The Miracle of Water.

[Deeje]

And there may not *be* a cause for the BB. We don't know. If time doesn't exist before the BB, then causality is meaningless for it.

So how can science possibly know that time did not exist before the BB? "Causality is meaningless" I suspect because it can't be explained "scientifically"....did all that matter just appear out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, complete with laws to govern it? I find that very hard to believe.

The strength of the evidence. We know the spectrum for water. It is distinctive. We can detect that spectrum in nebula. It really is that simple. We are unsure when the evidence isn't conclusive.

The "strength of the evidence" in science depends entirely on how it is interpreted.....so if you have enough people agreeing with the conclusions, does that automatically make it correct? Is it a numbers thing?

Well, there may not *be* a cause. Causality requires time. If time doesn't go back before the BB, then causality isn't even defined: it makes no sense. On the other extreme, if time goes infinitely far into the past, everything can have a cause, but there would be no 'first cause'. You make assumptions that are not justified.

These are your own assumptions, based on what you have been taught to believe. Who said there can't be a first cause? If the Creator is an infinite Being, then he is uncaused and was capable of causing everything else.....science cannot prove that he doesn't exist.....all they can say is that have no test for his existence.

That's how science works: test all the assumptions and see what the actual evidence says.

Since the evidence is open to interpretation, I disagree. If you cannot prove something, you have no facts, therefore you have a belief that something happened the way science assumed it did.

We *know* that the species alive at different times in the past have been different. We know the range of species alive has shifted over time. That *is* evolution. We may not know the specifics of the mechanisms, but that is quite different than knowing it happened in some form.

Is that really good enough to bet your life on? You know that species have lived at different times but you have no real evidence that they evolved from one to the other.....you assume that they did. All species have the ability to adapt....that is provable, and observable....but adaptation is not proof that macro-evolution is a natural follow on....that is an assertion based on how scientists read the evidence. That very same evidence, read in a different light, leads others to see the handiwork of an Intelligent Creator.

And reading it makes it clear the authors didn't know.

Are you serious? How did Moses know that the earth was at first a formless, uninhabitable waste. How did he know that light was the first requirement, and that life began in the oceans? How did he know that land came up out of the water that originally covered the whole planet? How did he know about earth's atmosphere and that vegetation was the first biological lifeform to be seen. This does not mean that microscopic life wasn't already in existence because the genesis account was written from an earthling's perspective.....it is about what can be seen. The microscopic world was to be discovered much later. There were no scientists capable of understanding much of anything when the Bible was written, but the information it contains was supplied by someone who knew what the writers did not.

Let me put it this way: is God caused? if not, you admit there is something that is not caused. Why not admit it is possible the universe is uncaused?

If you can admit that the universe is uncaused, why not admit that there could be a Creator who is uncaused?

Yes, you have beliefs, but you have no actual evidence. Science requires evidence. It requires taking things slowly and figuring out e what the evidence we have actually says.

But science has manufactured its own interpretation of the evidence to fit a pre-conceived scenario.....our interpretation is just as plausible to us. The fact is, science cannot prove that what they believe is true, any more than we can.

Just having 'faith' short circuits that process of gaining knowledge. it means you cannot really test your ideas and challenge them: trying to prove them wrong. And yes, science does try to find the limits of its ideas: it actively tries to show where it is wrong.

Faith is definitely no impediment to knowledge....in fact for me it simply enhances it. When you have a relationship with a living entity who has guided your decisions and orchestrated outcomes in your life that you never imagined, this is what reinforces the reality of the Creator for believers.
Sadly, unbelievers are not privy to this. God reveals himself only to those with faith.

When I look at creation, I cannot see anything but the hand of an amazing Artist. He did not create this world for himself....he created it for us to enjoy as a permanent home. Once the "free will" bugs are ironed out, things will be the way they should be. Humans destroying God's handiwork was not supposed to be included in the original plan. But he is dealing with it by employing a long range plan.....he has forever to complete his work to his own satisfaction. I think he is a genius personally.

I have my doubts that you can really accept whatever science concludes, but that is for you to resolve in your own mind.

I can accept what science can actually prove, but not necessarily what they assume about how life originated, or how the species that survived until today were spared from extinction. I believe what is here, is meant to be here at this time......all part of a grand purpose, which I believe is close to being realized.

That is how I see things.....you can disagree, but it doesn't change anything for me.

 

[Polymath257]

So how can science possibly know that time did not exist before the BB? "Causality is meaningless" I suspect because it can't be explained "scientifically"....did all that matter just appear out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, complete with laws to govern it? I find that very hard to believe.

Did you see my word 'may'? We do not know. We don't have the evidence to judge between several competing models.

The "strength of the evidence" in science depends entirely on how it is interpreted.....so if you have enough people agreeing with the conclusions, does that automatically make it correct? Is it a numbers thing?

When those who disagree have all their objections answered, the debate moves on.

These are your own assumptions, based on what you have been taught to believe. Who said there can't be a first cause? If the Creator is an infinite Being, then he is uncaused and was capable of causing everything else.....science cannot prove that he doesn't exist.....all they can say is that have no test for his existence.

Look at what I wrote. If time goes infinitely into the past, then there *may* not have been a first cause. Each event would have been caused by one before it.

And you just admitted that not everything has a cause: God doesn't. How do *you* know? Why would you suspect that? Is that even claimed in the Bible?

science doens't have to prove something *doesn't* exist. The burden of proof is *always* on those making the existence claim. This is true for elementary particles, new species, and deities.

Since the evidence is open to interpretation, I disagree. If you cannot prove something, you have no facts, therefore you have a belief that something happened the way science assumed it did.

Those with differing interpretations are free to make predictions based on their interpretations and see whether those predictions pan out. If they don't, then that interpretation is discarded.

Is that really good enough to bet your life on? You know that species have lived at different times but you have no real evidence that they evolved from one to the other.....you assume that they did. All species have the ability to adapt....that is provable, and observable....but adaptation is not proof that macro-evolution is a natural follow on....that is an assertion based on how scientists read the evidence. That very same evidence, read in a different light, leads others to see the handiwork of an Intelligent Creator.

Once again, we *know* that the range of species changes over time. new species arise that didn't exist earlier. Other species go extinct. This happens continually throughout the fossil record. if you go to layers that are 50 million years old, you do not find the modern range of species. If you go back 100 million years, you have a completely different range of species. The same again if you go back 150 million years.

The option of having several 'catastrophes' was proposed and discarded based on the evidence.

Are you serious? How did Moses know that the earth was at first a formless, uninhabitable waste. How did he know that light was the first requirement, and that life began in the oceans? How did he know that land came up out of the water that originally covered the whole planet? How did he know about earth's atmosphere and that vegetation was the first biological lifeform to be seen. This does not mean that microscopic life wasn't already in existence because the genesis account was written from an earthling's perspective.....it is about what can be seen. The microscopic world was to be discovered much later. There were no scientists capable of understanding much of anything when the Bible was written, but the information it contains was supplied by someone who knew what the writers did not.

Wow, do you read into things much? It's only by twisting the scriptures that you can get even that far. But no, Moses didn't exist and didn't write Genesis. That came later and was a comilation of Babylonian myths and priestly imaginings.

If you can admit that the universe is uncaused, why not admit that there could be a Creator who is uncaused?

I can admit to the *possibility* there is a deity out there that created the universe. I find it incredibly unlikely. But we *know* the universe exists. We *know* that not every event is caused. We *know* that people like to make up myths to explain creation.

But science has manufactured its own interpretation of the evidence to fit a pre-conceived scenario.....our interpretation is just as plausible to us. The fact is, science cannot prove that what they believe is true, any more than we can.

Keep telling yourself that. But it isn't actually the case. Science looks at the possibilities and looks at the different interpretations, looking for evidence to distinguish between those interpretations. Any interpretation that cannot be tested, even in theory, is discarded (as it should be). That your particular interpretation lost doesn't make those who looked into biased.

Faith is definitely no impediment to knowledge....in fact for me it simply enhances it. When you have a relationship with a living entity who has guided your decisions and orchestrated outcomes in your life that you never imagined, this is what reinforces the reality of the Creator for believers.
Sadly, unbelievers are not privy to this. God reveals himself only to those with faith.

Yes, you have to believe in order to see the evidence. Isn't that convenient? if you don't see the evidence, it's just because you don't believe strongly enough.

I call garbage. If you can't convince a non-believer with an open mind, then you don't really have a case.

When I look at creation, I cannot see anything but the hand of an amazing Artist. He did not create this world for himself....he created it for us to enjoy as a permanent home. Once the "free will" bugs are ironed out, things will be the way they should be. Humans destroying God's handiwork was not supposed to be included in the original plan. But he is dealing with it by employing a long range plan.....he has forever to complete his work to his own satisfaction. I think he is a genius personally.

Good for you. I don't see that.

I can accept what science can actually prove, but not necessarily what they assume about how life originated, or how the species that survived until today were spared from extinction. I believe what is here, is meant to be here at this time......all part of a grand purpose, which I believe is close to being realized.

That is how I see things.....you can disagree, but it doesn't change anything for me.

Understood. You don't accept anything science claims that disagrees with your viewpoints. Any evidence that is given is biased because it disagrees with you. Any actual thinking that is done to figure out what the evidence says is bias.

Sorry, but I don't see that as a valid way to understand the world.

 

[ecco]

Cause and effect....right? For every effect there has to be a cause. But science cannot even entertain the thought of the very first cause of every process they know, being something they cannot quantify. It doesn't mean that such a cause cannot exist...only that they have no way to demonstrate his existence with their current knowledge. Isn't that true?

Cause and effect....right? For every effect, there has to be a cause. But your religion cannot even entertain the origin of the very first cause of "everything" - God. You have no way to demonstrate His existence nor can you explain His origins. Isn't that true?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So how can science possibly know that time did not exist before the BB? "Causality is meaningless" I suspect because it can't be explained "scientifically"....did all that matter just appear out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, complete with laws to govern it? I find that very hard to believe.



The "strength of the evidence" in science depends entirely on how it is interpreted.....so if you have enough people agreeing with the conclusions, does that automatically make it correct? Is it a numbers thing?



These are your own assumptions, based on what you have been taught to believe. Who said there can't be a first cause? If the Creator is an infinite Being, then he is uncaused and was capable of causing everything else.....science cannot prove that he doesn't exist.....all they can say is that have no test for his existence.



Since the evidence is open to interpretation, I disagree. If you cannot prove something, you have no facts, therefore you have a belief that something happened the way science assumed it did.



Is that really good enough to bet your life on? You know that species have lived at different times but you have no real evidence that they evolved from one to the other.....you assume that they did. All species have the ability to adapt....that is provable, and observable....but adaptation is not proof that macro-evolution is a natural follow on....that is an assertion based on how scientists read the evidence. That very same evidence, read in a different light, leads others to see the handiwork of an Intelligent Creator.



Are you serious? How did Moses know that the earth was at first a formless, uninhabitable waste. How did he know that light was the first requirement, and that life began in the oceans? How did he know that land came up out of the water that originally covered the whole planet? How did he know about earth's atmosphere and that vegetation was the first biological lifeform to be seen. This does not mean that microscopic life wasn't already in existence because the genesis account was written from an earthling's perspective.....it is about what can be seen. The microscopic world was to be discovered much later. There were no scientists capable of understanding much of anything when the Bible was written, but the information it contains was supplied by someone who knew what the writers did not.



If you can admit that the universe is uncaused, why not admit that there could be a Creator who is uncaused?



But science has manufactured its own interpretation of the evidence to fit a pre-conceived scenario.....our interpretation is just as plausible to us. The fact is, science cannot prove that what they believe is true, any more than we can.



Faith is definitely no impediment to knowledge....in fact for me it simply enhances it. When you have a relationship with a living entity who has guided your decisions and orchestrated outcomes in your life that you never imagined, this is what reinforces the reality of the Creator for believers.
Sadly, unbelievers are not privy to this. God reveals himself only to those with faith.

When I look at creation, I cannot see anything but the hand of an amazing Artist. He did not create this world for himself....he created it for us to enjoy as a permanent home. Once the "free will" bugs are ironed out, things will be the way they should be. Humans destroying God's handiwork was not supposed to be included in the original plan. But he is dealing with it by employing a long range plan.....he has forever to complete his work to his own satisfaction. I think he is a genius personally.



I can accept what science can actually prove, but not necessarily what they assume about how life originated, or how the species that survived until today were spared from extinction. I believe what is here, is meant to be here at this time......all part of a grand purpose, which I believe is close to being realized.

That is how I see things.....you can disagree, but it doesn't change anything for me.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If you had evidence, you would provide it, instead of citing "faith." Faith is not a pathway to truth, since anything can be believed on faith.
-Matt Dillahunty

 

[viole]

If you can admit that the universe is uncaused, why not admit that there could be a Creator who is uncaused?

I admit that it is logically possible that there is an uncaused creator.

Your turn. Do you admit that the whole Universe could be uncaused as well?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

If you can admit that the universe is uncaused, why not admit that there could be a Creator who is uncaused?

So, an Uncaused Omni-All Entity has always existed. For 99.9999999999999999999999999999999---99999999999% of eternity this Uncaused Omni-All Entity did nothing. Then...

• 14 billion years ago He created the universe, did nothing for another 9 billion years and then made Adam & Eve.

or

• 6000 years ago made everything.

He must be the laziest Entity to have ever existed. How can you worship such a lazy entity?

 

[nPeace]

I admit that it is logically possible that there is an uncaused creator.

Your turn. Do you admit that the whole Universe could be uncaused as well?

Ciao

- viole

No. The universe is made up of matter that has been transformed from energy. Unless you are saying that the Big Bang never happened, and there was no formation of gases, and stardust, etc.
So you don't agree with the quantum theory of something from nothing?

 

[nPeace]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. If you had evidence, you would provide it, instead of citing "faith." Faith is not a pathway to truth, since anything can be believed on faith.
-Matt Dillahunty

Because someone has faith, doesn't mean what they have faith in isn't reality.
A person can have faith that they can vault a high bar. They don't see that reality, but they have the evidence of achieving it.

 

[Polymath257]

Because someone has faith, doesn't mean what they have faith in isn't reality.
A person can have faith that they can vault a high bar. They don't see that reality, but they have the evidence of achieving it.

You are confusing ordinary confidence that patterns will continue to hold, based on observation, and religious faith, which has no basis in observation or reasoning at all. The word 'faith' is used in both ways, but they are very different beasts.

 

[nPeace]

You are confusing ordinary confidence that patterns will continue to hold, based on observation, and religious faith, which has no basis in observation or reasoning at all. The word 'faith' is used in both ways, but they are very different beasts.

No please, I am not.
Perhaps you have a mistaken view of faith, which seem to be the case 100%.

 

[Deeje]

When those who disagree have all their objections answered, the debate moves on.

Who is answering the objections and how are these objections handled? I have heard many in the scientific world say that disagreeing with what is generally held by the majority to be true, is a waste of time and effort. It is better to just hold your opinions quietly than bring them up and have your integrity, intelligence and educational training questioned.

Look at what I wrote. If time goes infinitely into the past, then there *may* not have been a first cause. Each event would have been caused by one before it.

You are presuming again though. Can humans really understand something that is living that is infinite and uncreated? Don't you wonder why humans are by nature spiritual creatures? Animals are not given to worship, so at what stage in human development did they become conscious of a spiritual need in them?

And you just admitted that not everything has a cause: God doesn't. How do *you* know? Why would you suspect that? Is that even claimed in the Bible?

Well, the Bible calls God "the King of Eternity" (1 Timothy 1:17) and it is said that he had no beginning and will have no end....he is an immaterial, uncreated, intelligent power source....obviously nothing that puny earth bound scientists can create a test for.

science doens't have to prove something *doesn't* exist. The burden of proof is *always* on those making the existence claim. This is true for elementary particles, new species, and deities.

Isn't it also true that science needs to provide "proof" for the fact that living things evolved from microscopic organisms into all the life forms we see on earth, both past and present? Where is the burden of proof there? Creation was accepted for millennia, unquestioned....so where is all this evidence we hear so much about, when I am repeatedly told that there are no "proofs" in science? If you have no proof, then all you have are educated guesses....and really good diagrams and computer graphics. There is no proof.

Those with differing interpretations are free to make predictions based on their interpretations and see whether those predictions pan out. If they don't, then that interpretation is discarded.

Pan out to whom?...the indoctrinated majority? If I am a lone creationist in a room full of atheists, and all of them subscribe to one belief that forms what they perceive to be true....does that automatically prove me wrong? Is majority opinion the best way to test something out? I could use the Biblical example of Noah.....were the majority correct in that case? It was a huge collective mistake....Jesus used it as an example of what would happen again. (Matthew 24:37-39) That may not mean much to you, but it might to someone who is searching for answers. Remember that the majority of Jews also rejected Jesus.

we *know* that the range of species changes over time. new species arise that didn't exist earlier. Other species go extinct. This happens continually throughout the fossil record. if you go to layers that are 50 million years old, you do not find the modern range of species. If you go back 100 million years, you have a completely different range of species. The same again if you go back 150 million years.

Wow, do you read into things much? It's only by twisting the scriptures that you can get even that far. But no, Moses didn't exist and didn't write Genesis. That came later and was a comilation of Babylonian myths and priestly imaginings.

Who said? Genesis is a very simplified account of a very complex process. It wasn't a case of a big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence, but the deliberate work of an Intelligent and powerful Being unleashing his creativity for the first time in a material environment.
The basis for the Babylonian myths are also explained in Genesis.

I can admit to the *possibility* there is a deity out there that created the universe. I find it incredibly unlikely.

What would it take to convince you? How much evidence do you need? And if there was undeniable evidence for an all powerful deity who created everything, where would all that evidence for evolution go?

But we *know* the universe exists.

And something of such gargantuan proportions can come from nothing and automatically have its own laws to govern everything in it, all accidentally, if you believe science. Where is the real evidence that this is possible? I haven't seen any, yet science denies the existence of a Creator who says that the universe came from him as its source. I know which scenario makes more logical sense to me.

Can something come from nothing?

We *know* that not every event is caused.

You don't really know that.....you assume it...be truthful. What provable event do you know of that is uncaused?

We *know* that people like to make up myths to explain creation.

People who believe in more that the material world have existed for a lot longer than people like yourself......why do you think this level of godlessness is only a relatively recent development? Losing religion is seen today as a good thing to many people because they have been convinced by men of science you that we don't need a Creator. Science accepts so many things on faith, but not God. I actually blame the YEC's for a lot of the lost faith.....but not all.

Science looks at the possibilities and looks at the different interpretations, looking for evidence to distinguish between those interpretations. Any interpretation that cannot be tested, even in theory, is discarded (as it should be). That your particular interpretation lost doesn't make those who looked into biased.

Our particular interpretation will prove itself soon enough I believe. From the Bible's perspective, there was never going to be a majority on board at the end anyway. So its a wait and see from our perspective. Patience is a virtue, especially in view of the fact that a timeless Being is not restricted by the time created by Earth's rotation.

Yes, you have to believe in order to see the evidence. Isn't that convenient?

That is not essentially true. It depends upon our individual personality. Some people are spiritual by nature, either genetically or environmentally influenced that way. Faith is not the possession of all, but those who demonstrate a spiritual propensity are more likely to pursue a spiritual course.

Our view of God is governed by many things....our upbringing, our exposure to spiritual thinking.....the logic of comparing what science knows to what the Bible says. The conflicts are created in the minds of those who can't see God anywhere. They have readily accepted a substitution and don't miss him at all. My own personal experience was being raised in a church, feeling like it was worthless rubbish and trying to follow evolution as a substitute for God. But the more I saw complexity in the workings of nature, the more I saw deliberate design that was undeniable. I had ditched religion but apparently I had never ditched God. Science did not provide any satisfying explanations for the awesome designs that I saw in the natural world.

if you don't see the evidence, it's just because you don't believe strongly enough.

I call garbage. If you can't convince a non-believer with an open mind, then you don't really have a case.

You can call it whatever you like....it is not my job to convince unbelievers, who seldom see any validity in spiritual things..... (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) It is my job to provide a contrast and another point of view that spiritual people may just be drawn to. Isn't that we we are here? To present our perspectives so that others can evaluate them?

To differentiate between "micro" and "macro" evolution is so important because the whole theory of evolution is based on "micro-evolution" as their proof that organisms can and do change when environmental factors are altered.....but that in no way supports an excursion into fantasy, imagining that it somehow works way beyond anything that science can actually prove. They can make suggestions and educated guesses all over the place, but the one thing they cannot do is prove that it ever happened.

I don't see that.

I am not surprised. We have two parents involved here....Mother Nature and Father God. You see the hand of one parent....I see the need for both.
Just as Eve was taken from the DNA of Adam....so Mother Nature is a product of the Father.

You don't accept anything science claims that disagrees with your viewpoints. Any evidence that is given is biased because it disagrees with you. Any actual thinking that is done to figure out what the evidence says is bias.

What science presents is not fact, so how is my rejecting your supposition any different to you rejecting mine? Neither of us can prove that what we say is true.

Sorry, but I don't see that as a valid way to understand the world.

That is entirely your prerogative.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you have no proof, then all you have are educated guesses

False dichotomy. Justified belief comes in degrees. Some beliefs can be said to probably be correct, others very probably correct, and others just this side of certainty. I think that the germ theory of infectious disease, for example is pretty much past the possibility of being shown to be incorrect.

For a person who has spent a lifetime pursuing faith-based thought, you seem to be pretty sure of yourself when it comes to reasoning and interpreting evidence. Those are skills developed over decades of training and experience in critical thinking in university and beyond. You didn't choose that path, and thus cannot know what science knows, how it knows it, or how firmly established the knowledge is.

Instead, you can only rail at science and what you have been incorrectly taught are its limitations through your computer connected to a network of other computers via a satellite system in space in the comfort of your air conditioned and electrically lit home, telling us that if science hasn't proven something to you that it has nothing but guesses. It's remarkable that you can't see how ludicrous a claim that is given all of the evidence that the science that you are using to decry science works.

if there was undeniable evidence for an all powerful deity who created everything, where would all that evidence for evolution go?

That's a question I asked you and you evaded it. It's an excellent question with devastating consequences for the god of the Christian Bible.

The evidence that is presently the basis for the confidence that the scientific community has in the correctness of the theory of evolution wouldn't go away if the theory were somehow falsified. It would simply need to be reinterpreted in the light of the added falsifying evidence, which could only be interpreted as an elaborate ruse perpetrated on humanity by a powerful intelligence, one that went to great trouble to deceive us by burying fossils in strata and arranging their morphologies and radionuclide signatures to appear that they evolved from older, deeper forms through a series of steps to more shallow, newer, and more modern appearing forms. That deceptive agency would also have created the assorted anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic nested hierarchies as part of that ruse, as well as to have geographically distributed populations to suggest evolution and adaptive radiation.

That pretty much rules out a beneficent god that created us, and made an honest effort to be known and loved, doesn't it? Christianity could not survive even if biological evolution were shown to be an elaborate extraterrestrial hoax.

it is not my job to convince unbelievers

Good thing, too, because you come unequipped for the task. Critical thinkers are rational skeptics first.They question all received wisdom and are committed to not believing beyond the degree that the quantity and quality of evidence supports. You come to us with incredulity arguments, which have no persuasive power with a critical thinker. They are merely you telling others that you just can't see how it all could come to pass without an intelligent designer, and somehow concluding that this supports rejecting naturalistic explanations such as the theory of evolution. That's a logical fallacy.

You simply cannot convince anybody skilled in evaluating evidence and reasoned arguments, and who requires that reason and evidence support an idea before he'll believe it, with hand waving about science having no proofs and that it all seems too pretty to have come about without help.

Those who understand the foundation that science stands on cannot be moved by the protestations of those who clearly don't understand it or the evidence that supports its validity, and who make fallacious arguments.

Your apologetics were designed for faith based thinkers, not reason and evidence based thinkers. They're intended for those who already believe that their god created life as we find it, and will uncritically and enthusiastically absorb whatever can be concocted to appear to support that belief over naturalistic alternatives. That's why these arguments get an "Amen" at church or Bible study, but get rejected by critical thinkers in open forums like this one. The two groups evaluate reality in radically different manners.

To differentiate between "micro" and "macro" evolution is so important

Yes, we've been requesting that creationists define specifically what it is that they mean by those terms - that is, where is this line between so-called micro- and macroevolution occurs, and exactly what it is that they are saying never happens in nature - and we get vagueness and obfuscation. Likewise when one tries to get a creationist to define a kind.

That's a deal killer right there. Your claims stall in the water when they are so imprecise. A scientific hypothesis needs to be precise enough to disconfirm it if it is false - at least in principle. If you cannot be clear about what you are claiming is true, the scientific skeptic will disregard your claim. What choice does he have?

When the creationists can be precise about the limit of evolution that they claim is possible but beyond which nature cannot proceed, as well as provide a mechanism that would create that barrier, then they can return to the table with that argument and we can discuss what you think is wrong with the science. Until then, there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[Polymath257]

Who is answering the objections and how are these objections handled? I have heard many in the scientific world say that disagreeing with what is generally held by the majority to be true, is a waste of time and effort. It is better to just hold your opinions quietly than bring them up and have your integrity, intelligence and educational training questioned.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

You are presuming again though. Can humans really understand something that is living that is infinite and uncreated? Don't you wonder why humans are by nature spiritual creatures? Animals are not given to worship, so at what stage in human development did they become conscious of a spiritual need in them?

I am not presuming. I am considering the full range of possibilities. I said it *may* be the case that time is infinite into the past and it *may* not be the case. Both possibilities need to be considered. In the first case, there *may* be an infinite sequences of causes with no first cause. These are some of the logical possibilities and they need to be considered before making a conclusion.

Humans are 'spiritual' because they like to attribute causes to actors. They invent deities to explain natural phenomena when they cannot: thunder gods, storm gods, etc and even invent a one-god to narraw the range of supplications they need to make.

I don't know when animals began to worship. Most likely when they came to be aware of death. We have evidence of purposeful burials before there were even modern humans.

Well, the Bible calls God "the King of Eternity" (1 Timothy 1:17) and it is said that he had no beginning and will have no end....he is an immaterial, uncreated, intelligent power source....obviously nothing that puny earth bound scientists can create a test for.

In that case, the possibility can be ignored by scientists. No testing, no science.

Isn't it also true that science needs to provide "proof" for the fact that living things evolved from microscopic organisms into all the life forms we see on earth, both past and present? Where is the burden of proof there? Creation was accepted for millennia, unquestioned....so where is all this evidence we hear so much about, when I am repeatedly told that there are no "proofs" in science? If you have no proof, then all you have are educated guesses....and really good diagrams and computer graphics. There is no proof.

Science has elimination of falsehoods. We can prove some ideas are wrong. It is impossible to prove *general* laws are correct But it is possible to demonstrate some phenomena. That's because all measurements have some possibility of inaccuracy and may need to be revised upon future improvements of our methods.

But proving ideas wrong is good enough for many situations. There was no global flood, for example. That is an idea that has been proved wrong. The universe is billions of years old, not thousands. Species change over geological time (which is called evolution).

Pan out to whom?...the indoctrinated majority? If I am a lone creationist in a room full of atheists, and all of them subscribe to one belief that forms what they perceive to be true....does that automatically prove me wrong? Is majority opinion the best way to test something out? I could use the Biblical example of Noah.....were the majority correct in that case? It was a huge collective mistake....Jesus used it as an example of what would happen again. (Matthew 24:37-39) That may not mean much to you, but it might to someone who is searching for answers. Remember that the majority of Jews also rejected Jesus.

No, being alone doesn't prove you wrong. Being against the facts does. And the story of Noah has been proved wrong: there was no global flood.

Who said? Genesis is a very simplified account of a very complex process. It wasn't a case of a big wizard in the sky 'poofing' things into existence, but the deliberate work of an Intelligent and powerful Being unleashing his creativity for the first time in a material environment.
The basis for the Babylonian myths are also explained in Genesis.

You got the timing backwards. The Babylonian myths are what gave rise to Genesis.

What would it take to convince you? How much evidence do you need? And if there was undeniable evidence for an all powerful deity who created everything, where would all that evidence for evolution go?

If there was proof for a deity, evolution would stay exactly as it is. So would cosmology, etc. All that would change is that there would be a deity mixed into consideration.

What would it take to prove it? For creation of the universe? How about a message in the cosmic background radiation, clearly present at a variety of wavelengths that encodes the first book of Genesis? That would be quite convincing. Or perhaps a collection of pulsars that are perfectly in synchrony as viewed from the Earth that spell out alpha and omega in our sky? That would be pretty dramatic.

And something of such gargantuan proportions can come from nothing and automatically have its own laws to govern everything in it, all accidentally, if you believe science. Where is the real evidence that this is possible? I haven't seen any, yet science denies the existence of a Creator who says that the universe came from him as its source. I know which scenario makes more logical sense to me.

Science doesn't deny such. it merely doesn't consider it *because it cannot be tested* (as you have admitted). Without testing, the properties cannot be verified, the identity cannot be determined. At that point, it is no longer science.

Can something come from nothing?[/QUOTE]

Yes. We know this also. It is a measured phenomenon. Something can, indeed, come out of nothing. And this is even when time exists. If time has a start, then by definition it all 'came out of nothing'.

You don't really know that.....you assume it...be truthful. What provable event do you know of that is uncaused?

Well, define what you mean for an event to be caused. The timing of the radioactive decay of a nucleus is uncaused. Most quantum level events are uncaused (in the sense that nothing happened just before them that made them happen).

People who believe in more that the material world have existed for a lot longer than people like yourself......why do you think this level of godlessness is only a relatively recent development? Losing religion is seen today as a good thing to many people because they have been convinced by men of science you that we don't need a Creator. Science accepts so many things on faith, but not God. I actually blame the YEC's for a lot of the lost faith.....but not all.

And I see it as a good thing that we have gotten away from superstitions and fairy tales. There have been other times in the past and other cultures where 'godlessness' was common. Typically those times when people are well educated. Hmmm...makes sense.

Our particular interpretation will prove itself soon enough I believe. From the Bible's perspective, there was never going to be a majority on board at the end anyway. So its a wait and see from our perspective. Patience is a virtue, especially in view of the fact that a timeless Being is not restricted by the time created by Earth's rotation.

Yes, I know that many theists love their little persecution myths. They can feel special because their deity will save *them* and everyone else won't be in their club. They comfort themselves by being in this persecuted club and saying their deity favors them.

That is not essentially true. It depends upon our individual personality. Some people are spiritual by nature, either genetically or environmentally influenced that way. Faith is not the possession of all, but those who demonstrate a spiritual propensity are more likely to pursue a spiritual course.

Our view of God is governed by many things....our upbringing, our exposure to spiritual thinking.....the logic of comparing what science knows to what the Bible says. The conflicts are created in the minds of those who can't see God anywhere. They have readily accepted a substitution and don't miss him at all. My own personal experience was being raised in a church, feeling like it was worthless rubbish and trying to follow evolution as a substitute for God. But the more I saw complexity in the workings of nature, the more I saw deliberate design that was undeniable. I had ditched religion but apparently I had never ditched God. Science did not provide any satisfying explanations for the awesome designs that I saw in the natural world.



You can call it whatever you like....it is not my job to convince unbelievers, who seldom see any validity in spiritual things..... (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) It is my job to provide a contrast and another point of view that spiritual people may just be drawn to. Isn't that we we are here? To present our perspectives so that others can evaluate them?

To differentiate between "micro" and "macro" evolution is so important because the whole theory of evolution is based on "micro-evolution" as their proof that organisms can and do change when environmental factors are altered.....but that in no way supports an excursion into fantasy, imagining that it somehow works way beyond anything that science can actually prove. They can make suggestions and educated guesses all over the place, but the one thing they cannot do is prove that it ever happened.

And creationists don't see that there are no barriers to adaptation to the degree new species are formed and new capabilities will arise. It is *all* adaptation, but over more generations than you are willing to consider.

I am not surprised. We have two parents involved here....Mother Nature and Father God. You see the hand of one parent....I see the need for both.
Just as Eve was taken from the DNA of Adam....so Mother Nature is a product of the Father.

Nice story. Good myth.

What science presents is not fact, so how is my rejecting your supposition any different to you rejecting mine? Neither of us can prove that what we say is true.

If you have an actual objection to the conclusion of science, propose a specific test that will show them wrong.

That is entirely your prerogative.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because someone has faith, doesn't mean what they have faith in isn't reality.
A person can have faith that they can vault a high bar. They don't see that reality, but they have the evidence of achieving it.

Another poster was telling me that faith enhances knowledge (also, that you have to have faith before God will reveal himself to you). But, faith isn't a pathway to truth, since anything can be believed on faith.

If you have a good reason to believe something, then give it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What science presents is not fact, so how is my rejecting your supposition any different to you rejecting mine? Neither of us can prove that what we say is true.


That is entirely your prerogative.

You need to get off this. Science does present facts. That evolution occurs is a fact. The theory of evolution is the comprehensive explanation of evolution that is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple fields of science. It is composed of facts/data derived from repeatable observations collected over 150+ years by multiple independent researchers studying multiple different fields of science, throughout the world.

In the same way that gravity is a fact, while the theory of general relativity explains how gravity operates. Ask yourself why you don't have the same problem with gravitational theory as you do with evolutionary theory.


So here we are. We are having a dispute about the fundamental basis of reality. Scientists demonstrate one thing, but you believe another. What steps can we take from here to determine who is right about the nature of reality, and who is wrong? Scientists have composed a well substantiated, comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on earth that fits with all available evidence found to date, is derived from repeatable observations of nature, and no evidence has ever been found that has falsified it, thus far. What can you offer that is comparable to that with the same level of explanatory power and evidence in support of it?

 

[viole]

No. The universe is made up of matter that has been transformed from energy. Unless you are saying that the Big Bang never happened, and there was no formation of gases, and stardust, etc.
So you don't agree with the quantum theory of something from nothing?

Well, since the total energy in the Universe is zero, Whoever did this, did not want to spend too much

And, by the way, I subscribe to the B-theory of time. Therefore, things like “coming from” or “happened”, or any other tensed verb, are from my point of view not applicable when we consider the universe as a whole.

The Bib Bang did not happen, The Big Bang is an event in timespace as all other events. And it is still there, in a sense.

So, under this ontology of time, questions like “something cannot come from nothing” are meaningless.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Another poster was telling me that faith enhances knowledge (also, that you have to have faith before God will reveal himself to you). But, faith isn't a pathway to truth, since anything can be believed on faith.

If you have a good reason to believe something, then give it.

I agree that faith does enhance knowledge, but I am almost certain they are not telling you that faith precedes knowledge. There are things that faith follows.

The Bible says, "without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him." Hebrews 11:6

Another text says, "For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”
Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us?” So faith follows the thing heard. In turn, what is heard is through the word about Christ. Romans 10:13-17

One thing is made clear here. Faith is based on knowledge gained through the senses - what one sees, perceives, experiences (tastes - Psalms 34:8), hears, understands, reasons on, etc.

So going back to the high vaulter.
Through the use of his senses, he has knowledge of physics, and he uses his experience gained from what he sees, or have seen, which gives him faith in the reality, though at present he does not see it.

Hebrews 11:1-3
1 Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them. 3 By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is seen has come into existence from things that are not visible.

Here, we don't assume that something came from nothing, but the evidence of an intelligent creator is seen in the design in nature.

I'm sure you will not understand the statements to follow, but there is only one way you will, and that's entirely up to you.
Quote...
For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it God’s righteousness is being revealed by faith and for faith, just as it is written: “But the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” Unquote... The apostle Paul - Romans 1:16, 17

However, the following should be easier to grasp. It connects the above, and clarifies, but still...
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles. - Romans 1:18-23

What we see, and perceive, coupled with what we hear, taste - our experiences, along with our use of reason and logic, we arrive at conclusions that are in line with fact - such as cause and effect.
Hebrews 3:4
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
These allow us to have faith in God, and the more our faith is enhanced, the more our knowledge is enhanced, and the more our knowledge is enhanced, .... well, you get the picture.

To summarize,
Like the vaulter, we do not see the reality, but our knowledge of law of causality, along with the other laws, which the facts show, require a law maker. Laws are fixed, not random. What accounts for them?
What accounts for the orderly system? What accounts for the information directing living systems? There are more questions than answers in the naturalist corner, it seems.
What we know from experience, past and present, and what we have learned, and come to accept as truth... all allow us to have faith.

Is faith a pathway to truth? Definitely.
However, an understanding and acceptance of the truth is also a pathway to faith.
Do you understand that, though?

I find that skeptics are reluctant to say they have the faith they accuse Christians of having, yet they do not see any reality of what they hope for, and believe in.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
How do you explain that you don't have, as they put it, "blind faith"?

 

[nPeace]

Well, since the total energy in the Universe is zero, Whoever did this, did not want to spend too much

And, by the way, I subscribe to the B-theory of time. Therefore, things like “coming from” or “happened”, or any other tensed verb, are from my point of view not applicable when we consider the universe as a whole.

The Bib Bang did not happen, The Big Bang is an event in timespace as all other events. And it is still there, in a sense.

So, under this ontology of time, questions like “something cannot come from nothing” are meaningless.

Ciao

- viole

These algorithms.
So what are algorithms to reality?
You said you don't like youtube videos, so I won't bother, but like you said, some things are meaningless.

 

[viole]

These algorithms.
So what are algorithms to reality?
You said you don't like youtube videos, so I won't bother, but like you said, some things are meaningless.

I never said I do not like youtube videos. What I said is that I do not debate youtube videos.

So, you will have to use your own words and brain.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

You need to get off this. Science does present facts. That evolution occurs is a fact. The theory of evolution is the comprehensive explanation of evolution that is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple fields of science. It is composed of facts/data derived from repeatable observations collected over 150+ years by multiple independent researchers studying multiple different fields of science, throughout the world.

In the same way that gravity is a fact, while the theory of general relativity explains how gravity operates. Ask yourself why you don't have the same problem with gravitational theory as you do with evolutionary theory.


So here we are. We are having a dispute about the fundamental basis of reality. Scientists demonstrate one thing, but you believe another. What steps can we take from here to determine who is right about the nature of reality, and who is wrong? Scientists have composed a well substantiated, comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on earth that fits with all available evidence found to date, is derived from repeatable observations of nature, and no evidence has ever been found that has falsified it, thus far. What can you offer that is comparable to that with the same level of explanatory power and evidence in support of it?

But SkepticThinker, reproduction and adaptation has been going on for how long now, and has been a fact for centuries before modern science. What has changed now? Is it that a fancy name was given to the processes?