229d
2 edits
@kellyjay saidNothing had to happen here. It just did. Finding the components on other bodies in space is what proves Dr. Tour wrong; it is not improbable at all, as he claims it to be, that certain chemical compounds should come together through random shuffling. Given deep time, all the components will eventually congeal in the right order (what you call 'timings' ).
Why do you think it matters if you find components on another planet that explain anything about what had to happen here? Everything that was needed is HERE, nothing about that is a problem in any explanation, what is problematic is the arrangement of them with the timing required using the proper quantities. You have all the letters in a Scrabble game you can dump them on a table, but that doesn't mean a coherent sentence will form from that action.
Now, let's pursue with your Scrabble metaphor for just a moment. Who says that it doesn't form a sentence, if letters are dumped randomly, just a sentence you don't happen to understand? (I.e., a different form of life, not as we happen to be.) Who says that the letters are arranged only once? Suppose the letters keep getting shuffled around on the board once they fall, because the board is vibrating or because the letters are buffeted around, so the letters get re-arranged an infinite number of times. It is certain that, if the letters are finite in number, they will form every possible sentence, including some which make sense. (I.e., there will be life, somewhere in this vast universe, through mindless shuffling and re-shuffling of elements.) There are multiple answers which do not assume a god directing the process.
@kellyjay saidYou persistently confuse three distinct issues, and this explains why you don't understand the bottom-up explanations which have been given. No one explanation covers all three areas, listed below:
I don’t believe what we see is a bottom up mindless process, but a top down designed one.
First, there is the issue of how life got started. The first life forms were nothing but self-replicating molecules. Not birds or reptiles, humans or dinosaurs, nothing with eyes or feathers or scales or tails. Just molecules. That's all. This is sufficiently explained by shuffling and reshuffling the basic components (of which only about 20 suffice). If, as seems most likely, these molecules first formed in the oceans, then the churning of the waters sufficiently explains how the elements came into contact with each other. The fact that organic molecules have been detected on asteroids, comets, on a moon, and in deep space, proves that this process is not improbable; this refutes Dr. Tour's claim that such molecules can only come about by the operation of some sort of intelligent design.
Second, there is the issue of how these self-replicating molecules kept going, once they got started by random shuffling of elements. Why did they not fall apart? Dive linked to an article many pages ago which explains this elegantly. The principle is dynamic kinetic stability. In short, complex molecules have a greater repertoire of adapting to changing environments than do simpler forms; hence, where the environment is dynamic (i.e., constantly churning, as in the oceans), complex forms tend to reproduce more successfully than simpler forms.
Third, there is the issue how different species arose, once the self-replicating molecules got started and stabilized. Why did life not stay at that simple level? How did different life forms come about (bacteria, amoebas, trilobites, worms, vertebrates, avians, mammals, etc. etc.). This is explained by a constellation of explanatory principles, such as environmental pressure, competition for nutrients, random molecular mutation, natural selection, etc. etc., which collectively go by the name "evolution."
In none of the three above-mentioned areas, is an intelligent mind required to explain the observed phenomena. Nor is there any evidence of the operation of any transcendent causality in any of the above-mentioned phenomena. There is no evidence that God's hand moves molecules around or makes chromosomes divide.
No one here denies the effects you point out, that life is diverse, that it is truly amazing how symbiotic relationships work (for example, how bees make honey by pollinating flowers), and so on. But from these effects, you speculate on an imaginary supernatural cause (top-down), for which there is no evidence. Nobody denies that there is a visible pattern in sand dunes, if viewed from above; but the existence of a pattern is not evidence of design, only of the repeated operation of natural (mindless) processes.
229d
@indonesia-phil saidYou can assume anything you like, but that doesn't mean squat, evidence of why, we can see minds put together complex things that have specified functions and forms, we don't see that with mindlessness, but that doesn't stop you from engaging with your imagination to deny what we do see, over things we have never seen.
It doesn't require 'faith' to think or assume that under different circumstances different things could have happened, nor is there any reason to 'believe' anything in this regard, this is the point that you are still missing. I could say 'It might rain tomorrow', or you could say 'There might be a god', and nobody could dispute either statement. If on the other hand ...[text shortened]... th to it. You can't prove that there is a god, any more than I can prove that it will rain tomorrow.
It is a matter of faith, that which we trust to be true, sometimes we put our faith in things that we should not have, and sometimes we trust what is truthworthy. Speculate about what could happen if things were different all you want, but you have nothing to go on there except to avoid what you don't want to have to acknowledge with what you do see.
229d
@moonbus saidDuh
Nothing had to happen here. It just did. Finding the components on other bodies in space is what proves Dr. Tour wrong; it is not improbable at all, as he claims it to be, that certain chemical compounds should come together through random shuffling. Given deep time, all the components will eventually congeal in the right order (what you call 'timings' ).
Now, let's ...[text shortened]... -shuffling of elements.) There are multiple answers which do not assume a god directing the process.
228d
@kellyjay saidI'm not 'speculating' about anything, that's the point, which you are still missing. If you are looking for 'squat', look to your own scientifically redundant and morally repugnant religious beliefs, which are only your religious beliefs because you happen to have been born and raised in a place where such beliefs predominate. Your mistake (and the mistake of James Tour) has been to attempt to bring science to bear on ancient hearsay and mythology, and that, as has been more than adequately demonstrated in this forum, doesn't work.
You can assume anything you like, but that doesn't mean squat, evidence of why, we can see minds put together complex things that have specified functions and forms, we don't see that with mindlessness, but that doesn't stop you from engaging with your imagination to deny what we do see, over things we have never seen.
It is a matter of faith, that which we trust to be tr ...[text shortened]... hing to go on there except to avoid what you don't want to have to acknowledge with what you do see.
@kellyjay saidYou apparently think that science is just another faith, but one which happens to lack a God figure. This is not so. Science is based on evidence, causes which we can detect. We all agree on what the effects are: we all see the same effects you do, we all see complex forms with specific functions. The difference lies in the causes how these come about. Science looks for causes we can detect, and these lie within the physical processes of nature. You on the other hand appeal to a cause which cannot be detected and cannot be seen in nature. You appeal to a cause which is transcendent to the universe. This is not science. Let us know when you have a transcendental causality detector; that is the point at which your position will stop being superstition and become scientifically relevant in this forum.
You can assume anything you like, but that doesn't mean squat, evidence of why, we can see minds put together complex things that have specified functions and forms, we don't see that with mindlessness, but that doesn't stop you from engaging with your imagination to deny what we do see, over things we have never seen.
It is a matter of faith, that which we trust to be tr ...[text shortened]... hing to go on there except to avoid what you don't want to have to acknowledge with what you do see.
227d
1 edit
@sonhouse saidHe made it all for His good pleasure, being Sovereign it could be no other way. Concerning other life scripture speaks about angelic beings some good and bad. Other planets with life there is nothing about that I am aware of. This is a spiritual forum question.
@KellyJay
Tell me, did your god make the whole universe just for us humans? Are you saying we are the pinnacle of creation and therefore there are no other intelligent life forms anywhere in the universe but Earth?
@indonesia-phil saidIf you got nothing to address the points you speak about me, people from a walks of life come to faith no matter where or how they were raised. The facts either support a top down approach to everything or a bottom up and clearly it’s the top down that the evidence supports. Simply because you don’t like that possibility doesn’t mean anything, you either have reasons to accept your preferred narrative or you don’t. What you think is repugnant is not an argument it’s a preference.
I'm not 'speculating' about anything, that's the point, which you are still missing. If you are looking for 'squat', look to your own scientifically redundant and morally repugnant religious beliefs, which are only your religious beliefs because you happen to have been born and raised in a place where such beliefs predominate. Your mistake (and the mistake of James Tou ...[text shortened]... and mythology, and that, as has been more than adequately demonstrated in this forum, doesn't work.
@moonbus saidWe are creatures of faith, even using science you start with what you think is known good (faith) taking what you have faith in as being true and judging everything from the perspective of building something true with other true things. Scientific evidence isn't any different, does this reading mean what I think it does, or is there something I'm missing? Faith takes our conclusions and again builds upon what think true with what we think is true; moreover, with science, there is built into it the notion that additional information may make us change our conclusions so even science itself doesn't address hard factual truths without an out that something we think may not be as factual as we think.
You apparently think that science is just another faith, but one which happens to lack a God figure. This is not so. Science is based on evidence, causes which we can detect. We all agree on what the effects are: we all see the same effects you do, we all see complex forms with specific functions. The difference lies in the causes how these come about. Science looks for cause ...[text shortened]... t which your position will stop being superstition and become scientifically relevant in this forum.
Where the evidence points we cannot filter out non-material conclusions if that is where it leads simply by default. The universe is filled with the non-material it makes sense due to things like consciousness, and yet you want to reject out of hand some thought that may have gone into making the material world, and all that we see and behold out of hand.
226d
@kellyjay saidYour first sentence is complete nonsense, we are greatly influenced in our religious beliefs, from the time that we are conscious of the world around us, by the culture in which we are raised. This is why countries or parts of countries are predominantly one religion or another, to a very large extent we become that which we are told to become, and believe that which we are told to believe. You would not have invented Christianity all by yourself, would you?
If you got nothing to address the points you speak about me, people from a walks of life come to faith no matter where or how they were raised. The facts either support a top down approach to everything or a bottom up and clearly it’s the top down that the evidence supports. Simply because you don’t like that possibility doesn’t mean anything, you either have reasons to ac ...[text shortened]... preferred narrative or you don’t. What you think is repugnant is not an argument it’s a preference.
There is no 'evidence' whatsoever for a 'top down' explanation for anything; you look at natural processes and fit them to your religious beliefs, that's all, and nothing more.
Your religion would have it that anyone who is not 'with Christ' is condemned to burn in the fires of hell for eternity. So that would be anyone born BC, anyone who has Islam, Shinto, Hindu, and so on, as their religion, oh and of course, all homosexuals of any faith or creed. Indeed this would not be my 'preference', and any decent human being who does not have their head stuck in the vice of Christianity would see the idea of this as repugnant, ridiculous as the idea may be.
226d
@indonesia-phil saidYou are simply being influenced by the culture you are in you cannot control that and are totally dependent upon it🫣you have no ability to be able to think for yourself.
Your first sentence is complete nonsense, we are greatly influenced in our religious beliefs, from the time that we are conscious of the world around us, by the culture in which we are raised. This is why countries or parts of countries are predominantly one religion or another, to a very large extent we become that which we are told to become, and believe that which w ...[text shortened]... in the vice of Christianity would see the idea of this as repugnant, ridiculous as the idea may be.
Do you consider what I just said an argument or an insult?
226d
@indonesia-phil saidEvidence in a trial is presented by both sides and it is discussed, the prosecution or defense do not get to say that simply is not evidence ignore it without discussion which is what you are attempting to do. If you have some information that you can provide bring it, or discuss why you reject what has been said.
Your first sentence is complete nonsense, we are greatly influenced in our religious beliefs, from the time that we are conscious of the world around us, by the culture in which we are raised. This is why countries or parts of countries are predominantly one religion or another, to a very large extent we become that which we are told to become, and believe that which w ...[text shortened]... in the vice of Christianity would see the idea of this as repugnant, ridiculous as the idea may be.
226d
@moonbus saidThe first forms of life are a complete mystery to us, you have no clue stop acting as if that were known. It is misleading and deceitful to claim knowledge that isn't known, no one has a clue how it started we cannot get close in our labs, yet under a rock somewhere, maybe in a pond, floating in the air, swimming in an ocean, dropped off by space aliens, or God did it, or something else occurred the theories are plentiful the answers not so much we can prove, and you spout off something as if it were a known fact, get real.
You persistently confuse three distinct issues, and this explains why you don't understand the bottom-up explanations which have been given. No one explanation covers all three areas, listed below:
First, there is the issue of how life got started. The first life forms were nothing but self-replicating molecules. Not birds or reptiles, humans or dinosaurs, nothing w ...[text shortened]... rn is not evidence of design, only of the repeated operation of natural (mindless) processes.
Your second is more of the same, hogwash you are attempting to push as if were scientific facts and people are thumbs-upping you, so much for the education systems on this planet.
You third more non-evidential gibberish you are attempting to pass off as science, if that is what science is nowadays, why do you have issues with religious scripture passing off events as if they were true too, you do it all the time.
In none of your three above-mentioned areas, facts don't seem to matter either and only an unintelligent mind would accept them as facts.
225d
@kellyjay saidI don't consider it to be either. It's a fact nevertheless that we as a species are social animals and are subject to the 'herd instinct', myself no less than anyone else; we 'go along with' and are influenced by what's around us. You for example are a Christian, born and raised into a predominantly Christian society, as was I. Of course we all have the ability to think for ourselves, but in order to do so we first have to 'detach ourselves' intellectually from the common herd. You may say that you have come to Christianity despite external influences, but, and here's the big question, how do you know, given that you were born into a Christian society? This is the essential dilemma with any subjective belief; in any objective, intellectual analysis, all religions must be equal, and have equal validity, since all are believed by sentient, intelligent people. When we chose one religion over another, all objectivity is lost, and we rely only upon our emotions, which are per se unreliable, or on external influences, since this is the line of least resistance. You have your reasons to be a Christian, Muslims have their reasons to be Muslims, and so on, and none are any 'better' than any other, they can't be, since none are based on science, or objectivity, but are merely beliefs, and beliefs are esoteric and subjective. In other words, one cannot be objective and believe in anything for the sake of believing in it. 'My religion is better than your religion' is simply a matter of opinion, and emotion, which is why I have no religion.
You are simply being influenced by the culture you are in you cannot control that and are totally dependent upon it🫣you have no ability to be able to think for yourself.
Do you consider what I just said an argument or an insult?