Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Ophiolite]

Good point.

God spoke and the universe came into existence.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

No explanation necessary.

The emboldened sentence is an explanation. One might debate the quality of the explanation, but not its identity as an explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

God spoke and the universe came into existence.

No explanation necessary.

The emboldened sentence is an explanation. One might debate the quality of the explanation, but not its identity as an explanation.

In that case, I disagree with your point that there is no reason that an explanation should have any creative power.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

No, you are definitely not using the same knowledge the scientists use or that I use. What you are doing is assuming you know way more than mainstream science, which I find ridiculous.

 

[Derek Meyer]

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

Actually, mining companies do study the rocks they're mining very well and lots of them tell that those rocks they're mining took lots and lots and lots of years to form. In my country it's got to do with deltas and uplifted deltas and down and more deltas and lakes and sea levels rising and dropping of millions of years and ancient continents bumping against each other and moving apart and some the first simple life depositing iron deposits and all that. Mining companies tend to know more about the rocks they're mining than weirdo's writing on the net. And nothing gradual about it. Just geology. The present is the key to the past. It works.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I am using the same knowledge that you use.

No, you don't. You read creationist websites. That's the extent of your knowledge.

 

[stevevw]

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?

Probably description may be the better word. I agree that explanations can be based on some information that has been observed. I would have thought that scientific testing is out to verify something. If it does then it can go towards supporting a hypothesis and then a theory. What I was alluding to was that quite often we hear stories of describing how evolution was able to do this or that such as how the eye evolved. By knowing how the eye works today can be used to describe how it might have evolved in the past. But nothing is verified and this is just trying to put flesh on the bones of something that has little verified evidence of happening. Some or even many then take this as the support for how evolution is true when in reality its just a description or speculation as to how things might have happened. This is what I am talking about when I mean giving evolution creative power thats not there.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, mining companies do study the rocks they're mining very well and lots of them tell that those rocks they're mining took lots and lots and lots of years to form. In my country it's got to do with deltas and uplifted deltas and down and more deltas and lakes and sea levels rising and dropping of millions of years and ancient continents bumping against each other and moving apart and some the first simple life depositing iron deposits and all that. Mining companies tend to know more about the rocks they're mining than weirdo's writing on the net. And nothing gradual about it. Just geology. The present is the key to the past. It works.

I think your talking about geology which is different to the evolution of life. The geology of the earth or a planet has been there from the beginning and will change with time but more or less stays the same in the sense of being solid material. Life according to evolution is support to have began with a micro organism which gradually evolved into multi celled life and then branching out into what we have today. So it has gradually changed and it needed time to do that.

 

[stevevw]

No, you don't. You read creationist websites. That's the extent of your knowledge.

What makes you assume that. Creationist believe that the earth is only 5,000 years old and that all life was created as it is. I have not stated this. I am talking about design in life being scientifically supported. Completely different ideas. I think you are stereotyping and assuming that anyone who speaks of design in life must be a creationists. If I was only using creationists sites then how do you explain the scientific papers from non religious sites I have used as evidence. How do you explain the ID papers I have used as evidence. Both are different to creationists views. Why would I even talk about the Cambrian period as actually happening if I was a creationist.

 

[stevevw]

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

The fossil record is not a good basis for proving evolution. But even so if you want to use that isn't the fossil record showing that life gradually evolved ie they claim first single celled life was around about 3.5 billion years ago and the Cambrian period was around 500 million years ago. Thats an awful long time. Then when looking at any individual cases of evolution they are always showing millions of years for the changes. The point is it takes time to evolve life because it is re creating body forms by a gradual process which is unguided so it is going to need time.

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.

Thats true and therefore evolution is something that needs a lot more support and research to verify it happening in detail. At the moment it sounds good but showing how it can gradually create forms from simple to complex is another thing. It shows that some are willing to believe things based on unverified speculation as many just say yes evolution has evolved things like eyes and brains like its fact.

As far as ID is concerned a lot of recent discover is showing how life seems to look designed such as there being more function in our DNA when it was thought to be junk. More function and order in our DNA means more explanation needs to be made for how evolution could have created such function. It means that its not a disordered lot of junk which would be expected for a blind and chance process such as evolution.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Yes and that negates anyone stating that people need to disprove evolution because it goes against their beliefs. These church's still allow for a creator God who created the conditions for evolution. So in that sense evolution is a tool of a designer God and not a blind naturalistic process that requires no God. So in some ways evolution needs to be a predetermined process which has some set design in it and that is what the evidence is showing. It seems that life is able to find the needed information for adapting as though it was already there and ready to use. Thats the way it was made from the beginning.

 

[StanJ]

Would it be possible to have a mutually respectful discussion about the following:
How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

They didn't, all laws, including laws of nature, were created by the Creator.

 

[Hoghead1]

The fossil record is not a good basis for proving evolution. But even so if you want to use that isn't the fossil record showing that life gradually evolved ie they claim first single celled life was around about 3.5 billion years ago and the Cambrian period was around 500 million years ago. Thats an awful long time. Then when looking at any individual cases of evolution they are always showing millions of years for the changes. The point is it takes time to evolve life because it is re creating body forms by a gradual process which is unguided so it is going to need time.

Thats true and therefore evolution is something that needs a lot more support and research to verify it happening in detail. At the moment it sounds good but showing how it can gradually create forms from simple to complex is another thing. It shows that some are willing to believe things based on unverified speculation as many just say yes evolution has evolved things like eyes and brains like its fact.

As far as ID is concerned a lot of recent discover is showing how life seems to look designed such as there being more function in our DNA when it was thought to be junk. More function and order in our DNA means more explanation needs to be made for how evolution could have created such function. It means that its not a disordered lot of junk which would be expected for a blind and chance process such as evolution.

Well, the experts take a much different view of fossils and their relationship to evolution. Funny how you, a lay person, are so much better informed than all these scientists.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think your talking about geology which is different to the evolution of life. The geology of the earth or a planet has been there from the beginning and will change with time but more or less stays the same in the sense of being solid material. Life according to evolution is support to have began with a micro organism which gradually evolved into multi celled life and then branching out into what we have today. So it has gradually changed and it needed time to do that.

Nevertheless, the earth has significantly evolved. The fact it stays solid material does not negate the fact it evolves. And I am not sure it is all solid material, not if it was once all molten.

 

[Hoghead1]

Probably description may be the better word. I agree that explanations can be based on some information that has been observed. I would have thought that scientific testing is out to verify something. If it does then it can go towards supporting a hypothesis and then a theory. What I was alluding to was that quite often we hear stories of describing how evolution was able to do this or that such as how the eye evolved. By knowing how the eye works today can be used to describe how it might have evolved in the past. But nothing is verified and this is just trying to put flesh on the bones of something that has little verified evidence of happening. Some or even many then take this as the support for how evolution is true when in reality its just a description or speculation as to how things might have happened. This is what I am talking about when I mean giving evolution creative power thats not there.

The human eye is not the only eye. Its evolution can be studied via simpler, more primitive creatures and their "eyes."

 

[stevevw]

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

When you take into consideration the scientists who are questioning the tenets and not necessarily the entire theory there are many. In fact using sciences own idea evolution would have to be questioned to move forward so in that sense most scientists should be questioning evolution. But there can also be a certain amount of belief in the consensus rather then questioning all the time. There is a certain amount of resistance from some to change things so its hard to get some papers accepted. I have posted many papers that have questioned the tenets of evolution. Modern discoveries are showing that the evidence for how life changes may not support Dawins theory of adaptation and that there are other more dominate process that can account for how life can change. I have posted many papers that have questioned the tenets of evolution if you go back through the posts. The more time that goes by the more it is questioning some of the accepted ideas of evolution which can have a pretty big impact on the theory.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

 

[stevevw]

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



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

The first point is that many of these processes they are pro-porting are showing that Darwin's theory is not the only way life can change which can take away from the prominence of Darwin's. Second they all seem to be supporting processes that show life has pre-existing mechanisms for change and doesn't come from blind adaptation as evolution states. What is natural anyway. Natural can also be argued as being what a designer has installed in life to happen in nature. The whole point is whether it came about by creating itself through a process that didn't need any input to help it occur in the first place. Life from non life and a blind process that looks like it has direction and design. Evolution wants to give nature many creative powers anyway by claiming it can make just about anything.

It seems many want to say that people who believe are against evolution because of their belief. Yet it could be argued that belief is not really affected because as some have said design in life can be even in evolution processes. But I think some who support evolution have more of a vested interest in proving evolution because they disbelieve in God and a designer just as much as they accuse believers and that can be a motivating factor. Many people are acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. Its just some are trying to claim that nature in the sense of a blind and random process can have creative power itself. That seems to be the real debate behind everything and not just about the science.

 

[stevevw]

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.

OK if thats the case then how are you against design in life. It would seem you are saying that things couldn't happen unless God intervened and helped it along as though he is the architect pulling the strings. It may look like a natural process but it still has design behind it.

 

[Hoghead1]

The first point is that many of these processes they are pro-porting are showing that Darwin's theory is not the only way life can change which can take away from the prominence of Darwin's. Second they all seem to be supporting processes that show life has pre-existing mechanisms for change and doesn't come from blind adaptation as evolution states. What is natural anyway. Natural can also be argued as being what a designer has installed in life to happen in nature. The whole point is whether it came about by creating itself through a process that didn't need any input to help it occur in the first place. Life from non life and a blind process that looks like it has direction and design. Evolution wants to give nature many creative powers anyway by claiming it can make just about anything.

It seems many want to say that people who believe are against evolution because of their belief. Yet it could be argued that belief is not really affected because as some have said design in life can be even in evolution processes. But I think some who support evolution have more of a vested interest in proving evolution because they disbelieve in God and a designer just as much as they accuse believers and that can be a motivating factor. Many people are acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. Its just some are trying to claim that nature in the sense of a blind and random process can have creative power itself. That seems to be the real debate behind everything and not just about the science.

Yes, but the fact life has hallmarks of being designed does not negate evolution. it is an argument that the evolutionary process requires divine guidance.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What I was alluding to was that quite often we hear stories of describing how evolution was able to do this or that such as how the eye evolved. By knowing how the eye works today can be used to describe how it might have evolved in the past. But nothing is verified ....

That "but" is where the post goes quite wrong, stevevw.
You go from the descriptive power of a scientific theory such as evolution and leap to an incorrect assertion about evolution. The theory of evolution has been verified by an enormous amount of evidence. For example, how fossil remains of eyes change with time are verification of the theory.

I also see that you use "Darwin's theory" in some posts implying that the theory stopped with Darwin which you must know is not the case. No one is actually chipping away at the "foundations" of evolution. Scientists are recognizing that evolution is a lot more complex than Darwin's original idea and have added more mechanisms. That is adding to the foundations and making the theory more robust.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think your talking about geology which is different to the evolution of life. The geology of the earth or a planet has been there from the beginning and will change with time but more or less stays the same in the sense of being solid material. Life according to evolution is support to have began with a micro organism which gradually evolved into multi celled life and then branching out into what we have today. So it has gradually changed and it needed time to do that.

Wow, geographic formations are continuously changing, and do so frequently. Just consider the impact of that earthquake in Japan back in 2011 http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quake-japan-feet-usgs.html http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html

Furthermore, the material does not stay solid, but as it moves, portions of the Earth's crust become part of the liquid, molten layer of the planet, and other portions rise to become a part of the crust.