God caused or uncaused?

I didn't deny that they are facts. They are the evidence that is actually a result of good empericism.They are the evidence that we all interpret. They show change in species. Natural selection is a reality. I already know that.But is it devolution or evolution?Good science shows... that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is also a fact. And one of the most basic in all science. There is a need for a cell to convert raw energy into usable biological energy and that creates an insurmountable obstacle. We must assume the existence of the very systems of energy translation, as a means of constructing the system. The second law is an obstacle that runs counter to evolutionary theory entirely, but is matched by the creator solution at the philosophical level.The universe was created whole and good, and is now in the process of entropy.

omnivorous: Entropy.

omnivorous: Fallen. Fallen are we creatures I'm afraid.The moon is lodsing it's orbit. The sun is burning out. ect...It is a consistent pattern throughout nature Except! when it comes to evolutinary theory.TOE has some huge coherence isssues with basic physical law.

Omnivorous: Why are you calling them rabbits? Aren't they a new species?

Omnivorous: Thank you. A dying environment where the complex and simple alike lived together as a whole and complete family.

Omnivorous: Oh but I do Omnivorous... Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation Near the end, is the information on raw energy and snowflakes etc...

mark24: Yes...mark24: It simply the scientific method, but I would like to use my own words.Internal coherence is the logical coherence within any given philosophy or theory as you said. Almost anything can be internally coherent (ie.'The unicorn created the universe'). Worth noting, is that internal incoherence (ie. 'I do not exist') is accepted by virtually no-one.External coherence is the logical pattern (story) that the evidence tells with or without our understanding (ie. systems of facts and laws as yet undiscovered). It is worth noting that we asssume this to be the case before even attempting to understand scientifically.And when the evidence -available to all parties- matches any theory we have tested and combined coherence + or -.When we have total coherence, it moves beyond theory and suppositions to fact or law. Theories in conflict with law and fact are then ammended or discarded because they lack coherence with said laws and facts.This can be as simple as the theory that the universe is ordered. And that is a theory held long ago. The discovery of law and order has since proven that theory to be a fact. Hence the scientific enterprise.It is this combined coherence to one level or another, that I am looking at in particular.The interesting thing is... that until this combined coherence/incoherence is discovered, everyone believes that their philosophy (theory) matches the evidence. So there is another method applied by science historically, and it called the 'Inference to the best explanation'.You will find a critique of IBE here: Philosophy | The University of EdinburghI found wikipedia's explaination of IBE particularly fascinating, and I think we all know where the buzz comes from. The machinery is rolling to attempt to cover all the bases. The Ad Populum fallacy maneuver is in full swing.The fact is, IBE is historically part of our ordinary reasoning process. The last paragraph of the PDF link I gave above, sums up the difficulty for what I presume will be your position on the matter. Empericism will be acting in a revisionist mode by adopting this position strictly for the purposes of denying ID.So, I now need to show how this relates to the debate between ID and the TOE, and then move on to it's relation to the thread topic.There is a particular mystery in biological systems. One that the TOE is incapable of adressing in terms of current evidence. On this issue, the TOE is hopelessly metaphysical. It is the presence of a quaternary digital code that stores the information to build all of the parts in any given organism.And no organism has been found that deos not have this code.There is only one cause (emperically) that we see information resulting from, and that is intelligence.So everything we know in terms of evidence shows the theory of 'inference to design' to match the pattern of the evidence. If we received information with radio telescopes that was defined as a code, or even a simple signal of mathematical expresssions, we would know immediately that it originated from an intelligence (SETI).If there is some unknown cause for the formation of information we have yet to find any evidence for it. It amounts to a theory with no evidence to support it. But we have a myriad of evidence for the ability of intelligence to be the cause of information.Furthermore, to use the argument of mutation as a means of giving a cause to the pattern in DNA is futile... because you have nothing to mutate out of the starting gate. Not to mention the host of other machinery (cell walls, energy conversion factories, transporting and transcripting machines etc...) necessary for the DNA to be of any use. Neither DNA, RNA, or any proteins are able to function autonomously. And that is all based upon the evidence available today. Speculations as to alternative material explanations are purely theoretical and have no evidence whatsoever to support them. They lack combined coherence of any kind with the enidence. A material explanation is consistent with the fact that there are material explanations for many other things in the universe. But not the evidence in biological appearence.As Jonathan Wells said, 'Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest'.Even more mystifying, is that the current definition of science limits [b]scientific explanation[/]b strictly to material causes. And that is a position that is purely philosophical in terms of reasoning. There is no evidence to suggest that we must confine all things into that box. As Richard Lewontin admits, it is an a priori adherence to materialism. It is predetermining what the evidence is allowed to show in terms of testing our theories. In fact, the evidence shows quite the opposite. There is tremedous evidence of non material forces causing matter to behave according to their will.Do the physical laws have material causes, or do they cause the material to behave in a manner that reflects them?What would happen to matter without the laws that hold the atom together?Is the quantum dimension materially caused?Here is something that is completely taken for granted in much of the arena. We have this connection between mankind and the universe at large. The universe reflects incredible simplicity in terms of law and order, which results in incredible sophistication in terms of material behavior. We should expect that our minds would reflect that order also since we are a part of it. Why would anyone conclude that our perceptions run on a system counter to the very nature that supposedly gave us those perceptions to begin with? Are our minds the only thing in the universe that is bent away from the otherwise universal and simple logical order?Where else do we see order being established?In the actions of intelligent human beings who take resources and build with information they have formulated. All of it operating on the most basic principle of logic (law of non contradiction) or LNC.It's all perfectly natural and emperical. This logical (or mathematical) pattern runs our reality from top to bottom. Without LNC, nothing that has been made is made.Reality is ordered though materially it is diminishing. The laws remain the same, but the material itself is diminishing.The logic (immaterial) that the material universe is built upon and sustained by is not caused. The material is the only thing where the laws of causality apply by definition. As far as the material world is concerned, logic is the cause.And where do we find logic?Bingo! intelligence.If you say that we invented it, I say your quite right (intelligence), that's the evidence. And then I just point you to the heavens and say, 'Which came first'? Our minds cannot have created the universe that we are a part of even though some new age pantheists say just that.The reason I say logic isn't caused is because it isn't; it just is. Or as according to the Bible, God told Moses, "Tell them 'I AM' sent you". It is the law of noncontradiction. Without it, we have no science or reasoning whatsoever. We don't even have a universe. It holds all things together.And if we try to deny LNC, we only prove it, because we cannot argue for any thing, position, or concept without using it. Our thinking is utterly dependent upon Him (I mean 'it' )Now this brings me to my next point. We don't have to use ID to explain everything. Though I might argue that the universe as a whole is intelligently designed according to laws originating in wisdom and logic of God's omniscient mind, it does not mean that every system within it can be understood by this revelation. There are material causes within the system that are best understood by the mechanics that we can observe. I only remind you that mechanics is goverened by 'sovereign laws'.If we want to understand reality, we have to understand both.Dr. Wells catures the point very well: Now just between me and you mark... I don't think this is going to happen. ID is going to be defeated after an initial harvest and battle. I don't know how long it will gain acceptance, before it is defeated, but it will be defeated. Otherwise the Bible would be untrue.It will seems as though ID has given the materialsits a fatal wound, but they will prevail on material terms by shear defiance. Ultimately they will prevail only after the rapture of the church.He (mankind as a concensus) will insist that materialism be the absolute in spite of the non-material reasoning that anchors the pressuposition itself which is only philosophical. He (mankind) by Ad Populum fallacy, will create a false dichotomy between the material and the nonmaterial. He has already done so...There is an insistence that the only thing that be considered and worshiped for guidance is the creation itself (the material world) known as the Biblical metaphor, 'the beast'. By rejecting logic, they crucify their true self.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

omnivorous: I see... so life did not start with single celled organisms?

mark24But that is precisely why one theory is chosen over another. If there was no coherence, there would be no empericism.

jar: What is the cause of the natural forces you mentioned?jar: Tree rings are produced invariably by the DNA expessing itself in conjuction with the physical laws.As for the other examples, they are not information per se, but rather a result of information being expresssed. They are the patterns created by physical laws overlapping.It is the laws themselves and the DNA that is the information.

jar: As far as origin of life is concerned, yes it does. It's called abiogenesis or 'chemical evolution'. there are no higher organisms without it.The only one misrepresenting anything in this thread is you.I can't even believe you're allowed to participate in these forums. I'll ignore all future posts from you jar. Your only intent is to irritate and offend.I'm just not biting any longer.

mark24: Yes. just remember that that evidence is reached by reasoning and inference.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

never left the topic Ned...

jar: Which are in turn governed by the physical laws to which I am referring.

mark24: Both are required mark. We cannot observe without an inference to observation being meaningful. You can call it a conclusion, but it is really an assumtpion. And it underpins the entrie scientific enterprise.mark24: The elegant mathematical physical laws that are emperically shown to arise from intelligence (ourselves). The resulting universe of approximately 100 billion galaxies each with approximately 100 billion stars and their associated celestial bodies operating on those laws.The quaternary code of DNA found in all life forms that is also shown to arise form intelligence (ourselves... in the form of binary computer operating software).Logic itself is shown emperically to arise from intellignece. Therefore the presence of it in nature shows us from all of the available evidence that it is caused by intelligence.If there is an alternative theory, it does not cohere with the evidence and is therefore not evidential.