Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 316 of 349 (628915)
08-13-2011 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by AZPaul3
08-13-2011 9:40 PM


Re: Non-Logic
I asked for you to break this down into finer details in support of your statement that someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away observed the available evidence, law order an purpose, design etc and used this available evidence to form a valid, warrented premise.
I did not ask for generalizations of philosophy unattached from this specific statement.
You purposely ignored the information I gave to you in argument form. This is not a "wave of the hand dismisal" website.
You ignored it in argument form as I gave it to you, because you are aware you have no actual response to the points that I advanced
Instead of saying that I did not do this or that, how about quoting and breaking down what I had to say.
I would be much more impressed if you did that very thing.
Its obvious that you are avoiding it, you know, the ole, "me thinks he protest to much", thingy
Give it a shot and see what happens
Ps more philosophy for you to chew on
'The natural order and the Human mind', Stephen Pementel
However, since the Enlightenment, there has arisen a contrary strand of thought that is deeply suspicious of the idea of purpose. This philosophy, sometimes known as positivism, does not deny the order of the physical universe, but simply takes this order as a brute fact that stands in no need of further explanation. The order of nature may be rationally intelligible and explicable through the tools of science and mathematics, but for the positivist it makes no sense to ask why this is so. According to this perspective, the universe just is as we encounter it. The task of science is restricted to producing ever more complete and precise descriptions of empirical phenomena. However, inferences concerning unobserved theoretical entities and questions pertaining to why the world is as we observe it are both dismissed as unscientific. Positivism simply forbids one to ask why the laws of nature are those that we discover rather than some others.
The Retreat of Positivism
Yet, the advances of physics in the past century have made the stance of positivism increasingly difficult to maintain. As physics has explored phenomena at ever smaller scales that are ever more difficult to detect, it has moved further and further away from the everyday experience of human beings. When working in regimes that cannot be easily observed, physics becomes increasingly reliant upon the human ability to reason from observed effects to unobserved causes. Through such reasoning, theoretical entities characterized by mathematical relations are often hypothesized to account for observed effects, even though the entities themselves have not been observed.
The early history of modern particle physics offers dramatic examples of such reasoning. For example, in 1930, Wolfgang Pauli sought to explain an anomaly associated with nuclear beta decay by postulating the existence of an undetected particle. In 1933, Enrico Fermi wrote a paper concerning the particle, which he called the neutrino, and submitted the paper to the journal Nature. From one point of view, Pauli and Fermi were reasoning straightforwardly from observed effect to an undetected cause. Yet, this mode of inference offended the canons of positivism, and so the editors of Nature rejected Fermi’s paper as too speculative and remote from reality. The neutrino remained unobserved until 1956, when it was detected using the Savannah River reactor.1
Just as the restrictions of positivism have proven untenable in regard to theoretical entities such as subatomic particles, so they appear questionable in regard to the discernment of purpose. The stimulus for the consideration of purpose lies in the nature of the scientific enterprise itself. Science seeks to identify the laws by which the natural processes of our universe evolve in time, and these very laws serve as indicators of purpose. The laws discovered by science have allowed the complex, multilayered order found in the universe to emerge over time from the relative homogeneity of the universe’s early state. These laws thus manifest an astounding creativity whose potential continues to unfold. It is the very operation of these laws that produces the subtle and amazing order of nature. Moreover, the order of our universe is closely calibrated to the particular laws that produce it. Physical laws chosen at random would, in an overwhelming majority of cases, lead to a universe completely lacking in the kind of order we observe. It therefore strains credibility to suggest that we ought simply to take for granted either the laws or their marvelous outcome.
Order in Physical Laws
A fundamental example of order in physical laws is found in the notion of symmetry.2 Symmetry is an intuitive concept familiar to us in the form of regular shapes, like that of the snowflake. However, symmetry can also be precisely characterized through the branch of mathematics known as group theory, which allows us to describe types and degrees of symmetry. A central discovery of modern physics has been the manner in which various laws exhibit particular mathematical symmetries. Furthermore, as physicists relate the various laws to each other, an important relationship emerges. As we move to physical laws at deeper or more fundamental levels of organization, we find higher degrees of symmetry. The phenomena at more shallow or easily observed levels of organization typically have lower degrees of symmetry. Yet, the higher degrees of symmetry found at the deeper levels of organization, while exhibiting an intricate order, are in no way logically necessary.
The pattern discovered in regard to symmetry holds true of the order in nature more generally. As the sources of order are analyzed in terms of physical laws at various levels of organization, order is never seen to emerge from a lack of order. Rather, the order at each observed level of organization is found to unfold from a greater order at a deeper level. Thus, the scientific process explains order by mathematically relating it to a more profound order. The deepest levels of order, such as those that may be revealed by a future theory of quantum gravity, are the least readily observed. As the scientific process advances, progressively greater degrees of order are exposed. From the perspective of twenty-first century physics, the universe appears far more intricately ordered and profoundly rational than it did to Plato or Aristotle.
The Contingency of Physical Laws
What then is the significance of this order? To explore further the implications of natural order, we must begin to confront the very questions that positivism forbids us to ask. Why are the laws of physics what they are, rather than otherwise? These laws are surely not logically necessary, as are purely mathematical theorems. Even when physicists eventually arrive at a fundamental physical theory, such as a theory of quantum gravity, there is no reason to believe that this theory will be logically necessary. In other words, it will always be logically possible for the universe to have been otherwise. Physical laws that are not logically necessary may precisely describe order, but they do not explain away that order in any way that would obviate the question of purpose. Such laws possess no status that would prevent us from asking questions about their further significance. When such questions are squarely posed in regard to fundamental laws, with their intricate harmony and elegance, purpose seems to become manifest.
Moreover, the physical laws that have already been discovered seem to be fine-tuned’ to produce a universe in a narrow regime that allows the emergence of novel structures through a process of self-organization. This self-organization is manifested first at the astrophysical level, in the structure of stars and galaxies, before we even consider the emergence of life. To permit such self-organization, the laws must achieve a delicate balance between an utterly chaotic and disorganized universe and one that is completely static and uninteresting. The fine-tuning of our physical laws to produce such an order weighs heavily against the credibility of treating those laws as brute facts. Rather, the fact that our universe appears to lie so perfectly in the favored range seems indicative of purpose.
The advocates of positivism sometimes object that the notion of purpose adds no empirical content to the known physical laws. However, this objection misconstrues the idea of purpose, treating it as if it were an extra force above and beyond those already accounted for. Purpose is not supposed to have empirical content apart from the physical laws in which it is manifest. On the contrary, it is the empirical content of the laws themselves that persuasively leads us to posit purpose.
Although the idea of purpose may not alter the empirical content of physical laws, it can nevertheless greatly affect our understanding of the significance of life and its relation to the rest of nature. Indeed, the evidence of the natural order suggests that one of its purposes lies in the appearance of life itself.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by AZPaul3, posted 08-13-2011 9:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by AZPaul3, posted 08-14-2011 12:33 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(4)
Message 317 of 349 (628919)
08-14-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Dawn Bertot
08-13-2011 11:06 PM


Re: Non-Logic
So what you're saying is that you do not have any evidence of a "someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away observed the available evidence ... " And having been caught in this failure you are attempting to obfuscate by bluster and misdirection. Bad form, Dawn.
Ps more philosophy for you to chew on
Oh, I generally don't do philosophies. I find that they are mostly self-serving to the various philosophers' disparate viewpoints, mainly without any grounding in this real world and inevitably just plain wrong. Like your friend you quoted.
Philosophy is not science and so, like christianity, a philosophy can be interpreted and re-interpreted until it fits one's own likes and dislikes regardless of any reality. A total waste of time. Kinda like this discussion.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2011 11:06 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4503 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 318 of 349 (628930)
08-14-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Dawn Bertot
08-13-2011 8:38 PM


Re: A few points on logic...
Hello Dawn,
If I may be so bold as to correct you on some of your language. Throughout my reply will be definitions of words and their usage in common English. If you choose to disagree, please research the points I have made first. I believe that some of the confusion in your debates comes from incorrect or confusing usage of terms. I am supplying the correct usage in order to help clarify to help both the readers of your posts and yourself in writing clear statements.
my comment - Theism is the belief in a god or gods.
your reply - It may be, but it has nothing to do with the observable evidence of design and a designer.
1. There is no direct evidence of a design or a designer. If there was, you would have supplied it when asked, repeatedly to by several other posters here. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfils the burden of proof. At best, there is circumstantial evidence which may suggest a creator, but does not prove creator (and that is being generous). If you do continue to insist that there is observable evidence of a designer, please supply it. This does not mean you can say that you have already supplied it or go on some random tangent and believe that you have adequately answered the question. I can help, start your answer with this : Here is the direct evidence that proves there is a creator - then finish it with your evidence.
2. My original thread was discussing unwarranted assumptions on the premise that there is a god. That's what my post was about. You have introduced the design, designer (not a god) part of the argument. If you choose to add something not in my original discussion, you can't use it to disagree with my position. I was specifically talking about theists. What is your designer?
my comment - That is an unwarranted assumption when putting forward a premise. If there was sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods, most of the science community would be believers.
your reply - As I stated before evidence in God or gods, is not the same as the observable evidence of a designer. if you believe that the belief in God is not warranted, that would fall into a different category
Again, my original post was specifically about theists. Those who believe in God/Gods. So you point about a designer is a random tangent not related to the discussion. I was talking about the difference between people who use their belief in God as part of their premise and people who do not believe in God reading it. Those are the two groups I was discussing. Creating a third team (those who believe in a non god designer) does not affect my original argument in any way whatsoever. You are right when you say that evidence in God is not the same as evidence of a designer. So what, that is not what I was talking about. You need to read and understand the original post before you start to refute it. The belief in god as an unwarranted assumption is in a different category. It is in the category that my post was in. A different category to what you are discussing. You have created this category.
my comment - It is these people who, for the most part,
associate their beliefs with evidence. We need a fair bit of verifiable
supporting evidence before they choose a position. If the evidence was there, we would make the decision on whether to believe based upon that evidence. That's how scientists come to support any new theory. They ask for the evidence, evaluate, then decide to support it or not.
your reply - The evidence for a designer is more than warranted, due to the nature of existence itself and the fact that anything exists
It sounds like you are saying that our mere existence is evidence of a designer and this makes it a warranted assumption. How does our existence prove a designer exactly? It does not. The only thing our existence proves is that we exist. Nothing more.
my comment - I am not saying that theism is not valid. I am saying that it does not have sufficient evidence to become a warranted assumption.
your reply - even in another discussion your statement is unwarranted and invalid
Which statement is unwarranted and invalid?
my comment - The evidence is not the same for both positions. I will assume we are both talking about the evidence for the existence of a supernatural being here.
your reply - no we are not talking about the evidence for God, we are discussing whether the evidence for creation is as valid as that of soley natural causes
How nice of you to move the goalposts.
(ButterflyTyrant)You believe that in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment. Is that right?
(DawnBertot)Absolutely
(ButterflyTyrant)If it is, I will be calling bullshit.
(DawnBertot)Please explain
'To call bullshit' - When someone calls bullshit, it means that they strongly suggest that what another person states is obviously incorrect or a lie.
An example - Someone says to you 'I just saw Elvis Presley ordering cod and chips at the local takeaway ', you could say to that person 'I call bullshit' because you are aware that Elvis is dead and could not possibly be ordering a meal.
Why I called bullshit on your position.
Your position - in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment.
Why would this be true? Why would this even make sense? As we are discussing creation, why would it be a requirement to discuss and prove the everything in order to prove a particular theory of creation? If we prove or disprove the Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis or theories on the breeding habits of the spotted warbler, will it have any effect whatsoever on current theories of how the universe came to be? No, they will not. When discussing the creation event, it is not necessary to discuss or prove anything that has occurred from then to know, unless it is actually associated with that event. For example, it is necessary to discuss gravity, some cosmology, some chemistry, physics and some other sciences when discussing the creation event. It is not necessary to discuss evolution, plate tectonics, volcanism etc as they are not related to the event being discussed.
Therefore, I believe that your position that in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment is bullshit.
my comment - There is no requirement to discuss
current existence when talking about the origin of existence. From current theories (Stephen Hawking and a few other guys) there was no beginning in the sense you suggest. To discuss a beginning in this sense, there would still be a point before the beginning. And this is like discussing a point south of the south pole. Maybe you need to define existence.
your reply - it sounds like you need to define existence. Explain in simple terms what you have alledged above, or what it is that they have discovered about existence that will change or substantiate one of the only two logical possibilites
Ill of course need something more than theories, that is because you seem so confident their ablities to explain the unexplainable
My position in my original post was that if a starting premise was made with an unwarranted assumption, it had a negative effect on the issue being discussed. You introduced existence. Why the hell should I have to define it? If you are going to try to dispute my position by bringing something new in, it is up to you to define the term you are introducing. How can I define the term you are introducing. Particularly in light of the fact that you are using terms in a way that shows that your definition is not the same as the standard use of the terms (I will get to that later).
Your suggestion that there is only two logical possibilities is an example of a false dichotomy. this is a logical fallacy. You have actually argued that there are three possibilities, God (theism), ID and (the incorrectly used words) natural causes. In your own arguments you have 3 possibilities. You seem to jump between talking about the creation of the universe and existence. These are two different things. Which one do you want to talk about?
You need more than theories? What is wrong with theories? What exactly do you want that is more than a theory? Are you after a set of laws? Are you aware of what theories actually are? Are you aware that the Einstein's Theory of General relativity is just a theory? What about cell theory, atomic theory and acoustic theory? Are these theories not up to your standards because you need more than just theories?
Nothing is unexplainable. The only limitation is our ability to explain. there is nothing wrong with saying that we don't know. The things we don't know are the things we most want to study.
my comment - You will have to clarify what you mean by natural causes. Are you using the term natural causes as a catch all term to mean everything that has ever occurred?
your reply - This is how Jar is using the term, or at least this is what is meant by his direct implication
I don't really like to speak for other people, and Jar can correct me if I am wrong in any of this.
I believe that this issue stems from your incorrect usage of the term 'natural causes'. As far as I can tell, you are using the words 'natural causes' to mean the beginning of the universe by natural means. This is not what those two words mean.
In the English language the usage of the two words 'natural causes' together are called superordinates. Superordinates can be used to refer to a category or a class of things. For example. sheep, cows, horses are farm animals. In this case, 'farm animals' is the superordinate term. Natural causes is a superordinate term used to describe a category of things that have occurred by natural means. This includes all things caused by natural means. This includes a snowflake melting in the sun, a leaf falling from a tree, a snake shedding its skin, a mountain forming through uplift, an island forming after a volcano etc. This is how I believe that Jar is using the term. This is the correct usage of the term. Jar is quite right in his statement that there is plenty of evidence for natural causes.
your statement from Message 64 where you many denials of natural causes began.
Unfortunately even the mighty science has no means of determing which claim is true or false concerning creation or soley natural causes, wouldnt you agree
Do you see where this discussion became derailed. There are many examples of things occurring by natural causes.
Natural causes is more than a description, when used in an argument. What is meant is that the natural world is a result of soley other natural causes. I find it hard to believe you do not understand that point
I am not understanding your point because you are not using the English language correctly. Natural causes is a description of how something occurs. You can choose to understand the English language or not. But you are not making your arguments in a clear manner by incorrect usage of the language. I do not believe that you are saying what you actually mean.
my comment - it does not make sense to use it as the opposing terms to
Creation. What are you comparing creationism to exactly? I have explained how an unwarranted assumption works. As soon as god enters the premise, it is an unwarranted assumption.
your reply - butterfly, there are only two logical possibilities as to the how of existence. Natural causes is a phrase used to describe the eternality of matter or whatever you want to call it. Creationism is the term used to describe a designer for a process that clearly has the attributes of contingency
Again with the false dichotomy. Again with the incorrect usage of the term natural causes. As far as I can tell from googling it, eternality of matter is only used on creation websites. Can you supply me with the definition of this term with a link so I can check it out. I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same thing. Your definition of Creationism is also strange. I have never heard it worded that way. Would you like to have another stab at it because I am not sure what you mean. Where do you get this definition of Creationism from. This is the definition I use - Creationism - The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation.
Your posts seem to be a game of 'pick my fallacy' or 'pick my stereotypical creationist avoidance tactic '.
There are frequent appeals to ignorance (argument from incredulity), arguments from personal incredulity, possible circular reasoning, red herrings, confirmation bias, confusion of correlation and causation, post hoc fallacies, use of the cosmological argument, moving the goalposts, use of the teleological argument and use of the anthropic argument.
Look those up and try to avoid using them in debates if you can avoid it.
Perhaps with the information on the correct usage of natural causes, you will better be able to answer some of the questions presented to you. I believe that Jar is still waiting. I don't really need to respond to any of your arguments until you have responded to his. That answer will move the conversation forward.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : 4 attempts at getting the links right
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : will get it right eventually

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2011 8:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2011 4:39 PM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 324 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2011 10:38 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 319 of 349 (628945)
08-14-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Butterflytyrant
08-14-2011 11:25 AM


Re: A few points on logic...
Hi butterfly
B, one of the things I had to learn when I first started here was Brevity. My posts use to look just like yours.
Instead of trying to respond to this painfully long post, Ill just restate my position, which will save some time.
if however, you think I am missing something very important out of that post, just restate it in one liners
Here is my position. There is no direct evidence for the cause of anything in existence, outside of the scriptures. No one saw it happen, no one was there to witness it
therefore we have to go by the available evidence and what it will allow in a logical format.
What it will allow and what is available is that there is very good reason (evidence) to indicate that it was indeed created, due to the law, order and purpose characteristic in its makeup.
Although this is indirect evidence, it is evidence nonetheless. In other words there is no fear of logical contradiction in accepting this position, because it is science based and logically derived
It will also allow the possibility that it was simply always in existence and continues to do what it has always done. this position is lessened by the fact that things have beginnings and endings, which is not indicative of anything that is infinite
Now since neither of these positions is provable, yet both are very demonstratable from the available evidence and neither involve a logical contradiction, both should be taught as scientific positions, as to the origin and cause of existence itself.
ID does not involve religion, it relies on an examination of the available evidence. Its approach is one of scientific examination, like that of anyother in existence
Unless one inflats the common useage of the word science.
Further, creationist dont use or dont need to use shady tactics for thier conclusions and evaluations
Now if you think I have missed something, please present it
BTW, there are only two logical alternatives to the existence of things. God and ID would be the samething
This is the definition I use - Creationism - The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation.
That is an explanation of an already existing proposition, which is only one of only two logical possibilites, scientifically and logically derived by an examination of the natural world
Think of it in this way. It was made or it always existed
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-14-2011 11:25 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-14-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4503 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 320 of 349 (628946)
08-14-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Dawn Bertot
08-14-2011 4:39 PM


Re: A few points on logic...
Hello Dawn,
I am comfortable with my attempts to explain things to you.
It seems you are unwilling or unable to think outside or your very narrow focus.
you are wrong in a lot of ways.
Shutting your mind seems to help you ignore this fact.
Repeating the same wrong things over and over will not make you right. It wont. You need to understand this.
I am sure you will ignore this and keep trying though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2011 4:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Panda, posted 08-14-2011 6:58 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 322 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2011 8:17 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 321 of 349 (628957)
08-14-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Butterflytyrant
08-14-2011 5:20 PM


Re: A few points on logic...
Butterflytyrant writes:
I am sure you will ignore this and keep trying though.
Dawn loves the sound of his own voice.
He would possibly enjoy it more if he could actually understand what he was saying.
But reading your posts wastes valuable time that Dawn could spend listening to himself.
I once intentionally posted some gibberish as a reply to one of Dawn's posts.
He replied 3 times, arguing against my gibberish.
What made this even more incredible is the fact that I had told Dawn I had intentionally posted gibberish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-14-2011 5:20 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 322 of 349 (628966)
08-14-2011 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Butterflytyrant
08-14-2011 5:20 PM


Re: A few points on logic...
I am comfortable with my attempts to explain things to you.
It seems you are unwilling or unable to think outside or your very narrow focus.
Why would I need to think outside that which is absolutely rational and reasonable?
When one speaks of existence and then claims that there is evidence of only natural causes for existence, why would another person believe that that person is only referring to certain aspects of nature and not its entirity?
Why would the the indirect or indirect implication only cover the immediate visual properties and not worry about the argument carried to its logical conclusion?
When we use the term 'Causes' in an argument form, we mean the causes that would involve the entirity of the argument to its logical conclusion, not only as a way to describe a specific item in the process
Hence, if there is only Natural Causes to explain existence, we should be able to see and explain it in its entirity. What caused the Big Bang for example
You postulated that Hawking and others had demonstrated there was NO need to ask that question and when I asked for that evidence you were as silent as the stars, Remember?
Butterfly, you throw terms and definitions around, then accuse me of said things, then demonstrate you dont even have the basic understanding of the topic at hand
Amazingly you actually believe ther are more than two logical alternatives to the explanation of things, give a faulty example, then turn around and accuse me of a false Dichotomy
Do you really understand the terms or do you just know what they are called?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-14-2011 5:20 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by jar, posted 08-14-2011 8:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 323 of 349 (628968)
08-14-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Dawn Bertot
08-14-2011 8:17 PM


Re: A few points on logic...
There is evidence of natural causes.
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2011 8:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 324 of 349 (628969)
08-14-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Butterflytyrant
08-14-2011 11:25 AM


Re: A few points on logic...
It sounds like you are saying that our mere existence is evidence of a designer and this makes it a warranted assumption. How does our existence prove a designer exactly? It does not. The only thing our existence proves is that we exist. Nothing more.
Wrong. The nature of existence is such that it, all that we know of it, is subject to decay. It gains and it losses its properties. All that we know of existence is that all items are contingent on thier individual existence to that of something else. So on and so forth
these characteristics would not be consistent with an infinite universe, unless it could be demonstrated that some properties do not fall into that category, correct
Therefore existence itself attests to the fact of a designer and one that that would himself be contingent on nothing
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-14-2011 11:25 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2011 10:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 325 of 349 (628971)
08-14-2011 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Dawn Bertot
08-14-2011 10:38 PM


Re: A few points on logic... NOT!
It sounds like you are saying that our mere existence is evidence of a designer and this makes it a warranted assumption. How does our existence prove a designer exactly? It does not. The only thing our existence proves is that we exist. Nothing more.
Wrong. The nature of existence is such that it, all that we know of it, is subject to decay. It gains and it losses its properties. All that we know of existence is that all items are contingent on thier individual existence to that of something else. So on and so forth
these characteristics would not be consistent with an infinite universe, unless it could be demonstrated that some properties do not fall into that category, correct
Therefore existence itself attests to the fact of a designer and one that that would himself be contingent on nothing
I find your "logic" as well as your evidence to be lacking.
Where is this "decay" you refer to? Is this entropy, or is this a result of "the fall?" If the latter, you should realize that "the fall" is a religious myth, not something substantiated by empirical evidence. If the former, dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that does not apply to the degree you would have it do so in an open system, that is, one obtaining energy from the outside.
The rest of your post is a catechism, not a scientifically reasoned or supported argument. You just left off the "Amen!" at the end.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2011 10:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-15-2011 8:06 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 327 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2011 2:49 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 326 of 349 (629027)
08-15-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Coyote
08-14-2011 10:53 PM


Re: A few points on logic... NOT!
I find your "logic" as well as your evidence to be lacking.
Then your not paying very close attention
Where is this "decay" you refer to? Is this entropy, or is this a result of "the fall?" If the latter, you should realize that "the fall" is a religious myth, not something substantiated by empirical evidence. If the former, dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that does not apply to the degree you would have it do so in an open system, that is, one obtaining energy from the outside.
From the outside of what and what outside?
The rest of your post is a catechism, not a scientifically reasoned or supported argument. You just left off the "Amen!" at the end.
hardly a catechism, its a valid observation and argument.
Isnt it interesting how the old school arguments are still just as valid and applicable
Uncaused first cause and unmoved mover.
it stands to REASON. If all properties we are aware of tend twords decay and chaos and are contingent for thier existence on something else and something else, you will eventually arrive at a source dependant on nothing but itself
It would be unreasonable to reason that this would be even more natural causes, with the same characteristics
The conclusion of an eternal and omnipotent deity would make the only rational sense
Unless you unlike Butterfly will explain Mr Hawking's findings that will remove these ever present principles that characterize existence
It seems there is really no other choice but God and design
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2011 10:53 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 327 of 349 (629134)
08-16-2011 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Coyote
08-14-2011 10:53 PM


Re: A few points on logic... NOT!
Coyote writes
Where is this "decay" you refer to? Is this entropy, or is this a result of "the fall?" If the latter, you should realize that "the fall" is a religious myth, not something substantiated by empirical evidence. If the former, dealing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that does not apply to the degree you would have it do so in an open system, that is, one obtaining energy from the outside.
How does this information assist your position on open systems?
Entropy and Open Systems
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
"The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.
The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order.
"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1
"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."2
It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.
"In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."3
"Back of the spontaneous generation of life under other conditions than now obtain upon this planet, there occurred a spontaneous generation of elements of the kind that still goes on in the stars; and back of that I suppose a spontaneous generation of elementary particles under circumstances still to be fathomed, that ended in giving them the properties that alone make possible the universe we know."4
"Life might be described as an unexpected force that somehow organizes inanimate matter into a living system that perceives, reacts to, and evolves to cope with changes to the physical environment that threatens to destroy its organization."5
When confronted directly with this problem (e.g., in creation/evolution debates), evolutionists often will completely ignore it. Some will honestly admit they do not know how to resolve the problem but will simply express confidence that there must be a way, since otherwise one would have to believe in supernatural creation. As Wald says:
"In this strange paper I have ventured to suggest that natural selection of a sort has extended even beyond the elements, to determine the properties of protons and electrons. Curious as that seems, it is a possibility worth weighing against the only alternative I can imagine, Eddington's suggestion that God is a mathematical physicist."6
Some evolutionists try to solve the problem by suggesting that the entropy law is only statistical and that exceptions can occur, which would allow occasional accidental increases in order. Whether this is so, however, is entirely a matter of faith. No one has ever seen such an exception, and science is based upon observation!
"There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."7
By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant. The earth and its biosphere are open systems, with an ample supply of energy coming in from the sun to do the work of building up the complexity of these systems. Furthermore, they cite specific examples of systems in which the order increases, (such as the growth of a crystal out of solution, the growth of a seed or embryo into an adult plant or animal, or the growth of a small Stone Age population into a large complex technological culture) as proof that the Second Law does not inhibit the growth of more highly-ordered systems.
Arguments and examples such as these, however, are specious arguments. It is like arguing that, since NASA was able to put men on the moon, therefore it is reasonable to believe cows can jump over the moon! Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:
"Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed."8
Creationists have long acknowledged (in fact emphasized) that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that "open" system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will proceed to decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Criteria for Increasing Order CRITERIA S Y S T E M
GROWING PLANT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
1. Open System
2. Available Energy
3. Directing Program
4. Conversion Mechanism Seed
Sun
Genetic Code
Photosynthesis Materials
Sun
Blueprint
Workmen
To cite special cases (such as the seed, for which the genetic code and the conversion mechanism of photosynthesis are available) is futile, as far as "evolution" is concerned, since there is neither a directing program nor a conversion apparatus available to produce an imaginary evolutionary growth in complexity of the earth and its biosphere.
It is even more futile to refer to inorganic processes such as crystallization as evidence of evolution. Even Prigogine recognizes this:
"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred."9
Thus the highly specialized conditions that enable crystals to form and plants and animals to grow have nothing whatever to do with evolution. These special conditions themselves (that is, the marvelous process of photosynthesis, the complex information programs in the living cell, even the electrochemical properties of the molecules in the crystal, etc.) could never arise by chance their own complexity could never have been produced within the constraints imposed by the Second Law. But without these, the crystal would not form, and the seed would never grow.
But what is the information code that tells primeval random particles how to organize themselves into stars and planets, and what is the conversion mechanism that transforms amoebas into men? These are questions that are not answered by a specious reference to the earth as an open system! And until they are answered, the Second Law makes evolution appear quite impossible.
To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of this problem and are trying to solve it. Prigogine has proposed an involved theory of "order through fluctuations" and "dissipative structures."10
But his examples are from inorganic systems and he acknowledges that there is a long way to go to explain how these become living systems by his theory.
"But let us have no illusions, our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms."11
Another recent writer who has partially recognized the seriousness of this problem is Charles J. Smith.
"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value."12
Absence of Ordering Criteria in Evolution CRITERIA TO
BE SATISFIED S Y S T E M
FIRST LIVING MOLECULE POPULATION OF COMPLEX ORGANISMS
1. Open System
2. Available Energy
3. Directing Program
4. Conversion Mechanism Complex Inorganic Molecule
Sun
None
None Population of Simple Organisms
Sun
None (Natural Selection?)
None (Natural Selection?)
Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.
It is conceivable, though extremely unlikely that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist. Even if they do, however, the evolution model will still not be as good as the creation model. At the most, such a suggestion would constitute a secondary modification of the basic evolution model. The latter could certainly never predict the Second Law.
The evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.
Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Programmer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model."
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2011 10:53 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2011 4:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 329 by Pressie, posted 08-16-2011 6:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 328 of 349 (629145)
08-16-2011 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Dawn Bertot
08-16-2011 2:49 AM


Re: A few points on logic... NOT!
Dawn Bertot writes:
How does this information assist your position on open systems?
Entropy and Open Systems
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Nobody with a physics or engineering background would ever make the mistake of citing this paper.
Not only does Morris fail to apply the second law properly to open systems, he also makes the error of equating randomness with entropy that is often found in articles for lay people.
If you believe that mature people and mammals develop from embryos, then you must accept that local decreases in entropy are not only possible, but occur on a frequent basis.
If you want to make 2nd law arguments, at least consult some sources like creation.com that include some rebuttals to the "open systems" arguments.
Or don't. It's your reputation, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2011 2:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 329 of 349 (629156)
08-16-2011 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Dawn Bertot
08-16-2011 2:49 AM


Re: A few points on logic... NOT!
You can just look at the first sentence to realize that Morris completely mislead people. That's all creationists have. Deception and lies.
Henry Morris writes:
"The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that, in the present order of things, evolution in the "vertical" sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible.
OMG, they call this an 'argument'? How can a person be so utterly stupid? Every little bit of reality contradicts him.
Even plants can do it. From one little seed whole trees grow. With leafs and stems and roots and bark, etc. Did Morris have an IQ?
Even humans can do it. From one cell we grow eyes, arms, legs, hearts, eyes, etc. Did Morris have an IQ?
Even rocks can do it. From magma a whole collection of organised and complex crystals grow. Did Morris have an IQ?
I'll give the creationists another hint: look at reality, things do grow more comlex all over the world. Every day.
It doesn't contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics at all, because creationists don't have an idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually states. Straw man versions work on illiterate and ignorant creationists in churches. Not in the real world.
Creation 'scientists' demonstrate just one thing: the only way can mislead people is by telling porkies. They pretend to be 'scientists' by using sciency sounding language. That's it. Scientists are not as stupid as creationists think they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2011 2:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 330 of 349 (629157)
08-16-2011 7:16 AM


Summation Time
Hi everyone!
This thread is past 300 messages, time to post summations. Please, no more replies to any message, including summations, and only one summation per person.
If anyone would like to continue the discussion or have a related discussion, please post a thread proposal to Proposed New Topics.
I'll leave this thread open a couple more days.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024