Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8883 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-18-2019 1:21 PM
200 online now:
14174dm, Aussie, AZPaul3, candle2, edge, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Taq, vimesey (10 members, 190 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: candle2
Post Volume:
Total: 845,871 Year: 908/19,786 Month: 908/1,731 Week: 265/438 Day: 50/33 Hour: 8/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9495969798
99
Author Topic:   Creation
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6497
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 1471 of 1473 (846086)
12-28-2018 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1470 by ICANT
12-28-2018 10:00 AM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
ICANT writes:

There is a big difference in the two statements. One has been proven to be a scientific fact. The other is a lie perpetrated by Tangle.

Moses did say: "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

The very best way I can interpret this post is to think that youre a blithering idiot, so Ill just have to work with that fact in mind.

There is no science in what Moses is supposed to have said. Its also a statement of the bleeding obvious. (Pun intended).

Its so obvious that every person over the age of 10 would have known it even then.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1470 by ICANT, posted 12-28-2018 10:00 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3633
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 1472 of 1473 (846124)
12-29-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1456 by ICANT
12-26-2018 3:34 PM


Re: Creation
Now as far as subjective, everything is subjective.

No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts. Reality as perceived by our senses assuming properly calibrated senses, calibrated by like observations by other sets of senses. I reject the brain-in-a-box solipsist bull.

There is an objective reality and we can perceive it.

Everything you have ever been taught about creation is subject to the original assumptions being fact.

The only "creation" anything I have ever heard are the various religious creation myths none of which are consistent and many of which defy what we know of the universe not just defying logic and ethics.

Despite what religious people like to expound there is no scientific creation theory ... yet.

No, not the big bang. No, not abiogenesis. No, not evolution.

The big bang gets us close to the birth of the universe but stops us just short of the event itself, abiogenesis is still fragmented among several viable hypothesis and evolution does not address creation at all.

What else is an experiment supposed to produce. It either proves or disproves the premise.

We're having a discussion in a science forum, reverend. You gotta get your science hat on.

What experiments produce is evidence, not proof. They certainly can disprove a specific premise but they can never prove one. They can only increase our level of confidence in a premise being true/real/actual. They can never actually show a premise to be true/real/actual.

It's a philosophy thing.

AZPaul writes:

The power, Reverend, is once you have a theory that models past observations accurately their predictive powers become more accurate as well.

What theory does that?

General relativity, QED, QCD, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, Germ theory, Plate Tectonics ...

Lots of them.

None of them tell me where the universe came from.

... yet.

Nor will they ever.

You might be right, just like they can't tell us how stars work and where all the elements come from or how time slows at really fast speeds and ...

Oh! Wait! They do tell us these things.

Well, they didn't use to, so what are they going to tell us next?

We're going to have to wait and find out what any new theories have to tell us.

The universe can not have existed eternally in the past due to entropy.

We don't know that ... yet. We have no idea what attributes, physics, laws operate(d) prior to, before, outside of, right next to, or anything beyond this present universe we inhabit.

I think we may have finally overcome this "there is no before or outside or other then this universe" bs. I think we have finally accepted that we are totally ignorant of any such things and cannot truthfully say anything about such matters existing or not. There are no stops. All is open to our inquiry.

Since nothing exists outside the universe according to the standard theory that requires the universe having a beginning to exist from non-existence.

That is sooo last season, ICANT. You need to update.

We cannot say if there is or is not anything prior/outside this universe because we have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.

It's a pleasant dream right now but maybe, someday in the next 500 years +- we may have a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity that may, fingers crossed, allow us to pierce those non-existent singularities everyone is so upset over.

Therefore a "WHY" is necessary.

No, as a matter of fact, it isn't.

The "why" you are asking is just a human construct subject to the same subjective emotional baggage as all such constructs in this kind of discussion, i.e. useless.

You left out the most important one "BIOGENESIS".

That's "abiogenesis", with the "a", but I understand what you are getting at.

No, I didn't leave it out. I totally forgot about it. There is a difference.

Humans did not exist. Now humans exist. My question is why do they exist which requires a purpose.

No, it doesn't. We exist because we evolved. There is no purpose to evolution. It didn't require one before the sun turned on and it doesn't require one now.

And they will never tell me where life came from.

You may be right about that. I don't think an acceptable theory of abiogenesis will come about in our lifetimes. Like fusion power and peace in the middle east we'll be long gone before that happens.

The standard theory is the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category.

I have been trying to get supporting evidence for that conclusion since the 1st post in this thread and in other threads.

I am confused. There are a lot of scientific theories out there, not just the Standard Model. The standard model deals with particles and forces. The "stuff and glue" that make up the universe. There are also Special Relativity, General Relativity, the Quantum Field Theories QED and QCD, that have more to do with how all this stuff and glue operate.

Why would you say the Standard Model was the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category? All above are actual, bona fide, accepted theories in the true science meaning of that word.

Supporting evidence for what conclusions? That our theories actually work?

Would you care to present any evidence or just continue to tell me the "theories do that exceptionally well". That statement is an assertion not evidence.

I told you before I would present you one piece of evidence, only one, and that I wasn't about to try to give you a semester's worth of college physics through this forum. I did that.

So, no, I would not care to present any more evidence. You're on your own.

If it is not complete it should not be classified as a theory but as a hypothesis.

I guess ignorance of science tails with ignorance of scientific terminology.

I think I'll just let that one stand there and simmer a bit.

When did it reach a consensus?
One of our most outstanding cosmologist of the present Sir Roger Penrose calls "cosmic inflation a fantasy.

Do you know something that he does not? If you do present it.

Dr. Penrose does not a consensus break.

Remember Dr. Fred Hoyle? He didn't brake a consensus either.

At least you said string theory, and bounce theory were just a hypothetical model.

Which means it is something that is based on a guess.

It doesn't mean that at all, Reverend.

It means the model is not yet complete enough to be testable with our present technology. It is still hypothesis, not just a guess. If you cannot discern a difference I cannot help you there.

Dark matter and Dark energy are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. That assumption is all the evidence you have for their existence.

Not quite right.

We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe. They just don't rotate right. There appears to be more gravity (mass) than we can see. We know it's there because of the gravitational effect but, unlike other matter showing gravitational effects we cannot see the stuff and don't know what it is. So, for right now, we call it "dark".

Good name for something you know is there but can't see.

Same with dark energy. We see its effects all across the visible universe but we don't yet know what it is.

And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.

You say gravity holds the universe together and since there is not enough matter and energy in the universe to accomplish that feat science invented dark matter, and dark energy.

Where do you get all this wrong stuff?

The Bible says God holds, or binds it together. There is just as much evidence to support this hypothesis as for dark matter and dark energy.

Laugh.

Why do you say "no he didn't". I have photo copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which is 2200 hundred years old and they used the same two Hebrew words I explained above. According to science those original scrolls are a little over 2200 years old.

The people who lived 400 years after Moses lived had scrolls with the same text written on them.

And you know these fragments are right how?

Or did everyone at the time have specialty degrees in hematology?

No, ICANT, Moses, if he even existed at all, may have said some words, maybe even those very words you used (though given the state of the sources I would doubt that) but that does not in any way translate into Moses demonstrating some deep knowledge of hematology in the way you suggest.

All he knew was if you bleed too hard you get dead. Show me where he acknowledged anything more than that. So far, the quote you are using does not realistically indicate that.

Everything I would tell you, you would probably classify as coincidence. But with such a preponderance of coincidences in my life the evidence is overwhelming to me that God does exist.

Well, I can't argue that. You're probably right, again.

People all over this world find all manner of gods in the coincidences of their little lives. I cannot remember how many times I've heard that the coincidence of finding ones car keys in a dark field was proof of some god or other involved in our little lives trying to help.

Leave the damn keys in the damn field. Get rid of cancer instead.

When you die and you will, you will stand before God and be judged by what you have done with the opportunities you had on earth to trust Him for eternal life. You will not have an excuse when you stand before Him.

When you and I both die, and we will, our energies will be diffused back into the global environment and our bodies will break down into their constituent molecules and atoms to be used in other systems living and otherwise. Nothing will remain of us here or anywhere except in memories and after a few hundred years not even there.

God Bless,
And I continue to pray for you and yours, and everyone else.

Well, thank you, ICANT. I'll think kindly on you, too.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1456 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 3:34 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3346
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1473 of 1473 (846138)
12-30-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1438 by ICANT
12-21-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

Maybe God exists and judges everyone on how naive they were.

If that was the case He would have told us.

This cannot be true.

If we were told, it would defeat the purpose of finding out how naive people were.
In being told, it would only find out how good people are at following directions.

Those are two different things.

One is a God searching for intelligent companions.
The other is a God searching for robots.

ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

Maybe God doesn't exist, but something else does and they put believers in the Pit of Fools too.


If that was the case that something else would have told us.

I don't see any reason to agree with your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1438 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2018 3:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9495969798
99
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019