|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: A proof against ID and Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
You cannot use a balloon as an example of the universe.
I wasn't. Instead, I was using it as an example to demonstrate that increase in size does not imply creation. That debunks your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Menachem Inactive Member |
On the contrary, your argument actually confirms my belief. You give an example of a balloon that has atmosphere around it to expand or shrink inside of - What outer atmosphere does the universe exist in to expand and shrink inside of?
This message has been edited by Menachem, 01-22-2006 11:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
On the contrary, your argument actually confirms my belief.
If a clear counter-example confirms your belief, then you must not be expressing your beliefs very well.
What outer atmosphere does the universe exist in to expand and shrink inside of?
You are really confused. The atmosphere makes it harder for the balloon to expand. If you removed the atmosphere, it would expand very visibly. You need to rethink your argument, then express it better than you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Menachem Inactive Member |
Can you see what I am trying to say?
Everything in this universe (generally speaking) has room to move around. The universe itself must also have room to move around in if it is true that it can expand and shrink.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Can you see what I am trying to say?
You are telling us that you don't understand big bang cosmology, although that's probably not what you are trying to say.
The universe itself must also have room to move around in if it is true that it can expand and shrink.
But that's a misunderstanding of the cosmology. You might want to look over some of the threads in Big Bang and Cosmology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Menachem Inactive Member |
Those threads are brilliant.
Think how small we are in comparison to the universe. In addition to my spiritual knowledge (of lack of time limits and spacial distance) this allows me to stand in awe at the brilliant world we have been given. The fact that this world (telescopes, infrared etc.) allows us to observe the universe is a proof that we have purpose. To say that we have all of this knowledge for no reason except survival (our lives are so short) is to say that every positive thing we do is futile (and all we do is not for you or I but for some future generation that may never exist.) Can you not see that your brilliant mind contains an understanding that surpasses most humans. How can you honestly think that your knowledge of the universe is a result of an "evolutionary" (as opposed to ID) process that allowed you to comprehend this stuff. It is clear to me that we all have purpose. Scientists are actually promoting ID through true science. It is when scientists claim "proofs" against ID that they are only fooling themselves. You cannot describe the complexity of the universe to a Creationist or IDist without "putting legs onto the wood to make a firm table (confirming belief in ID.)" The truth is, the Creator wants us to appreciate this universe. There are no other creatures besides humans on the planet with this understanding! NOT ONE! Everything (animals, foods, medicine, the sun, moon etc.) is here for YOU. It is true for every individual to say, "the world was created for me!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Think how small we are in comparison to the universe. In addition to my spiritual knowledge (of lack of time limits and spacial distance) this allows me to stand in awe at the brilliant world we have been given.
Many scientist look at the wonders of the world, and are filled with awe. Many biologists look at how well evolution works, and are filled with awe. Many see this a reason to believe in a creator. However, awe is not proof. That we are filled with awe many be reason for us to believe there is a creator. But it is not science. The problem with ID, is that it claims to be science. Awe and wonder are not science. You need empirical evidence, you need predictions that are well tested to show that they hold, before you have science. The objection to ID is the claim that it is science, and the attempt to force it into the science class by means of politics. The objection to ID among biologists, is that the ID proponents claim evolution is wrong, while it is the biologists awe at how well evolution works that leads many of them to wonder about whether there is a creator. If the proponents on ID were to write poems and essays about their sense of wonder, then maybe they could have some of those in the literature classes, particularly if the poems and essays were themselves inspiring. It is the false claim that ID is science, and the false objections to evolution, that raise concern among scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Menachem,
Nwr has already addressed the "argument from awe", so I'll reply to this small part:
Menachem writes: It is when scientists claim "proofs" against ID that they are only fooling themselves. Because ID makes no testable claims, it cannot be falsified. The claim by scientists isn't that ID has been disproved, but that it isn't science. Dembski claims that specified complexity is a sign of design, but he proposes no deterministic method for identifying it. This makes sense, since other scientists working on complexity haven't gotten much beyond characterizing it as a very difficult area of study (I'm minimizing their accomplishments, but you get the idea). This leaves IDists with nothing much to go on but, "Golly, that sure is complex!" Thus the conclusion of design becomes subjective and individual, the antithesis of science but consistent with those who see religion as a personal issue. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, you seem to be making more and more grandiouse claims about God. I mean, the concept that God is beyond Time and Space is not biblical at all. It seems that you are trying to push God further and further out of human experiance. That is not every biblical, since it says "Man is made in god's image". Your vast claims about God make it so that Man and god do not have any commonality.
You can make any claims you want about god. They are not backed up with either scripture or evidence though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
How do you know that? How do you know that all that matter/energy of the universe just didn't change form, but were already in existance before the inflationary period known as the 'big bang'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Menachem Inactive Member |
I totally agree that ID can never replace Scientific Discovery.
This message has been edited by Menachem, 01-24-2006 12:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Menachem Inactive Member |
My message has been removed by me because it doesn't fit into "sound logic." as described by Admin.
This message has been edited by Menachem, 01-24-2006 12:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
In this thread you will have to do better than that. Playing pretend mystical word games has no meaning in this discussion.
You probably think you sound very clever. What you sound is silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Menachem Inactive Member |
RE: "You probably think you sound very clever".
Of course I don't think that I sound clever. I probably do sound like a know-it-all though. I have never claimed to know everything. Unlike the people you usually refute - I speak truth. I have told everyone that I am a simple person. It is you who is trying to sound clever, by denying my truth for no reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3923 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I suggest to you that you are missing the point entirely. Science isn't about your mystical Truth, it is about facts and approximations that can be proven or disproven, discredited and adjusted. It is about stuff we can use in real life to do things. Armchair religions with no demonstrable miracles need not even apply. Semantic games aren't science, find another forum more suitable for your mental self-service like "Faith and Belief" and propose a question appropriate to said forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024