Challenge Vanni


Extrafire
#91
Quote:

A physical/chemical reaction is somewhat different than what appears in Genesis. The start of all is a willed action by god. How can there be two entirely different truths? ( this is not counting any of the other scads of religions that have a different "truth" about the start of the universe.)

Exactly right Zen...if the Bible is to be taken as the divine word of God, which most Christian denominations hold, then why is the Big Bang not explained in minute detail in the book of Genesis?

What appears in Genesis is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It says nothing of how it was done. You're correct in that a physical/chemical reation is somewhat different because neither creation nor the big bang are a reaction. That's the whole problem with the naturalist explanation; there is an effect (big bang) but what is the cause? According to science, it must have had a cause, and since there was nothing before that, there could be no naturalistic cause.

Why is the big bang not described in detail? First, it isn't all that important to the message. Second, it's an accounting of an event that needed to be basicly comprehended by everyone, whether 3000 years ago or today. To the people back then, a detailed explanation would have been giberish, and to most people today it would still be the same. I don't fully understand relativity, or quantum physics or string theory, and few people do. What would be the point?
 
Reverend Blair
#92
The heavens and the earth are separated by eons, though. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," means nothing. What heavens? What earth? I won't quibble beyond that because there is no point.
 
Extrafire
#93
Quote:

Extrafire wrote:
Also my wife found out that I'm into forums again and my days here may be numbered. (Damn! This is so much fun!)


You'd let her do that, take away so much fun from you? Maybe you need to think about renegotiating the terms of your contract with her.

She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed allows me just so much rope before she jerks my chain (metaphors too mixed?). After 35 years I'm just too domesticated to assert any great amount of independance.

Quote:

He fudged his equations because they clearly implied an expanding universe, and there was no data at the time in support of that. The fudging results in a static solution.

HE was under a lot of pressure from his contemporaries to remove his fudge factor because it made his equation unworkable, but wouldn't do it because of the implications. AS soon as his original equation was verified, he removed them and said there must be a creator, and was then under pressure to recant that statement. Surprised you haven't heard that, it's quite well known.

Quote:

Quote:
Behe and Johnson are hardly ignorant.

In their fields of expertise, you're right, they're not. But about evolution, they are.

Hmmm....I get the impression that anyone who disagrees with your view on this subject would be labeled ignorant.

Quote:

Quote:
Can you suggest a way that such a proceedure could have evolved?


Ah, the heart of the matter. Offhand, no, I can't, I don't have the detailed expertise required,

Interestingly enough, neither can those who do have the detailed expertise required. I've read the attempt of one. He used such scientific terms as "arises, appears, springs forth is unleashed". Almost like saying it happens by magic. I've read some of Dawkins. He goes to such extremes it's almost laughable. Matter of fact, it is laughable.

"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call them machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts"

(Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences)

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations. (emphasis mine)

(Biochemist Franklin M. Harold)

Have you heard about Millers Challenge to Behe? And how Barry Hall claims to have successfully demonstrated through experimentation that Behe was wrong? I can give you a brief summary if you wish. Behe came out ahead on that one.


Quote:

On the contrary, your position determines what information you choose to present and how you choose to interpret it. So yes, it does make a difference.

If you put it that way, I suppose so. What I meant was you knowing my position is irrellevant because the only thing that matters is my questions and comments, which wouldn't change by your knowing where I'm comming from.

Quote:

Not really, he was mostly a pantheist in Spinoza's sense, though exactly what that means is a deeply complex subject that makes my head hurt.

A number of things make my head hurt, primarily imbibing a little too much, which is something I did this evening. She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed frowns on that too, so since I'm already in **** I might as well spend some time on the forum.

Pantheism means that nature and god are one/intertwined, and Einstein did not belive that at all. He admired the cosmos for it's beauty and harmony, and admired the creator for making such a wonderful universe, but did not consider the universe to be part of the creator. He understood that the creator must be transcendant.

Quote:

There are perfectly satisfactory naturalistic explanations for speciation

Actually they all fall short, but I imagine we'll get into that eventually.
 
Extrafire
#94
Quote:

The heavens and the earth are separated by eons, though.

Yup. What's your point?
 
Extrafire
#95
Hey folks, please stick to to the topic. The merits of Catholicism belong on a different thread.
 
Reverend Blair
#96
That your explanation fails before it starts. We know the time-line. That your god might have, if he stumbled along at all, been murdered for riding the wrong coloured donkey.
 
Extrafire
#97
Quote:

That your explanation fails before it starts. We know the time-line.

No, apparantly you don't.
 
Dexter Sinister
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Pantheism means that nature and god are one/intertwined, and Einstein did not belive that at all.

From Ronald W. Clark's biography, Einstein, The Life and Times, pages 413-414:

While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?"

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Years later he expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia Academy. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. "[But] I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."
 
Extrafire
#99
Quote:

Extrafire wrote:
Pantheism means that nature and god are one/intertwined, and Einstein did not belive that at all.

pantheism The doctrine that God and the universe are identical.
(Cassells English Dictionary)



Quote:

I believe in Spinoza's God ...

I am not familliar with this concept.

Quote:

...who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Which is the exact same point I made, though not so eloquently
 
zenfisher
#100
If there was nothing ...How could God be there?
If God is all knowing, all seeing, and all loving ...why would anyone be alllowed to sin?
If he is all loving ...Why would god punish any of us? Why would there be wars? Why would there be disease? Why would anyone suffer?
I know lots of god fearing people that suffer great hardships. These are devout followers...Why would god make them suffer?

These aren't stories presented in the bible...these are basic tenets, that do not have answers and contridict each other.
 
Extrafire
#101
Quote:

If there was nothing ...How could God be there?

The nothing refers to our reality, the 3 spacial and 1 time dimension did not exist, and most likely the other 10 dimensions that string theory postulates. For a creator to be "there" it would have to exist in a totally different dimension, since by definition, a creator cannot be part of it's creation. The challenge to Vanni is, if there was nothing, how could the big bang have happened without a creator? He has put forward an hypothesis which has a slight chance of being possible, but not without a creator as well.

Quote:

If God is all knowing, all seeing, and all loving ...why would anyone be alllowed to sin?

Freedom of choice. Would you rather be an automaton?

Quote:

If he is all loving ...Why would god punish any of us? Why would there be wars? Why would there be disease? Why would anyone suffer?
I know lots of god fearing people that suffer great hardships. These are devout followers...Why would god make them suffer?

The short answer; the consequences of our choices.
 
Twila
#102
Zenfisher. God gave humans free will. If God were to step in it would remove free will. Or..........humans attributed this "gift" of free will as coming from God to explain why he doesn't step in. It's one or the other. Unless your athiest...in which case you'd never ask that question
 
Twila
#103
Your fast Extrafire.......Thought I had it for a minute there.
 
zenfisher
#104
Twila & Ex "free will" doesn't answer the question.If he loved us he would not allow us to fall into harms way.This would of course mean that god is not all loving. As a matter of fact he is down right selective about who is favoured. This would imply that he loves other more...again this would not mean all loving.

Yes I am an atheist.

Nothing is nothing Ex. If you allow the possibility that god lives in another dimension...you also have to allow the possibility that the other dimension was the cause of the big bang.
 
Dexter Sinister
#105
Ex, read the third paragraph of that citation from Clark's biography again. Einstein used the word God as metaphor for "the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason." He had no belief in a creator, no biography of him that I've ever read says he did, and his own autobiographical notes, which I've just spent the last 45 minutes re-reading to confirm my memory, state clearly that his personal religiosity came to an abrupt end at the age of 12.

Removing the cosmological constant--the fudge factor--from the equations of general relativity, and I'm writing here as one who once upon a time studied and understood them, in no way implies a creator. Specifically what it implies is that the curvature of the universe is constantly changing, either increasing or decreasing. At the moment it's decreasing, and depending on the overall density may continue to do so forever, or it may reverse itself and all come back together in a Big Crunch, followed by another Big Bang, starting the process all over again.

Quote:

I've read some of Dawkins. He goes to such extremes it's almost laughable. Matter of fact, it is laughable.

You laugh at a distinguished and accomplished scientist writing in his area of greatest expertise, and you're arrogant enough to think you know more about it than somebody who's spent a professional lifetime studying it and teaching it. That's what religion does for you. You have utterly and irrevocably destroyed your credibility with me.
 
Extrafire
#106
Quote:

Twila & Ex "free will" doesn't answer the question.If he loved us he would not allow us to fall into harms way.

There came a time when I had to let my children go and make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences of them. I didn't love them any less.

Quote:

Nothing is nothing Ex. If you allow the possibility that god lives in another dimension...you also have to allow the possibility that the other dimension was the cause of the big bang.

Yes, and the nature of this universe and it's properties strongly suggest an intelligent cause because random chance couldn't have done it.
 
zenfisher
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Quote:

Twila & Ex "free will" doesn't answer the question.If he loved us he would not allow us to fall into harms way.

There came a time when I had to let my children go and make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences of them. I didn't love them any less.

Quote:

Nothing is nothing Ex. If you allow the possibility that god lives in another dimension...you also have to allow the possibility that the other dimension was the cause of the big bang.

Yes, and the nature of this universe and it's properties strongly suggest an intelligent cause because random chance couldn't have done it.

Hmmm.... so you love your children ..but you won't let them back into your house because they sinned. Sorry, tough love or no...that ain't love.

I see random chance on this planet all the time, daily to be exact.Isuspect, if your observent ...you do to.I would preclude that random chance is more likely than divine intelligence.
 
Extrafire
#108
Quote:

Einstein used the word God as metaphor for "the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.

Quote:

'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

Bit of a difference there.
Sounds to me like he's explaining his way of viewing reality.

I'm only quoting from memory. I think it would take me a lot longer than 45 minutes to find the reference material.

Quote:

At the moment it's decreasing, and depending on the overall density may continue to do so forever, or it may reverse itself and all come back together in a Big Crunch, followed by another Big Bang, starting the process all over again.

Latest I heard is that the expansion rate is increasing and it will never contract. I've also heard that the entropy of the universe is such that if it was rebounding it would bounce farther and farther each time until it reached a state where it couldn't contract any more. In that case, we could also look backwards and the decreasing bounces to the point where the original big bang would have to have happened, which again requires a cause (or creator) meaning all you do is push it back a ways. And I've also heard that the nature of the universe is such that if it did contract, it wouldn't bounce back in another big bang anyway, more like a cosmic thud, kind of like dropping a lump of wet clay on a sidewalk instead of a rubber ball.

Quote:

You laugh at a distinguished and accomplished scientist writing in his area of greatest expertise, and you're arrogant enough to think you know more about it than somebody who's spent a professional lifetime studying it and teaching it.

Even I with my low intelligence could see the absurdity of some of his arguements, not to mention the others of greater intelligence who pointed out his errors.

Quote:

You have utterly and irrevocably destroyed your credibility with me.

Like I ever had any, as a creationist.
 
Extrafire
#109
Quote:

Hmmm.... so you love your children ..but you won't let them back into your house because they sinned. Sorry, tough love or no...that ain't love.

My son and his girlfriend were irresponsible and thought the old morals were nonsense and thought they should practice safe sex, which wasn't all that safe because it gave me my first grandson. Because his parents were irresponsible he ended up living with us. When he was 13 we kicked him out for a series of transgressions (we had given him lots of chances.) Now he is 15, he has changed his ways and we've welcomed him back into our home. Same thing God, or at least the Christian one.

Quote:

I see random chance on this planet all the time, daily to be exact.Isuspect, if your observent ...you do to.

Indeed I do, every time someone else wins a lottery. But there comes a point when scientists decide that the odds are so great as to be impossible. When everything is taken into consideration, the hypothesis that Vanni postulated at the beginning of this thread is well beyond that point. Also you need to consider that one of the things absolutely required to build the universe is information, and that is only a product of intelligence.
 
zenfisher
#110
Ahhh...you welcomed him back. There is a difference. God does not welcome you into his fold if you are unrepentant...even if you are there are some sins that transgress his forgiveness. Again ...not all loving.

Yet even though the odds are against them people still win lotteries. The problem with odds is there is always ( no matter how improbable) that one chance. That is all that was needed.
 
Dexter Sinister
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Yes, and the nature of this universe and it's properties strongly suggest an intelligent cause because random chance couldn't have done it.

False dichotomy. How could you possibly know random chance couldn't have done it? You can't conceive of how anything but an intelligent designer could have created this universe and its observed properties. That's a limitation of your imagination, it doesn't justify that conclusion. In fact if you look more closely many things display a complete lack of design.

This touches again on the Argument from Irreducible Complexity, a variant of the Argument from Design you seem to favour, for which the usual example is the eye in the stuff I've read, so lets look at that more closely. No question, the eye is a highly complex structure that depends on many components working together to function properly, but that's not in itself evidence of design. A close look at the human eye in fact suggests a structure cobbled together from available bits with no design at all. The rods and cones that detect light, for instance, actually point away from the pupil, they're in there backwards. The blood vessels that supply the eye trace out a pattern in front of the light sensors, so a ruptured vessel blocks light from them. That's why diabetics go blind. Any first year engineering student could come up with a better design than that.

But the eyes of cephalopods (squids and octopuses) are much better than ours. Their rods and cones point toward the pupil, and the blood vessels are behind them. What does this mean? I can see one of three things: the designer likes cephalopods better; the designer's pretty sloppy and thus not worthy of unconditional admiration; there's no designer.

The whole human body is a terrible piece of design from an engineering standpoint. Our backs ache, our feet hurt, our bellies sag, our eyes lose close focus as we age, veins in our rectums swell and protrude painfully, and in the absence of modern medical and sanitation technologies many of us wouldn't survive childhood and most of us wouldn't make it to 30. It's only in the last century that parents have been able to routinely count on their children surviving to adulthood instead of being carried off by various microbes, which have been from the beginning and are still the dominant lifeform on the planet.


There was a time when the earth could not sustain life. There will be a time in the future when it cannot sustain life. There are 8 other planets in this system that cannot sustain our kind of life. None of the hundred or so other planets we've discovered can sustain our kind of life. Conditions in most of the universe are fatal to our kind of life. We're not particularly special; we can live comfortably only here, on this little planet, and not even on all of its surface. There's far more territory available to fish. What does that say about design? Nothing. Maybe the designer likes fish better. Or maybe he likes bacteria, or beetles, or mosquitos, or flies; there are far more of them than us.

If this is designed for us, the designer's an idiot. If the people who work for me did their jobs that badly I'd be firing their asses out the door.
 
Dexter Sinister
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Like I ever had any, as a creationist.

Yeah, that sums it up nicely now. I did think you might be amenable to reason at first, but you've chosen a version of truth a priori and now you're working on selecting and twisting the evidence to support it. You formed your conclusion first, always a capital mistake.
 
sparky
#113
It is easy for anyone on this board to read about the relative scientific merits of evolution and creationism. Just go to PubMed and do a search on "evolution" and "creationism".

* Searching for "evolution" yields 147 227 (about one-hundred-and-fifty-thousand articles).

* Searching for "creationism" yields 45 articles, none of which try to justify creationism - they are political articles about the politically/religiously inspired movement to undermine science education by teaching the unscientific superstition of creationism.

* Searching for "intelligent design" yields 13 articles, again none of which put the case for intelligent design. They are all about the political disinformation campaign to mislead the public about the facts of evolution.


Do not be fooled by internet links to "evidence against evolution". The internet is not where science is done. Science is done in peer reviewed journals and in such journals no-one has published any evidence supporting creationism. The reason for this is that there is no evidence for creationism that stands up to review by professional scientists.
 
Vanni Fucci
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Hey folks, please stick to to the topic. The merits of Catholicism belong on a different thread.

Actually, there are no merits to Catholism, or any other flavour of Christianity...so we're in a free for all here...post as you will, folks...
 
Vanni Fucci
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

The nothing refers to our reality, the 3 spacial and 1 time dimension did not exist, and most likely the other 10 dimensions that string theory postulates. For a creator to be "there" it would have to exist in a totally different dimension, since by definition, a creator cannot be part of it's creation. The challenge to Vanni is, if there was nothing, how could the big bang have happened without a creator? He has put forward an hypothesis which has a slight chance of being possible, but not without a creator as well.

False...there is no requirement, or desire to have a creator in my equation, thank you very much...
 
Vanni Fucci
#116
This op-ed piece does a decent job of explaining why intelligent design theory has no scientific merit...

Not Intelligent and Surely Not Science (external - login to view)
 
Extrafire
#117
Quote:

Actually, there are no merits to Catholism, or any other flavour of Christianity...so we're in a free for all here...post as you will, folks...

You can post as you want, as Vanni encouraged, but that wasn't the topic for this thread, since there is another one for that purpose.

Sounds like you're trying to change the subject Vanni. Usually that's done by people who don't have much going in their favor. Surprises me that you would do that since you're so well prepared and handle yourself well in any argument, but still.......?
 
Extrafire
#118
Quote:

Yeah, that sums it up nicely now. I did think you might be amenable to reason at first, but you've chosen a version of truth a priori and now you're working on selecting and twisting the evidence to support it. You formed your conclusion first, always a capital mistake.

Let's see, I told you right up front when you asked my position. Told you I was a creationist. Long term creationist. Behe is a long term creationist. He has the same opinion of Dawkins. Whatever made you think that you could so easily change my mind?

And by the way, you also formed your conclusion first.
 
Extrafire
#119
Quote:

Ahhh...you welcomed him back. There is a difference. God does not welcome you into his fold if you are unrepentant

He was repentant. He would not have been allowed back if he wasn't. And I wouldn't have loved him any less. It would have hurt me to see what he was doing to himself, but to bring him back without the repentance would have greatly increased the harm, not helped him.

Quote:

...even if you are there are some sins that transgress his forgiveness. Again ...not all loving.

What god do you refer to? Not mine.
 
sparky
#120
creationism relies on attacking what they perceive as weaknesses in evolutionary theory and do nothing to support their claims, such as the world-wide flood. It usually falls back on ambiguity and gets lost on scripture and nothing more.
 

Similar Threads

64
Vanni and Rev meet up
by peapod | Sep 22nd, 2005
2
For vanni and rev
by peapod | Aug 7th, 2005
8
Hi vanni
by peapod | Mar 22nd, 2005
no new posts