Log Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Science can't use God, or a Godlike force, to explain anything in the natural world/universe.Can we scientifically tell whether objects or events are the result of intelligent intervention without knowing anything about the casual history of the event in question?
Log Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Log,I have read everything you have provided to me as a reference. Then where is the point-by-point illustration of how Dembski failed, in your eyes, to adequately refute Miller, substantiated by references to the articles in question? You have nothing of substance to contribute to this conversation, Mariner, and have not had anything to contribute, except sneering, all along. Edited April 20, 2012 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Log:See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Alan Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 I was talking earlier to a Optometrist friend of mine and he was saying how wonderful the human eyeball was and I would agree it is but yet I wear glasses mine weren't designed so well. I have terrible eyesight and would be a bumbling maniac stumbling everywhere without them. So if eyes were so well designed why do we wear glasses and have all these vision problems? both of my parents wear glasses but me father got his because of a youthful accident so bad eyesight comes through my MumJoining this late and admit to not having had time to read all submissions so far.The reason eyesight can be defective? The Fall. 1
Mariner Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Then where is the point-by-point illustration of how Dembski failed, in your eyes, to adequately refute Miller, substantiated by references to the articles in question? You have nothing of substance to contribute to this conversation, Mariner, and have not had anything to contribute, except sneering, all along.If by that you mean I have failed to seriously engage you on the subject of ID, I agree. There is nothing serious about ID in which one can engage. It is a bunch of nonsense.I generally don't engage in debates regarding alien abductions (which, by the way, are more probable and make a lot more sense than ID) for the same reason.
changed Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 ...We still don't know how to walk on water, change water into wine, or how Resurrection works. But I am confident that God knows all the necessaary laws to do it.Is God confined to obeying/using physical laws? Some try to explain away miracles by saying things like the red sea was parted by a certain wind that comes through there every now and then, or that the burning bush was just the sun shining through the clouds onto it etc. etc. sure god can use the laws, but I think He might be the author of the laws too, and is not confined by them.... If I tried to explain that in terms of God doing it. You'd laugh me out of the building...I would not laugh you out of the building, any more than saying saying "this building was built by a man" is not a ridiculous thing to say... It would be ridiculous to say that buildings/cars/computers were in no way designed by man... considering the information bearing properties of DNA - their 4 bit system that is vastly superior to our 2 bit system - sure there is some stuff about it that is not designed (just like a rock used in the wall of a building might show traces of being carved in a stream bed) but some of it is created by intelligence - our own intelligence, or God's intelligence, whatever you want to call it, there is thought/design involved.
changed Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 ... comes up with a major NIH or NSF grant...all grants are given on the basis of ID - that is the point of a grant, to think and design things intelligently
thesometimesaint Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 changed:I would say that barring some necessary miracle God does work within the laws that he himself set up. Does God know more that I do? I sure hope so, but hope really doesn't explain much in the way of science. Pretend for a moment that there is no God, or a different God than we believe in. Difficult I know, but just pretend. How would this world/universe be any different if there was no God/different God, and how would we know it? I'm not argueing for Atheism, only that as a scientist I can't put any God into anything I do as a scientist.I've heard that claim about the winds in the Reed Sea. Coulds be, I just don't know. Along with raining frogs. Water spouts have been known to pick up fish, and throw them onto land. So it isn't that much of a stretch to frogs. Any statement of mine would be an arguement from ignorance.If I were to claim that that building was built by God you'd laugh me out of it. But if I were to claim that God inspired me to build that, or in my case have it built, building we'd probably agree. The very elements that make up our bodies are star stuff. Well long ago exploded star stuff. I have no problem with God using natural processes/laws to achieve it is what he wants. Having an explanation as to how some of those laws work just doesn't address the issue of God.
Log Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) If by that you mean I have failed to seriously engage you on the subject of ID, I agree. There is nothing serious about ID in which one can engage. It is a bunch of nonsense.I suppose we shall next see you defending the hypothesis that wind, rain, and erosion suffice to explain Mt. Rushmore.After all, to hold any other conclusion is to engage in "a bunch of nonsense."I'm done with you. Edited April 20, 2012 by Log
changed Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Having an explanation as to how some of those laws work just doesn't address the issue of God.how do you view fine tuning?http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
thesometimesaint Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) changed:Without reading the full article I would still ask the question if this earth/universe was not created by our God. How would we know it?Science is based on what can be measured, either by direct observation, or by instruments, and inference. It can be independently varified. A Hindu can measure electricity with volts, watts and amps across a circuit just the same way a Mormon, and an Atheist can. Would a Hindu, a Mormon, and an Atheist have the same ideas about God(s)?If the Big Bang theory is correct, and there is plenty of evidence for it, not so much against. Less than a 1% difference in the ratio of matter to antimatter was all that was needed to produce this universe.Evolution is the same way. Anyone can see, and measure the differences in living things. We can also see and measure the differences in the fossil record. How those came about while not fully known, and we're unlikely to know anytime soon, we do know quite alot about it. Just like we don't need to know literally everything there is about electricity, and we don't, to find it very useful even to the point of us communicating by way of electronic dots on a electrically charged screen.Why God did it that way? I believe it was for our betterment, but I can't measure that. Edited April 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
changed Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 changed:Without reading the full articleyou don't need to read the full article, just scroll down and glance through the list they provide if you are unfamiliar with the fine-tuning argument. I would still ask the question if this earth/universe was not created by our God. How would we know it? the reverse is also a good question to ask, if it was created by God, how would we know it? That all the parameters of the universe are set to optimal values infers to many that someone has been tuning the knobs of it all... it's not like a little different tweak here or there would just result in a slightly different universe, small changes to any of it result in either dust (no stars/planets/elements/etc.) or one giant black hole... the only argument of non-created fine tuning is the multiverse theory, but even that requires that everything exist (and "everything" would include a God so... either way) Science is based on what can be measured, so is religion. we test it, like we do anything in science (test by living principles) and the ideals of it are written in everyone's hearts, no matter what thy call their faith...http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm
thesometimesaint Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) changed:I did, but I'm not impressed.We wouldn't know and that is the point. The results are the same regardless of if there is a God or not.Could a Hindu, or Atheist conduct the same test on their beliefs. Probably not and get the same results as us. Their frame of reference is that different than ours. Could a Hindu or Atheist become a Mormon? Sure, it does happen, but it is also true that some Mormons do become Atheists. Though I haven't heard of any becoming Hindu. Faith is a self administered, self grading thought process. The results are totally up to us. Edited April 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
changed Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 The results are the same regardless of if there is a God or not. I disagree. In the absence of intelligence we would live in a randomly generated lawless chaotic universe. Could a Hindu, or Atheist conduct the same test on their beliefs. Probably not and get the same results as us. I'm a convert, I, and many others, have all conducted the same test, and received the same results. The discrepancies are created by who has, and who has not, properly performed the test... the Spirit is real, you can actually know it is all real, there are simple well-defined steps to gain this knowledge...
LDSToronto Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Mariner,It is apparent you cannot discern the difference between evidence - what was requested - and "just so" stories - what you and TSS provided.You have literally appealed to magic - a process causally insufficient on its face to explain the result it is supposed to explain - to explain biology. I'm uninterested in your posturing, obfuscation, and bluster.By the way, I sincerely doubt that planes will fall out of the sky, that antibiotics will cease working, and that gravity will suddenly reverse itself, should everyone concede that the evolutionary hypothesis was generated without sufficient evidence to justify it, that it is in principle unfalsifiable, that it has never been observed to do the wonderful things attributed to it, and neither can it do those wonderful things on information-theoretical grounds.Log, can you provide an evidence-supported theory? Or would you simply appeal to faith and God and scriptures?H.
Tepui Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 Some of them are eager to learn and pick it up quite quickly. A few of them sound just like you. It is unlikely that these latter individuals will be working here much longer. They will be much happier when they go back to simply fishing and praying five times a day. So will I.Wow! What a statement. Was this a reference to Peter, James and John? Or just to Latter-day Apostles - you know, fishers of men? 1
Mariner Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Wow! What a statement. Was this a reference to Peter, James and John? Or just to Latter-day Apostles - you know, fishers of men?Tepui,Thanks for asking. It is actually a reference to real people, here and now, along the coast of the Middle East country in which I am currently working. Many of the young local nationals would rather eke out a meager living by fishing in overfished coastal waters (in the hot sun in 25- 30 foot open boats) than to educate themselves, leave a few of their religious myths behind and work to contribute to the development of their nation and culture (while being extremely well paid to do so, I might add).Instead, the government uses oil revenues to hire folks like me and my staff to come here and do the work that requires technical expertise. Part of our responsibility is to help train local nationals. In most cases it is a frustrating and thankless task. In some cases, however, everyone benefits.Anyone who wants to see first hand what blind adherence to religious tradition does to a society, and what the beliefs and philosophy of folks like Log would bring to pass if they were promulgated in society, should pay me a visit. A week as my guest here would be of great benefit in helping develop their appreciation for the difference between religion-based and secular science based belief systems in terms of societal development and outcomes. Edited April 21, 2012 by Mariner
thesometimesaint Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 changed:That is a philosophical arguement, and not one of science. While I'm not a Determinist in orientatation the slight variation in the antimatter to matter ratio in very early universe was sufficient to cause it to be nonradom nonuniform.I am convert too. But the science doesn't change to fit my religious impulses.
Recommended Posts