- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Such people who believe that the universe itself, formed the earth, other planets, stars and galaxies, in fact the whole universe including the atomic world may be fools, but they are also ignoring the fact that the ingredients had to come from somewhere in the first place, which only makes the odds much greater. The only alternative to chance is constructive design and enlightened people understand that where there is design, there is always a designer.
We know that subatomic particles formed as a result of a separation of baryons and anti-baryons. Hydrogen is the result of subatomic particles forming atoms a short time after the big bang. We know that stars of the size of our sun can fuse hydogen to make elements as heavy as iron. We know that the atoms that make up our planets, and indeed our own bodies were not formed in our sun but the outer layers of a nearby supernova that formed a planetary nebula that was attracted into solar orbit and underwent accretion to give the planets. There is no designer needed in that explanation. To add one is to make the situation pointlessly more complex, with no evidence on which to suppose it is true.What is this Theory of Constructive Design? What divine meddling happened before the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang that marks the beginning of our knowledge?
This heavennet mythology is feeble in the face of the astonishing truth.
Stuart
Quote We know that subatomic particles formed as a result of a separation of baryons and anti-baryons. Hydrogen is the result of subatomic particles forming atoms a short time after the big bang. We know that stars of the size of our sun can fuse hydogen to make elements as heavy as iron. We know that the atoms that make up our planets, and indeed our own bodies were not formed in our sun but the outer layers of a nearby supernova that formed a planetary nebula that was attracted into solar orbit and underwent accretion to give the planets. There is no designer needed in that explanation. To add one is to make the situation pointlessly more complex, with no evidence on which to suppose it is true. What is this Theory of Constructive Design? What divine meddling happened before the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang that marks the beginning of our knowledge?
JOB 38:33
“Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens,stu, listen. although some believe God planted each piece of grass, the Bible does not say this.
All the things you describe above could only happen because of certain laws and how those laws were defined.
I guess if there was an infinite series of universes, forming, then collapsing, that it is possible that this one somehow got it right. On the other hand, if this was the only universe ever to exist, then we have to ask why the four forces somehow seem so finely tuned so that the universe could even exist.The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed; had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.—The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7.
Quote Hydrogen is the result of subatomic particles forming atoms a short time after the big bang.
If the strong nuclear force were 2% weeker, only hydrogen could exist. If it were slightly stronger, only heavier elements could exist–no hydrogen.So my question is: Do you believe in the god of miraculous improbability?
Why are the laws just so?
Hi David
More than anyone here, you are Douglas Adams's puddle surprised at how well you fit your hole. The chlorophyll example is particularly bad. The effectiveness of chlorophyll is perfectly explained by the principle of evolution by natural selection. As for the universe 'getting it right', your 'if' about how many universes might have tried to form is a religious question as it currently falls outside empirical science so none of us can make any intelligent conclusion. It would not be particularly a problem to me if this was the first universe 'attempt' and it happened right first time. We also don't know that an alternative synthesis of matter and physical laws is impossible. If you change two constants at the same time, maybe you get something different but equally able to result in planets and people by blind processes. All we know is how it happened this time. We have not done that alternative experiment.
Stuart
Quote We also don't know that an alternative synthesis of matter and physical laws is impossible. Right. Without a complete understanding of the universe, it's very hard to say anything is impossible. But we can say it's highly improbable. Do you not think it is highly improbable?
Quote your 'if' about how many universes might have tried to form is a religious question as it currently falls outside empirical science so none of us can make any intelligent conclusion. It would not be particularly a problem to me if this was the first universe 'attempt' and it happened right first time. So if something is currently impossible for science to know, it is considered a religious question. I”m sure the real scientists would disagree with you. How would any scientific progress be made?
Quote More than anyone here, you are Douglas Adams's puddle surprised at how well you fit your hole.
I'm thinking that's because most people on here couldn't even name the four fundamental forces. When you study their strength and their relative strenghts compared to each other, they seem CHOSEN, or at least, highly highly precise so that the universe itself could exist.Quote We know that subatomic particles formed as a result of a separation of baryons and anti-baryons. Hydrogen is the result of subatomic particles forming atoms a short time after the big bang. We know that stars of the size of our sun can fuse hydogen to make elements as heavy as iron. We know that the atoms that make up our planets, and indeed our own bodies were not formed in our sun but the outer layers of a nearby supernova that formed a planetary nebula that was attracted into solar orbit and underwent accretion to give the planets. There is no designer needed in that explanation. To add one is to make the situation pointlessly more complex, with no evidence on which to suppose it is true. Stu no matter how you put it, how you spin it, and how many scientific terms are used, if you say that there is no creator of the cosmos, then you might as well believe that houses can build themselves, or cakes can make themselves. All you are really doing at best is describing how God designed the Cosmos, at worst you are completely deluded and rambling on about vain imaginations and promoting them with certainty even though you weren't there and the theories change all the time. I mean how inaccurate is human history? We know it is not accurate and yet if we cannot understand the full truth of our own history, what chance do we have with things many times more complex?
Anyway Stu, here is how your theory sounds:
We know that wood planks formed as a result of a separation of tree trunks and branches. Logs are the result of tree trunks forming planks a short time after the big tree crash. We know that piles of logs the size of 5 container loads can produce enough wood for one house. We know that the trunks that make up our forests…
You get the idea.
You and others believe that amazing things can happen without a creator or designer, and that non-intelligence can come up with better stuff than intelligence with the aid of super computers etc. Whereas others including myself believe that singularities don't just pop out of nothing and produce universes and life and all that they contain.
It boils down to creator or not.
Some people say God is a fairytale, but no God gets the gold medal for fairytales Stu.
You are basically at best describing something similar to how you think a cake is baked, but then conclude that no one baked the cake because you understand how it happened, i.e., flour was mixed with milk and eggs and the substance fused together in 350 degrees and started to rise, therefore no need for a baker or cook. It matters not how accurate the description if you then turn around and say that no one baked the cake, because by saying that no one baked the cake, you are saying something so foolish that it gives you no credibility with those who know that someone had to have baked the cake.
Hi David
Quote Right. Without a complete understanding of the universe, it's very hard to say anything is impossible. But we can say it's highly improbable. Do you not think it is highly improbable?
I can’t calculate that probability. No one can. We have not done the experiment, remember? Modern science beats Greek philosophy because we try things out. Speculation on its likelihood is a bit pointless, don’t you think? Would you like it to be improbable?Quote So if something is currently impossible for science to know, it is considered a religious question. I”m sure the real scientists would disagree with you. How would any scientific progress be made?
I don’t generalise the case. This is a specific example of speculation outside our empirical parameters. It is religious in the same way that string theory is. We cannot see particles that small without using so much energy that you would form a black hole.
Quote I'm thinking that's because most people on here couldn't even name the four fundamental forces.
True. t8 might rival you for obsessively detecting design in the absence of design but I don’t think he has the first clue about strong and weak nuclear forces and electrical and gravitational ones.Quote When you study their strength and their relative strenghts compared to each other, they seem CHOSEN, or at least, highly highly precise so that the universe itself could exist.
They seem chosen to someone who just must see a chooser no matter what!Stuart
Hi professor t8
Quote Stu no matter how you put it, how you spin it, and how many scientific terms are used, if you say that there is no creator of the cosmos, then you might as well believe that houses can build themselves, or cakes can make themselves.
That is not true. We have been over this ad nauseam. Just because some objects are designed by us and we are used to complex things that we have made does not mean that all complex things arise by design. There is no logic there at all.Quote All you are really doing at best is describing how God designed the Cosmos, at worst you are completely deluded and rambling on about vain imaginations and promoting them with certainty even though you weren't there and the theories change all the time.
If there is one thing I stand by it is the necessity to drop certainty as it is a useless philosophy. We have been through the ‘you weren’t there’ and ‘the theories change all the time’ stuff. Why do you need to relitigate it?Quote I mean how inaccurate is human history? We know it is not accurate and yet if we cannot understand the full truth of our own history, what chance do we have with things many times more complex?
Well exactly. I wish bible believers would think that way. The gospels are nearly as reliable as historical fiction. Of course with all history, the question is who wrote the history?Quote Anyway Stu, here is how your theory sounds: We know that wood planks formed as a result of a separation of tree trunks and branches. Logs are the result of tree trunks forming planks a short time after the big tree crash. We know that piles of logs the size of 5 container loads can produce enough wood for one house. We know that the trunks that make up our forests… You get the idea.
No, I don’t. That is exactly what I am not saying. You are again deceitfully conflating design and natural unguided mechanisms by way of false analogy. We have disscussed your propensity to make up fatuous analogies that do not apply to the situation under discussion. Do you need to relitigate that as well?Quote You and others believe that amazing things can happen without a creator or designer,
Yes. Actually it is a belief based in real physical evidence. Unlike your belief.Quote and that non-intelligence can come up with better stuff than intelligence with the aid of super computers etc.
Bats have navigational engineering that makes our sonar and radar look primitive. That says nothing about how the bats came to be armed with that technology. Complexity is explained completely by Darwin. What is there left to say? The special pleadings of the religious without any special evidence for them? Spare me!Quote Whereas others including myself believe that singularities don't just pop out of nothing and produce universes and life and all that they contain.
You have a religious view of the ‘singularity’. I think you use the word in the hope people will think you understand what it means.Quote It boils down to creator or not.
OK. Not. There is no good reason to believe it. I reserve that tiny uncertainty that you could be right. I have not shut the door to the converse possibility like you have. What do you fill that tiny chink of possibility with t8? Compelling evidence? A cogent and watertight argument? Not a single shred of it. All we get from you is analogies for design that do not apply.Quote You are basically at best describing something similar to how you think a cake is baked, but then conclude that no one baked the cake because you understand how it happened, i.e., flour was mixed with milk and eggs and the substance fused together in 350 degrees and started to rise, therefore no need for a baker or cook. It matters not how accurate the description if you then turn around and say that no one baked the cake, because by saying that no one baked the cake, you are saying something so foolish that it gives you no credibility with those who know that someone had to have baked the cake.
…and again…What will the next one be, t8? Maybe that it is foolish to think that if you dropped a box of piano parts from 10,000 feet up a piano would assemble and tune itself prior to hitting the ground?
You have not addressed the fact that we have a comprehensive description of exactly how atoms, stars and planets came to be the way they are. We can reproduce most of those processes and they are spontaneous. Since we can do the same physics ourselves at will there is obviously nothing particularly special about any creator you might care to spirit into existence.
Heavenet cosmology fails.
Stuart
Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2008,02:31) it only fails for stu, and really, thats no big deal…. 
If you can't articulate why it is fine for everyone else then can I suggest you speak for yourself? Do you actually have anything concrete to contribute to the discussion?Stuart
Heavennet cosmology is a joke?
If Heaven cosmology is “God created the Cosmos” then that isn't a joke, rather it is the most likely explanation and couple that with experience with God and you have the truth.
I take it that Stuology is that a banana popped out of nothing with a few transitions on the way. And that is not a joke Stu?
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2008,23:19) What will the next one be, t8? Maybe that it is foolish to think that if you dropped a box of piano parts from 10,000 feet up a piano would assemble and tune itself prior to hitting the ground?
Isn't that your argument?I believe the piano was created. I also believe that the cosmos was created. I see the design. It seems quite obvious to me that both were created.
But I do think that pieces of a piano falling out of sky have more chance of essembly then all the bits that make up the cosmos. I mean a piano is so small in comparison with so few parts.
Yup. Thought so. You are effectively arguing that there is no difference between a designed object and a non-designed one, because there is no such thing as a non-designed object. So much for ID, it is irrelevant!
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 11 2008,23:43) I take it that Stuology is that a banana popped out of nothing with a few transitions on the way. And that is not a joke Stu?
Did you know that if you peel a banana from the bottom instead of the top, all the stringy things come off with the peel. And that is not a joke. Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 12 2008,23:53) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 11 2008,23:43) I take it that Stuology is that a banana popped out of nothing with a few transitions on the way. And that is not a joke Stu?
Did you know that if you peel a banana from the bottom instead of the top, all the stringy things come off with the peel. And that is not a joke. Tim
Which is how people in many parts of the world do indeed peel a banana, and is how most other apes do it too.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 12 2008,18:53) Yup. Thought so. You are effectively arguing that there is no difference between a designed object and a non-designed one, because there is no such thing as a non-designed object. So much for ID, it is irrelevant! Stuart
Yup thought so. You are blind to the design in the Cosmos.You think that because the creator of one is not visible that he doesn't exist.
Ha ha. Look around you, it is glaringly obvious. He left an almost infinite amount of evidence.
But sure, go right ahead. Bananas just popped out of nothing with a number of transformations on the way, or it came from some kind of thing that has existed for all eternity but is not alive, even though this dead thing somehow spawned life.
Yeah right Stu. Your evidence just is not compelling in anyway, because your fundamentals are a little mental and a bit of fun too. But just can't take it seriously Stu.
t8
What is the difference between a designed object and a non-designed one? Your post is a nonsense unless you can explain it.
Stuart
Look up the word design in the dictionary.
Are you arguing that there is no design in the cosmos?
Hmm. Is that why NASA and the US military get inspiration from insects and how they fly.
They get their designs from non-design? Yet the non-designed stuff seems to have better designs than the designed stuff.
Hey Stu, I just noticed in your signature that you said “The white tile remains unexplained by the mods”.
Have you thought about the possibility that your avatar is evolving and perhaps the white tile reflects just enough heat away for the icon to remain at an optimum cyber-temperature.
I mean anything is possible in Evolution. You just need to believe it is possible.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 16 2008,14:46) Hey Stu, I just noticed in your signature that you said “The white tile remains unexplained by the mods”. Have you thought about the possibility that your avatar is evolving and perhaps the white tile reflects just enough heat away for the icon to remain at an optimum cyber-temperature.
I mean anything is possible in Evolution. You just need to believe it is possible.
No T8,That is not evolution. Evolution is when the tile evolves into a circle because a circle is stronger than a square.
Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
