Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The wonder of science vs. the banality of creation
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 5 of 64 (502828)
03-13-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Sarawak
03-13-2009 1:00 PM


I understand and I have always wondered if ID people, in their quest to gain acceptances when they say the Creator might be some alien from another planet and is not necessarily God (wink, wink), don't realize that they are denigrating God by equating him with some lesser being. When I've brought it up, it gets ignored.
A topic that SHOULD be ignored. People get involved in discussions they feel are important. This isn't one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Sarawak, posted 03-13-2009 1:00 PM Sarawak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 03-13-2009 3:18 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 10 of 64 (503815)
03-22-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 2:49 PM


Because
How can anyone look at the incredible explanatory power of science, the amazing detail, the wondrous ways in which we can know and the startling finds that teach us about reality, and then shrug their shoulders and turn to chapter two?
I'm not sure of whom you speak. Shall I compile a list of
the founders of science,
the greatest artists,
the greatest composers of music,
the best known architects of history?
Then you show us the shrug where they reject reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 2:49 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 11 of 64 (503818)
03-22-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 2:49 PM


....three and a half billion years ago...The incredible structure and detail; the amazing ways we can learn about the world from these things.
I'm sorry.
What do we learn, and more important, what does it matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 2:49 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 03-22-2009 5:10 PM Sky-Writing has replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 13 of 64 (503822)
03-22-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coyote
03-22-2009 5:10 PM


Re: What does it matter?
What does knowledge matter?You realize that you can just sit there and pray for a new invention, to make our current computers look like 4-function calculators, don't you?And how hard to you have to pray? Why, hard enough to produce the next generation of computers!
But while you're busy, scientists will just go ahead and do it, and engineers with make it real, and Apple or Dell will make it cheap. And then you can have one--all because of the knowledge brought to you by science.Multiply this example by hundreds of thousands or millions. Start with stone tools and fire as early examples.
Stone tools of the past worked better that steel tools of the present.
Fire followed the first rain storm.
Specifically, how does a science-fiction story about 3 Billion YO rock help? Unless you say that the first calculators were built by cave men from old rocks....then you'd have me cornered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coyote, posted 03-22-2009 5:10 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2009 6:42 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 14 of 64 (503829)
03-22-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 2:49 PM


On the other (hand) we have "God did it".
How can anyone be satisfied with that?
The founders of modern science were believers in God.
Muslim or Christian, it didn't cause them any harm
or interfere with their accomplishments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 2:49 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 03-23-2009 12:01 AM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2009 6:04 AM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 48 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-23-2009 10:44 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 15 of 64 (503831)
03-22-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
03-12-2009 2:49 PM


I think one of the things that puzzles me most about Creationist is how willing they are to accept that the incredible wonder of everything we see around us has such an utterly banal explanation.
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. No law of nature evolves. Ever. 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.
If evolution is supposed to be a primary power or source of life, where are the indicators?
What law of nature even hints at that?
Where is the Foundation of Evolution?
On what Law of Science does it stand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 2:49 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 6:27 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-22-2009 7:03 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 20 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 7:47 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 11:00 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 19 of 64 (503839)
03-22-2009 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coragyps
03-22-2009 7:03 PM


-----------------
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-22-2009 7:03 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 03-22-2009 8:38 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 21 of 64 (503843)
03-22-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
03-22-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Law of Nature
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 6:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2009 8:01 PM Sky-Writing has replied
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 8:45 PM Sky-Writing has replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 25 of 64 (503853)
03-22-2009 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by shalamabobbi
03-22-2009 7:47 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 7:47 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 8:51 PM Sky-Writing has replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 26 of 64 (503854)
03-22-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Granny Magda
03-22-2009 8:01 PM


Re: Law of Nature
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2009 8:01 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2009 9:04 PM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 29 of 64 (503858)
03-22-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Straggler
03-22-2009 8:45 PM


Re: Law of Nature
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 8:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 4:00 AM Sky-Writing has replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 32 of 64 (503861)
03-22-2009 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by shalamabobbi
03-22-2009 8:51 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
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.
Mybad - I was thinking the speed of light had a time component.
Anyway, if mass slows time then the -space- before mass is created, or -where- mass is created, would be a timeless place. Or very fast.
I'm not saying that life appeared over millions of sped up years. But it seems likely that the rest of the cosmos did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 8:51 PM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 10:05 PM Sky-Writing has replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 33 of 64 (503865)
03-22-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by lyx2no
03-22-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Did You Say That With a Straight Face?
"Stone tools of the past worked better than steel tools of the present." It's unlikely Homo heidelbergensis could do a "better" job debriding nerve endings or somesuch with obsidian blades then modern neurosurgeons could do with a popsicle stick sharpened on a sidewalk.
Maybe I will. And likely there are. But I was thinking about comments from Parthenon researchers about how current steel tooling is inferior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2009 9:12 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 42 of 64 (503891)
03-23-2009 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tanypteryx
03-22-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Law of Nature
Re: Law of Nature
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
------------------
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.
------------------
So far, everything Sky has said was pulled out of his ass and is meaningless drivel that show a surprising lack of knowledge about anything. Coupled with his dismissive lack of interest or curiosity makes him a scary perfect example of Mr. Jack's OP. A stunted world view indeed.
yawn...I admire your insights....ZZZzzz
Edited by -Sky-, : Got bored when I read it the second time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2009 9:35 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 03-23-2009 9:59 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 43 of 64 (503893)
03-23-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Jack
03-23-2009 6:04 AM


How many of them shrugged their shoulders when faced with understanding the world, and said 'god did it'? Did Newton offer up a theory of gravity or leave it as intelligent falling?
There's nothing about being religious that stops people being excellent scientists; the problem is the acceptance of the banal, non-explanation that Creationism offers.
Yet that is the background they came from. So to suggest there is anything banal about it, is ignoring the reality that that exact foundation is what made them what they were and CAUSED them to explore the world further. You would have to show that they rejected the creation story to have a solid point.
Rather than just assume they did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2009 6:04 AM Dr Jack 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