I want you to show the law of physics that proves the below statement and show how that law proves that the variation in species is not a random process, and in this instant by random I mean without aim, without direction, without method. As Darwin was very clear that this integral component of the natural selection processes was without direction, progression or anything of that flavor, and if that is not true, then Darwinian natural selection is not true. So I am very interested in knowing specifically what laws in physics disprove Darwinian evolution.

Evolution happens according to the laws of physics and thus could be argued to be deterministic. Therefore a god could change some minor details before the creation of life to start a butterfly effect. — BlueBanana

This is why Americans have such a hard time accepting Darwin's theory on evolution, because they cannot accept the idea that the process is without direction.

I don't want to drag this metaphysical concept of direction into this, whatever you mean by that. What Darwin referred to with his usage of that word was the seeming randomness of the evolution, in the same way that throwing dice could be said to be random - not that evolution is some mystical concept above the physical universe that doesn't have predictable outcomes at any given moment under determinism.

and in this instant by random I mean without aim, without direction, without method. — Jeremiah

I have never said anything to contradict this, but that's not what randomness means in the scale of metaphysics. That's what seems to be random to us humans, arising from the complexity of the physical universe and our lack of computability required to fully simulate such systems.

You are wrong, Darwin meant without direction, it was a major contributing factor to his loss of faith in God. He kept seeing imperfections in nature, like beetles with wings trapped under their shell, which made him doubt a divine influence on the process. He was very critical to all versions of Lamarckism, and when Wallace diverged on the subject of humans from theses concepts his response was simply to write "No!" on his letter.

Darwin kept notes on everything, so we are not guessing at his motives here, as he clearly stated them, privately in writing then later in his books, and during his time (and still today) it was met with much resistance, because humans can't accept the idea that human existence is not special and instead is just the result of aimless mutation. However, without the mutations being aimless, natural selection makes no sense at all, as it would actually not be the selection process. It is a necessary aspect for Darwin's natural laws to make sense.

Furthermore there are no laws in physics that says these mutations have intent, and there are no laws in physics that shows god is directing evolution, your post was wrong on several levels.

I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is. — Jeremiah

FYI, I'm not a theist.

I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is. — Jeremiah

Agree - It seems you are more interested in ridicule than discussion

Nothing about the existence of gods — BlueBanana

It IS about the existence of gods. If "god" was indecisive, then why call it a "god"?

You are wrong, Darwin meant without direction, it was a major contributing factor to his loss of faith in God. — Jeremiah

That was a question of his personal faith and what he believed the God to be. If by direction you mean that evolution should have some end goal, some perfect being, I suppose that is false but I just don't see any point in defining direction like that and don't see what impact it has on any questions about any gods.

He kept seeing imperfections in nature, like beetles with wings trapped under their shell, which made him doubt a divine influence on the process. — Jeremiah

Genesis 1: and God specifically remembered and wanted it to be pointed out in His holy book, that never was he to create imperfect beetles with their wings trapped under their shells.

Maybe God just wanted imperfect beetles to exist at this point in time. Why not?

it was met with much resistance, because humans can't accept the idea that human existence is not special and instead is just the result of aimless mutation. — Jeremiah

I'm arguing from the POV that god doesn't consider humans special, remember?

However, without the mutations being aimless — Jeremiah

Define aimlessness. When I think of that word I think of something that doesn't aim at a specific outcome, which requires a random outcome. Within determinism all events of the physical universe have a specific outcome so in that sense aimlessness doesn't necessarily exist. However, I think you're confusing true metaphysical randomness and practical randomness - things that seem random. Evolution exists under determinism because it creates a chaotic, ever-changing system that seems random and doesn't have clear patterns or a single direction it seems to clearly be going, from human POV.

Furthermore there are no laws in physics that says these mutations have intent — Jeremiah

I didn't say there were, I said they were deterministic (under the assumption of determinism, I'm personally not a determinist).

and there are no laws in physics that shows god is directing evolution — Jeremiah

I didn't say that either.

Paintings contain multiple colors. Does that mean the painter was indecisive about what colors to use?

And why couldn't a god/God be indecisive?

Your analogy doesn't work. It would be more like the painter used certain colors, then erased everything, put more colors, erased everything again, put more colors, on and on, - never creating a picture.

Why should I call an indecisive being a "god"?

What about movies or books? If a god wanted things to stay how they are, they wouldn't create time, but they did, because there's certain beauty in change. God doesn't want either dinosaurs or humans to control the planet - they want the narrative of dinosaurs going extinct, humans rising to the top and then whatever's going to happen.

Also, a god could, depending on the definitions used, exist outside time and view the universe as a space-time-block with time being the fourth spatial dimension.

Why should I call an indecisive being a "god"? — Harry Hindu

Because not being indecisive is not the (usual) definition of a god. Some definitions do include it but it's not a necessary part of the definition.

If we agreed that evolution is a totally random process with no goal or direction, what would this tell us about the possible existence of gods?

Nothing.

It could be that some higher form of intelligence wished for life to be part of reality, but didn't want to be bothered managing it.

And where, you might ask, is the evidence for this higher form of intelligence? I have none. Just as throughout the history of science we had no evidence for a million things, until such evidence appeared. So what does this current lack of evidence tell us about the possible existence of gods?

Nothing.

The God debate is not powered by reason, but instead by enthusiastic folks on all sides of the question who desperately need to have "The Answer". And so these good folks, on all sides of the question, make up an answer out of nothing to serve that need. When competing answers threaten the imaginary answer which works best for them personally, they often respond to the threat in earnest, further fueling a conversation which rarely goes anywhere except to more of the same old stuff which has been endlessly repeated for thousands of years. And what does this tell us about the possible existence of gods?

Nothing.

What the God debate might accomplish if we were willing to look at the evidence of it's persistent and consistent failure to get anywhere at all is that in regards to questions of such enormous scale....

We have nothing. This seems like useful information, and it would be a shame to casually toss it away after so much work has been done. The vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scale appears to be nothing. Maybe nothing is not such a bad thing? Maybe our state of nothing in regards to such questions puts us in to alignment with the nature of reality? Maybe this ignorance which we've discovered has some practical use which we could explore, if we weren't so very busy pushing it away?

Maybe the God debate could be redeemed if we would simply accept what thousands of years of evidence are shouting at us, that we're ignorant? Maybe it's not necessary to go endlessly round and round and round in the same small circle to nowhere? Maybe there's another way?

I can see you are just flailing now, so good luck with. In the meantime you may want to grab an actual book on Darwin and read it.

could be that some higher form of intelligence wished for life to be part of reality, but didn't want to be bothered managing it. — Jake

That is still very much intelligent design. I am not trying to prove or disprove any gods with Darwinian evolution, how people reconcile it with their God is up to them and I just don't care. I am correcting a common misconception about Darwin's theory.

As Darwin was very clear that this integral component of the natural selection processes was without direction, progression or anything of that flavor, and if that is not true, then Darwinian natural selection is not true. — Jeremiah

As you're so keen on twisting the meanings of words and bringing up Darwin's personal opinions and beliefs, let's shake this up: is anything in the above quote relevant to the evolution?

What about movies or books? If a god wanted things to stay how they are, they wouldn't create time, but they did, because there's certain beauty in change. God doesn't want either dinosaurs or humans to control the planet - they want the narrative of dinosaurs going extinct, humans rising to the top and then whatever's going to happen.

Also, a god could, depending on the definitions used, exist outside time and view the universe as a space-time-block with time being the fourth spatial dimension. — BlueBanana

God could not have created time just like God could not have created itself. It is something that is eternal.

Time is just a measurement of change. If god has intent and creates, or changes its mind, then God changes and would be part of the causal process. In this sense God would be part of the same reality we are. One reality - all connected by causation.

What use is creating a narrative for an omniscient being? You seem to be describing human beings, not some omniscient being.

Because not being indecisive is not the (usual) definition of a god. Some definitions do include it but it's not a necessary part of the definition. — BlueBanana

Sure it is. An omniscient being can't be indecisive. If its not omniscient, then who call it god? It could just be aliens.

It could be that some higher form of intelligence wished for life to be part of reality, but didn't want to be bothered managing it. — Jake

"Being bothered by having to manage something" is a limitation of humans, not gods.

Gods don't make mistakes. Natural selection does. What we observe in nature is what one would expect to see if life was a "blind" (lack of intent) assortment of adaptaions of prior biological structures and behaviors. This is not what one would expect to see if omniscient intent was the cause.

God could not have created time just like God could not have created itself. It is something that is eternal. — Harry Hindu

That's very debatable. I think that if there's a God external to the universe that created it, then it's also external and superior to time, spatial dimensions and even logic. If you think of ancient, mythological or pagan gods, or most polytheist religions in general, gods are a part of the universe and can't affect any of those things. If the same God in the same context is also subject to change, that'd mean time is multidimensional or that God perceives (our) time as a spatial dimension and some fifth dimension as time.

I can accept the concepts and existence of both lesser gods and those with absolute and unlimited omni-everything, but the specific combination of omniscience and omnipotence but also being limited by the concepts of our universe and the existence within it seems weird to me.

What use is creating a narrative for an omniscient being? — Harry Hindu

Three objections:
1) God isn't necessarily omniscient, especially when written without capital G as in the earlier comments. Furthermore, there can be limitations to omniscience (see below).
2) Writers know what happens in their stories, yet people enjoy not only reading but also writing, not only for monetary gain, and people read their favourite books and watch their favourite films multiple times.
3) God exists on a completely different scale from humans - maybe their actions just are as ineffable to us as our actions are to less intelligent animals, or the actions of those animals are to bacteria. The subject of this discussion is God that doesn't consider humans of any specific value more than any other species, and wouldn't feel any need to grant us understanding of such issues.

Sure it is. An omniscient being can't be indecisive. — Harry Hindu

Like omnipotence, omniscience doesn't have a singular definition. That is true if the being's omniscience includes knowing everything about itself and everything else within all spatial and temporal dimensions and everything else that may or may not exist. It's also true that if the being is external to our time, it wouldn't appear indecisive to us because even if it was indecisive in its own temporal dimension, its current state of mind and only that would affect the universe at that moment. However, there are definitions between these two. For example, there could be a god that is not external to time and whose omniscience only includes unlimited knowledge of the physical universe external to itself.

It could just be aliens. — Harry Hindu

Breaking physical laws, existing outside our physical reality, extradimensionality or existence outside the concept of dimensions, immortality or lifespan long enough to be practically immortal, limited omniscience, being a creator of the universe in some sense, holding certain sets of supernatural elements to qualify classification to a minor god. Those are some things that come to mind are commonly included in different definitions of a god.