Please see my reply in the same topic There's a bit of a question yet to be explored. Once that's cleared up, I can give you a preliminary speculation. Great, though ... what about those things? Have you a scientifically demonstrable thesis to explain these things, or are you just looking for faults in others in lieu of making any positive ground? Please enlighten us to your hypothesis. And, please: if you're going to call it science, it has to be testable. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Um, how about God creates man, God creates Flood, Flood destroys most men and the then-known world, God starts anew with Noah. Specifically, these objects got placed where they are as the result of turbulent flows in a world-wide flood. Well, no scientific theory on the past can be strictly testable (we've discussed that before, remember), but we can make some predictions and see if they line up with fact. In fact this will be a synopsis of alot of points I've already made. Prediction: Let's see, a flood would produce tons of mud that would erode and later solidify into solid rock. Observation: The huge majority of rock in the world is sedimentary, and it contains startling erosive features. Pre.: Ancient man was smater than most scientists today portray him Obs.: I've already dealt with this one. P: No transitional forms or half-way species will be found. O: Exactly zero have been found. P: Some now-extict animals will have been observed in the ancient past. O: I posted those dino pics from ancient Amerindians. Not to mention Job's description. P: The fossil record will not always be layered perfectly. Some anomolies are expected to be found. O: Such as the hammer, the bell, skeletons, footprints, etc from supposedly "multi-million" year-old sediments. Of course the question that the last one brings up is why are they layered at all? Well, floods are known to produce layered rocks. The fossils could be sorted partly by size, and partly by time of death. (Smatter animals, including man would rush to the high grond in an attempt to escape the water, thus being found later in the fossil record (usually). ~Caleb
Um ... try again? Or maybe not .... Caleb: That's a nice ellipsis; there's a Christian author named Bob Larsen who does the same thing, and it's truly amusing. Mr Larsen, when advising parents on rock and roll, was known to sew together disparate lines from songs and complain about conclusions that could only be reached by these distortions. He complained about the band Anthrax, and the song Misery Loves Company for its shouted line, "I'll kill you!" What Mr Larsen ommitted, of course, was the rest of the song, which puts the line in context as a dramatic moment in a miniature narrative, and the liner note that explains that the band is simply putting the Stephen King novel Misery into four minutes of music. One of my favorite Larsenisms is when he complained about the Dio song All the Fools Sailed Away, in which he laments a pied-piper vision: "We are the damned, we teach you sin, we will disappear never to be seen again." Having ommitted at least half of the lyric he objected to, he created an image of the song he could damn publicly without ever considering the dualisms of the song. (We are the innocent, we are the damned; we were caught in the middle of the madness, hunted by the lion and the lamb.) I always wondered why Bob Larsen exscinded so much from the lyrics he complained about, since the removed material pretty much answered his complaints. You have achieved a similar effect here. I note for you the following, including my words that you object to, your spiteful paraphrase, and your apathy toward the elements you have exscinded: * Caleb's citation: Have you a ... thesis to explain these things, (Please let me know if you think I've cited your citation inappropriately, but since it's copy and paste, I'm pretty sure I got it right. * Caleb's response: [color=dark red]Um, how about God creates man, God creates Flood, Flood destroys most men and the then-known world, God starts anew with Noah.[/color] As I see it, you have ommitted the words scientifically demonstrable specifically so that you can posit an undemonstrable theory. Good work, it's a nice affirmation of your faith, and an excellent demonstration of why faith isn't science. * I've covered the point about transitional fossils in another thread. * That ancient man was smarter than we originally thought is no particular upset. It's called learning: new evidence revises the image we have assembled from what was already available. This sort of thing only becomes a problem if one insists with moral certainty that one is right about another's ignorance. A lack of demonstrable evidence has been resolved, and the new idea of the development of the human intellect is to be incorporated into the theories. One would have to be standing on religious faith in order to refuse new data accepted by the scientific community. * A number of things can stratify sediment; even periodic winds. After all, that matter in the air that causes erosion, and the eroded material, must land somewhere, else by this time we couldn't see the sun through all the dust in the atmosphere. * Citing Caleb: Some now-extict animals will have been observed in the ancient past. This and an observation of Job gets you Bible study for an evening ... I'm unsure the significance. If I assert that horses can fly because I read it in a storybook, well, there's that. But it would seem rather thin, eh? * Anomalies? Of course. But the presence of anomalies is reason to search further. What one should not do in the name of science is to declare that there are only two possibilities, and thus declare that the perceived shortcomings of one enterprise scientifically indicates the validity of the second, which is essentially what you're trying to do. Re: Hammer, bell, &c ... as noted in that other thread there exist certain questions; what I'm waiting for is whether those who complain of the anomalous nature of these events have a scientifically testable thesis to offer, or if they're just complaining because humans aren't as perfect as God. And if we accept this as a hypothesis, what exactly is it designed to demonstrate, and how is that demonstrated? Why, for instance, would they not be later in the fossil record merely because that's where the Flood deposited their rotting corpses? But come on ... if you have to rewrite context in order to provide yourself an excuse for an explanation ...? You've given much evidence of your faith, and some rather interesting points to consider, but you have not put them into any scientific context. Why did you omit the words scientifically demonstrable if not to foster what came next, the offering of a theory which cannot be tested? Really, I'm officially curious. You tried asserting Creationism as a science; I'm almost sure it was you who said that the Creator need not be evident to demonstrate Creationism; and in light of that I'm wondering what to think of your ... um ... sin of omission. It's all just evidence of faith so far. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Faith in man? It takes a lot of faith to believe in 'evolution', and that there is "no creator".! Tiassa it sounds more like some humanistic 'religion'(new age) then sound philosophy. I have Faith in the Word of GOD, and it's final with me. (what the Bible says) And science can not disprove GOD and deals mostly with the physical universe in the scope of Man's understanding.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Demonstrate the Creator or sit down You're doing much better now. Potentially non-transitional? Great, now actualize the potential into a working hypothesis. Answer a couple of questions that will put your assertions to rest: * Were you born knowing everything in the Universe you needed to survive? (Science is learning, sir, and the presumption that humanity arrived on the Earth with complete necessary knowledge is quite ... laughable. I mean, really: God had to do what humans could not? Or was Jesus really mean about patenting his pharmaceuticals?) * Can you demonstrate the Creator? (You are either unwilling or unable to do this; I suspect a little of both--the latter because you simply cannot demonstrate God, and the former because you don't want to embarrass yourself trying. Creationism is a nice myth, but it has no hope of ever establishing itself except by the force of will: you will have to hinder humanity by exscinding its scientific method in order to reassert the validity of the Creator over his creations.) Address these. Otherwise, there is no Creation science, and all you're doing is bouncing around the problems of evolution, and hopefully you'll solve some of them; in this case, you are a contributing evolutionist. Congratulations: you're starting to see the light. Now, if you could just get over that silly notion of a Creator, I think you'd find many of your questions answered, and the greatest frustration to your learning would probably be those such as Creationists who insist that the perceived failures of another theory definitively proves their own. It just doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Science has no need, Loone Science has no need to disprove God. It does not recognize God in its workings because God cannot be demonstrated as real. One can postulate that this or that molecule should go here or there in a structure, but when tested, if the result is false, then obviously the molecule doesn't go where it was theorized. You cannot do this with God; science deals only with the objective and demonstrable. Therefore, and as you have noted, God has nothing to do with science. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"You're doing much better now." Yes. Maybe eventually I'll disregard Creationism, which only has the entire Universe and the whole of Scripture to vouch for it, and switch over to "<b>blind faith</b>" in evolution, which has no demonstratable origin for the matter and energy in the universe, no demonstratable theory to explain the Big Bang, no demonstratable method (that actually works) for the formation of the Solar system, no demonstratable method for the creation of life, no demonstratable method of formation from one species to another, no demonstratable method for human origins and the rise of intelligence/self-awareness, no demonstratable method for information to arise from random noise (in the case of DNA), and no demonstratable method for solving anomolies with all of there other non-demonstratable facts. <i>oooops!</i> I almost forgot -- sciencce hasn't figured any of that out yet, but it will eventually -- that's the nature of science. It always finds that man's hypothesis are right. I'll just sit back and <i>blindly</i> believe in evolution until they prove it. Maybe then I'll switch to Creationism Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry. I don't have <i>that</i> much faith! You claim that I am just poking holes in Evolutionary theory, and that it doesn't prove Creationism. What you don't seem to realize is that there is a large difference between poking holes in a raft (which can be patched), and <u>not having a raft at all!!!</u> There is <i>very little science at all</i> behind evolutionary theory. "Were you born knowing everything in the Universe you needed to survive?" Were you? I refuse to answer pointless questions that are merely rhetorical fluff, have little bearing on the argument at hand, and that has an answer that everyone knows the answer to. I have already agreed that science is learning, and have stated that I am all for the scientific method. Can you demonstrate Evolution? You are either unwilling or unable. I suspect the later. You are certainly willing, but you are unable, because evolution is <i>undemonstrateable</i>. It has no demonstratable method of... wait, didn't we already have this discussion? Oh that's right, <i>eventually</i> science will demonstrate it. Wake me when that happens. As for demonstrating the Creator? There is the fact that the universe's energy is dissipating -- it had to come from somewhere. The fact that matter can't be created or destroyed under natural laws. The fact that life always comes from life, not non-life. The fat that species always reproduce with their own kind. The fact that intelligence doesn't arise from non-intelligence. All of these things demonstrate the existence of a superior, supernatural, intelligent designer. The <i>entire creation</i> demonstrates his existence!!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "The heavens declare the glory of God" "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" ~Caleb
It was a nice try, Caleb ... really. Awww ... Caleb, just because you hate learning doesn't mean you're right. What you have essentially said is that just because humanity didn't arrive on the Earth knowing everything it needs about the Universe, we should simply give up learning. Here's the thing: demonstrate that Creationism has the entire Universe and all of Scripture to vouch for it. Because in order to demonstrate a deliberately created Universe, you have to show evidence of a Creator. Just because you'd rather believe what the Bible says than actually go out and learn the answers for yourself doesn't make the Bible any more than a collection of stories assembled on political considerations. I mean, look at what you're saying: I'm sorry, Caleb, but I'm simply not going to accept your opinion of science since you show such disdain for the scientific method. * You have criticized science for not having "the answer". * You have asserted the "answer" of God. * You refuse to demonstrate the key to your answer. * Yet you criticize science for working toward an answer while all the while you base your criticism on pure faith. You refuse to answer questions you can't comprehend? What? It's a fair question. You're criticizing science for not having attained what it works toward. If we knew everything in the Universe when we arrived on this planet--individually or collectively--we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would be nothing left to learn. The cop-out of religion is that it refuses learning in this sense. Creationism stands on undemonstrable assertions--superstitions--and criticizing tantrums against its chosen enemy, which demonstrates a lack of any credible evidence. Tell me, Caleb ... you're sitting on an airplane, halfway to where you're going: do you get up and demand your money back because they have failed to deliver you to your destination? I suggest you sit back and enjoy the ride: knowledge is a wonderful thing, and it creates a situation where you can learn in comfort without feeling the need to attack everything you're afraid to understand. Okay, so let's see .... * The Universe's energy must come from somewhere. * It must necessarily come from God. * No, I cannot demonstrate this, which means it's true. What did I leave out? And the significance is? Oh, it had to come from somewhere? * Matter cannot be created or destroyed under natural law. * Therefore, God must necessarily have created matter. * No, I cannot demonstrate this, which means it's true. What did I leave out? You cannot prove always. There's too much undiscovered Universe. Just because I didn't see the candle burn doesn't mean it was never lit. In the meantime, whatever it is you're asserting has something to do with God, I would imagine, which means that you cannot demonstrate it, which means it must necessarily be true. Did I leave out anything? Didn't think so. Explain that. I dare you to explain that. Make it make sense. Please clarify and demonstrate. How? Just because you've given up because it's too hard to figure out in a lifetime? Ah, silly me. I see you've never stepped out of your faith paradigm. It's getting old, Caleb: Demonstrate the Creator or drop it. It seems that your superstition is designed to encourage you to believe yourself knowledgable about the Universe without ever having to look around. You never know: dogshite might smell pretty good if you've never bothered to sniff the roses. What you believe is your own business, but that doesn't make it true. I think you just murdered a witch. I didn't witness it. I have no proof of it. But it's something your God likes, so you must necessarily be guilty. You're going to jail, son. Or ... do you choose what you prefer to believe what you will? Accept what parts of God's Word you prefer the most? Ask Lawdog the next time he shows his face around here; he seems to remember the murderous part, and seems to look forward to it. See, that's the nice thing about your approach: one can prove anything. As far as I can tell, I've met your standard. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
***Typo: "The <i>fat</i> that species always..." "fat" should equal "fact" Please. How often must I say that I like the scientific method and its results, just not the humanist's <i>mis-interpretation</i> of the results? Exaample: A '97 article of <i>Science</i> reported that fossilized beetles had been found with chittin still intact. Some of them even still had there original irridescence! To make sure that it was chittin, they ran a pyrolic (sp?) gas-chromatography mass-spectroscopy on it and found that most or all of the original bio-organic material was still there. That is a scientific observation -- a fact that was tested by the spectroscopy. Sure, it was chittin. I agree. The article stated that the rocks were from the Pliestocene Era, 24.7 million years ago. That is the scientist's interpretation of the meaning of strata, with which I disagree because of various faults in their dating methods. The article cited an experiment in which dead shrimp were placed in water with minerals in it, and under certain conditions the soft body parts -- including chittin -- would fossilize. There were four different environments that were tested against each other, and they were sampled at various times to find how far the fossilization had proceeded. It was found that those in a reducing environment (i.e. lack of oxygen) would fossilize more frequently and with alot better quality within 2-4 weeks. That experiment exemplifies the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis under several conditions with which to test. Performing it on several specimens to see if there is a consistent rule that holds, etc... I agree with the scientific results -- fossils form better in reducing environments, and can even form quickly. That is the scientific method, and it produced great results, just like with the beetles. Speaking of beetles, that article then concluded that the chittin had survived for the last 25 million years. Once again, I disagree with this conclusion, as the scientific method cannot reasonably measure the age of the fossils. I've also used the scientific method during my summer job. I am a research assistant at the University's Math department. Granted, math is usually alot more precise than science, and its conclusion usually more certain, but we use pretty much the same process. I'm interested in how many times two <i>legendre polynomials</i> intersect each other if they have degrees m and n, where m>n. This is basically the same as finding the zeroes of their difference, and there is a fact that you can't find a general formula for the precise location of polynimials with degree > 5. However, I used a CAS to graph the curves, and recorded the number of times they crossed (=gather data), and made a conjecture (=hypothesis) that they would always intersect n times. I was eventually able to find a mathematical proof for this, which is a step beyond what science can do. I have al sots of other conjectures as well that I can't (or haven't been able to) proove, but based on these conjectures, I predicted that a certain value would equal 0 for specific sets of m and n, and I found that they were (this is analogous to a scientist running experiments to test a hypothesis). So even though I don't know how to proove it, my conjecture seems pretty solid. The point is, I use the scientific method all the time, and I don't disdain it, or I would never have gotten as far as I have in this research project. If I did, I wouldn't be a <i>research</i> assistant, now, would I? Or be persuing a degree in computer science? Learning is cool! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Caleb
Misomathea? Then why do you complain about theories revised based on new data? You seem to indicate by your arguments that this is a problem with science, when, in fact, it is the point. Why do you base your theories on an untestable, unprovable presupposition? Do you believe you will ever have the equipment to "measure" God? You can say what you want about the scientific method directly; please, then, apply that sentiment in your theories. When you look at the Beetles, are you disagreeing because you have an alternate hypothesis that is testable, or because it helps the cause of your presuppositions? Of mathematical proofs: I can point to religion--Aleister Crowley--to demonstrate that mathematical proofs only work within their presupposed conventions. This proof method works across the board, as long as the presuppositions are agreed upon. So your research time and your degree are more important than God? You seem to be claiming to approach those studies in a manner that happens to be more forthright than your examinations of the God question. It's not that I have a problem with this ... but given your claims to the scientific method, why do you rest your arguments in authority so ascientific as an ineffable God? And there's your citations, too. Like the aforementioned ICR posts. Sure, the guy was a "scientist", but he seemed to have issues with objectivity. Like you, he also seemed to expect dualism in science--that if one theory disagrees with his presuppositions, then the other must necessarily be right. And that is not science. When you stop at assumptions of God, you cease learning in that arena. I feel secure in my declarations that you dislike the scientific process and learning in general. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here is one for you caleb. Lets say the theory of evolution is false. Ill go with that. Now I am left to find a new theory. You say creation. Now show me one single shred of proof. I promise not to counter with evolutionist theories. Lets just see if you can do that, then we'll talk.
cool Wow. I wish I had that type of reception when I started. Thanks, I really mean it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Before I get to the evidence (which I am eager to do), let me point out a critical distinction in terminology so that we will be absolutely clear and avoid potential misunderstandings. There are two types of evidence. Class I) Absolute Proof - Evidence that shows that something absolutely happened. Or at least within an arbitrarily small margin of reasonable doubt. We can use words like "prove," and "demonstrate" to refer to this. This is usually the kind of proof used in pure mathematics, which deals primarily with definitions and finding logically valid equivalent statements that naturaly result from the definitions. With science, this type of proof is harder to arrive at, and usually applies only to direct observations and measurements of the present state of some object (assuming, of course, that the instruments are precise and accurate). When dealing with things in the past (say archaeology), I don't know that this kind of proof can ever be strictly be used. Class II) Circumstantial Proof - Evidence that implys that something happens. We can use words such as "implies" and "suggests" to describe this catagory. It can cover a range of potency, from strongly indicative, to weakly speculative. Perhaps we should break it into two subclasses for convenience. II.a refers to strong circumstantial evidence, while we can let II.b refer to weaker circumstantial evidence. Math tends to avoid these with a ten foot pole whenever possible. Science usually uses it when describing general theories or past events. History usually has to rely soley on this type of evidence. Also, note, there is a blurry line between each of these classes. It is possible for evidence to lie somewhere between being absolutely conclusive (which is probably philosophically impossible) and being strongly indicative. Similarly, a particular piece of evidence may be be hard to catagorize as either strongly or weakly suggestive. If we wished, we could also describe a class III which would be essentially neutral evidence -- evidence that has little if any bearing on the argument at hand. Also, a whole bunch of II.b's that are all independant of each other can be as strong as a good II.a Now some examples: Fingerprints and DNA evidence. Though usualy considered good evidence in court, this technically would belong on the line between I and II.a It is hypothetically possible (but extremely unlikely) that a malevolent scientist with a DNA-lab or a model-maker with a cast of the persons fingerprint or a computer-hacker who tapped into the police fingerprint database could plant the evidence. Notice that this is a case of trying to prove something happened in the past -- a mix of science and history. n <= Z. This is a nice little mathematical fact (with regards to Orthogonal Polynomials) that I proved at college over the summer. Because it is mathematical, and it follows naturally from certain definitions and properties, it would be a I. Babylonian tablet found at a location, so that location must have been under Babylonian rule. This would probably fall somewhere between II.a and II.b, but closer to II.b It is again possible that something different could have happened. A wandering merchant, or some rougue nomad, or a natural disaster could have moved the tablet, or that there was a Babylonian who lived in the city but it was not ruled by Babylonians. More corroberating evidence would be needed. The sky is blue. No doubt about it. That's definately a I !! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The theory of General Relativity. This would probably classify only as a solid II.a. Although the model seems to fit observations and acurately predict what is going to happen, there are supposedly other theories that can also do this (entrailing ether, electrogravitics, radiation pressure). Additionally, Newton's Law was once thought solid till replaced by Einstein. It is possible that Einstein's may also be replaced by a law of quantum gravity. An eyewitness testimony. This only qualifies for about II.b Maybe a weak II.a if it's a reliable witness. But it is a known fact that people often unconsciously see things that aren't there, and that people have biases and even lie on occasion. However, if there are a bunch of independant witnesses that corroborate one another, then the evidence starts to take on more credence. Possibly becoming a good strong II.a I maesure the length of an object to be 3 feet, 2.4 inches Assuming the ruler is accurate enough (we can use laser beams if we need extreme precision) then this will be a I. A firm observation of fact. Note also, that the credibility of any evidence can be raised by 1) finding corroborative evidence 2)using it to make predictions that then are found to hold true (this is how scientic hypothesis become theories). Now, how all of this relates to the discussion at hand. It gives us a framework to discuss origins theories in. First, I will readily admit that Creation cannot provide class I evidence either of the Creator's existence, or of the fact that Creation in general happened. I do maintain, however, that there is strong II.a evidence for Creation. Someover-zealous Christian's try to assert that I evidence does exist for Creation. From a faith standpoint, that is alright, but it doesn't cut it from a scientific evidence standpoint. The best you can come up with in that area is class II.a. Similarly, some evolutionists claim to have class I evidence that God doesn't exist. From a faith standpoint, this is fine, but it is scientifically invalid. The best they can do (as dan pointed out in another thread) is demonstrate strong II.a evidence that he is uneccessary. Now, while admiting that Creation is can only do a II.a, let me point out that is the best that <i>any</i> scientific theory on origins can do. Creationism should not be held to a higher standard than other science. Therefore, there can exist no class one proof of evolution or Creation, and we should not argue trying to find or discredit it. It simply doesn't exist. This is because scientists can always refine there theories to take into account new evidence that would have earlier discredited it of disproved it. That's fine. That's science. That's how General Relativity came about -- refining theories to fit observation. However, the fact that these theories are so "pliable" precludes any kind of statement of absolute truth -- any kind of class I evidence -- for either theory. However, the circumstantial evidence can be strengthened, as noted above, by using a theory to make predictions and see if it holds up, or by making observations. For instance (and I'm not introducing this to poke fun at evolution, I'm just giving an example), the evolution of dinosaurs to birds cannot be class I because you canot observe it. We have no dinosaurs to observe with millions of years to watch them. Even if we did, ans we saw them turn into birds, that wouldn't prove it had happened in the past, but it would imply that it might have. We can also use that theory to make predictions - for instance we can predict to find transitional forms. While finding them would certainly lend a little more credence to the evolution of birds from dinos, it would still not prove it had happened. There could be multiple other explanations for such a fossil. Similarly, we cannot find evidence that would prove creation. On a side note, not only can science not prove the existence of a creator (though it can imply it), it also cannot prove anything about who or what the creator is. From a scientific view of evidence that implys there is a creator, one could just as well come to the conclusion that the creator is allah or buhda (sp?). There are other methods of using science, history, archaeology, literature criticism, and yes, even faith, to determine <i>who/what</i> the creator is. This shows the difference between Biblical Creationism and Scientific Creationism. To an extent, the two overlap, but scientific Creationism (which is all I'm arguing for here) can only imply that that there may have been a creator, but it doesn't say who the creator is. Biblical creation, which I feel overlaps Scientific Creationism while still being distinct from it, makes statements based partly on faith as to who that creator is. However that would be outside the realm of science, and I am not trying to argue for it. In other words, on this board, I am primarily arguing scientific creationism -- scientific evidence that implys the existence of a creator without saying who it is. <hr> Now I think we finally have a framework to build on. phew. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hopefully we're on the same page. Unfortunately, its too late for me to continue tonight, but I <i>really</i> look forward to continuing this discussion tommorow, when I will present what I think is arguably the two strongest II.a evidences for some type of creator. Just keep in mind I am not going to try and prove it as class I evidence (which would be scientifically impossible) and that I am not going to try to make any assertations about what (or who) the creator could be (which would also be unscientific). ~Caleb
Caleb, I don't understand... I agree neither science nor religion has a clue about what started everything off..... and sure maybe there was a creator (alien, real creature which intervened in the evolution of life on earth)...whatever....however we both know you will now say that since there is a possibilty a creator had a hand in our existance it had to be the god of the bible...that's where I see your argument fall to pieces and science reign supreme. Science does not introduce supernatural ideas to explain why something exists..it looks at what is naturaly occuring and trys to apply the REAL world to the situation to explain it...you however base your conclusion on 1 book, which has been rewritten, translated added to, for a couple of thousand years...its such a mess that even the people who believe in your god can't agree...so how does that add ANY weight to your argument of a Christain creator???? (if your intentions were only to argue the possibilty of a creator i.e. not God just a real creator then ignore my post...and I appolagise for assuming you would turn this into a pro-god argument).
Caleb, Nice intro to what should be an interesting discussion. What would make it more fun would be a dose of Boris Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Allcare Tony H2o
Thanks. Very well, for the most part I will merely try to prove (although I'm using the word "proof" keep in mind I'm only refering to class II.a) that there is some creator -- albeit a supernatural one, or one sufficiently powerful enough to appear supernatural. I will try to ignore conclusions as to who that is. However, I should say a word on how I will demonstrate this evidence. Three ways -- direct proof, proof by contradiction, and proof by prediction (this one may involve assuming who the creator is from time to time, though I will try to avoid this). >> Direct -- This is direct proof that the universe was created by a supernatural God. >> Contradiction -- This is proof that the universe did not arise by chance. Since in the general terms that we are using, the only two possibilities is that it arose through order or chaos. If the universe was not planned, it was random, and if it didn't come about by chance, it was only because it was designed. Logically, these are the only two options, and any origin theory will ultimately boil down to one of those two. There is no middle ground between order and chaos, except for various combinations of them. Therefore, any evidence against chaos as a driving force of origins will neccesarily imply a designer. And since implication, not proof, is the best we can hope for anyway, this is fine. Also, these first two methods will probably overlap quite a bit, since any direct proof for design may also be a contradiction of chance, and any direct proof for chance may possibly be a contradiction of design. >> Prediction -- we can make a prediction of what a designed universe would look like, and match those to observation. Since, in many cases, the predictions will neccessarily depend on the precise nature of a specific theory, these will be less general, and to use these, some type of more detailed model will be needed. For instance, Biblical creation will predict evidence for a catastrophic flood, while some other form of creation -- say Islamic creation (do they believe in creation or a flood?) might not predict such evidence. Similarly, Darwinist evolutionists will predict to find transitional fossils, while those who hold to punctuated equilibrium will not. <hr> Okay, I will try to be breif and to the point, but I think I'm ready to begin with the evidence. Item number one. The universe. We will define the universe to be the whole of space and time, since anything that might exist outside space cannot be measured, and therefore, does not involve science. Two arguments are given. 1) Fact - the universe exists and has existed in at least the recent past (class I) Fact - "things" have a cause. Law of casue and effect. This is probably also a I, but some may feel more comfortable with it on the line between I and II.a Therefore -- the universe has a cause. This cause will be either natural or supernatural. a natural cause will follow the laws of nature, therefore, it will have a cause. This will be either natural or supernatural. Repeat <i>ad libatum</i>. The problem with repeating this forever is that there is no original cause, therefore, it doesn't follow the natural law of cause and effect, and is therefore supernatural. A second, more difficult problem occurs when you add the laws of thermodynamics to the equation, which I will not get to in this post, but hopefully soon. New twist -- to have a cause or an effect, something must be within time, but if space and time are firmly interwoven via General Relativity, then whatever produced space also produced time, however, if time had not been produced, then there will be no temporal relation -- hence no cause and effect. This contradicts the idea that it must have a cause. Therefore, to have a cause, the cause must be outside of normal space and time. But if the cause is outside of space-time then it is outside of the realm of science and nature, and is therefore, by definition, supernatural. If we speculate a higher dimension of spacetime (a sort of hyper-space?), from which our universe arose, than this higher dimension must have its origins also explained, using the same principles of reasoning. 2) Prediction -- if there were a designer, one obvious option would be to produce an orderly universe with a set of fixed laws. Observation -- prcisely that. Laws of science, though often revised to fit new data, are never spontaneously broken. Even the mysterious quantum flux follows laws. Even Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle is a law that is always followed and not broken. The argument in #1 is derived independantly from any religious background, and is based wholly on observation and logic. This means that it qualifies for very strong II.a evidence. Some might claim it is I, but I don't know that that is possible. After all, there may be a law of nature that allows the universe to come from no where by chance, but such a law has not been found by science, and so cannot be tested or demonstrated, and cannot yet be stated as science. This means that it is no more than speculation (which is fine for a hypothesis, but not for a theory) for which more experiments and/or observations are needed. ~Caleb
Almost but not quite One cannot prove this. There is always the possibility that the Universe occurred as I write this--in media res is the narrative device--and that your post occurred in the natural order of its occurrence. This, of course, has about as slim a chance of proof as God. It cannot yet be demonstrated, and, frankly, I don't know if it can be. One can take it on faith, and that's fine. But one cannot demonstrate it. There is no law that says the Universe must make sense. This may be observable, but it is not necessarily demonstrable. Considering the scenario I presented above, as you write that, it could be an effect of the spontaneous occurrence of the Universe. There is no law that says the Universe must make sense. Kind of like God in that, too, eh? I agree that your observation is definitely circumstantial in the metaphysical arena. There is also the a priori that the designer should create a Universe that makes sense: as the tradition goes, God works in mysterious ways. In other words, there is no law that says the Universe must make sense. As you noted, one option. It's a fairly obvioius conclusion of superstition, though. I'll grant you that. Your reasoning is effective if you limit the discussion to the polar possibilities of a manufactured vs. natural Universe. However, one must necessarily consider all possibilities. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All right, this should be fun. First to tiassia: " One cannot prove this. There is always the possibility .... There is no law that says the Universe must make sense." Sorry but this is pointless and completly off topic. I am determined to avoid a tony1 scenario here. I agree with all of the definitions of proof that you gave in the earlier post Caleb and must submit that there is no class I proof in any origin theory, it is impossible. " I should say a word on how I will demonstrate this evidence. Three ways -- direct proof, proof by contradiction, and proof by prediction (this one may involve assuming who the creator is from time to time, though I will try to avoid this). " I have problems with the latter two. Prediction is exactly that, in the future. A supernatural being would be able to have any personality that you assign it and therefore could bring about anything. You order prediction simply comes out of the fact that you see order in nature, you have a god that you have faith in and therefore it would be natural and expected for that god to have created an ordered universe. Proof by contradiction was exactly the type of proof that I was attempting to avoid. That is not proof at all. If you disprove evolution then you are not proving creation at all but pointing out an imperfect theory. Also there are other possibilities. Alien life interceding with our own evolutionary process has already popped up in this room and there are others. To prove something by disproving its counterpart is not scientific. " Therefore -- the universe has a cause. This cause will be either natural or supernatural. " Agreed. " a natural cause will follow the laws of nature, therefore, it will have a cause. " This is not true. A natural cause would be outside our current natural laws. It would be governed by a separate set of laws that are outside our experience. " to have a cause or an effect, something must be within time, but if space and time are firmly interwoven via General Relativity, then whatever produced space also produced time, however, if time had not been produced, then there will be no temporal relation -- hence no cause and effect. This contradicts the idea that it must have a cause. Therefore, to have a cause, the cause must be outside of normal space and time. But if the cause is outside of space-time then it is outside of the realm of science and nature, and is therefore, by definition, supernatural." We need another definition Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The creation of the universe was by something supernatural. What creationism states is that it is by an intelligent supernatural force while the other stance is no intelligence is involved. The original creation was outside our current laws, that is not disputed but whether it had an intelligent designer or not is. " Prediction -- if there were a designer, one obvious option would be to produce an orderly universe with a set of fixed laws. " I have problems with this that I have already stated. You are predicting things that you already know.
FAQ: Great! I'm glad we agree here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mostly agree with your assesment of the prediction method, and will try to use it sparingly (if at all), but I must disagree, in at least very general terms with your assesment of proof by contradiction. I'll demonstrate why in a minute. OK. I have a serious problem with this for several reasons. I admit its certainly a valid theory scientifically, <i>but:</i> First of all, it doesn't really do any better of a job explaining anything in regards too origins, because you have to account for the alien's origins to. Second of all, it isn't really a new theory, since it can be boiled down to a mix of the two properties we have already noted. An alien implies 1) <i>An intelligent designer</i>, working through 2) <i>natural processes</i>. Thus this is merely a mix of the two properties earlier mentioned. Actually, it is a mix of two sets of properties, which I had before lumped together as one, but now I see are two seperate properties. Natural vs. Supernatural and Chaos vs. Order. I now see that these two are seperate. O.K. So we can consider the following square: Code: Intelligence_____Supernatural | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | X | | / \ | | / \ | | / \ | Natural__________Chaos Note that opposing viewpoints are at opposite corners. The question, then, is which side of the square works best to explain the facts. Divine Creation would lie allong the top edge, as it implies a supernatural intelligence. Traditionally, evolution would lie along the bottom. The alien theory would fit along the left side of the square. I'm not sure what would fit on the right side. Probably other forms of evolution, or maybe theistic evolution (though th the later could go just as well on the left side, or at the 'X' in the middle.) I hope I don't sound sarcastic, but I am truly shoked at this statement. I didn't know that it was not disputed that there was a supernatural origin, even among evolutionists (which would put it on the right side of the square). Wow. O.K. So now we're limited to the top side, or the right, and all I must do is give evidence for intelligence, right? Oh, I almost forgot. I was going to explain why I'm in favor of proof by contradiction. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tiassa points out that this will work in a polar argument. I maintain that this is a polar argument, just with two sets of poles -- the two diagonals on the picture above. Every possibility will fall somewhere along each of the two axes, and if you prove that it can't fall at one end of a certain axis -- well, there's nowhere left but the other end of that axis. ~Caleb
