Theism Analogy: Living Rocks of Death Valley

[boatsnguitars]

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

[1213]

I had a quick look today and this is more or less the informed comment on wind farms killing whales....

I can't wait to see the informed comment after 70 years. After all, also smoking was good according to experts at one point in time. However, even if wind farms would not be a problem for whales, I think they are not reasonable and they are probably pushed only because some politicians benefit from them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Smoking was presented as healthy, happy and got the girls because it made money. Even now, governments are happy to take hefty taxes from it. it was medical science that pushed health issues in smoking against vested interests. That rather reverses what you were trying to argue doesn't it?

It's a not unfamiliar slip, isn't it? From Piltdown man to the Chinese fossil, science - skeptics, usually from an religious or alternative history point, accuse science of getting it wrong, when it was rather popular media that announced the claim and it was science that refuted it. You tell me - why do you keep doing it wrong? Quite apart from the 'grab bag' apologetics method - you get refuted on one point, you go to find some other science - debunker. I am familiar with this false apologetics method.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #17

Ancient ET technology

.

ADVANCED technology. A different argument, and nothing science has shown us as impossible/supernatural.

Conflating in this case, only makes straw, easily blown aside.

Yes, but the point is the same - science skepticism. A Supernatural answer rather than a scientific one. And the purpose is always the same - to try to make religious (a cosmic creative mind) or cult (gods from outer space) claims look more credible by debunking science. Usually by 'Science can't explain this!' like the sliding rocks puzzle.

Again, you conflate.
Scientists can't explain all magic tricks performed by magicians, but this in itself does not mean that we should automatically "debunk science" just because of materialist scientists, or how materialist scientists choose to use science.
My point stands, because I clearly wrote that advanced technology is "nothing science has shown us as impossible/supernatural." Clearly the process shows us how human technology advances, so that in itself supports the idea of advanced technology as a possible answer, even if most scientists choose to balk at the idea - they have yet to apply science to debunk it.

Until then, advanced technology stays on the table, despite efforts from materialists or supernaturalists to erroneously remove it - even from their own list of things to consider.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #17

Ancient ET technology

.

ADVANCED technology. A different argument, and nothing science has shown us as impossible/supernatural.

Conflating in this case, only makes straw, easily blown aside.

Yes, but the point is the same - science skepticism. A Supernatural answer rather than a scientific one. And the purpose is always the same - to try to make religious (a cosmic creative mind) or cult (gods from outer space) claims look more credible by debunking science. Usually by 'Science can't explain this!' like the sliding rocks puzzle.

Again, you conflate.
Scientists can't explain all magic tricks performed by magicians, but this in itself does not mean that we should automatically "debunk science" just because of materialist scientists, or how materialist scientists choose to use science.
My point stands, because I clearly wrote that advanced technology is "nothing science has shown us as impossible/supernatural." Clearly the process shows us how human technology advances, so that in itself supports the idea of advanced technology as a possible answer, even if most scientists choose to balk at the idea - they have yet to apply science to debunk it.

Until then, advanced technology stays on the table, despite efforts from materialists or supernaturalists to erroneously remove it - even from their own list of things to consider.

No. While conjuring tricks can look so convincing that we have the thought pop up 'This must actually be magic'. The materialist view obtains: "This is a trick, even if I don't know how it's done'. Materialism works the same way. We do NOT accept claims of ET advanced technology, even if the data was totally unexplained.

In fact much is now explained, from Egyptian stone cutting and shifting to Inca platinum working, though the astonishing Inca stone - cutting is still a puzzle, but, if they had flying saucer pilots around when Pizarro was storming Sacsayhuaman while the Inca were still building it, they seem to have vanished, like God being asked to save Christians being buried in a collapsing church. Inexplicable stonework, but no advanced weapon, at least.

So your argument fails and for the usual reason - theistic inversion of logic. Thus, while ancient ET technology could be proven with decent evidence, and that would be very cool and (like the supernatural) would become the purview of science who would ignore the aggrieved cries of 'Hey - that was the claim for the science skeptics - you should push off and let fairthbased guesswork replace it!" At present you rclaim is wrong and ET technology is not even really on the table, let alone the default theory. It is at best a few unexplained puzzles.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

At least you agree now that science isn't scientists and advanced technology isn't supernatural. I am heartened that you have chosen to refrain from conflating those.

Not sure where you got the idea that advanced technology meant "ET"...I never argued that myself so see no point in responding to your straw re that.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

At least you agree now that science isn't scientists and advanced technology isn't supernatural. I am heartened that you have chosen to refrain from conflating those.

Not sure where you got the idea that advanced technology meant "ET"...I never argued that myself so see no point in responding to your straw re that.

I may have not understood that you were not proposing ET ancient technology as a form of 'supernatural claim. You could be talking about ancient sea empires, Atlantis and Mayan pyramids built by Egyptians. Though that often included flying saucer pilots with ET technology, not the supposed advanced technology of the Atlanteans. However, we must be mindful of the forum we are in and keep it relevant to religious claims, even if only trying to discredit science so as to try to make God -claims look more valid.

Whether you respond or not I'm making the point.

[1213]

Smoking was presented as healthy, happy and got the girls because it made money. Even now, governments are happy to take hefty taxes from it. it was medical science that pushed health issues in smoking against vested interests. That rather reverses what you were trying to argue doesn't it?

I don't think it reverses my argument that is, "experts" can say things that are not true. And in this case certain people can get lot of money from the industry and they don't necessary have reason to tell the truth.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

I may have not understood that you were not proposing ET ancient technology as a form of 'supernatural' claim.

Yes, you may have. My argument is really to say that supposed "supernatural" claims (claims assumed to be true for the sake of argument) need not derive from a supposed "supernature" source if natural answers can explain the same claims.

[boatsnguitars]

I had a quick look today and this is more or less the informed comment on wind farms killing whales....

I can't wait to see the informed comment after 70 years. After all, also smoking was good according to experts at one point in time. However, even if wind farms would not be a problem for whales, I think they are not reasonable and they are probably pushed only because some politicians benefit from them.

Wow. OK, for one, the "scientists" that proclaimed smoking was good were paid for by cigarette companies.

And, please note, the Republican Party defended the Cigarette companies until the day they died - literally.

The scientists that weren't paid off by the cigarette companies didn't claim cigarettes were good.

But, even if they did, that's how science works.

Where does the Bible talk about the health ramifications of tobacco?

As for wind farms, make your case on what material processes are at play that would affect whales. I am not suggesting there is no way wind farms can or can't affect whales, but there is no evidence that they do affect whales - so bring the evidence.

The worst part about this is that a Christian thinks they've gained the upper hand by bringing up smoking. They think they've made a great argument. This is the intellectual gap that exists between Religionists and Scientists. They simply can't even formulate decent arguments to make their case. They think a simple "gotcha" is enough to refute facts.

They think that if they say "science isn't always right" it means the Religionist is always right. It's pathetic and should be called out.

Note: This touches on our "Experts" conversation. We all know where this goes. Eventually, we will all have to rely on experts - except the Religionists who will decide experts aren't experts. They will decide their beliefs are all they need to prove or disprove things.

[TRANSPONDER]

Smoking was presented as healthy, happy and got the girls because it made money. Even now, governments are happy to take hefty taxes from it. it was medical science that pushed health issues in smoking against vested interests. That rather reverses what you were trying to argue doesn't it?

I don't think it reverses my argument that is, "experts" can say things that are not true. And in this case certain people can get lot of money from the industry and they don't necessary have reason to tell the truth.

It's like atheism contrasted with individual atheists. The actions of individual atheists or scientists do not discredit the method itsewlf. And it seems to me that you simply ignored that it was scientists that argued against the marketing, no matter that the marketers quotes pet scientists that were mistaken or just producing data that the tobacco company required. I doubt you would find a peer reviewed paper on the healthy beneficial effects of smoking.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

I may have not understood that you were not proposing ET ancient technology as a form of 'supernatural' claim.

Yes, you may have. My argument is really to say that supposed "supernatural" claims (claims assumed to be true for the sake of argument) need not derive from a supposed "supernature" source if natural answers can explain the same claims.

This is semantic dickering.Bigfoot would be perfectly natural - Ghosts would be perfectly natural - if proven, researched and published. Until then 'Supernatural'covers things like alternative science and alternative history, since they are outside the validation of science at present.