Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Loudmouth]

How do I answer that without you being suspect of whatever I say. It seems you have already decided or you have already formed the opinion that all people who believe in God will question evolution. first off its stereotypical and there are many who either believe in God and support evolution or dont believe in God and question evolution. As I said I support evolution to a point. So its not so black and white as you are making out. It seems some on here try to make the debate a false dilemma by saying its either you are for or against one type of belief in evolution. If you are against it or question it you are suspect and probably a creationists or believe in ID.

Mathew 26:34
Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times."…

I question evolution based on the evidence and not my belief.

Baloney!!

I can smell the bovine excrement from here.

 

[Loudmouth]

I dont feel the need to hide it. Ive just learnt that there's no sense in going into it when you are talking about scientific verification.

Mathew 26:34
Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times."…

One more time before the rooster crows.

 

[KCfromNC]

When I asked you to identify the level of design in various objects you said you didn't know how.

In case you're having trouble finding it, refer to post 600. Time to back up all the rhetoric with some actual concrete answers or admit that you really can't quantify the level of design in everyday ordinary things.

 

[stevevw]

Mathew 26:34
Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times."…

One more time before the rooster crows.

Ill do it one more time but I dont hear no rooster crowing. Thats because its completely irrelevant and I have nothing to hide. It seems that some are creating the situation to create an untruth to use as a way to undermine what I have said because they have no other way of dealing with it. You tell me where the untruth is so I can address it.

 

[stevevw]

In case you're having trouble finding it, refer to post 600. Time to back up all the rhetoric with some actual concrete answers or admit that you really can't quantify the level of design in everyday ordinary things.

I thought I had already answered this. Its a bit later now so I will come back to it. In the meantime what are you asking me to do. Is it this you are talking about because I have already shown you the logical reason why the evidence is already there from the very people who you use to prove evolution. They use similarities of features to show genetic makeups for the past. IE they use the modern day features of a brain and its genetic makeup to infer that there was a similar genetic makeup as an example because it has produced the same features in the end. Like for like feature for feature.

The genetic info for brains of modern day creatures will have similar genetic info for past creatures. genetics for brains isn't made from genetics for hearts and genetics for eyes isn't made from genetics for lungs. So if you reject this logic then you reject the evidence for evolution that can infer what the genetic makeup of creatures were for the past so that evolution can build their theory.I had already posted examples for this to show how scientists use modern makeups to understand the makeup of past life. Ape to human is a good example. They say that apes are similar to humans. They would have been similar millions of years ago because our genetic makeup has been derived from them. Similar features, similar genetics. So similar features in Cambrian creatures demands similar genetics as well.

Which paper has an objective description of the genomes of Cambrian organisms?
What specific measure of genome complexity are you using?

This by the way is irrelevant and illogical and I have shown this many times now but you keep coming back to it. You can discuss the evidence for design and show without knowing who the designer is. I have said that many times so unless you can show some valid reason why it is needed its irrelevant.
I've said repeatedly that until you tell us what designer you're talking about it is impossible to evaluate if there is evidence for or against it.

 

[Dre Khipov]

They are without material form or substance. They are abstract as opposed to material / matter.

I'm sure it's been addressed about a 1000 times by now, but I though it should be repeated so you can understand where you are getting it wrong in terms of meaning.

"Law of Nature" is a combination of words, a phrase that we use to refer to a model of observable reality. Words are not the same as reality. Words merely carry the meaning of our communication.

You are conflating the language (a form of abstract thought) with some form of metaphysical reality out there.

There's nothing you can point to and say "Hey there's the law of nature". It's a concept that has to be broken down and explained as some concrete meaning before we know what is it that you are talking about precisely. If you are simply making an appeal to "laws of nature", it's rather vague.

Let's say you are talking about a concrete example of gravity. What we label "the law" simply applies to a consistent behavior that we can expect in a rather narrow context of certain conditions and environment. Therefore, because that environment exists in that particular arrangement, we find certain consistent function of that environment and we "codify" these as "laws" to save us some pronunciation space.

There's nothing "metaphysical" about these. These refer to very precise physical arrangement and function.

 

[Loudmouth]

You tell me where the untruth is so I can address it.

"I question evolution based on the evidence and not my belief."--stevew

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, fine, Stevew. But big claims, especially when you are taking on the whole scientific community, require big evidence. Where is yours?

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- They say that apes are similar to humans. -snip-

Aside from that your post is mostly word salad without meaning this is nonsense, humans are apes.

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought I had already answered this. Its a bit later now so I will come back to it.

That's OK, I'll wait.

In the meantime what are you asking me to do.

So you've already answered, but you don't know what it is you're supposed to answer. Uh huh, pull the other one. A word of advice - it's always better to make up one excuse and stick with it. That way you won't end up making contradictory excuses for the same failures.

Anyway, see post 720.

 

[stevevw]

"I question evolution based on the evidence and not my belief."--stevew

Thats right, And to prove this I have posted ample evidence. If it was just based on my belief then there would be no evidence and it would be arguments from ignorance or a God of the gaps. But the fact is I post the scientific evidence which makes your claim have no foundation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats right, And to prove this I have posted ample evidence. If it was just based on my belief then there would be no evidence and it would be arguments from ignorance or a God of the gaps. But the fact is I post the scientific evidence which makes your claim have no foundation.

Hahaha, no, that is not how it works. Please, dont take us for fools. We see where you are coming from. Why cant you just admit it? Is it really worth it to be lying for jesus?

 

[stevevw]

That's OK, I'll wait.



So you've already answered, but you don't know what it is you're supposed to answer. Uh huh, pull the other one. A word of advice - it's always better to make up one excuse and stick with it. That way you won't end up making contradictory excuses for the same failures.

Anyway, see post 720.

Well I like to clarify what you are meaning. I believe I have already answered it but you never know as you change things all the time. Thats why I said if it is this then I have already answered it. You havnt clarified what it is so I assume I was right in what I said and in this case I have already answered it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well I like to clarify what you are meaning. I believe I have already answered it but you never know as you change things all the time. Thats why I said if it is this then I have already answered it. You havnt clarified what it is so I assume I was right in what I said and in this case I have already answered it.

Really? In which post # did you provide numbers quantifying the level of design in the 4 examples I asked about in post 600? What units did you use for your calculations?

 

[stevevw]

Hahaha, no, that is not how it works. Please, dont take us for fools. We see where you are coming from. Why cant you just admit it? Is it really worth it to be lying for jesus?

So what is your evidence for this a hunch or thought or opinion you have. Give me some evidence besides some accusation you just feel like making otherwise thats all it is an opinion and nothing else.The facts are I have posted the scientific evidence for what I have said. How do you justify that you are not just saying things based on your opinion, or belief. How does anyone qualify what they say is not just some personal belief or opinion. How do they qualify their argument. They do it with referencing academic support for that argument for which I have done.

 

[VirOptimus]

So what is your evidence for this a hunch or a thought. Give me some solid evidence besides some accusation you just feel like making. The facts are I have posted the scientific evidence for what I have said. How do you justify that you are not just saying things based on your opinion, or belief. How does anyone qualify what they say is not just some personal belief or opinion. How do they qualify their argument. They do it with referencing academic support for that argument for which I have done.

Because the things you post. You cherrypick and misrepresent whith a clear agenda. Its not the science you mistrust, its the fact that it clashes with your religious beliefs.

Why cant you admit that? Why lie about it? Doesnt your religion consider lying a sin?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats right, And to prove this I have posted ample evidence.

And then you ignore everyone when we show you that the evidence isn't what you claim. The only reason you cling to these false claims is because of your religious belief.

 

[stevevw]

Really? In which post # did you provide numbers quantifying the level of design in the 4 examples I asked about in post 600? What units did you use for your calculations?

If you would have read the papers that were linked in the reply and all the other papers which I have posted in our debates you would have all the info and supporting evidence you need. It is unreal to ask for specific scientific support or papers on lawn mower or border collie design. So the next best thing is to link scientific support showing the difference between spontaneous chaos events that dont have high levels of information and order and those that do. Or to show the similarities of design in life with design of humans that is used in engineering.

These papers go into detail to explain and show the difference between the high levels of info and order needed for intelligent design and that which is from chaos, non order, low levels of info that can be found in spontaneous chaos and reductive events such as evolution. There cover areas of biology to cover animals such as border collies, engineering to cover machines like lawn mowers and nature to cover things like beaches and snow crystals. As I have said before its not the physical or material end result that makes design but the codes,laws and ordered information that make those material things designed. Here are some of the papers I have posted before.


The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
To what degree could chaos and complexity have organized a Peptide or RNA World of crude yet necessarily integrated protometabolism? How far could such protolife evolve in the absence of a heritable linear digital symbol system that could mutate, instruct, regulate, optimize and maintain metabolic homeostasis? To address these questions, chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, and organization must all be carefully defined and distinguished. In addition their cause-and-effect relationships and mechanisms of action must be delineated. Are there any formal (non physical, abstract, conceptual, algorithmic) components to chaos, complexity, self-ordering and organization, or are they entirely physicodynamic (physical, mass/energy interaction alone)?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/

"Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,"
Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions.

Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224

The Coherence of an Engineered World
Concepts from the field of engineering have been found extremely useful in areas of science. From the very large aspects of the universe (i.e. big bang cosmology and galactic and stellar evolution) to the very small aspects (i.e. the fitness of the chemical elements and the coding of DNA for life), the cosmos is so readily and profitably reverse-engineered by scientists and engineers as to make a compelling argument that it was engineered in the first place.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279

 

[stevevw]

And then you ignore everyone when we show you that the evidence isn't what you claim. The only reason you cling to these false claims is because of your religious belief.

Then rather then just say it show how it isn't what I claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you would have read the papers that were linked in the reply and all the other papers which I have posted in our debates you would have all the info and supporting evidence you need. It is unreal to ask for specific scientific support or papers on lawn mower or border collie design. So the next best thing is to link scientific support showing the difference between spontaneous chaos events that dont have high levels of information and order and those that do. Or to show the similarities of design in life with design of humans that is used in engineering.

Evolution already produces order from chaos, including biological information.

Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15; 28(14): 2794–2799.

Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneider

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102656/​