To beat a dead horse

[Ovedya]

a) Nobody has ever stated that such conservation laws apply anywhere but inside the universe. While matter and energy were spewed out of the big bang, nobody has made the claim (as nobody has sufficient evidence) that the mass and energy originated there. However, if it has a previous history somewhere outside our universe, it bares no relavence as none of its previous structure could have lasted through the big bang singularity.

I think that you are wrong that nobody has every postulated that matter and energy originated from the "big bang." In fact, according to a paper written by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, "time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." (source)

"Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."

b) The law of conservation of matter (actually mass) and the law of conservation of energy are both obsolete. They've been replaced by a combined law stating that matter and energy (together as one entity) are conserved. You can think of it as (matter + energy) = constant. However, matter can be converted into energy, and energy into matter as we know thanks to Einstein.

That still does not negate the fact that you cannot create matter. You can convert matter into energy and you may be able to convert energy into matter (Although only in theory), but that is still conversion. You cannot create either matter or energy out of nothing. There has to be a source.

And that is where science literally stop dead in its tracks, my friend. That is where faith begins. The "big bang" is just one theory anyway - and it just happens to be the most popular. It is really not proof of anything. Because when it all boils down to it, what are you going to place your trust in? Are you going to place your trust in a bunch of big-brained astrophysicists to tell you how you got here? Or are you going to realize that it's not the how that is nearly as important as the why. Even if humanity someday has a major breathrough and we suddenly understand exactly how we got here - every step of the way, they will still never be able to tell you why we are here. Only faith can explain why we are here.

[Logician]

If he's complete, he has no wants, by definition.  If he has no wants, he has no motivation to do *anything* except exist in a state of completion.  It's in the definition.

I'll save time and say I agree with neb's answer on this.

Okay then. It makes even the love God has sound more like a flaw than the property (or perhaps identity) of a perfect being, though.

Maybe I'm dumb, but I'm confused here  . In order to have free will, wouldn't we have to be able to choose between right and wrong? The whole point of free will is having the freedom to choose between two options right?

As I've always understood Christian teachings on the matter, free will is the ability to choose one's own actions, which Adam and Eve were created with, however they were "unable" to sin as they had no knowledge of good and evil and had no desire to do anything evil, as the concept made no sense to them. What I've heard of the genesis account indicates that the knowledge, and thus basically the tendency to sin (what ever you wish to call it) came with the eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was how sin entered the world through Adam and Eve.

This, however, implies that the eating of the fruit itself was not a sin, as Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil. Even having inquired several times about this when I was still a Christian, I couldn't get a satisfactory answer.

But, anyway, if this isn't your understanding or belief, then we can just drop this issue as an argument of definitions (an invalid argument due to a misunderstanding between participating parties).

However, I'd actually take exception to the stance that we're not just "robots."  We're a bit more unpredictable, (although we wouldn't be to an omniscent God) and composed of neurons and muscles rather than circuitry and motors, and we're more sophisticated than anything we're currently capable of creating, but according to what I believe, we operate on entirely physical principals, which places us just about with robots as biomechanical machines.

If we are basically just 'biomechanical machines' then how do you explain the conscience? If we are nothing more than glorified animals where did we get this basic knowledge of right and wrong?

I actually talked about this in another thread.

I said:

First of all, I'd disagree to the stance that we do know good and evil. No two people will agree completely on what's good and evil, so how can you say that humans "know" good and evil with any true reliability.

However, I believe what we do know of "good and evil" to have been defined along with social conventions, along with the developement of empathy (basically the ability to think what it would be like to be in somebody else's shoes.) We humans are one species who has discovered the need for "strength in numbers," which is why we developed society in the first place. So, we have social conventions against things like murder (however the definition(s) of murder vary), and theft, and such. As well, humans feel empathy (which leads to guilt) for those that they harm, so they tend to avoid doing it.

So, our concept of evil basically what goes against social conventions and causes guilt in the perpetrator.

This is why good and evil vary with culture, religion, and time. It even varies from book to book in the Bible.

From what I understand of the Bible, free will came at Adam and Eve's creation.  Sinful nature (which I've been using interchangeably so far with original sin.  If you wish, I'll adopt a different set of definitions here.) started with the consumption of the fruit.  Is this in line with what you believe?

I would agree, though technically the sinful nature began the moment they purposed in their heart to disobey God.

If Adam was perfectly capable of committing sin from creation, what did eating the fruit even do?

Free will is what God gave Adam and Eve. Sinful nature is what we now all inherit from Adam. Sorry, I'm not that good at these logical discussions.Maybe I'll just be 

I'm just wanting to make sure whether we're having a valid argument, or simply a disagreement of definition.

They knew it was wrong to eat the fruit.Eve told Satan the rules that God had laid out (though she twisted them slightly) - so they obviously knew what God had commanded.By purposely going against the commandment of God they sinned. No one made them eat the fruit, therefore it is their fault. And sin always deserves punishment.

I think this does indicate a difference in definitions. I always understood the tempting of Adam and Eve to eat the fruit to be more like satan (portrayed as the serpent) victemizing Adam and Eve because they had no clue what they were doing was wrong, or even what wrong was.

BTW, if you guys have no objection, I'm going to start making multiple posts in a row in order to answer multiple posts instead of cramming all of my answers into one post and thus causing problems with the quote system.

[Logician]

That doesn't even make sense.The whole thing of evolution is going upward - into more and more complex creatures correct? So then how can this be called 'descent' ?

I mean descent in the same sense as "descendant," not as in more complex creatures becoming less complex.

However, the process of evolution does not always lead to more complex creatures. It only leads to more complex creatures if it's beneficial to the organism to become more complex (and only in the specific way in which it will benefit the organism.)

For instance, when subjected to antibiotics, a bacteria may evolve some quite elaborate mechanisms to create resistance to the antibiotics. However, if the antibiotics are removed and the resistant bacteria is left to sit in a petri dish, the bacteria (or at least some lineages of it) will often evolve "back" to the way they were, as the resistance mechanism usually requires extra energy or resources. So, in a way, the resistant bacteria has evolved to be a less complex, non-resistant form.

Examples seen naturally occurring in nature are cave-dwelling creatures who lose whatever pigment and optical sensors (I say "optical sensors" rather than "eyes" as "eyes" would not account for "eye-spots," which are simply light sensitive spots which "tell" the organism whether its surroundings are lit up, but do not produce a "picture") they have because they are not needed.

In fact, complexity generally (perhaps not universally) requires more resources than does simplicity, so if an organism can get away with it, it will remain simple.

I'm sorry - I didn't explain that well enough. Information only comes from information, which comes from intelligence. So how could there be information (as in what's written in DNA) without an intelligence behind it?

Again, I hesitate to speak in terms of information as no limit is imposed by a lack of such information. You're thinking of the "DNA is a blueprint for an organism" statement too literally.

As well, it's not information that drives evolution, it's "descent with modification" and natural selection which drive evolution.

Let me see if I can put it this way. The American Heratige® Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition defines information as the following:

  1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.

  2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.

  3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.

  4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.

  5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.

  6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

  7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

Obviously definitions 7, 6, and 5 don't apply because they apply only to areas other than evolutionary biology. 4 doesn't apply as it's a verb. 1 and 2 don't apply as they deal with knowledge obtained through study and experience, and evolution is obviously not a process driven by what organisms know. So, the only fairly applicable definition is number 3, which defines information to be a collection of facts or data (not even an organized collection of data.)

Now, data can be generated naturally and without intelligence. (Want proof? Turn on your radio and put the tuner between channels that you recieve in your area and listen to the static. While it's not as if you can recieve messages by listening to static, it most certainly is data.) Seeing as information is simply a collection of data, intelligence isn't required to create information. Not only that, but natural processes would not be hindered or limited by a lack of information. So, the concept of "information" really has no baring on evolutionary biology, which is why I hesitate to even use the two in the same sentence.

With a selective process (as well as other processes), be it natural or artificial selection, new information can be generated.

How? If you're talking natural selection, that only works with info that is already there - as in adaption of species.

No. That's not the case at all. Mutations introduce new data and information to work on, as do other occurrances such as viruses, duplication, and "botched" reproduction (the viruses and botched reproduction as sources of new genetic material apply more to "lower" life forms, but that's not to say it's completely inapplicable to higher life forms), as well as others.

That is not evolution, for they haven't changed into a different species.

Any beneficial change in the phenotype (the expressed/not recessive genetic traits) of an organism due to altered DNA and/or natural selection is evolution by most accepted definitions.

However, another term is defined to address such issues. "Speciation" is defined as the process of members of a single species diverging enough physically, genetically, or biologically enough to disallow reproduction between the descendants of two or more members of the same species, making them by definition two separate species.

In other words, speciation is the process of one species becoming two.

Now, many creationists would use the two separate terms "microevolution" to indicate adaptation within a species and "macroevolution" to indicate "larger" changes, but (from what I've seen) they're both inprecisely defined and imply an artificial division not mirrored in nature.

Again, that is no proof of evolution. All you have is one species ( I believe we are talking birds here? ) changing within itself. There is no gradual change into another. As in, take all the different dog breeds. People point to that and say that is proof of evolution. Is it? No, it's just dogs. Nothing special about them. 

Again, any change, be it within a species or not is evolution. What evolution (often commonly referred to as adaptation, from what I've seen/read) within a species is not is speciation.

As well, you're demonstrating another common misconception here. It's not that one species gradually changes into another which causes speciation. It's usually that two "subspecies" (commonly referred to as strains, or breeds, etc...) become too "different" to be capable of reproducing with eachother without producing a hybrid (such as a mule) or when the "middle" members of a ring species (more on ring species later...) die off leaving two groups of reproductively incompatible organisms. In fact, the ability to reproduce with another creature (without producing a hybrid) or not is what defines whether they are members of the same species or not. It's not that a creature becomes sufficiently different from its distant ancestors to be considered a different species than its distant ancestors. It's that it becomes sufficiently different from its "distant cousins" to be incapable of reproducing with them (without producing a hybrid).

Now, at this point, what you're really asking for (or denying the existence of) is evidences/instances of speciation. Now, I could tell you about the diatom "Rhizosolenia" whose speciation is quite astoundingly demonstrated by plotting age (determined by radiocarbon dating) to the height of its' hyaline area in nanometers, but I'm sure it would be much more effective to give you instances of speciations currently in process and those that have been observed pretty much within a human life span. Then I'll give some other instances from the fossle record and such (if I have time).

The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull (I may have mentioned them earlier, but boy was I off on the species names. ), both found in Europe, but not able to interbreed, form what's known as a ring species here in the United States and Canada. Here's what I mean.

If you go to Canada, you find that the only gulls you see in the wild are the herring gulls. However, as you move west (to Alaska and eventually Siberia), you notice that the same birds begin to look darker and darker until it can be classified as the lesser black-backed gull. The ones in North America cannot reproduce with the ones in Siberia, but they can reproduce with the ones in Alaska. As well, the ones in Siberia cannot reproduce with the ones in North America, but they can reproduce with the ones in Alaska. So, they're not really two species, but they're not really one either. It's more of a spectrum, as you'll find gulls at all points "between" the black-backed lesser gulls and the herring gulls.

Now, all that it would take to settle completely whether or not they're one species or two is some catastrophy in Alaska. Perhaps a hard freeze (who am I kidding? it's Alaska. ) to kill off all of the fish in that area. Perhaps a glacier moving into Alaska. This would kill off the "middle" members, leaving the extremes as separate species, which is an instance of speciation.

As well, dogs are starting to form a ring species. The smaller dogs have become too biologically different from the larger dogs to effectively reproduce anymore. Often a litter of St. Bernards and Chiwawa will miscarry completely. However, a Chiwawa may be able to breed with, say, a tarrier, and a tarrier with a St. Bernard. Technically, it's possible that domestic dogs may speciate over time.

I'll give some examples not involving ring species later, but yet again I'm staying up pretty late.

"Just as letters of the alphabet will not write the Annals of Ennius by themselves, the DNA letters will not form meaningful sequences on their own. And just as the Annals would be meaningless to a person who didn

[Fiosh]

Quote from Logician:

"In fact, complexity generally (perhaps not universally) requires more resources than does simplicity, so if an organism can get away with it, it will remain simple."

ergo..........MEN!

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Forgive me?

[nebula]

LOL at Fiosh!

********************************************************************

Logician -

As I'm reading some of the things you have said, it would seem that you are basing disbeliefs in God on the basis of not being able to find or be given good, reasonable or rational explanations for them.

Is that good logic?

I mean, after all, how many things in science are accepted without being understood?

If he's complete, he has no wants, by definition.

[Gerioke]

The anime topic is doomed to oblivion I take it.

I'm positive I saw japanese cartoons in the 60s. Mind you I am in Canada.

[Logician]

Logician -

As I'm reading some of the things you have said, it would seem that you are basing disbeliefs in God on the basis of not being able to find or be given good, reasonable or rational explanations for them.

Is that good logic?

I mean, after all, how many things in science are accepted without being understood?

Okay.

The God of the Bible is a logical impossibility. I will assert that he cannot exist. (Or, if he does, the Bible is completely incorrect about it's description of him).

There is, however, the possibility that another/other god(s)/force(s) exist(s), as I've stated in other threads.

However, by Occam's Razor, one should not take the position that there is/are (a) god(s)/supernatural force(s) unless one finds evidence to the effect that there is/are such things, just as one does not conclude that something exists without any evidence that it indeed does.

This has to do with weak atheism. A weak atheist simply states that he has no or not enough evidence to conclude that (a) god(s)/supernatural force(s) exist(s), and thus takes the default position of "not existant until proved existant."

A strong atheist believes with conviction that that no god(s)/supernatural force(s) exist(s) as they are logically and/or scientifically impossible.

As for me, I wouldn't classify myself in either of these two categories. I certainly don't see any evidence that the supernatural exists, so that would definitely qualify me to be a weak atheist.

However, as to whether I am a strong atheist or not depends on the definition of "god" the asker uses. I don't have any evidence to conclude that it is not technically possible (although not substantiated) that beings and/or forces of supernatural nature do indeed exit, however "god" by most definitions is a logically impossible concept. However, I believe that any possible (and non-contradictory) supernatural beings would be sufficientally different from most definitions of "god" to make me a strong atheist.

However, depending on your definitions of "god" and "supernatural," you might be able to call me a weak atheist.

Let me repeat myself:

Perfection and completeness have nothing to do with what one possesses.

If you have truly studied religions like you said you have, you should have known this.

I know what the religion(s) believe(s), but this belief could not logically prove true.

Or do you need the dictionary version:

Perfect

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.

5b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.

7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.

Your rebuttal came out sounding like: "Your description of God is contrary to my ideal of what God should be; therefore, God does not exist.

Yeah - real logic there.

From what I've seen, a literal interpretation of the Bible demands that God is wantless.

Take Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The Greek word for "perfect" here is "telios," whose definition is "Brought to an end, finished, wanting nothing necessary to completeness, perfect" according to Thayer's Greek Lixicon.

I was thinking this might also be an argument of definition, but the Bible is quite clear on the definition of "perfect" and the fact that perfection implies completeness.

So, if God is complete without us, he has no reason to create us.

Or, is God complete without us? If he's not, then somehow creating us was a condition of being a God. Before he did so (well... before doesn't really apply as time is a construct of our universe, and if God existed, he'd not be bound by "time" but...), he apparntly wasn't God by the definitions the Bible gives.

As I've always understood Christian teachings on the matter, free will is the ability to choose one's own actions, which Adam and Eve were created with, however they were "unable" to sin as they had no knowledge of good and evil and had no desire to do anything evil, as the concept made no sense to them.  What I've heard of the genesis account indicates that the knowledge, and thus basically the tendency to sin (what ever you wish to call it) came with the eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was how sin entered the world through Adam and Eve.

This, however, implies that the eating of the fruit itself was not a sin, as Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil.  Even having inquired several times about this when I was still a Christian, I couldn't get a satisfactory answer.

You know how for the longest time scientists argued over whether or not light is a wave or a particle?

One side argued that light is a wave based off these experiments.

The other side argued that light is a particle based off these other experiments.

Finally, scientists began to accept that light is both - or at least acts like both - even though no one could understand or explain the phenomenon.

They just accepted that there must be some explanation for this occurance that they just had not discovered yet.

And so they began searching for that explanation to explain this phenomenon.

And thus quantum and photons became a part of scientific understanding.

My point?

Lack of an explanation or an answer does not necesarily invalidate an occurance - it just means no one found the answer yet - or bothered looking for one.

Are you saying that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of sin, but it's somehow still their fault, you just don't know how? Or did your point apply to a different part of that quote?

Most Christians wouldn't know the answer to your question because most haven't bothered asking.  They prefer to think "as is" and leave it at that.

So.... is salvation a proper justification for ignorance?

But in fact, some - yes, some Christians do enjoy looking deeper - have looked deeper into the account for that better understanding.

Are you open to hearing some of these?

I am willing to share if you are interested in listening! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Certainly! Lay 'em on.

[Gerioke]

What happened to the cartoons?

[Logician]

Log - You have never answered my questions that were addressed to you on the *Speed of light* thread (see post #36)

Edited May 13, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

...which is rooted in a shallow, nearly complete misunderstanding of what Christianity is, whether it is from the historical, doctrinal or personal experience viewpoint.

On what do you base this?

It's not as if there isn't a nearly limitless number of other factors which may or may not have caused the disdain you have so kindly diagnosed me with.

But, do me a favor, will you? Tell me, what is Chrstianity?

And, don't confuse analytical with disdainful.

Your posts also reveal that your experience with Christianity has been completely negative...

No. Actually, it's gotten me through quite a few very difficult times and experiences. In the past, it has given me a reason not to care when bad things happen, time set aside to spend time with my family, and even the discipline to learn an instrument, among other things.

...and your education regarding it has been uniformly poor.

Perhaps my education regarding your understanding of Christianity has been uniformly poor, but I assure you, I've studied quite a great deal of theology and participated in many Bible studies over the years.

Or do you mean education in a different sense?

Not good characteristics of an open