Kay17:


But again I repeat, the Big Bang is not chaos nor was the preuniverse. And neither is the Big Bang a direct cause of Life. And neither can you thread any implications of chaos to the origin of life. Hence the bolded is a moot point. You set up a cascade of assumptions nobody agreed to, and presented them up as my position.

dalaman:


Which of the scientific evidence suggests or points out that the DNA was formed by unnatural entities?

davidylan:


and those physical laws just appeared by chance right? What's the difference between believing God and believing chance? They are both one and the same - based on blind faith.

davidylan:


So by that i assume you think the preuniverse was ordered and the big bang was not a random event?

davidylan:


Which suggests it was formed by natural events?

Kay17:


Good Question.

But again, nobody said physical laws appeared by chance. So there is no need for faith nor blind faith.

Kay17:


For the Big Bang itself to have occurred, it followed a predictable course which is a demonstration of order. Therefore no chaos.

Kay17:


If all Life must be encoded by DNA codes or its like, then we can only conclude that the DNA writer himself is programmed via DNA like codes since this writer is life as well. Except you say this ex machina DNA writer is spiritual. And obviously spiritual to you will mean not physical which is really a vague definition.

UyiIredia:


Physical laws are statements by humans to describe how the universe works. As such, they have no causal power, they are simply statements that describe the universe. Note that sometimes the term 'natural laws' is used instead of 'physical laws'.

UyiIredia:

Through supernatural means. We can't know exactly how it was achieved but we can be sure that natural factors would have acted in a way contrary to how they usually do.

UyiIredia:

Then let's assume no supernatural entity made it. What's the evidence showing that natural processes can effect the DNA ?

davidylan:


So how did they appear?

davidylan:


Not only does it not make any sense... what predictable course did it take? who predicted it? How could you predict it BEFORE it happened or are you "predicting" by virtue of hindsight? In that case how can that be "predictable"? In essence, you dont know, you're guessing... all in blind faith of course.

davidylan:


This is like listening to Sarah Palin make a speech. meaningless word salad...

If life is encoded by DNA then we conclude that the DNA writer is programmed via DNA-like codes... and the writer is life? Is this the definition of circular logic or what? and you call an allusion to the spiritual vague? hilarious.

Kay17:


I am not surprised at your response because it has always been your position but God himself is conscious

Kay17:


I forgot to address the above. So what else is involved? Consciousness?!

anicheibo:
Even if a god (being complex enough to create the universe and all d life within it and exist outside of space and time) exists, it makes no case for any religion in d world. A being dat complex wont be bothered whether one sex of one specie of primate it created covered its hair or not or whether that same specie of primate got down on their knees to praise it.

Kay17:


And these statements have no connection to reality?! At least these statements are trying to describe phenomena the Universe exhibits, and these phenomena are what are regarded as physical laws. Humans might have an inaccurate picture of these physical laws, BUT they exist on their own. Uyi stop acting like human statements form legs and hands that shape reality and the behaviour of the Universe. For example, the properties of a triangle are independent from human ideas of it. The triangle is a raging example of physical laws.

Another example is causality itself. Why do we expect an effect to come after the cause, why not the effect before the cause. Yet it would be ridiculous to say causality has a causal power. I would define physical laws as the language through which the Universe expresses herself.

thehomer:


You're confusing the human description of the laws with what they actually describe. The human abstraction for the actual phenomena. You keep making the same mistake and I am no longer surprised that you do so.

thehomer:
Glad to see that you admit what your fellow believers refuse to say. If we don't know how something happened, why should we assume that it occurred by your ill defined supernatural means? That is a classic argument from ignorance.

thehomer:
The fact that natural processes do affect DNA. What exactly did this supernatural entity do and how did it do it?

Kay17:


Yes it is circular logic of your position.

Kay17:


If it was chaotic, it could as well have had the effect precede the cause. And you misunderstood 'predictable' used in my reply. i didnt mean it as a prophetic gesture rather to point out its orderly form. the bang occured and yielded a natural result.

Kay17:


I don't know their origins. i don't know when all the properties of a triangle began to exist or when causality began to exist. Or numbers etc.

UyiIredia:


The universe doesn't express itself through any language. That's just a figment of your imagination. While physical laws do describe the natural world, they are not the natural world and as such don't exist on their own. Even supposing that by physical laws you meant the physical world, your earlier statement would be circular. It would amount to nothing more than saying the universe is ordered because of the physical world.

It's bad when I have to explain your position to you, but as it is, it would have been better for you to have said that order in the universe is self-existent and uncaused.

davidylan:


Ok but you just believe by faith no?

Kay17:


Believe by faith that?!

UyiIredia:


It isn't. The inference to creation rests on two arguments.

1) The argument against the ability of natural processes to make living systems: This is based on the constraints of natural processes as observed. Coecervates, volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, sunlight and other ABIOTIC natural factors can effect mountains and naturally-occuring chemical compounds etc. They can't effect the sort of compounds seen in living things given the high risk of cross-reactions, lack of availability of starting materials etc. This is the problem of synthesis and it is evidenced by the virtual lack of biochemicals outside of living things. Furthermore, assuming biochemicals existed these natural factors lack the foresight to organize such materials into a living system. Natural factors that supposedly made life would just as quickly kill it and not resurrect it. This is the problem of organization and it is evidenced by the billions of corpses natural factors ONLY degrade and never repair.

2) The observation that intelligent agency is crucial to making systems analagous to living things and understanding them: Indeed the intelligent agency we refer to are humans. However, we isolate intelligence since it is this human property sine qua non to man's ability to make devices and understand living systems. Being human isn't enough babies are humans and so are mentally-disadvantaged persons. It is through intelligence we can make things like Velcro, pumping machines, computers, pulleys etc that are comparable to organs and systems in livings like the heart, brain etc. It is also through intelligence we can understand the systems in such living things and treat them when they are sick, modify them (as in GM foods) and incorporate some of their traits in systems we design. From this we infer a similar intelligent being created us.

As you can see, the first argument is a negative one against abiogenesis, and by extension, evolution. If creationists only used the first argument to assert that there was a God it would be an argument from ignorance. But as it is the second argument is a positive one for design or creation if you will.

This is a poor argument. Natural processes also affect man-made machines, do they make them ? To be specific, I'll need you to show natural processes that can, at least in theory, make a DNA. The evidence would be stronger if they've been observed making it, but at least we'll have a good start. A basis to discuss to plausibility of natural processes making life.

davidylan:


You make a lot of bombastic statements on the big bang... either you have evidence or you simply just believe... by faith?

davidylan:

I think you're confused. My position has been simple - how did random chaos design the DNA? You've been going round in incoherent circles ever since.

Kay17:

It appears you are dyslexic. You asked me about the Big Bang and how it being chaos created the DNA. I responded that it was not chaotic and rather orderly since physical laws prevailed. Then you asked about the origin of physical laws, which I did not know neither did I make any assertions about the origins and next you ask me these. Again I repeat, the Big BAng is not chaotic, so ask me that aGAIn AND THEN ACCUSE ME OF going in circles.

davidylan:


The problem is you have no argument and you're just going around in endless circles. I asked you how you knew that the big bang was not chaotic but ordered. What physical laws where in existence at that time? What brought those physical laws into existence? Magic?

How then was the DNA created? where biological laws also in existence at that time or was the creation of DNA simply dependent on the same magical physical laws you talk about?

Those are the simple questions... its ok to say you dont know...

Kay17:


Uyi,

I do not see any merit in your argument. You are making a general attack on human language itself. Human language is a mirror to reality, whatever I convey in language is at least my perception of reality. You saying physical laws are mere statements, whilst leaving out the fact that they mirror the world. The fact scientists keep changing assertions as to physical laws, betrays an attempt to capture reality as best as possible. So whenever I say physical laws, see them as the behaviour of the Universe.

Kay17:


An ordered Universe is such because of the behaviour of the universe.. The behaviour of the universe creates the predictability and determinacy of the Universe.

UyiIredia:


This doesn't make sense. It is as absurd as it gets when you stubbornly assert causation to physical laws which are descriptions that lack that quality.

Kay17:

Another example is causality itself. Why do we expect an effect to come after the cause, why not the effect before the cause. Yet it would be ridiculous to say causality has a causal power. I would define physical laws as the language through which the Universe expresses herself.

Kay17:


BUT neither humans nor Nature have recreated life which we have witnessed! And what is the criteria for systems analogous to living things?! Complexity?! Irreducible complexity or structural complexity? If we find any of such complexities in Nature, you would say God Did It! What you cooked up as an argument is selective reasoning.

Kay17:

What in nature would propell it to build an oil rig or an aeroplane with seats in it?!!!

Kay17:

Now imagine the absence of all physical laws or for your convenience, all physical descriptions of the Universe, would human intelligence be able to build a plane or a boat?