Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 121

Thread: Life's Recent Origin

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    JS do you mean Darth or DGruss?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    On 2003-03-11 12:56, dgruss23 wrote:
    Sounds like fun g99!! We've been below 25 degrees for the last three months where I live. I'm ready for spring.
    Yah almost 80 deg. F here. I hate it. Way to hot and humid. I'll trade ya weathers. Please!

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2003-03-11 13:12 ]</font>

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    JSPrincton wrote: dgruss really doesn't have an intellectual leg to stand on and has basically been spitting out the
    stuff he read somewhere else.
    g99 wrote: JS do you mean Darth or DGruss?
    Pretty sure I'm not a creationist. He's definitely not referring to me unless he thinks I'm BOTH Darth and dgruss. In that case I'm going to have to let myself have it for not answering my own questions to myself about that whole continuous guidance vs. set up the rules and let it fly point.


  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    I think JS Princeton is right: Darth_Racer has to go back and consult his manual, and probably a mentor, before he can respond. He's working from received wisdom, not his own knowledge and understanding.

    Incidentally, although I disagree with his position and much of his method of argument, it's actually quite difficult for many people to post to a board where their opinions are repeatedly thrashed. Unless one genuinely relishes the role of outsider, underdog, and pariah, one's psyche takes a bit of a bashing. So give him that: he did reply, however off-the-mark his material turned out to be.

    -----

    beskeptical, I have read some about memes and social evolution, but not as much as I'd wish. I be skeptical [ [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ] about some of the more sweeping claims about the parallels between memes and genetics, but I think the general principle as you outline it is a reasonable one.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,455
    On 2003-03-11 16:14, DStahl wrote:
    Incidentally, although I disagree with his position and much of his method of argument, it's actually quite difficult for many people to post to a board where their opinions are repeatedly thrashed. Unless one genuinely relishes the role of outsider, underdog, and pariah, one's psyche takes a bit of a bashing. So give him that: he did reply, however off-the-mark his material turned out to be.
    Yes but bashing and refuting are two different things. I just don't think we have to beat around the bush about non-scientific claims on a BB based on BA though I certainly try to be polite and address the issues not the person.
    -----
    beskeptical, I have read some about memes and social evolution, but not as much as I'd wish. I be skeptical [ [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ] about some of the more sweeping claims about the parallels between memes and genetics, but I think the general principle as you outline it is a reasonable one.
    I think the term was coined more as a metaphor rather than having an actual physical correlation.


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    14
    Here's the conclusion of a cell membrane study by Fazale R. Rana...the link to the complete article is listed below the conclusion. It's a very interesting article...
    Here's the conclusion:

    The emergence of cell membrane systems represents a necessary stage in life’s origin and the initial step towards forming the first protocells. Like a country or a state border, the cell membrane establishes a boundary—it delineates life from nonlife processes.

    Within the evolutionary framework, most origin-of-life researchers suggest that the first protocell membranes readily assembled under the conditions of early Earth. These researchers assume the cell’s boundary formed through natural processes—just as the Piscataqua river formed, providing a natural border between Maine and New Hampshire.

    Advances in membrane biophysics, however, challenge natural-process explanations for cell membrane origins. While a wide range of amphiphilic compounds that could serve as lipid components for primitive biological membranes self-assemble into bilayers, this self-assembly process requires “just right” conditions and “just right” molecular components. It is unlikely that such conditions would exist or persist for long time frames on early Earth.

    In addition, the self-assembly of phospholipids, the dominant lipid component of contemporary cell membranes, requires specific concentrations, temperatures, and compositions. Deviation from these conditions leads to a loss of the cell membrane’s structural and functional integrity and has been implicated in disease processes.

    The exacting conditions needed to self-assemble and maintain biological membranes make the conclusion that these structures could emerge by natural processes improbable. At the same time, the fine-tuning and singularity of conditions needed for cell membrane structure and function stand as hallmark characteristics of Intelligent Design—reasonable expectations if God is responsible for life.


    Here's the link to the lengthy article:

    http://reasons.org/resources/fff/200...biotic_borders





  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    16
    On 2003-03-10 15:04, zwi wrote:
    G99 asked " The problem with I.D. is that all a person who believes in it has to do is say "God created the laws of the universe and created the original matter of the big bang."

    How do you argue with that?"

    Here is an attempt. Pardon the unscientific wordage

    If God did that there was little problem with the Uncertainty principle. Since not even he could know exactly both the position and velocity of any particle, how could he fore-ordain anything?
    There's no uncertainty principle problem because the principle is a human creation and may have no basis to such a being.

    Where was God when he set off the BB? I suppose he was outside the Bang area, (Ground Zero? ) he must still be outside it. So how can he communicate with or interfere with anything inside?

    How can your prayer possibly be heard, let alone answered?

    This possible counterargument says that if God set up the Laws of Physics, or if you prefer, he is the Laws of Physics, then his own Laws pervent him from doing anything
    If there is a God and he is capable of setting up the laws of the universe, wouldn't that mean he has control over them.

    However, these people are not interested in logic or fact. They are interested in controlling your mind

    Zwi
    There's really no basis for that, where is the 'mind controlling' going on? I haven't seen anyone here showing any evidence of mind control. It seems to me that there's simply arguments to find the truth here. Some of these arguments are on shaky ground without any evidence to support the claims or assumptions of a conclusion before the evidence is evaluated. But it is still a search for truth.

    I agree with g99 that there is no way to argue with a prime mover argument because all one simply needs to say is that we are not capable of imagining such a being. The hard part to argue for any prime mover is that if God started everything knowing that the universe would produce humans, then isn't everything we do predetermined? We are without free-will. Of course this is still a limiting argument to a being that we don't know has any limits. God could have simply created the universe knowing that we (and possibly others) would come to be, and allow us to make our own decisions.

    The hardest part about all of this is that it cannot be argued. Faith should not be based on logic or if it is, one cannot limit it to the books of the Bible. The books are a collection of works that humans have determined were devinely inspired. This leaves the obvious problem of human error in the equation and explains the many contradictions in the Bible. But it is a moral, not scientific, guide.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    56
    [quote]
    On 2003-03-12 12:40, Monkey Boy wrote:
    On 2003-03-10 15:04, zwi wrote:
    G99 asked " The problem with I.D. is that all a person who believes in it has to do is say "God created the laws of the universe and created the original matter of the big bang."

    How do you argue with that?"

    Here is an attempt. Pardon the unscientific wordage

    If God did that there was little problem with the Uncertainty principle. Since not even he could know exactly both the position and velocity of any particle, how could he fore-ordain anything?
    There's no uncertainty principle problem because the principle is a human creation and may have no basis to such a being.

    the undertainty principle is an inextricable part of the laws of Physics, It is not a human conceit. In terms of g99's question it is made by, or is part of, God

    We assumed God either is or made the laws. Saying that he could change the Laws whenever he cares to is daft. It was part of the Church's argument against Galileo, in that GG was trying to take away God's right to run the Universe by miracle.



    Where was God when he set off the BB? I suppose he was outside the Bang area, (Ground Zero? ) he must still be outside it. So how can he communicate with or interfere with anything inside?

    How can your prayer possibly be heard, let alone answered?

    This possible counterargument says that if God set up the Laws of Physics, or if you prefer, he is the Laws of Physics, then his own Laws pervent him from doing anything
    If there is a God and he is capable of setting up the laws of the universe, wouldn't that mean he has control over them.

    Your approach has more value in classical mechanics

    However, these people are not interested in logic or fact. They are interested in controlling your mind

    Zwi
    There's really no basis for that, where is the 'mind controlling' going on?

    Some form of religious belief is present in every human culture. I suspect that early on some hominids discovered that days would get longer after the winter solstice, and that the Nile would flood soon after Orion had appeared in some particular part of the sky They used this secret and arcane knowledge to control the other members of the tribe and to get a lion's share of the fruit of the hunt without the arduous and dangerous necessity of hunting. This priestly parasite class also took care of ceremonies at the beginning and the end of life, both profound mysteries.

    Please note that although certain priests have taken vows of poverty they live high off the hog

    A few refined their astronomical knowledge and attempted to control others and earn their daily bread by claiming that the wandering lights controlled the fortunes of men Theu clothed their secrets in more arcane knowledge, terminology and glyphs. They are called astrologers.


    Remember these lines

    Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid in night
    God said "Let Newton be, and all was light"

    It could not last. The Devil, howling "Ho!
    Let Einstein/Planck be, restored the status quo"

    Zwi

    Edited for spelling & punctuation
    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: zwi on 2003-03-12 13:38 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: zwi on 2003-03-12 13:41 ]</font>

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189

    Pretty sure I'm not a creationist. He's definitely not referring to me unless he thinks I'm BOTH Darth and dgruss. In that case I'm going to have to let myself have it for not answering my own questions to myself about that whole continuous guidance vs. set up the rules and let it fly point.

    1000 apologies. I must be spacing out on names for some reason.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    On 2003-03-12 13:35, zwi wrote:


    Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid in night
    God said "Let Newton be, and all was light"

    It could not last. The Devil, howling "Ho!
    Let Einstein/Planck be, restored the status quo"

    Zwi
    What must be remembered is the theism of Einstein is nothing like the theism of most religious folks. A mechanistic God has real problems if you think that the God can work outside of the laws of physics. Then such a phenomenon should be observed. It is not, so where are we at?

    Furthermore, the idea that a "principle" is based on human knowledge is untenable. The principle is based upon human observation. If what we OBSERVE is not reality, then we are up a creek. However, if what we observe does represent reality then God cannot know the position and momentum of a particle. There are no "hidden variables" as was proven by Bell's Theorem.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    On 2003-03-12 11:53, Darth_Racer wrote:

    While a wide range of amphiphilic compounds that could serve as lipid components for primitive biological membranes self-assemble into bilayers, this self-assembly process requires ?just right? conditions and ?just right? molecular components. It is unlikely that such conditions would exist or persist for long time frames on early Earth.
    This is, again, the argument from ignorance. The IDers say, "You don't know, therefore it is God." When really the answer is, "we don't know, further research is required." It's typical of God-in-the-gappers. What happens when they are disproven? Suddenly God has to take a step back again. Better to have your God NOT based on the threshholds of science.

    To say that cellular membrane genesis is on the leading edge of biological research is true. To say because we don't have a model for it yet it must have been God is a fallacy.


    The exacting conditions needed to self-assemble and maintain biological membranes make the conclusion that these structures could emerge by natural processes improbable.
    That's not true, unless you are going to pretend that you can claim to calculate probabilities, in fact, we know that such things DID occur and therefore the probability of them occurring is rather preposterous.

    At the same time, the fine-tuning and singularity of conditions needed for cell membrane structure and function stand as hallmark characteristics of Intelligent Design-reasonable expectations if God is responsible for life.
    Argument from ignorance par excellance. Thanks for pointing out so succintly, Darth, the plain ignorance of the IDers.



  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    692
    On 2003-03-12 11:53, Darth_Racer wrote: The exacting conditions needed to self-assemble and maintain biological membranes make the conclusion that these structures could emerge by natural processes improbable.
    I love this guy. If he won the Connecticut State lottery he'd turn the US$200 million down on the grounds of the improbability he'd got all the numbers in the right order.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    On 2003-03-12 15:47, Stuart wrote:
    On 2003-03-12 11:53, Darth_Racer wrote: The exacting conditions needed to self-assemble and maintain biological membranes make the conclusion that these structures could emerge by natural processes improbable.
    I love this guy. If he won the Connecticut State lottery he'd turn the US$200 million down on the grounds of the improbability he'd got all the numbers in the right order.
    Or keep it, claiming God's divine will deigned him to have it.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night.
    God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.
    --Alexander Pope

    It did not last: The Devil howling 'Ho!
    Let Einstein be! restored the status quo.
    --Sir John Collins Squire

    But of course both quantum mechanics and general relativity shed more light, in their respective areas of competence, than Newtonian physics--and Einstein illuminated the aspect of gravitation which annoyed Newton so greatly that he refused to speculate on it--Non fingo hypotheses, he said...loosely, "I ain't even gonna guess at that one."

    JS Princeton: Yes, the God of the Gaps--there will always be a place for Him.

    More fun:

    "In Science all there is is Physics. Everything else is stamp collecting."
    --Rutherford

    "Fifty-five crystal spheres geared to God's crankshaft is my idea of a satisfying universe. I can't think of anything more trivial than quarks, quasars, big bangs and black holes."
    —-Tom Stoppard

    "God could cause us considerable embarrassment by revealing all the secrets of nature to us: we should not know what to do for sheer apathy and boredom."
    --Goethe

    "In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."
    --Edward P. Tryon.



  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    514
    On 2003-03-12 15:06, JS Princeton wrote:
    . . .
    Furthermore, the idea that a "principle" is based on human knowledge is untenable. The principle is based upon human observation. If what we OBSERVE is not reality, then we are up a creek. However, if what we observe does represent reality then God cannot know the position and momentum of a particle.
    Such a dualistic notion of "either it's reality or it's not" does not match what happens in science. Are the measurements of Hubble's constant "not reality" because we don't have an exact number? It is better to say that what we observe are approximations to reality.

    To take the Heisenberg example you mention above, one possible interpretation is to say that it is impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle. I think it is more accurate to state that a particle cannot have a definite position and momentum simultaneously. This shows that this lack of definiteness of position and velocity as failsafe descriptions of reality is only approximate.
    There are no "hidden variables" as was proven by Bell's Theorem.
    Actually, this is not quite true. There is the theory of hidden variables and then there are "hidden variables." Bell's theorem only contradicts a subset of possible hidden variable theories. Specifically, Bell's theorem says nothing about hidden variable theories which are nonlocal. Bohm's theory, which has not been disproven by Bell's theorem, can be interpreted as such a nonlocal theory of hidden variables.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,171
    You know, the dog I had when I was growing up was named "Racer." He wasn't a Darth, though, I don't think.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,171
    On 2003-03-12 11:53, Darth_Racer wrote:
    While a wide range of amphiphilic compounds that could serve as lipid components for primitive biological membranes self-assemble into bilayers, this self-assembly process requires “just right” conditions and “just right” molecular components. It is unlikely that such conditions would exist or persist for long time frames on early Earth.
    Proteinoid microspheres will form out of just about any proteinoids, in plain salt water, so long as there's enough heat.

    Proteinoids, in turn, will form out of plain old amino acids if you expose them to enough ultraviolet light (plentiful on Earth before the ozone layers formed).

    And as the Miller/Urey experiment established, amino acids can form out of plan old methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, if you expose them to electrical discharges.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    JS Princeton Posted: 2003-03-12 15:01
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Pretty sure I'm not a creationist. He's definitely not referring to me unless he thinks I'm BOTH Darth and dgruss. In that case I'm going to have to let myself have it for not answering my own questions to myself about that whole continuous guidance vs. set up the rules and let it fly point.




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    1000 apologies. I must be spacing out on names for some reason.
    I always like a good pun ... "Spacing out". No need to apologize JS. I knew who you were referring to. Just having a little fun with it. Did you notice that Darth still hasn't answered the simple question? No matter. I can pretty much guess his view. Actually I'm feeling guided toward that understanding ... but not sure from where. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    14
    One of the hang-ups in the debate over the Naturalistic vs. Intelligent Design for the universe is questions that skeptics ask "if God made the universe, then who made God?" A fair question. The following is an answer from Hugh Ross on that question. The full article is located at: http://reasons.org/resources/books/b...tc7.shtml?main

    If God created us, who created God? Skeptical scholars sometimes ask without listening for an answer. They raise the question as an impossible stumper, as justification for their agnostic stance.

    For anyone willing to stretch his or her mind a little, an answer is available, one that represents both the truth of Scripture and the facts of nature. Both sources affirm that the universe, with everything it contains, is confined to a single time line (or dimension) and is further confined to moving in one direction along that line. Even if we were to experience the stretching, or dilation, of time by moving at velocities approaching the speed of light, we could neither stop nor reverse time’s arrow. The question of God’s beginning reflects our understanding of these principles: Whatever exists has a starting point along the line of time and was caused by something or someone with an earlier starting point. In other words, any entity confined to a single line of time, in which time cannot be stopped or reversed, must have a moment of beginning or creation.

    An uncaused effect, a beginningless anything or anyone, contradicts our experiential knowledge of reality—but not reality itself. For both the Bible and scientific investigation present us with the reality of a Being who has the capacity to create our time dimension and fix its direction, a Being who possesses apparently unlimited time capacities.

    For our limited imagination’s sake, however, we can consider what is possible for Him in a two-dimensional time frame, which would constitute a time plane. Just how many time dimensions, or their equivalent, God accesses we do not know, but we do have theoretical, observational, and theological proofs for these two dimensions. A plane of time offers the possibility of an infinite number of time lines running in an infinite number of directions. God has the capacity, thus, to move and operate backwards and forwards along an infinitely long time line, or along as many time lines, infinite or otherwise, as He chooses. He can operate, if He desires, on a time line parallel to our time line or on one intersecting our time line, but He is not compelled to do either. Thus, God has the capacity to cause effects for infinite time on innumerable time lines that never intersect or touch our time line. As such, we could point to no beginning and no end for Him. Since beginnings only make sense where time in some way is linear, God must be a beginningless Being. He has always existed and will always remain. He never had a creation event.

    This is how how the words of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 can be true. Just this one extra time dimension releases Him from the necessity of a beginning—and an ending, for that matter. As these verses declare, He and He alone was not created.

    Among the world’s "holy" books, these statements are unique to the Bible. They could only be true of a Being with access to the equivalent of two or more time dimensions. They could only be inspired by a Being whose experience is not limited to a single dimension of time.




  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    14
    Here is an article by Hugh Ross on the Oscillating Universe Model with references listed.


    Reining in Weird Cosmic Models
    By Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

    The supposed rebirth of the oscillating universe model made Internet headlines in recent months1 and the lead slot in Science.2 This model posits that the universe oscillates between successive expansions and contractions, each contraction followed by a new big bang. Readers of The Fingerprint of God and The Creator and the Cosmos may recall that science has declared the oscillating universe model (and thus the cosmological underpinnings of Hinduism, Buddhism, and many new age philosophies) as a dead issue.3 Astrophysicists recognize that the laws of thermodynamics and the specific entropy of the universe (a measure of how efficiently the universe radiates) do not permit any kind of cosmic “bounce” or “rebound.” So, how do we explain the recent reemergence, or “reincarnation” of the oscillating universe model?

    The new bouncing model is founded on the equivalent of anti-thermodynamics or negative thermodynamics. Authors Paul Steinhardt (Princeton) and Neil Turok (Cambridge) hypothesize the existence of a time-varying energy component for the universe, with negative pressure causing the current acceleration in the rate of cosmic expansion. This hypothesized energy component changes its value and its sign (positive to negative or negative to positive) at just the right rates and at just the right times so that the universe alternates between expansion and contraction. As the authors acknowledge in their paper, their model “entails tuning” to “the same degree of tuning required in any cosmological model.”4 Thus, it offers no escape from the extreme fine-tuning in cosmic parameters that clearly points to the biblical Creator.5

    Counter to what the Bible declares, Steinhardt and Turok claim that the universe may not possess a singular beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. But negative pressure and negative energy, though hypothetically appealing, offer more trouble than help. Essentially, they violate well-established physical laws. Such violations of known laws would render stable physics impossible. Stephen Hawking and George Ellis drove this point home in a famous theorem they derived nearly thirty years ago called the vacuum conservation theorem.6 The result derived from this theorem is that in any system described by forces and fields (like the universe) something cannot be created from nothing. To be more precise, the vacuum must be stable against spontaneous generation of matter.

    British cosmologist Brandon Carter goes on to explain that the hypothesized negative pressure and negative energy lead to one of two consequences: 1) a lateral or wiggle instability in the cosmic space surface (best visualized by what happens when a person stands a paper straw upright on a table and then presses down very hard with a fist on the top end of the straw), or 2) the conclusion that the cosmic mass density is negative. If it were, the result would be a cosmic runaway creation of negative and positive mass particles out of the vacuum.7

    Cosmic models that call for the operation of fundamental forces along higher spatial dimensional surfaces, in which pressure, energy, or matter “become negative” might make for some entertaining mathematics, but such models do not pertain to physical reality. Therefore, they pose no threat to the biblical doctrine of a transcendent creation event for matter, energy, space, and time.

    References:
    Deborah Zabarenko, “Out with the Big Bang, and in with the Cosmic Crunch,” Yahoo!News at yahoo.com, April 26, 2002. Similar stories were published on the Web by Reuters, Associated Press, and space.com.
    Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, “A Cyclic Model of the Universe,” Science 296 (2002): 1436-39. A similar model was published November 2001 by Hongya Liu and Paul S. Wesson, “Universe Models With a Variable Cosmological ‘Constant’ and a ‘Big Bounce,’” Astrophysical Journal 562 (2001): 1-6.
    Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2d ed. (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing, 1991), 97-105; Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3d ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 87-98.
    Steinhardt and Turok, 1437.
    Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998): 461; Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 45, 53-56.
    Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
    Brandon Carter, “Energy Dominance and the Hawking Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem,” a contribution to Stephen Hawking’s 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.
    [For more on this subject, see Dr. Ross’ article, “Cosmic Brane Scans,” in Facts for Faith 10 (Q2, 2002).]





  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Darth racer wrote: For anyone willing to stretch his or her mind a little, an answer is available, one that represents both the truth of Scripture and the facts of nature.
    Darth, I think your missing one point about the discourse on this board. If you want people to debate and "stretch" their minds you need to be willing to help pull them along so to speak. Don't ask me why I'm fixated on this question, but I am. I asked it this way a while back on this thread:

    dgruss wrote: Darth - I really would love for you to answer the question that follows. Its relevant to the discussion because it would help me understand where you are coming from. So here goes ....

    I understand that you believe in a design for the parameters of the universe. I may have more in response to specific items on your list at some later point but --> In your view is the intelligent designer constantly guiding and redirecting the course of events in the universe. Or was the universe designed and now simply unfolding without help?

    Just looking for a "yes its being guided" or a "no - its unfolding according to the initial rules it was designed with. No guiding happening."

    Which is it? Thanks.

    This is a simple question and I know you can answer it.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    Actually, several of us have asked questions and refuted your other points, Darth_Racer; so far you haven't really addressed any of them well at all. We've shown that--

    --the argument from Intelligent Design cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. You have not responded to our refutation.

    --Hugh Ross's argument on the timeframe for the genesis of life contains so many unwarranted assumptions that the argument is worthless. No refutation from you.

    --despite your claims to the contrary, science has made immense strides toward understanding how abiogenesis may have occurred. The posts even reference specific chemistry and researchers. You haven't addressed the material we've shown on that subject.

    --you presented the writing of Ravi Zecharias, calling it a "brilliant work", and did not respond to the charge that Zecharias' writing amounts to spiritual fascism (only the elect dictate what questions may and may not be asked, according to Zecharias; under political fascism, only the state can dictate what freedoms the people can and cannot have, according to Benito Mussolini).

    degruss23 asked, "I understand that you believe in a design for the parameters of the universe. I may have more in response to specific items on your list at some later point but --> In your view is the intelligent designer constantly guiding and redirecting the course of events in the universe. Or was the universe designed and now simply unfolding without help?" You haven't answered that either.

    On your part, this seems less a debate than an excuse to post your favorite creationist quotations. How come you don't respond to any of our points?

    Not that it matters too much--one can only assume that you have no counter-arguments.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    One of the hang-ups in the debate over the Naturalistic vs. Intelligent Design for the universe is questions that skeptics ask "if God made the universe, then who made God?"
    This is a straw man. It is immaterial to the point in question and seems to be thrown out as a diversion from the current discussion.

    Really, Who cares?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247
    Actually, several of us have asked questions and refuted your other points, Darth_Racer; so far you haven't really addressed any of them well at all.
    Thats because darth isn't here to debate. He's here to preach - or to be more correct, he's here to regirgitate OTHER PEOPLE'S teachings. His unwillingness to form his own arguements shows he doesn't own his own opinion. There is simply no point in trying to argue with someone who has no thoughts of his own.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,189
    Hugh Ross is, excuse the French, talking out of his rear.
    As the authors acknowledge in their paper, their model ?entails tuning? to ?the same degree of tuning required in any cosmological model.?4 Thus, it offers no escape from the extreme fine-tuning in cosmic parameters that clearly points to the biblical Creator.5
    But that's not a problem because it's threshhold science. Here come the creationists: "if you don't know, then it must be God." We didn't know what caused lightning at one time. Must have been God. Only now we understand the basic mechanisms. Where did God go? This is the problem with ID, it fails once we get smart enough.

    Counter to what the Bible declares, Steinhardt and Turok claim that the universe may not possess a singular beginning of matter, energy, space, and time.
    Uh oh. Contradicting that great scientific document the Bible. No good can come from this, I tell you.

    [quote But negative pressure and negative energy, though hypothetically appealing, offer more trouble than help. Essentially, they violate well-established physical laws. [/quote]

    Absolutely, unequivocally untrue. Check out the Casimir Effect if you don't believe me and also check out quantum tunneling while you're at it.

    Such violations of known laws would render stable physics impossible.
    Untrue. Violations have to occur in such a way that the observable universe is possible, but that doesn't mean that no violations can occur. In fact we observe violations, so we have constraints on how violations behave.

    Stephen Hawking and George Ellis drove this point home in a famous theorem they derived nearly thirty years ago called the vacuum conservation theorem.
    Yes, and you can still get "violations" as long as you make up for it. That's all that Steinhardt is doing.

    The result derived from this theorem is that in any system described by forces and fields (like the universe) something cannot be created from nothing.
    What, praytell, do you think Hawking Radiation to be but a "something from nothing"? The solution is a violation, actually, of the basic black hole solution, but is a consequence of thermodynamics and IS consistent.

    To be more precise, the vacuum must be stable against spontaneous generation of matter.
    Unless you have conditions where it isn't. For example, near an event horizion.

    Such a load of hooey I have not heard. It is a shame that they are wasting their time (and causing us to do the same).

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    16
    There's no uncertainty principle problem because the principle is a human creation and may have no basis to such a being.

    the undertainty principle is an inextricable part of the laws of Physics, It is not a human conceit. In terms of g99's question it is made by, or is part of, God

    We assumed God either is or made the laws. Saying that he could change the Laws whenever he cares to is daft. It was part of the Church's argument against Galileo, in that GG was trying to take away God's right to run the Universe by miracle.
    Why is saying that God could change the Laws daft? What is your logical basis?
    Who is to say that God only is the laws of physics or He created them? Why are we limited to only 2 possibilities?
    Yes, the uncertainty principle is based on observation, but that observation is limited to humans' capabilities. My meaning that it's a human creation is that we have drawn such conclusions from our observations, which do have meaning to us. But would they have the same meaning to an omnipotent being?
    Yes, the church has made many mistakes and mislead people in the past and present. But it is led by imperfect people who may be wrong about God, if He even exists.

    Where was God when he set off the BB? I suppose he was outside the Bang area, (Ground Zero? ) he must still be outside it. So how can he communicate with or interfere with anything inside?

    How can your prayer possibly be heard, let alone answered?

    This possible counterargument says that if God set up the Laws of Physics, or if you prefer, he is the Laws of Physics, then his own Laws pervent him from doing anything
    If there is a God and he is capable of setting up the laws of the universe, wouldn't that mean he has control over them.

    Your approach has more value in classical mechanics
    Ok, if He set things up and started the BB, maybe he exists in an alternate universe or another dimension. The fact that we cannot find evidence of Him being there, does not mean He wasn't.

    One can also argue that God does not interfer with the universe and therefore prayer is useless. This still does not proof that there is no God, just shows that religion's interpretation is flawed.

    However, these people are not interested in logic or fact. They are interested in controlling your mind

    Zwi


    There's really no basis for that, where is the 'mind controlling' going on?

    Some form of religious belief is present in every human culture. I suspect that early on some hominids discovered that days would get longer after the winter solstice, and that the Nile would flood soon after Orion had appeared in some particular part of the sky They used this secret and arcane knowledge to control the other members of the tribe and to get a lion's share of the fruit of the hunt without the arduous and dangerous necessity of hunting. This priestly parasite class also took care of ceremonies at the beginning and the end of life, both profound mysteries.

    Please note that although certain priests have taken vows of poverty they live high off the hog

    A few refined their astronomical knowledge and attempted to control others and earn their daily bread by claiming that the wandering lights controlled the fortunes of men Theu clothed their secrets in more arcane knowledge, terminology and glyphs. They are called astrologers.
    Ok, your theory may be true, but where is your evidence? People taking advantage of religious beliefs is an old concept -- eg TV evalgilists. But this corruption of religion is not an argument that there is no God, it is more an argument against organized religion, which has many flaws.

    My whole point here is not to say that there is a God or that there is proof for one. Actually I'm just trying to show you cannot proof there isn't a God.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Monkey Boy on 2003-03-13 09:59 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Monkey Boy on 2003-03-13 10:01 ]</font>

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    692
    On 2003-03-13 09:58, Monkey Boy wrote:
    My whole point here is not to say that there is a God or that there is proof for one. Actually I'm just trying to show you cannot proof there isn't a God.
    But the burden of proof doesn't lie with anybody to prove a negative; the burden lies with those who assert there is a God to prove their case.

    (passing thought - Incidently, shouldn't this topic be transferred to the conspiracies section).

    On a more general note "Intelligent Design" is a fraud. Its Bible-Literalist Creationism dressed up in a new suit of clothes. As far as I can see, the existance of ID is predicated by the prohibition on teaching religious dogma of any particular sect or creed in US schools. The Biblical-Creationists have been trying to get around that, to ban the teaching of evolution and replace it with Christian dogma, for decades. "Creation Science" was an initial effort; when that collapsed, it was replaced by "Intelligent Design".

    What scares me is the damage that the supporters of these theories could do to our education system. Heaven knows, science teaching in schools is poor enough as it is. If the "Creation Science"/"Intelligent Design" fanatics get their way, scientific education will be gutted. It will become impossible to teach astronomy, physics, biology or geology (not to mention a whole load of other ologies). The net result will be the replacement of our existing secular education system with one that substitutes religious dogma for science.

    Its interesting to note that the "Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Design" people have exactly identical objective, the elimination of modern science in favor of uncritical acceptance of a holy book, as the hate-filled screaming Imans of the Madrassas. There is a friend of mine, a Colonel in the Royal Thai Army who has very strong opinions on such things. Some of the soldiers under her command were killed guarding secular schools and teachers from attacks by religious fundamentalists.

    Has anybody ever looked to see if there is a membership correlation between Apollo Hoax Believers and "Creation Scientists" or "Intelligent Design" supporters? My guess would be that there is a substantial overlap.

    My apologies to the BA is this post oversteps the rules in any way; if it does I promise not to do so again.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    16
    [quote]
    On 2003-03-13 11:32, Stuart wrote:
    On 2003-03-13 09:58, Monkey Boy wrote:
    My whole point here is not to say that there is a God or that there is proof for one. Actually I'm just trying to show you cannot proof there isn't a God.
    But the burden of proof doesn't lie with anybody to prove a negative; the burden lies with those who assert there is a God to prove their case.
    True enough. In order to argue ID as a science, one must prove it to be true. I was arguing against Zwi's attempts to prove a negative.

    What scares me is the damage that the supporters of these theories could do to our education system. Heaven knows, science teaching in schools is poor enough as it is. If the "Creation Science"/"Intelligent Design" fanatics get their way, scientific education will be gutted. It will become impossible to teach astronomy, physics, biology or geology (not to mention a whole load of other ologies). The net result will be the replacement of our existing secular education system with one that substitutes religious dogma for science.
    Excellent points. ID has no place in a science classroom! All of the arguments about proof of the existence of God I've read start with the assumption and work backward to fit observations into that framework. Definitely not the scientific process!

    Religion needs to stay out of public schools and out of the science classroom. As I've said before, the Bible is a moral guide, not scientific. The works were written during times of very little scientific knowledge, and they show that. This makes it a historical text to see how people viewed the world at the time a particular book was written.

    Using the Bible or religious beliefs in a scientific setting only weakens religion. Religion is based in faith and thereby cannot hold up to the scrutiny of science. If it could, then no faith would be required to believe.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    What scares me is the damage that the supporters of these theories could do to our education system. Heaven knows, science teaching in schools is poor enough as it is. If the "Creation Science"/"Intelligent Design" fanatics get their way, scientific education will be gutted. It will become impossible to teach astronomy, physics, biology or geology (not to mention a whole load of other ologies). The net result will be the replacement of our existing secular education system with one that substitutes religious dogma for science.
    George W. is, if not a "creationist", then at least an "anti-evolutionist". Be afraid, be very afraid! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    692
    George W. is, if not a "creationist", then at least an "anti-evolutionist". Be afraid, be very afraid!
    Actually, the same applies to Al Gore. Their statements at the time and under the circumstances were almost identical. The whole affair dates from the electtion campaign in Kansas where a school board attempted to force the teaching of "creation science" in schools. A New York Times piece by Nicholas Kristof reported about Bush "Characteristically, he does not believe in evolution--he says the jury is still out--but he does not actively disbelieve in it either; as a friend puts it, "he doesn't really care about that kind of thing."

    However, the key to the situation was that the Kansas decision had made local vs state control of schools a very hot issue in the area. On that question of policy, Bush told The Associated Press "I'd make it a goal to make sure that local folks got to make the decision as to whether or not they said creationism has been a part of our history and whether or not people ought to be exposed to different theories as to how the world was formed."

    His own preference, Bush said around the same time, was that "children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." This echoed a similar statement Ronald Reagan made on the stump in 1980.

    At the same time Al Gore said that he favored teaching evolution in the public schools, that the decision should be made at the local level, and that "localities should be free to teach creationism as well."

    At a later date (after both had been reminded that the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard prohibited teaching creationism because it constituted religious belief, the candidates "clarified" their position to say that creationism could be taught only in religion classes.

    In other words politicians politiking. We can always tell when they're lying; their lips move.

    The good news is that "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" also proved a loser for the Kansas Board of Education when voters ousted the creationists.

    There's an important astronomy-based lesson in this; its necessary for those who understand an issue to confront the conspiracist-activists. Bush and Gore both acted the way they did in Kansas because that is what they both believed those particular voters wanted to hear. So its necessary for those who value Good Science and Good Astronomy to make sure that the facts of reality are made very clear.

Similar Threads

  1. The Origin of Life in the Multiverse
    By A.DIM in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2009-Nov-25, 12:30 PM
  2. If TPF detects life, does this settle origin of life on earth?
    By HypothesisTesting in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-25, 04:20 PM
  3. Article about origin of life
    By Swift in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-13, 02:34 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2007-Oct-03, 09:22 PM
  5. Origin Of Life
    By mercury in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2005-Jan-21, 09:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •