Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Derek Meyer]

I don't know, I just know He does.

Why? What's the reason for God existing?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because, some questions really are worthless. For example, some people can claim that those volcanic ashes at Pompeii were deposited by a global Fluddie. Worthless questions. So, why does God exist?

How is marvelling at the physical constants and laws in the universe anywhere on the same level as the volcanic ashes at Pompeii? Why is that worthless?

Going into reasons for God's existence would derail the topic. You can start a new one if you want to talk about that.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Going into reasons for God's existence would derail the topic. You can start a new one if you want to talk about that.

I disagree. Why does God exist? What's the reason for God existing? I like the why questions.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nope. The opposite. The physical sciences describe nature.

You seem to be dishonest about what scientific laws are.

If there are no regularities in nature, then there is no chance of being able to predict anything about what will happen in nature, and science is impossible. Therefore, in order to do science, you must assume that there are such things as physical laws.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I disagree. Why does God exist?

Haha, how does asking the question again change anything?

You can start a new topic and link me.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Haha, how does asking the question again change anything?

You can start a new topic and link me.

So, why does God exist?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So, why does God exist?

You're persistent, I'll give you that.

 

[Derek Meyer]

You're persistent, I'll give you that.

Yip. Why does God exist? I see that you are evading that question.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yip. Why does God exist? I see that you are evading that question.

I said start a new topic so we don't derail this one, so no, I'm not evading.

 

[lesliedellow]

You're persistent, I'll give you that.

If you keep replying to him, it will be derailed anyway.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I said start a new topic so we don't derail this one, so no, I'm not evading.

To me it's always funny that people who can't answer basic questions want new topics and try to evade questions.

These are very simple questions. Why does God exist? What's the reason for God existing?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If you keep replying to him, it will be derailed anyway.

That is a good point.

 

[stevevw]

So, you're saying that a human is the same as an elephant is the same as a crocodile because they all belong to the same Phylum? Even though reptiles appeared after the Cambrian and mammals appeared after the reptiles?

Doesn't evolution say that the legs for example of the mammal that came before the reptiles came form the reptiles and so the legs of apes came from earlier mammals and the legs of humans came from the apes. Dome they support common ancestry. So the genetic info for the legs of early creatures is similar genetic info for the legs of later creatures and all creatures on those branches and other branches that spring form them. The genetic info was there to begin with and it is the basic genetic code for those legs that is tinkered with to make other creatures legs.

But its the genetic info for the leg in the first place that is the important things as that made the original feature that everything else could be based upon. So there are legs in the Cambrian period and other features which are seen in most Phylum like eyes, brains, digestive systems, tails, bones, muscles, tails, heads, fins ect that more or less appeared suddenly. I would say the original leg was harder and took longer to make then any modification to what was already coded for. So considering there were many Phylum in the Cambrian period with many features we see today then thats a lot of design that has more or less suddenly appeared.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Doesn't evolution say that the legs for example of the mammal that came before the reptiles came form the reptiles and so the legs of apes came from earlier mammals and the legs of humans came from the apes. Dome they support common ancestry. So the genetic info for the legs of early creatures is similar genetic info for the legs of later creatures and all creatures on those branches and other branches that spring form them. The genetic info was there to begin with and it is the basic genetic code for those legs that is tinkered with to make other creatures legs.

But its the genetic info for the leg in the first place that is the important things as that made the original feature that everything else could be based upon. So there are legs in the Cambrian period and other features which are seen in most Phylum like eyes, brains, digestive systems, tails, bones, muscles, tails, heads, fins ect that more or less appeared suddenly. I would say the original leg was harder and took longer to make then any modification to what was already coded for. So considering there were many Phylum in the Cambrian period with many features we see today then thats a lot of design that has more or less suddenly appeared.

You don't make any sense, Stevevw. No mammals (humans or elephants) or reptiles (crocs)were around during the Cambrian. Reptiles and mammals evolved way after the Cambrian.

 

[Derek Meyer]

That is a good point.

Yeah, it's because you can't answer a basic question. Why does God exist? I love the why questions. You can't answer it.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree. Why does God exist? What's the reason for God existing? I like the why questions.

What about why do good people die. Or why is there a beautiful sun set or flower. Why is it beautiful. Why does a person give up their life to save another. The why questions are good and they also propose a purpose. But they are different sorts of questions that will not be verified by scientific evidence and are more philosophical and theoretical.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yeah, it's because you can't answer a basic question. Why does God exist? I love the why questions. You can't answer it.

Hang on are you asking the reasons for God's existence or why God should exist in the first place? I thought you were asking for reasons we can believe He exists, not why there should be a God in the first place.

For the latter, I already answered it:

I don't know, I just know He does.

 

[KCfromNC]

You've missed the point completely.

No, it has been my point consistently. You have a weird tendency to quote sources which disagree with your claims about a subject. This is just another example.

Once you miss the point then you'll miss it for everything else. Think about it similar genes = similar genetic info to make the proteins that make the features. If the similar genetic info was around very early then what has changed.

All of the novel genes which code for new features that didn't exist "very early". It was explained in one of the sources you posted - if you'd read it you would have an answer.

The thing is I could tell you anything about a creator or designer and there would be little evidence to show.
So what is the point.

That's what I've been wondering. Even if we accept that you've found a major hole in evolutionary theory (using sources which see no such problem), so what? You've got nothing better to explain the stuff that evolutionary theory does explain and certainly don't have a better idea about the unexplained stuff. So what's your point?

No it doesn't

One paper does mention that around 50% of genes in humans has been from HGT events.

If you didn't believe your own source why did you post it? Maybe I'm crazy, but when someone posts a scientific reference to support one of their posts, I kinda thought that meant you felt it was an accurate claim. Guess I'll have to keep in mind in the future that you don't actually believe any of the science you're quoting.

But even so the science says things like 50% of human genes may have been subject to HGT. Other creatures maybe more or maybe less. But there is significant HGT.

I appreciate the attempt to jump from "maybe" to "is" but your wild speculation is simply that and nothing more.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity. So what caused that complexity of evolution didn't.

You do realize what "consistent tendency" means, right? Hint - it doesn't mean that evolution can't produce increased complexity. It just means the path to that increased complexity isn't a straight line.

As I have mentioned before there is evidence for genetic complexity being on par with today's levels.

Still waiting for examples of mammals, lungs, flowering plant, 4 chambered hearts, and lots of other products of modern genetic complexity existing during whatever time period it is you're talking about.

Ancient creatures are just as complex in their own way.

But in another, more accurate way, they're missing many key adaptations which evolved relatively recently. Even your sources describe this process - mutation adds new genetic material which is selected on by other evolutionary processes.

Hiding behind some vague notion of complexity you can't explain doesn't change the fact that there are lots of new features which didn't exist X number of million years ago (for all X >= 0). Try to distract from that all you want, but it doesn't change reality.

They are just different creatures because it was a different time.

And because they lack key features that distinguish them from more modern species. But ignore those if it makes you feel better.

Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

Still waiting for an example of a mammal from the Cambrian. All of this bluster and misinterpretation of actual science means very little if you can't produce the evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well we shouldn't be presupposing naturalism and non-meaning either now, should we?

Of course not. We use naturalism because it works, not because someone claimed god told us it is correct and to never question it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Of course not. We use naturalism because it works, not because someone claimed god told us it is correct and to never question it.

And so your answer to the rest of that post is? Why do you think the speed of light is the way it is, and Planck's constant, etc.?