Purposeful Design or Chanced Processes?

[theStudent]

Evidence of God is everywhere.
The Bible states that truth clearly, when it tells us, "The hearing ear and the seeing eye — Jehovah has made both of them."

The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.
The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.
Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.
The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.

The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is remarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.

The outer ear is precisely designed with a specially designed structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear.

How the ear works


How the hearing works
[youtube][/youtube]

How your ear works - Inside the Human Body: Building Your Brain - BBC One
[youtube][/youtube]

The eye is a highly efficient, self-adjusting “camera� that transmits impulses to the brain, where the object focused on the eye’s retina is interpreted as sight.
The possession of two eyes, as in the human body, provides stereoscopic vision. Sight is probably the most important channel of communication to the mind.

How the Eye Works Animation - How Do We See Video - Nearsighted & Farsighted Human Eye Anatomy


Anatomy and Function of the Eye
[youtube][/youtube]

A Journey Through the Human Eye: How We See


Eye Animation
[youtube][/youtube]

If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

An egg from a woman’s ovaries cannot produce life on its own. For this to happen, a sperm cell from the male reproductive system must combine with the nucleus of the egg.
What does the sperm do to make the egg develop?

Differently shaped cells begin to form - nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells, and all the other types that make up the human body.
Science Digest

No one knows for sure, why certain cells aggregate to form a kidney while others join to form a liver, and so on.

Eventually, the human body reaches full growth, being made up of some 100,000,000,000,000 cells.
What causes the cells to stop dividing at just the right time and why?

How Sperm Meets Egg | Parents
[youtube][/youtube]

The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell

Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?

Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?
Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?
Evidence for arguments required.

[benchwarmer]

Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?

No, I don't agree.

Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?

Yes, there is a chance they came about due to any number of processes. The current best theory we have is the scientific theory of evolution.

Evidence for arguments required.

Ironic, you've given none yourself that supports "God" or a "creator" did any of this. You've only supplied incredulity that a simple biological process could be responsible.

Isn't this just the same old thing all over again? You ask for evidence, ignore what's given and supply none of your own? Why should we waste time trying to supply you with evidence you won't believe? Your particular brand of religion forbids you from believing it does it not? I welcome correction on that as I don't want to make assumptions here, but that seems to be the case.

Have you not realized yet that in science we want verifiable evidence? Tell us how to verify your claim that God is responsible. Can we see Him do anything? Can we see Him at all?

[Divine Insight]

Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.

Opinion noted.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?

Yes, absolutely. But not at all in the way that you are imagining. These things were clearly not designed by some intelligent designer who sat down at a drawing board and designed them. To the contrary they were clearly "designed" by the process of evolution which is indeed driving by environment and a 'purpose' if you care to think of it in that way. The 'purpose' simply being that whatever works survives.

So you could say that the 'purpose' is survival. But to even state it in that way may cause you to incorrectly think that there is some conscious awareness that consciously has this 'purpose'. This is actually in correct thinking because it wasn't the 'purpose' that came first. It simply appears to have been a 'purpose' in hindsight.

This would be like tossing pebbles into a pond and noticing that they all naturally sink to the bottom. You could then claim that they must have a 'purpose' to deliberately go to the bottom. But it's not really a 'purpose' at all. In the same way processes that survive in nature have no more 'purpose' to survive than a sinking pebble has to sink. It's just a result of what naturally happens.

Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?

Evolution describes this process perfectly with no need to add any additional motivation or mechanisms.

The only argument that could be made for a so-called "Designer God" at this point would be to argue that there must have been a "Designer God" who designed a universe that is capable of evolving into complex living organisms on its own just as Evolution Theory describes.

What you seem to be trying to argue for is a "baby-sitting God" that needs to constantly intervene in the process in order to actually design ahead of time all of these things that naturally evolve. That's simply not required. It's not only not required, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis. To the contrary everything can actually be explained quite well as having been the result of perfectly natural processes with no external intervention required.

All of your threads on this topic do nothing more than reveal your lack of understanding of how evolution actually works. There is absolutely no need for an intervening God to tweak the process at every step of the way.

The only argument left for a "Designer God" would be the argument that there must have been a designer behind the original material from which our universe began. But after that, evolution works just fine all on its own.

So the argument you give for a need for an intervening baby-sitting God who constantly reaches in and guides every step of the process is a very bad argument. All this argument does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of how the natural processes of evolution actually work. You just don't understand he physics, chemistry and biology behind evolution. That's all. And this is apparently why you can't understand how it works.

And you are probably also reading a lot of Creationist web sites and literature that actually propagate ignorance of evolution. But the actual scientific understanding of evolution does not have the problems that Creationists claim.

[Willum]

Well TS, you have asked the right question: Is there any chance...

Yes there is a small chance every instant of every moment since the Earth cooled.

Let's say it was 1x10^-1000%, in how many years would it take for that chance to become 90% likely.

That's only about 140,000 years.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by theStudent]

Yes biological organs can be quite complex exactly how is this proof of design. Complexity doesn't equal design.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by theStudent]

Yes biological organs can be quite complex exactly how is this proof of design. Complexity doesn't equal design.

In fact, unnecessary complexity (with respect to blank page design) is clear evidence of just the sort of evidence required to demonstrate Natural Selection. I've never understood the religionists' inability to grasp this simple but powerful truism.

[H.sapiens]

Let's do a little rewrite so your post makes sense:

The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.

The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.

Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.

The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.

The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.

The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear because the net gain in fitness was positive. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is withing the animal kingdom, unremarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.

The outer ear is precisely formed with a structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear by selective forces that result in increased fitness for those individuals whose structure functions best.

[Bust Nak]

If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

Asexual reproduction obviously.

What does the sperm do to make the egg develop?

Penetrate the outer membranes of the egg and release its genetic material.

What causes the cells to stop dividing at just the right time and why?

We don't know exactly.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?

No, it is just the typical god-of-the-gap argument.

Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?

Yes, around 100% chance. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

[theStudent]

Okay.

Ironic, you've given none yourself that supports "God" or a "creator" did any of this. You've only supplied incredulity that a simple biological process could be responsible.

That's interesting - not accurate, but interesting.
Where have you been?
I'll like to suggest that I have provided evidence.
It may not be evidence you are looking for, but that's not the issue. How could I get away with something like not providing evidence on these forums?
Rule #5, specifically says:

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

No opponent on these forums would allow me to get away with that.
I'll like to suggest that some of us have the wrong idea of what it means by "supporting evidence". I don't understand it to mean that your evidence must be accepted by those who ask for evidence.

Isn't this just the same old thing all over again? You ask for evidence, ignore what's given and supply none of your own? Why should we waste time trying to supply you with evidence you won't believe? Your particular brand of religion forbids you from believing it does it not? I welcome correction on that as I don't want to make assumptions here, but that seems to be the case.

Whoa.
It sure is chilly in here... or maybe it is just me.

Have you not realized yet that in science we want verifiable evidence?

Really, that's what I, and many others have been asking for, for the last, I don't know 5000 posts.
In fact this post is another opportunity.
Is it because you don't have any verifiable evidence, that you try to detract from the topic? Just asking.

Tell us how to verify your claim that God is responsible. Can we see Him do anything? Can we see Him at all?

Hasn't it been mentioned by you and countless others that you can't?
But haven't I been presenting evidence that you can, apart from your restricted scientific method which closes it's eyes to the supernatural?
Look! I just pointed it out again in this thread's OP.
And I have only just begun. Hey. There is a song with those words.

Here. Verified time and again.
William S. Burroughs

In the magical universe there are no coincidences and there are no accidents. Nothing happens unless someone wills it to happen.

And no, the creator of the universe is no idol god like Buddha, that I can bring and put before you.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

Yes, absolutely. But not at all in the way that you are imagining. These things were clearly not designed by some intelligent designer who sat down at a drawing board and designed them. To the contrary they were clearly "designed" by the process of evolution which is indeed driving by environment and a 'purpose' if you care to think of it in that way. The 'purpose' simply being that whatever works survives.

purpose
noun

1. An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions
2. What something is used for
3. The quality of being determined to do or achieve something; firmness of purpose

verb

1. Have as a plan or objective
2. Reach a decision

survival
noun

1. A state of surviving; remaining alive
2. A natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment
3. Something that survives

Nope. Doesn't work. Doesn't add up. No relation.
Check it again in a decade, and see if it changes to fit your umm... I don't know.

So you could say that the 'purpose' is survival. But to even state it in that way may cause you to incorrectly think that there is some conscious awareness that consciously has this 'purpose'. This is actually in correct thinking because it wasn't the 'purpose' that came first. It simply appears to have been a 'purpose' in hindsight.

Whose or what purpose? The animal?
So the animal decided that it wanted two ears, and two eyes, and sex organs, with everything needed to get more of them?
At what point did the animal decide it needed a brain?
If it was doing fine without one, why get one?
All the better to think with...? Why does that line sound familiar? Ah... Snow White.

This would be like tossing pebbles into a pond and noticing that they all naturally sink to the bottom. You could then claim that they must have a 'purpose' to deliberately go to the bottom. But it's not really a 'purpose' at all. In the same way processes that survive in nature have no more 'purpose' to survive than a sinking pebble has to sink. It's just a result of what naturally happens.

So now you are confusing me.
Which is it... Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose, or they don't?

Evolution describes this process perfectly with no need to add any additional motivation or mechanisms.

The only argument that could be made for a so-called "Designer God" at this point would be to argue that there must have been a "Designer God" who designed a universe that is capable of evolving into complex living organisms on its own just as Evolution Theory describes.

What you seem to be trying to argue for is a "baby-sitting God" that needs to constantly intervene in the process in order to actually design ahead of time all of these things that naturally evolve. That's simply not required. It's not only not required, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis. To the contrary everything can actually be explained quite well as having been the result of perfectly natural processes with no external intervention required.

All of your threads on this topic do nothing more than reveal your lack of understanding of how evolution actually works. There is absolutely no need for an intervening God to tweak the process at every step of the way.

The only argument left for a "Designer God" would be the argument that there must have been a designer behind the original material from which our universe began. But after that, evolution works just fine all on its own.

So the argument you give for a need for an intervening baby-sitting God who constantly reaches in and guides every step of the process is a very bad argument. All this argument does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of how the natural processes of evolution actually work. You just don't understand he physics, chemistry and biology behind evolution. That's all. And this is apparently why you can't understand how it works.

And you are probably also reading a lot of Creationist web sites and literature that actually propagate ignorance of evolution. But the actual scientific understanding of evolution does not have the problems that Creationists claim.

If you are saying that God made the blueprints for life, and put them within each kind - mankind, animal-kind, plant-kind, and allowed them to multiply, and adapt (you call it evolution), that's what the Bible says, and that's what I believe.

The question is, do you believe that chance processs - a chance process is not started by an intelligent mind. If an intelligent mind was involved in the beginning, then nothing is by chance. He designed life to have diversity.
So the question is:
Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?

If you're happy with you answer, that's fine.

And by the way, the evolution theory does not include God. If it did, then the claim that it uses the scientific method, would be flat out contradictory.
Some scientist may include God, but that's a personal opinion.
Unless we are talking about two completely different evolution theories. If that is the case, then you are absolutely right... I don't understand.