analysis.)
As I can see that no satisfactory answers have been mentioned other than it just happened to be so and it was good for life on earth but why to think that such thing was planned, but it's planned as I don't believe in coincidences.
Well, do you suppose that your lack of belief in coincidences makes them impossible? Do your beliefs run the universe? If so, could you believe up a billion dollars for me, please?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Self emergent properties and the manifestation of complex orderly structure we see happening even in the naked depths of space with amino acids essential to life, forming spontaneously in giant inter stellar molecular clouds, energized by radiation, powering the chemical reactions.
I didn't even mention all of the space-faring complex entities in motion, but yes, all sorts of interesting things out there. Fusion reactions morphing elements from one into another, all manner of chemical reactions, diamond-rain purportedly falling from the sky on some of our sister planets. An unfathomable array of actions and interactions spanning the vast array of (not so empty) space.
 
It was good that the topic was raised. I knew a little about the ageing process in humans but I did not know much about other multicellular organisms. Below is a link I found informative and useful:

What Is the Scientific Answer to "Why Do Living Things Die?" | HuffPost

The article can be used to support the view that organisms were designed by a divine Being or not as it merely gives the facts without a slant.

I would like to ask those who do not believe in coincidences that if they sneezed and they saw a tree fall down at the same time, would they think that the two events were causally linked? If six lottery balls came out that could be re-arranged showing consecutive numbers, would they presume that this was contrived?

Dinos
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I find it funny that the people arguing that death is so essential to life it must be programmed by a creator are the same ones who believe the same creator will give them eternal life. I think if he was gonna do that he wouldve done it the first time. Since theists see purpose in everything that is created and everything created has a purpose in the lives of humans. I would like to know what was the purpose of dinosaurs?

God did do it the first time. God offered Adam everlasting life on Earth as long as Adam did Not break God's Law.
Since we are innocent of what father Adam brought upon us is why God's sent Jesus to Earth to be a ransom for us.
We can Not resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us. Jesus can and will.- Rev. 1:18.

It would seem that under Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth, that questions about dinosaurs will be answered. In school, decades ago, we were told dinosaur life contributed to life on earth for us.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
And there's no other way to cope with limited resources than killing people? How about not making any new ones?............................................

Your ^above^ thinking seems to be in harmony with Genesis 1:28.
God told mankind to pro-create until Earth was populated, Earth was filled, Not over-populated, Not overfilled.
So, Adam and Eve and their descendants (us) were to pro-create only until Earth was full or populated.
It is mankind Not obeying God that has caused limited resources, etc.
Mankind ignoring the kingly law, or royal law, of James 2:8 contributes to bad news.
When we hear the news we hear about the bad news of men's kingdoms or governments.
ALL of God's Laws are summed up in God's Golden Rule.
So, when we hear the news we hear about the absence of God's Golden Rule which causes: bad news.
Who was ever arrested, or sent to jail, for having love for neighbor as one's self.
Even in our now imperfect state, we can still have better self control than we see today.
So, under Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth mankind will know more about God's purpose of Genesis 1:28 when apparently pro-creation on Earth will at some point cease.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Death is a must because resources are limited, it isn't about murdering
but about a good plan for life on earth to success.

It seems to me 1 Corinthians 15:26 says 'death is Not a must' because 'enemy death' will be brought to nothing.
So, since death on Earth will come to an end - Isaiah 25:8 - then death is Not God's purpose for Earth.
If Adam had Not broken God's Law, then Adam would still be alive on Earth today because Adam was offered everlasting life on Earth as long as he did Not break God's Law about the forbidden tree.

God's purpose for life on Earth to succeed is what I find at Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16; Psalms 92:7 that the words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of the wicked, and thus the humble meek people will inherit the Earth.

God's purpose I also find at Revelation 22:2 is that mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' on Earth for the healing of earth's nations. I find that will be in fulfillment to God's promise to father Abraham that ALL families of Earth will be blessed, and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed according to Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18.
Blessed with the benefit of 'healing' for earth's nations.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
We win with the power of thinking.



I met, but don't get what your point is.



Yes computers can do better than us, but that doesn't mean the computers
are better than us because of doing specific jobs designed by us.
It's pure hubris to suggest we are better than any other animals. Thanks for proving my point. Over and over again.
And if a computer (which as you yourself said, we designed and therefore anything it does is the result of us) designs a better bird than current living birds, does that mean the computer (and by your own admission, an extension of ourselves) is a better designer than God?
You opened up this line of enquiry, by constantly pointing out how we do things "superior" to nature itself, which is according to you God's creation. Don't back out now.
 

SpiritQuest

The Immortal Man
Is becoming old and die was good for the species?
Death is good for earth and for more species to come which is a sign that someone
has planned for it, living for some years and giving birth for new comers.

What do you think? was it just a coincidence or a programmed death mechanism?

The universe is continually manifesting creation. Forms appear for a relative period to then dissolve and return to the formlessness. "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form." -- Heart Sutra

The formless ...or the emptiness, is the timeless infinite potential.

Even the living body has differing internal cycles of life and death where the body is continually replacing old cells with new ones. The body grows up, ages and then it returns to the earth where new cycles of life emerge in new forms.

Change can only occur with respect to that which is changeless or eternal. The eternal timeless truth that is within. The personality - the ego - the body, will dissolve(die) but that which is eternal - the spirit, never dies.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Natural phenomena are what they are. Life is not "planned" any more than gravity is, at least as far as actual evidence goes.

My point isn't about life but death, the planner knows that death should be a part of
the living cycle, it's never the work of "just happened to be", IOW randomness.

I guess you believe in that. But you have not made a case for it.

If we think that life just happened to be and then we think that death just happened to be
then thinking everything just happened to be, that would be really nonsense.
 
Top