Jump to content

Kevinb

Seeker
  • Posts

    423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kevinb

  1. There is no way too test or demonstrate God involvement or causation. This is why its not rational to assert supernatural claims in anything till you can. The default is not to believe until you've evidential warrant. The default isn't to start believing in supernatural stuff then go looking at evidence.
  2. Rational and ID is science. Well it may be rational if you start by presupposing natural law defying supernatural stuff you can't prove... this is also why it's not science and won't ever be till you can demonstrate God involvement...in this...or anything. You don't get to start by asserting God.. you must demonstrate his causational links. Sorry you can't see this. Yes and to think that I must start by presupposing a God that can't be proven. Then I must pick a certain notion of a God... based upon where I happened to be born.. what religion I happened to be indoctrinated into and when in history I happened to be born. Mmm not too compelling for me.
  3. Yes I saw that... he was subsequently cited on that... he said I should have said mock the belief not the person. This is what he did the whole paragraph but said them. I saw this in convo chat with krauss. It does. By what measure. Even the judge in the dover trial laughed at the intelligent design idea as science. All you have is analogy. This isn't science. This is why evolution is taught as science and creation isn't and never will be. Scientically demonstrate ID.. Seen bill maher interview ken ham..wow..boxed ham into he thinks scientists are sinners.
  4. Highly respected evolutionary biologist... the field you'll see as the enemy as it contractions a presupposition bias you can't prove. Correction... he has said specifically to mock beliefs... not individual people. The same way people here I've seen mock Islam and Mormonism. He'll just do it to all religions. Also he's said many verses are beautifully written.. he reads them often. As well as Christian people aren't bad people and have done many good things.
  5. I saw the Jesus part but you didn't explicitly say you thought it was a sin and still is one yourself... that's not dishonesty. Now you have more precisely clarrified your view... that's what I asked. Dawkins speaks more scientifically than biblical refuting. People like Matt dillahunty are likely more dangerous having exclusively studied it for 25 plus years. Just started watching the atheist experience last couple of weeks...interesting.
  6. Half an eye thing is an old and tired statement. Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following: Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999). Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from. Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white. Visual prosthetics (bionic eyes) with as few as 16 pixels are found to be very useful by people who had become blind (Wickelgren 2006, Fildes 2007). Humans themselves have far from perfect vision: Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.) Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees. Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish. Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees. Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies. Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996). The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range. The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision. Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not. The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above. The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003). Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes. Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other. If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of. Links: Bahar, Sonya, 2002. Evolution of the eye: Lessons from freshman physics and Richard Dawkins. The Biological Physicist 2(2): 2-5.http://www.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletter/jun02.pdf References: Fildes, Jonathan. 2007. Trials for 'bionic' eye implants.BBC News, 2/16/2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6368089.stm Gislén, A. et al., 2003. Superior underwater vision in a human population of sea gypsies. Current Biology 13: 833-836. http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982203002902 See also Pilcher, Helen R., 2003. How to see shells on the sea floor,http://www.nature.com/nsu/030512/030512-14.html Kreimer, Georg, 1999. Reflective properties of different eyespot types in dinoflagellates. Protist 150: 311-323.http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/protist/content/issue3/Pro0021.pdf Wickelgren, Ingrid. 2006. A vision for the blind.Science 312: 1124-1126. Zimmer, Carl, 1996. The light at the bottom of the sea.Discover (Nov.): 62-66,71-73. Zorpette, Glenn, 2000. Looking for Madam Tetrachromat. Red Herring (4 Dec.),http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue86/mag-mutant-86.html (registration required) Unless you mean the eye is too complex to possibly evolve? This is the quintessential example of theargument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). photosensitive cell aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin pigment cells forming a small depression pigment cells forming a deeper depression the skin over the depression taking a lens shape muscles allowing the lens to adjust All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists. Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations. Links: Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html Ever seen the dover trial usa where the biologists debunk a bunk of irreducible complex arguements? Where Christians tried to stop evolution being taught? The bacterial flagellum most famously. In any case how do you demonstrate design and a designer demonstrably? Analogy...assertion... faith? You see that... can you demonstrate he did? In the universe big bang sense?
  7. You kinda dodged? Do you think it a is sin? A leader of a main political party here in the uk said recently it was. Public backlash essentially forced him to resign. Not proving any point there..just out of interest. I see. It's still moral relativism though. However I agree with you he's certainly not loving. Have you heard dawkins description of God based upon his biblical texts? Cited in the God delusion. Many christains say he is loving of course.. God not dawkins☺ Absolutely agree but I wasn't talking about that. Studies of sheep for ex...some rams will not mate with females under any circumstances but readily do with males. Demostrated via a part of hypothalamus closer to female structure than male in males. Anyways probably sheep talk.
  8. I see.. thanks for the view. Seems a bizarre thing for a God to impose on section of the humanity. A holy book sanctioning owning people as property but don't eat shellfish. Ah moral relativism hey. Not a great argument for a loving God. Is homosexuality a sin? If it is why but not subject to a stoning.. how do you know?As a non believer ... non of this is moral under and circumstances. Not homosexual myself but I've no issue. Homosexuality occurs outside of us in other species..its natural and nature..google homosexuality in sheep for example. God made gay sheep... why? Those who think homosexuality is a sin...sheep are sinners? They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses
  9. No, it is rational believe with evidence. If I could prove God's existence, it would no longer be a case of belief. So it's a good thing and better to sit in a position to prefer a belief that you can't prove. Ever been in a jury? Yikes. Not all commandments given in the Bible are for all people, for all time. God gave Israel commandments, some of which were only for Israel and were not intended to be for all people. So later on its okay to eat shellfish and wear mixed fabrics? Has it been updated to say this...where? If not they still can't do this? But we're instructed to kill them right?
  10. So rejecting the secular... what are the stars then? Any evidence to corroberate? Quick search kiwi in big bang evidence lead to this link. Not pasting pages here as volume is massive as you'll see. Hope it helps. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html Incidentally if you think the big bang model is wrong. Doesnt ergo mean another is right. You still need to demonstrate evidence for some alternative or it's one big old arguement from incredulity and or ignorance fallacy.
  11. I am not saying there defo is no God btw. Objectivity... not offended. It's only logical consistency that's needed? ..not enough..you must have evidence and God causation. This isn't demonstrated. You guys are Christian... every religious belief thinks they are right and have logical consistency. The brake discussion...i could just think it's wiring...cable..disks or pads or anything else but I'll not know the reason. It might seem logically consistent I think it's a brake cable but until I can demonstrate with evidence and cause it's not rational to assert the cause. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. This text sounds like day and night to me....prior to sun and stars text. If that's your view then your rational answer should be you have no explanation... you don't know...yet you assert a God did it. In your view gaps you perceive or issues with evolution.. big bang is just more work to be done.. more to learn.. that's a starting point.. adding another layer with God claims opens a whole load more issues on top that we can't even investigate. Evidence adds to theory...microwave background didn't have to be discovered it was a prediction that could have been falsified. If hubble had seen no red shift galaxies or opposite shift then that could have been a problem for big bang theory and could indicate a static universe. Adding religious claims onto explanation has never helped our progress or understanding for centuries of science... in fact it's hindered it...less so now as it's forced to receed or accept. Thankfully people aren't executed for heresy in 2017 as they were..maybe Islam most covered. I'm just not getting the rational on presupposing a God then looking at evidence. Then presupposing one in particular... based on what? Seems kinda obvious it's based on culture... where you were born and what religion you were born into... and where in humanities history till this point you happened to be born. You disregard all the others bar one...i just go one further.... until demonstration and causational links otherwise based upon where and when I happened to be born I could easily be accepting any of them. If you mean I'm arguing against Christianity...i see them all the same for reasons I've said.
  12. That's why its not rational to believe until you can. This applies to other scenarios and claims. To say you have evidence but not proof is contradictory.. the terms are essentially the same. Faith never happens in the absence of evidence. I have evidence for God's existence, but no proof. I don't ever claim to be able to "prove" anything. And again. What you have is observation and data then you assert God did it and does do things still but can't prove that as you've not demonstrated any mechanism or causation to God. I'll look again...ross the old earth creationist and supporter of the big bang as per creation site? Is his view supported in world astronomy and astrophysics? Beware of argument from authority fallacy. http://creation.mobi/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross Well the evidence for brake issue initially is the brake fail 1 time out of 10... then further evidence could be break pads... This is all demonstrable and causation can be shown. This is nothing like faith in a supernatural being that's not demonstrable and causation can't be shown.. kinda false analogy. Agreed. Doesn't mean they are true. Claims need to demonstrated to be true not asserted. Do you eat shellfish .. wear mixed fabrics? I suspect yes. If yes then you pick and choose what to take on board from the bible. What might the bible indicate what witches are? In terms of powers I mean? Do wiccans have powers too.. so this could be demonstrated as they are around in modern times? If no powers we're just killing a portion of the population coz the bible says? Is this moral? We're a bit off thread aren't we. Hope others don't mind a little latitude. I appreciate the discussion Shiloh. I've never really heard the case of God like this. Most others just try to pick holes in current scientific understanding and offer little else.
  13. No, I have evidence. But I can tell that it would be a waste of time to present it, as you have already demonstrated that you will reject it out of hand any way. I simply have no evidence that you would accept. You've only said stuff like God seems more likely..universe is intelligent... there has been no demonstrable link to God.. faith yes. Faith needed in the absence of evidence. Do you mean you have something else? I'll gladly read if you post. I don't dismiss stuff out of hand before reading it. If I had evidence that my brakes were dodgy 9 times outta 10. That might be I hear noises when I applied the brake.. others in the car experienced this... seemingly the braking didn't slow me as before. This is demonstrable and we can look and find a causal link. Yes I'd take my car to the garage. I have confidence in people mending it..i can see the people working on it..i can see qualifications. If they mend my car and it stops failing in this way this increases my confidence in them. This is all demonstrated. It's not blind faith that I couldn't demonstrate. That's why I maintain its not the same faith as you indicate. I can experience my brakes failing...others can verify this...i can investigate a causal link like my brake pad wear for example being the cause of my brake issue. Also that this brake pad wear could be verified by others. Please demonstrate Enoch being 800 plus...please demonstrate virgin birth...please demonstrate God made the planets...please demonstrate any God involvement like i could demonstrate failing brake causation and confidence... not faith because it's demonstrable. Surely you see the difference. I'm sure what I've said on my car is the same thing you do and would agree on. I just conduct everything this way.. no doubt you do. You just have different criteria when it comes to our origins. No errors. Do you believe in witches? Thou say not suffer a witch to live. Don't eat shell fish. Don't wear 2 types of fabric. Anyways more on the thread... the bible creation story. Science supports Adam and eve..a talking snake? Please demonstrate this...Enochs age?
  14. No, evidence-based faith. And yet you can't demonstrate a link..ie no evidence leading to it but assertion and analogy. You have evidence but the conclusion is faith that can't be link demonstrated. Seems that way. Leaps to faith only. Total Equivocation fallacy. I have faith my car will work when I start it you mean? I have a level of confidence based on evidence. For one my car exists. Confidence it will start because it started the last thousand times. My car is serviced based upon a garage that I can see carrying out the work. People who's qualifications are on the wall ..via a college I have seen as have others. How do I need to invoke the supernatural..that I couldn't demonstrate that breaks laws of nature?
  15. I didn't say you had any burden of proof, and I have not claimed to be able to prove God. What I am saying is that you keep attempting to throw out my claims about God, but you so far, haven't offered any satisfactory reason why I shouldn't believe in God How do I falsify the unfalisifiable... something that can't be demonstrated. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. However yes this far I throw them out... You admit you can't prove them.. no one can so I can't throw them in. I don't conduct the rest of my life like this outside of God claims as I suspect you don't. If someone said to you... nothing to do with God here...accept claim x please...i can't prove it..throw out theory based on evidence and have faith... I'm sure you wouldn't.
  16. Yes, that is correct. Biblical faith isn't a leap into the dark. It is evidentiary by nature. Faith always rests on a foundation of evidence. Faith based evidence? Essentially you assert a God involvement... You have no evidence. Statements based on faith and deny theories based on evidence because it conflicts positions based on faith...Mmmmm
  17. Nothing is about what I want...its about what can be demonstrated..or what has evidence to support the claim. You are the one not accepting the evidence.. okay fine... now you assert God is most likely. Then admit you can't prove or demonstrate God. what's your denominator for probability? Not having evidence or believing evidence and an explanation then asserting one anyway to which isn't demonstrable or investigatible is all kinds of fallacious.. I'm not saying there is 100% no God I'm just not believing the claim that a supernatural being exists based on the evidence provided...not investigatible and not scientifically proven isn't then a good basis to reject evidence for an alternative then also I've got to add faith. Faith isn't a pathway to truth... faith is what you need in the absence of evidence to support the claim. What couldn't people believe on faith... fairies? Mohammeds winged horse? Enoch and others were hundreds of years old? I don't think it proves God either. Please demonstrate a designer... you're still in assertion ... analogy... faith. Thanks... that is more like something I can appreciate. This more sums it up for me. In the absence of evidence of involvement then it's faith. Faith isn't a good position to be in for me in this context as if anyone could prove involvement they would... and that would be evidence.
  18. But you have not provided one satisfactory reason to reject the God of the Bible as the best explanation for the universe's existence and its ongoing processes that continue to pretty much work in order and overall uniformity. The burden of proof isn't for me to reject a claim that you can't investigate and demonstrate with imperial evidence...its on you to prove. Ergo the default not being until you prove invisible fairies don't exist in my garden it's true
  19. No, it's not a perception. Biological systems really are very, very complex and yet very ordered. And science depends on that. It's not your perception yet you offer nothing but analogy. You think complexity proves God? Still gotta demonstrate that. Doesn't matter. The point is that Newton and other scientists of his day many of whom formed the foundation of modern science and founded the Royal Society, had no problem accepting that God was the author of the wonders they were discovering. You mean presuppositions prior to darwin and further cosmological understanding. That doesn't help your case it harms it. Before we knew better people presupposed the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe to which everything went around. Let's not forget too what people were subjected to by religion back then when they had evidence which conflicted with doctrine
  20. This statement culminating in the last sentence is a text book description of an argument from incredulity fallacy I'm afraid and this is where I cited it. Google the definition although I did provide it. Basically you don't see how the universe can be the way it is if it wasn't acting intelligently you will just dump in it is acting intelligently by means you admit can't be demonstrated or investigated to.. making it even worse. Also that is an argument from ignorance fallacy...if you think science doesn't know more yet ...therefore God. Sorry you don't see that.
  21. It's not that we cannot investigate God and the claims of the Bible. The problem is that you have already shown that you are not willing to accept, as evidence, any evidence I can provide. You are asking for a type of evidence that neither I, nor anyone else can provide, and I think you are well aware of that. I think you know that you are asking for the impossible and that insulates you from having to do any serious consideration of the evidence that could be be presented to you. There is an intelligence, an order to the universe, right down to the smallest details, like how DNA strings contain information that is unique to each person as to what each person will look like. The DNA strings are far too complex to leave to Evolution. Humanity is intelligent and that intelligence isn't the product of evolution. Evolution cannot explain our ability to conceive and operate in the realm of the abstract, or in the area of morality. The ability to understand self evident truths like freedom, equality, liberty are not the product of evolution. The order and uniformity of the universe is not only evidence of an intelligent Creator, but is needed to do science. Scientists must be able to make predictions and that is true in the field of astronomy. The creation model provides evidence for why the stars and the planets move the way they do. Newton said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but does not explain who put the planets in motion." How is what I said a logical fallacy An arguement from incredulity:The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. Can overlap with an argument from ignorance fallacy too. There have been attempts to investigate scientifically...such as religious foundations funding research into prayer for the sick. Their own research showing its no better than chance or if there had been no prayer. I'm honestly not being deliberately awkward here. You say we can investigate..i agree like the prayer study. I actually want to believe but I need good reasons to do it. You see design because you recognise a perception of order and complexity. Maybe like a car or computer program. However all I see is just analogy because of it. Course we've evidence of cars buildings being intelligently designed and made..factories..blueprints.. tooling marks..maybe we work in manufacture ourselves. Cars don't occur naturally as we can demonstrate... they don't reproduce etc. You think I'm not open to believe. However to acquire a good picture of reality we start with okay I don't know anything let's look at the evidence objectively based on solid reasoning and see where it goes. I see religious people already asserting God or gods based on a book then go looking at reality and evidence. This leads to analogy ..bias and all sorts of things. We can't start our investigation with asserting God... which one... and for what reason? You dismiss the rest.. thousands that are now mythology same as I do..i just go one more until something demonstrable and credible has been put forward. You say the kind of evidence is impossible yes very largely indeed it is...we agree the supernatural God claims can't be investigated so I'd need faith to some degree at least... the belief in the proposition in the absence of evidence.. This isn't how our understanding progresses. We can't go into a lab asserting faith into experiments or we'd be open to incorrect conclusions. Despite this you keep saying the creation model provides evidence..last being that's why planets move the way they do. Again with a sigh what evidence of a God involvement? Assertion.. faith and anology as an answer? On Newton. He had a big God bias of course.. great in his day for sure..a valuable contribution. However his motion of planets wasn't complete.. Google Einstein's general relativity to predict the positions of mercury that Newton couldn't explain.
  22. Why do you say nothing exploded..science doesn't say that. We're only able to investigate a split second afterwards and since. Nice copy and paste btw. There's a lot that's not supported here and fallacious. I'll deal with a couple.. The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The small retrograde satellites of Jupiter and Saturn were probably asteroids captured by the giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to be captured into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side," technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis. Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off-center collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side toward Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus. Orbital motions account for 99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system. A real evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. The moon's surface is ice and newer and more readily resurfaced than rock. Any impacts generate heat and would reform and refreeze. Anyways here's one of many links. http://hagablog.co.uk/demos/enceladus/ There are answers and debunks all over the net go look. I'll not fill pages here. In any case if there are things we don't know... then we don't yet know... look how much has been learnt last 400 years. To say if there is something we don't yet know therefore God did it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The sun? You do understand the sun is a nuclear fusion pressure reactor essentially.. bigger stars forming heavier elements? I'll pay you the respect it's not a flat magic disk however some here do extrapolation from the bible indicting flat earth to think this
  23. That's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity btw.
  24. It's a more rational explanation than anyone else can present. The universe acts intelligently, and that is because there is an intelligence behind it that designed it and sustains it. It is easier to believe that than to believe that it all happens by chance or happenstance. Yep I'm still not getting it's more rational to believe things you can't demonstrate or investigate. How does the universe act intelligently? Can you demonstrate that? We observe a universe so we should see the intelligence... please eloborate
×
×
  • Create New...