You Don't Understand...

[Kenny]

What you call "viewpoints" are actually solid scientific conclusion based on overwhelming independently verifiable and testable evidence.

While your "viewpoint" is no more then a superimposed religious beliefs where you assume to have the answers even before asking the question. And to "support" it, you need to resort to false analogies and pretend as if harsh scientific research is on par with the "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations" of some bronze age religion.

I don't agree.

There are actually quite a few scientists that agree with me.

 

[Kenny]

No. "chance" does not "attempts", because "chance" has no intentions.

EXACTLY!

Which dictates that a Creator created it. What we see has intentions.

You are at the cusp of a revelation!!!!

Come out of the box of limitations.

 

[sayak83]

But we know that there are black holes and really don't know how they originate.



That is your opinion. We don't know how they originate and it is implied that violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and actually having design, purpose and destiny, there must be a designer.

Living organisms do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You know that right?

 

[Kenny]

Living organisms do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You know that right?

Do they change to something more complex?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But we know that there are black holes and really don't know how they originate.

Errr...
First, I have no clue how you think that's relevant. No idea what your point is
Secondly, we do know how they originate. In fact, we knew that even before we knew black holes even existed. Einstein's theory predicted them. They originate through gravity.

That is your opinion.

Not an opinion.
Living biological entities are not comparable to "paintings" and "buildings".

It's not even apples and oranges. It's plastic apples and organic oranges.

We don't know how they originate

Yes we do.
Conception on the individual level.
Evolution on the species level.

and it is implied that violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

LOL!
How many times will creationists repeat this PRATT, I wonder....
This particular PRATT is over the top that even creationist propaganda organizations like answers in genesis tells their followers to stop using that "argument" because it is so embarrassingly stupid.

and actually having design,

Natural design, that is.

purpose

Not in evidence.

and destiny

Not in evidence

, there must be a designer.

1. not in evidence
2. Even if I bend over backwards and assume the unsupported / false premises, then still this "conclusion" doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are actually quite a few scientists that agree with me.

"quite a few", which then account for 0.02% of them in the relevant fields.
Or which turn out not to be scientists at all, but rather engineers and alike
Or which turn out to call themselves "doctors" or even "professor" while their phd came from some "school" which is just a house somewhere in the desert.

Also, I don't care what people "believe", regardless of who or what they are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

EXACTLY!

Which dictates that a Creator created it.

No. It just means that you used invalid language.
It also means you make unsupported assumptions.
It means you operate with an assumed conclusion.

What we see has intentions.

I don't see any "intentions" in natural processes.
I see blind forces of physics operating on environments.

You are at the cusp of a revelation!!!!

No. You are rather at the cusp of an embarassement.

Come out of the box of limitations.

Like the limitations of reality? You want me to cross over into the realms of magic and fantasy?
No thanks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do they change to something more complex?

Ow boy.

Go out.
Look up.

See that giant ball of nuclear infernus?
It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

Stop embarrassing yourself, please....

 

[Kenny]

Errr...
First, I have no clue how you think that's relevant. No idea what your point is
Secondly, we do know how they originate. In fact, we knew that even before we knew black holes even existed. Einstein's theory predicted them. They originate through gravity.

yes, but IMV, not really. We know WHAT happens but why do they happen?

Not an opinion.
Living biological entities are not comparable to "paintings" and "buildings".

It's not even apples and oranges. It's plastic apples and organic oranges.

Yes, an opinion in as much as the principle is the same whether apples or oranges (both are fruit).

both have originators.

Yes we do.
Conception on the individual level.
Evolution on the species level.

Evolution is WHAT happens but what drives it? And who "conceives" the Creator, of course.

LOL!
How many times will creationists repeat this PRATT, I wonder....
This particular PRATT is over the top that even creationist propaganda organizations like answers in genesis tells their followers to stop using that "argument" because it is so embarrassingly stupid.

Well... until you give a better answer, why fix what isn't broke Usually the only answer, since you don't have one, is "embarrassingly stupid" - yet don't offer an explanation.

Natural design, that is.

YES, YOU ARE AT THE CUSP OF A REVELATION!

Naturally designed by the Design-er!

You are almost out of the box of limitations .

 

[Kenny]

I don't see any "intentions" in natural processes.
I see blind forces of physics operating on environments.

LOL... Like a caterpillar that just "naturally" went to a liquid and then became a butterfly?

Or
Lichens

There are many species of lichen within the Caledonian forest. Among the more common ones are map lichen – a crust-like species that grows on rocks. Amazingly, it secretes acids which can dissolve rock. This helps to start the process of soil formation. Lichens can form a substrate on which other plants can grow. They are often habitat for tiny mites, spiders and other invertebrates.

YUP - very blind forces. It's a wonder how these blind forces know what to do.


Apparently these blind forces are "driven" by a "driver", their Creator of design, purpose and destiny. Just like you....

Wait a minute, maybe you are a product of chance with no design, purpose or destiny (by your definition)

 

[Bathos Logos]

I was more thinking of interpreting scriptures primarily.
It is possible to have a correct understanding of scripture, and determine that it is true.
It's no different to scientist determining that they hold a transitional fossil in their hand, which they insist they interpreted correctly.
Well there is one difference. While they cannot be sure, as they rely on their limited brain, and understanding, Those with God's spirit know they are building on true knowledge and understanding.

Did you even read my first paragraph? There I specifically outlined a passage, from scripture, the takeaway from which is apparently entirely up for debate. A user here specifically stated that the "boys" in the Elisha and the bears story were actually grown men. So why did the writers/translators of The Bible choose the word "boys" to represent what was being told in that part of the story?

Someone else told me that the boys/men were not mauled, but only separated - referencing a word "tare" used that could mean torn apart or separated. So why did the writers/translators interpret the writing with the word "maul"? Who is right and who is wrong here?

Something doesn't jive with this. So, I would state that it is very difficult to have "a correct understanding of scripture" in a great many cases.

Science does not have the same sorts of problems that you outlined because, again, as I stated, anyone who is worried over the interpretation of the data can take the experiment back to formula. Redo it, in other words, and attempt to measure or assess any of the various inputs to the experiment to falsify or reify the original experimenters results or interpretations. It doesn't have to remain "you have your opinion, and I have mine". The specific example you gave was one scientist questioning another's interpretation of the results, yes. But if the scientist doing the questioning is at all worth his salt, then I am sure he could devise an experiment that would conclusively demonstrate the correct way to interpret the data - which is something you simply can't do in religion. That the dissenting scientist did not take that tack with his refutation of the interpretation of the results does not mean that such simply isn't possible.

 

[Kenny]

Ow boy.

Go out.
Look up.

See that giant ball of nuclear infernus?
It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

Stop embarrassing yourself, please....

ROFL - sounds like design, purpose and destiny to me.

Back to two people seeing the same thing but having different conclusions. Actually, I think you are digging yourself in a hole. Are you embarrassed yet?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes, but IMV, not really. We know WHAT happens but why do they happen?

How are those different questions, in any meaningful way?

Yes, an opinion

No. One is a living biological entity.
The other is not.
And you are trying to compare them to make a point about processes that apply to living biological entities only.

It's like trying to argue against gravity by pointing to how hammers float in the international space station.
It makes no sense.

The are not comparable in this context, because "paintings and buildings" are not subject to processes of biology.

in as much as the principle is the same whether apples or oranges (both are fruit).

But as I said, you're comparing plastic apples with actual organic oranges.
One is a fruit. The other is a thing that comes out of a chemical factory.
This is not a proper comparison when the context is "what processes are actual organic fruits subject to?"

both have originators.

Yes. One in natural biology and the other in a chemical plant in china.

Evolution is WHAT happens but what drives it? And who "conceives" the Creator, of course.

Loaded question; unsupported assumption; assumed conclusion.

Take your pick.

Also, what drives evolution is simple physics.

Well... until you give a better answer, why fix what isn't broke Usually the only answer, since you don't have one, is "embarrassingly stupid" - yet don't offer an explanation.

Already did in a previous post (and many others in the time I was on this forum )
But anyway, here it is again:

Go out, look up.
See that giant ball of nuclear infernus?
It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.
It's what makes a seed turn into a tree.

YES, YOU ARE AT THE CUSP OF A REVELATION!

Naturally designed by the Design-er!

Don't kid yourself.
Semantic nonsense is not going to cut it.

Natural design is everywhere and it requires no "designer" on the count of it being natural.

Forces of nature shape stuff in nature all the time and it results in patterns.
Big whoop.

You are almost out of the box of limitations .

Maybe you should put some limitations on your box.
A good limiting factor might for example be to only let into your box that which is supported by evidence.
That's a good rational limitation right there, which will have instant positive impact on your decision making.

 

[Kenny]

How are those different questions, in any meaningful way?

Inquiring minds want to know.

We know that H2 bonds with O but "why" - causes us to look into electrons and their interactions.

No. One is a living biological entity.
The other is not.
And you are trying to compare them to make a point about processes that apply to living biological entities only.

It's like trying to argue against gravity by pointing to how hammers float in the international space station.
It makes no sense.

The are not comparable in this context, because "paintings and buildings" are not subject to processes of biology.

Yet both obey physical laws. Paintings and building are subject to the biology of chemicals, processes, color et al. as does living biological entities... the laws govern both of them.

But as I said, you're comparing plastic apples with actual organic oranges.
One is a fruit. The other is a thing that comes out of a chemical factory.
This is not a proper comparison when the context is "what processes are actual organic fruits subject to?"

Yes. that is what YOU said... but I allow you to be wrong every once in a while.

Loaded question; unsupported assumption; assumed conclusion.

But inquiring minds want to know.

Already did in a previous post (and many others in the time I was on this forum )
But anyway, here it is again:

Go out, look up.
See that giant ball of nuclear infernus?
It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.
It's what makes a seed turn into a tree.

Is there a point here? Still sounds like design, purpose and destiny to me.

Don't kid yourself.
Semantic nonsense is not going to cut it.

Natural design is everywhere and it requires no "designer" on the count of it being natural.

Forces of nature shape stuff in nature all the time and it results in patterns.
Big whoop.

Design always has a designer. just because you don't want to see it doesn't negate the truth. And certainly you haven't given me anything to change my position.

Maybe you should put some limitations on your box.
A good limiting factor might for example be to only let into your box that which is supported by evidence.
That's a good rational limitation right there, which will have instant positive impact on your decision making.

Decades ago, before internet, cell phone and Apple - 1940's , there was a comic book called Dick Tracy. In this comic book Detective Tracy communicated through a phone located in his watch.

The author saw in the eye of his imagination what was to come. He didn't put limitations on his box.

Why do you put limitations on yours?

And God created man in His Image(ination) and in His likeness, male and female create He them.

You are designed with design, purpose and destiny... but you can limit it if you want.

 

[sayak83]

Do they change to something more complex?

Yes, through evolution (on large time scales) and in the process of growth (over a life-time). An embryo is far simpler than a human adult, obviously. So yes, they do.
You do understand that increase in complexity of systems does not violate the second law?

 

[Jose Fly]

So after seeing @nPeace respond to the myriad of replies last night, it looks to me like this is yet another case where he thinks showing an example of where scientists may not have gotten something 100% right the very first time around and are continuing to work on a question, is somehow a knock on science and/or scientists.

IOW, it's another example of nPeace simply not understanding how science works. I guess he thinks it should be like religion, where the first proposed answer to something must be 100% right and remain that way for all time.

I keep thinking back to my time growing up immersed in Christianity and how I just could not relate to the religious way of thinking at all, and how many times I sat in the pews completely baffled by some of the things I saw. I guess it's the same for nPeace with science....he's just as baffled by scientists trying to figure out the basis for beetle coloration as I was by our pastor anointing someone with oil because they had the flu.

I mean, I just saw @sayak83 remind nPeace that science doesn't deal in proof. How many times has nPeace been told that before, and by how many different people, yet he still doesn't get it?

By now there's really only one conclusion to reach....nPeace just doesn't understand science, how it works, or how scientists do their work. He simply doesn't get it and likely never will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So after seeing @nPeace respond to the myriad of replies last night, it looks to me like this is yet another case where he thinks showing an example of where scientists may not have gotten something 100% right the very first time around and are continuing to work on a question, is somehow a knock on science and/or scientists.

IOW, it's another example of nPeace simply not understanding how science works. I guess he thinks it should be like religion, where the first proposed answer to something must be 100% right and remain that way for all time.

I keep thinking back to my time growing up immersed in Christianity and how I just could not relate to the religious way of thinking at all, and how many times I sat in the pews completely baffled by some of the things I saw. I guess it's the same for nPeace with science....he's just as baffled by scientists trying to figure out the basis for beetle coloration as I was by our pastor anointing someone with oil because they had the flu.

I mean, I just saw @sayak83 remind nPeace that science doesn't deal in proof. How many times has nPeace been told that before, and by how many different people, yet he still doesn't get it?

By now there's really only one conclusion to reach....nPeace just doesn't understand science, how it works, or how scientists do their work. He simply doesn't get it and likely never will.

He seems to treat it as a religion. His sect is a particularly oppressive one, if I remember correctly, and that may have strongly influenced his thoughts. That sort of conditioning can lead to massive amounts of black and white fallacies.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, through evolution (on large time scales) and in the process of growth (over a life-time). An embryo is far simpler than a human adult, obviously. So yes, they do.
You do understand that increase in complexity of systems does not violate the second law?

Doesn't it? Unless there is a driving force helping it?

 

[Jose Fly]

He seems to treat it as a religion. His sect is a particularly oppressive one, if I remember correctly, and that may have strongly influenced his thoughts. That sort of conditioning can lead to massive amounts of black and white fallacies.

I always wonder....is it that the religion does that to them, or are people who are already that way naturally attracted to such religions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Doesn't it? Unless there is a driving force helping it?

Then I have to wonder....do you believe God is the "driving force" behind all biological complexity?