Choosing a faith

Why not? So what if there were microbes that pre-date cellular life? Our lives are based on cellular life. I continue to maintain that sentient life with an awareness of right and wrong is far more plausible to have emanated from an intelligent source than a mindless source. Of course that isn't scientific but it goes beyond what science can examine or test, regardless of how many processes it is able to research. Tribalism is a fact and how often do we see a tribe fighting to gain an advantage over another tribe. Tribalism is the worst example that you could have come up with to explain altruism. If one tribe wants to fight against the tribe next door then I wonder how you can extrapolate that into an explanation of why people want to help a far distant tribe. Here is the best site that I could find on the selfish gene. I admit it has been a number of years since I read the book. Selfish Gene theory and altruism
Now explain to me what I'm getting wrong.

Sure, but that doesn't explain why the possibility of those chance occurrences exist at all. Also, I'm not sure that I would even categorize them by chance. Darwin's finches beaks evolved due to differing physical circumstances. As I say, evolution is an incredible process that has the earmarks of design all over it.

That was selection. The variation was already in the population due to random mutations.

Are you really asking 'why' there is a 'possibility' of an electron potential spike that breaks a molecular bond when it gets hit by a stray gamma-ray? Are you asking 'why' the gamma-ray has the 'possibility' for such energy to zap the electron so hard as to break the bond in a DNA strand? Are you asking 'why' the gamma-ray has a 'possibility' it was there in that place at that time to cause a mutation?Do you know what you are asking? I don't.

We call that intransigence. And you’re wrong, science knows it well.

quote:

---

Why not?

---

Honesty, for a start. If you don’t know it to be a fact, why treat it as one?

quote:

---

So what if there were microbes that pre-date cellular life? Our lives are based on cellular life.

---

And to you, that means that cellular life was the first life and couldn’t have evolved from something simpler? Does it?

quote:

---

I continue to maintain that sentient life with an awareness of right and wrong is far more plausible to have emanated from an intelligent source than a mindless source. Of course that isn't scientific but it goes beyond what science can examine or test, regardless of how many processes it is able to research.
​

---

And I will point out that that is just an unsupported opinion that you are desperate to believe. Science cannot disprove it - because it is utterly unfalsifiable. You can always assume some undetectable impulse from an undetectable entity was involved in some undetectable way. But that is hardly a rational basis for belief.

quote:

---

Tribalism is a fact and how often do we see a tribe fighting to gain an advantage over another tribe. Tribalism is the worst example that you could have come up with to explain altruism.

---

On the contrary it is a very good way. It is also a fact that the “tribes” are quite malleable. In which case all that is needed is for a person to see others as “us” to want to help them. Making excuses without understanding is not the business of someone who cares about the truth. But it is what you do. And that is why you are so often wrong - just as you are here,

quote:

---

Now explain to me what I'm getting wrong.

---

It is no use linking to sites or even reading them if you can”t be bothered to understand them. And you obviously do not understand the idea at all.

quote:

---

However Darwinism is again about survival of the fittest and looking out for the us when it benefits the self.

---

That is exactly contrary to the idea of selfish genes. Benefit to the self is only relevant insofar as it benefits the copies of our genes we carry. And that can be and is overridden by benefits to other copies. Even the earlier idea of kin selection gets past mere benefits to the self.It might be more accurately phrased is “Darwinism is about successful replicators and looking out for the “us” when it tends to benefit copies of our genes, directly or indirectly - even to the severe detriment or death of the self. Feedback effects have complicated the picture considerably and any valid analysis of a situation must take those complications into account.”

They happen because life is faulty. Mutations occur when DNA replicates, mistakes are made and not always repaired correctly. DNA is very easily damaged by radiation and chemicals. These mistakes and external damage is totally natural und unpredictable. This is what happens when you combine motivated thinking (“I have a belief so I need to made the facts I observe fit that belief”) with a partial understanding of the subject you're talking about.It's evolution 101 that it requires two independent events1. A random mutation in the germ line.
2. The selection of a beneficial mutation.Darwin's finches grew different sized beaks because random mutations that determined beak size many millions of years ago created an advantage when something changed randomly in the environment - such as a drought. Had the random mutation not occurred at the time of the random climate event the advatage it gave would not have been selected for.It's very much more complicated than that but that's the core concept. And I say that that is a fantastic example of motivated thinking by a religious person that has no formal training in what he's commenting on.I mean really, get a grip, you're not this stupid. The ToE is an accepted fact by the world's scientists, it is NOT a guided or designed process. There isn't the slightest indication of design. No designer requiring a particular outcome would build in a random process that GUARANTEES that any particular outcomes can't be predicted.

It sounds like you don't understand the difference between "all there is" and "all we've been able to identify so far." One is honest - and the other makes claims that we're unable to know.No one knows what's in the bag, so you don't get to say such a thing about us only being able to get green circles.Magic could have existed. Perhaps we pull a yellow star from the bag.
But we investigated... nothing but green circles.Dinosaurs could have existed. And they did. More green circles.People living to 300+ years old could have existed. Perhaps we pull a purple moon from the bag.
But we investigated... nothing but green circles.God can exist - we could see a red square. Just haven't seen one yet.
We see many people draw red squares, and claim they've pulled one. But each one turns out to be a fake.With nothing but green circles so far. Yes - it is beyond 'subjective' to think the next question will result in a red square. But it isn't subjective at all to think the next question will result in another green circle. That's just following the pattern. I think you do understand this - you're just trying to say anything at all to make it sound more "even" when we both know it's not. My point is that the answer to "why did the rock roll down the hill?" can be "a quake, a shifting in the earth, a shove etc and on top of that gravity" - which are all green circles. After millions and millions and millions of questions being answered with nothing but green circles.
It is most definitely an evidenced reasoning to hypothesize that the next question will also be answered with another green circle.To call such a thing an "unevidenced belief" is beyond silly. It's leaning into being willfully ignorant.

I largely agree with that. However, that assumes that we can't form conclusions from anything other than scientific evidence. John Polkinghorne was a world leading acclaimed physicist and a committed Christian. Francis Collins a world leading and acclaimed biologist is also a Christian. He called DNA the language of God, That doesn't prove anything except that theism, and even Christianity, isn't anywhere close to solely the domain of the intellectually challenged.You present theories of how we formed consciousness, morality, a sense of beauty and a desire to explore the world and even the universe. In my view that all of this could be the result of nothing but mindless processes on their own, without at the very least an intelligent initiator is nuts. It is simple as that and that it seems is where we stand.

I am not AZPaul3. Please get your attributions correct.

Personal incredulity. It means nothing. It has not force with reality.The only evidence available is overwhelming. There are only natural process at work in this universe. Any contention to the contrary is without evidence or reason and is emotional fantasy.

I am talking about the formation of conscious life.

[qs-AZPaul3]We call that intransigence. And you’re wrong, science knows it well.[/qs]..and so you claim. I disagree.

Maybe so, but Tangles message you were responding to in your Message 2357 was about mutations. You seem to think such mutations need some reason to occur. The mutation itself is quite random and doesn't need any reason for its possibilities.

Can't disagree with fact.When you insist the evidence isn't there and continue to seek out fanciful reasoning to explain what is already known, that is intransigence. And, yes, science knows intransigence well because religionists, like yourself, exhibit it so frequently.