The Council of Nicea

@bigdogg said
I'm not trying to prove it. I'm just showing that the theory offers far more details than Creation / ID.

And I just stated the mechanism by which evolution works. If you missed, try re-reading my post.

They do not offer more details, it isn't even a contest. A vague notion of operational
changes in a code that directs all of the building of function and form by natural
selection is after a mutation occurs, if there is an advantage it stays, and there are
no reasons to accept that either. The beak sizes of birds they once used for an
example of change over time, it turns out that they change, but they also change
back under different conditions which come and go with the weather.

Repeating the theory isn't showing how the code that directs all of the processes
can be altered, and propagated throughout a species in a permanent way without
killing off the species since nearly all of these are deadly when they do occur.

A biological mechanism would have to mutate, causing the mutation to stay in
play and in that very same area do it again while altering a lifeform with something
while not killing it. If you buy into the common ancestor you have to accept that
and know it is needed up and down the genetic code altering the code from the
start to the finish, without breaking anything in one place because of changes in
the code somewhere else by screwing up something necessary downstream.

You have an unworkable theory if the whole process is driven by a mindless
set of changes. Evolution if true, requires more guidance for foreknowledge
then even the creation story within the code since changes would have to not
just be concerned about the species it is occurring to, but also all future life that
would be showing up later.

One last point since we are talking about creation and ID, evolution can only
affect a current species, it doesn't address or even hint at starting life at all the
first cell which is far more functionally complex than anything we build, and its
at the very beginning where the cell would have to make the instructions for
all life, including future life, because if true would have to have its foundation
laid in the original code of the first life's cell.

@kellyjay said
They do not offer more details, it isn't even a contest. A vague notion of operational
changes in a code that directs all of the building of function and form by natural
selection is after a mutation occurs, if there is an advantage it stays, and there are
no reasons to accept that either. The beak sizes of birds they once used for an
example of change over time, it turn ...[text shortened]... cause if true would have to have its foundation
laid in the original code of the first life's cell.

You sound like you are regurgitating creationist propaganda that you have found or been fed rather than sharing the fruits of your "study".

Are you proposing that the Book of Genesis, to your way of thinking, trumps the entire field and achievements of evolutionary biology?

As a gesture to demonstrate the sincerity of your curiosity can you point us to any extended rebuttals of the objections you raise?

You claim to have studied this topic, so you'll have studied both sides. Which explanation of the evolutionary perspective that you DISAGREE with do you find the hardest to counter?

@kellyjay said


One last point since we are talking about creation and ID, evolution can only
affect a current species, it doesn't address or even hint at starting life at all the
first cell which is far more functionally complex than anything we build, and its
at the very beginning where the cell would have to make the instructions for
all life, including future life, because if true would have to have its foundation
laid in the original code of the first life's cell.

You haven't the foggiest idea how genetics works. A cell does not have to contain instructions for anything but its own duplicate.

You are correct that evolution does not address how the first life form got started; you are misinformed that evolution should do. What evolution explains is speciation, variations, not origins. The origin of life is another branch of science, bio-chemistry, not evolution, not genetics. The origins of life are even simpler than cells. The origins of life are bundles of molecules. Cells with membranes and nuclei and DNA 'instructions' came later, millions of years later. Bundles of molecules come together by random shuffling of elements, no intelligence required. Organic molecules occur even in outer space, in the tails of comets; no God required.

You're confusing different branches of science and raising straw man objections to processes you don't understand.

@moonbus said
You haven't the foggiest idea how genetics works. A cell does not have to contain instructions for anything but its own duplicate.

You are correct that evolution does not address how the first life form got started; you are misinformed that evolution should do. What evolution explains is speciation, variations, not origins. The origin of life is another branch of science, ...[text shortened]... ng different branches of science and raising straw man objections to processes you don't understand.

Yes instructions for cells to do what they are programmed to do, so at conception it begins and cells do what they are programmed to do.

You think something else could happen and we would get a healthy life form? Do you think consistency in programming is required, would you want your banks computers to just add or subtract new numbers every so often randomly, without regard for your deposits or withdrawals?

You really don’t think this through!

@kellyjay said
Yes instructions for cells to do what they are programmed to do, so at conception it begins and cells do what they are programmed to do.

You think something else could happen and we would get a healthy life form? Do you think consistency in programming is required, would you want your banks computers to just add or subtract new numbers every so often randomly, without regard for your deposits or withdrawals?

You really don’t think this through!

You’re not raising a substantive issue here. The genetic copy-duplicate function works, without any evidence of supernatural causality in it. We’re here, that proves it.

@moonbus said
You’re not raising a substantive issue here. The genetic copy-duplicate function works, without any evidence of supernatural causality in it. We’re here, that proves it.

Your explanation for copying is it copies? Information driving even copying is required to do it correctly and at conception exactly what do you do there when cells become what is required, liver cells for the liver, skin cells cells and on and on.

You are stuck in attempting to simplify the highly functionally complex to make a mindless explanation seem responsible, it is not. Mindlessness is not going to do this and even with our attempts using everything at our disposal we can’t either, it is beyond us.

@kellyjay said
Your explanation for copying is it copies? Information driving even copying is required to do it correctly and at conception exactly what do you do there when cells become what is required, liver cells for the liver, skin cells cells and on and on.

You are stuck in attempting to simplify the highly functionally complex to make a mindless explanation seem responsible, it ...[text shortened]... o this and even with our attempts using everything at our disposal we can’t either, it is beyond us.

Your explanation is what ?? That God makes molecules duplicate themselves
(except when He doesn't and it's a Down's Syndrome child)?? That God makes electrons jump orbits in computer processors (except when He doesn't cuz there's a bug in the system) ??

@moonbus said
Your explanation is what ?? That God makes molecules duplicate themselves
(except when He doesn't and it's a Down's Syndrome child)?? That God makes electrons jump orbits in computer processors (except when He doesn't cuz there's a bug in the system) ??

It is good evidence that the universe and life are here by design! We are talking about everything from a charge on an electron, the force for the expansion the universe, to the formation of life, so yes. Every atom every star owes itself to the God that created and holds it all together by the power of His Word!

Having someone or something in the universe we don’t like or don’t understand take away from what is and why it is here.

@divegeester said
Do you understand how natural selection works.

Anyone know why this post I’m replying to got alerted?

@divegeester said
Anyone know why this post I’m replying to got alerted?

Yeah, just read Kelly’s post immediately above yours. God programmed it that way. God programs everything and everyone, from electrons to galaxies.

@moonbus said
Yeah, just read Kelly’s post immediately above yours. God programmed it that way. God programs everything and everyone, from electrons to galaxies.

Do you have another in mind who could set up the universe, maintain it, set up life, and maintain it in mind? You have no explanation for the informational-driven systems outside of saying, "They are informational systems, they just happen to do what they do." You have another explanation say maybe mindlessness as if that could do it, and if so, that is either by what, chance or necessity? Please explain how that happens.

@kellyjay said
Do you have another in mind who could set up the universe, maintain it, set up life, and maintain it in mind? You have no explanation for the informational-driven systems outside of saying, "They are informational systems, they just happen to do what they do." You have another explanation say maybe mindlessness as if that could do it, and if so, that is either by what, chance or necessity? Please explain how that happens.

The repeated operation of natural laws accounts for the phenomenal patterns we observe in the universe (such as the informational integrity of both cells and computers so long as physical transmission media remain intact), with a few apparent exceptions and anomalies (paranormal, psychic phenomena, etc.). The apparent exceptions and anomalies we have encountered in the past (sympathetic magic and so on) have eventually been subsumed under naturalistic explanations once we investigated them thoroughly enough to understand their material causes. We should continue to search for naturalistic causes until we have exhausted them before grasping after transcendental, supernatural, or superstituous causes.

Don't bother asking me where natural laws come from. They don't come from anywhere. They are simply given together with the universe. They are part of what it is to be a universe, just as mercy is part of what it is to be God.

Don't bother asking me again where the universe came from, I have already answered you this question umpteen times. Anyone who is prepared to accept the answer that God didn't come from anywhere, He always existed, must accept that the same answer with respect to the universe -- it did not come from anywhere, it has always existed -- is either equally valid or equally trivial.

@moonbus said
The repeated operation of natural laws accounts for the phenomenal patterns we observe in the universe (such as the informational integrity of both cells and computers so long as physical transmission media remain intact), with a few apparent exceptions and anomalies (paranormal, psychic phenomena, etc.). The apparent exceptions and anomalies we have encountered in the past ( ...[text shortened]... it did not come from anywhere, it has always existed -- is either equally valid or equally trivial.

`Don't bother asking where the laws come from is the question spanky! You don't get code without a coder, you don't get laws without a lawgiver, these things do not just happen, out of nothing.

@kellyjay said
you don't get laws without a lawgiver

The "laws of physics" are a description of the way the world around us works.

They are empirical observations. They are not analogous to "laws" being enacted by a "lawgiver". But I see what you did there.

This kind of self-serving Sunday school wordplay, on your part, is sheer sophistry and a form of circular logic.

If there is a creator entity, which there may well be, then perhaps the best description of its nature that humans have are the "laws of physics".

Your need to anthropomorphize this entity strikes me as being closer to feeble-minded groupthink than it is to insightful or genuine curiousity.

@kellyjay said
`Don't bother asking where the laws come from is the question spanky! You don't get code without a coder, you don't get laws without a lawgiver, these things do not just happen, out of nothing.

Descriptive laws are not like normative laws. Normative laws have lawgivers; descriptive laws don't. You repeatedly confuse reasons and causes; you're doing it still.