why this is important

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

How is the Oort Cloud fact?  It hasn't been seen!

If you believe in God, He was there.  He started it all, so I think I will trust His word on events more than the scientists who *think* they know with no observational evidence for their theory whatsoever.

If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?

 

Point being, you need to be careful how you approach your challenges.

 

 

In any event, I did a search on "is oort cloud fact" and found many references describing the Oort Cloud as "hypothesized" and "disputed." So in essence, even the science community isn't considering it a "fact". If I had the time, that would make for an interesting study, why the Oort Cloud model is the most accepted explanation for where the far reaching comets come from, what other models have been proposed, and why were they not accepted?

 

That's one thing I like about science. It's kind of fun trying to figure out mysteries. It's even fun having preconceived notions turned on their heads. I remember how wow'ed I felt at the discovery that black holes are in the centers of galaxies, including our own. I remember the fascination I felt when I first learned the contention that Pluto fits more in line with the icy dirt-balls orbiting within and beyond Neptune's orbit than it does the other 8 planets of our solar system, and later watching the whole process of the Astronomical Society voting on whether or not Pluto should be re-classified. It was cool!

 

 

Hey Neb,

 

"If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?"

 

Well knowing there are only 2 possible choices for HOW we are here:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD),  I would go about it this way.....

 

You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there!

 

"science" or the "Scientific Method" isn't he only tool we have to ascertain "TRUTH".  We have Intellect (Inductive/Deductive Reasoning, Logic, Critical Thinking Skills, and good ole fashioned Common Sense)  combine these with SOUND Scientific Principles and you have a pretty powerful combination.

 

In this Specific Case......."Specific Complexity" is the overriding factor in the matter.

 

You raise a good point.  There are so many things we see and encounter in the human experience are things that we know intuitvely were made.   When we listen to a to concerto, or sonata we know intutively that it was composed by a person.  We don't assume that the music just fell out of the sky for no reason.   A book, a piece of art, furniture, or technology, whatever it is, we assume a maker or inventer/designer behind it.

 

One of the great mysteries of history is who the builders of Stonehenge were.   No one postulates that the stone monoliths of that structure somehow ended up in their present configuration.   Every scholar works from an assumption that someone built it.  When you look at it you intutively wonder who built it and why.  I have even heard Ph.Ds  resort to suggesting that it was built by extra-terrestrials.

 

We don't have to see or know the maker or inventor to accept his existence, because the things he has made are testimony to his existence.  

 

There is an important rule of logic in play, as well.   The more complex something is, the greater the intelligence needed to make it.   It doesn't as much intelligence to build a birdhouse with popsicle sticks and a glue gun, as it did to build the Golden Gage Bridge.  Our earth is amazingly complex and that's not even counting the biological life.  Just looking at one strand of DNA, it is far more complex than any computer program made today.  The level of intelligence needed to create our earth is simply not even calcuable. 

[gray wolf]

The teleological argument originated before the concept of evolution of course, as an alternative explanation. One thing one must consider with the watchmaker scenario is that If there is a designer, then by necessity all surrounding objects are also designed (rocks, grass, earth). Although objects in nature can be awesome, can we really say a magnificent sand dune for example is designed?

[Enoch2021]

The teleological argument originated before the concept of evolution of course, as an alternative explanation. One thing one must consider with the watchmaker scenario is that If there is a designer, then by necessity all surrounding objects are also designed (rocks, grass, earth). Although objects in nature can be awesome, can we really say a magnificent sand dune for example is designed?

 

You're getting confused between "order" and "Specific Complexity"

"Order" is or can be:   abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune".........   Nature Construct.

"Specific Complexity":  The Declaration of Independence.  "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct.

Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

"If an atheist were to ask you, "How is God fact? He hasn't been seen!" how would you respond?"

 

Well knowing there are only 2 possible choices for HOW we are here:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD),  I would go about it this way.....

 

You're walking down a country road nobody around for miles and you come across a BMW. "MOST" intuitively know that nature didn't create the car there had to be an Engineer (Designer). Even though you will most likely never see the (Designer)....you know HE'S out there!

 

Even considering that a BMW kind of "evolved" from the VW? 

 

 

Hey Fez, Ahh yes.  Is this a Rhetorical Question?

 

If not, I will (if requested) follow the trail back from our metaphorical BMW to the Unicycle (or pieces of said Unicycle)..... from whence it "allegedly" came. 

[anthonyjmcgirr]

There is such things as natural processes.  I believe the Grand Canyon is a result of a natural process.  I've seen a lot of shows on the Discovery Channel (etc) on how they believe it formed.  Every theory involves a massive lake in the area that broke through a natural dam and carved it out slowly over millions of years.  But it can also be explained by a world-wide flood and formed as the waters receded.  They have found marine fossils at the top of the highest mountains, including Everest.  A naturalistic scientist would say, "The mountain ranges raised from the sea over millions of years".  But the creationist would say water covered the earth and during that time, the mountains raised and valleys carved by the water. 

 

So it can all be theorized.  The difference is, a naturalistic scientists has NO observable evidence for how the Grand Canyon formed.  They have NO observational evidence for how the fossils got on top of the mountains.  There exists no observational evidence for an Oort Cloud.  Yet if you looked in a text book, it would be taught as fact to kids.  But creationists can explain all of it from our faith in God.  Comets still exist in the solar system because the solar system isn't billions of years old.  There are MANY flood legends that exist all over the earth and they are identical!  How is that possible?!  Unless...it happened.  The flood happened and the survivors passed the stories down to their kids and so on and God (through the Tower of Babel) separated man and they continued to tell the tale of what happened!  So we have some historical evidence of what happened in the past, but science calls them myths in favor of their own theories.

[anthonyjmcgirr]

[gray wolf]

You mean irreducible complexity as per Michael Behe? I can see drawing a surface comparison between sand castles and the human eye, but there are other mechanisms that may give rise to the latter. I believe in a creator too, but I just don't think the Teleological Argument is iron clad. I don't use it when discussing it with atheists. There are better arguments available.

[Guest shiloh357]

You mean irreducible complexity as per Michael Behe? I can see drawing a surface comparison between sand castles and the human eye, but there are other mechanisms that may give rise to the latter. I believe in a creator too, but I just don't think the Teleological Argument is iron clad. I don't use it when discussing it with atheists. There are better arguments available.

What better arguments?

[other one]

 

 

 

 

Also, there can be only one "CREATOR", more than one is logical absurdity and incoherent

 

actually I think it was the dynamic trio....

 

 

Yes but they are ONE.

 

just as we are one with them.....   as per the prayer of Jesus himself.

[gray wolf]

I think the First Cause Argument is a much better for example. The problem with the watchmaker type argument is that indeed we can see a watchmaker. We can only infer for natural wonders because we did not see the Agent and there may be an alternative explanation. I think the Ontological Argument is rather good too, although it's a little rarified for the average Joe or Jane unbeliever.