All down to random chance...

[Justatruthseeker]

Except is anything really random if one can describe it mathematically? Even a random number generator is not truly random, but does so by a mathematical formula.

In order to have a set of guiding rules, one must of course have had the rules designed. Which is exactly what you propose when you say evolution is not a random process, but is an intelligently designed progressive event, following distinct rules of progression.

Despite the obvious flaw in your theory in which mutations being random would constantly produce new genera, instead following what we know to be obvious design rules. To the extent that nothing new is soon ever produced of a beneficial nature.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Because the finest scientific, human minds have still proved incapable of even remotely approaching the creation - even given all the necessary materials - of something as extraordinarily complex as a single cell of the simplest bacterium.

How does that make the already fatuous 'promissory note' sound - that one day, science will explain everything?

I'm sure the followers of Zeus said the exact same thing about lightning.

Reminds me of that saying regarding if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to make the same mistakes.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
In order to have a set of guiding rules, one must of course have had the rules designed.

Why?

 

[durangodawood]

Why?

I want to know too.

People make assertions about how things MUST be at some fundamental level.. But on looking deeper, there's often nothing solid to backstop them except un-examined "common sense".

 

[mzungu]

First of all we need to know what ID is and represents before we compare it to ToE. Here is a very interesting PBS documentary by NOVA that clears the waters . Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlTOuxJbhbA

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In order to have a set of guiding rules, one must of course have had the rules designed.

Which is a rule in and of itself. Infinite regression, here we come.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why?

Do you believe the world is described fairly accurately by scientific principles, used by man? Or do you think it is random, and therefore this somehow causes a guiding set of rules that all of nature seems to follow? There is no predicting random processes, and random processes could not make a system where billions of on going interactions every second, just inside you, all lead in lockstep to the same goal.

A cell, what you would call a non-intelligent entity, seeks not only to survive, but to flourish and reproduce. And groups of special types of them when gathered together makes movement and even your thoughts possible.

And yet those same iron or water or sodium molecules in your body are composed of the same electrons and protons that make up rock. Are you implying differently? I certainly believe that from dust we are, and to dust we shall return. So tell me, just what is it that makes electrons and protons in one form inanimate matter, and in the next a living, breathing man?

There's only one difference between them, but you'll have to figure that out on your own. And its even a scientifically known reason, just not talked about.

 

[MikeCarra]

Do you believe the world is described fairly accurately by scientific principles, used by man? Or do you think it is random, and therefore this somehow causes a guiding set of rules that all of nature seems to follow? There is no predicting random processes, and random processes could not make a system where billions of on going interactions every second, just inside you, all lead in lockstep to the same goal.

This is a false dichotomy.

In my field (chemistry) we make use of the stochastic nature of molecular motion to achieve a LOT of stuff.

Indeed reactions run because there is random motion but a bias for certain outcomes. A reaction requires that the molecules be moving with the right amount of energy and meet in the right configuration. Other than that it takes zillions of them in a beaker moving about randomly to make that happen.

I can "bias" this outcome by lowering the activation energy using a catalyst or holding the molecules in a certain conformation.

But to find a problem with "randomness" in science and nature is to fail to see the larger point. Randomness is, to some extent, necessary. But that doesn't mean all outcomes are purely random.

A cell, what you would call a non-intelligent entity, seeks not only to survive,

You are "anthropomorphizing" here by saying it "seeks". It doesn't seek to do anything. It is a bag of chemicals in the form of structures and proteins. These things follow some relatively simple chemical rules. The fact that there are a lot of complex goings on doesn't make it any more capable of "seeking" anything.

There is no mind there to make any decisions. There is basic raw chemistry.

And yet those same iron or water or sodium molecules in your body are composed of the same electrons and protons that make up rock. Are you implying differently? I certainly believe that from dust we are, and to dust we shall return. So tell me, just what is it that makes electrons and protons in one form inanimate matter, and in the next a living, breathing man?

Nothing. There's nothing that differentiates it.

If you wish to talk about something "seeking to reproduce" look no further than inorganic crystals. These things when put in the right slurry will seek to grow and get bigger and add onto themselves and retain their same crystal structure! They do it automatically just because that's how chemistry works.

The chemistry of life is interesting in the capabilities it has...but it's nothing more than just plain ol' organic chemistry. There's no magical "spark". Every aspect of life can be explained using plain ol' chemistry.

There's only one difference between them, but you'll have to figure that out on your own. And its even a scientifically known reason, just not talked about.

I would love to know what that is that is a 'scientifically known reason'. I've taken my fair share of biochem and organic chemistry classes and I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[MikeCarra]

Except is anything really random if one can describe it mathematically?

Yes. It is called Statistics.

 

[granpa]

I agree that at some level everything is more or less random
but I disagree with the implications of that randomness.
(natural selection is certainly not random)


Empiricism is certainly not wrong but, without rationalism, it is a shallow and incomplete world view. In the purely empirical world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends. On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the complex emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. These emergent phenomena may not be empirically observable but they are immediately perceptible to intuition. Just as one can "hear" things that cannot be "seen". (Psychology is an emergent property of biology which is an emergent property of chemistry which is an emergent property of particle physics).

Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same as "being" something. But this brings up an even deeper issue. What does it mean to "be" something? In the purely empirical world view it doesn't mean anything. In the purely empirical world view names are arbitrary and meaningless labels. This is confusion. (I would compare this to believing that its OK to be a thief as long as you don't steal anything). Words are categories and the phenomenon of Convergent evolution clearly shows that those categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.

Rationalism - Religion-wiki

 

[loveofourlord]

whats so bad about something being random?

Honestly, there is little that I have seen in nature that can truly random.
Design? Sure, similar habitat types and lifestyles of animals can produce similar body types and coloration. A basic design that works for the fitness of the animal in its habitat. Not exactly random

Intelligent design? God must love squids more, as their eyes are more "intelligently" designed than human eyes.

God created the most capable animal to have ever been on earth. Only to make sex, and using ones own senses a sin. A entire universe of creation, but man is to only believe the contents of a book.

That's not intelligent, that's ignorant.

Forget squids, they are nothing compared to the mantis shrimp that has 4*'s the types of receptors that we do among other things, it has probably the most powerful eyes in the animal kingdom on earth.

 

[loveofourlord]

Because the finest scientific, human minds have still proved incapable of even remotely approaching the creation - even given all the necessary materials - of something as extraordinarily complex as a single cell of the simplest bacterium.

How does that make the already fatuous 'promissory note' sound - that one day, science will explain everything?

This is just utter nonsense argument, how hard something is to create or such is no evidence for something being created or not, there is nothing that would stop humans or other things being created over a slow process, that is no more random, then hydrogen and oxygen some how randomly forming water everytime the right conditions appear.

 

[JGL53]

The universe is sufficient unto itself.

It does not need an outside tinkerer to do anything.

Can anyone prove otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Argument from personal incredulity, as in the OP, is not an argument. It is just an expression of emotion.

Guess what? Even non-human animals have emotions.

Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

 

[paul becke]

This is just utter nonsense argument, how hard something is to create or such is no evidence for something being created or not, there is nothing that would stop humans or other things being created over a slow process, that is no more random, then hydrogen and oxygen some how randomly forming water every time the right conditions appear.

What unspeakable foolishness! How could random chance arrive at so much more brilliant designs than the most brilliant scientists are capable of; sublimely sophisticated and intricate designs.

13.5 billion years wouldn't be enough time for random chance to write a sonnet of Shakespeare never mind his complete works. As for the a single cell of a bacterium... forget it!

Some objects in nature are also irreducibly complex, meaning that their appearance via evolution would have been impossible, since removing just one part would destroy the functionality of the object, rendering it defunct and further evolution - assuming some had occurred - impossible.

 

[durangodawood]

What unspeakable foolishness! How could random chance arrive at so much more brilliant designs than the most brilliant scientists are capable of; sublimely sophisticated and intricate designs.

13.5 billion years wouldn't be enough time for random chance to write a sonnet of Shakespeare never mind his complete works. As for the a single cell of a bacterium... forget it!

Some objects in nature are also irreducibly complex, meaning that their appearance via evolution would have been impossible, since removing just one part would destroy the functionality of the object, rendering it defunct and further evolution - assuming some had occurred - impossible.

You keep saying its JUST random chance.

But the current scientific explanation for life is NOT JUST random chance by a long shot. It almost makes me think you dont know what you are arguing against.

 

[mzungu]

What unspeakable foolishness! How could random chance arrive at so much more brilliant designs than the most brilliant scientists are capable of; sublimely sophisticated and intricate designs.

13.5 billion years wouldn't be enough time for random chance to write a sonnet of Shakespeare never mind his complete works. As for the a single cell of a bacterium... forget it!

Some objects in nature are also irreducibly complex, meaning that their appearance via evolution would have been impossible, since removing just one part would destroy the functionality of the object, rendering it defunct and further evolution - assuming some had occurred - impossible.

And your credentials are?
Do take the time to watch this video and then talk about irreducibly complex!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlTOuxJbhbA

 

[Heissonear]

The universe is sufficient unto itself.

It does not need an outside tinkerer to do anything.

Can anyone prove otherwise?

I didn't think so.

Argument from personal incredulity, as in the OP, is not an argument. It is just an expression of emotion.

Guess what? Even non-human animals have emotions.

Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

.

Such is the foundational tenet of Naturalism: there is no need of a God to explain what happens in the natural world we are in.

Naturalism clearly claims no observation of any Life or Power above the natural we commonly observe around us.

Naturalists state that modern man is the highest intelligence, the pinnacle of understanding existence. It is what man has come to learn through science that concludes what this physical life is about.

So states Naturalists.

They are not wrong nor deceived. There is no Higher Life in our midst nor life after death. There is no evidence of a Creator nor any revealed purpose for this Creation from Him.

If there is a Creator, then He is nowhere to be found.

So state godless men, men without God in this present world. Men who lean on their own understanding and five senses. When presented anything about a God existing and at work from on High in our midst, even the Kingdom of God ruling over the natural, even this universe being an intelligent design, Naturalists declare all such to be from ignorance, superstition, bias confirmation, imaginary in substance, and unscientific, lacking any evidence.

Naturalists have put themselves in the lofty position to call all the shots, to have the final authoritative say, and blatantly proselytize others to their world view for the sake of promoting good and reality.

Even though I grew up as one, and received formal education in the natural sciences, I found Naturalism to be erroneous. I found Naturalism to be no more than a dust-level view of life and the cosmos we live in. I found Naturalists to be full of unbelief towards Him on High, having zero apprehension of Him at work in our midst, and His amazingly intelligent work in Creating the natural world.

By meeting Him, even through His Spirit, even by being born of the Spirit, I have found Naturalists to be in Spiritual Poverty and void of His Spirit at work in man.

It was through seeking Him and finding Him, even experiencing the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as stated in the Bible, that I became firsthand aware of Him on High, and through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that I started communion with Him.

It was within His intentions to also allow me to see Miracles among us, where His Power Rules over the natural in no uncertain way.

Through these things He has allowed me to firsthand understand Naturalists, Naturalism, and Scientism as a manmade modern religion - a naturalistic only way of living and believing, ignorant of the spirit we have within us. I have seen how He is always in our midst watching everything we do. I've seen the error I have walked in as a godless earth scientist, how to be blind to Him who is in our midst, even to base existence on the five senses and say that this is all we have to discern with, and all there is to life.


.

 

[JGL53]

.

Such is the foundational tenet of Naturalism: there is no need of a God to explain what happens in the natural world we are in.

Naturalism clearly claims no observation of any Life or Power above the natural we commonly observe around us.

Naturalists state that modern man is the highest intelligence, the pinnacle of understanding existence. It is what man has come to learn through science that concludes what this physical life is about.

So states Naturalists.

They are not wrong nor deceived. There is no Higher Life in our midst nor life after death. There is no evidence of a Creator nor any revealed purpose for this Creation from Him.

If there is a Creator, then He is nowhere to be found.

So state godless men, men without God in this present world. Men who lean on their own understanding and five senses. When presented anything about a God existing and at work from on High in our midst, even the Kingdom of God ruling over the natural, even this universe being an intelligent design, Naturalists declare all such to be from ignorance, superstition, bias confirmation, imaginary in substance, and unscientific, lacking any evidence.

Naturalists have put themselves in the lofty position to call all the shots, to have the final authoritative say, and blatantly proselytize others to their world view for the sake of promoting good and reality.

Even though I grew up as one, and received formal education in the natural sciences, I found Naturalism to be erroneous. I found Naturalism to be no more than a dust-level view of life and the cosmos we live in. I found Naturalists to be full of unbelief towards Him on High, having zero apprehension of Him at work in our midst, and His amazingly intelligent work in Creating the natural world.

By meeting Him, even through His Spirit, even by being born of the Spirit, I have found Naturalists to be in Spiritual Poverty and void of His Spirit at work in man.

It was through seeking Him and finding Him, even experiencing the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as stated in the Bible, that I became firsthand aware of Him on High, and through the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that I started communion with Him.

It was within His intentions to also allow me to see Miracles among us, where His Power Rules over the natural in no uncertain way.

Through these things He has allowed me to firsthand understand Naturalists, Naturalism, and Scientism as a manmade modern religion - a naturalistic only way of living and believing, ignorant of the spirit we have within us. I have seen how He is always in our midst watching everything we do. I've seen the error I have walked in as a godless earth scientist, how to be blind to Him who is in our midst, even to base existence on the five senses and say that this is all we have to discern with, and all there is to life.


.

Prove it.

You can't.

If you could you would win a Nobel Prize.

In the meantime naturalism is, as always, the default position.

Except for people who just believe stuff and are just too ignorant of the facts to understand stuff.

Like, e.g., Australian Aborigines.

And many others.

 

[MikeCarra]

Some objects in nature are also irreducibly complex, meaning that their appearance via evolution would have been impossible, since removing just one part would destroy the functionality of the object, rendering it defunct and further evolution - assuming some had occurred - impossible.

Let us know when someone finds something like that!

 

[JGL53]

Let us know when someone finds something like that!

Plus, I think we have another case here of special pleading for god to be an exception to the rule, in an attempt to avoid infinite regression.

I.e., god is irreducibly complex by definition, one would think, assuming a god exists.

So, then, god could not have just existed, he must have been created - by an even more complex god.

And using the same logic this creator would have had in turn to have been created - by an even more complex god.

As infinitum.