Just Putting Things in Perspective....

[Deeje]

I can imagine infinity.
It's not only fun, it's useful !

Dare I ask....? Useful for what?

 

[Revoltingest]

Dare I ask....? Useful for what?

Mathematical concepts.
They have loads of engineering applications.
Infinitely big....infinitely small....it's all good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All species have a "use by" date. Females are born with all their eggs, but they can produce many offspring in their lifetime to more than replace themselves. We are speaking in generalities because there are exceptions to every rule.



Here is a list of creatures who are monogamous....

• Gibbon apes
• wolves
• termites
• coyotes
• barn owls
• beavers
• bald eagles
• golden eagles
• condors
• swans
• brolga cranes
• French angel fish
• sandhill cranes
• pigeons
• prions
• red-tailed hawks
• anglerfish
• ospreys
• prairie voles
• black vultures

Animals That Mate for Life - See Who Made the List

We as a species are also programmed to be monogamous. Its the reason why mates feel 'betrayed' if their partner is 'unfaithful'. It is also the reason why "marriage" is found in almost all cultures. Marriage creates families and these form the fabric of any society.....with families fragmenting so often these days, the fabric is becoming unraveled.

You should really try to vet your sources. When they make the laughable error of counting "prions" in their list they only demonstrate that they have no clue. Prions do not mate. They are simpler than viruses.

Also a species that mates only once in its life is hardly "monogamous". If there is no choice then it is clearly not monogamy. Termites mate once. The male dies shortly after mating. It is not as if the female has a choice. Many of your other examples are merely generally monogamous. When you pick poor sources you shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[idav]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2265640173461999

When we consider the world that we live in and how we compare sizes of things to what we see on our own planet, then to compare the smallest thing we know with the biggest thing, I find my mind has difficulty processing this information.

From microscopic to enormous on earth is one thing....but to then go from "small" to "gargantuan" in the universe outside our world.....just mind boggling!

Can these heavenly bodies just come from nowhere?

I like your loaded question assuming things have to come from somewhere so that if it didn’t come from god then it must have come from nowhere. That is hardly consistent. It would be more consistent to consider infinite amounts of power and energy existing in the first place, both a God and a Universe must be able to exist without coming from somewhere. You can’t just make an exception for God that is highly illogical. In other words by the logic that a mighty powerful god exists by default means also that the universe doesn’t have to come from anywhere either. This is supported by the law of thermodynamics where conservation of energy shows nothing can be created or destroyed, so it’s all eternal.

 

[Deeje]

You should really try to vet your sources. When they make the laughable error of counting "prions" in their list they only demonstrate that they have no clue. Prions do not mate. They are simpler than viruses.

I guess what is also laughable is that you could pick only one out of that long list. Do you have something against monogamy?
Do you deny that many species mate for life? Humans are programmed to be monogamous but with free will they have decided that promiscuity suits them better...has this resulted in beneficial outcomes? I can't see any.

Also a species that mates only once in its life is hardly "monogamous". If there is no choice then it is clearly not monogamy. Termites mate once. The male dies shortly after mating. It is not as if the female has a choice. Many of your other examples are merely generally monogamous. When you pick poor sources you shoot yourself in the foot.

According to Google...."The king grows only slightly larger after initial mating and continues to mate with the queen for life (a termite queen can live between 30 to 50 years); this is very different from ant colonies, in which a queen mates once with the male(s) and stores the gametes for life, as the male ants die shortly after mating."

Perhaps you are confusing termites and ants?

What fascinating creatures termites are....
The typical termite life cycle - Termite Web

What about all the rest Mr Expert? What does "merely generally monogamous" mean anyway?

Monogamy means that they choose a mate and stay with that mate till one or the other dies. Since animals and birds and insects have no sense of morality, what could possibly be the reason why they do this? Looks like programming to me.

It seems shooting people down with ridicule is your mission in life...

 

[Deeje]

I like your loaded question assuming things have to come from somewhere so that if it didn’t come from god then it must have come from nowhere. That is hardly consistent. It would be more consistent to consider infinite amounts of power and energy existing in the first place, both a God and a Universe must be able to exist without coming from somewhere. You can’t just make an exception for God that is highly illogical. In other words by the logic that a mighty powerful god exists by default means also that the universe doesn’t have to come from anywhere either. This is supported by the law of thermodynamics where conservation of energy shows nothing can be created or destroyed, so it’s all eternal.

It seems only logical to me that what demonstrates design has to have a designer.
What do we know of on this planet that is outside of that fact? Design demonstrates purpose and purpose requires intelligence....when is that not so?

The 'Almighty Powerful God' exists in a realm that is not material. Matter is created and the laws governing matter are very precise....so precise in fact, that every law appears to be carefully thought out as to its operation and end result. Humans make laws too but they have to have a reason for making them, taking into consideration the outcomes when the law is either obeyed or broken. How often do you see natural laws broken?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess what is also laughable is that you could pick only one out of that long list. Do you have something against monogamy?
Do you deny that many species mate for life? Humans are programmed to be monogamous but with free will they have decided that promiscuity suits them better...has this resulted in beneficial outcomes? I can't see any.

I picked out more than one, how did you miss that? The prions example was laughably stupid.

According to Google...."The king grows only slightly larger after initial mating and continues to mate with the queen for life (a termite queen can live between 30 to 50 years); this is very different from ant colonies, in which a queen mates once with the male(s) and stores the gametes for life, as the male ants die shortly after mating."

Perhaps you are confusing termites and ants?

Actually I did think that termites and ants were similar in their mating methods.

What fascinating creatures termites are....
The typical termite life cycle - Termite Web

What about all the rest Mr Expert? What does "merely generally monogamous" mean anyway?

It means that there are many exceptions as with wolves:

Gray wolf - Wikipedia

Monogamy means that they choose a mate and stay with that mate till one or the other dies. Since animals and birds and insects have no sense of morality, what could possibly be the reason why they do this? Looks like programming to me.

That is only because you have not studied the subject. I have never seen anyone that understands biology make that claim. Understanding how monogamy can improve passing ones genes down in some cases should help explains why monogamy is a preferred behavior for many animal species.

It seems shooting people down with ridicule is your mission in life...

Hardly, but when people make ridiculous statements it is extremely tempting to do so. Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there was no flood. Why we know that life is the product of evolution. People have to purposefully keep themselves ignorant to believe in Bible myths or even lie to themselves in some cases.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not to mention (again) that as I pointed out the source for "monogamous animals" given is flawed.

...you really need to read your own sources more carefully. From the blog that you link:

"Update: Petful did a bit more digging into this subject, and — stop the presses! — there’s more disagreement about animal monogamy than we might think. In fact, David Barash, a psychology professor at the University of Washington, wants to shatter the “myth of monogamy” altogether. He claims that almost every darn reported case of monogamy in the animal kingdom has been proved wrong at some point upon closer inspection, with infidelity by one or both partners in the coupling."

 

[Polymath257]

So a reproduction is worthy of praise because of the talent of the artist in replicating someone's else's work? Isn't that just copying?
Imagine if the Creator had copyrighted everything he made?

There was no original artist. We copy the optimal solutions found by evolution.

Where do these gravitational forces originate? Why does gravity exist....and what would happen to the universe if it wasn't there?
It is so vital, it looks planned to me.

Well, if gravity was not there, we would be in a very different universe. I can't say what it would be like unless you tell me the physical laws under which it operates.

Again where does hydrogen or helium come from? Why do they exist? All the gases that make up our atmosphere in just the right balance, simply happened by accident, did they?

Hydrogen and helium were produced during the nucleosynthesis stage of the Big Bang. Before that was neutrons. Before that, we don't know.

The balance of the atmosphere isn't nearly as fine tuned as you seem to think it is. I certainly see no reason to postulate a designer given the number of planets and the prevalence of the relevant elements.

Who do we have to thank that there is not more oxygen in the atmosphere so that we can light a fire to keep ourselves warm or cook our food without being blown to bits? Another fortunate fluke?

If there had been more oxygen, we simply would have been more careful in some situations. But remember, the oxygen in our atmosphere is produced by living things. It isn't primordial. A concentration too high would kill off some of the producers, decreasing the concentration again. it's called a feedback loop and such are quite common.

Why do nuclear processes take place? Who made the rules for their operation? Who made the laws by which the universe operates? Mr Nobody?

Why do you assume there was a 'who'? Matter has properties. Among those properties are the ways it interacts with other matter. Such ways of interacting are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces. Those are simply properties of the matter and are inherent in that matter. Why you think someone needed to think such through is beyond me.

The more science learns, the more it realises how much it doesn't know. That, I believe, will continue to be the case.

Of course, in a growing balloon representing knowledge, the surface (the boundary of knowledge) grows also. So?

I think science takes way too much for granted. "Natural" seems to be a blanket cover like "natural selection". "Natural" doesn't mean it has no cause. Everything unexplainable in science is explainable with an Intelligent Creator. No missing bits, no guesswork, no unsolved mysteries or unanswered questions.

Having a cause is not the same as having an intelligent cause. Yes, physical processes have causes: other physical processes. Matter and energy interact via the basic forces of nature and those interactions are inherent in the matter itself.

But the hypothesis of an intelligent designer helps in no way in understanding anything. it gives no concrete predictions. It makes yields no testable hypotheses. It is an additional, unnecessary layer of explanation.

Is the preciseness of those laws also just another fluke? Laws require a lawmaker who has a full awareness of why those laws are necessary.....it requires intelligence and wisdom to make laws. What does "natural" mean in this context?

Physical laws are not like human laws. Human laws can be broken and are proscriptive. natural laws are properties on the matter and cannot be broken. So natural laws do NOT require, and in fact cannot have, a lawmaker.

All done without a modicum of intelligence directing any of it? If that sounds reasonable to you then I guess you believe in miracles more than I do.

On the contrary, complexity arises quite easily in certain feedback loops. No intelligence is required. Just non-linear feedback.

How many different structures with amazing complexity do you see in our world that was not designed and made by someone? When did engineering not require an engineer? Who can build a complex structures without one?

Most compelx structures I see around me did not require a designer. Pretty much all life is in this category. Storm systems are quite complex and do not have a designer.

A termite's nest is not exactly attractive aesthetically, but it's design is brilliant. How did brainless insects devise such a clever piece of architecture, which includes the ability to maintain oxygen levels, and control temperature and humidity. Human architects and engineers want to adapt that ingenuity to their own designs.

Again, mutation and selection produce solutions to problems that are close to optimal. That is why there is a whole method of programming called genetic programming.

Bee hives too demonstrate intelligent planning. Is it the intelligence of the bees or termites...or does it seem like programming to you? Isn't instinct just programming? Who is the programmer?

And once again, no programmer is require. Non-linear feedback with mutation and selection is quite sufficient.

What real evidence is there for water on other planets? And even if there is water, what makes scientists think that life has to be present? They have not found life anywhere in our solar system or anywhere else in the universe.

We have detected water by its spectral properties in the universe at large. it is quite common. Mars shows evidence of having free standing water and rivers given its erosional structures. Themoon is known to have water ice.

Water is certainly not sufficient for life to exist. it may not even be necessary (ammonia has many of the nice properties of water, but at a lower temperature). But it is a first step. having complex hydrocarbons is another good prerequisite.

Can a planet lose all its water? Has earth lost any? Isn't it all beautifully recycled within our atmosphere?

There is monor loss at the top of the atmosphere and loss into certain types of rocks because of chemical action. [/QUOTE]

Why is the vast majority of water on this planet salty? What would happen if it wasn't?

Water dissolves salt easily.

What would happen if ice sank to the bottom instead of floating on the surface of a body of water?

Well, hypothetically, that would negate the possibilities of life, right? So, why does ice float? because of the physical structure of the water molecule. Is that 'random'? Not at all! It is very precisely determined by the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. In other words, physical laws.

Is that all just accidental as well?

it certainly wasn't intentional. No intelligence required, just natural laws.

 

[Polymath257]

I was speaking about the concept of infinity, not the concept of God as an all powerful, all knowing entity who has interacted with his human creation. We don't have a clue "what" God is or even "where" God is.....we only know "who" he is from what he has told us. You might be able to wrap your head around an infinite being, but since everything I know is finite, then I can only try to imagine, and even that is difficult.

Sorry, but infinity is an easy concept if you just learn a bit about it. As @Revoltingest said, it is even a useful one for the development of science.

Hypothesizing an unknowable deity as an explanation really doens't provide an explanation at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, but infinity is an easy concept if you just learn a bit about it. As @Revoltingest said, it is even a useful one for the development of science.

Hypothesizing an unknowable deity as an explanation really doens't provide an explanation at all.

Because the concepts of infinity are so amazing & can be counter-intuitive, this can give
a feeling of not understanding. But it becomes friendlier as one gains familiarity with it.
(Quantum mechanics is similar in this regard.....a strange world of bizarre properties
unlike anything our macro world.) This could be called "understanding".

 

[idav]

It seems only logical to me that what demonstrates design has to have a designer.
What do we know of on this planet that is outside of that fact? Design demonstrates purpose and purpose requires intelligence....when is that not so?

The 'Almighty Powerful God' exists in a realm that is not material. Matter is created and the laws governing matter are very precise....so precise in fact, that every law appears to be carefully thought out as to its operation and end result. Humans make laws too but they have to have a reason for making them, taking into consideration the outcomes when the law is either obeyed or broken. How often do you see natural laws broken?

Nothing in nature deomonstratea design, that is false in fact it’s quite the opposite. Only things built by man demonstrate design.

One could easily say a creator necessitates design cause it requires intelligence. Same with intelligence, if it can exist by default then certainly the it can come about it on it’s own. With god your saying intelligence can come about on its own, to be consistent, then the universe doesn’t require coming from intelligence.

No laws aren’t all that logical, the quantum realm show that these “laws” are broken all the time. Therefore they aren’t really laws like you’d like them to be. It’s the nature of things to transcend space and time. Eternity is a natural given. Quantum already reaches what you refer to as non-material. Really there is not material/non-material, there is only one “substance”, if we should even call it that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All species have a "use by" date. Females are born with all their eggs, but they can produce many offspring in their lifetime to more than replace themselves. We are speaking in generalities because there are exceptions to every rule.



Here is a list of creatures who are monogamous....

• Gibbon apes
• wolves
• termites
• coyotes
• barn owls
• beavers
• bald eagles
• golden eagles
• condors
• swans
• brolga cranes
• French angel fish
• sandhill cranes
• pigeons
• prions
• red-tailed hawks
• anglerfish
• ospreys
• prairie voles
• black vultures

Animals That Mate for Life - See Who Made the List

We as a species are also programmed to be monogamous. Its the reason why mates feel 'betrayed' if their partner is 'unfaithful'. It is also the reason why "marriage" is found in almost all cultures. Marriage creates families and these form the fabric of any society.....with families fragmenting so often these days, the fabric is becoming unraveled.

Do you really have reason to believe the Pharma-financed research?
This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Have you ever done any research into this issue yourself? Hearing both sides is very enlightening.

What do you know about the pros and cons of vaccinations and their long term outcomes?

Six Reasons to Say NO to Vaccination - The Healthy Home Economist

Let me ask you this...if vaccinated children are protected, then why is my unvaccinated child a risk to them? This question never seems to be asked....but its logical to ask...isn't it?

There is nothing "free" in the drug company world. You think the pharmaceutical companies donate these?
If drug companies were so benevolent then why is cancer treatment their most lucrative treatment regime?
Ask why people can't have access to promising new cancer treatments without the ability to pay a hefty sum? Why do people need to sell their homes to pay rich drug companies for treatments that in 90% of cases, don't even work? Have you never asked these questions? They hope you won't.

It is often the government who pays for free or subsidized vaccination programs, so the rich stay rich and the sick get sicker. With all the advances in medicine, wouldn't you think they could just boost people's immune systems to fight disease? That's why we have an immune system, but drugs are designed as a 'band-aid' to suppress symptom to give you the illusion that you are getting better. Drugs are designed to keep you sick so you will be their customer for life. Propaganda works.

FYI....I don't tithe...that was a Jewish requirement. It is governments who do not tax religious charitable organizations. For the help they offer to others, they save the government money in the long run.

I don't vote either so your comment does not apply to me. My faith votes in better ways than supporting corrupt politics.

It is society that demands adherence to a set of accepted standards. That is why there are laws. Those laws are usually based on their potential for people to do harm to others. To teach your children to adhere to those standards, not only makes them decent citizens of their nations, but also keeps them out of prison.

I find it kind of bizarre that you would say such a thing, given that I've actually answered this question for you in the past, on other threads where you've brought it up. And I am not the only one.
Remember the discussion about herd immunity? The more people that are vaccinated, the better it is for everyone, including the non-vaccinated. Here's a site with a 6 second GIF that demonstrates how herd immunity works:
This GIF Only Takes 6 Seconds To Show How Herd Immunity Works

Remember when I talked about how my 5 year old niece cannot be vaccinated due to pre-existing health reasons? So when you and other anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate your children, you are putting my niece in harm's way. Elderly people and babies who haven't been vaccinated yet are also put at risk.

Also, vaccines are not 100% effective (actually about 85-95%), and because every individual is different, some that get it may not develop immunity. Those people can also be at risk of contracting an illness from a non-vaccinated person.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess what is also laughable is that you could pick only one out of that long list. Do you have something against monogamy?
Do you deny that many species mate for life? Humans are programmed to be monogamous but with free will they have decided that promiscuity suits them better...has this resulted in beneficial outcomes? I can't see any.

Can you demonstrate that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seems only logical to me that what demonstrates design has to have a designer.

Your comment is a logical fallacy - circular argument. It's premise assumes its conclusion. You seem to be assuming that if you call pattern a design, that it requires a designer, therefore, designs imply designers to you. Change the word to pattern, like the pattern sand dunes make, or the pattern a river carves out, and voila - the designer disappears.

Design demonstrates purpose and purpose requires intelligence....when is that not so?

Most designs require no intelligence. Consider the geode

or the desert rose

.