Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did i say both irrational and illogical, yes i said it!

-and you have just been proven wrong because I answered your question to the full.
What is your counterargument?

Originally posted by humy
-and you have just been proven wrong because I answered your question.
What is your counterargument?

no you have answered nothing, you simply made a statement, that somehow the laws
of physics should somehow come under a different set of appraisals and evaluations,
simply because they happen to be the laws of physics rather than other laws, which
require an intelligence, an irrational and illogical assumption! Why should we treat the
laws of physics differently ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have answered nothing, you simply made a statement, that somehow the laws
of physics should somehow come under a different set of appraisals and evaluations,
simply because they happen to be the laws of physics rather than other laws, which
require an intelligence, an irrational and illogical assumption! Why should we treat the
laws of physics differently ?

no you have answered nothing,

first you asked:

Can you think of a single mandate, dictate, law or edict that never had a law maker (your quote)

and I said:

the laws of physics. (my quote)

that somehow the laws
of physics should somehow come under a different set of appraisals and evaluations,
simply because they happen to be the laws of physics rather than other laws, which
require an intelligence, an irrational and illogical assumption!

why? Give your counterargument...
WHY is it “illogical” to assume this?

Why should we treat the
laws of physics differently ?

because there is no evidence that they were 'created' by an intelligence.

Originally posted by humy

no you have answered nothing,

first you asked:

Can you think of a single mandate, dictate, law or edict that never had a law maker (your quote)

and I said:

the laws of physics. (my quote)

yes but you have not stated why the laws of physics should be viewed differently, and
please there is no need to reiterate what i said, i am perfectly aware of what i said,
after all, i did write it, consciously and yes i may even be capable of rational thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have answered nothing, you simply made a statement, that somehow the laws
of physics should somehow come under a different set of appraisals and evaluations,
simply because they happen to be the laws of physics rather than other laws, which
require an intelligence, an irrational and illogical assumption! Why should we treat the
laws of physics differently ?

So intelligence is needed to create intelligence. Which leads to the question, how did that intelligence get it's intelligence? No doubt you will say to me - Aaah, but God has existed forever, to which i reply -

Name me something else which has existed forever? But you won't be able to, so your position is therefore both illogical and irrational.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but you have not stated why the laws of physics should be viewed differently, and
please there is no need to reiterate what i said, i am perfectly aware of what i said,
after all, i did write it, consciously and yes i may even be capable of rational thought.

yes but you have not stated why the laws of physics should be viewed differently,

I do NOT claim that they should be "viewed differently" from other laws ( such as those in logic and maths ) that have NO evidence of being 'created' by an intelligence.

Of course, they should be "viewed differently" from laws that DO have evidence of being 'created' by an intelligence ( such as legal law ) . Why? Because we have evidence of them being 'created' by an intelligence so that puts those laws into the different category of laws that are known to have a purpose.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you have answered nothing, you simply made a statement, that somehow the laws
of physics should somehow come under a different set of appraisals and evaluations,
simply because they happen to be the laws of physics rather than other laws, which
require an intelligence, an irrational and illogical assumption! Why should we treat the
laws of physics differently ?

Equating the word "law" as it used to pertain to an Act of Parliament or some such with the word "law" as it pertains to an explanation of how or why things work in a certain way in nature, is just world play, that's all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As engineers, we just use our knowledge of the laws of physics in our design and creation of things.

Well considering that your knowledge of physics is severely limited, I sure hope that you didn't design anything important with your engineering skills.

Originally posted by humy

How did atoms form?

This would, of course, be changing the topic of conversation for he didn't say anything about how atoms themselves form but rather he spoke of how atoms form into molecules i.e. two or more atoms combine together to form molecules.

But if you want to know how atoms formed; mainly hydrogen was made in the big bang but ...[text shortened]... en escape from exploding stars to then form nebulae, planets, etc and even form yet more stars.

Sorry, i didnt mean to change the subject but is there truth in what I heard that they (atoms) naturally want to divide and that we are not sure what holds them together?

I went to the links you gave me. Interesting reading but full of a lot of (proposes, may, suggest, may have , might have ) and more words of the sort. Definitely gave me info on how all that stuff works, but nothing definitive on how they all came about.

Getting back to your star cluster. I now hear that scientist have dicovered something called dark matter. I don't understand it but I think it is described as everything between the stars that we really can't see but they know it's there.

Originally posted by boonon
Sorry, i didnt mean to change the subject but is there truth in what I heard that they (atoms) naturally want to divide and that we are not sure what holds them together?

I went to the links you gave me. Interesting reading but full of a lot of (proposes, may, suggest, may have , might have ) and more words of the sort. Definitely gave me info on how all described as everything between the stars that we really can't see but they know it's there.

Sorry, i didnt mean to change the subject but is there truth in what I heard that they (atoms) naturally want to divide and that we are not sure what holds them together?

No.

Interesting reading but full of a lot of (proposes, may, suggest, may have , might have ) and more words of the sort.

In the science of this, there are also plenty of certainties there as well as 'almost certain' and 'probably' which you ignore here.
For example, it is CERTAIN that conditions for the formation of protocells ( abiogenesis ) existed on the early Earth.
It is CERTAIN that conditions for evolution after abiogenesis existed on the early Earth etc.
it is also highly PROBABLE ( and there is no way to get away with using twitted logic to somehow turn “PROBABLE” into “don't know” and then into “no” ) that, for example, RNA came before DNA and before proteins.
It would not be rational to have selective vision and cherry-pick and selectively see just the uncertainties in what the evidence shows just because you don't like to see nor want to believe what the evidence shows for certain.

Definitely gave me info on how all that stuff works, but nothing definitive on how they all came about.

not true. The science of it shows, for example, that the first life was definitely a protocell and that the conditions for the spontaneous ( “spontaneous” does NOT mean “random” ) formation of protocells such as the high hydrogen and carbon content of the atmosphere and liquid water was definitely all there on the early Earth and amino acids and RNA bases definitely would have spontaneously formed from the chemistry then etc.

Getting back to your star cluster. I NOW hear that scientist have dicovered something called dark matter. (my emphasis)

what do you mean by “NOW” you hear this? This is pretty old news.
At least the theory of it was made as far back as year 1933.
Unless you are over about 79 years old, this would be before you were born.

Originally posted by humy

Sorry, i didnt mean to change the subject but is there truth in what I heard that they (atoms) naturally want to divide and that we are not sure what holds them together?

No.

Interesting reading but full of a lot of (proposes, may, suggest, may have , might have ) and more words of the sort.

In the science of this, t ...[text shortened]... my emphasis) [/quote]

what do you mean by “NOW” you hear this? This is pretty old news.

Sorry but those articles do not prove to me that anything stated in them is certain. It to me is full of conclusions based on what if's and maybe's.

Is the 'no' to answer that they (atoms) do not naturally repel internally like to two north magnets would or 'no' we don't know what keeps them together?

Originally posted by boonon
Sorry but those articles do not prove to me that anything stated in them is certain. It to me is full of conclusions based on what if's and maybe's.

Is the 'no' to answer that they (atoms) do not naturally repel internally like to two north magnets would or 'no' we don't know what keeps them together?

Sorry but those articles do not prove to ME that anything stated in them is certain. (my emphsis)

that’s because you don't understand the science. You would need to first learn various sciences esp chemistry and physics like I have done before you see what is certainly the case here. Until you learn that, I am afraid you will just have to trust an expert or at least a semi-expert on the subject of science like myself.

Is the 'no' to answer that they (atoms) do not naturally repel internally like to two north magnets would or 'no' we don't know what keeps them together?

'no' to we don't know what keeps them together -we DO know what keeps them together. Putting it a bit simplistically, neutrons stick the protons together and prevent them flying apart ( actually there is a bit more to it than that but lets keep this simple ) while electrons stay in stable orbits around atoms because they can only take up certain discrete “quanta” or energy-levels.

Originally posted by humy

From what I have been studying the probability of a living cell to form by itself is next to zero.

are you talking here bout a modern living cell with all the immensely complex molecular machinery it has or are you talking here about the extremely simple protocell which would be the prelude to the evolution of more complex cells but has abs ...[text shortened]... vitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.

NO, it isn't 'chance versus intelligent design'! Modern science doesn't say that life must have started by “pure chance” or that evolution is “just chance”; both would be inevitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.

If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?

What alternative can you suggest to phrase how random selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?

Originally posted by humy

Sorry but those articles do not prove to ME that anything stated in them is certain. (my emphsis)

that’s because you don't understand the science. You would need to first learn various sciences esp chemistry and physics like I have done before you see what is certainly the case here. Until you learn that, I am afraid you will just have to t ...[text shortened]... around atoms because they can only take up certain discrete “quanta” or energy-levels.

You are right, I most definitely do not understand the science because I have never studied it.

I do however have a firm grasp of the English language.

These are a few of many like statements from your links:

‘The RNA world hypothesis proposes’

‘under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth’

‘We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened’



I surmise that these are 'experts ' or as you said, at least semi-experts. They do not sound to me that they are convinced of anything either.

Originally posted by boonon
You are right, I most definitely do not understand the science because I have never studied it.

I do however have a firm grasp of the English language.

These are a few of many like statements from your links:

‘The RNA world hypothesis proposes’

‘under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth’

‘We don't know if these chemical steps ...[text shortened]... d, at least semi-experts. They do not sound to me that they are convinced of anything either.

You do realize we are talking about a period of time a billion years in the past? And furthermore, we live on an extremely dynamic planet, repaving whole continents, and they have collided together and come apart several times in that enormous time span.

So maybe you could be a bit less judgemental towards scientists trying to piece together what little evidence they can find. It's not THAT rare but it still takes considerable skill and luck to find the right pieces to the puzzle and the intelligence to put together the data into a reasonable hypothesis.