Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Could you give me quantum mechanical explanation for what causes gravity the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. I've read all the proposals for Abiogenesis not up on my replicatable or have ever been observed can you give me the one that represents the process that really happened?

Nor have I seen any evidence of how heavy atoms are formed how Or how was gravity able to start the big bang when it takes matter to have gravity. Where do you think the gravity came from to cause the big bang and how did an explosion create Atoms and the Higgs field?

Help me dig a little deeper I haven't found scientific explanations for those questions.

By the way, if anyone here is lying, it's the religionists who pretend they're not talking about their magic sky daddy. Those same folks are engaged in hilariously obvious and inept question-begging by assuming a design and an intelligence for which they provide not a shred of evidence. You folks aren't looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion, you've just set out to attempt to shoe-horn a feeble and incomplete bag of evidence into your preconceived assumption that there is an intelligence and a design. Until you provide some evidence, your entire participation here is pointless. But thanks for insulting everyone's intelligence and insulting people themselves because they don't start from the same puerile assumptions.

The direction is limited by a set of parameters established by natural selection. Those are based on survival. The new randomly determined mutations determining the changes in the dna to meet the needs to reach higher complexity while allowing the organism to survive have no parameters though. How do they tell the randomly generated mutations where and how to mutate. There are too many possible wrong mutations compared to the number of possible right mutations and all are equally possible including going backwards. They must be sequential. How do they limit a random event? When and how did that system come into existence and the information contained in it? How did such a complex system of automatic decision making get "set" in place.

The universe must be different to create matter and life than it appears today. The big bang is not the start of the universe, there was a quantum creation event that created the order established in matter. The Big Bang introduced inflation and disorder to a perfect universe and, is just a transition to the universe we observe today. That is why we cannot replicate abiogenis today and never will, we cannot recreate the conditions.

Bounds are bounds, whether the phenotype becomes extinct by genetics or nat selection is kinda immaterial no? ALL DNA insertions or mutations or copying MUST be associated with whats already there. I cant see a mammal coding for gills. Look at whales, how long did it take for cetaceans to leave the dry land and occupy the waters?? Did they develop gills? of course not. Youve gotta spend some more time ferreting out these associations of genotype and phenotype.

. We seem to say that most all mutations re random whereas na selection is environment driven. Most gene mutations are lethal or neutral (having no effect at all either way).

It only if some advantage in offspring is realized will any mutation be selected for, even genetic drift is a kind of adaptation

You call it "decision making" I assume because you are convinced at the similrity twixt DNA and a bar code. I say physico-organic chemical RESPONSE".
Since the environment keeps changing all over the place, do you want to convince me that your intelligent being is controlling all the environment to mrely diddle ith evolution. You guys seem to get deeper and deeper into what Id call realms of unfalsifiable uncertainty.

Christians must believe that god created everything. Otherwise, their whole world collapses. It's a frightening idea that they refuse to accept that evolution is the key to everything, including this planet and what's in it. The dinosaurs that roamed this planet are now gone, but we know they existed long before any gods were created by men.

Don't be naive. The more science 'discovers' (meaning allows for greater prediction and control) the more it opens up new areas of enquiry. Its a work in progress, and is likely to remain so, in which lay concepts of 'causality' and 'purpose' are no longer appropriate. You only need consider quantum adages like 'whatever can happen, does happen' to get the essence of this. The scientific terminology of today is as likely to be superceded tomorrow as 'phlogisten' and ''the aether' have been. The very concept of 'explanation' boils down 'something mentally satisfying' ...nothing more...and if your own satisfaction needs to be satisfied by 'The Big Designer' you are confining your intellect to the level of a simpleton.

"Level of a simpleton?" I'm not so sure about that! Many intelligent people believe in god(s). All my siblings are christians, and believe in creation. My older brother is an attorney, my younger brother a doctor, and my sister is a nurse.
I believe religion is an accident of birth. Our mother got converted to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in the mid 1940s, and we started going to church on Saturday. Even in my young teen, I observed too many contradictions in the church's teachings. All my siblings are still Adventists, but I'm an atheist.
I believe in evolution.

Sorry. I have no respect for fairy stories even if I understand the psychological and social need for them . Its irrelevent playing the numbers game as the need may be widespread but the stories parochial. If 'a simpleton' is one who does not understand the 'accident of birth' issue, so be it.

You're probably right, but I do not wish to look at my sibling as "simpletons."

Yes...we atheists tend to avoid intellectual conflict with significant others, but like me I guess you have been bemused by the mumbo-jumbo at religious funerals (etc) which you attend for the sake of social expediency.

I am fond of posting this link to Richard Rorty's handling of 'intellectual believers'. As a pragmatist he has no objection to religion for its psychological function, but argues that its 'scientific role' is now defunct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2F2BWLZ0Q

Tell me what you thought about the first time I told you.

This is supposed to be a conversation, you know?

One of Rorty's many philosophical errors is that of the false choice. For example, you must chose one of two choices, when those are not the only choices. He is essentially saying, you can either be intellectually honest or hold theistic beliefs.

That of course is his belief without having evidence for it (which he condemns in others) He has nothing beyond anecdotal examples of people holding contradictory positions. It doesn't prove the principle he's peddling. His primary argument is a subdued but 'knowing' chuckle when mentioning theology. It's a lot like the arguments against theology on this thread.

His 'compromise' is to legitimize theistic beliefs but only if relegated to being an emotionally supportive teddy bear, yet another popular position around here.

Just gotta add that I was blown away when he said it was hard to give a principal or reason why it was right for police to enter a home and stop a man beating his wife but wrong for them to enforce sodomy laws in a gay couples home. (around 1:14) If you can't figure that one out.. well I just don't know what to say. But it's a clear indication that his philosophical pragmatism is a total fail.

No, you have misunderstood him. Mental life is not consistent - it involves compartmentalization and 'insulation'. He is saying that many scientists who are believers, correctly limit their belief to matters of morality and emotionality since religion's old role of 'explaining the universe' is now blatantly defunct.
Beyond Rorty's analysis, we sometimes come across 'scientific believers' who operate the catch all clause that 'all scientific knowledge is the gift of God'.
That allows them the leeway to follow anti-fundamentalist issues like evolution with impunity. Of course, that catch-all clause is itself a form of pragmatism.

BTW, I suggest your 'police entering house' example is a misunderstanding of the general point that 'morality' is subject to historical and contextual change. Read Heller's Catch 22 for a parody of this concerning the Chaplain being ordered to pray for 'a tight bomb pattern'. Yesterday's Christian can be tomorrow's bomber pilot.

I'm trying to hear you say something other than 'You're wrong and you don't understand.'. Maybe that's all you're saying.

Make it clear. Are you saying compartmentalization is appropriate? If so, I have no use for it. That seems intellectually dishonest to me and I think that's what Rorty is saying. He is right about it being dishonest and I would add, hypocritical. It's about the only thing I agree with him on. He is being very clear but you are not (so far).

As far as Rorty's meaning about the police episode, I assure you I understand English and his meaning. There was nothing cryptic about it. I will let his own words speak for themselves. It is a clear example of the failure of his 'enlightened pragmatism'. He admitted that when he said he knew of no principle governing what made the police action right in one case and wrong in the other.

If you wish to hold the position that morality is whatever society says it is, you're welcome to it. For example, if you believe that, then you have no 'intellectual right' to criticize ISIS (or anyone else) for their morality.

Or do you cover all this up with the magic 'truth' of "Mental life is not consistent"..

You obviously have not observed your own compartmentalization. Many can't or wont. There is no consistent I to be 'wrong'. Next time you find yourself having an internal discussion, or asking yourself 'now why did I do that ?' , or considering that weird thing you call 'self' in last night's stupid dream, these words may begin to make sense. What we call 'self' is a social construction with assorted modes of operation according to context. Most of the time 'its modes' have no existence, especially in non dreaming sleep.

The fictional 'self integrity' of a 'believer' is predicated on the fictional 'divinity' which fulfils the believer's wishes and gives the illusary 'self' importance. But 'its committee' has invested so much in that mythology that it cannot contemplate its own insignificance or transient nature.

BTW beware of citing Islamic fanatics as having 'the wrong morality'. All believers 'in an afterlife' can be said to give succour to aspects of that morality. Christian crusaders committed equally abhorrent acts in their day.
All we can really say is that belief systems claiming 'divine authority' tend to be socially pernicious. 'A plague on all their houses' would seem to be the appropriate Shakespeare quotation.

Set's favorite line is appropriate here.

'Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.'

Nice to see one of your committee is in charge of denials !

Set would be insulted to hear you say that.
It also shows how little you know of me, despite your claim to know me better than I know myself. What utter hubris.

I'm done here.