A Chance Encounter.

[eyeshaveit]

"Things either begin by chance or by design" - Anon.

What is wrong with the above statement?

Not sure I see anything wrong with the statement... unless someone can point to another theory as to how things begin... in which case the above statement would be false as an either/or statement.

What is 'chance'?
Can chance create anything?
Has chance ever created anything?

What is a design?
Do the simplest forms of life lack a design?
How could a protocell replicate itself if it had no design?

@Francis

[Zap]

What is 'chance'?

A random event or something that occurs without without any obvious intention or cause

Can chance create anything?

"Chance" itself is an abstract notion. Can chemicals come into contact randomly by chance to form another chemical? Sure. Happens all the time

Has chance ever created anything?

Abstract notions don't work that way

What is a design?

The art or action of conceiving or producing a plan usually BEFORE it's made/produced/assembled

Do the simplest forms of life lack a design?

We'll,  dog breeders have a hand in how their results will turn out as an example of design input from a third party when it comes to a biological example, but I'd need more information. Can you be more specific here?

How could a protocell replicate itself if it had no design?

Something does not require a design process to reproduce. For example, there's bacteria in existence that only feeds exclusively on nylon. As nylon did not exist before the 1930's neither did this strain of bacteria.

However, it's postulated that a pre-existing bacteria adapted to its surroundings where only nylon was present to feed on. Now it cannot survive without it.

What conclusion does this evidence point to?

Well, it's evidence of the evolution of a species over time to be sure, but it also suggests that these "non-designed" bacteria can happily reprodce without a design process.

This species did not exist. An extant species found itself in an environment it had to adapt to in order to survive. It adapted. It multiplied. It flourished.

No 3rd party in the capacity of a designer required.

[RegalSin]

Look uhm about this planet we call Earth.

A. This is the only real planet to support life and this entire universe was created to support our lives and an intergalactic journey of Noahs Ark.

B. There is tons of life out there and the worlds powers that be wants to blanket this knowledge from you into the grave. Why? because they do not want people to have this relationship that is called peace. They want people to live in the imagination of nations and keep being followers.

Question?

Imagine if everybody woke up the same day and decided. I am not going to be used and run rings anymore for false beliefs. I am going to enjoy my freedoms and things this world has blessed me with.

About chance and why? The logic of all logic is that matter can not be created nor it can be destroyed. It can be transformed, or converted to other kinds of material. If so then where is all of this matter coming from.

Here is a funny joke. It is light that enables growth but it is light that also enables aging. Every ask yourself why does that happen.

Life is like one big ride. You have as many options that you are given.

[Chatlonut]

Thank you for the good advice I believe you. I thought it was something that made me feel good for me.

[Boots]

What is a design?

give an example of something that is NOT designed.

[eyeshaveit]

What is a design?

give an example of something that is NOT designed.

Right!

[eyeshaveit]

What is the 'second law of nature', assuming that 'self-preservation' is the first ?

[kevin]

self preservation is not the first.

that would be reproduction of your genes.

[Dexter]

Ha Ha so we are not talking Thomas Hobbes here.

[kevin]

i only know about calvin and hobbs

[Mr. Blackwell]

self preservation is not the first.

that would be reproduction of your genes.

Oh, I don't know. It could be argued that a very strong sense of self preservation is necessary in order to eventually reach the age to reproduce. Can't reproduce if you don't survive long enough to reproduce.

[kevin]

if self preservation was number one, then you would not have insects that die during mating. drone honey bees die in order to reproduce their particular sets of genes.

adult mayflies dont even have mouthparts, and die within a day of mating. self preservation is irrelevant after they mate.

certainly you have to survive in order to mate, but if you survive without mating, whatever genes led you in that direction would die out very quickly.

[8livesleft]

self preservation is not the first.

that would be reproduction of your genes.

That would be the same if genetic continuity = self-preservation. If the entity views its genes as equivalent to the self.



Sent from my LG-H860 using Tapatalk

[kevin]

sure, you can make that case, and you would be right. but the question was phrased to contrast them.

[eyeshaveit]

Think of the diversity of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. on this DNA planet. And think of the several hundred thousands of reproduction variations: from mating rituals to copulation to gestation to birth. Such a vast complexity easily boggles the mind, but the biological branches of science casually file it all under "E" for Evolution. Yet could all this sexual multiplicity and variety be one of the better proofs and evidence for creation? 

[Boots]

Think of the diversity of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. on this DNA planet. And think of the several hundred thousands of reproduction variations: from mating rituals to copulation to gestation to birth. Such a vast complexity easily boggles the mind, but the biological branches of science casually file it all under "E" for Evolution. Yet could all this sexual multiplicity and variety be one of the better proofs and evidence for creation?

no

it all behaves exactly how ToE predicts it will.

Contemplate for a moment on the mating rituals of birds--you know the crazy dance moves and stuff, we've all seen 'em.  What possible PURPOSE does doing all that serve?  It's not like having big colorful plumage is *actually* better for the bird.  All it does is serve to benefit this mating ritual that seems to be nothing but...a mating ritual.

Now contemplate for a moment on "good design."  Would you design a bird such that it is forced to waste energy & time doing a pointless dance/ritual/display in order to gain a female's attention?  I daresay, no you would not.  You'd design something that is less frivolous & more elegant (meaning consuming less energy).  This positively smacks of evolution, not of design.

There are so many other examples...the nerve in giraffes' necks; human eyes that actually see upside down but our brain tricks us into inverting the inverted image; our food hole & air hole are THE SAME HOLE...so many things that, had they been intelligently designed, would not be nearly so stupid.

[eyeshaveit]

Now contemplate for a moment on "good design."  Would you design a bird such that it is forced to waste energy & time doing a pointless dance/ritual/display in order to gain a female's attention?  I daresay, no you would not.  You'd design something that is less frivolous & more elegant (meaning consuming less energy).  This positively smacks of evolution, not of design.

Absolutely, the science and precision behind such designs is way above my pay-grade. And as I have posted before, there is an Audubon calendar on my desk, with a different bird for each day of the year. And some of these creatures are so absolutely stunning that it is not always easy to daily tear them off and consign them to the wastebasket. But the point is that the species survive through countless generations despite their energy wasting mating rituals, or is it because of such things that the breed thrives, as in to the fittest goes the reward of mating and copulating?

There are so many other examples....human eyes that actually see upside down but our brain tricks us into inverting the inverted image

But the fact is that our brain does "trick us": eyes; brain; the transmission and deflection of light; etc. all working in sync to afford us an amazing and sublime visual experience; regrettably one that we most often take for granted.

[eyeshaveit]

The naked ape:

Why did evolution favor our species with the loss of body hair; forcing us to invent clothing, or did a need for clothing come first: a need based on protection/survival; individual/cultural markings; shame/discomfort; or what?