Where did the laws of nature come from?

[VirOptimus]

And what qualifies you to come to this conclusion, a hunch, a personal opinion which could be tainted with all sorts of personal experiences and influences. What is it based on. How do I know you are being influenced by your own views as well. What makes you think I am basing my views purely on what I believe. That is rather presumptuous and is almost relegating me down to not being capable of taking that into consideration and knowing the difference. That is also assuming you know my experience of a lifetime and what has allowed me to come to that conclusion. What I find ironic is if a person persist long enough to question the accepted views of Darwin's theory sooner or later the attacks start on the person and the sources which says a lot about the person doing the attacking. Its a flimsy basis for any argument. Come back to me with some testable support for what you say rather then questioning my integrity. You tell me what you are basing your views on. But dont just tell me because that means nothing and is just your personal opinion. prove this to me with some support.

Heh, still wont admit the truth.

Well, I dont really care, but it taints your argument that you cant be honest.

 

[stevevw]

As Darwin described it . . .

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

I don't even see why you need to put the "theistic" at the front of it. It is just evolution along with the other pieces of nature. It is just gravity, just chemistry, just geology, and just thermodynamics. I would think that Christians also believe that God is as involved in these other processes, but no one seems to think it is necessary to put the "theistic" tag in front of them. Why?

Theistic evolution proves that for those who say that people who have a belief in God are against evolution because it goes against their beliefs are wrong because it allows belief. The point is for many including myself its not about belief but about showing the theory works in detailed verifiable terms. How mutations which are primarily an error and a cost to fitness can create fitter and better life. The idea sounds good but when it comes to proving it its another story. Many non religious scientists are questioning many of the accepted tenets of evolution which are gradually chipping away at the foundations of evolution. The discoveries we have made through modern science are showing that there is a lot more to how life can change and much of it is not through Darwin's theory.

 

[stevevw]

How can you claim a protein has no function when you only test it against one substrate out of billions of possible substrates?
That would require testing against more than one substrate, which wasn't done.
You can't make such a claim when you only test the protein against one substrate. How do they know that one of those changes does not produce activity against different substrates?
It is a simple question, and you keep ignoring it (as does Douglas Axe).

You only have to test one. Its the ability and the process that is in question not whether trying it on different substrates is going to make a difference. The same process would be applied to any protein structure.
They test the ability of amino acid sequences of proteins to handle mutational changes see if they can still fold shapes that are fit and functional by testing the mutant proteins. The point is even small changes in a function which is to take out the existing amino acid sequence and then replace it with another and do this to the point where it adds up to a functional change need multiple mutations to happen at the same time. If it was just one mutation then maybe there's a chance.

But the tests have found that getting multiple random mutations that produce the precise building of even a small change in one protein cannot be verified and more likely leads to unfit and non functioning proteins structures no matter how many times you try it and the same structure or different ones. You have acknowledged the difficulty in that you admit there are billions of possible substrates. To find the precise structures for life in among those billions of possible structures would take way more then what evolution claims. This is the creative ability I am talking about that some give Darwin's theory that is not there.

 

[Hoghead1]

You only have to test one. Its the ability and the process that is in question not whether trying it on different substrates is going to make a difference. The same process would be applied to any protein structure.
They test the ability of amino acid sequences of proteins to handle mutational changes see if they can still fold shapes that are fit and functional by testing the mutant proteins. The point is even small changes in a function which is to take out the existing amino acid sequence and then replace it with another and do this to the point where it adds up to a functional change need multiple mutations to happen at the same time. If it was just one mutation then maybe there's a chance.

But the tests have found that getting multiple random mutations that produce the precise building of even a small change in one protein cannot be verified and more likely leads to unfit and non functioning proteins structures no matter how many times you try it and the same structure or different ones. You have acknowledged the difficulty in that you admit there are billions of possible substrates. To find the precise structures for life in among those billions of possible structures would take way more then what evolution claims. This is the creative ability I am talking about that some give Darwin's theory that is not there.

HOw come science doesn't agree with you on the time frame for evolution? What kind of knowledge do you possess that enables you to know far more about it than all these scientists?

 

[Hoghead1]

Theistic evolution proves that for those who say that people who have a belief in God are against evolution because it goes against their beliefs are wrong because it allows belief. The point is for many including myself its not about belief but about showing the theory works in detailed verifiable terms. How mutations which are primarily an error and a cost to fitness can create fitter and better life. The idea sounds good but when it comes to proving it its another story. Many non religious scientists are questioning many of the accepted tenets of evolution which are gradually chipping away at the foundations of evolution. The discoveries we have made through modern science are showing that there is a lot more to how life can change and much of it is not through Darwin's theory.

True, we are learning more about evolution today than Darwin knew. That is good. That is what science is supposed to do: continually advance our knowledge. Also what your you evidence for saying that many non-religious scientists are questioning evolution? Names, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, we are learning more about evolution today than Darwin knew. That is good. That is what science is supposed to do: continually advance our knowledge. Also what your you evidence for saying that many non-religious scientists are questioning evolution? Names, please.

This attitude that you have seen is typical of literalists. If one questions, or even worse, tries to improve on the work of a forerunner, then you obviously "question his work". Luckily science does not work that way. One is supposed to always question and see if one can add onto or improve the works of ones forerunners.

 

[Hoghead1]

This attitude that you have seen is typical of literalists. If one questions, or even worse, tries to improve on the work of a forerunner, then you obviously "question his work". Luckily science does not work that way. One is supposed to always question and see if one can add onto or improve the works of ones forerunners.

What? How on earth did you come up with that? That is not at all what I said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? How on earth did you come up with that? That is not at all what I said.

I was not implying that about you at all. That was written about the people that you are responding to.

I am sorry that I was not a bit clearer.

 

[Hoghead1]

I was not implying that about you at all. That was written about the people that you are responding to.

I am sorry that I was not a bit clearer.

OK. No problemo.

 

[Hoghead1]

Theistic evolution has always interested me. The point with it though is that God is still behind things. I think some try to have the best of both worlds because there are some problems for reconciling theistic evolution to the bible. But even so God would have had to have known about the process of evolution and intended it to be exactly what it was. A mechanism for life to adjust and survive in the material world. But its still a quality that God has created even if some want to pretend its not. I can never understand how they can say that God somehow dropped the ingredients in a pond and walked away to forever have nothing to do with life. I guess it depends what you want to call design. Its still design whether you create all life as it is or create the magic ingredients to make life. Either way it takes something beyond naturalistic processes to do and therefore shows that life could not have made it self in any amount of time without God. I think thats the important thing when it comes to theistic evolution even though some forget this and get all caught up in Darwinism.

Some people into theistic evolution do believe that God set the ball rolling and then just sits back. I and many others do not buy that. We believe that evolution demands constant intervention by God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would it be possible to have a mutually respectful discussion about the following:

No.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

They didn't.

It would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a Boeing 747.

 

[Derek Meyer]

It would be like a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a Boeing 747.

Really? How so?

 

[Derek Meyer]

The idea sounds good but when it comes to proving it its another story. Many non religious scientists are questioning many of the accepted tenets of evolution which are gradually chipping away at the foundations of evolution.

Really? Could you name a few of the "many" you claimed? Maybe one or two or three out of millions?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Some people into theistic evolution do believe that God set the ball rolling and then just sits back.

Yet, it seems as if most mainstream Christian churches accept the theory of evolution and also believe that God created humans by means of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is for many including myself its not about belief but about showing the theory works in detailed verifiable terms. How mutations which are primarily an error and a cost to fitness can create fitter and better life.

And no matter how much evidence we give you, you refuse to address it.

Many non religious scientists are questioning many of the accepted tenets of evolution which are gradually chipping away at the foundations of evolution. The discoveries we have made through modern science are showing that there is a lot more to how life can change and much of it is not through Darwin's theory.

All of the mechanisms they are proposing are natural mechanisms, not supernatural mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

You only have to test one.

That is as false of a statement as one can be. How do you know it doesn't have activity against something like fructose unless you test it?

Its the ability and the process that is in question not whether trying it on different substrates is going to make a difference.

If you took a protein like cytochrome c and tested it for lactamase activity, it would come back as negative. Does this mean that cytochrome c is not functional?

They test the ability of amino acid sequences of proteins to handle mutational changes see if they can still fold shapes that are fit and functional by testing the mutant proteins.

Using your test, every cytochrome c gene in every species would be considered non-functional because none of them have lactamase activity. How do you explain this?

But the tests have found that getting multiple random mutations that produce the precise building of even a small change in one protein cannot be verified and more likely leads to unfit and non functioning proteins structures no matter how many times you try it and the same structure or different ones.

Human and yeast cytochrome c genes differ by 40% at the DNA level, yet both are functional.

You have acknowledged the difficulty in that you admit there are billions of possible substrates. To find the precise structures for life in among those billions of possible structures would take way more then what evolution claims.

Evidence, please.

 

[stevevw]

HOw come science doesn't agree with you on the time frame for evolution? What kind of knowledge do you possess that enables you to know far more about it than all these scientists?

I am using the same knowledge that you use. You may or may not be a scientists to have the knowledge to understand these things but you are referring to the scientists to back up what you say. If we dont know we can investigate and use the experts knowledge. So evolutionary scientists have told us that evolution takes a long time because its a gradual process. Afterall evolving the eye or the brain takes time. I am sure even the evolutionary scientists will admit that evolving a single celled organism into a multi celled one would take eons of time. In fact they cant even begin to explain the details of how that would happen. They can explain how an eye could evolve in detail. But explanations dont have any creative power or prove something happened.

 

[Ophiolite]

But explanations dont have any creative power or prove something happened.

Superficially this looks like an important and significant remark. On closer examination it falls apart.

There is no reason that an explanation should have any creative power. Creative power was likely used to help develop the explanation, but - really - why would you expect the explanation to have creative power? What do you expect it to create?

Nor is an explanation meant to prove something happened. You have probably been told before that science is no in the business of proving things. That is still the case.

An explanation does what it says on the tin. An explanation tells us how an observation, or an event, or a scenario likely came about. It assembles the evidence and presents it in a cogent, cohesive manner. So, in terms of the explanation for the evolution of eyes, what is it you find lacking?

 

[Loudmouth]

So evolutionary scientists have told us that evolution takes a long time because its a gradual process.

False. They tell us that it took a long time because that is what the fossil record shows us.

Afterall evolving the eye or the brain takes time. I am sure even the evolutionary scientists will admit that evolving a single celled organism into a multi celled one would take eons of time. In fact they cant even begin to explain the details of how that would happen. They can explain how an eye could evolve in detail. But explanations dont have any creative power or prove something happened.

Which does nothing to evidence intelligent design. Not knowing how a specific feature came about means that we don't know. Full stop. Not knowing how something evolved only spotlights areas where we need to do more research on how things evolved.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no reason that an explanation should have any creative power.

Good point.

God spoke and the universe came into existence.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

No explanation necessary.