Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[Brian2]

Because the explanations provided by science require no outside intelligence. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that any outside intelligence is involved. IF any such evidence existed then scientists would jump at the chance to study it and try to determine the source of this outside intelligence. But without any such evidence there is nothing for the scientific method to study.

How do you or science know that no outside intelligence was required for the beginnings of life?
There is evidence in the coding in genetics that an intelligence designed it. But science cannot study that intelligence, it does not know how to and so goes forward with the presumption that there was no intelligence involved. If a scientist suggested that it was all designed they would probably lose their job. Science just cannot study God and so just presumes no god/s. So they go ahead and try to think of a possible way that the whole thing designed itself, but that is not evidence that it designed itself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

or highly educated wisdom like some spiritual folk because of spirit.

Yes, but could they fix the car if it breaks down in the middle of nowhere?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

Why would you want to go over it again? It's been gone over, on RF alone, about a zillion times, and nobody learns anything that they don't want to know. You were fussed about "wasting brainpower" thinking about other life in the universe, why would you want to waste your brainpower on this, yet again?

 

[Colt]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

No!

IMOP agents of God came to our world hundreds of millions of years ago and planted primitive life patterns in the shallow briny seas. From there life evolved.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What we are talking about is really abiogenesis. Is there evidence that no intelligence was needed for the beginnings of life or is that just a presumption of yours and of science? If there is evidence, do you know what that evidence is?

Why do you ask me? Go through the relevant pages of Wikipedia about what I believe. If you don't, then continue believing on what you believe. That does not bother me.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Formamide-based prebiotic chemistry - Wikipedia
GADV-protein world hypothesis - Wikipedia
Genetic recombination - Wikipedia
Shadow biosphere - Wikipedia

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No!

IMOP agents of God came to our world hundreds of millions of years ago and planted primitive life patterns in the shallow briny seas. From there life evolved.

What use has omnipotence for "agents?"

 

[Aupmanyav]

If a scientist suggested that it was all designed they would probably lose their job. .. but that is not evidence that it designed itself.

True. No scientist would say so, only a person ignorant of science would say so.
Oh, you are talking of evidence! Then, tell us what is your evidence as to ho it happened.

 

[Colt]

What use has omnipotence for "agents?"

God delegates powers and authority to subordinate beings to fulfill his purpose. The creation of humans is a part of his purpose.

IMOP

 

[PureX]

Do you agree with the following: "Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process that has produced the present-day life forms from matter, energy, chance, genetic modifications and natural selection, and changing environments over vast periods of time."?
Further, that the "random combining of basic elements with energy but without outside intelligence is the mechanism by which the first simplest cell is said to have been formed."
Yes, no? Maybe?

No, it's wrong. There was no "random combining" going on. Chance played a role, certainly, but only within the framework of a set of "rules" that controlled via limitation the expression of energy that then generated matter, space-time, and ultimately the universe as we know it, including life and consciousness.

It's those "rules" that are responsible for the nature and existence of all that is. Not "randomness".

 

[Brian2]

True. No scientist would say so, only a person ignorant of science would say so.
Oh, you are talking of evidence! Then, tell us what is your evidence as to ho it happened.

I keep hearing people say that there is evidence for there not being a creator/designer and when I ask for it you cannot or won't give it to me. I think it does not exist and presumable you don't really care if it exists or not, there is no designer/creator.
But instead you want me to tell you what evidence I have for how it happened.
So I can point to the coding in the Genes that can be seen as a language built into each living organism.
Languages indicates intelligence.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it's wrong. There was no "random combining" going on. Chance played a role, certainly, but only within the framework of a set of "rules" that controlled via limitation the expression of energy that then generated matter, space-time, and ultimately the universe as we know it, including life and consciousness.

It's those "rules" that are responsible for the nature and existence of all that is. Not "randomness".

So evolution from the first molecules or cells was not random, you say? It was designed?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Genes developed from RNA to DNA, from Cyanobacteria to the organisms existing today in a period of over 4 billion years.
Did you read any of the pages that I gave links for?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it's wrong. There was no "random combining" going on. Chance played a role, certainly, but only within the framework of a set of "rules" that controlled via limitation the expression of energy that then generated matter, space-time, and ultimately the universe as we know it, including life and consciousness.

It's those "rules" that are responsible for the nature and existence of all that is. Not "randomness".

OK, let me go over this again. Molecules-to-man evolution can be defined as the natural process

Let's take it piece by piece in order to understand. Perhaps I misunderstood you. So would you say that molecules eventually moving to form man is a "natural process"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So evolution from the first molecules or cells was not random, you say? It was designed?

No, it depended on the property of sub-atomic particles that made up the atoms and from atoms to molecules. The process is not random and needs no designing. Now why the subatomic particles have that property and from where the fundamental forces of nature arose, we do not know. Research is being carried out. If you are in a hurry to get an answer, "Goddidit' is the appropriate answer. However, it explains nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Genes developed from RNA to DNA, from Cyanobacteria to the organisms existing today in a period of over 4 billion years.
Did you read any of the pages that I gave links for?

(Why should I believe that, by the way?)

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it depended on the property of sub-atomic particles that made up the atoms and from atoms to molecules. The process is not random and needs no designing. Now why the subatomic particles have that property and from where the fundamental forces of nature arose, we do not know. Research is being carried out. If you are in a hurry to get an answer, "Goddidit' is the appropriate answer. However, it explains nothing.

So you say that the movement of molecules or cells to other things was not random but dependent upon other things, right? Like "subatomic particles." That is not random? I think you're getting it a little mixed up. Because if it's not random, what is it? Like for instance, a house built on a shaky foundation can collapse. The foundation you're speaking about is -- what? immutable? somehow? just happened? not randomly?

 

[Aupmanyav]

(Why should I believe that, by the way?)

Again the simple answer is "Don't". No one is forcing you. Same way, an atheist can say as to why he should believe in existence of God? That a few old books say so is not a proof for many people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you say that the movement of molecules or cells to other things was not random but dependent upon other things, right? Like "subatomic particles." That is not random? I think you're getting it a little mixed up. Because if it's not random, what is it? Like for instance, a house built on a shaky foundation can collapse. The foundation you're speaking about is -- what? immutable? somehow? just happened? not randomly?

Nothing is random, and there is a cause for everything. We have no example of an uncaused happening. We do not know the cause of a few things, for example where from existence arise? The same question is true for God. Where from God arise?
"What is it?" - to understand that requires a huge amount of reading and understanding. You can start with: Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia (if you are interested in all that reading and understanding).

 

[Tinker Grey]

What use has omnipotence for "agents?"

God delegates powers and authority to subordinate beings to fulfill his purpose. The creation of humans is a part of his purpose.

IMOP

What use has omnipotence for delegation?

 

[PureX]

So evolution from the first molecules or cells was not random, you say? It was designed?

No, it was not random. There was a whole system in place governed by physical laws that included the possibility of chance combinations of elements, but was primarily very controlled and organized.

Existence as we know it is "designed" by those laws. But we know nothing of the origin or purpose of that design. Nothing at all. Many surmise that the origin must have been "intelligent" because the results are so incredibly complex and balanced. But although that may be a logical presumption, that's all it is.