Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Abiogenesis could not occur in this hostile environment without intelligently guided intervention.

Since abiogenesis isn't as yet understood this is another example of your fallacious reasoning, this time your personal incredulity (again).
 

The gradual development of life is entirely dependent on billions of beneficial mutations being generated by inherently destructive random forces, which would not occur without intelligently guided intervention.

The TofE provides the best explanation we have and it requires no 'intelligently guided' anything - so again you are arguing fallaciously (personal incredulity, and also an argument from ignorance since you clearly don't understand the TofE)
 

The existence of human free will aptly demonstrates that intelligently guided intervention does occur and this universe is not entirely deterministic.

Assertion: nothing more and nothing less.

Conscious awareness in humans defies any materialistic description.

Currently, although science will continue to investigate so that a naturalistic account may well be forthcoming in due course: you seem unable to recognise that 'don't know' is a reasonable holding position on some matters, and this is where you fallacious reasoning is obvious.

We are all living miracles.

Nope - we are just a current arrangement of evolved (and evolving) biology.

[Shaker]

After all this time I really don't see how it's possible to continue any sort of dialogue with somebody so utterly unable to reason, who continually throws out fallacy and assertion, fallacy and assertion, fallacy and assertion instead of argument and who appears literally incapable of taking on board anything that anybody else ever says. I just don't. Dialogue by definition is the two-way flow of communication between parties; a wall of fallacy and assertion is not a dialogue.

If even Rhiannon, one of the politest and mildest-mannered posters on here, tells you that you're living in another world, that ought to be a wake-up call that something is very badly wrong indeed.

[Alan Burns]

After all this time I really don't see how it's possible to continue any sort of dialogue with somebody so utterly unable to reason, who continually throws out fallacy and assertion, fallacy and assertion, fallacy and assertion instead of argument and who appears literally incapable of taking on board anything that anybody else ever says. I just don't. Dialogue by definition is the two-way flow of communication between parties; a wall of fallacy and assertion is not a dialogue.

If even Rhiannon, one of the politest and mildest-mannered posters on here, tells you that you're living in another world, that ought to be a wake-up call that something is very badly wrong indeed.

My last post simply pointed to the alternative logic which Len asked for.  If God does exist, there is nothing in my alternative logic which can be shown to be incorrect - it is just an alternative, and to me more viable, explanation for how we came into existence with the aid of a Creator.

My own faith is not dependent on this logic.  My faith was born in the Word of God expressed in the bible, and has been confirmed in so many ways throughout my life through my own experiences and those of many other people.  Like many other Christians I now enjoy a personal relationship with God.

[Gordon]

My last post simply pointed to the alternative logic which Len asked for.  If God does exist, there is nothing in my alternative logic which can be shown to be incorrect

You are again falling into the negative proof fallacy: the onus is on you to show it is correct and not for others to show you are incorrect.

it is just an alternative, and to me more viable, explanation for how we came into existence with the aid of a Creator.

It isn't an alternative explanation since it isn't an 'explanation' of anything unless you detail a method within which you can provide support for your claims: you seem to be dependent on your r personal incredulity, and this is insufficient.

My own faith is not dependent on this logic.

Your faith has no logic, since if it had then you could explain the various aspects of it without falling into fallacy after fallacy.

My faith was born in the Word of God expressed in the bible, and has been confirmed in so many ways throughout my life through my own experiences and those of many other people.  Like many other Christians I now enjoy a personal relationship with God.

That may be true for you but you've yet to show any reasons why others should think you are correct.

[Khatru]

Abiogenesis could not occur in this hostile environment without intelligently guided intervention.
The gradual development of life is entirely dependent on billions of beneficial mutations being generated by inherently destructive random forces, which would not occur without intelligently guided intervention.
The existence of human free will aptly demonstrates that intelligently guided intervention does occur and this universe is not entirely deterministic.
Conscious awareness in humans defies any materialistic description.
We are all living miracles.

It's funny but it's often the case that once believers have given their construct a free pass by placing it in the envisioned supernatural realm, they then become quite rigorous about what must be true in the natural world - the only world we know.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=591221;topic=11595.100;last_msg=591834

[Leonard James]

Abiogenesis could not occur in this hostile environment without intelligently guided intervention.

Since nobody knows for certain what the environmental conditions were when life began, you can't possibly claim that.

The gradual development of life is entirely dependent on billions of beneficial mutations being generated by inherently destructive random forces, which would not occur without intelligently guided intervention.

That is manifestly untrue. The process of evolution has been demonstrated as nothing more complicated than random mutations which either survive, or not, according to the environment. This has been shown to take place. Intelligent design is entirely superfluous.

The existence of human free will aptly demonstrates that intelligently guided intervention does occur and this universe is not entirely deterministic.

Free will, where it occurs, was produced by evolution, and needed no intervention.

Conscious awareness in humans defies any materialistic description. We are all living miracles.

Humans are not the only animal species to have awareness. It is a naturally evolved ability.

[wigginhall]

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=591221;topic=11595.100;last_msg=591834

Ah well, it's cut off your previous comment, which is very sharp, that theists such as AB are very vague about their supernatural entities, but become hypercritical about natural processes.   Hence, all these unsupported statements that X could not happen via 'destructive random forces', and so on, whereas if you ask, 'how does the soul connect with the brain?', ah, now we must be silent, as we are trespassing upon the holy. 

[Alan Burns]

Your faith has no logic, since if it had then you could explain the various aspects of it without falling into fallacy after fallacy.

My faith in God is the only thing which can make sense of my existence.  Nothing I have read on this forum comes anywhere near to offering a feasible alternative.

[Shaker]

Your catastrophic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution to name but one example suggests you haven't even tried to understand alternatives - least of all the real and true alternatives, which is to say, the ones based on evidence and reason.

I have to wonder if you've ever bothered to delve into science, philosophy, the philosophy of religion at all. There's no evidence of this.

[ekim]

My faith in God is the only thing which can make sense of my existence.  Nothing I have read on this forum comes anywhere near to offering a feasible alternative.

That's fair enough because it is personal to you just as somebody else who might say 'My faith in the scientific method is the only thing which can make sense of my existence' is personal to them.  However, the topic of this discussion is 'Searching for God' which is something beyond the scope of scientific exploration and so it is up to believers like you to give some indication of what it is that you have faith in so that others can recognise what it is that they can search for and how to search for it.

[Alan Burns]

The process of evolution has been demonstrated as nothing more complicated than random mutations which either survive, or not, according to the environment. This has been shown to take place.

The only things which have been shown to take place are minor fine tuning adjustments to beings which are already complex.  To extrapolate this process to postulate that it is entirely capable of generating the vast complexity of something like the human brain, in parallel with other complex organs, is pure speculation.  I am not saying that the evolutionary process of mutations and natural selection did not produce the complexity of the human brain, just that it could not have been done by random mutations alone.

[Shaker]

The only things which have been shown to take place are minor fine tuning adjustments to beings which are already complex.  To extrapolate this process to postulate that it is entirely capable of generating the vast complexity of something like the human brain, in parallel with other complex organs, is pure speculation.  I am not saying that the evolutionary process of mutations and natural selection did not produce the complexity of the human brain, just that it could not have been done by random mutations alone.

Mutations are random. Evolution is an only partly random (i.e. by definition partly non-random) process because natural selection, metaphorically speaking, selects from a random array of genetic possibilities, selection in effect occurring on the basis of "what works" in terms of survival long enough to reproduce and thus perpetuate genes.

[torridon]

The only things which have been shown to take place are minor fine tuning adjustments to beings which are already complex.  To extrapolate this process to postulate that it is entirely capable of generating the vast complexity of something like the human brain, in parallel with other complex organs, is pure speculation.  I am not saying that the evolutionary process of mutations and natural selection did not produce the complexity of the human brain, just that it could not have been done by random mutations alone.

What rubbish. You must know this is rubbish as several posters have already taken time out to explain what a naïve uninformed view of evolution this is.  There are mountains of multidisciplinary evidence out of which the theory of evolution by natural selection is formed, perhaps more than any other branch of knowledge; no way is it 'just speculation', this is yet another bogus claim on your part.

[wigginhall]

Why is the evolution of the brain considered to be so miraculous by creationists?   It's clear that nervous systems evolved a long time ago, for example, worms have nerve cords running the length of their body, along with transverse nerves.   At the head, there is often a ganglion, that is, a cluster of nerve cells.  This could be seen as a very primitive brain. 

Why is it so amazing that nervous systems should develop in complexity and size?   It's no more amazing than the development of the eye, beginning with light sensitive patches of skin. 

I suppose it's the old argument, it's complicated, therefore God. 

[Alan Burns]

Mutations are random.

Assertion!

[Shaker]

Assertion!

Actually no it isn't - that's a well (and long ago) established fact of biology.

[Alan Burns]

Why is the evolution of the brain considered to be so miraculous by creationists?   It's clear that nervous systems evolved a long time ago, for example, worms have nerve cords running the length of their body, along with transverse nerves.   At the head, there is often a ganglion, that is, a cluster of nerve cells.  This could be seen as a very primitive brain. 

And I believe that even this "primitive" brain could not have come into existence by the action of random forces alone.  I concede that there is no definitive way to prove this one way or the other, but perception of the destructive nature of random forces in this universe would make it seem highly unlikely.

[Shaker]

Why is the evolution of the brain considered to be so miraculous by creationists? It's clear that nervous systems evolved a long time ago, for example, worms have nerve cords running the length of their body, along with transverse nerves. At the head, there is often a ganglion, that is, a cluster of nerve cells.  This could be seen as a very primitive brain. 

Why is it so amazing that nervous systems should develop in complexity and size? It's no more amazing than the development of the eye, beginning with light sensitive patches of skin. 

I suppose it's the old argument, it's complicated, therefore God.

Exactly. It skips from organ to organ by the century, it seems - it used to be the eye, nowadays not so much; the brain has taken over.

[Shaker]

And I believe that even this "primitive" brain could not have come into existence by the action of random forces alone.  I concede that there is no definitive way to prove this one way or the other, but perception of the destructive nature of random forces in this universe would make it seem highly unlikely.

Why is it that today alone you've been told - yet again - (a) that evolution is a two-step process, partly random (genetic mutation) and partly non-random (natural selection), and (b) that most mutations are neutral, yet you keep reading from the same script? Are you incapable of learning or something?

[Alan Burns]

Actually no it isn't - that's a well (and long ago) established fact of biology.

There is no way to prove that any perceived mutation is generated by random forces alone.  If God is able to exert control of quantum events which have no apparent cause, there is scope for intelligently guided mutations to occur.

[Shaker]

There is no way to prove that any perceived mutation is generated by random forces alone. If God is able to exert control of quantum events which have no apparent cause, there is scope for intelligently guided mutations to occur.

Whatever this is you're banging on about now, it isn't science.

Instead of 'God' put 'a giant invisible prawn called Colin' and see how that reads.

[wigginhall]

And I believe that even this "primitive" brain could not have come into existence by the action of random forces alone.  I concede that there is no definitive way to prove this one way or the other, but perception of the destructive nature of random forces in this universe would make it seem highly unlikely.

This is gibberish.   Nobody has ever claimed that evolution proceeds purely randomly.   For example, if you look at camouflage and mimicry in animals, do you seriously believe that one species comes to look like another purely accidentally? 

I don't think you really understand how evolution works, and you are just guessing.

[Shaker]

This is gibberish.   Nobody has ever claimed that evolution proceeds purely randomly.   For example, if you look at camouflage and mimicry in animals, do you seriously believe that one species comes to look like another purely accidentally? 

I don't think you really understand how evolution works, and you are just guessing.

Now I can help you there, wiggy ...

[Leonard James]

The only things which have been shown to take place are minor fine tuning adjustments to beings which are already complex.

Of course they are, because science has only been able to address the problem in recent years, whereas evolution has been going on for millions of years. 

To extrapolate this process to postulate that it is entirely capable of generating the vast complexity of something like the human brain, in parallel with other complex organs, is pure speculation.

But extrapolating is NOT the only clue, Alan. There is further evidence to back it up ... the fossil record. We see a gradual increase in the complexity of life over millions of years, and the minor changes which can take place in a few generations pale into insignificance against the backdrop of evolutionary time.

I am not saying that the evolutionary process of mutations and natural selection did not produce the complexity of the human brain, just that it could not have been done by random mutations alone.

And you would be right, because without environmental selection of the most suitable random mutations, life would have got nowhere.

I'm afraid you are up the creek without a paddle, Alan. All the evidence for evolution is there for everyone to see, except those that refuse to accept it because of their religious conditioning. 

[wigginhall]

I was going to recommend 'Your Inner Fish' as a nice book on evolution, but then I thought that Alan would come back with 'I believe that random negative forces are unable to produce a connection between fish and humans'.