29 May 23
@moonbus saidFine then what is the problem, answer the questions using science. If we are going to look at something in the distant past and there are a few things we know cause this in the present, wouldn't one of them be the most likely cause? Narrowing it down even more, if there is only one cause in the present that can do it, exactly why would that be ruled out? If you rule out the only possible reason for something to occur in the past that we know happens in the present, then it isn't the reason you are using to do that.
That is exactly what several posters to this thread, excluding yourself, have been doing the whole time.
29 May 23
@kellyjay said"The only possible reason for something to occur ..." You continue to confuse reasons and causes. Molecules don't have reasons to occur.
Fine then what is the problem, answer the questions using science. If we are going to look at something in the distant past and there are a few things we know cause this in the present, wouldn't one of them be the most likely cause? Narrowing it down even more, if there is only one cause in the present that can do it, exactly why would that be ruled out? If you rule out t ...[text shortened]... in the past that we know happens in the present, then it isn't the reason you are using to do that.
Frankly, I wonder whether you genuinely believe that molecules really exist, since they are nowhere mentioned in the Bible and you can't see them. I can give you no evidence that molecules exist, not the way I could provide evidence that fossils exist (by putting one in your hand), so you must think molecules are just a story that atheist scientists made up. But then, even if I were to put a fossil in your hand, you would not believe it to be millions of years old; you believe fossils were made about 6,000 years ago and made to seem older. You also do not believe that stars are billions of years old; you believe that God made all the stars about 6,000 years ago and made them to seem old. There is no point in discussing science with someone such as yourself who lives in a wholly delusional world of bronze-age myths. This thread was over before it started. Take it to Superstition.
29 May 23
@moonbus saidThe formation of everything is in the arrangement of those, so yes there are reasons some are grouped in one particular order and others other ways, the fact you refuse to acknowledge that is telling.
"The only possible reason for something to occur ..." You continue to confuse reasons and causes. Molecules don't have reasons to occur.
Frankly, I wonder whether you genuinely believe that molecules really exist, since they are nowhere mentioned in the Bible and you can't see them. I can give you no evidence that molecules exist, not the way I could provide eviden ...[text shortened]... lusional world of bronze-age myths. This thread was over before it started. Take it to Superstition.
29 May 23
@moonbus saidFor someone who keeps saying the past doesn't matter you seem to take great offense at having your version of the past questioned. If you choose to hold me to standards you avoid yourself, that should tell you, you know better but simply don't want to be held to a standard you demand in others.
"The only possible reason for something to occur ..." You continue to confuse reasons and causes. Molecules don't have reasons to occur.
Frankly, I wonder whether you genuinely believe that molecules really exist, since they are nowhere mentioned in the Bible and you can't see them. I can give you no evidence that molecules exist, not the way I could provide eviden ...[text shortened]... lusional world of bronze-age myths. This thread was over before it started. Take it to Superstition.
30 May 23
@sonhouse saidNo, I admit that the answers are in the realm of the knowable unless you by default
@KellyJay
So you admit these kind of questions are beyond the reach of science?
reject the answers. I can point to functionally specialized operations guided by informational instructions in the real world, can you show some example of mindlessness doing anything positive on that level?
31 May 23
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYes. I think the water cycle is a good example of mindlessness doing something positive.
No, I admit that the answers are in the realm of the knowable unless you by default
reject the answers. I can point to functionally specialized operations guided by informational instructions in the real world, can you show some example of mindlessness doing anything positive on that level?
The movement of techtonic plates on a sea of magma also seems to accomplish the incredible feat of forming mountains and continents.
Abiogenesis is absolutely an unknown for science. That's ok. Science is ok with not knowing (for now).
31 May 23
@wildgrass
And it won't be shown scientifically that GODDIDIT.
I hope they can bring home samples of that water squirting hundreds of Km above the surface of Enceladus, James Webb scope showed the water squirting much higher than other telescopes saw.
31 May 23
@kellyjay saidNatural selection.
No, I admit that the answers are in the realm of the knowable unless you by default
reject the answers. I can point to functionally specialized operations guided by informational instructions in the real world, can you show some example of mindlessness doing anything positive on that level?
31 May 23
@moonbus saidPlease explain how a process that only weeds out the weak, and doesn't even think about that as its being done, is capable of creating new body plans, inputting informational instructions, and error checking, building systems that work together. There is nothing there that does these things with just a weeding-out process I don't care how much time you add to your mindless process.
Bingo !
31 May 23
@kellyjay saidIt doesn't only weed out the weak. There are plenty of weak organisms hobbling about. The cute cuddly defenseless seahorse was around 14 million years ago, still kicking.
Please explain how a process that only weeds out the weak, and doesn't even think about that as its being done, is capable of creating new body plans, inputting informational instructions, and error checking, building systems that work together. There is nothing there that does these things with just a weeding-out process I don't care how much time you add to your mindless process.
Maybe you can read a book about natural selection.
31 May 23
@wildgrass
Read those evil science books? They clearly don't have the answers"😉
So because they cannot ATT say exactly how life started, religious folks have a bye to continue to say GODDIDIT.
And OF COURSE, even if and when human science can prove life came from bubbly mud or water jets shooting out of Encaladus, whatever, those answers would NEVER be accepted by the religious right since even though right now they can hold their head up high because for now life origin is unknown so they are ok with that.
Their hackles will be greatly raised if science proves how life started that doesn't include GODDIDIT.
31 May 23
@kellyjay saidI think your understanding of the processes of evolution need some serious upgrading before you can sensibly discuss the subject. The alternative of course from a Christian perspective is that god made all the animals, then he made some different animals and killed off the first animals, then he made some more different animals.....Then he made some animals which were almost like people, then he made people. (All of which took him about 400,000,000 years) This thinking really belongs in Sunday School, and certainly not in any kind of an adult discussion forum.
Please explain how a process that only weeds out the weak, and doesn't even think about that as its being done, is capable of creating new body plans, inputting informational instructions, and error checking, building systems that work together. There is nothing there that does these things with just a weeding-out process I don't care how much time you add to your mindless process.
31 May 23
@kellyjay saidIn nature, there are no plans, therefore none to explain. There are no informational instructions, therefore none to explain. There is no error checking, therefore none to explain. You have been bamboozled by anthropomorphisms, metaphors, and figures of speech. None of these apply to molecules and cells. You do not understand how nature works or how science proposes to explain how it works. Please go back to Spirituality and stop spamming up the Science forum.
Please explain how a process that only weeds out the weak, and doesn't even think about that as its being done, is capable of creating new body plans, inputting informational instructions, and error checking, building systems that work together. There is nothing there that does these things with just a weeding-out process I don't care how much time you add to your mindless process.