Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 11:15 AM
34 online now:
Aussie, Chiroptera, DrJones*, edge, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile (9 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,937 Year: 11,973/19,786 Month: 1,754/2,641 Week: 263/708 Day: 38/52 Hour: 3/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 107 (542)
12-07-2001 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hoostino
12-07-2001 2:41 PM


Firstly, ask him why he demands evidence from you but isn't prepared to offer any evidence for a designer that istn't tantamount to "its there & its fantastic, therefore God did it".

I'll attempt to help on one or two......

1. Explain the origin of all matter in the universe, and don't use the Big Bang. That is only what dispersed it.

Matter has been observed to be converted from energy via the uncertainty principle, & a mechanism similar to this is purported to be involved in the Big Bang. That is to say, a universe full of matter was converted from energy based around a very small point/singularity. It did not appear ex nihilo. I suggest going to Astronomy.com & asking there for details of expansion etc. But it was this expansion that resulted in the outward flying galaxies that we see today.

In explaining the origin of all that energy, I could just as well ask your friend where the creator came from to create all that matter/energy, & EXACTLY what mechanism was used? This is a circular argument & creationists can't have it both ways. Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask why creationists allow themselves the hypocrisy of demanding to know what created all matter & energy, whilst never asking this question of their creator?

3. Explain the evolution of the Saguaro cactus. Arizona was marshland less than 10,000 years ago...an environment which would quickly kill this delicate plant off. Where did it come from? (he claims the plant couldn't have adapted via evolution in such a short amount of time).

Perhaps Arizona was marsh. But who said the cactus evolved solely in Arizona? Thats like saying reclaimed coastline didn't have grass 100 years ago, by virtue of it being underwater, so how did grass evolve on it? Er, perhaps it colonized the habitat as it became suitable. Just because a species exists in a habitat now doesn't mean it was indiginous 10,000 years ago, or 100 years ago.

4. Which came first? The fig tree? Or the fig wasp? (I assume many of you know of the relationship between these two organisms.) And why can't a fig tree grow in the wild?

Fig trees DO grow in the wild! Where do you think they came from?

They would have co-evolved. Each species would gain a survival advantage by making themselves more "homely" to the other. As a result of countless mutations offered up to natural selection, we end up with the symbiotic relationship that exists today. That is to say, as time went by the two species became more symbiotic.

Hope this was some help,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hoostino, posted 12-07-2001 2:41 PM hoostino has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by redstang281, posted 12-10-2001 3:38 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 107 (543)
12-07-2001 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hoostino
12-07-2001 2:41 PM


1 more.......

5. The diving bell spider builds a diving bell of web under water. Using a pair of hooks on its legs, it traps an air bubble on the surface, then carries it down to the diving bell, where it lives. Without the equipment (the hooks), it couldn't carry the bubble down. Yet, according to evolution, the spider evolved the hooks (which have no other practical use) to trap the air. So, which came first? The spider's idea to build a diving bell? Or the physical tools to accomplish it? If this critter evolved, that means that a spider thought up the idea for a diving bell, before it had the physical means to accomplish it. Utter nonsense.

The hooks, or something similar would have come first. the spider probably already swam, so anything that accidentally trapped air would be an OBVIOUS survival advantage. For example, hooks on legs ALREADY used for gaining purchase on land, or adaptations on legs for swimming, leg hairs etc. Anything that would trap air. All the spiders offspring would have them. The spider didn't "think" of anything. As the spiders crawled/swam in the aquatic vegetation they would leave trails of web silk behind them. As they to & fro'd a silk net would form. Air could become detached and collect in small bubbles, trapped by strands of silk etc. Remember, the smaller you are the more important waters surface tension is, meaning its much more easy to trap small bubbles than big ones (Next time you get in the bath, look at the bubbles attached to hairs on your legs/arms/hairy bits). These small air pockets could be used as ad-hoc breathing holes. The spiders that developed the behaviour to visit aquatic bubbles would have a survival advantage in staying underwater longer looking for prey. The more times a spider returns to its breathing hole, the more silk would be deposited & larger bubbles could be trapped. Subsequent reinforcement of this OBVIOUS survival advantage would result in larger underwater webs, culminating in "diving-bells". The behaviour would be reinforced by natural selection fom the early small bubble species, giving way to rough web "umbrellas", to the diving bells we see today. Also, those rudimentary hook/hairs would evolve alongside this. Anything that increased the air-collecting capability of the legs would be a survival advantage, & over subsequent generations would increase their efficiency.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hoostino, posted 12-07-2001 2:41 PM hoostino has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by hoostino, posted 12-10-2001 8:58 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 44 of 107 (610)
12-11-2001 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by redstang281
12-11-2001 12:05 PM


Redstang281,

Some observations & comments.....

"So you presume to tell me that because science can not answer it now, that they will one day?"

You presume to tell me it won't?

"Nowadays scientist say that volcanos' erupt due to some natural force. But that doesn't mean God doesn't use that natural force to make the volcano erupt and to kill those people. All science discovers is the force that God uses to perform with."

Surely that would be "supernatural" force, not natural, if God made the Volcano erupt. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER supporting divine intervention in volcanic activity. Lets leave volcanoes to geologists, you only do a disservice to your argument here.

"Even if everything science has observed in the universe can be contributed by a pure scientific factor that doesn't mean God didn't do it."

But why, WHY, would you assume He did?

"Ah, my friend but science can not work like that. Science can not abide by the excuse that it just is. That will never be justifiable by any scientific law now, or anyone to ever be invented, created, or discovered. The only law of something just existing is God's law for himself. For if you could believe that science could just exist, than how can you not believe in God? "

My friend, the 1st law of thermodynamics says matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, ergo, in one form or another it DID exist forever. So it would seem something existing forever IS defined by science & not God after all.

As for the last part, a methodological way of thinking can hardly be compared with a belief in God.

"The Scottish Liturgy uses the formulation "He is the Word existing beyond Time, both source and final purpose." This preserves the infinite nature of God which, by use of time-scoped words you were inadvertently mitigating."

With respect, how do they know that? Secondly, what is Gods purpose?

"I understand what you're saying. You are saying that you think God doesn't exist because all of science's observations of the universe indicate scientific explanations. I am offering up two answers to that. 1) Man has not observed everything he thinks he has. 2) What man has observed has been inline with science because God did his manipulation in a scientific way. So therefore is unnoticed by man."

Why, does God make volcanoes go off in such obvious fashion (to you), & is then so secretive when it suits you?. See your earlier post.

"I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God."

Such as?

"In any event it in no way limits God to potentionally express himself in an unscientific way."

How would God express himself in an unscientific way? This is an important one, I need a reply to this question if you reply to no other.

"I believe God has a hand in everything from the littlest to the smallest detail in everything. So I believe that God has a hand in everything regarding the universe. The hand of course could be one that corresponds to scientist reasoning or could be one that doesn't. I believe that sometimes it doesn't and in that event scientist make guesses on pure conjecture."

That would be you making guesses on pure conjecture! Why does science produce such predictable results on Newtonian motion, for example. If what you say is correct, then observations where objects accelerate whilst no force was applied would be made, because God wanted it "over there". NOTHING like this has been observed. What you are describing are things that we can't predict, like Aunty Mable getting run over. What your statement doesn't take into account is where science can predict things with absolute accuracy. Where does your God go then? It seems Scientific Laboratories are places God can't enter. You only have an argument where there are unknown variables.

"Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there."

1st Law Of Thermodynamics again, I'm afraid. Things can just exist. Pre-Big Bang, still there.....

The statement that you "don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with", really puts it in a nutshell better than I ever could. This says to any reader that your mind is CLOSED.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 12:05 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:30 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 107 (643)
12-12-2001 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:30 AM


"I understand what you are saying about the law of light. Imagine a straight line, on either end is an arrow pointing opposite of each other. This line represents time and how it extents beyond limit in either direction, both the past and the present. You are saying that sense light can not be created or destroyed that it would mean that before anything else was originated there was always light and that extended into the past with time indefinitely. This is still limited thinking. There would have to be a reason for time itself to exist and for it to contain light."

No, its not limited thinking. I am saying that the ENERGY to create photons/electrons/neutrinos ad nauseum existed pre-big bang. I NEVER said light/photons existed. i.e. It existed forever, & was not created ex nihilo.

I NEVER mentioned the Law Of Light, whatever that may be. Joz asks the questions I would, please refer to that post. I NEVER SAID LIGHT COULD NEITHER BE CREATED OR BE DESTROYED!!! This is a misquote! Read the post pls.

"Now for your question on how God could express himself in an unscientific way. God is not limited. I believe he does do things that we observe and science can not explain. That's when scientist sometimes take a good guess and in some cases purely use their imagination to invent theories. But as far as an indisputable proof of himself, I believe he is reserving that for the end. Maybe to test man's faith, or maybe for another reason he will reveal to us then."

You still havent answered the question. You are just restating what you believe. I want to know HOW God interacts with the universe in an unmeasurable way, yet he has still changed something. Its paradoxical.

"Please realize that science does NOT develop theories in order to deny the existence of God. Science does not address the supernatural at all."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But I believe that it does. I believe scientist don't want there to be a God because if there is something all knowing, then they can't feel quite as smart as they would like to feel. "

Here I'm going to ask you to justify your belief.

What theories have been created to disprove God?

There isn't a single scientific theory that mentions God, much less disproves Him.
An obvious counter is that many scientists do hold religious beliefs, so they're trying to disprove their own beliefs now?

"I would just like for all of you to investigate the side of creation and see if you can prove their theories wrong."

I accept the challenge! Throw a couple at us. I warn you now, just believing isn't good enough here. The theory that best fits the facts wins. I ask you present evidence that creation happened, & not just try to disprove other theories, whether those theories are right or wrong doesn't mean creation happened.

I have never found anything convincing on these sites, & yes, I have read creationist literature. They are written by people with a poor understanding of science, & nearly always try to counter scientific theories instead of presenting evidence that supports their own. Where "evidence" is presented, it is either based on old evidence/data that has been superceded, rather disingenuously ignoring said evidence, or, the theory that the evidence purports to support is much more satisfactorily explained by mainstream science anyhow. All this is a bit irrelevent to people like yourself, because you know which account your going to believe before you read it anyway.

Finally........

Joz wrote

"That would be the 1st law of thermodynamics he gave you the correct name use it.... About every other post you substitute in a different term (science for pre big bang singularity is another example) this is rude and could potentially cloud the argument."

& you glibly waved off the fact that you deliberately misquoted me with....

"If you say so." in reply to Joz.

This is not acceptable. If you can only make sense of posts by twisting them to suit your argument, I suggest you reasses your logic. No wonder the creationism makes sense to you.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:30 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:37 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 107 (660)
12-12-2001 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:37 AM


You still havent answered the question. I want to know HOW God interacts with the universe in an unmeasurable way, yet he has still changed something. Its paradoxical.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:37 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:25 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 72 of 107 (673)
12-12-2001 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by redstang281
12-12-2001 1:25 PM


My question was ;

"I want to know HOW God interacts with the universe in an unmeasurable way, yet he has still changed something."

Your reply "Everything that happens is a result of God's intentions. Those things may also have scientific explanations as well. Or shall I say, some may think they have scientific explanations. " How can you consider that an answer?

Whether its Gods will or scientific or not is irrelevant. Your telling me on another thread we have free will, theres Lucifer, Adam , all the things we do that God doesn't want us to etc. EVERYTHING isn't happening as a result of Gods intentions. Thats the textbook definition of "nebulous". Warbling on about how we don't understand God will get you nowhere. The question is clear.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-12-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:25 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 2:43 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 83 of 107 (699)
12-13-2001 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:46 PM


"On a side note, I do believe God offers up miracles. I just can't prove them. Again, probably because God chooses not to reveal himself globally until the end."

If you can't prove them, why bother believing them? You don't believe the moon is full of custard & you can't prove that either? Exactly what miracles have been shown to be the work of God, & couldn't be any other naturalistic process? Jumping ahead, given no other evidence, why believe at all? Or at the very least why Christianity & not Judaism, Hinduism, if your looking for explanations, they all have them too?

Also, since you say knowledge gleaned by man alone is suspect, what supernatural knowledge do you have to share with us thats more accurate than say, knowledge of electrons?

Just WHAT knowledge did God give us that we never had before & were then able to go away & prove empirically?

I would be more impressed with any religion that would send Moses down from Mount Sinai with a comprehensive Lawbook that wouldn't become dated. & at the same time give us General Relativity, or knowledge of the atom.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:46 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:48 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 107 (700)
12-13-2001 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:37 AM


"But my point is that whatever you say existed before the big bang and has a scientific law that says it can not be created or destroyed still has to have a reason to reside where it does."

re scientific laws, it doesn't. In fact the 1st law states matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. Argue with the scienctific ratinale if you want, but you'll need observable evidence to back up your claims.

What reason does matter/energy have for existing? Pure conjecture. You do like taking things and assuming them to be factual, don't you? You will need to provide evidence of this before you go stating things you believe are FACT.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-13-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:37 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:44 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 107 (716)
12-13-2001 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by redstang281
12-13-2001 9:48 AM


"You can't prove the big bang, so why bother believing it. "

I don't believe the big bang. I hold it to be the best explanation to fit observable evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:48 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 10:42 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 91 of 107 (727)
12-13-2001 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by redstang281
12-13-2001 9:44 AM


"And without a reason to be here you must resort to the super natural."

Why? you ASSUME that something that has existed forever has to have a reason? you've said it more than once. This is your inference, not mine. You say it like its a logical step. It could have just existed forever without purpose, thereby negating any need for the supernatural. This has just as much logic as your argument, & we don't have to resort to supernatural beings that have existed forever without purpose!!!???

"So the best explanation for something by your beliefs is always scientific explanation, correct?

So that would explain how God, something that is not provable thus far by science, is not your best explanation.

But, if science says that matter can not be destroyed and can not be created, how can it's existence be scientifically explainable without redoing our whole concept of science?"

The first two paragraphs are correct.

The third is wrong in principle. Science explains via the first law pf thermodynamics (again) that matter & energy, though interchangeable cannot be created or destroyed. So, what concept of science needs redoing? Its science that makes the statement in the first place!

You seem to have a problem reconciling something existing forever with science. The Standard Big Bang never claimed to create anything, but was a massive conversion of energy into matter. The energy existed pre-big bang, thus science & the 1st law of thermodynamics are preserved.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 9:44 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 7:46 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 93 of 107 (742)
12-14-2001 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by redstang281
12-14-2001 7:46 AM


"Because our reality can't just exist for no reason."

Why?

This is just opinion stated as fact. If you're honest, you don't know either way, so why make the assumption?

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 7:46 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 9:55 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 107 (760)
12-14-2001 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by redstang281
12-14-2001 9:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
If there is no reason, then there is really no true connection between cause and effect.


Precisely. If it was there forever, there wouldn't be a cause to have an effect.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-14-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 9:55 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 2:25 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 98 of 107 (773)
12-14-2001 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by redstang281
12-14-2001 2:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Maybe this will help. The effect would be our reality exist. What is the cause?

I could answer, but I'm not sure what you mean, I think you left a word out? I could take that two ways. Pls clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 2:27 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 11:05 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 100 of 107 (776)
12-15-2001 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by redstang281
12-14-2001 11:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
reality is the effect of what cause?


Now you've moved the goalposts from matter/energy to reality. The big bang may have had a cause, in the sense that lightning has a cause. Theres still nothing to say it wasn't naturalistic. If matter/energy existed pre-big bang, then so did reality. Perhaps not in the way you & I understand the universe. But if it existed, then there was a "reality" for it to exist in. It still doesn't need a cause, as its not an effect.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 11:05 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by redstang281, posted 12-15-2001 7:41 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 102 of 107 (779)
12-15-2001 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by redstang281
12-15-2001 7:41 AM


Not a very good concept, if it can't be explained!

There are two coices;

1/ There is purpose to matter/energy
2/ There is not

Neither you nor I know either way. This is NOT a concept beyond explanation.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by redstang281, posted 12-15-2001 7:41 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 12-15-2001 12:10 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019