Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have complex human-made things been designed?
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 11 of 85 (480417)
09-03-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by andorg
09-02-2008 8:09 AM


many errors in your comments
andorg writes:
The idea that living organisms were designed comes from a common belief that complex human-made things have been designed. But is this correct?
Yes it is.
andorg writes:
Let's see examples of the most complex human-made things like: modern Nokia mobile phone, Boing 747 airplane, Windows-XP operating system, and let's asks the following question: have these very complex systems been designed?
Even asking this question really makes one wonder about the convoluted reasoning process through which you have been educated. I'm not being critical of you personally, but you have been trained in your thinking. Yes, all of these very complex systems have been designed. The word design infers both a planning process and a production process as you are using it. Both require intelligence.
andorg writes:
It is not easy to trace the history of living organisms emerging on earth and to prove if they were designed or evolved, as it is not possible to find all the required evidences.
Proof is always relative to the person judging the proof. Both evolution and design have been "proven". You cannot find all the evidence for anything. Usually with anything that you want to prove, only some of the evidence is available.
andorg writes:
But for the human-made things the history of their emergence is well known.
Don't get emergence mixed up with human made things. Emergence is self organiziation and potentially unintentional design. Human made things don't emerge.
andorg writes:
If one looks at the history of the above mentioned human-made complex things, it becomes obvious that all of them have been evolved. Airplanes, mobile phones, computer products have been evolved step-by-step, by trial-and-error method.
If evolution means change over time, then you are correct.
andorg writes:
No single human and even not a huge group of humans is able of designing a complex thing that never have existed before.
I think you just jumped off the cliff. Every new invention, patent, or production process has "never existed before". And these invention, patents, and processes are all done by individuals or groups of human beings.
andorg writes:
Any complex thing appears upon a base of another complex things that already exist.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the new thing is not completely "new". You could have a wheel made form a log. Then someone invents one made from stone. Then one invents one made with spokes. The materials all existed before, but the end results are quite different. A spoke wheel was something totally new. Switches had been around for years befor the transitor. The transitor is basically a switch. But it is totally new.
andorg writes:
And not because of the short of intelligence or small amount of people. In order to appear, Windows XP required a long series of steps, where the product of each step had to be checked by the environment: the market. Lots of computer programs improved by small changes, then were exposed to the market and those which survived became a basis for the future programs. This is the only way that could allow Windows XP to appear.
But windows didn't "appear". It was designed and produced in many steps. It did not emerge. There is a big difference in the two concepts.
andorg writes:
All inventions in the world are actually very small steps based on something that already exists. No invention can create something much more complex than currently existing.
You are trying so hard here to convince yourself of something that just isn't true. What may be a small step to you may be a huge step to others. And most inventions are more complex than currently exist.
andorg writes:
So the conclusion is that all human-made complex things have been evolved and not designed.
Can anyone see what the fallacy of equivocation does to a person? The reasoning becomes totally distorted and contorted. The word design means something. The word emerge means something. The word evolve means something. The meaning of all these words is different and specific. But you have morphed the meanings to be the same in your arguments. No wonder you are making this argument. It make complete sense to you, when unfortunately it is complete non-sense. But you have learned this process somwhere. I susspect it is from your education process or involvement with forums. Please rescue yourself from this approach. You can relearn to not reason in fallacies. If you are wrong on this, you may be wrong on many of your thought processes regarding design and intelligence. If you are religious about this, you will have great anger towards me for pointing this out. If you are reasonable, you will address the fallacy and re think your argument.
anorg writes:
And if it is true from human-made complex things - why should it be wrong for the natural complex things (the living organisms)?
First off it is not true at all for human made complex things. Now use your same argument. If it is not true for human made complex things, then it should also be not true for living organisms which are vastly more complicated than we have ever imagined. The more we learn about the cell, the more we know how complex beyound our capabilities it is. Then apply this same logic to multicellular oraganisms with multi-organ systems like the pulminary system, the cardiovascular system, the nervous system, the digestive system.......I could go on and on. All created by the code within the organisms DNA.
Sure we can design computers. But can we design a computer the size of a cell that creates trillions of other computers that vary depending on location and function? And can we make a network capable of linking it all together though these systems listed in the paragraph above? And can we assemble this together in the formation of a dog, or a human?
But somehow, you have been convinced that from spontaneous chemical reactions that life can emerge. And that life can upwardly evolve from random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift to produce all the millions of living things we know today. My what faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by andorg, posted 09-02-2008 8:09 AM andorg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dokukaeru, posted 09-03-2008 12:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 14 by andorg, posted 09-03-2008 12:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 1:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 59 by traste, posted 03-17-2009 1:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 08-21-2009 10:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 13 of 85 (480422)
09-03-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by dokukaeru
09-03-2008 12:13 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
doku writes:
Can you show that it did not?
Can you show that it did?
Can you show that God didn't create the universe and all the living things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dokukaeru, posted 09-03-2008 12:13 PM dokukaeru has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dokukaeru, posted 09-03-2008 12:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 19 of 85 (480440)
09-03-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by andorg
09-03-2008 12:34 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
andorg writes:
AlphaOmegakid write: "The word design infers both a planning process and a production process as you are using it. Both require intelligence".
Sorry, production doesn't require. A completely automatic and not intelligent plant may produce very complex things.
I assume you are saying that "production does not require design". If that is what you are claiming then you need to present evidence for your claim. I will present evidence for mine....
wiki writes:
Design, usually considered in the context of applied arts, engineering, architecture, and other creative endeavors, is used both as a noun and a verb. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component. As a noun, "a design" is used for either the final (solution) plan (e.g. proposal, drawing, model, description) or the result of implementing that plan (e.g. object produced, result of the process). More recently, processes (in general) have also been treated as products of design, giving new meaning to the term "process design".
Designing normally requires a designer to consider the aesthetic, functional, and many other aspects of an object or a process, which usually requires considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design.-Design-
Now I think the definition presented refutes your claim. The manufacturing process is integral to most designs. It certainly is to an architect. And it is to software people. You can "design" a program logic on a white board, but a significant part of the design of the software happens during the "manufaturing" process where you type the logic into a compiling and debugging language program. You must structure your typing a certain way, put comments in, and debug according to the logic of the compiler. That is how programming works as you well know. It doesn't happen by you creating a random character generator and sitting back in your chair for a million years. It happens by intelligence.
andorg writes:
You may call it as you like: "emerge", "appear" or whatever. Any thing appears from somewhere. That's what I meant by "emerge". Perhaps this is not the best word.
You are making an argument. Arguments are made, "created", "designed", with the use of words. Words mean something by their definition and context. Imagine if you could just arbitrarily interchange words in your programming language. You can't. That's because these words have a particular meaning which you are morphing them as synonyms. That's a fallacy. The argument you build on this fallacy is a house built on sand. It has no logical foundation.
andorg writes:
You miss one point. When you (or other intelligent person) designs something, you do not know in advance that the product of your design will be good. This knowledge you may get only after your product is completed and subjected to the environment. Design alone is blind. Without actual information. The information always comes from the environment. Design is always prediction.
The most important part of the process of (emerging, appearing or call it as you like) of objects in our world is checking them by the environment. It has nothing to do with design.
The market (environment)has everything to do with design. No one designs something without considering his market place. Even a child creating an imaginative drawing does it for the audience of his parents or at least the enjoyment of himself.
According to your argument you are arbitrarily creating/designing software and then just submitting it to the market place. If you do you will be extinct soon. No. You know your market in advance of the design. The design is for the market. The market then decides which design is successful if there are competing designs. Many good designs have been rejected by the marketplace. If you go to most foreign countries they have coins for their paper currencies. In the US the design of the Susan B. Anthony dollar was excellent, but the market rejected it.
Design is never blind as you claim. Design always tries to see into the furture and anticipate the market(environment). It is not always successful. Evolution, and emmergence is blind. That is why you are so confused. Design is the opposite of evolution and emergence.
andorg writes:
And please do not attack my education: I have M.Sc. in applied mathematics of a known university and I was educated in a way lots of people are educated. I did not study science in church, i admit it.
My education level is much higher than yours, but that is irrelevant. It is not the school you went to, it is the way your mind works. You are equivocating the meaning of design with the meaning of emergence, evolution, and appearing. You can't do that in a computer logic sequence, what makes you think that you can do it in mental logic?
andorg writes:
And I know what I want to explain here: design is just one of many possible ways to create things.
I think you are correct here. Things are created by evolution, and things are created by emergence, and things are created by design. The first two require no intelligence and randomness. The last one requires intelligence. That intelligence can be inferred from the evidence.
andorg writes:
By the way: the word "design" is modern. Did ancient Greeks design?
Ummmm, yes they did. Have you seen the Parthenon? Here are the greek words for design....
‘, ‘‘, ‘

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by andorg, posted 09-03-2008 12:34 PM andorg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 3:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 20 of 85 (480442)
09-03-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Blue Jay
09-03-2008 1:32 PM


bluejay writes:
I'm going to have to say something that is very difficult for me to say, so bear with it:
I agree with AlphaOmegakid.
That hurt...
Darwin writes:
Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. -from OoS
Now I know this was quotemined, but I couldn't resist. I'm sorry that agreeing with me every now and then hurts. But pain is something we learn from......Anyway, if you post your address, I'll send you some aspirin.
ps. I happen to agree with you also in your post for the most part. And I didn't feel any pain at all. Maybe I have an adaptation that you do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 1:32 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 22 of 85 (480451)
09-03-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
09-03-2008 1:58 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
onifre writes:
Right, but where did the DNA come from?
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
onifre writes:
I've read your arguments before, you seem to suggest that DNA cannot be broken down into several components that naturally came to be, through a natural process, what we now call DNA.
No, this is a strawman. DNA can be broken down into smaller chemical components that do naturally occur. The delicate DNA molecule , however, does not occur naturally outside of living or once living creatures. There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA. That is the reality of known science.
onifre writes:
Can DNA arrise from natural causes? From pre-existing natural chemicals? From pre-existing enviromental conditions? etc, etc..
Or can it only be explained through design?
There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA. That is the reality of known science. I don't know if it can "only" be explained through design, but it can be explained through design.
onifre writes:
A design that would have to come to be from nothingness mind you.
I think you have my faith confused with yours. You believe that everything we see came from nothing. I do not.
onifre writes:
In other words God, or the Designer(snipped...), would have to have made DNA appear spontaniously, because if He/She used natural chemicals and brought them together, and took the enviromental conditions into consideration, then basically you are saying that God used natural processes and natural components to organize DNA.
It's amazing to me how evo's don't know their own scientific language. Spontaneous natural chemical reactions is what you believe in. Spontaneous means "self generating". A spontaneous chemical reaction might be a self replicating molecule.
The designing and creating from God is not spontaneous. Designed things don't spontaneously occur. Designed things are planned and made. The planning and making may use preexisting items that you may label as natural. That is the picture that the bible presents.
onifre writes:
At that point you are just invoking God because of pre-existing belief in a God
Absolutely! It is called faith. Your belief that there is no God is also a faith and also pre-existing.
onifre writes:
As suggested by the OP, nothing comes from nothing, I think thats what andorg meant. So are all of the components for DNA found before DNA is known to have appeared?
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
onifre writes:
If ALL of the components for it are available before DNA is known to have appeared, then a normal natural process can, and should be, assumed...unless you can prove otherwise.
Why should a natural process be assumed, when I believe according to the scripture that God is involved with every natural process. If we discover that rain is caused by the condensation of water vapor while a cold air mass hits up against a warmer air mass that does not exclude God from the process. Where did the infinite gravity source for the Big Bang come from? "Nothing comes from nothing". Right? That infinite gravitation source (infinite power) has already been revealed to you by science. There was something in the beginning. Science says so. Not me. Now I may not agree with the BBT from a scientific standpoint, but both of us must agree that the universe didn't come from nothing.
I believe that what it did come from designed the universe, the earth, and life within it. The anthropic priciples reek of design inference.
Why must I choose a naturalistic scientific explanation when through the years science has been shown over and over again to be wrong. Do you want me to list the concepts that science was wrong on? It is ever changing and ever correcting. That is a good thing. That alone is evidence that I don't want to put my trust in science, because the probability of error is so high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 1:58 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2008 5:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 5:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 25 of 85 (480461)
09-03-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
09-03-2008 3:36 PM


Re: Maybe off-topic, but an important aside
bluejay writes:
While this is true, you should realize that the English language is not constructed completely out of precise, technical terms. It's possible that his word choice was wrong, but you should have figured out what he meant by his context. Andorg clearly chose the word "emergence" so as to avoid using either "evolution" or "creation." If he chose the wrong word, I'm sure you can get over it.
Awwww... I knew it wouldn't last.
I can get over misuse of terms with no problem. I do it all the time. I have a hard time with an argument being built on the misuse of terms.
andorg is arguing that products aren't designed. They evolve, emerge, etc. They don't. That is an indefensible argument, as most of you have identified. The reason he associates this logic is because of his use of terms. That needs to be corrected. Instead he continued to argue it. So I responded.
The fact that his argument is fallacious is just a matter of argumentation. That is the purpose of this forum. To express ideas and have those ideas challenged. No one is more familliar with that than I am with you guys responding to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 09-03-2008 3:36 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 26 of 85 (480479)
09-03-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by bluescat48
09-03-2008 5:07 PM


chapter and verse
bluescat48 writes:
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
Chapter & verse please.
Genesis 1:1-11 days 1 through 4 of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2008 5:07 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2008 11:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 27 of 85 (480484)
09-03-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by onifre
09-03-2008 5:49 PM


Spontaneous response
onifre writes:
Prove it.
Prove He didn't.
I did not say that there IS, I said that you seem to suggest that there CANNOT be, a natural process...
I don't suggest this. Science suggests this. The evidence suggests this. The law of biogenesis suggests this. The presence of oxygen suggests this. Hydrolysis suggests this. Thermodynamic processes suggest this. All of these processes tear apart DNA, but no processes are known which put it together.
What is known science is that there are NO supernatural processes ever found thru experiments and/or observations.
You don't realize this, but you are making a tautology. By the current definition of nature, all the power in the universe is natural. It is an impossibility by definition to be more powerful than nature. There is no supernatural possibility by definition.
Anything can be explained if your explanation is 'God-did-it', but you will fail when you attempt to show HOW 'God-did-it'.
What is the difference between 'God did it' and 'Nature did it'? If God controls nature, then aren't they equal statements. Discovering truths of nature is the same as discovering the truths of God.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made (natural), even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks(they called Him nature); but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
(parenthetical statements mine.)
If we have pre-existing chemical components, then we have what we need for a natural process to take place.
Possibly. We also have everything for God to design something new.
First, define 'a myraid of other things', cause that sounds like 'I don't know how God-did-it'.
Second, where did God get all of the components? Did He make the components first, then came back a few million years later to reorganize the components to create DNA, or what? Give me some kind of specifics here...
Read Genesis 1. He did it all in 6 days. There is a very specific sequence of events. Trust me, I don't know how God did it. And you don't know how nature did it. We can only theorize based on the evidence. My theory is the components (matter) were made by converting some of God's energy to matter. That's scientific. The same physics fall within the BBT. Then God used that matter and designed the universe, the earth, and all the life within it. That's intelligent design. IT IS NOT SPONTANEOUS. NOTHING in the scriptures suggest spontanaety with God's creation. Spontaneous formations are your scientific natural explanations. My explanations are the intelligent use and design of created elements.
Are you suggesting that there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions???
No. I am suggesting exactly what I said. Scientific explanations require spontaneous reactions. Intelligent design is the opposite of spontaneous reactions and creative forces. You use the term spontaneous with God and creation. This is wrong. God did not spontaneously create anything. He intelligently designed it all.
To be continued....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 09-03-2008 5:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 3:50 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 31 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 4:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 37 by onifre, posted 09-04-2008 3:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 32 of 85 (480541)
09-04-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Mylakovich
09-04-2008 4:00 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
Mylakovich writes:
That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself. If you assert something improvable and outside the realm of falcafiablility, it's your own fault.
Oh it's not? I'm sorry mr. science "know it all". Please do tell me how you would like me to prove this scientifically? I was under the apparently false assumption that NOTHING was provable in science. I was just going by what scientist themselves say, but of course, you may know better. This is what some of them say....
talkorigins writes:
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
"If you thought that science was certain ” well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required ” not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941."Proof"
Here is some more info from the same source...
talkorigins writes:
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
So please do tell, can you prove anything in science?
Mylakovich writes:
It most certainly isn't scientific. It might sound that way to you, because you co-op and misuse the language of physics to sound 'scientific'. However, "Science" isn't a collection of buzzwords. It is a philosophy for methodically and systematically collecting and analyzing evidence to discover and understand the natural world. It is disciplined enough to exclude unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, despite our preconceived desires to believe them.
But that is exactly the fundamental error of Intelligent Design; you begin with the unproven (indeed, unprovable) assertion that there is a god. Perhaps this is due to a religious upbringing, an emotional experience, or a deep desire for purpose. But these individual bias must be excluded if you wish to claim that your thinking is "Scientific".
Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't. You have created a giant strawman. "God created" is definitely not scientific by definition. It is a faith. That faith has been proven to over 2 billion people (argumentum ad populum). I repeat it is not scientific. It is faith based. The faith is founded on evidence. Some of that evidence is historical documents, prophecies fulfilled, miracles performed and documented, testimonies of eyewitnesses, archeology, and much of the evidence is also scientific.
What makes you think that this forum is only for science discussions? Claims do not just have to be scientific claims. This forum is entitled "Intelligent Design". That may or may not be "scientific" by definition. Discussion of God is certainly not scientific.
Proof happens every day in the courtrooms. That proof goes way beyond the realm of science. But science is often part of that proof. That's where my faith lay. It's a combination of all those evidences above. I've not limited myself to just natural knowlege like you have. There is much more knowledge in this world that is not scientific. You may want to try and learn some sometime.
Mylakovich writes:
If your unsupported, un evidenced god is conveniently identical to the evidence we have to understand nature, then this logically makes him irrelevant to our understanding of nature (i.e. Science). Why assert thing unnecessarily?
I thought science was supposed to be unbiased. I would think that an equally logical conclusion would be that nature was irrelevant. Why must God be irrelevant?
wiki writes:
According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural. -Supernatural-
The definitions of nature and science have changed over the years. Todays definition of nature elliminates the supernatural. That just makes Nature equal to God. I like simple math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 4:00 AM Mylakovich has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2008 10:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 34 by AdminNosy, posted 09-04-2008 10:37 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 36 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 38 of 85 (480658)
09-05-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AdminNosy
09-04-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Some notes on your tactics
adminnosy writes:
AOk, you are giving the impression that you do not intend to debate in good faith. This may be because of you lack of knowledge of the areas under discussion. Perhaps this will improve but if it doesn't it may be that you don't belong in the science threads at all.
Upon what basis do you claim that "I don't intend to debate in good faith"? My posts are more lengthy and detailed and factually supported with outside evidence than anyone in this thread including yourself so far. If you don't think I have scientific knowledge then challenge my claims and assertions. Don't make an ad hominen suggestion that I am lacking in the area of scientific knowledge. My whole career has been in the scientific field, and now I have built a successful business from it. At least I have subscriptions to Science and Nature and can quote directly from them. I have seen almost zilch of such scientific citations from my opponents.
In fact you promoted this thread which had no basis in science or logic. Fortunately, I and others have shown the fallacies of andorg in his logic. After andorg dropped out, others started asking me direct questions which I answered in good faith.
adminnosy writes:
The expression "burden of proof" is a common phrase. It refers to proof in the logical sense not the sense applied in the example you gave. This is an example of where you go off track because you have such limited understanding of the context in which you are working.
cavediver writes:
I mean, WTF??? What the hell does this have to do with what he said? Where did he mention scientific proof? "Burden of proof" is a well known English expression and does not contradict in any way the evidence-based nature of science. If the "burden of proof" is upon you, then it is up to you to bring forth evidence. Only soneone utterly unaquainted to the English language, or a dribbling idiot would misconstrue this to claim that scientific "proof" was being demanded. I'm assuming you fall into the former?
I would argue that both of the above statements are not made in good faith. Mylakovich was conveniently quote mined by both of you. Out of context words can mean anything by definition, but context clarifies the definition. Here is what he said....
adminnosy writes:
That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself. If you assert something improvable and outside the realm of falcafiablility, it's your own fault.
The "realm of falcafiablility" (Falsifiability) was conveniently left out by you and cavediver. That is a scientific term. It certainly is not a legal term or a debating logic term. Mylokovich was clearly challenging a strawman to "Prove God" in a scientific manner. His next paragraph emphasized scientific proof even more. That cannot be done, nor can anything in science be proven. It's all a matter of probability and certainty.
Now this is a science forum, and that was a science answer.
adminnosy writes:
Then do not bring God into a science thread.
Then who pray tell is the intelligent designer? God or god? I cannot think of another metaphysical entity. Isn't this the argument of science against ID? I am in agreement with science here! Maybe that's why you think I am being dishonest. I am agreeing with you. Maybe you've never seen that phenomenon before.
There is no question in my mind that ID is not scientific according to its current definition of methodological naturalism. ID is pseudo science under this definition.
The argument is not whether ID is science or not, the argument is whether science is just methodological naturalism or whether science is methodological metaphysical naturalism. That's where I stand.
adminnosy writes:
Perhaps you should supply a clear definition of how you are using the word "faith" since it appears you have a non-standard definition here.
Here's your answer...
wiki writes:
Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea.
At its root, faith is trust. There are two types of trust and faith. One is blind and the other is not. Evos often have the false understanding that all faith is blind where actually most faith is not blind, but is built over time with evidentiary support. Note: not all evidence is empirical.
A child's trust/faith in their parents is based on evidence. A spouse's trust/faith is based on evidence. A religious person's trust/faith is based on evidence. Evangelism is an argument. It is a logical process of demonstrable evidence. Usually that evidence is not scientific or empirical, but sometimes it is. It certainly was with me.
Blind faith is trust without evidence. That certainly is not the Christian faith. Hebrews 11:1 says:
Hebrews 11:1 writes:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The greek word for evidence is also often translated "conviction" or "proof". The word is a legal term meaning "evidentiary proof that brings about conviction."
That is what I mean by faith.
adminnosy writes:
Here is another example of where you don't understand the context in which you are working. The whole reason that "Intelligent Design" was invented was to show that it was scientific. It's proponents specifically claim that it is not about God. It has suddenly become less popular because it was shown that they have been lying.
The forum you are in is explicitly to be about scientific discussions. If you don't like that then stay in the other side of EvCforum.
And you can't even see that I am agreeing with you. Saying "Discussion of God is certainly not scientific" is a very scientific statement. I am not arguing for ID. I think the approach is wrong. So does AIG and many other Christian organizations.
However, I do not think it is wise to eliminate the metaphysical from methodological naturalism. That is a very limited paradigm. It is the current paradigm of science. However, the more we discover about the anthropic priciples regarding the organization of the universe and our planet, the complexity of life, and the infinite smallness of fundamental particles in quantum physics, and the multidimensional aspect of the universe, I just think intelligence is evident. It smacks you in the face. That intelligence would be metaphysical, and that metaphysical entity would be God/god.
adminnosy writes:
Could you explain the logic in this statement. You compare something that we have evidence for the existence of to something we don't.
Certainly. Science has discovered gravity. There is evidence for it. It is either an elementary force or the summation of elementary particles. We're not sure, but we know it exists, and we know for the most part how it behaves. Now gravity is just one small part of something we call nature. I hope we can agree on the above statements. Gravity is everywhere. It is omnipresent in the universe. According to BBT, gravity existed before time. Gravity existed outside of time. Gravity was also infinite in the singularity of the BB. All of these are biblical descriptions of God. In fact the scripture says that God "holds" all things together both visible and invisible. To me the discovery of gravity as one part of "nature" is nothing short of the discovery of one part of God.
Light is the same way. Is it a wave or a particle? We don't know for sure, but we do believe that photons are elementary particles. Light like gravity is massless. And light is related to time. And time can dialate relative to the speed of light and gravity. Light is an elemental part of what is called nature. The scripture says, "God is light". To me, our understanding of light is nothing short of the discovery of one part of God.
Now another elemental part of the universe is intelligence and the conscious mind. The mind is identifiable, but not easily quantifiable. The mind is a massless entity. Elemental things in the universe have mostly been discovered/quantified by physics. However, the mind will be left to biology. Biology is emcumberred with materialism which does not consider the possibility of forces or elemental particles that might explain life and the mind. If Biologists did look for such metaphysical things like a life force, and maybe a mental force then I believe we would discover more massless things in nature that would have similar attributes as are normally described as God.
adminnosy writes:
Silly, childish little statements like this are another example of where you don't appear to intend to carry on an honest discussion. If that is the case you should stop posting to the science forums.
There is nothing silly about what I said. And there is no indication that I am being deceptive. What I said is absolutely true.
wiki writes:
According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural. Are there forces beyond the natural forces studied by physics? Are there ways of sensing that go beyond our biological senses and instruments? Certainly there may always be things outside of the realm of human understanding, as of yet unconfirmed and dubious in existence, and some might term these "supernatural". - Supenatural-
Current science and materialistic naturalism have defined the impossibility of the supernatural. But they haven't defined away God. All of the attributes that are used to define God are found within Nature. Most of these "natural" entities are elemental or foundational. When you reach the foundations which you still can't explain, but they have all the attributes of God, then I say you have just discovered God as the scriptures declare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AdminNosy, posted 09-04-2008 10:37 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dokukaeru, posted 09-05-2008 3:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 40 by bluescat48, posted 09-05-2008 5:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 42 of 85 (480907)
09-07-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by bluegenes
09-05-2008 6:48 PM


Vengeance and Jealousy....
bluegenes writes:
Natural human traits, both of them. And as it's us who invents Gods, it's hardly surprising if they share our traits.
Actually there is no evidence of a natural origin of vengeance. It is an attribute of God and an attribute of man designed in His image. Vengeance is not condemned in man in the scriptures. Vengeance is not evil. Vengeance is a part of any legal system which requires intelligence.
There is some evidence of the natural evolution of jealousy. But again, animals had the same designer according to ID.
You assume that we invented God. That is intelligent design. Quite intelligent and uniquely designed according to the scriptures.
I assume that God invented us. That is intelligent design. Quite intelligent and uniquely designed according to the scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2008 6:48 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2008 3:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 44 of 85 (481000)
09-08-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mylakovich
09-04-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Spontaneous response
Mylakovich writes:
Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't. You have created a giant strawman.
You absolutely did, you liar. In message 22 you reply:
onifre writes:
Right, but where did the DNA come from?
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
So you call me a liar. Then quote me. So wherein my statements do you see anything that can be interpreted that "God created" is scientific.
This is a clear example of how pre-conceived ideas can lead to pre-conceived conclusions.
Mylakovich writes:
So you repeat MY OWN POINT back to me, and quote the name of a LOGICAL FALLACY to support MY OWN POINT!? You are the worst debater I've ever seen.
Actually you are the worst reader I have ever seen. Yes, I proved your point, because as I have said from the beginning ID is not science under its current definition.
Mylakovich writes:
I don't think that you are trolling, because I'm quite accustomed to the level of ignorance of fundamental aspects of science that ID proponents display. I find it funny that you add in little jabs at my understanding, as though they would faze me.
No, there is much that could faze you at your current reading skill. But keep working at it and you may get fazed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mylakovich, posted 09-04-2008 11:14 AM Mylakovich has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 45 of 85 (481001)
09-08-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coyote
09-07-2008 8:51 PM


Re: That brings to mind...
coyote writes:
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves.
Yes I guess you could call Christianity and Judaism rare as compared to the vast number of man made religions in this world including humanism, pantheism, and materialistic naturalism.
The whole basis of Judeao Christian scriptures is that God is vastly superior to humans. But a coyote couldn't invent that could he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2008 8:51 PM Coyote has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 47 of 85 (481032)
09-08-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
09-08-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Complex human made gods.
bluegenes writes:
I said we invent gods. Do you disagree?
Absolutely, we have invented small "g" gods. But I disagree that we have invented the large "G" God. He invented us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2008 3:37 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2008 10:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 50 of 85 (481091)
09-09-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
09-08-2008 10:55 PM


Re: Complex human made gods.
bluejay writes:
But, it's interesting to note that our concept of God has "evolved" over time, just as our technological concepts have "evolved" over time. For instance, did you know that the Old Testament Hebrews did not believe in heaven or a resurrection until they were taken into Babylon? After this is when the ideas of a glorious afterlife began to surface in the Hebrews. It's curious (and somewhat suspicious) to note that the Babylonians did believe in an afterlife, and that, after the Israelites came in contact with the Babylonians, they believed in an afterlife, too.
I agree with you also, however, my agreement is very limited. Our ideas do "evolve" over time. And those ideas are downward and erroneous evolution, just like the evolution we observe in nature.
My father gave me some great words of wisdom as I was growing up. He would say to me, "Believe only about one third of what you read, and about one half of what you see." I am a much greater skeptic than most in this forum. As far as doctrines, I study multiple sides rather than just accepting the one I "grew up" within. As far as science is concerned, the evidence and the observations I accept as real and valid. It is the "suggestions" of those obsevations or the interpretations of those observations that I have a problems with.
Having said all of that, your source for the Babylonians being the first to have a concept of heaven and an afterlife are just plain wrong. If you had consulted the Bible first rather than man's evolved thoughts you would know this.
In Gen 1 the Hebrews are introduced to God who creates the heaven(s). In this chapter the Hebrews are introduced to the concept of eternality, soul, body, and spirit. The dwelling place of God is established from many early scriptures, but it is referred to as "heaven" in the context of the heaven beyond the earths atmosphere (heaven). If you want citations, I can provide plenty. In Genesis the Hebrews are also introduced to the concept of death... the end of life and how and why it enterred the earth.
The Hebrews became a nation with the Exodus from Egypt. Shortly after this God introduced them to two books. One was the book of the law which has many reference in the OT. The other is a book that God was writing. The Book of Life.....
Exo 32:30-33 writes:
30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.
31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Now even though it is not directly referred to as "the book of life", it is clearly understood by the Hebrews as that. David later writes in the Psalms:
Psa 69:27-29 writes:
27 Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not come into Your righteousness.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded with the righteous.
29 But I am afflicted and in pain; May Your salvation, O God, set me securely on high.
The concept of salvation was introduced in Genesis 49. The word is yeshua...Jesus.
The concept of the entertwinement of spirit/soul/life are well founded in the Torah.
And finally, in Ecc 12 Solomon refers to our bodies returning to dust and the spirit returning to God. He also refers to our eternal dwelling.
All of this is well before the Babylonians, so I would think that just maybe, the Babylonians copied their ideas from the Hebrews...???
Now that you have more evidence on this, what do you think?
bluejay writes:
It's interesting to me that religion has followed much the same pattern as all other technological and cultural paradigms: it has "evolved" from other, pre-existing paradigms. To me, this suggests that design (the concept, not the individual object or project) also follows an "evolutionary" pattern.
Again, I agree if you are talking about religion in general. However, I believe that the biblical faith is unique in that it is the first to present a single all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent creating God. And it is God doing the presenting through the ages with over 3500 years of documented history as well as 40 writers from just about every walk of life. There is no other religion that compares.
bluejay writes:
On a side note, this shouldn't cause you to lose your faith in religion, though: just as science is getting closer and closer to learning the truth about nature, so could religion be getting closer and closer to learning the truth about the divine. Of course, this mindset only works if you don't ally yourself to a sect that refuses to allow change of any sort.
Well your erroneous source certainly isn't going to erdode my faith. The truth is ever changing and ever eluding in science. It isn't with God or nature for that matter. I believe science does lead us to the truth of God and nature. I also believe we will find this truth quicker if we rely on the source of truth, logic, and widom in the first place. That's what creation scientists do.
I don't know why you think biblical creationists are not unchanging in their beliefs and understandings. Mine sure have over the years. I used to be an OEC. It is the truths of God (and of nature) that are unchanging. My understandings of both faith and science are just a part of my journey while growing in the faith an knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2008 10:55 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024