Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

a reply to: Phantom423

All evolutionary science needs one miracle or magic process to substantiate the theory.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Saloon

Also, these countries that are chastised for being highly religious, remind me how current trends reflect the benefits of those belief systems? By every metric you can measure, somewhere like the UAE is a far more desirable place to live than somewhere "progressive" like London. I challenge anyone who's been to Dubai to somehow claim it's not a shining example of modern civilization. It's a comparative Utopia when compared to virtually any Western City.

Great observation and I'm of the opinion that degrees of sin might
be a strong correlation regarding utopianism vs. less desirable places.
If a population conducts itself more spiritually avoiding sin I believe
it makes a dramatic difference.

Some might say more blessed.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

All evolutionary science needs one miracle or magic process to substantiate the theory.

Really? Please post a single scientific paper that includes one miracle or magic process to make it work.
And don't forget to post the equation that includes the terms for miracle and magic process. Einstein would
be interested.

a reply to: Grenade

Here's a screenshot of the most famous equations in history. Please show me where the miracle or magic process is included:

a reply to: Grenade

Here's a screenshot of the mathematics of evolutionary mutation. Please point out the miracle or magic process in this set of equations:

a reply to: Phantom423

Show me a scientific paper which defines and replicates the process of natural re-generation of DNA, specifically how natural physical processes create a chain of encoded markers which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick. This chain of information which creates physical conscious beings contains perfectly organised information in a natural language, which has more characters than you'll find in 10 copies of the encyclopedia Britannica despite existing in a seemingly entropic universe.

As i've said before, it's like expecting optimus prime to manifest from a scrapyard should you pile enough electronics and metals randomly.. The universe was created to be seen, we are the manifested eyes of the universe trying to understand and appreciate it's creation.

a reply to: Phantom423

Here's a screenshot of the most famous equations in history. Please show me where the miracle or magic process is included:

Just a question how many of those equasions have caused organic
material to become conscious and begin breathing.

a reply to: Phantom423

The miracle is that you have a perfect mathematical formula for it's creation. The answer existed and was discovered, meaning the encoding was done before the observation.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Show me a scientific paper which defines and replicates the process of natural re-generation of DNA, specifically how natural physical processes create a chain of encoded markers which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick. This chain of information which creates physical conscious beings contains perfectly organised information in a natural language, which has more characters than you'll find in 10 copies of the encyclopedia Britannica despite existing in a seemingly entropic universe.

As i've said before, it's like expecting optimus prime to manifest from a scrapyard should you pile enough electronics and metals randomly.. The universe was created to be seen, we are the manifested eyes of the universe trying to understand and appreciate it's creation.

Invest in a reputable biochemistry and molecular biology textbook. It's all in there.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: Phantom423

Here's a screenshot of the most famous equations in history. Please show me where the miracle or magic process is included:

Just a question how many of those equasions have caused organic
material to become conscious and begin breathing.

All of them.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Darwin didn't try and explain the beginning of life, His work was on the evolution of life.

This may surprise some people, but when Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”⁠ (1) But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form. Terminologies that have been used for it are:

- chemical evolution ("the chemical evolution theory of life" was the term Haldane and Oparin used)
- molecular evolution (I think I just read this one in one of the articles about the building blocks of life in space)
- organic evolution (as in the evolution of what they call "organic molecules")
- and of course, the most common one, abiogenesis

1. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

The miracle is that you have a perfect mathematical formula for it's creation. The answer existed and was discovered, meaning the encoding was done before the observation.

Prove it. What is the equation for the perfect mathematical formula?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Darwin didn't try and explain the beginning of life, His work was on the evolution of life.

This may surprise some people, but when Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”⁠ (1) But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form. Terminologies that have been used for it are:

- chemical evolution ("the chemical evolution theory of life" was the term Haldane and Oparin used)
- molecular evolution (I think I just read this one in one of the articles about the building blocks of life in space, I think it was the interstellar clouds one)
- organic evolution (as in the evolution of what they call "organic molecules", in the direction of the first life form)
- and of course, the most common one, abiogenesis

1. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450.

That surprises NO ONE because Darwin talked about developmental evolution, not abiogenesis. You got it wrong - as per usual.

a reply to: Phantom423

Of the scientists who discovered these patterns you reference in nature, how many of them attributed these connections to a supreme being? When your scholars come to the conclusion that an intelligent force is behind the structure of reality you should probably listen. The vast majority of our current understanding of physics was pioneered by our religious leaders.

No imminent scientist will deny the existence of God. In the words of Newton: "Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

a reply to: Phantom423

The only manifestation or the manipulation of reality which i've ever observed was that of an intelligent being. Anything else is a lifeless act of nature bound by the constraints of entropy. Design is always likely to be the result of intelligence. When i walk along a beach and see a sandcastle i never assume it was the wind blowing in a 1 in a billion chance to create such a structure.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Of the scientists who discovered these patterns you reference in nature, how many of them attributed these connections to a supreme being? When your scholars come to the conclusion that an intelligent force is behind the structure of reality you should probably listen. The vast majority of our current understanding of physics was pioneered by our religious leaders.

No imminent scientist will deny the existence of God. In the words of Newton: "Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

Science and scientists can say nothing about a god or supernatural creatures. That's because science is about two thing: discovery and evidence. There's no evidence for supernatural creatures of any sort, therefore, science can say nothing about them. What scientists believe as a philosophy but cannot be brought into a laboratory does not constitute science. It's personal belief.

a reply to: Phantom423

I didn't get the quote wrong. And whether or not it was going to surprise anyone was not something I was trying to make a prediction about. It's just a potentiality, I have no idea who here is aware of that quote from The Origin of Species. I was mildly surprised the first time I realized it was in there (I didn't expect it to be in his book on evolution). I was not surprised that he said it.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

The only manifestation or the manipulation of reality which i've ever observed was that of an intelligent being. Anything else is a lifeless act of nature bound by the constraints of entropy. Design is always likely to be the result of intelligence. When i walk along a beach and see a sandcastle i never assume it was the wind blowing in a 1 in a billion chance to create such a structure.

If you observed some supernatural creature manipulating nature, then write it up and bring it into a lab for analysis. Until you have evidence for the creature, it's mere speculation.

Airplanes fly because of Bernoulli developed the equation for pressure under the wings. Would you get into an airplane if it wasn't tested and hard evidence analyzed?

Aspirin, or salicylic acid, was an analgesic derived from the willow bark. Would you take an aspirin if it wasn't tested in the lab with examples of its effectiveness?

Science doesn't develop theories without evidence. If there's no evidence to analyze, then there's no science.

No evidence = no science.

a reply to: Phantom423

I've provided you many examples of why nature is chaotic and design is intelligent.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

I've provided you many examples of why nature is chaotic and design is intelligent.

Haven't seen one yet that can be analyzed in a laboratory. Post one.