|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The wonder of science vs. the banality of creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What "we" see is a reality of energy held together by more energy in an absolutely infinite complex of immutable laws and rules that are unbreakable and can be relied upon no matter where we look or how far we travel. How would you respond to the argument that "life evolves" is a law of nature that is "unbreakable and can be relied upon no matter where we look or how far we travel"? Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4741 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Stone tools of the past worked better that steel tools of the present. I assure you, I didn't read it with one. Obsidian blades can be extremely sharp, but to manufacture them to a standard that make them "worked better that [sic] steel tools of the present" is not feasible. Do you have examples of stone tools working better then modern steel ones? Oh, sure, a bit of obsidian might work better than the little, plastic sheathed scissors the orderlies allows you to cut the yarn and construction paper with for your macaroni projects, but not real, steel tools. Someone is selling you an inferior bill of goods; your comment is a Luddite fairy tail. I've read every one of the 54 posts you've made to this forum to date. Not once have you made a point that is anywhere close to the equal in beauty of any of a dozen of things I've read in the April 2008 Scientific American I'm reading today. (While Straggle has several times in his last few posts, so it can be done.) If the greatest wonder you get out of this world are based on willful ignorance of the workings of this world maybe you should work harder on getting a pair of real scissors. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
That's the basis for Science. There are no side rules that allow for matter or intelligence to spring forth on it's own. Or for good design to come out of nothing. On whose authority do you make this pronouncement? Yours? Can you imagine, just maybe, that there are "rules of nature" that Sky doesn't know about? 'Cause I can imagine that there are some that no human yet knows about. And there's a couple of known ones that "allow for matter...to spring forth on its own." It happens all the time - electron/positron pairs out of nada. You're talking bologna, Sky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
----------------- That's the basis for Science. There are no side rules that allow for matter or intelligence to spring forth on it's own. Or for good design to come out of nothing. ------------------ On whose authority do you make this pronouncement? Yours? Can you imagine, just maybe, that there are "rules of nature" that Sky doesn't know about? 'Cause I can imagine that there are some that no human yet knows about. And there's a couple of known ones that "allow for matter...to spring forth on its own." It happens all the time - electron/positron pairs out of nada. You're talking bologna, Sky. I said there are none. It should be very easy to show me wrong then.Something that shows (even hints) Newton was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2874 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
No law of nature evolves.
Thanks. Now we can dispose of the creationist argument of non constant radioactive decay rates?
If evolution is supposed to be a primary power or source of life, where are the indicators?
The reactions of physical chemistry. The complex folding of proteins due to physical forces resulting in high specificity to act as enzymes that catalyze specific reactions. Chemistry removes the assertion that random processes cannot account for the organization that life presents. Natural selection superimposed upon the cycle of self replication removes the rest. Please watch "Evolution is a blind watchmaker". Glycolysis, which is a very non-efficient (a factor of 18 less efficient than respiration) method to acquire stored energy for the cell. It indicates an ancient development, being utilized by all forms of life, and indicates it developed prior to oxygen becoming available in the atmosphere.
What law of nature even hints at that?
It is a law of nature in itself. It has been demonstrated to work by computer simulations, eliminating the creationist argument that it can't be observed because of the necessity of the passage of eons of time that forbid direct observation.Where is the Foundation of Evolution? On what Law of Science does it stand? As a counter consideration, consider the creationist argument which relies upon acceptance of the bible or 'sola scriptura' for its foundation. You are relying upon scripture as the ultimate arbiter of 'truth'. An observation about a 'sola scriptura' approach to 'truth'; As I hope you are aware there are a multitude of interpretations of the bible.So to postulate that God communicates to man via the bible one has to additionally postulate that there is a single correct interpretation of the bible. Now the problem is how to distinguish that correct interpretation from all other interpretations. If the bible is only allowed to make that determination we are stuck. So now there must exist something external to the bible by which the determination can be accomplished. So sola scriptura is invalidated as a correct approach to 'truth', even for people who accept faith as the basis for determining ultimate reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
How would you respond to the argument that "life evolves" is a law of nature that is "unbreakable and can be relied upon no matter where we look or how far we travel"? That "life" was/is a singular unique event not found anywhere else.The opposite of a universal law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Do you have examples of stone tools working better then modern steel ones?
Actually there is such a case. Years ago, one of the country's best flintknappers, Don Crabtree, had to have surgery and he made his surgeon a series of obsidian blades. They are significantly sharper than surgical instruments. NCBI This doesn't make sky right of course. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
How many other planets have you visited in your search for life Sky?
Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Something that shows (even hints) Newton was wrong. Einstein did that about a century ago, as far as gravity and laws of motion go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Now we can dispose of the creationist argument of non constant radioactive decay rates? Lets try to stick to my own feet in my own mouth...ok? Granted, creationists have said they've found supporting observations for changes in decay rates. But I don't even feel their efforts are needed. If mass affects time then the creation of mass will massively effect time. No pun intended. My own take on Creation, as the scriptures explain it, is that any supernatural act takes place outside of time-as we know it. All the "Miracles" of scriptures require direct distortions of time. I've charted all this out in the past Or take place outside of "normal" time. So I feel that using current "time" to pinpoint creation week is pointless. So I'm not in sync with ICR on many points. I don't see how you can look at E=mc2 and not see that when mass is created, time is not going to be normal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
How many other planets have you visited in your search for life Sky? I wish you well, but don't expect me to foot the bill on your quest to prove me wrong. Not even for SETI.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: How would you respond to the argument that "life evolves" is a law of nature that is "unbreakable and can be relied upon no matter where we look or how far we travel"? That "life" was/is a singular unique event not found anywhere else.The opposite of a universal law. Are there any factors that you think might increase the probability of life elsewhere? Or is life here a one off and that it is utterly pointless to even think it might exist elsewhere?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2874 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
If mass affects time then the creation of mass will massively effect time.
E=mc2 does not involve the variable t.But the presence of mass involves the slowing of clocks which make radiological clocks 'off' in the wrong direction for YECs. YECs need to speed the passage of time, not slow it down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5177 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Or is life here a one off and that it is utterly pointless to even think it might exist elsewhere? From my point of view...it simply doesn't. Not yet. From your point of view...how could it possibly affect us if it did? If you think of some value to the quest...let us know. And If I get the opportunity, I'll let you know what the rest of the cosmos was put there for.I'm sure it has a purpose. I get to find out the "why."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
quote: The point is not whether alien life exists or not. The point is that you should realise that you are basing your argument upon a glaring fallacy. You claim that life is unique. You claim this in a vacuum of evidence. To demonstrate that there was no extra-terrestrial life anywhere in the universe, you would need to be able to examine the entire universe, no? You are engaging in hasty generalisation. For all you know, life could be relatively common in the universe. Or it could be unique to Earth. You just don't know and neither do I. There's simply not enough information. Pulling "facts" out of your ass is no substitute for an argument. In fact, it typifies the kind of woolly thinking that leads directly to the stunted world-view that Mr Jack criticises in his OP. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024