[
Replying to Kenisaw]
Kenisaw wrote:No one can really say what is possible and what is not when you bring (if I can use this term) magic into it. But that's the problem with magic, it's a catch all cure all for possible problems, and pure speculation that has yet to be substantiated.
While 'magic' maybe 'a catch all cure' and 'pure speculation', when specific claims are made, one can investigate to see if the evidence indicates the possibility.
What broke the balance? No idea. Why does there need to be a something that broke the balance? We think cause and effect because we live in spacetime. Before spacetime there is no need for cause and effect. Empty space is unstable (and for that matter, not truly empty) and space does all sorts of things on its own. It's noteworthy to point out that we are STILL balanced. We are just nothing broken up into pieces, but still balanced. The universe has never been NOT BALANCED in other words. I've attached an interesting article about a hypothesis on the something from nothing ability that the universe seems to have.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-li ... 23732.html
It would appear that here, you are appealing to your own version of 'catch all cure' magic when you refer to thinking of 'cause and effect because we live in space time'. What other state could you be referring? Do you know of somewhere that 'cause and effect' does not apply? Previously, (in Post 74), you stated -
"But that, Smalls, is exactly why explanations involving the supernatural have no reason to be considered. There is never, ever any evidence provided to support claims or explanations that involve the meta-physical. I've asked many for proof of such claims, and I've received exactly zilch. So although I don't say that such a thing is impossible, I have no reason to consider the supernatural as even a remotely plausible explanation for something. This is especially true when the natural facts appear to fully explain the phenomena in question." (Emphasis added)
Do you believe there is something outside of our natural 4D universe where different 'laws' apply? Again, do you know of such a place where 'cause and effect' does not apply?
Regarding your linked article, I have read a number of similar papers and explanations but they, just as this one speak of that which is beyond our 'natural' science to measure. Such papers raise the oft asked question, "Why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? They, again, are delving into and speculating about the supernatural or meta-physical. Now one has to accept the possibility of something beyond our natural 4D universe, its laws and acknowledge its existence and examine the possible claims of its effects and/or restrictions. Or believe only in the natural 4D universe as the only possible existence and find naturalistic solutions to its formation that do not violate its natural laws. You cannot have it both ways.
It's a good analogy at a basic level, but ultimately cannot explain how a universe with entropy in it could suddenly reverse that by the creation of a new character, or a pillar of fire, or a lightning bolt, or whatever the action is. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and energy is conserved, there's no way to interact with the universe without affecting the laws of the universe that have no known violation, nor any way to not affect literally everything in the universe by suddenly changing something in the universe. It requires (if I may use this term again) magic, a wholly conjecturous concoction...
Maybe it is an interaction with the 'location' where 'cause and effect' do not apply, which you referred to earlier. Also, the very purpose of the interaction is usually to bring about a change in this universe. When a computer programmer adds a character into a 'simulated world', it doesn't destroy the original game, only changing the course of the game. The introduced character is endowed with whatever features and abilities his creator/programmer chooses.
But you can't convert random pieces of atoms and molecules into a fertilized egg inside Mary without affecting all the energy and mass that those pieces were interacting with.
Why not? Are not fertilised eggs made of protons, neutrons and electrons which are arranged to form 'atoms and molecules'?
Which means all of the mass and energy affected by those pieces was affecting other energies and masses. It's a cascading effect that affects literally everything. Nature as the saying goes abhors a vacuum, . . . .
True
. . . . and every magic act that happens in this universe creates a vacuum.
Can you link a reference to this phenomenon?
Or it violates conversation laws, which has never happened that we know of.
Not 'naturally', at least but again, we are talking of the possibilities beyond the natural.
You turn water into wine, you have to get the alcohol molecules from somewhere, which means you've taken them from somewhere else. It's a very real problem to the insertion of magic into a balanced universe.
Once again, it is just a simple rearranging of atoms and molecules. Scientists do this every day in labs. Alcohol is just a simple combination of protons, neutrons and elections arranged as CnH2n+1OH.
There are too many facts in existence which support naturalism, and none which support anything else. That's not a logical paradox at all, that's just the rational conclusion to reach, given the data that exists...
But it is yet to explain, satisfactorily, the 'initial cause' and "it don't go nowhere without a beginning."
Completely agree. It is most definitely an open question, and no one can ever say if humans will ever be able to answer those questions in the context of naturalism.
As the laws of nature cannot explain it, it must, therefore, fall into the category of that 'beyond the natural', being 'supernatural'.
Absolutely. The cosmic microwave background is proof of that. Something with enough energy can emit a photon, it doesn't have to be a star. But plants on this planet weren't around for that, and there is no evidence that there was a strong enough light in the beginning to power photosynthesis even if plants had been around back then.
That is only on the presumption that your time scale/worldview is correct which you have yet to establish. But clearly, a presumption that does not include other possible views. The main difference between your apparent worldview and mine is the time scales. Your's takes millions, if not billions of years, mine takes merely seconds. Your understanding of such lengthy timescales could simple be due to, as you stated earlier, your viewing it from within a spacetime universe. I view it from the possibility of one outside of and thereby unaffected by spacetime, as claimed.
I don't believe that the "BB is impossible" given that physics breaks down at the singularity. The singularity is actually predicted by the math of relativity (although relativity is NOT good at explaining the singularity itself, whereas quantum mechanics deals with such small spaces and particles much better, hence the search for a relativity/QM combined theory to explain extreme gravity). It's definitely a gap that people are trying to figure out, don't get me wrong. We've a long way to go in that area of research. Couple of interesting articles if you have the time:
https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/2 ... ngularity/
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
Thanks for the links. I've read them previously and similar articles but they all come down to (or most, anyway) the requirement for the pre-existence of a 'universe' that obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. It's just pushing the argument further back, not solving it but I'm interested as to where the research, though mostly theoretical, is leading.
Another is the warping of space time as described by General Relativity but, due to the length of our posts, we can discuss this later, if you wish.
Whatever you'd like to do. The fact that GPS satellites work is proof of relativity, and that spacetime warps in the presence of mass, so I'm not sure what could be objected to here.
Firstly, I agree with the proofs of relativity but just as a quick thought experiment. The usual illustration of warped space due to relativity pictures a ball on a trampoline or similar. This shows a 2D representation of warped spacetime caused by the mass into the 3rd dimension. In a true 3D/4D representation, the ball causes warping in all planes or dimensions, not just vertically due to gravity as in the illustration. If all the 3D/4D dimensions are being warped equally around the ball, into what are they warping? (i.e. try to imaging the 2D warping effect on the trampoline all around the ball) To me, this indicates the likelihood of dimensions beyond those which we experience.
To be honest, I haven't been following "dad's" post closely to any degree. Maybe I'll check them out when I have time. Though, when you consider my previous point on the BB singularity, something different to our current natural laws must have been in play, even just to 'kick it all off'.
I agree with you regarding the BB singularity. If you haven't followed his posts, don't I don't think they are worthy of anyone's time to be brutally honest.
Each to their own, he possibly just has a hard time communicating exactly what it is he means. As for his ideas on 'time', I'm not sure as, to my thinking, time is everywhere as it is a part of dimensional spacetime. Though, as revealed by Einstein' time can be and is different depending upon where you are and your frame of reference,, due to such things as gravity and motion.
The weight of the water on Earth is about 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 tons, so while 500 tons is no laughing matter, it is really just a (pardon the pun) spit in the ocean.
We should also consider that the moisture in the atmosphere is from the waters found under the firmament, should we not? Where does the water that forms clouds come from? The ground/oceans. It's all the same water, evaporating up into the air only to eventually fall back to the ground and begin the cycle again. Clearly these waters are not "separated" from each other like those spoken of in the Bible.
Whilst there is an expanse/gap between the two visible forms of water, in the past, there may have been a much greater amount and greater separation being the source of the 'rain for 40 days and 40 nights'. I can only go by the information supplied in the texts.
"Just say'n", there is water above the surface of the Earth, separated by an expanse.
There's rocks too. I wonder why there is no mention of the firmament that separated the rocks from the rocks. How odd...
Considering that this entire event, the separation of the waters, is described in just three verses, one may consider it as just an abstract or summary rather than an entire scientific research paper.
And a lot said in
reply.
The order of appearance according to location of the fossils determining the age can be misleading. For example, if there were a situation where insects, dinos and 'protobirds' existed at the same time and location which was subjected to a catastrophic flood, involving massive sedimentation, which would be buried first? Obviously, the non-flying insects, then dinos which may escape for a short period and then the flying species as their higher perches eventually disappear. Same order, different time scale. One relies upon uniformitarianism, the other on catastrophism.
The "firsts" in question were found in different rock layers. For example the first flying insects were found in younger rocks than the first insects. The first insects were found in the early Ordovician Era. Here's a link that breaks down some of the layers of rock in different areas of the world (under Subdivisions).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician
The first flying insects are found in the Devonian Era.
But I appreciate your skepticism and you raised a valid question
A clear example of SEDI (Same Evidence, Different Interpretation).
This can be just as easily be explained by the 'common designer, common design' principle.
Not when combined with the geology and genetic data. Clearly not all these animals found in fossils lived at the same time.
This being the difference in interpretation. 'You' view geological layers as differences in 'time', whereas 'we' view them as differences in 'niche/location' brought together by catastrophic events. Remember that fossilisation requires rapid burial in sediment such as would be the case in a flood - catastrophism.
There is also no reason why some ungulates would need an odd number of toes and other ones an even number for example, . . . .
Adaptability to various ecological niches otherwise why did they evolve? Also, remember that the terminology 'ungulate' is a man-made grouping definition rather than a name on an attached label.
. . . or why chimps and humans share more retroviral insertions into our DNA than humans/chimps and other apes. Naturalism starting points compliment each other rather well.
Human design is closer to chimp design than the other apes. Also one needs to realise that despite the similarity in DNA between humans and chimps (actually % is disputed) that there is a vast difference in ability and capability.
But like you said, fossils are a fact. Radioactive decay is a fact. Genetics is a fact. A common designer? We never get evidence for that, do we. That starting point never seems to be proven by anyone...
What evidence would you accept?
Again, the 'common designer, common design' principle. The same genetics would be required for similar features, genetic variation only being for the variations.
If we start at the beginning, all we need to do is establish that a common designer is a fact. I'll let you tackle that. I look forward to what you can provide.
Again, what evidence would you accept, (remembering that by definition the Common Designer is a metaphysical being)?
I respect your opinion, although I do not see it as an accurate representation of the facts that are currently known at this time. All living things share common DNA. We share some of the DNA as oak trees.
Some common DNA. True. But it's because we are all carbon-based life forms utilising some common elements of our environment. Oak trees don't have the DNA to produce eyes, nor lungs, nor legs, being some of the difference in the designated purpose and, thus, design.
Nice picture but it is the same imaginary 'tree' viewed from above rather than side on. Though, many of the connecting lines should be dotted, denoting speculation based upon an evolutional paradigm rather than upon actual data. For example, Lenski's long term experiment has clearly shown that evolutionary change is limited to within the Family level. His bacteria, though slightly modified in certain cases, is still bacteria.
Anyone and everyone is free to do their own research and come up with their own conclusions of course. The scientific theory of evolution consistently explains all the data and makes accurate predictions. It's been verified and validated time and again by multiple independent fields of research.
If I may use a slight variation of a point made previously by you - "If we start at the beginning, all we need to do is establish that [life from non-life] is a fact. I'll let you tackle that. I look forward to what you can provide."
Without that naturalistic 'beginning', ToE doesn't kick off.
Folks at places like ICR or AIG should be able to shred the theory if it wasn't accurate or dependable. Yet that has never occurred. If common design was equally as valid, they should have been able to support that claim as well (even ignoring the lack of proof for a common designer). Yet here again they have failed miserably. At the very least someone who disagrees should be able to find something that evolution does not explain. The theory has been around since Darwin, and we are way more technically advanced then the people in that day. Surely a theory rooted in the mid 1800s should be able to be defeated by some of the smart creationist out there today, right?
Organisations like ICR and AIG have produced such arguments which is only rejected by those that will only accept a naturalistic explanations, asking for such things as scientific evidence for a metaphysical/supernatural being or event.
I'm not opposed to new or different ideas, but they need to explain the facts in existence, and common design can't do that.
You are entitled to hold any position you wish but what, in particular, does 'common design' not explain?
Yes, there are a number of theories which, when pressed on some finer points, responds with a reply of "we just don't know, YET." For example, as mentioned earlier, the cause of the Big Bang.
Which isn't proof of a god creature. Please understand, the failure of one explanation does not prove another, or even make it more likely. If the Big Bang fails tomorrow as a scientific theory, that doesn't make the existence of the supernatural or the claims that there is a common designer any more likely. They will still have the same amount of empirical evidence - none - that they had the day before. No idea wins by default. They win by being accurate and accounting for all the facts known to date. Disproving the BB does not prove the supernatural or common designer...
Yet, according to the apt description of the Common Designer given to us centuries ago, what is it not capable of explaining? And, again, what evidence would you accept?
Glad to hear it. Not everyone keeps an open mind (on both sides of the discussion).
Thanks and so true.
Have a good day!
Still small
