How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
Scientific arguments are pretty thin on the ground in this part of the forum.
Click to expand...
We agree! I am struggling to know how geomorphology is related to biological evolution in rossums example if it is just a geological structure.
Now if we were to go into land bridge territory, that would be awesome.

oops, natural land bridge collapsed, now there are no snakes in New Zealand type of thing…
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
The abiogenesis of bridges, now we ask, how did the bridge evolve?

How did the bridge evolve a sensor that would detect when a sauroposeidon comes along?

How would the sensor instruct the central span to lift, so the sauroposeidon could pass by?
rossum said:
Your “delibrate” does not apply to evolution. Thank you for adding to my point.
Click to expand...
But you likened evolution to Nasa’s antenna design, which is clearly deliberate and goal driven. It would not work without any intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut.

You have mentioned evolution and design together, was that deliberate?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
It takes intelligence to build a bridge, except when a bridge is built naturally:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
How do you get “bridge” out of that image? It looks rather like the natural destruction of a what was once a perfectly good wall. Another example of evolution as loss of function.
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
40.png
Freddy:
Scientific arguments are pretty thin on the ground in this part of the forum.
Click to expand...
We agree! I am struggling to know how geomorphology is related to biological evolution in rossums example…
Click to expand...
I think it was a way to show that evolution produces things that aren’t designed yet serve a purpose nevertheless. You’d do well to listen to what he says. He knows a lot more about the subject tham most other people.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
If you want to be serious and engage in a serious scientific argument on geomorphic processes try arguing that quartz, shale, feldspar and iron minerals have something to do with evolution in this case.
Click to expand...
They have to do with intelligent design. A bridge is an irreducibly complex structure; all its parts are needed for it to work. Bridges can form naturally, hence IC structures can form naturally, contrary to Professor Behe’s claim.

Similarly, evolution can form IC structures naturally. Natural bridges show one of the ways in which IC systems can form naturally: “scaffolding” – temporary parts which are present initially but are later removed.
 
Freddy said:
I think it was a way to show that evolution produces things that aren’t designed yet serve a purpose nevertheless. You’d do well to listen to what he says. He knows a lot more about the subject tham most other people.
Click to expand...
Geomorphology should really not be conflated with biological evolution, it makes no sense.
Their processes are completely different and for different purposes.
rossum said:
They have to do with intelligent design. A bridge is an irreducibly complex structure; all its parts are needed for it to work. Bridges can form naturally, hence IC structures can form naturally, contrary to Professor Behe’s claim.
Click to expand...
It is like comparing apples and oranges, a man made bridge is a complex engineering and architectual feat.

A geological process, the one we are discussing, erosion is not a design, it does not represent an complex purpose built structure. It represents a destructive process that highlights the recycling of all geological constituents.

the definition of intelligent design

The Definition of Intelligent Design​

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Rossum
You gotta come up with something better then mass wasting, erosion and soft rock geology.
organic vs non organic, that is the key.

Your erosion event will turn that cliff into a natural arch then into stacks then that material will be subducted, get spammed up in plate tectonic activity and turn up as mud shales and quartz sand.

This example has nothing to do with ID or evolution.

what is exemplifies is the processes of the earth in destruction and recycling.
 
Last edited:
OurLadyofSorrows said:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Click to expand...
What I did was to show just one example of an irreducibly complex feature – a bridge – that was caused by undirected natural processes. That example suffices to falsify Professor Behe’s original claims that IC features require intelligent design.

Professor Behe himself agrees. He changed his original statement to allow that natural processes can cause IC features, but they do so by indirect routes. See Behe and Snoke (2004) for his work on how likely that is for a simple IC system.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Please can you explain how your link relates to evolution.
Click to expand...
Please research “genetic algorithm”:
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
Click to expand...
At the core of Darwin’s theory is the belief in random mutations. Such events cannot be programmed.
 
rossum said:
I find faith alone insufficient
Click to expand...
How do you support the idea of the idea that a human was a rabbit or some other animal in a previous life, except by faith alone? (i.e., faith in reincarnation).
 
o_mlly said:
At the core of Darwin’s theory is the belief in random mutations. Such events cannot be programmed.
Click to expand...
But a computer can emulate those events. Have you any idea how many different random number generators there are available for computers? All the way from simple LCGs up to expensive quantum-effect based cards.
 
AlNg said:
How do you support the idea of the idea that a human was a rabbit or some other animal in a previous life, except by faith alone? (i.e., faith in reincarnation).
Click to expand...
I am not the same now as when I was born. I am not the same now as I was one year ago; … one week ago; … one day ago; … one minute ago. I can clearly see that I am being reborn every second of my life. I do not need faith to see that.
 
rossum said:
But a computer can emulate those events. Have you any idea how many different random number generators there are available for computers? All the way from simple LCGs up to expensive quantum-effect based cards.
Click to expand...
No, a computer cannot emulate those events. The number of different random number generators does not change the nature of a programmed random number generator, i.e., they are all programmed.
rossum said:
I am not the same now as when I was born. I am not the same now as I was one year ago; … one week ago; … one day ago; … one minute ago. I can clearly see that I am being reborn every second of my life. I do not need faith to see that.
Click to expand...
Do you remember ever being non-human?
 
o_mlly said:
No, a computer cannot emulate those events. The number of different random number generators does not change the nature of a programmed random number generator, i.e., they are all programmed.
Click to expand...
No they are not. That is why I mentioned quantum-level RNGs. See Quantis for just one example.
 
rossum said:
What I did was to show just one example of an irreducibly complex feature – a bridge – that was caused by undirected natural processes. That example suffices to falsify Professor Behe’s original claims that IC features require intelligent design.

Professor Behe himself agrees. He changed his original statement to allow that natural processes can cause IC features, but they do so by indirect routes. See Behe and Snoke (2004) for his work on how likely that is for a simple IC system.
Click to expand...
What I did was to state we cannot compare apples with oranges. An argument based on inorganic compounds won’t bolster an argument based on organic compounds , regardless of how many professors wish it otherwise.

It is also misleading to compare a man made engineering feat with an event of geomorphology that leads to an ARCH whose time is limited and should not be considered a bridge to be traversed over. Purely because one is a safe traverse and thanks to mass wasting, the other is not. That is an arch , not a bridge.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top