Inherent Function or Intelligent Design?

And did something that always was create us or has it just been busy being

 

Good observation Evangelical Atheist. You're right. If we assume that something always was-- that something must be eternal by definition.

What part of nature is consistent with eternality?

 

As it appears right now, it's existence.

 

Present existence is different than eternal existance; I exist right now in the present, but I'm not eternal.

 

You asked,
"What part of nature is consistent with eternality?"

My reply is, it's existence. This goes back to the answer being in the question, or are you trying to trigger a different type of view?

 

He doesn't see the indiscriminate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMUHkz5nx8g"]Attack of the Sun - YouTube

 

surely if it was entirely chaotic it would be impossible to make accurate predictions like this.

 

I didn't watch the video.

The surface of the sun is part of the geography of the sun. Sunspot activity they say is cyclical. The sun has a system of planets orbiting around it. the sun itself is part of a system of sun systems.

The reason I say your argument is not lucid is that you come out atheist, but argue for a supernatural condition called chaos. Supernatural, not conforming to the laws of nature.

 

Chaos to me is just random, me being atheist, you should know that's what I mean. I've said before, patterns emerge from chaos/random energy. I can't be bothered to play semantics with you. I do my best to interpret theist definitions of their God but people like you'd rather play word games than acknowledge what I'm really saying. If I ever said that I thought solar mass ejections were discriminating then I hope someone would get me some mental help!

 

Inherant FUNCTION of intelligent design=fleece the suckers. Fleece'em real good.








And yes,I changed or to of.

 

So chaos is in your mind is a state of utter disorder. The way you present it is that utter disorder is the natural state of things from which emerge "patterns".

That doesn't account for replication/reproduction or evolution from simple to more complex

So once a pattern is formed why does it repeat itself?

Semantics is the study of meaning. Do you mean you can't be bothered to explain what you mean, or how it is theoretically possible for self replicating order to emerge from chaos?

I don't understand why you would be concerned to interpret theist definitions if you are an atheist.

The term, "people like you" conveys only an allusion to private information. I don't know what people like you denotes. I am not trying to play games but rather examine deeply your premises. I don't think you've considered some things in coming to your conclusions.

Solar mass ejections occur where the conditions of solar mass ejections are met. You are taking a phenomena and treating it as though it were isolated from other phenomena.

 

Funny.. It's usually the atheists who attach importance to nothing. Atheist physicist Victor Stenger and Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek explain that nothing tends to be unstable, tending to undergo a spontaneous transition into something. I must say it's hard for me to get my mind around that. Nothing is, as Aristotle puts it, what rocks dream about: nada, zilch. How can nada or zilch be stable or unstable? Stenger goes on to calculate the probability that there be something rather than nothing at 60%. Of course he is defining "nothing" as an absence of particles. That leaves space, time, electromagnetic and gravitational fields--hardly nothing. God is also, as the Jewish mystics say, "not nothing". Atheist physicist Lawrence Kraus pares it down even further, but his mathematical models, however elegant, have yet to be empirically validated. Interestingly, a lot of the discussion seems to be directed at the Christian claim that God made the universe ex nihlo.(from nothing) There's no support for that in Genesis. In the beginning, "the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkenss, and the power of God was moving over the water." Christian theologians came up with the ex nihlo idea, but Jewish scholars didn't go along.

 

Wow, I wasn't even talking about patterns that replicate themselves. I was talking basic energy to matter and now you want me to explain the whole origins of life that scientific geniuses are still working the details out on? I'm no genius but I'll try a basic explanation...

Well, first off, patterns repeat. In a universe of infinite disorder, a few patterns emerge from basic intrinsic laws - quantum physics and such. Of course only the patterns possible come to exist. Do we know and understand the full nature of space and quantum physics? No, we do not.

Next, complex patterns are more fragile than simple patterns. Matter is more fragile than energy, molecules are more fragile than atoms. Their existence is finite and subject to destruction, deterioration, entropy and what not.

Long before self replication, there was molecular bonds. Through random interaction molecule A contacts molecule B and a bond is possible just by nature of their molecular-atomic structures. Remember molecules are fragile and finite but by chance the bond of molecule A&B help them last longer than they would as individual molecules. The longer these complex molecules exist the more interactions they have with other molecules, increasing the chance of new more complex bonds.

Self replication of these primordial molecules is basically a function of long chain bonds. Long chains grow from molecular bonds from interaction with others. Chains break apart naturally at a certain point and the ends of the broken chain molecules reattach to other molecules and continue to grow until they break apart again, and again, and again... further interactions evolve further complexity. That's about as detailed as I'm going to get.

That's it, intrinsic, natural, unconscious processes involving astronomical numbers and basic intrinsic laws.

Now, lets watch a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE"]3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy - YouTube

 

Here is where your explanation is problematic. Infinite disorder and basic intrinsic laws represent a contradiction in terms. Where the one is, infinite disorder, the other is not, basic intrinsic laws.

I appreciate your effort but details are irrelevant until we get past the first self contradictory premise.

This statement is a far cry from a universe of infinite disorder. It appears that you substituted the word unconscious for the word chaotic or disordered in this version.

How do you measure consciousness, where does it begin and where does it end?

 

No, you are confusing infinite disorder with absolute disorder. We observe both, both are empirical and factual as night and day.

 

Infinite meaning immeasurable? If it is immeasurable then how can we call it disorder?
Just because we don't know how to measure something does not mean it is disordered and it can only be disordered from a definite perspective.

How is absolute disorder different from infinite disorder?

By we observe both, I gather you mean infinite disorder and basic intrinsic laws, or do you mean we see both infinite disorder and absolute disorder?

Could you mean by infinite disorder, a state of unlimited probability? If you did, it would make more sense.

 

As I looked back, I was wondering where I got that stuff. I was a little buzzed. My appoligies for being off topic.

Yes. I do.

 

Too bad it isn't that easy. The truth is science doesn't know how life began, and any claim otherwise simply isn't true. The simplisitic model presented in the video doesn't work much better than the Kirk Cameron lead in. The odds of producing the proteins alone, let alone the nucleic acids, are something like 10 to the 40,000 power. For life to emerge spontaneously, we need both the hardware (the proteins) and the encoded software (the mRNA). The process by which encoded software emerged can't be explained by science at the present time, although , of course, there are speculative theories. The "RNA world" hypothesis has been criticized because water breaks up the nucleic acid polymers and peptides necessary to sustain the fragile nucleic acid chains before they can acquire the requisite numbers to act as enzymes. And the fact that genes coding for RNA replication differ considerably in the different domains of life indicates that RNA replication was refined after the common ancestor made its debut. There are alternative possibilities. The self-replicating protein fragments responsible for Mad Cow disease might be relics of primitive life based only on proteins. Physicist Freeman Dyson posits two origins for life, one for protein metabolism and another for replication, which somehow got together in happy symbiosis, or parasitism. Cairns-Smith believes that clay crystals, not RNA or DNA, might have been the storage mechanism for the genetic information. And it is possible that self-organizing autocatalytic processes like the ones identified by biophysicist Stuart Kaufman might have been involved. We also can't rule out the possibility that life came to us from outer space. Maybe it was some ET kid's science project or ant farm. Anyhow, to claim that origin of life can be "made easy" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. And your own explanation based on "intrinsic, natural, unconscious processes involving astronomical numbers and basic intrinsic laws" sounds a lot like Hoyle's proverbial 747 being assembled by a junkyard tornado.

 

*sigh* why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and hum a soothing tune?

MMM MMM MMM MMM...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUqpnHvua8"]Crash Test Dummies - MMM MMM MMM MMM (Official Music Video) - YouTube