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

[YoursTrue]

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.

They know because they know, isn't that right? I'll ask those who claim to know.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

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?
Now looking up 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?

 

[sayak83]

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?

Second sentence is a strict no. The laws of organic chemistry are not at all random.

 

[PureX]

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

Not that it "was designed", but that it IS design. The laws of physics are "designing" the nature of existence. It's all 'design, expressed'.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

At least you say that it's a logical assumption (not presumption, I suppose) to figure there must be an intelligent force behind it all. Gravity, for instance. So what is it? Is evolution there by random events or not random. Because if it wasn't random, then what was it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Second sentence is a strict no. The laws of organic chemistry are not at all random.

Ah, but if they're not random, then what are they?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not that it "was designed", but that it IS design. The laws of physics are "designing" the nature of existence. It's all 'design, expressed'.

So if it's designed, would you say there is a designer?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not that it "was designed", but that it IS design. The laws of physics are "designing" the nature of existence. It's all 'design, expressed'.

Let's look at this again. "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." So are you saying that there is no random combining of basic elements with energy to form the FIRST (not second or third) simplest cell?

 

[PureX]

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?
Now looking up 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?

We don't know what anything came from. And you are conflating the origins of life with the origin of existence, itself. Life results from the same existential system (design) as everything else does. But we do not know from what source the system itself comes from.

Chance plays a role in that system, but is actually a relatively rare phenomenon. It only occurs when the forces governing a result are balanced to a point where the outcome can be 'either/or'.

 

[sayak83]

Ah, but if they're not random, then what are they?

The chemical combination follows the laws of chemistry. There are entire fields of science devoted to this.

 

[PureX]

So if it's designed, would you say there is a designer?

It IS design, expressed. But we have no way of determining the origin of that design. So my saying there "is a designer" is irrelevant to whether or not there is one. Because there is no way for me or anyone else to determine that to be so, or not so.

 

[PureX]

Let's look at this again. "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." So are you saying that there is no random combining of basic elements with energy to form the FIRST (not second or third) simplest cell?

We humans do not currently know how life originated. Or even where. But we do know it was not the result of "randomocity", because nothing that exists, exists by chance, alone. Nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

The above statement is flawed on two keywords 'chance' and random.' No, I do not agree with the above, because it relies on a layman's understanding of what is chance and randomness, and not the contemporary view of science

This has been covered in many threads. The only thing that is observed to be random is the timing of the outcome of cause and effect events given the possibility of multiple outcomes within the constraints of natural laws and natural processes,

 

[shunyadragon]

It IS design, expressed. But we have no way of determining the origin of that design. So my saying there "is a designer" is irrelevant to whether or not there is one. Because there is no way for me or anyone else to determine that to be so, or not so.

The design need not be an anthropomorphic supernatural 'Source,' Natural Laws and natural processes adequately explain the origins and nature of our physical existence as simply natural.

 

[wellwisher]

Where evolutionary science falls short, is it does not address water in terms of its deterministic contribution to the original formation and continued evolution of life. Water is the same now as it was billions of years ago. It is still H2O. The things that changed in terms of life are the organics. The organics continue to change via DNA and proteins. But water is an unchanging bookend and the majority molecule of life, that anchors life with a constant, so the forward path is always deterministic.

As proof of this claim, experiments were done to address the 1950's science theory that life could appear in other solvents. This life in other solvents theory was proposed to open up our vision for finding life on other planets. The experiments took living single cells from the earth, dehydrated them, and then placed them in beakers, with each of the solvents that had been postulated to support life on other planets. The result of these experiments was no solvent, besides water, allowed anything to work properly, in any of those cells. Water allowed everything to work and also allowed life to return to the cells. It was all or nothing.

The logical conclusion I drew was everything in those cells was uniquely tuned to water and only to water; all or nothing. Water had essentially been performing natural selection at the nanoscale, from day one; abiogenesis, such that all that was in those modern single cells had been hand selected by water to be part of a team with water.

DNA only works in water; period. DNA was always going to be the end game, even from day one, since there is no better replacement for DNA in water. The current casino science approach of life missed this simple understanding over 50 years ago. This was one of science's worse bloopers. It preferred to place water and change in a black box and use a blind testing procedure. What was needed was to open the black box and avoid using any casino science.

Part of what helped me reach this simple truth, was to work under the assumption of determinism; religious approach, instead of use a more random approach, like existing science. However, I would not start at the consciousness arguments of religion, but build on the deterministic assumption via the science of physical-bio-chemistry. When the water molecule was first designed by nature; H2O appears, half of the essence of life was already there. That would become a template for selection to find its other half; from water and by water.

The water side approach is a very powerful tool since it assumes water and organics are a reflection of each other. Conceptually, one should be able to model life from the POV of only water, to simplify the vast diversity of the organics. Computer simulation of life will be possible in one variable; water ghost of life that implies all the organics.

 

[PureX]

The design need not be an anthropomorphic supernatural 'Source,' Natural Laws and natural processes adequately explain the origins and nature of our physical existence as simply natural.

There is no explanation for the set of limitations and possibilities that preceded and determined the "natural laws" that the universe obeys, and that creates it.

And I have not suggested any anthropomorphic or supernatural entities of any sort. However, by definition, whatever preceded what we now refer to as "the laws of nature" is then "supernatural". So whatever the origin of the universal existential event is, it would by definition be "supernatural".

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

How do you or science know that no outside intelligence was required for the beginnings of life?
Neither I nor science claims that it's IMPOSSIBLE that an outside intelligence was involved, only that there is NO evidence to support such a notion.

There is evidence in the coding in genetics that an intelligence designed it.
No there isn't. All the evidence suggests that genetics is a natural process. Just because the scientists who discovered genetics labeled it as a 'code' does NOT mean that it's a 'code' like a computer code which we all know IS created by an intelligence. They simply used the word 'code' because it is SIMILAR to a computer code, and that's what human's do when confronted with a new idea... we compare it to something that we already understand.

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.
Correct! We CANNOT study this proposed intelligence. There is no verifiable evidence that this intelligence DOES exist. Of course it's POSSIBLE that it MIGHT... but unless we find a way to study it we can never know for sure.

Just like I can propose that intelligence magical pixies create rainbows. Of course it's POSSIBLE that there MIGHT actually be magical pixies, since it's impossible for us to study them. So does that mean we have good reason to believe that magical pixies DO exist? From my perspective as well as the perspective of the scientific method the answer is NO. Even though it's POSSIBLE that magical pixies MIGHT exist, the time to believe that they actually DO exist is when there is verifiable evidence that demonstrates that the do.

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.
Yes, because science can't jump to conclusions without verifiable evidence. Are you suggesting that science should presume that EVERYTHING we can't study is real? The scientific method wouldn't work if we did. We'd have to presume that magical pixies are real, that Zeus and Odin are real, that invisible dragons and Leprechauns are all real.

If you can't study something then you can NEVER determine if it is real or imaginary. The ONLY thing we're able to reliably study in the natural world. That's the only thing we have reliable evidence actually exists. That means we accept that things we have evidence for are real and we reserve judgement on whether or not things we have no evidence for are real, until actual evidence is uncovered.


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.
That's right, they try and come up with POSSIBLE ways that it could have occurred naturally, that means it's POSSIBLE based upon what we know about the laws of nature. It's POSSIBLE because we know how physics and chemistry work. Science does not claim that this is that way it DEFINITELY happened, only that it's by far the best model we have based upon our current knowledge. IF we ever find a way to study proposed supernatural causes, scientists will immediate change our model based on the new information. But until such new information is found, all we can go by is what we CAN study.

I'm certainly open to the POSSIBILTY that an outside intelligence is involved or that magical pixies create rainbows, however it would silly of me to claim that either is TRUE until there is actual evidence to suggest as much.

The difference is that theists have decided that an outside intelligence DOES exist, not based on any verifiable evidence, but simply based on the fact that it MIGHT be possible. Yet this is the ONLY aspect of their lives that they apply this bizarre logic, because they don't generally claim that magical pixies DO exist, simply because it MIGHT be possible.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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?

What we do know is that it happened, not in a world like today. But in a world that we could not recognise. Full of constant vulcanism raw minerals water acids and heat and lightening the like of which we have never experienced.

It was a melting pot of constantly changing possibilities. All the things were present that live needed to take hold once started.

Who knows how many false starts there were before that first reproducible cell was formed that led to what we know of today as life. The world around us is all the evidence we need to show us that it happened.
We are unlikely ever know how it happened as no evidence remains.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no doubt the science is correct and that would've actually happened if in fact that time actually existed. I just don't believe existence has always been around and always will. That's why I believe the end/ beginning of existence falls/rises with the death/birth of a certain unknown living man who essentially secures eternity.
God (infinite space) was so vast and abstract it needed an anchor, which is man, to face reality. No one cheats death, not even God!

Very abstruse thoughts, I must say. "A certain unknown living man" etc.? What does that mean?

 

[YoursTrue]

I certainly didn't need a designer to put all those cords behind my TV into knots!

cute.
You just ain't smart enough.