Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,331 Year: 3,588/9,624 Month: 459/974 Week: 72/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Few Questions For Creationists
armylngst
Junior Member (Idle past 5686 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-20-2008


Message 76 of 86 (483166)
09-20-2008 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Coragyps
09-20-2008 9:39 AM


Let's put two subthreads together: say that Hurricane Ike blew down some trees, and that a scientist wanted to confirm just how much wind-with-rain it takes to blow that particular strain of slash pine over. So she borrows the fan from one of NASA's giant wind tunnels, sets it up out by Conroe, Texas, and starts blowing down trees. She measures wind speeds and varies the amount of simulated rain she adds in.
Does that make Ike intelligent? That's precisely what you are arguing.
I apologize for the response if you wanted one only from Dunaspy, but I had to say something. The fact that the scientist had to go get a huge fan from NASA, and a sprinkler from home depot in order to create the winds and "rain" necessary for her experiments simply shows that the conditions of the experiment (high wind and "rain" in this case) do not just happen.
All this example shows is that wind and rain comes from somewhere, and happen in "controlled" circumstances. Your example does not show that Ike is intelligent, but that it was caused by intelligence. Actually, it shows that the situation that caused Ike to happen was put in place by an intelligence, in the way that the wind in the experiment was caused by a fan put in place by an intelligence.
To put it simply: The laws of nature (the fan and sprinkler that cause hurricanes) came from somewhere. I prefer to think that the laws of nature were put in place by "God" (I say this to denote the fact that I am not pro-ID). (NOTE: "God" is in quotes since not everyone here believes he exists, or say we cannot know who or what this "God" is.)
The simple way to put both situations is cause and effect. This "God" institutes the laws of nature, which causes hurricane Ike (or any other kind of weather, good or bad) to occur when certain conditions are met. In the same way this "scientist" sets up a huge fan and sprinkler, which causes high winds and "rain" when they are turned on. Is the hurricane intelligent? No. Is the high wind and "rain" intelligent? No. Did an intelligence cause the hurricane? I would say, yes, though perhaps not directly (laws of nature). Did an intelligence cause the high wind and "rain"? I would say yes, though perhaps not directly (big huge fan and sprinkler), unless the scientist is a real wind bag...sorry couldn't resist. (I mean no insult, just a funny thought that came to mind at midnight).
Now I will straighten out the argument. If the scientist is an intelligence, and if this scientist uses a fan and sprinkler to create wind and simulated rain, then the wind and simulated rain are caused by an intelligence, but are not intelligent in and of themselves. Yet, the fan and sprinkler are also not intelligent in and of themselves, because the fan and sprinkler did not cause the wind and "rain" in and of themselves. The scientist caused it to happen by turning the fan and sprinkler on.
Now on to hurricane Ike. This one is a little more difficult because some of you (most of you?) would say that the intelligence in this case is unknowable and unproveable. The fan in this case are the natural laws that govern (cause) high wind. The intelligence is whoever or whatever put those natural laws in place, and then, like the scientist with the fan and sprinkler, "turned them on". The final product, high wind and rain, aka hurricane Ike, is not intelligent in and of itself, just like the wind and rain in the scientist example. So the final answer to your question is no, Dunaspy's argument does not make hurricane Ike intelligent.
Trying to follow logically in both veins, would the fact of "God" creating the natural laws that governed hurricane Ike mean that he would have to be directly involved in hurricane Ike? No. Does it mean that he was not involved? No. In the same way, the scientist would not have to be directly involved in the wind and "rain" that was caused by the fan and sprinkler being turned on. The scientist was involved in this case though because it was part of an experiment. The scientist varied the amount of simulated rain directly. As for the trees, in both incidents, they were just innocent bystanders...
If this is not completely readable, I apologize, it is just after midnight here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 09-20-2008 9:39 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by onifre, posted 09-20-2008 5:53 PM armylngst has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024