Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 160 (537714)
11-30-2009 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Parasomnium
11-30-2009 10:50 AM


Re: Heaps of simplicity
Parasomnium writes:
In fact, DNA is a prime example of finding materialistic explanations for previously baffling phenomena, where seemingly only non-materialistic explanations would suffice.
Hi Parasomnium.
Of course, that depends on one's perspective. From the ID perspective, that DNA complexity has previously baffled sciemce. requiring revised explanations supports the ID contention that complexity is a significant factor supportive of the ID POV.
That complexity continues to baffle science raises the question as to how much science really knows via exclusive materialistic explanations for what is observed.
Perhaps if science were to seriously research the possibility of a higher intelligence in the universe than what secularists consider to be observed on earth, science would discover that there are indeed non-materialistic explanations for some observable phenomena.
The Exodus Nuweiba Beach Aqaba crossing evidence comes to mind which secularist oceanic science researchers and archeologists show no interest in falsifying or verifying. Imo, if they really figured they could falsify the evidence they would be on top of it in a big way, but alas, there's no materialistic explanation for the phenomenon.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Parasomnium, posted 11-30-2009 10:50 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 11-30-2009 1:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 11-30-2009 3:55 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 19 by Parasomnium, posted 11-30-2009 3:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 20 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-30-2009 8:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 160 (537717)
11-30-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 1:43 PM


Re: Heaps of simplicity
That complexity continues to baffle science raises the question as to how much science really knows via exclusive materialistic explanations for what is observed.
Thing is Buzz, this statement only goes to show that you hold the view that because science cannot answer the question now it cannot answer the question ever.
This is of course, an foolish position to hold.
Edited by Larni, : Last line clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 1:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 18 of 160 (537729)
11-30-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 1:43 PM


Fearing to Rely upon My Finite Wisdom
Hi Buzsaw
I call upon you, Mr. Saw, to offer up a few experiments that I might preform that will allow me to distinguish between me being stupid and non-materialistic explanations?

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 1:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 10:31 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 19 of 160 (537730)
11-30-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 1:43 PM


Re: Heaps of simplicity
Buzsaw writes:
alas, there's no materialistic explanation for the phenomenon
Quite frequently on this site, I could post a reply devoid of any content whatsoever, bar my signature quote, because it would perfectly sum up the situation so often.
But that would be rude.
That's why I always add a preface to my signature, to explain why it applies in the case at hand. This time my preface could have been as short as "Your God (He of the Gaps) explains exactly nothing", were it not for the fact that I also wanted to explain my modus operandi.
Now that you know this, you can save yourself some time in the future by first considering my signature, and then perhaps check if my preface contains anything worthy of notice. Generally, you can just skip it.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 1:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 20 of 160 (537777)
11-30-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 1:43 PM


Re: Heaps of simplicity
Hi Buz,
Perhaps if science were to seriously research the possibility of a higher intelligence in the universe than what secularists consider to be observed on earth, science would discover that there are indeed non-materialistic explanations for some observable phenomena.
This would be fundamentally no different than the FSM always changing the results of experiment with his noodly appendage. Can it be true based on what we know? Yes. Does it allow for falsification/innovation/advancement? No.
If you go looking for intelligence, then that's what you'll find. Just because something appears to 'work' better doesn't mean that it is correct.
T&U

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 1:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 160 (537780)
11-30-2009 9:20 PM


Did any of the respondents to my last message happen to notice my example, as follows, relative to how secular scientists appear to have a paranoia towards non-materialistic research?
The Exodus Nuweiba Beach Aqaba crossing evidence comes to mind which secularist oceanic science researchers and archeologists show no interest in falsifying or verifying. Imo, if they really figured they could falsify the evidence they would be on top of it in a big way, but alas, there's no materialistic explanation for the phenomenon.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 11-30-2009 10:20 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by lyx2no, posted 11-30-2009 11:06 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 12-01-2009 4:11 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 22 of 160 (537787)
11-30-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 9:20 PM


Did any of the respondents to my last message happen to notice my example, as follows, relative to how secular scientists appear to have a paranoia towards non-materialistic research?
Pardon me for asking, but do you have any actual evidence that secular scientists are paranoid about this non-discovery, other than the fact that they're ignoring it?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 9:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 10:29 PM subbie has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 160 (537789)
11-30-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
11-30-2009 10:20 PM


subbie writes:
Pardon me for asking, but do you have any actual evidence that secular scientists are paranoid about this non-discovery, other than the fact that they're ignoring it?
Hi Subbie. I said that it appears that to be the case. Certainly something of this magnitude should arouse some serious research. No?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 11-30-2009 10:20 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by subbie, posted 11-30-2009 10:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2009 2:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 160 (537792)
11-30-2009 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
11-30-2009 3:55 PM


Re: Fearing to Rely upon My Finite Wisdom
Say what, Lyx2no?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 11-30-2009 3:55 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 25 of 160 (537793)
11-30-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 10:29 PM


Certainly something of this magnitude should arouse some serious research. No?
No.
A few chariot wheels at the bottom of a sea as evidence requiring a non-materialist explanation? You're completely off your nut. There's nothing to explain.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 26 of 160 (537797)
11-30-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 9:20 PM


Did You
Did any of the respondents to my last message happen to notice my example, as follows, relative to how secular scientists appear to have a paranoia towards non-materialistic research?
Of course. I even did one better. I took a look at what half a doezen sites had to say about the crossing. All but one semed to have really close ties with fundamentalist causes and were about as critical as one would expect a mother to be of refrigerator art. One, truthorfiction, was less kind. They didn't seem impressed. Me either. If I were a researcher I wouldn't want to waste what little time and money I had on disproving something that hasn't actually been established. Don't you think it's kind of odd that your boys don't get on to establishing it.
quote:
It was on that same trip in 1978 that Wyatt found what he said were the remains of chariots and chariot wheels at the bottom of the sea. They were heavily covered with coral. Wyatt claimed to have retrieved one of the wheels and said an Egyptian authority declared that it was from the 18th dynasty of Ancient Egypt, but nobody seems to know where that chariot wheel is is now located.
It amazes me at how good they are at finding super cool artifacts that show beyond any reasonable doubt* that they're spot on right about the ark and exodus, and how bad they are about remembering what they did with them.
Do you ever tire if being duped by the good guys, Buzsaw? Come over to the dark side.
*Not that this would be much evidence at all. I'm sure more the a few chariots in transport across the sea only found their way to the bottom due to a storm or some such.
AbE: To your post 24:
Say what, [l]yx2no?
You know, experiments. Surely the two different hypothesis would make different predictions. Ok, if I'm stupid I can be easily fooled into believing something has a non-materialistic cause simply because I know no better; or, something has a non-materialistic cause. How do I know which is which? Suppose aliens came to Earth with a Star Trek like matter synthesizer and started kicking out fist sized diamonds, how would I know that that was only naturalistic causes at work were I too dim to understand? What is the test?
Edited by lyx2no, : Post 24.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 9:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2009 7:01 PM lyx2no has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 27 of 160 (537802)
11-30-2009 11:37 PM


Science Rules
Haven't we been looking for non-material explanations for the last 30,000+ years? And with nothing much to show for the effort except some pretty pictures, stirring music and lots and lots of pain and blood, I might add.
Only in the last 300 years with the embrace of science has man progressed in every measurable way. Why, in god's name, would we ever want to go back to something that has been such a colossal failure for so long?
Religion had its shot at ruling man's mind. It failed. It's science's turn.

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2009 10:15 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 160 (537807)
12-01-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 10:29 PM


The problem is that whatever the magnitude of the claims the magnitude of the evidence actually produced is close to zero.
We have coral formations that look as if they might contain wheels. If they do contain wheels they are almsot certainly far too young and made of the wrong materials to have anything to do with the Exodus.
We have photographs of what is claimed to be a gold covered chariot wheel, showing no signs of coral growth at all. Or any other indication of age.
None of these photos even includes a scale.
We also have a whole load of complete rubbish attempting to rewrite the history of the XVIIIth Dynasty that doesn't even fit the evidence.
Contrary to your beliefs, archaeologists are not likely to rush to investigate the wild claims of incompetent amateurs without any real evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 10:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2009 8:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 160 (537810)
12-01-2009 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 9:20 PM


Hi Buzz, please could you clarify your point on message 6?
Edited by Larni, : point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 9:20 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2009 7:50 AM Larni has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 160 (537843)
12-01-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Larni
12-01-2009 4:11 AM


Re: Clarification
Larni writes:
Hi Buzz, please could you clarify your point on message 6?
Hi Larni. My point was that there comes a magnitude of complexity observed when non-materialistic factors should be considered.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 12-01-2009 4:11 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 12-01-2009 7:57 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 42 by Larni, posted 12-01-2009 1:09 PM Buzsaw 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