Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Yes nature is marvellous. It's no wonder people are tempted to believe an intelligent being arranged it all.

Gravity has a nice little equation F=Gm1m2 / r2. Very positive and straight to the point.

Evolution on the other hand, hangs and depends on random mutation, by comparison, it seems vague and aimless. Random mutation must happen first, before natural selection can select any advantage.

Sy Borg's link

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog
Step 1, mutation, is random. Mutations don’t arise in order to fill a current “need” of the organism. They are blind and they lack foresight, so they also can’t anticipate future needs. In this sense, they can reasonably be described as random.
They can also be thought of as “random” in the sense that they are not automatically helpful; a new mutation may turn out to be beneficial or harmful or neutral.

Random mutation is Not a sound argument to base the complexity of a trillion plus cells on. The larger the unit, the chance of error becomes greater.

Intelligent design makes more sense.

But mutations are errors.

[EricPH]

Yes nature is marvellous. It's no wonder people are tempted to believe an intelligent being arranged it all.

Gravity has a nice little equation F=Gm1m2 / r2. Very positive and straight to the point.

Evolution on the other hand, hangs and depends on random mutation, by comparison, it seems vague and aimless. Random mutation must happen first, before natural selection can select any advantage.

Sy Borg's link

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog
Step 1, mutation, is random. Mutations don’t arise in order to fill a current “need” of the organism. They are blind and they lack foresight, so they also can’t anticipate future needs. In this sense, they can reasonably be described as random.
They can also be thought of as “random” in the sense that they are not automatically helpful; a new mutation may turn out to be beneficial or harmful or neutral.

Random mutation is Not a sound argument to base the complexity of a trillion plus cells on. The larger the unit, the chance of error becomes greater.

Intelligent design makes more sense.

But mutations are errors.

Exactly, and the result of compounding errors through random mutation, leads to the life we see today. Sorry, Belindi, I can't see how nature could use blind random mutation to its advantage. It makes more sense to me, that every species was created according to its kind, then left to evolve. We know we can influence traits when we breed doge, horses etc. But these traits already exist, in order for them to change.

Come up with a system that can create and organise a trillion cells, that never existed before.

[Belindi]

Cells of the same sort of tissue stick together and form specialised organs or different shapes and sizes. Cells of different sorts of tissue can't stick together.

Belindi, it sounds very easy when you say it like that, assembling and sorting a trillion cells in some kind of order is a mammoth task. Sorting a trillion cells into 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons, each with a unique size and shape. Plus all the organs, skin nerves etc. And at the rate of a hundred million cells every hour for a year.

We know what life looks like today, we had to get here somehow. The biggest challenge for blind mutation is to go from single cell life to life with a trillion plus cells. This probably happens in a time frame of a few hundred million years, but probably less than a billion.

Can you imagine a trillion Lego bricks in one big heap, each with a an individual code, you would have to send a drone high up to take a photo of them.

Natural selection affects not only cells but also tissues and organs.

Random mutation is needed before natural selection can work. Mutation would have to blindly put in a place a system that could organise a hundred million cells per hour. Starting from 3.7 million years ago, there are no organising Hox gene, there are no other genetic organising systems in place. For about three billion years there was not the need for any mutations that would become vertebrae, jaws, fins, rib cages etc, and life is happy.

I expect you agree that genes mutate. Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

[EricPH]

I expect you agree that genes mutate. Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Whatever the reality is, I believe that God is in control. If we had been created perfectly, then we would not die. Anything that leads to death is the greatest imperfection. However, if God is in control, he then has the power to raise us to a greater good life after death.

We look around at nature in awe today, and we would love to know the truth of how we arrived here.

[Belindi]

I expect you agree that genes mutate. Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Whatever the reality is, I believe that God is in control. If we had been created perfectly, then we would not die. Anything that leads to death is the greatest imperfection. However, if God is in control, he then has the power to raise us to a greater good life after death.

We look around at nature in awe today, and we would love to know the truth of how we arrived here.

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

[EricPH]

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

I believe that God created all that is seen and unseen, so if genes mutate, it was in God's plan.

[Belindi]

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

I believe that God created all that is seen and unseen, so if genes mutate, it was in God's plan.

There is no difference between Nature's plan and God's plan. God and Nature are the same.

[EricPH]

There is no difference between Nature's plan and God's plan. God and Nature are the same.

I am not sure how you can say nature has a plan. Random mutation says that nature has no plan, no direction and no goals.

mutation, is random. Mutations don’t arise in order to fill a current “need” of the organism. They are blind and they lack foresight, so they also can’t anticipate future needs. In this sense, they can reasonably be described as random.
They can also be thought of as “random” in the sense that they are not automatically helpful; a new mutation may turn out to be beneficial or harmful or neutral.

How can you organise a trillion cells in a year, with no direction and no plan?

God created us with a purpose and a plan, he gave us scriptures to follow.

[Charlemagne]

I expect you agree that genes mutate. Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Whatever the reality is, I believe that God is in control. If we had been created perfectly, then we would not die. Anything that leads to death is the greatest imperfection. However, if God is in control, he then has the power to raise us to a greater good life after death.

We look around at nature in awe today, and we would love to know the truth of how we arrived here.

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Yes. God made them so that they could mutate.

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

[Belindi]

I expect you agree that genes mutate. Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Whatever the reality is, I believe that God is in control. If we had been created perfectly, then we would not die. Anything that leads to death is the greatest imperfection. However, if God is in control, he then has the power to raise us to a greater good life after death.

We look around at nature in awe today, and we would love to know the truth of how we arrived here.

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Yes. God made them so that they could mutate.

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

So the difference between God and Nature is that God intended to make Nature so, whereas Nature is just what Nature does.

The problem with God's intention is that Nature is obviously too cruel to be the intention of a good deity.

[Sculptor1]

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

What a dead ignorant opinion.
No wonder Christianity set bak the path and progress of science so much with such a blinkered ideology.

[Charlemagne]

Whatever the reality is, I believe that God is in control. If we had been created perfectly, then we would not die. Anything that leads to death is the greatest imperfection. However, if God is in control, he then has the power to raise us to a greater good life after death.

We look around at nature in awe today, and we would love to know the truth of how we arrived here.

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Yes. God made them so that they could mutate.

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

So the difference between God and Nature is that God intended to make Nature so, whereas Nature is just what Nature does.

The problem with God's intention is that Nature is obviously too cruel to be the intention of a good deity.

Cruelty implies intention. How does nature intend to be cruel?

[Charlemagne]

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

What a dead ignorant opinion.
No wonder Christianity set bak the path and progress of science so much with such a blinkered ideology.

You appear to be a victim of dead or at least moribund scientism. Good luck with that.

[Sculptor1]

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

What a dead ignorant opinion.
No wonder Christianity set back the path and progress of science so much with such a blinkered ideology.

You appear to be a victim of dead or at least moribund scientism. Good luck with that.

With knowledge no luck is necessary.

Science makes planes and buildings.
Religion uses planes to fly into buildings.

Religion denied the extent of the universe.
Science sends probes to prove it is vast.

Religion blames evil spirits and sin.
Science gets on with medicine and cures.

So I'll take scientism if that is what you like to call it.
It's obvious that religion is dead, ossified and moribund.

[Belindi]

Do you think that God makes genes mutate?

Yes. God made them so that they could mutate.

Thomas Aquinas, 13th century theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship." Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

So the difference between God and Nature is that God intended to make Nature so, whereas Nature is just what Nature does.

The problem with God's intention is that Nature is obviously too cruel to be the intention of a good deity.

Cruelty implies intention. How does nature intend to be cruel?

Nature is cruel without intending to be cruel.
Many cruel men do not intend to be cruel, as many cruel men are not sadistic .
You can't eliminate the the theists' problem of evil by changing the meanings of words.