Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 104 (517851)
08-03-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by slevesque
08-02-2009 11:44 PM


Re: Evidence
slevesque writes:
quote:
What I was trying to say was this: If it truly is a genuine miracle, in the sense that there really was a supernatural intervention, than it means that atoms have been annihilated.
Why? Why is that the only way the miracle could have occurred? Certainly that would be one way a miracle could have happened, but why does that have to be the only way?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by slevesque, posted 08-02-2009 11:44 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 12:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 47 of 104 (517852)
08-03-2009 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Meddle
08-02-2009 8:58 AM


Re: Evidence
I agree that a natural physiological explanations could be possible, and even though I personnally believe that it was a miracle, I do not discard that possibility.
But we have to keep in mind two things: this would be an extremely rare case. I mean, as a whole here, how many people de we know that were 'miraculously' cured of cancer ? If it is very rare natural phenomenon, I must be very lucky to know two people who fit into that category, and even luckier that they are both christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Meddle, posted 08-02-2009 8:58 AM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:13 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 48 of 104 (517853)
08-03-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rrhain
08-03-2009 12:05 AM


Re: Evidence
I defined a miracle as a violation of a known law of nature. Now, I do not have any advanced knowledge of miracles, either practically or theologically, and so my definition may very well be wrong. (After this conversation though, I do plan on reading 'Miracles' by CS Lewis)
But, if we stick to this definition, which does seem legitimate to me, and we hypothetically consider this account to be a genuine miracle, than the law of conservation of energy is that could be violated that I could think of. But two brains are better than one, so maybe you could propose another law of nature that could have been hypothetically violated ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2009 12:05 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2009 12:33 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 49 of 104 (517854)
08-03-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Theodoric
08-02-2009 12:06 PM


I know this is off topic, but this statement just demonstrates the ignorance you and most creationists bring to the table. There is no hierarchy in science like this. Theories do not get elevated to laws.
In a nutshell.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.com
it might help you with your basic understanding of scientific laws and theories. Then again maybe it won't
Hey, I do not pretend to have all accurate knowledge of all subjects, and misconceptions will happen again in the future I'm sure. I welcome comments such as yours (without the little arrogance, of course ) very well. I'm only 19 years old and I haven't planed on stoping to learn.
ALthough I would think that a law, before being established as a law, was a theory, no ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 12:06 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2009 12:26 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 65 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2009 4:57 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:19 AM slevesque has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 104 (517855)
08-03-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by slevesque
08-03-2009 12:14 AM


ALthough I would think that a law, before being established as a law, was a theory, no ?
No, it would be a hypothesis.
I'll add an explanation of the concepts of law and theory in this thread.
In the meantime, you might want to read this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 12:14 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 51 of 104 (517856)
08-03-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
08-03-2009 12:10 AM


slevesque responds to me:
quote:
But two brains are better than one, so maybe you could propose another law of nature that could have been hypothetically violated ?
Just because I'm not clever enough to figure it out doesn't mean nobody else is.
Why couldn't the cancer cells have been teleported out of the body? Perhaps the cancer cells were transmogrified into water which was then absorbed by the body? Maybe they were converted into photons that then radiated out (though that would be a ridiculous number of them which would hardly go unnoticed).
Again, just because I'm not clever enough to figure out how it might happen doesn't mean nobody else is.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 12:10 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 12:44 AM Rrhain has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 52 of 104 (517857)
08-03-2009 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by themasterdebator
08-02-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Evidence
I have looked through that site quite a bit about a year ago, and had found the question very interesting. They talk about two types of things God does not cure (which you have mentioned): Amputees, and genetic disabilities such as trisomy 21)
For amputees, I think the answer lies in that a lost limb should not be considered an illness. Sure it's a 'tough loss' (if I can use that expression), but you are still medically 100% healthy, but of course not socially 100% capable anymore. Of course, you could still suffer from the 'lost limb syndrom' (I doN't know the correct temr in english) where you are actually feeling pain from your limb that isn't there anymore, which could be considered an illness. However, I am not sure that there are no reports of miracle healings of this syndrom.
Also, there are reports of miracle healings of leprosy from missionaries coming from countries where it is still present. Now, knowing the very nature of leprosy, it's healing actually could implies the restoration of some body parts, such as lost limbs.
For genetic disabilities such as trisomy, it gets much more difficult to assess. It sure is an illness. How can we know there are no reports of such a healing occuring, I'm not sure how. Maybe since that site went online they have been emailed reports of such healings, but they didn't consider them legitimate. I personnally know someone who works with people who suffer from this, and when I visit here they seem to be as the most happy people in the world, so maybe there is no need for God to actually heal them ? (appart for their family members who pray just to get this 'burden' off their own shoulders)
All in all, I won't pretend that I have a full answer to that question, and although I understand the logic behind it, it is much less appealing to me in terms of strength of the argument than it may be to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by themasterdebator, posted 08-02-2009 5:06 PM themasterdebator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:23 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 69 by themasterdebator, posted 08-03-2009 11:39 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 53 of 104 (517858)
08-03-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rrhain
08-03-2009 12:33 AM


All legitimate possible 'miracles' I suppose
But still, applying Occam's razor would favor the violation of the law of cservation of energy in my mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2009 12:33 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2009 1:07 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 54 of 104 (517860)
08-03-2009 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by lyx2no
08-02-2009 5:32 PM


Re: There's a Lady Who's Sure .
In Canadian health care system, as long as your prepared to wait 48hourrs each time, you can get checked at three different hospitals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by lyx2no, posted 08-02-2009 5:32 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 55 of 104 (517862)
08-03-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
08-02-2009 5:54 PM


Re: Evidence
I'm not a professional detective, but I don't believe this is a miracle only on 'blind faith' either.
The woman in question kept contact with the doctor, and he even came to church once although saying he wasn't christian (He stilled believd in some sort of 'God' though). He confirmed what she had told us. I also saw the X-Rays, and my brother in med school confirmed that there was initially a cancer but that it disappeared without a trace. (It was a tumour on the pancreas if I remember correctly).
I believe it to be a genuine miracle because I have first-hand accounts of it. Now obviously, none of you do, and I don't expect you to think that it is anything more than 'folklore'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 5:54 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-03-2009 1:32 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 104 (517864)
08-03-2009 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rrhain
08-02-2009 10:07 PM


I intended naturalist as Minnemooseus defined it on the second page:
Philosophical naturalism -There is/are no god(s) or anything else supernatural.)
Not as 'one who accepts that natural things have natural causes'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 08-02-2009 10:07 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 104 (517865)
08-03-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
08-03-2009 12:44 AM


slevesque responds to me:
quote:
But still, applying Occam's razor would favor the violation of the law of cservation of energy in my mind.
(*blink!*)
Are you seriously saying that some violations of the laws of physics are more likely than others? Having the atoms vanish is more parsimonious than having them teleport or transmogrify?
How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 12:44 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:14 AM Rrhain has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 104 (517866)
08-03-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rrhain
08-03-2009 1:07 AM


I do think you misunderstand Occam's razor.
It is not about which option is more ''likely'' to happen, but rather which of the explanations presented explains it in simplest form. or with the least assumptions, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2009 1:07 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 08-03-2009 1:37 AM slevesque has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 104 (517869)
08-03-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by slevesque
08-03-2009 1:02 AM


Spontaneous Remission
I'm not a professional detective, but I don't believe this is a miracle only on 'blind faith' either.
The woman in question kept contact with the doctor, and he even came to church once although saying he wasn't christian (He stilled believd in some sort of 'God' though). He confirmed what she had told us. I also saw the X-Rays, and my brother in med school confirmed that there was initially a cancer but that it disappeared without a trace. (It was a tumour on the pancreas if I remember correctly).
I believe it to be a genuine miracle because I have first-hand accounts of it. Now obviously, none of you do, and I don't expect you to think that it is anything more than 'folklore'
But the point at issue is not whether it happened but how it happened.
Spontaneous remission does happen, and I've never seen any evidence that would lead me to attribute it to supernatural causes (evidence such as it only happening to particularly devout and saintly Christians, for example.)
On the contrary, what we know about this phenomenon suggests that it is something that the body does itself. Here is an interesting article on spontaneous remission. Amongst the facts in the article is this:
The classic work on the topic in English is Spontaneous Remission, by Brendan O'Regan and Caryle Hirshberg. This 713-page "annotated bibliography" was published by the Institute of Noetic Sciences in 1993. The scientific advisory board included Drs. Michael Lerner, Rachel Naomi Remen and Lucy Waletzky, all experts on the mind-body connection in cancer. This large book considered 1,574 citations, and discussed in detail hundreds of cases of malignant tumors that partially or completely disappeared with no curative medical intervention [...] Perusing this scholarly book, you find that while there is no single cause for all the spontaneous cures of cancer, the majority of such patients experienced an acute infection just prior to the regression of their tumor. This is a striking fact. These infections were usually accompanied by fevers. This microbial attack stimulated some powerful immune responses. The riled-up immune system then turned on and destroyed a different kind of enemy, the tumor. It was as if an army had mobilized to fight one adversary but continued marching to defeat a second, even more dangerous, foe.
Now, if spontaneous remission is to be attributed to God doing a miracle, why should this miracle so often be preceded by an acute infectious disease stimulating the immune system?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:02 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 104 (517870)
08-03-2009 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
08-03-2009 1:14 AM


slevesque responds to me:
quote:
I do think you misunderstand Occam's razor.
(*chuckle*)
You do realize that that is my argument to you, yes?
quote:
rather which of the explanations presented explains it in simplest form. or with the least assumptions, etc.
And exactly how is one violation of the laws of physics "simpler" than any other? You seem to be saying that some miracles are more miraculous than others.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:14 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by slevesque, posted 08-03-2009 1:45 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024