3 edits
-Removed-(I was part of this group-think many years ago)
Not an easy transition to make, to break free. I know of others who were captive to restrictive ideologies. The group exerts a lot of pressure on people to conform, not to leave, not to 'betray' the 'trust' and the 'love' they put in you. The need for belonging is very strong in humans; it's part of what allowed us to prevail over Neanderthals and Denisovans, IMO. That is why I am not completely opposed to all religion on principle; religion clearly had some sort of survival value. I just think religionists should not have the power to burn people at the stake for disagreeing with them about their particular mythologies.
@moonbus saidThere is no confusion on any of the issues, and massive evidence you do not have that proves mindlessness over a mind, the exact opposite is there but you do not want to acknowledge that not due to logic, but worldview issues.
I grew up having been taught to think critically about claims made in defiance of massive evidence to the contrary.
You confuse several issues routinely.
1. how life got going initially.
2. how different complex life forms arise, once life gets going.
3. how minds, consciousness, and self-consciousness arise.
The explanations are different because the mechanisms a ...[text shortened]... defiance of explanation. But if it makes you feel special, then by all means cleave to that belief.
1 & 2 How life got going, feeds all of the functional complexity in life once started. So ignoring instructional information's origin in life is an issue you have, on purpose, you confuse the issue routinely.
3. Totally part of the whole problem on top of the instructional information in life there is consciousness and self-conscious that cannot be accounted for any more than the information guiding all of the processes.
I'm demanding you explain how mindlessness can create minds, consciousness, and instructional information in life when mindlessness does know anything, it is simply nothing concerning intelligence, desire, forethought, desires, and so on.
TIME DOES NOT HELP YOU!! If the timing isn't there that puts things together properly having more time to not be able to do anything does not change the fact it cannot be done.
Pointing to primitive life (simpler by definition) assumes much, but arguing that doesn't help you, we have simpler life today sharing the same time frame as every other life form. You saying those life forms are ancestors of what we have is nothing but circular reasoning without being able to show the mechanisms in life that would allow for that. You see these life forms were the ancestors of what we see now which proves the point there were ancestors of the life we see now. That isn't anything but proof by category it is because we say so.
Basic chemistry you blew off by ignoring Tour's talk since he is a chemist that does not agree with the facts as you claim them to be beyond doubt. You didn't bother watching I'm sure you skipped around a bit which was why you said the things you did even though they were addressed in great detail. If you cannot stand your beliefs questioned, why bother getting involved in the discussion?
If it were a single royal flush of odds that wouldn't be an issue with probabilities, the odds you fail to acknowledge that you are looking at several royal flushes all dealt one after another. Given the billions of shuffles that aren't going to occur, given trillions of shuffles that will not occur, unless the deck is stacked. A stacked deck requires a mind.
Evolution is just a world that carries several different meanings from simple changes in life, good or bad, or common ancestors after life was started, there isn't any evolution without biology chemicals don't evolve.
Your brief summary left out the mechanisms for the work under question, you just jump past the how and why and go straight to talking as if the arrangement of life's genetic properties is no big deal. Why start talking as if it is a given?
2 edits
@kellyjay said
TIME DOES NOT HELP YOU!! If the timing isn't there that puts things together properly having more time to not be able to do anything does not change the fact it cannot be done.
The bit you don't get is this: it is not duration as such which produces any effect, but the repeated operation of regular laws of nature over time which does so. The more iterations, over time, the higher the likelihood that various events, including timings, occur. There is nothing supernatural about timings: they are simply multiple events in a certain order. Given a finite number of chemicals, and several trillion trillion iterations over several billion years, the probability rises to 100% that the 'right combination' in the 'right order' will occur, at least once, in this vast universe. It did. Q.E.D. No further explanation required.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBS
Time is everything Kelly. I suggest you reread Moonbus's post more thoroughly and put away childish things.
If any of the necessary conditions are not met, more time will not help! If all the necessary conditions are not met, there is not even the possibility of the chance for life! There is not even the possibility of a roll to get the first step to work, then every subsequent step after that is either towards life or equilibrium which ends life!
How many royal flushes do you think are required for chance and necessity to over come all that is needed?
You guys ever think about how much you take for granted?
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThis simply means that life is contingent on conditions. No one denies this.
BS
If any of the necessary conditions are not met, more time will not help! If all the necessary conditions are not met, there is not even the possibility of the chance for life! There is not even the possibility of a roll to get the first step to work, then every subsequent step after that is either towards life or equilibrium which ends life!
How many royal flushes do ...[text shortened]... cessity to over come all that is needed?
You guys ever think about how much you take for granted?
Once was enough.
5 edits
@kellyjay saidBecause there is no evidence of transcendental causality, and no need to appeal to something outside the universe to explain anything inside it.
That is your answer life is here so obviously chance and necessity did it? Obviously, not creation because…
The chemical elements in a bacterium are only about a dozen or so: carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, potassium. Not rare elements. Nothing really exotic and ephemeral, like radon (half-life 3.8 days). The stuff of life is common as dirt. It is really not so improbable that a dozen common and stable elements should combine favorably to produce life, given trillions of iterations over billions of years.
https://www.thewastewaterblog.com/single-post/2017/04/30/bacteria-cell-composition
@moonbus saidIf your causes for all of these things are not possible with all the limitations a material world has, then a transcendental causality is all that is left. So I'm begging you to show the work, and how was it done, simply saying it was done, therefore your proof is satisfied is circular, not an argument, not evidential, only a mind-numbed statement of blind faith without anything to back it up.
Because there is no evidence of transcendental causality, and no need to appeal to something outside the universe to explain anything inside it.
The chemical elements in a bacterium are only about a dozen or so: carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, potassium. Not rare elements. Nothing really exotic and ephemeral, like radon (half-life 3.8 days). The stuff of life is common ...[text shortened]... ions of years.
https://www.thewastewaterblog.com/single-post/2017/04/30/bacteria-cell-composition
You must have some reason to think mindlessness could do it, I'll grant you all the time you want, I'll grant you the material you want, I'll grant you for the sake of argument nothing that would inhibit a necessary chemical reaction in the same area too. With all of that, walk me through the steps of how mindlessness could do it!
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI just walked you through a high-level explanation and you didn't like it. I'm not familiar with every minute step and every chemical bond in the molecular processes involved, and you wouldn't believe me if I walked you through them anyway. You would just say there is a gap somewhere.
If your causes for all of these things are not possible with all the limitations a material world has, then a transcendental causality is all that is left. So I'm begging you to show the work, and how was it done, simply saying it was done, therefore your proof is satisfied is circular, not an argument, not evidential, only a mind-numbed statement of blind faith without any ...[text shortened]... in the same area too. With all of that, walk me through the steps of how mindlessness could do it!
So, instead, let us suppose that God's hand is involved in the origin of very primitive life and in the complexification of higher life forms (which is called "evolution" ) -- this is, after all, the official Vatican position: evolution really happened, God's hand guides it. Two questions arise:
1. The origin of life from the most simple to the most complex: if God's hand is involved, then God twiddles molecules, since these are the most simple forms of life. Seriously?? God twiddles molecules? Doesn't The Almighty have something better to do, like, you know, create universes and combat Satan and all his minions?
But even supposing that God twiddles molecules, the next question arises:
2. When a baby is born with Down Syndrome or a heart defect or epilepsy or only half a brain, is that because God made the molecules (genes/chromosomes) do that because He wanted the baby like that? Or is it because God neglected to do the 'error checking' in such cases? Either way, it makes no sense that God sometimes intervenes in molecular/genetic processes and sometimes does not. Nor can we detect when God's hand is twiddling molecules and when not, so the hypothesis not testable; it's a non-explanation.
1 edit
@moonbus saidFor the mind-numbed no future explanation is required, hear something that tickles your itching ears, you are good to go, stop while you’re ahead with as close to a real sounding answer you will ever find, the fact it won’t work is meaningless it’s what you want to be true.
@kellyjay said
TIME DOES NOT HELP YOU!! If the timing isn't there that puts things together properly having more time to not be able to do anything does not change the fact it cannot be done.
The bit you don't get is this: it is not duration as such which produces any effect, but the repeated operation of regular laws of nature over time which does so. The more ...[text shortened]... r' will occur, at least once, in this vast universe. It did. Q.E.D. No further explanation required.
A finite amount of local material is going to be located on finite areas not infinite amounts, more time doesn’t help! Once in each location the chemical reactions begin the amount of material gets altered lessening from what was there into the end results due to the mixture and environmental factors.
You propose a mindless process that doesn’t know or care when to stop, will, when what is required is found, why? Without a reason or cause the molecules are not acting towards any goal, instead are going to progress towards equilibrium, not a functionally complex system that can take energy and turn it into something useful, or anything else useful for life!
Uttering the words evolution doesn’t answer these problems, claiming more time fixes it doesn’t solve the problems either. Arranging what is there from instructions to chemical composition is not through mindlessness instead through mindfulness.
@kellyjay saidCalm down, evolution is not theoretical, it's a scientific fact evidentially backed up by vast amounts of, you know, evidence. Moonbus has kindly and eloquently provided us with all the explanation that anyone requires regarding the 'mechanics' of it.
Please if you could answer the question I have been asking you would have, you do not have a stinking clue! The theory is not workable from a common ancestor to modern-day life, if you think it can then you should be able to speak the mechanics of it, but you cannot. There isn't anything that explains the complex nature of how life works, you suggest it does without producing anything, except evolution of the gaps, we don't know, therefore evolution did it.
You on the other hand prefer to believe a mythology which brings us talking snakes, virgin births, a 6000 year old earth, and so on. Is this mind, or mindlessness?