Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 6:45 PM
188 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, vimesey (3 members, 185 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   A Few Questions For Creationists
armylngst
Junior Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-20-2008


Message 76 of 86 (483166)
09-20-2008 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Coragyps
09-20-2008 9:39 AM


Let's put two subthreads together: say that Hurricane Ike blew down some trees, and that a scientist wanted to confirm just how much wind-with-rain it takes to blow that particular strain of slash pine over. So she borrows the fan from one of NASA's giant wind tunnels, sets it up out by Conroe, Texas, and starts blowing down trees. She measures wind speeds and varies the amount of simulated rain she adds in.

Does that make Ike intelligent? That's precisely what you are arguing.

I apologize for the response if you wanted one only from Dunaspy, but I had to say something. The fact that the scientist had to go get a huge fan from NASA, and a sprinkler from home depot in order to create the winds and "rain" necessary for her experiments simply shows that the conditions of the experiment (high wind and "rain" in this case) do not just happen.

All this example shows is that wind and rain comes from somewhere, and happen in "controlled" circumstances. Your example does not show that Ike is intelligent, but that it was caused by intelligence. Actually, it shows that the situation that caused Ike to happen was put in place by an intelligence, in the way that the wind in the experiment was caused by a fan put in place by an intelligence.

To put it simply: The laws of nature (the fan and sprinkler that cause hurricanes) came from somewhere. I prefer to think that the laws of nature were put in place by "God" (I say this to denote the fact that I am not pro-ID). (NOTE: "God" is in quotes since not everyone here believes he exists, or say we cannot know who or what this "God" is.)

The simple way to put both situations is cause and effect. This "God" institutes the laws of nature, which causes hurricane Ike (or any other kind of weather, good or bad) to occur when certain conditions are met. In the same way this "scientist" sets up a huge fan and sprinkler, which causes high winds and "rain" when they are turned on. Is the hurricane intelligent? No. Is the high wind and "rain" intelligent? No. Did an intelligence cause the hurricane? I would say, yes, though perhaps not directly (laws of nature). Did an intelligence cause the high wind and "rain"? I would say yes, though perhaps not directly (big huge fan and sprinkler), unless the scientist is a real wind bag...sorry couldn't resist. (I mean no insult, just a funny thought that came to mind at midnight).

Now I will straighten out the argument. If the scientist is an intelligence, and if this scientist uses a fan and sprinkler to create wind and simulated rain, then the wind and simulated rain are caused by an intelligence, but are not intelligent in and of themselves. Yet, the fan and sprinkler are also not intelligent in and of themselves, because the fan and sprinkler did not cause the wind and "rain" in and of themselves. The scientist caused it to happen by turning the fan and sprinkler on.

Now on to hurricane Ike. This one is a little more difficult because some of you (most of you?) would say that the intelligence in this case is unknowable and unproveable. The fan in this case are the natural laws that govern (cause) high wind. The intelligence is whoever or whatever put those natural laws in place, and then, like the scientist with the fan and sprinkler, "turned them on". The final product, high wind and rain, aka hurricane Ike, is not intelligent in and of itself, just like the wind and rain in the scientist example. So the final answer to your question is no, Dunaspy's argument does not make hurricane Ike intelligent.

Trying to follow logically in both veins, would the fact of "God" creating the natural laws that governed hurricane Ike mean that he would have to be directly involved in hurricane Ike? No. Does it mean that he was not involved? No. In the same way, the scientist would not have to be directly involved in the wind and "rain" that was caused by the fan and sprinkler being turned on. The scientist was involved in this case though because it was part of an experiment. The scientist varied the amount of simulated rain directly. As for the trees, in both incidents, they were just innocent bystanders...

If this is not completely readable, I apologize, it is just after midnight here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 09-20-2008 9:39 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by onifre, posted 09-20-2008 5:53 PM armylngst has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 77 of 86 (483191)
09-20-2008 4:55 PM


It looks like they shut down my Dunsapy theory topic, so I guess I'll continue here. If that's OK
Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-20-2008 5:06 PM dunsapy has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 78 of 86 (483195)
09-20-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dunsapy
09-20-2008 4:55 PM


Your topic has been promoted.
It looks like they shut down my Dunsapy theory topic, so I guess I'll continue here. If that's OK

Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)

As a "Great Debate", you and Bluejay will be the only participants.

Please go there instead of pursuing your theme(s) in this topic.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 4:55 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 5:17 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 79 of 86 (483196)
09-20-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Vacate
09-20-2008 2:08 AM


Lets say you model the flow of a river on your computer to simulate a real river (Or any similar idea). If your results produce the same flow, depth, curves, or other such similarities this does not change the fact that the river you modeled was a natural process. This is the same as scientists trying to replicate the conditions needed to produce (pre)life.

Actually I have done this on my computer. This is only a simulation. You can set up many parameters to simulate a river, science is pretty good at things like this.
But this is not making life. Science does not know exactly what the atmosphere was like before life. It does not know, the soil conditions before life. It does not know what materials were around before life. Now if science wants to say the atmosphere was like the the soil was like this, and try to mix some material around to see if it will become life.
They have only shown that it takes intelligence to make life. Assuming they were successful .
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Vacate, posted 09-20-2008 2:08 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by onifre, posted 09-20-2008 6:16 PM dunsapy has responded
 Message 83 by Vacate, posted 09-20-2008 9:16 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 80 of 86 (483198)
09-20-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Adminnemooseus
09-20-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Your topic has been promoted.
who is bluejay?
OK I guess it still can be read by anyone though. So that's OK.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-20-2008 5:06 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 81 of 86 (483202)
09-20-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by armylngst
09-20-2008 12:22 PM


Hi armylngst, and welcome to EvC forum,

armylngst writes:

The fact that the scientist had to go get a huge fan from NASA, and a sprinkler from home depot in order to create the winds and "rain" necessary for her experiments simply shows that the conditions of the experiment (high wind and "rain" in this case) do not just happen.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. What it clearly shows is that to replicate a natural phenomena we(humans) need intelligence. Wind and high rain do just happen, to recreate them on command would require an intelligent being to access the phenomenon and determine what necessary tools, equipment etc. are needed.

Did an intelligence cause the hurricane? I would say, yes, though perhaps not directly (laws of nature).

So if your intelligent 'being'(or God) simply sets in motion the laws of nature, then it seems like you have no proof of a God, you just have proof that natural laws exist. You personally invoke God as the responsible source of the laws but, you are not determining that based off of evidence, you are basing it off of faith in God. And again, your personal faith in Gods existance is not proof for God.

Also note that it would be nice if you could define which laws of nature you are talking about. The 'laws of nature' on this planet mostly revolve around the size and mass of this planet that places it a this precise distance from it's host star. Are you saying that God placed this planet specifically at this distance from the Sun for the meer purpose of assigning 'laws of nature'?

would the fact of "God" creating the natural laws that governed hurricane Ike mean that he would have to be directly involved in hurricane Ike? No. Does it mean that he was not involved? No.

First, it is not a fact that God created any laws, it is a belief based on faith. However, your answer here needs more clarity. Was He/She responsable or not? The way you answered seems more like an evasion of having to pick a side. Sure you can say that X God created the laws that govern this planet, you could also say that an invisible unicorn did it, or a team of faries, what you must keep in mind though is that you need to provide evidence that helps solidify your argument, and not just present it as a faith based opinion...this is a science thread after all.:D

Enjoy...


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by armylngst, posted 09-20-2008 12:22 PM armylngst has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 82 of 86 (483208)
09-20-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dunsapy
09-20-2008 5:13 PM


dunsapy writes:

Science does not know exactly what the atmosphere was like before life.

Scientist study the evidence of the pre-biotic Earth and then determine the conditions based off of that evidence. Are you suggesting that they are flawed in their abilities as scientist to do their job?

It does not know, the soil conditions before life.

See above reply...

It does not know what materials were around before life.

See first reply...

Now if science wants to say the atmosphere was like the the soil was like this

This is a loaded statement. You said if scientist 'want to say'. This is obviously untrue. Scientist don't want to say anything, they review the evidence and determine what conditions where like based off of that evidnce. That is the ONLY way it can be determied. What you seem to be implying, basically, is that scientist don't know how to do their job properly and are just speculating. Is that what you're implying?

They have only shown that it takes intelligence to make life.

I think we can all agree that to replicate life's origins, since you first need to understand what life is, you need intelligence. The kind that humans show. But that is irrelevant. We know life came into existance. We find that 4 billion years ago no life exists, then we find that 3.5 billion years ago life exists. We determine based off of that evidence that something took place within that time frame. It is suggested that the chemical compounds that were present in the Earth at that time reacted with one another to created the first living organisms. And, to the best of sciences' abilities, it is trying to replicate it. What, from that, are you suggesting that points to the need for an intelligent agent to intervene? And how did you determine that the intelligent agent is needed?

Remember, we are trying to replicate life based off of a model of an already ready existing organism. That does take intelligence. Before life existed there was model for life. It is a collection of chemical compounds that form what we call life. There was no goal for life, therefore no intelligence is required.


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 5:13 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dunsapy, posted 09-21-2008 12:59 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2674 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 83 of 86 (483230)
09-20-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dunsapy
09-20-2008 5:13 PM


Actually I have done this on my computer. This is only a simulation. You can set up many parameters to simulate a river, science is pretty good at things like this.

Science is pretty good at things like that, glad we agree.

But this is not making life.

Right. That's why I said "The point is to find a plausible route that may have taken place to gradually become what we currently define as life."

So I hope that is taken care of.

Science does not know exactly what the atmosphere was like before life. It does not know, the soil conditions before life. It does not know what materials were around before life. Now if science wants to say the atmosphere was like the the soil was like this, and try to mix some material around to see if it will become life.

They don't know exactly, but with evidence that has been found I am confident they are on the right track. Once again however they are not trying to "mix some material around", that's just a strawman at this point. I would suggest you do some more reading before making such a conclusion.

They have only shown that it takes intelligence to make life. Assuming they were successful .

Thats quite the leap now that you have several analogies to work with. You are saying that modeling a river, or a hurricane, or migrating birds, or the movement of tectonic plates means that all these things are intelligent? If something can be modeled the subject of the model is intelligent?

It appears that you, as with armylngst in message 76, are simply stacking the deck to trump up your preconceived notions. You are insisting that if something happens and someone tries to see how it happened then that something by definition must have been intelligently created. Therefore as long as there is intelligence to be curious there must have been intelligence to create the focus of all curiousity. Lets face it, with a stance like that your awful close to the "because I said so" defense.

Edited by Vacate, : Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 5:13 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by dunsapy, posted 09-21-2008 1:19 AM Vacate has not yet responded

dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 84 of 86 (483242)
09-21-2008 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by onifre
09-20-2008 6:16 PM


This is a loaded statement. You said if scientist 'want to say'. This is obviously untrue. Scientist don't want to say anything, they review the evidence and determine what conditions where like based off of that evidnce. That is the ONLY way it can be determied. What you seem to be implying, basically, is that scientist don't know how to do their job properly and are just speculating. Is that what you're implying?

Science doesn't have a prehistoric earth to test. It is an earth filled with life, and what all of that can do to the atmosphere, to the soil etc. We now have pollution everywhere, we have chemicals fashioned by man, we have nuclear contamination, acid rain, ozone depletion etc etc. The best science can do is guess.

It is suggested that the chemical compounds that were present in the Earth at that time reacted with one another to created the first living organisms. And, to the best of sciences' abilities, it is trying to replicate it. What, from that, are you suggesting that points to the need for an intelligent agent to intervene? And how did you determine that the intelligent agent is needed?

It is suggested,... is not science, it is only a suggestion. It is a guess.
And to best of science abilities,... does not sound convincing, that they could replicate life as it is supposed to happen in the beginning. So far they have not done it.

Remember, we are trying to replicate life based off of a model of an already ready existing organism. That does take intelligence. Before life existed there was model for life. It is a collection of chemical compounds that form what we call life. There was no goal for life, therefore no intelligence is required.

This already exciting organism, could have been created. Science can not say other wise. Maybe a creator did the same experiment with the chemicals on earth, just the way scientists want to do it today. But so far is unable. That would mean, a much more capable intelligence then ,.. then that of today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by onifre, posted 09-20-2008 6:16 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-21-2008 1:17 AM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 85 of 86 (483244)
09-21-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by dunsapy
09-21-2008 12:59 AM


This should be going to the "Great Debate" topic with Bluejay
Going to close this topic down, at least until tomorrow.

Closing in about 15 minutes.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dunsapy, posted 09-21-2008 12:59 AM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3724 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 86 of 86 (483245)
09-21-2008 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Vacate
09-20-2008 9:16 PM


Right. That's why I said "The point is to find a plausible route that may have taken place to gradually become what we currently define as life."

So I hope that is taken care of.


That is OK to try to find it, I understand that. But to do it in an experiment, by scientists, only shows ( if they ever do it) that it could be done with intelligence. It does not show that it could happen by itself. They would have to have some place that it happened , that they had nothing to do with, to show that it came on it's own. .

They don't know exactly, but with evidence that has been found I am confident they are on the right track. Once again however they are not trying to "mix some material around", that's just a strawman at this point. I would suggest you do some more reading before making such a conclusion.

There are many chemicals on this earth, are they using the toxic ones, as well as the ones that help to support life, in their experiments?

Dunsapy wrote
They have only shown that it takes intelligence to make life. Assuming they were successful .

Thats quite the leap now that you have several analogies to work with. You are saying that modeling a river, or a hurricane, or migrating birds, or the movement of tectonic plates means that all these things are intelligent? If something can be modeled the subject of the model is intelligent?

If you are saying that modeling a river or a hurricane, or migrating birds etc. in a computer model, does take intelligence. I agree with that. other wise I did not get what you are saying here.
It appears that you, as with armylngst in message 76, are simply stacking the deck to trump up your preconceived notions. You are insisting that if something happens and someone tries to see how it happened then that something by definition must have been intelligently created. Therefore as long as there is intelligence to be curious there must have been intelligence to create the focus of all curiousity. Lets face it, with a stance like that your awful close to the "because I said so" defense.

You totally missed the point here. I said if science does it with experiment, that shows that science could do it with experiment. That has nothing to do with what happened in the past.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Vacate, posted 09-20-2008 9:16 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019