[
Replying to post 102 by Kenisaw]
Firstly, my apologies for taking so long to respond but my schedule gets rather busy this time of year.
Kenisaw wrote:Except one can't consider something a "possibility" if it is pure speculation, can they? Perhaps you can think of specific empirical data that shows that magic is a real and can affect the universe? I'd think one would need to show magic exists before claiming that it was involved in a specific event.
But we are not talking about 'magic' or, at least I'm not. Though it does sadden me to see you continually attempt the denigrate the argument by the use of the term 'magic' for something which you obviously do not understand. As I stated and defined in post 75, I'm referring to the metaphysical or supernatural, not 'magic'.
Not trying to have it both ways. As I said, I've no idea what broke the balance, but since the balance isn't actually broken, that's a moot question.
It may not be broken as such but the 'contents' is changing which should be explained by one of two laws or maybe both -
- The principle of causality or the Law of Cause and Effect which states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause, or
- Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Newton's Laws
Our current understanding is that spacetime began at the Big Bang. Before that, there was no universe, no spacetime, and for that matter the laws of physics didn't exist either. Nothing existed as we know it, which naturally follows that cause-effect (among all the other things) didn't exist either. Unlike magic however, we do have evidences that point to the Big Bang theory, so we are not basing these statements on pure conjecture. Nor am I invoking extra dimensions or universes either.
Not true, what we have is evidence that the universe had a beginning. It may not necessarily be the Big Bang.
And since we are having an honest and valuable discussion, I will also point out a hypothesis that doesn't require for the laws of physics to break down, but instead it's the laws themselves that cause the universe to exist, yet the Big Bang would still be the start of spacetime. This "no boundary condition" uses imaginary time, and was proposed by Hawkins and others:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Which begs the question of where the laws of physics come from, naturally. Why would I show you something that might countermand my arguments? Because I want to be intellectually honest, and the truth is we don't actually know where the universe comes from, even if we can understand that it did have a start in the finite past. Maybe some day we will.
An interesting hypothesis put forward by Hawkings but I'm sure that you recognise that by the addition of 'imaginary time' that he is appealing to the metaphysical, being a dimension beyond the 4D spacetime of the natural or physical universe we observe and experience.
But any change in this universe affects everything else. In that way it most definitely not like a computer program. For instance, if a pillar of fire is created to block Egyptian chariots, that energy has to come from somewhere. Either it is created out of nothing, which breaks the conservation of energy laws in the universe, or the energy is taken from various atoms and molecules in the universe, which means that a thermal disequilibrium is created and energy from adjacent atoms and molecules has to be absorbed to correct it. Which means that atoms and molecules next to those atoms and molecules have to give up energy to balance that next round of equilibrium. So forth and so on. Now one could posit I suppose that the extra energy is removed from the universe after the pillar of fire goes out, or it is returned to the original atoms and molecules that it came from. That would of course require a god for which there is zero evidence for to use magic for which there is zero evidence for to temporary halt the conservation laws of the universe. There are too many baseless things in there to be taken seriously as a plausible explanation.
Thermal disequilibriums can occur naturally without the entire universe coming to a halt (like
here,
herehere[/url] and
here) so what is the drama? God creating a pillar of fire could be as simple as converting one form of energy into another. He may not be adding anything to the universe but rather, just utilising that which is already here. One might note that in Genesis, as in other parts of scripture, God sometimes 'creates' as out of nothing, i.e. the heavens and the Earth, and sometimes He merely converts one form of matter into another , such as 'bringing forth', He 'made' or He 'formed'. Sometimes, He combines both.
If a god created even one atom of matter and stuck it in this universe, it would have a gravitational affect (albeit a small one) on all the other matter around it. Everything affects everything in this universe...
And who is to say that the miracles God performed didn't affect everything in the universe. The instances where God has performed miracles, He has done so, in order to affect a change, that being the purpose.
Yes they are, but something (a godly sperm?) had to add the rest of the DNA and cause the egg to be fertilized. We are back to the creating mass/energy out of nothing scenario, or the taking mass from elsewhere in the universe scenario, neither of which is logically supported. Let's not forget that Jesus body (mass) was taken into the supernatural as well, another slap in the face of conservation laws of the universe...
Again, it may simply be a conversion of existing matter. In the case of Jesus' body, it may have been a temporary suspension of the laws of conservation, that being until the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost, one form of mass/energy for another.
Not 'naturally', at least but again, we are talking of the possibilities beyond the natural.
Yes we are, for which there is zero evidence for, and therefore no reason to think it has any plausibility whatsoever.
Well, there is no scientific evidence but that is due only to the fact that the scientific method can only 'measure' the natural/physical and not the supernatural/metaphyśical. Just as the scientific method cannot test whether Shakespeare was an excellent playwright. What's that saying , "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
You need sugars and yeast to make wine. It doesn't just appear from water. It is not simply a rearranging of atoms and molecules. There are atoms in wine that would not be present in plain water. Which means that carbon had to be pulled from somewhere and inserted into the water. So a god just pulls carbon from other molecules, eh? You think that doesn't have any affect on anything else?
All the 'atoms and molecules' consist of baryonic matter and electrons arranged in specific order. A winemaker simply uses the 'pre-made' ingredients and time to produce his wine. God starts His process a step or two earlier and removes the time-factor, (as He is not bound by it). And does it have an affect on anything else ? It certainly does, . . . it produces wine. Though God reserves these types of acts for specific occasions and for specific purposes.
This is the problem with magic think. It ignores the reality of what happens to everything else when gods supposedly intervene with the universe...
How do you know? The future may have changed being the specific purpose the intervention (not magic) was made. Just like in the movie 'Sliding Doors'.
As the laws of nature cannot explain it, it must, therefore, fall into the category of that 'beyond the natural', being 'supernatural'.
I didn't say it didn't have a natural explanation, I said humans may not ever able to answer those questions in the context of naturalism.. Our ability or inability to answer something doesn't automatically make "magic" more plausible. In other words, the failure of finding the answer scientifically doesn't make magic the winner. Each hypothesis must succeed or fail on its own merits.
As it is beyond the known scientific laws of nature, it is currently beyond the nature of which we are aware. Your having no answer, currently, may well be and most probably due to your paradoxical insistence for scientific evidence for something which science is incapable of determining.
Prove a god creature exists, and prove it uses magic to make these things happen. Prove the supernatural explanation. That's the responsibility of the person claiming that is the right answer.
And in reply to your continual request, I ask again, "What evidence for God would you accept?"
There are clear and established line of evidences that point to a universe with an age of about 14.6 billion years old. All this data points to that conclusion. The conclusion does not include "other possible views" because the data does not support those other possible views. The conclusion doesn't include "steady state theory" because the evidence does not support it. The conclusion does not support geocentric models because the evidence does not support it. And the conclusion doesn't support magic because the evidence does not support it.
The main difference between your worldview and mine is scales of evidence. Mine is supported by empirical data, and yours is not.
To the contrary, what you have is evidence that the universe had a beginning. By extrapolation according to the Uniformitarian adage, 'the present interprets the past', the assumption is made for an age of 14.6 billion years. The same would probably occur if someone were to meet Adam on Day 8 of Genesis. They would assume he was a mature male due the fact that he can walk and talk, feed and fend for himself and survive without assistance. Yet, in truth, he would only be 2 days old. Go figure!
Now before you go off on the usual accusation about God therefore being deceptive by making everything look older, God has never stated that the universe was 14.6 billion years old. Instead, He has clearly expressed how long it took and by derivation one can estimate how long ago. It is only when one rejects God's clear statements that one is mislead. That is not deception on God's part.
Serious question: Have you ever considered other mythologies' claims for how the universe started? In not, why not? They have just as much evidence for their claims (that is to say - none) as the one you happen to favor. Why limit yourself to the one you were raised with? There are thousands of possibilities out there, and all with the same level of substantiation.
Serious answer: yes, I have looked at other claims and all appear to fall short of the known facts (as opposed to assumptions, extrapolations, speculations or 'don't know, hope so', however derived). A vast number have no 'creation-type' events, whereas others have cosmologies consisting of such things as 'a flat Earth sitting on the backs of four elephants which, in turn, are standing on the back of a giant turtle swimming through the cosmos'. Easily dismissed, wouldn't you say!
There is not a gap at all, that is the point. The water in the atmosphere and the water on Earth are in the same "gap". The Bible speaks of separating water from water "in the midst of the waters", and having it "divide the waters from the waters". Obviously the atmosphere and ground waters aren't separate, as they constantly exchange water molecules all the time.
I believe you are being pedantic, purposefully, over a description given in less than fifty words purely for be sake of being argumentative. I believe the passage is clear as to its meaning and intent whether you are able to comprehend it or not. That would be your shortcoming.
I think it's plausible that the blue sky seemed like a layer of water to the ancient people that wrote this stuff, and they felt a need to explain it. Just like they felt a need to talk about the wind coming out of "storehouses", and clouds arising from the "ends of the Earth", and containers of snow and hail, etc. They had no clue about this stuff, and that is the best they could come up with back in the day.
If that be the case, that 'they felt a need to explain it', where is their explanation for this 'water' either disappearing or turn black at night. Let's be consistent here.
"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.
One may consider it that way I suppose. I'm inclined to disagree.
You are free to disagree as much as you like, that doesn't make you right.
Which was also covered in my link you've quoted above. I know the article at my link is exhaustively long (and overly technical which doesn't make it exciting to say the least), but it truly hammers Humphreys work, which a thorough read will adequately demonstrate.
Did you actually read Humphreys' paper thoroughly?
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).
Except the first flying insects were buried BEFORE the first dinosaurs, which were buried before the first flying dinosaurs, which were buried before the first dinosaurs with feathers, which were buried before the first birds, which were buried before the first apes.
But by how much 'before'?
So you really believe that flying insects died in the great flood first, followed by dinosaurs, followed by pterosaurs (flying reptiles), followed by dinosaurs with feathers, followed by birds, followed by apes? Because that's how they are laid out in the geological record. It's amazing that dinosaurs and apes could survive longer than soaring, gliding animals like pterosaurs during a worldwide flood, eh?
Why are you amazed?
Fossilization doesn't require rapid burial, to be technical about it. Lack of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), lack of water (desert environs), or extreme cold can also preserve something until such time as it is covered up. But I would agree that the majority of fossils are a result of a rapid burial.
And it would be 'the majority of fossils' to which we are referring.
I view geological layers having differences in time because we can accurately date the layers and prove that they were formed during different times. Your interpretation requires completely ignoring the mathematical certainty that is radiometric dating. It requires one to ignore Stokes Law, it requires one to ignore hydraulics, it requires one to ignore thermodynamics, it requires one to ignore the entire field of genetics.
Perhaps you are not fully aware of just how much one has to ignore in order to think that a conclusion that the planet is young and suffered a global flood. The amount of empirical data is staggering, Smalls. Creationist claims don't "interpret" the data, they simply ignore it.
"mathematical certainty that is radiometric dating"!!! "Certainty"!!!!
Ignore Stokes law and hydraulics!!! Papers such as
this have given rise for some to doubt Stokes Law for determining Paleogeology.
Ignore Thermodynamics!!! Why?
Ignore genetics!! How so?
For instance, to think that geologic sediment layers are different "niches" brought together by a massive event is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You can't get conglomerates or breccia under this scenario, yet they exist. You can't get hundreds of sediment layers from one flood, yet they exist. You can't get layers of fine material under layers of course material, yet they exist. You can't get chalk layers made up of so many creatures that there wouldn't be any food or oxygen left over for anything else in the ocean, yet they exist. You can't get salt domes under sediment layers, yet they exist. On and on and on...
Why not? Why not? Why not? Etc, etc, etc. Have you ever considered the massive turbulence etc involved in a global flood? Here is a
link page to a series of papers describing such an event. (Please limit your critique to the contents of the papers, as opposed to ad hominem attempts at the author or source. Please supply references, of a similar level, i.e. Geophysicists, to any points of disagreement.)
I'm sorry Smalls, but it's not interpretation of the data, it's ignoring the data that is going on...
So you claim but there are a number of experts in these various fields that, rather than tow the 'consensus line' would beg to differ.
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.
I agree that the terminology, and classifications, of living things are arbitrary division points. That's a result of us humans wanting to organize things into groups. Our brains are wired to see order. That has little to do, however, with pointing out that your claim of a "common designer, common design" makes no sense when some even toed and odd toed ungulates are found in the same environs, yet are more distantly related to each other than zebras and tapirs are.
What! God cannot be a God of variety? Besides, the descendants of original kind can develop different traits as adaption without going outside of the "after their own kind" mandate.
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.
Define "vast". Chimps play. They use tools. They smile and laugh (that is they find things funny). They are able to reflect on their own thoughts, and can therefore make intelligent decisions. They have morals, and are social. They can count. They also wage war and murder unfortunately, just like us.
Would you agree that there is a vast difference between a chimp using a stick to get grubs out of a tree and man developing the Large Hadron Collider? Or swinging between tree limbs and the building of A380 to fly between continents? Would you agree that there is a vast difference between a chimp smiling or laughing and men developing the complete series of 'Jerry Seinfeld' and broadcasting it on TVs, etc. Would you agree that there is a vast difference between 'reflecting on their own thoughts' (however that may have been verified) and the development of a complex written language to be used to record one's thoughts and to publish them in hard copy books and/or digital codes on a computer, transmit them via radio waves around the globe and even to outer space? Would you agree that there is a vast difference between the morals and social aspects of chimps and the complex legal codes and laws, constitutions and codes of ethics, etc and the complex social structures of humans? Have chimps developed their own form of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc, for building and extending their social profiles? If similarity of DNA is a measure of evolutionary ancestry as opposed to just biological (physical) development, the small percentage difference between humans a chimps must certainly have a massive effect.
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?
Throw whatever you have at me. I'm not picky.
Response in the next post.
Metaphysical beings that have interacted with the universe in just about every way conceivable. There should be evidence all over the place. Gods have become human or animal form, they apparently perform miracles on a daily basis judging from what I read on Twitter any given day. With all this magic being used all over the Earth for thousands of years, there ought to be something that someone could ring forth I imagine.
Well, I don't know about "Gods have become human or animal form, they apparently perform miracles on a daily basis judging from what I read on Twitter any given day." but then I wouldn't believe everything one reads on Twitter. Any appearance of God in human form in the past would be an historical event and probably not subject to scientific testing, especially if the feats performed were of a metaphysical nature. Therefore, one can only go by eyewitness testimony and historians recordings and weigh up the evidence.
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.
That's why I mentioned "plenty of genetic data". There is abundant evidence. No need for dotted lines.
Though, as papers such as
this one point out, there is still a lot of 'estimation' and 'inference' regarding the lineages. In layman's language that would be expressed as 'guesstimation', 'assumption' and 'don't know, hope so'. While certainly not implying that researchers would be dishonest, it is quite probable that, having a naturalistic or evolutionary worldview, their 'estimations' and 'inferences' would have a certain amount of confirmation bias.
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.
You are assigning limitations to it that do not exist. The purpose of the experiment (as stated in the original document) was: To examine the dynamics of evolution, including the rate of evolutionary change, to examine the repeatability of evolution, and to better understand the relationship between change on the phenotypic and genotypic levels.
It was not attempting to create a crocoduck or some other nonsense.
But the limitations do exist, we just don't know how they 'work'. Lenski's long term experiment shows that. As you said, Lenski's purpose was to examine the dynamics of evolution, (being evolution with a small 'e' rather than Evolution with a big 'E' as in ToE). His experiment has shown that minor changes occur in DNA but that it doesn't or hasn't changed the Family level. Some may claim that it is due to the fact that we haven't observed enough generations for enough changes to accumulate but Lenski's experiment being long term has produced thousands of generations but no change at the Family level. For example and comparison, Lenski used
Escherichia coli which "can divide every 20 minutes. This means that in just 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2,097,152 bacteria.� (
“Bacteria� (2016), Microbiology Online). Bacteria, therefore, would be ideal candidates for studying asexual evolution. After one century of studying bacteria, scientists have seen over 2,600,000 generations of bacteria produced—the equivalent of over 78,000,000 years of human evolution (assuming a 30 year human generation). According to evolutionary timescales, that is the timespan between the appearance of the first primates up to modern humans. In spite of all of that generational time for evolution,
bacteria are still bacteria. Just like 'dogs are still producing dogs' and 'sheep are still producing sheep'.
Another example is
Drosophila melanogaster: the fruit fly. Scientists have been studying them for over a hundred years. Fruit flies take about a week to mature from egg to adult and reproduce, laying up to 500 eggs in a lifetime, thus, producing 50 generations in a year (
link). Over the 100 years of study, since published in Science magazine in 1910, some 5000 generations have been observed. (Try calculating the number of actual fruit fly @ 500 per generation - 500x500x500 . . . . or 5x10
5000). Yet, what have we observed over this period? They have observed multiple mutations . . . . yet, they are still fruit flies. Even by careful selective breeding of various mutations and keeping them alive, they have produced offspring with 4 legs instead of 6; 2 pairs of wings, 1 functional, 1 not; no eyes; 4 eyes; all manner of configurations, most of which needed to be nursed in ordered to survive to maturity, but they are still fruit flies. Also, these mutations were just variations of the existing fruit fly genome, no new information.
Without that naturalistic 'beginning', ToE doesn't kick off.
Why? I know theists that claim their god being started life, and then it evolve however it evolved. That way they don't have to deny the mountains of evidence supporting evolution, yet still get to claim their creator god did it's thing.
Are you one of these 'theists'? If not, you, then, still need to come up with a naturalistic 'beginning'.
As for tackling the life from non-life thing, that's simple. Is there any atom in your body that is alive? No? Than you are clearly "life" from "non-life", are you not?
No, my 'life' came from the existing 'life' of my parents and their 'life' from their parents and . . . . . .
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?
Radiometric dating. The age of the universe. The fossil record. That's a start. Of course common design is only a possible explanation if one can prove that the designer actually exists. I'm not willing to assume that personally. It's not proper to claim a designer made all DNA the same before proving the designer actually exists.
Have you not heard of or studied much of the teleological argument. In scripture it is written as -
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"Â Â Rom 1:19-20 -
- but there are numerous non-scriptural links available.
Have a good day!
Still small