Theists of all shades have always comforted themselves and argued that wherever something complex exists, something else more complex must have created it. This is a fallacy born from a deduction from a false assumption.

The correct statement would be that wherever there is something complex, some other simpler processes must have evolved it.

I can always excuse the semi-literate folks who push this veiwpoint, but when such shallow and lazy copouts are held and promoted even by the seemingly cranially dextrous amongst them, whom ought to better by extending their thinking a little further, it is terribly disappointing.

I have argued severally that given the dynamic flux of everything in the universe, that particles of matter, over eons of time, can and are capable of aggregating themselves into symmetrical geometrical patterns for more efficient coagulation and distribution of energy . When particles of matter, through the dynamic oscillations of the all-pervading electromagnetic energy, aggregate themselves in this fashion, they display , at the most rudimentary levels, what we term intelligence.

The word intelligence, according to the way we understand it , can be misleading. It is important to remind ourselves that we do define intelligence from our own human vantage point. Hence we , when we look at the seemingly random activities of matter, we use our own very limited and very jaundiced notion of intelligence to judge and see everything besides us. From our own vantage point, we can never see the intelligence or intelligence actions of anti-matter, gian dwarf stars that swallow smaller planetary bodies,or super novas that annhialate entire galaxy systems.
Everything in the universe is judged from our very narrow, very deficient, very young vantage point in the universe.

This makes it possible for folks to argue with great passion, that a conscious, super intelligent , self-begotten being must have sired the universe and continues to guide it's evolution.

The main problem with this postulation is that there is no shred of evidence to support it , except for wishful thinking of those lazy thinkers.

Well, now , we are getting scientifically deduceable theories that yes indeed, the universe is capable of spawning life all on it's own, no god required.

In other words, the universe was not created by conscious life, but most likely mave have begotten, or should I say, evolved life, consciousness, sentience and intelligence all on it's own with out the help or impetus from any extraneous agent or agency.

There is a lot we do not know about the origins and mysteries of life, but it is far better to begin and continue our quest for answers from a position of uncertainty, striving to arrive at certainty , than it is to begin from a position of certainty, and then are later saddled with doubts.

As such, science, the scientific system of observation, experimentation and analysis remains our most reliable and pre-eminent arbiter of our reality.


http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

Here are some Excerpts:

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

But it does mean that “under certain conditions” where life is possible — as it is here on Earth, obviously — it is also quite probable, if not, ultimately, inevitable. Indeed, life on Earth could well have developed multiple times independently of each other, or all at once, or both. The first truly living organism could have had hundreds, perhaps thousands of siblings, all born not from a single physical parent, but from a physical system, literally pregnant with the possibility of producing life. And similar multiple births of life could have happened repeatedly at different points in time.


That also means that Earth-like planets circling other suns would have a much higher likelihood of carrying life as well. We’re fortunate to have substantial oceans as well as an atmosphere — the heat baths referred to above — but England’s theory suggests we could get life with just one of them — and even with much smaller versions, given enough time. Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600, was perhaps the first to take Copernicanism to its logical extension, speculating that stars were other suns, circled by other worlds, populated by beings like ourselves. His extreme minority view in his own time now looks better than ever, thanks to England.

If England’s theory works out, it will obviously be an epochal scientific advance. But on a lighter note, it will also be a fitting rebuke to pseudo-scientific creationists, who have long mistakenly claimed that thermodynamics disproves evolution (here, for example), the exact opposite of what England’s work is designed to show — that thermodynamics drives evolution, starting even before life itself first appears, with a physics-based logic that applies equally to living and non-living matter.


Most important in this regard is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that in any closed process, there is an increase in the total entropy (roughly speaking, a measure of disorder). The increase in disorder is the opposite of increasing order due to evolution, the creationists reason, ergo — a contradiction! Overlooking the crucial word “closed,” of course. There are various equivalent ways of stating the law, one of which is that energy cannot pass from a cooler to a warmer body without extra work being done. Ginsberg’s theorem (as in poet Allen Ginsberg) puts it like this: “You can’t win. You can’t break even. You can’t even get out of the game.” Although creationists have long mistakenly believed that evolution is a violation of the Second Law, actual scientists have not. For example, physicist Stephen G. Brush, writing for the American Physical Society in 2000, in “Creationism Versus Physical Science,” noted: “As Ludwig Boltzmann noted more than a century ago, thermodynamics correctly interpreted does not just allow Darwinian evolution, it favors it.”

this article is certainly not for the gullible religious minions, strictly for the suppurative minds.


@op - nice write up, thanks for sharing.

This is very true....everything complex that we see were shaped by 4 simple forces(gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces)

Deeply inciting.

Pure garbage...how much of it is testable?
That's why scientific community has given the NERDethal a wide berth

vooks:
Pure garbage...how much of it is testable?
That's why scientific community has given the NERDethal a wide berth

Is this an argument, or just sulking?

What do you think?

plaetton:


Is this an argument, or just sulking?

vooks:
What do you think?

I didn't see an argument, just a knee-jerk reaction intended to prevent you from contemplating the obvious implications of this development.

You are looking for arguments why is this?
How far has he gotten? Been there since jan last year

plaetton:


I didn't see an argument, just a knee-jerk reaction intended to prevent you from contemplating the obvious implications of this development.

RikoduoSennin and vooks are you two creationists?

davien:
This is very true....everything complex that we see were shaped by 4 simple forces(gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces)

Yes, This four Forces.

Please Evolutionist, tell us How did this forces originate and why do they seem to be fine-tuned to support life on Planet Earth (Their mathematical constant).

davien:
RikoduoSennin and vooks are you two creationists?

You can say that, I believe this Earth and everything in it plus everything in space did not come by chance.

RikoduoSennin:


Yes, This four Forces.

Please Evolutionist, tell us How did this forces originate and why do they seem to be fine-tuned to support life on Planet Earth (Their mathematical constant).

Well for one they are emergent properties of reality so their origin can't be pinpointed exactly...although not all are required for the universe to function..for example the weak force absence changes nothing about the universe being habitable..(read peer reviewed article below)
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.035006

And seeing that we only know of this configuration....how can you tell that the universe is fine-tuned?...And calling me an "evolutionist" is a bit immature don't you think?

Why do you care?

davien:
RikoduoSennin and vooks are you two creationists?

vooks:
Why do you care?

I'm just curious....you hang around topics like these.

A truth seeker be me

davien:
I'm just curious....you hang around topics like these.

vooks:
A truth seeker be me

Be precise please..

davien:
Well for one they are emergent properties of reality so their origin can't be pinpointed exactly...although not all are required for the universe to function..for example the weak force absence changes nothing about the universe being habitable .(read peer reviewed article below)
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.035006

I you really sure about that. Have you read other articles on this matter. Because I am of the opinion that:

If Weak Force is slightly stronger means - No Helium will have to be produced

If Weak Force is slightly weaker means- Nearly all the Hydrogen would have been converted into Helium.

Am I wrong, I hope I am wrong because if the above is right then it implies your source article above is wrong when it says Weak Force absence changes nothing.

[b] Weak Nuclear Force- the force that governs the decay of radioactive elements and the efficient thermonuclear activity of the sun.

davien:

And seeing that we only know of this configuration....how can you tell that the universe is fine-tuned?...

Well, we can because its a lot of coincidence that we have the right value/amount/Mathematical constants for life to thrive here on Earth. Eg What will have happened if

1) Gravity were stronger or weaker on Earth

2) Electromagnetism is stronger or weak both on Earth/ our Solar system

3) If Weak force is slighty weaker or stronger

4) If Strong Force is slighty stronger or weaker.

The Results of any of the about, will mean extinction for man and animals even plants.

davien:

And calling me an "evolutionist" is a bit immature don't you think?

I am sorry if I have offended you, it was not my intention. I only meant for Evolutionist- others who believe such to comment on it.

RikoduoSennin:


I you really sure about that. Have you read other articles on this matter. Because I am of the opinion that:

If Weak Force is slightly stronger means - No Helium will have to be produced

If Weak Force is slightly weaker means- Nearly all the Hydrogen would have been converted into Helium.

Am I wrong, I hope I am wrong because if the above is right then it implies your source article above is wrong when it says Weak Force absence changes nothing.

Weak Nuclear Force- the force that governs the decay of radioactive elements and the efficient thermonuclear activity of the sun.

You are very wrong....first of all you didn't read the reviewed paper and if you can show me how this paper was falsified in anyway then please do..
I said you didn't review the paper because it addressed all the issues you put up above and the "weakless universe" was calculated and simulated to contain helium..
in our universe,a collapsing gas cloud with hydrogen begins to fuse by the weak interaction p+p→D+e++νe (17) once the temperature of the core rises above about 107K.
This reaction is obviously absent in the Weakless Universe and naively appears to be a serious bottleneck to stellar ignition.However,we showed that for˜ηb 4×10−12,the synthesized elements of BBN included a large fraction of deuterium. The presence of a much higher fraction of deuterium allows collapsing clouds of hydrogen gas to skip this low,weak interaction mediated process(17)and go directly to p+D→3He+γ.
Subsequent burning occurs by the standard chains 3He+3He→4He+2p D+3He→4He+p

Well, we can because its a lot of coincidence that we have the right value/amount/Mathematical constants for life to thrive here on Earth. Eg What will have happened if

1) Gravity were stronger or weaker on Earth

2) Electromagnetism is stronger or weak both on Earth/ our Solar system

3) If Weak force is slighty weaker or stronger

4) If Strong Force is slighty stronger or weaker.

The Results of any of the about, will mean extinction for man and animals even plants.

At first glance and rudimentary thinking this appears to be correct...but lets consider the "weakless universe",at first glance and rudimentary thinking didn't you rule out helium formation and yet calculations and simulations proved it being created regardless?
The truth of the matter is that we tend to think this laws are puzzle-pieces I.e miss one and the whole picture can't be gotten..but in reality,they are just emergent properties of the universe,we can't tell if lowering or increasing one wouldn't end up changing the rest still leading back to a fully-functioning universe and cannot tell if variations of any of this laws could take place while the rest remain fixed...so in summary,if you can't demonstrate there being a must for the laws we have then you have no case..

I am sorry if I have offended you, it was not my intention. I only meant for Evolutionist- others who believe such to comment on it.

lol,I understand .
Please do read on the peer reviewed article on the "weakless universe" or google the for pdf format.

@ plaetton: Jeremy England's work does little or nothing to creationist arguments. First up, there's nothing particularly new about Jeremy England's work. Ilya Prigorgine suggested something of that nature and even got a Nobel prize for it. His thesis was that disordered systems could sometimes give rise to order and he believed this could explain OOL and evolution.

Furthermore, Jeremy's (like Prigorgine before) misunderstands and ignores the limits of natural processes. Jeremy is correct in noting that physical systems order themselves into structures to dissipate energy. However this doesn't apply to life which engages in energy conversion and given the specifity of energy life requires in the form of its food. Dissipative structures tend to be relatively simple eg bubbles on boiling water, swirling patterns in Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction etc so they are quickly made. Life being complex and much slower to effect will be a very inefficient as dissipative structures especially since life tends to store energy.

Finally, thermodynamics disfavors evolution since increased energy invariably results in increased entropy (or disorder). This fact is obvious in how the scattering of uranium atoms is what gives rise to nuclear power or how increased heat burns through various materials leaving solids as liquids, liquids as gases and expanding gases further. Therefore there's no way energy from the sun could explain life on earth. In fact, if the idea that more energy drives more evolution were true then thousands of years of cremation of human corpses should have evolved something new. It hasn't, but it has left lots of ashes.

davien:
This is very true....everything complex that we see were shaped by 4 simple forces(gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces)

this article is also based on the assumptions of evolution and that an arrangement of particles of matter dubs life. It is based on the assumption that life is primitive and can be achieved by a mere assortment of random processes. It is based on the assumption that eons of time have passed for life itself to "evolve". This author of this thread also assumes that intelligence is a function of order, whereas it is ordinary self-proclaimed usual logical reasoning that order is a function of intelligence.


Above all, this article, and all its idiot.ic assumptions is geared against God, the creator. The people behind this have always had one agenda, and that is to remove God from the mix and thereby eradicate relationship with him. It is clearly stated therein:

plaetton: Well, now , we are getting scientifically deduceable theories that yes indeed, the universe is capable of spawning life all on it's own, no god required...

These guys and the foolish others who follow them blindly make stupiid assumptions of their own, and go about pushing with all their might making "theories" and seeking evidence to purport their own worldview of godlessness and futility. Persecuting others who hold on to other views(like labelling them as cults) and receiving the masses by labelling their views as "Science"(quite horrible).

Yes. Those who subscribe to this nonsense are of suppurative minds while those who do not are mindless religious minions. I laugh.

The universe spawn itself, there's no beginning or end to it and there's nothing to suggests otherwise
Btw apart from Islam and christianity, no other group of people reject the idea

Joshthefirst:
this article is also based on the assumptions of evolution and that an arrangement of particles of matter dubs life. It is based on the assumption that life is primitive and can be achieved by a mere assortment of random processes. It is based on the assumption that eons of time have passed for life itself to "evolve". This author of this thread also assumes that intelligence is a function of order, whereas it is ordinary self-proclaimed usual logical reasoning that order is a function of intelligence.

Joshthefirst its been a while...have you had the chance to go to a desert and observe sand dunes?...They look very orderly and yet no intelligence stacked them up(unless you term "wind" an intelligence) and then look at diamonds....they appear pretty orderly at first glance...but pick up a microscope to observe them it looks chaotic(infact this method is used to verify the authenticity of rubies and diamonds,a genuine diamond is internally chaotic)...
And does it matter who wrote the article?...would he be automatically wrong on everything he says,simply because he's(to you) "an evolutionist"

Above all, this article, and all its idiot.ic assumptions is geared against God, the creator. The people behind this have always had one agenda, and that is to remove God from the mix and thereby eradicate relationship with him. It is clearly stated therein:

You're absolutely free to believe there's a magical "bob the builder" or genie,I'll totally support that.
But when you try to stop scientific progress or shove it into the public,simply because you're too insecure towards your beliefs,then we have a problem...

These guys and the foolish others who follow them blindly make stupiid assumptions of their own, and go about pushing with all their might making "theories" and seeking evidence to purport their own worldview of godlessness and futility. Persecuting others who hold on to other views(like labelling them as cults) and receiving the masses by labelling their views as "Science"(quite horrible).

Yes. Those who subscribe to this nonsense are of suppurative minds while those who do not are mindless religious minions. I laugh.

Is this what creationism drives you towards, rejection of science simply because it's secular?

macof:
The universe spawn itself, there's no beginning or end to it and there's nothing to suggests otherwise
Btw apart from Islam and christianity, no other group of people reject the idea

exactly, and those are the only religions that are causing problems on our planet

davien:
Joshthefirst its been a while...have you had the chance to go to a desert and observe sand dunes?...They look very orderly and yet no intelligence stacked them up(unless you term "wind" an intelligence) and then look at diamonds....they appear pretty orderly at first glance...but pick up a microscope to observe them it looks chaotic(infact this method is used to verify the authenticity of rubies and diamonds,a genuine diamond is internally chaotic)...
And does it matter who wrote the article?...would he be automatically wrong on everything he says,simply because he's(to you) "an evolutionist"
You're absolutely free to believe there's a magical "bob the builder" or genie,I'll totally support that.
But when you try to stop scientific progress or shove it into the public,simply because you're too insecure towards your beliefs,then we have a problem...

Is this what creationism drives you towards, rejection of science simply because it's secular?

no. This is what secular evolutionist fundamentalism drives you towards. The redefinition of science to your benefit. hijacking of the word science to fit your own set of ideals and foolish boundaries. You are the one who rejects scientific data and findings that disturb you or point to a creator

Joshthefirst:
no. This is what secular evolutionist fundamentalism drives you towards. The redefinition of science to your benefit. hijacking of the word science to fit your own set of ideals and foolish boundaries. You are the one who rejects scientific data and findings that disturb you or point to a creator

now you're sounding like ken ham.....
Science is by definition methodological naturalism....

davien:
now you're sounding like ken ham.....
Science is by definition methodological naturalism....

yes. But you brand your anti-religious anti-God and basically anti-Christian dogma and nihilistic worldview as science or science based. That, my good man, is very wrong, deceiving and manipulative. Most people now think that science favours atheism and it's minions. A lie of course. They forget that the very masters of old who laid the foundation for the scientific method were godly men. They forget that there are scientists even now, who are godly men.

These anti-Godists carry their evil agenda and seek to deceive people like you by pretending that their views are supported by science. A lie. A foolish and blatant lie. The truth is that these people don't have any answers. They only seek to remove God from the mix by declaring that science is against him, or declaring that science implies a creator does not exist.

Joshthefirst:
yes. But you brand your anti-religious anti-God and basically anti-Christian dogma and nihilistic worldview as science or science based. That, my good man, is very wrong, deceiving and manipulative. Most people now think that science favours atheism and it's minions. A lie of course. They forget that the very masters of old who laid the foundation for the scientific method were godly men. They forget that there are scientists even now, who are godly men.

Whoa someone subscribed to too much "answersingenesis"
Science is entirely objective,religion isn't....it doesn't matter if science were nurtured by Arabs,jews,christians etc...
And it says nothing about unfalsifiable beings like unicorns,fairies etc
Although its findings goes against various mythologies...for example hindu mythology states the earth is on the back of a giant turtle....we've falsified this completely by circumnavigation and apparent images of the earth from space...
Just the same way it goes against 6,000 year old creation myths..

These anti-Godists carry their evil agenda and seek to deceive people l like you by pretending that their views are supported by science. A lie. A foolish and blatant lie. The truth is that these people don't have any answers. They only seek to remove God from the mix by declaring that science is against him, or declaring that science implies a creator does not exist.

I really don't know what to say about this....to sum it up in two words.. fractal wrongness

davien:
Whoa someone subscribed to too much "answersingenesis"
Science is entirely objective,religion isn't....it doesn't matter if science were nurtured by Arabs,jews,christians etc...
And it says nothing about unfalsifiable beings like unicorns,fairies etc
Although its findings goes against various mythologies...for example hindu mythology states the earth is on the back of a giant turtle....we've falsified this completely by circumnavigation and apparent images of the earth from space...
Just the same way it goes against 6,000 year old creation myths..
I really don't know what to say about this....to sum it up in two words.. fractal wrongness

please state how sciences gives false credence to any biblical issue.

Don't worry. I don't need Answersingenesis to see through the delusion that holds you captive.

Science is entirely objective. But unfortunately you're deceiving yourself if you think science backs you up in your anti-Godism