Fortunately I am aware of human technological limits right now, so that only leaves non human life as potentially expending quite a bit of effort just to deceive me... kinda silly eh?
What would it take?
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
Fortunately I am aware of human technological limits right now, so that only leaves non human life as potentially expending quite a bit of effort just to deceive me... kinda silly eh?
Define it any way you want, bs is still bs.
But all of your arguments for it being BS are based on theologically inaccurate representations of God. That puts YOUR position into the zone of BS.
For the sake of discussion, can you kindly point out what those 'theologically inaccurate' representations are? From what I have seen, although I could have missed it, Crunchy Cat merely explained what it would take for him to believe - which included certain miraculous events. Are you therefore saying that miracles are "theologically inaccurate" or what?
Kindly clarify.
Hahaha no disagreement there.
or alternatively, if evolution does not exist as it is popularly imagined, we came into existence under a different set of guidelines.
except that unless water does behave in ways we understand, there would be no metal smelting and thus no kettles.
(or the new findings that came to the public forum regarding the boiling of water would also have to accommodate the host of doable activities that are already in form)
IOW a key difference between the two examples that you are failing to acknowledge is that there are a host of doable activities that surround the properties of boiling water. It is not merely propped up by a theoretical framework.
natural selection can still function perfectly well in a ID world view... or quite a few different other views too since the whole thing is simply a question of theoretical frameworks to contextualize the issue ... the issues that surround boiling water are markedly more problematic since we already have recourse to a host of doable activities that support it (as opposed to merely laying claim to some theoretical world view about how it is water comes to boil that is totally divorced from any doable claims)
not in the slightest since boiling water underpins a host of everyday, scientific and industrial acts on a daily basis.
IOW the doable acts that surround it don't require a theoretical framework to lend them a single iota of credibility
Who knows... maybe Jesus was the first person of his time and place to make Wine and it got mistranslated into a miracle throughout the years. It would explain the whole cup thing... and the being crucified was just because "important" people of that day couldn't function properly at times because of his genius. Either way he still had good words.
Imagine your a king or something and all your subjects are too drunk to take care of themselves. You would probably dislike the guy who made the spirit, especially if he was getting good recognition and PR.
1. I am unsure where "imagined" really comes into it.
2. Certainly we could pass by certain processes without it really impacting anything. If, for instance, it were to turn out that sexual selection is non-existent then it wouldn't likely stop us from appreciating the beauty of peacocks or bower birds.
3. Likewise if water boils at 100 degrees but does not happen through the process of the movement of molecules and the pressure placed on them, then we can attempt to find out what processes are actually involved, but it won't make a difference to me making a cup of tea.
Do you understand?
Yes, if water didn't boil at 100 degrees, our kettles would be somewhat redundant, (the solenoid wouldn't work etc). It does boil at 100 degrees, hence no issue with kettles. How it boils at 100 degrees is ultimately of no relevance and won't affect my kettle.
With respect, this is all too common theist ignorance at work. "merely theoretical"? It is, in the same sense, "merely theoretical" that you are human - I see no valid reason to take your statement seriously.
In the sense that you mean it, (guess, hunch, belief), natural selection etc do not apply - they are experimented, tested, empirical observations that lead to evidenced inferences.
Kindly explain in more detail. The specific problem that ID has is with natural selection.
Your error merely represents ignorance of the subject. Don't feel too bad about that, we're all ignorant of a great many things - this area clearly happens to be one of yours. I would encourage study, at which stage you'll recognise that it is anything but "merely laying claim".
Sure, but that does not change water boiling if "god did it". It doesn't mean a change of kettles, pans or pots or any human understanding. Likewise if "god did it" applies to evolution, it doesn't mean you any less share a common ancestor with apes.
Why are you ignoring 'kinetic theory' or atomic molecular theory (etc)?
"Boiling is a consequence of (H2O) molecules being transformed into vapor by absorbing the latent heat of vaporization and the vapor ascends through the liquid where it is transformed back in to the liquid state. The minute spicule of liquid that is observed directly above the surface of the boiling water is produced as the latent heat of vaporization of that liquid is radiated to the atmosphere. Electron domains are expanded where the latent heat of vaporization expands the magnetic fields (H2O) electrons This is how (H2O )each electron dipole magnetic field can exist in each of the two states, liquid and vapor simultaneously." [1]
It's "just a theory"!
----
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory
Last edited:
I agree with the theory, but state that is is less probabilistic than brownian motion would have you believe. It is certainly more organized, it just appears to be chaos from our current scientific standpoint on the subject. IE. as I believe you have said, The motions do not matter at such a small scale as long as they serve their purpose. Understanding the purpose for the theory leads us to make human and physical adjustments to what we know has to be both true and understood.
We can of course do 'who knows' all day long - it's of no value. "Who knows", maybe Jesus was an alien from the planet arglebargle.
Given history, we're aware that wine existed before the era that Jesus supposedly lived. If you're dismissing miracles that's one thing - it does not explain how miracles are 'theologically inaccurate' - which is the question.
Although it's taking us off track, I fail to see what was "genius" in anything Jesus supposedly did or said. Of course I obviously have a different understanding of the term "genius".
I am unsure what this is addressing. Should I be a king and everyone in my kingdom is a drunken wreck, I'd realise my kingship is utterly worthless. My emotional feelings toward the individuals doing better than I is irrelevant to anything.
Regards,
Well then your probably not looking at it through the eyes of the king that had Jesus' inevitable miracle of wine in a society that didn't know how to deal with that "problem". I said the eyes of a king not your own eyes. You seem to be understanding, but it is important to try and look through to the actual reasons why in history. It gives you a "bigger picture" of how we view this concept of intelligence. Sure I could proclaim this information as fact, If I were an atheist or not. Just by understanding the mentality of people that changes over time. If it is "evil" to the time, it gets thrown out. If it is "good" then its chances for its survival are good. But if it was a "great" experience to behold at the time, It is often mistranslated in some form of our history. like a big fish story I'm sure you have heard from your friends coming back from their fishing trip.
"Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"(nameless)
Are we not all fishers of men?
"Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"(nameless)
Are we not all fishers of men?
In short, the notion that God performs magic tricks. Miracles are only seen as miracles by those with faith. Remember the plagues in Egypt? The prophets of Baal? The biblical acts of God were CONSTANTLY dismissed by those who did not believe. Why would you expect to see anything more overt now?
Oh, and your examples of a "sapient" (I think you meant sentient?) life form appearing in front of you and growing a lost limb back could easily be dismissed as a time traveler with advanced technology. Hell, we already have technology that CAN grow war veterans' lost limbs back - to think that a thousand years from now it could be accelerated to correspond with your example isn't terribly doubtful. Frankly, I have never spoken to any atheist who didn't clearly have something other than a healthy skepticism directing their beliefs (agnostics, yes; atheists, no) and I am doubtful that for such people anything physical would ever be proof enough. Not that such a thing would be theologically accurate anyway.
I am reminded of 1 Corinthians, 2:13-14...
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
IOW, atheists requiring proof will never find it. And for you Christians out there trying to force such a thing - read your Bible. You will never be successful, and you make yourselves into fools in attempting it.
Wow... just - wow... :bugeye:
Dude, please. Really. Read some history, 'cos saying stuff like that makes you look really ignorant.
Recipes for beer have been found on a 4,000 year old clay tablet from Mesopotamia, and are also detailed in the Egyptian 'Book of the Dead'. Wine is mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT pre-dating Jesus, and there is evidence of Wine production going back over 6,000 years. The Romans, (you know, the guys that crucified Jesus) were well know for wine production and planted vines wherever they settled.
Read some history kid.
There is a number of doable acts that surround the ToE.
They are, however, centred in the fields of cognition and social interaction, so they might not seem so obvious, although there are material implications too.
If the ToE would be disproved, then in the field of education this would mean that schoolbooks and other educational materials would have to be changed (and not only for biology, but also many others, since references to and justifications based on ToE are made even in art textbooks), teachers re-educated, legal rulings overridden. All this, obviously, involves a lot of money, political and organisational issues.
Secondly, some psychological counselling (along with psychology textbooks and other materials) would have to be re-made, with a lot of new research necessary. As it is, to some extent, counselors make arguments from ToE in their sessions with patients, and patients are expected to (at least indirectly) believe the ToE in the course of their recovery attempts.
The government would have to establish some kind of information office where citizens could get reliable information about the new findings.
There would also have to be some allowance made for possible litigation cases (I am sure many people would be very angry one way or another).
These things involve a lot of money and other resources, and a lot of social turmoil that would have to be dealt with somehow.
If a version of ID would become the norm, then also a number of practices that are now standard, would need to be marginalized / delegalized / criminalized - such as abortion or the meat industry.
While the ToE does not necessarily directly support those practices, it provides a worldview in which those practices are not condemned and are allowed.
An alternative view to where living beings came from and how and why they exist would require a change in the practical, moral and legal status of those practices.
Last edited:
Hi Solus.
I beleieve in evolution, but not molecule to man.
Do you?
If you do, how do you reoncile your belief with your belief in christianity?
thanks
jan.
I do (believe in molecule to man), and I don't even see how there is an issue to reconcile. As we've discussed before (and as most Christians don't see to have an issue with) I believe Genesis describes the different epochs of creation, ultimately culminating in the evolution of Homo Sapiens, with the creation of Adam. Let me ask you - where do you see the conflict? (That may be an easier point for me to address.)
(Hell, the phrase "created from dust" even sounds like "molecule to man" given the understanding that they didn't have a word for molecule.)
If this was true, then why are there so many Christians that dispute evolution? Why the whole Dover, PA/ID/Discovery Institute "Pandas and People" thingy?
Last edited: