Darwinism is made up

[hackenslash]

Anyways, I was thinking

Did it hurt?  

Science or the english language has no objective way of describing "what life is"

Oh really?

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organismsâ€"plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteriaâ€"are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

-You can't describe it as you would a rock or something

I think that's been covered above.

sure you can describe parts of a creature...but really no way to say what it actually "is"

Again, covered above.

[Whitney]

I never disagreed with evolution, I just said that there is conflict in its premise outside the mantle of a designer.

Will you please enlighten us all with what the premise of evolution is?  

[hackenslash]

Science will readily agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed, yet no one seems to ask where it comes from,

Errrr, no. In fact, we have several models on the table that attempt to deal with that very question. Two apposite papers are these:

Colliding Branes In Heterotic M-Theory by Jean-Luc Jehners, Paul McFadden and Neil Turok, arXiv.org (12 February 2007) [Download from here]

Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before The Big Bang by Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul McFadden, Neil Turok & Paul J. Steinhardt, arXiv.org, 19th February 2007 [Download from here]

There are other models, not least Alan Guth's famous inflationary model:

Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to the Largest Scales by Alan Guth and David Kaiser Science 11 February 2005 [Abstract HERE.

or at least there's not a whole lot of hubbub about it and most of everybody seems fine not knowing it.

Not at all. It's an open question, and an area of active research.

I've used this argument before on another thread and there is a great disdain between what science will give to itself versus what science will allow to theology.

That might be because theology has nothing whatsoever of interest to say on such matters. Making shit up about made-up entities is not a rigorous means of finding out how the universe actually works.

I never disagreed with evolution, I just said that there is conflict in its premise outside the mantle of a designer.

Then perhaps you could elucidate that for us. I know a fair bit about evolution, and I'm unaware of any such conflict. Not only that, positing a designer fails the very first test of choosing between hypotheses, in that it constitutes an unnecessary multipliaction of entities, and rectally extracted entities at that, for which there is no justification or evidence in support.

[defendor]

What I meant by the whole energy debacle of its autonomy, is that science will readily agree upon that it never is created nor destroyed and this same definition can be applied to a God.  

The point about creationism versus evolution was that evolution only explains how.  It does not address why.  Evolution is not a cosmotic force perpetuating life.  But, as life grows and changes, we observe this and pronounce that evolution is taking place.  I have never doubted the principles by which life adapts, only the premise.

This was the idea of this topic.

that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

So somehow life is able to adapt, and the chemicals, and molecules, all the way down to the quantum level seemingly govern themselves by order and logistical tangibility.  We see this and call this evolution.  So either the molecules themselves are conscience enough to stay in order, or that there is a governing force requiring them to.  So the explanation of what we see, is tangible evidence of order and solidarity throughout the universe.  The laws of physics are observable but not imposable.  So without god, the only forces that created the universe and seemingly perpetuate it, are the laws that grew out of the creation of the universe, for the laws of physics do not exist without a universe to be applied.  So this topic has to return back to inception.  What started the universe?  If it is the laws of physics, then laws of physics existed before its own existence as the governing body of the universe.  Therefore, this is proclaiming the laws of physics (an inanimate and impersonal entity) omnipotence.

[Whitney]

the theory of evolution is not a theory about how life started...so I don't know what you are going on about.

[Will]

Abiogenesis is a set of hypothesis about the origin of life. Evolution is the slow change in organisms over time due to mutation and natural selection.

[hackenslash]

What I meant by the whole energy debacle of its autonomy, is that science will readily agree upon that it never is created nor destroyed and this same definition can be applied to a God.  

Except that when you apply the rest of the definition of god, i.e. extracted wholesale from the rectum of ignorant bronze-age goatherders, the distinction between the one, which is an evidentially supported postulate arising from paying attention to what reality is telling us about the real world, and the other, which is a vacuous blind assertion with no evidential support whatsoever, becomes readily apparent, as does the reason that science pays such drivel no attention.

The point about creationism versus evolution was that evolution only explains how.  It does not address why.

Nor will it, until such time as it is demonstrated that there is a 'why', or indeed that 'why' is even an valid question to ask.

Evolution is not a cosmotic force perpetuating life.  But, as life grows and changes, we observe this and pronounce that evolution is taking place.  I have never doubted the principles by which life adapts, only the premise.

yes, yes. You already said that. What you didn't say, despite the direct question put politely to you by Whitney, is precisely what this premise is that you object to.

This was the idea of this topic.

that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

Several things wrong with that. Firstly, random doesn't mean 'no prexisting logic' in any robust definition that I've ever come across. As for the laws that govern matter, they don't arise from the matter itself, they arise from the geometry of spacetime, as beautifully elucidated by more than 300 years of diligent scientific enquiry. Of course, you might think that they arise from the matter itself if you don't actually have any understanding whatsoever of the underlying science. Perhaps if you educated yourself with regard to what the valid science actually says...

So somehow life is able to adapt, and the chemicals, and molecules, all the way down to the quantum level seemingly govern themselves by order and logistical tangibility.

What the holy heck is 'logistical tangibility' when it's at home? I wonder if you actually know what any of those words mean? Deepity Chopra would be proud to have come up with such meaningless word-salad.

In any event, they don't govern themselves, they are governed by those principles elucidated by science.

We see this and call this evolution.  

No, we see heritability among biotic organisms, and the mechanisms which govern said heritability, and we call this evolution. We see changes in allele frequencies over the course of generations, and we call this evolution, because that's what evolution is.

So either the molecules themselves are conscience [sic] enough to stay in order, or that there is a governing force requiring them to.

There are several governing forces, and they are all conversant with the principles of organic chemistry and, ultimately, physics. Those forces are the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. These along with gravity, govern all interactions in the universe, whether involved in biological evolution or the wider operating parameters of the cosmos.

So the explanation of what we see, is tangible evidence of order and solidarity throughout the universe.  The laws of physics are observable but not imposable.

Close. The laws of physics are observations. In other words, they are mathematical descriptions of what we have observed.

So without god, the only forces that created the universe and seemingly perpetuate it, are the laws that grew out of the creation of the universe, for the laws of physics do not exist without a universe to be applied.

The problem being that it can't be demonstrated that the universe was created, or had a beginning. In reality, the universe is literally 'all that exists'. This includes any entity we might label with the appellation 'deity', which makes the idea of a creator of the universe an oxymoron. Any creator requires existence, making it a subset of the universe, meaning that it cannot be a creator of the universe.

More importantly, the inception of our cosmic expansion weren't the beginning of the physical principles that govern the universe, our cosmic expansion arose from those very principles.

So this topic has to return back to inception.  What started the universe?

Except that it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe had a start. And before you decide to cite the Big Bang theory as evidence for the beginning of the universe, that simply won't wash. Indeed, the Big Bang theory only deals with what happened after a finite time in the aftermath of the beginning of our local cosmic expansion, and has nothing to say about the beginning of that, let alone what state of the universe at large might have preceded it. If it can be demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, this will actually rule out a creator. As for the broader question, I already dealt with that in my last post, in which I presented two models for cosmic instantiation, neither of which requires a magic man.

If it is the laws of physics, then laws of physics existed before its own existence as the governing body of the universe.  Therefore, this is proclaiming the laws of physics (an inanimate and impersonal entity) omnipotence.

You still haven't demonstrated a beginning, and I don't think there are many cosmologists who think that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Indeed, Alan Guth said as much not that long ago:

So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

He goes on to say:

What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.

[defendor]

I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

[JoeBobSmith]

[LegendarySandwich]

I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

...I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Defendor,  I can usually never understand your posts. They're written in a very confusing way, and don't seem to make much sense. I can kind of grasp at what you're trying to say here, I think, but seriously, I don't get it.

[Whitney]

I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

dead on

nice post

I think you both don't know what you are talking about

evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence

Evolution isn't 'trying' to do anything...it's just a means to describe what already happened and what continues to happen in nature...

[The Magic Pudding]

I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

...I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Defendor,  I can usually never understand your posts. They're written in a very confusing way, and don't seem to make much sense. I can kind of grasp at what you're trying to say here, I think, but seriously, I don't get it.

What's wrong with ya Sandwich,

"I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence."

That is pure poetry.

[Whitney]

That is pure poetry.

[defendor]

Ha I apologize about the confusion, thank you for asking and feel free to ask no matter the problem

Evolution is only meant to answer "how life forms" not "why life forms".  So when you have something that is used to explain how, and make it answer why, you have no validity to it as a philosophy.

I think the question why? is a very valid question.  for example, Why are you arguing your point?

For example, lets say you want to go to the mall to buy a pair of shoes.  You would then drive to the mall.  When you are at the mall, someone you know says to you, "hey, why are you here?" You would not answer with "I drove here."  That simply does not make sense, although it is true you did in fact drive to the mall, it doesn't answer the question. You would answer with response to the intent, "to buy a pair of shoes."  Evolution is saying the processes by which we have life is 'by driving', but the intent remains unanswered.  So unless you are going to assume that the intent of evolution has been answered, evolution has no meaning as a philosophy.  Also, for something to have intent, it would have to have been preceded by a nonphysical entity such as a mind, or something that could conceive of logic or forethought i.e. Intelligent design. So to base the existence of life on a question that does not address the reason why seems illogical to me.

The reason that the question of intent would have to be answered, is the observable evidence of order and information.  When you have order, and you have information present in our DNA, and information of observable mathematics, etc.  you have to make the assumption that when there is information, this did not happen due to sheer probability, but by intelligence.  Nobody assumes that the Webster's dictionary came together by an explosion in a printing press.  Or that a tornado swooped over a junkyard to create the first jumbo jet.  Not saying these couldn't happen, but the statistical improbability would far outweigh the sources in which it could happen.  To take the jumbo jet example, the improbability of a jumbo jet coming together during a tornado in junk yard, is greater than the quantity of parts in the junk yard.  The statistical improbability of the enzyme coming together at random is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Even atheist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added)

I am not debating whether or not evolution is valid or whether or not creationism is valid.  As one hinted at earlier, they both can be very valid at the same time for they address different questions.  They would not contradict each other.  The only point I am trying to make, to try and clarify the perception of what evolution is meant to be and the questions it was meant to answer and gain understanding as to what the other various view points are.

[JoeBobSmith]