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

[TagliatelliMonster]

What we are talking about is really abiogenesis. Is there evidence that no intelligence was needed for the beginnings of life

You ask the wrong question.
You are asking for evidence of a negative claim.
It's positive claims that need evidence.

There is no evidence FOR outside intelligence, so why would you assume it?
Meanwhile, there are things like chemistry etc, which don't require any "outside intelligence".

No, there is no evidence that there is "no" outside intelligence involved.
Just like there is no evidence that "no" extra-dimensional unicorns are involved either.

If you wish to include such intelligences, or extra-dimensional unicorns, then
- present evidence that these things actually exist
- demonstrate how their manifestation or actions impacted the processes being talked about

Unless you can do that, why would anyone contemplate these "options"?

If there is evidence, do you know what that evidence is?

There are scientific explanatory models that can be tested and which are shown to be accurate when tested.
These models don't require any "outside intelligence" or extra-dimensional unicorns.

So the evidence that such things are "not" involved, is simply the lack of evidence that they are............
As well as the many evidence in support of models that don't include such things.

 

[PureX]

Contradiction big time Natural Laws and processes are not supernatural by definition.

I am not talking about contradicting natural laws. I am talking about the creation of natural laws.

 

[PureX]

IMHO, no combinations are by chance. Your presumption is not logical unless you provide a reason for emergence of this 'intelligence'.

Just because something doesn't align with your opinions does not make it illogical. Nor does your not understanding something make it gibberish.

The intelligence referred to is evidenced by the incredible complexity of physical and circumstantial existence. A complexity and intricacy far beyond the grasp of our human minds. We do not know the origin nor the purpose of that intelligence. We don't even know the limits of it. But we know it's there, because it forms the basis of all human study. It's what we study when we study the world.

 

[shunyadragon]

And so you know what you say you know, right? A whole system in place? By chance happening? Even evolutionists do not agree that something came from nothing, isn't that true?

No not true.!!!!!

As responded before and in many threads in the past, evolution does not take place by chance. It is the Laws of Nature and natural processes that determine the course of evolution. The environment and changing environment determines the course of evolution,

No, scientists (evolutionists?} do not accept that anything came from nothing, There is universal agreement in science that Natural Laws

[/quote] Now looking up the definition of 'luck.' Here's what one dictionary says: "The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune. Good fortune or prosperity; success. One's personal fate or lot" So do you believe evolution happened by chance, or luck, good or adverse, what do you think?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely NO!!! Evolution does not take place by luck, chance, fortune, or the layman's unfortunate understanding of randomness.

You persist on a religious agenda and layman's language to describe science without any support from scientific references.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The intelligence referred to is evidenced by the incredible complexity of physical and circumstantial existence

Explain. How does "complexity" of anything lead to the conclusion of intelligence?

A complexity and intricacy far beyond the grasp of our human minds.

I smell an argument from ignorance / incredulity coming up.

We do not know the origin nor the purpose of that intelligence

You jumped from "complexity" to "intelligence" again.
Please explain and demonstrate the connection.

We don't even know the limits of it. But we know it's there

Do we?
It seems to me that you just believe it is there. Which is obviously not the same.

, because it forms the basis of all human study. It's what we study when we study the world.

We study the world when we study the world.
Not some stuff you religiously believe is there in undetectable ways.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not talking about contradicting natural laws. I am talking about the creation of natural laws.

There is no known objectively verifiable evidence for the 'Creation' of Natural Laws. This is a subjective religious belief from the religious perspective. By the objectively verifiable evidence, Natural Laws simply exist with no known origin.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We do not know the origin nor the purpose of that intelligence. We don't even know the limits of it. But we know it's there, because it forms the basis of all human study.

If you don't know anything about it, then why call it "intelligence"? You could just as well say that you do not know how things came to be. That will be perfectly OK. Yeah, humans and animals have intelligence. But why burden the whole universe with 'intelligence'? That is what most theist Hindus do. 'Universal intelligence', 'Sacchidananda' (Sat + Chit + Ananda), though they have no proof for it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just because something doesn't align with your opinions does not make it illogical. Nor does your not understanding something make it gibberish.

The intelligence referred to is evidenced by the incredible complexity of physical and circumstantial existence. A complexity and intricacy far beyond the grasp of our human minds. We do not know the origin nor the purpose of that intelligence. We don't even know the limits of it. But we know it's there, because it forms the basis of all human study. It's what we study when we study the world.

In another thread, you stated that your perspective was not religious. This post confirms your view is most definitely from the religious perspective. of a non-scientific Intelligent Design {ID}.

We do not 'know' nor have any evidence of an 'Intelligent Source' outside the Natural Laws that have been found consistently to determine the nature and origin of our physical existence.

The incredible complexity of the universe and life is more than adequately determined by science. The proposal of ID is a religious belief proposed by many Christian and Islamic apologists, and is not based on any objectively verifiable evidence, nor are these hypotheses falsifiable by Methodological Naturalism, and by the way the complexity of life and nature of our universe,

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, scientists (evolutionists?} do not accept that anything came from nothing, ..

You are right, Shunyadragon. How can they accept it since no evidence for it has been provided? However, 'Ex-nihilo' remains one of the theories. They have not rejected it. It is a matter under research/investigation.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are right, Shunyadragon. How can they accept it since no evidence for it has been provided. However, 'Ex-nihilo' remains one of the theories. They have not rejected it. It is a matter under research/investigation.

The 'belief; in 'Ex-nillo' is not really under investigation is science, because it is based on the philosophical belief in 'absolute nothing, which from the perspective of science cannot be falsified by scientific methods. What is sometimes referred to as 'nothing' in science is the Quantum 'nothingness,' which is not remotely equated to 'Ex-Nihlo.' is descriptive of the Quantum world of Quantum Mechanics. I consider this a poor use of terminology concerning Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The 'belief; in 'Ex-nillo' is not really under investigation is science,

Kindly see: Cosmogony - Wikipedia
This is a hazy field and nothing here has been yet decided as final.

 

[shunyadragon]

Kindly see: Cosmogony - Wikipedia
This is a hazy field and nothing here has been yet decided as final.

Your appealing to an 'arguing from ignorance' from a bad source.

I kindly looked, but NO, not concerning exnillo, Your source 'Wikipedia' is not a good source in this discussion

 

[JerryG]

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?

Your statement is true as shown in my latest book "The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth". For a simple three dimensional universe only atheism would be correct. Yet we live in a multi-dimensional universe.When a cell forms by pure random chance, an image of the cell flows out into the spiritual dimension and returns. As long as the same ingredients of the cell are nearby, a second cell will be produced.
The net result is that bacteria will form and cells will eat other cells. Finally animal life is produced and the God of all life forms at the center of this Earth in the fifth dimension. This forms the bacterial God and later the Dinosaur God. The death of the Dinosaur God lead to new animals and the chimp ape occurred. Then man occurred and the Gods of man formed. There was thousands of tribal Gods and finally Abraham had Sons which produced Judaiam, Christianity, and Islam

 

[JerryG]

Your statement is true as shown in my latest book "The Natural God of Law, Love, and Truth". For a simple three dimensional universe only atheism would be correct. Yet we live in a multi-dimensional universe.When a cell forms by pure random chance, an image of the cell flows out into the spiritual dimension and returns. As long as the same ingredients of the cell are nearby, a second cell will be produced.
The net result is that bacteria will form and cells will eat other cells. Finally animal life is produced and the God of all life forms at the center of this Earth in the fifth dimension. This forms the bacterial God and later the Dinosaur God. The death of the Dinosaur God lead to new animals and the chimp ape occurred. Then man occurred and the Gods of man formed. There was thousands of tribal Gods and finally Abraham had Sons which produced Judaiam, Christianity, and Islam

The Bible is a combination of mythology and some history. It is a book of salvation. Our spirits can either perish in the outer darkness or entier the Kingdoms of Heaven. Some of us will derserve hell fire and that will happen to them. Some of us will deserve new Earth salvation and they will awaken in the future as Higher man upon yhr new Earths.

 

[PureX]

Explain. How does "complexity" of anything lead to the conclusion of intelligence?

That's easy.

A mysterious vehicle enters our atmosphere exhibiting capabilities far beyond anything we humans can achieve. It is clearly not from Earth, or made by humans, nor can it be from any planet in our solar system. But for it to have come from outside the solar system it must be capable of greater than light speed, which we didn't even know was possible. We have no idea what's inside it, or where it came from, or why it's here. But we do know that it's very existence represents an intelligence far greater than ours.

The universe is like that alien space ship. It's very existence represents an intelligence far greater than ours because it's capabilities are so much greater than our own. Even beyond our imagination. We don't know from what it originated, or why it exists or what it's doing here. And we don't know what all it's capable of. But we do know that it's capable of far more than we are. And that it represents an intelligence that far exceeds our own.

 

[PureX]

There is no known objectively verifiable evidence for the 'Creation' of Natural Laws.

The evidence is that "natural laws" exist. And they couldn't have developed in abject chaos because nothing can develop in abject chaos. For anything to develop from pure chaos there has to be that possibility. And then it's not abject chaos, anymore. It's limited/controlled chaos. It's being controlled by what is possible and what is not.

Natural Laws simply exist with no known origin.

They exist because the Big Bang was not an explosion of abject chaos. It was an explosion of limited (controlled) chaos. That much we can know simply by observing the results.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Let's we ordinary folk just read what experts in biology report, and not try to form uneducated opinions like some religious folk because of religion.

You don't have to be an expert in biology to draw the conclusion that..

1. Dogs produce dogs.

2. Cats produce cats.

3. Fish produce fish.

No degree or certificate needed. Just pay a visit to your local farm or zoo and observe animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You ask the wrong question.
You are asking for evidence of a negative claim.
It's positive claims that need evidence.

There is no evidence FOR outside intelligence, so why would you assume it?

There is no evidence FOR life originating from nonliving material. So why do atheists (who denies intelligent design) assume it?

Meanwhile, there are things like chemistry etc, which don't require any "outside intelligence".

Without fine-tuning, there would be no chemistry.

No, there is no evidence that there is "no" outside intelligence involved.
Just like there is no evidence that "no" extra-dimensional unicorns are involved either.

Just like there is no evidence that mindless and blind processes (nature) can give you order and structure.

If you wish to include such intelligences, or extra-dimensional unicorns, then
- present evidence that these things actually exist
- demonstrate how their manifestation or actions impacted the processes being talked about

Present evidence that life can arise naturally from nonliving material.

Unless you can do that, why would anyone contemplate these "options"?

Unless you can do any of the above, why would you contemplate those options?

There are scientific explanatory models that can be tested and which are shown to be accurate when tested.
These models don't require any "outside intelligence" or extra-dimensional unicorns.

Really? There are scientific models which proves abiogenesis? Since when?

So the evidence that such things are "not" involved, is simply the lack of evidence that they are............
As well as the many evidence in support of models that don't include such things.

Please provide evidence that...

1. The universe popped in to being, uncaused, out of nothing..

or..

2. That infinite regression is possible.

or..

3. Mindless and blind process processes can create specified irreducible complexity (nature can build machines and codes containing information).

or...

4. That dead matter can come to life and begin to talk, think, and have sex.

5. Mental thoughts can come from blobs of matter.

Can you do any of that for me. No, you can't.

 

[shunyadragon]

The evidence is that "natural laws" exist. And they couldn't have developed in abject chaos because nothing can develop in abject chaos. For anything to develop from pure chaos there has to be that possibility. And then it's not abject chaos, anymore. It's limited/controlled chaos. It's being controlled by what is possible and what is not.
They exist because the Big Bang was not an explosion of abject chaos. It was an explosion of limited (controlled) chaos. That much we can know simply by observing the results.

The Big Bang is not the beginning of our physical existence by the evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence for what you call abject chaos. If you believe it so please present scientific references to justify this religious assertion.

Please define this subjective term 'abject chaos' and what it is based on.

All the the above is the product to religious conjecture as to the origins of our physical existence, The Laws of aAture have no known beginning,and all the objectively verifiable evidence demonstrates that the origin of our universe and all possible universes began based on Quantum Mechanics, which are based on objectively consistent verifiable evidence, therefore the predictable patterns and behavior in Natural Laws apply

Your view so far remains a religious agenda based on the unscientific claims of Intelligent Design which the scientific community unanimously rejects outside the apologetic Discovery Institute Christian advocates.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's easy.

A mysterious vehicle enters our atmosphere exhibiting capabilities far beyond anything we humans can achieve. It is clearly not from Earth, or made by humans, nor can it be from any planet in our solar system. But for it to have come from outside the solar system it must be capable of greater than light speed, which we didn't even know was possible. We have no idea what's inside it, or where it came from, or why it's here. But we do know that it's very existence represents an intelligence far greater than ours.

The universe is like that alien space ship. It's very existence represents an intelligence far greater than ours because it's capabilities are so much greater than our own. Even beyond our imagination. We don't know from what it originated, or why it exists or what it's doing here. And we don't know what all it's capable of. But we do know that it's capable of far more than we are. And that it represents an intelligence that far exceeds our own.

Alien fairy stories do not justify your religious agenda claim for Intelligent Design. Do have some real sound science to back this up?