Origin, Philosophy & Atheism (critical thought) - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-26-2007, 07:54 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Challenge for Atheists

I have something I like to throw out there for atheists to get their logic/philosophy/viewpoint. This thread is philosophical, not scientific.

Foundation:
Science admits that it does not comment on what it cannot test (including other dimensions like heaven, and including what created matter itself so that there cold be a big bang, assuming that theory is accurate). Science only comments on the physical, and admits that it only theorizes on the origin of all things, because with out witnessing it first hand, one cannot know something for certain. Atheists choose to believe there is no God, and have no proof to show this, Agnostics simply choose to not make a choice and don’t know if there is a God, and Theists choose to believe in a God without physical evidence.

Logical Deduction About Origin:
Everything (except one thing) must have a beginning. And if everything has a beginning, it must have been created. And if it was created, it must have a creator. What is created is not eternal (ie. - Has not always existed). The source of all things must be eternal in nature, having always existed (otherwise, he/it too would have been created by something else). Therefore, philosophically, there must be an eternal creator who has always existed, that created everything and is all powerful.

Question:
How is it possible for someone to get around this fact? Explain how everything exists without having something or someone to cause the existence.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO

Last edited by BrianC; 10-30-2007 at 07:18 PM.
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-26-2007, 08:20 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
subscribing......sent you a PM Brian

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #3 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-30-2007, 07:19 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
No takers?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
 
post #4 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-30-2007, 08:31 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?
FSON is offline  
post #5 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-30-2007, 08:47 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?
Asking a question like that, does nothing but reveal ignorance and your weak quest to try to sound like a Mason.
Denny is offline  
post #6 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 08:25 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Asking a question like that, does nothing but reveal ignorance and your weak quest to try to sound like a Mason.
I know very little about the Masonic group and I am not a Mason so there is no act of trying on my part (non reflexive).
FSON is offline  
post #7 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 10:36 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
I know very little about the Masonic group and I am not a Mason so there is no act of trying on my part (non reflexive).
Ya, OK. Here's exhibit B.

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=339698
Denny is offline  
post #8 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 10:38 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Exhibit C.

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=336430

Are you really trying to make people think you know something or do you really have something to share?
Denny is offline  
post #9 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:34 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
I watched a great show the other night with Lee Strobel. It was called Case for a Creator. Apparently, the chance is too overwhelming rare for our existence. It's like one of those fraction of a fraction of a billion zillion eleventy trillionths! So scientists, in an effor to justify our existence, are saying that there must be "parallel universes". But, in the same vein as FSON's question, there is still the same question, "What, then, is the origin of those universes?"

I just don't see how science can entertain all these crazy unsubstantiated ideas (parallel universes), but totally shoot down God when there is only evidence that He exists. Nothing was created without Him. How tall will the Scientific Version of the Tower of Babel grow? That's cool, and now I see science in a new way. Like people, separated by color /race and language. Science is separated and classified; with the "holy grail" being the unification of the separate fields...Help me out here Casper. You could bring clarity to this thread.
Fastback is offline  
post #10 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:35 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Exhibit C.

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=336430

Are you really trying to make people think you know something or do you really have something to share?
Argumentum Ad Hominem, point at hand please (I don't know jack).
FSON is offline  
post #11 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:37 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
When will people learn that there are things that are uncomprehendible to us? Just accept it and be happy.
Denny is offline  
post #12 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:38 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
Argumentum Ad Hominem, point at hand please (I don't know jack).
It's not a personal attack, just pointing out the obvious.
Denny is offline  
post #13 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:41 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.
Nice!
Denny is offline  
post #14 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:43 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Yes, something must have been eternal. But who's to say that eternal "thing" is a god?

There are some false statements in your original argument. You ASSUME that what is "created" is not eternal. And ASSUME that it must have had a creator. Neither of which are necessarily true.

Further, given conservation of certain parts of the known universe...why can't those parts be eternal (e.g: mass, energy)?
exlude is offline  
post #15 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:44 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.
And the origin of originalis?

Edit:
We can go on like this for years and you will prove NO foundation.
FSON is offline  
post #16 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:47 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
Fastback is offline  
post #17 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:49 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
Are you sure they're not just seeing light from a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away and it could be images from LOOOOOOOOONG ago?
Denny is offline  
post #18 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:50 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
. This is where I feel that being a specialist doesn't pay off. Sure, a specialist might make leaps and bounds with one field, but another person could look into this feild with an imagination and expand where the specialist couldn't.
Have you been studying for the GRE?
Fastback is offline  
post #19 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:52 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
exlude is offline  
post #20 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:53 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Are you sure they're not just seeing light from a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away and it could be images from LOOOOOOOOONG ago?
From the studies I have seen, this little detail is normally taken into account.
exlude is offline  
post #21 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:54 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
Constant decrease of the original mass maybe? Not a great explosion, but an implosion.
Denny is offline  
post #22 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:56 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
From the studies I have seen, this little detail is normally taken into account.
We can jump light years ahead looking through things like the Hubbel Telescope. I'm sure any outward movement seen around the "edge of the univese" happened well before the telescope was even a thought.
Denny is offline  
post #23 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:57 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Constant decrease of the original mass maybe? Not a great explosion, but an implosion.
If by decrease you mean increasing density, then sure, sounds plausible to me. But like I said, I'm no expert on universal origins. I tend to stick to evolution
exlude is offline  
post #24 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:59 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
Right. The science community just entertains no "theory" of Creator.
Fastback is offline  
post #25 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:02 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Right. The science community just entertains no "theory" of Creator.
I wouldn't say the idea isn't entertained. The discussions I have had with people it normally remains a possibility, but it isn't going to be an instant answer for most.

I, personally, choose to believe there is no god. Call it a gut feeling, but I'd rather find the physical answer. Nevertheless it's a choice, most theoretical physicists will state it the same way if they state a "belief".
exlude is offline  
post #26 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:03 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
All you have to do is just start with a partical horizon and work your way backward mathmatically, given you know the distance you see the edge of the expanding universe for sure.
Denny is offline  
post #27 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:09 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
I wouldn't say the idea isn't entertained. The discussions I have had with people it normally remains a possibility, but it isn't going to be an instant answer for most.

I, personally, choose to believe there is no god. Call it a gut feeling, but I'd rather find the physical answer. Nevertheless it's a choice, most theoretical physicists will state it the same way if they state a "belief".
It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?
Fastback is offline  
post #28 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:10 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?
It's too convenient for modern science and no matter how much proof you can dig up, it'll always require some faith. Scientists don't like the "F" word.
Denny is offline  
post #29 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:15 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
It's too convenient for modern science and no matter how much proof you can dig up, it'll always require some faith. Scientists don't like the "F" word.
Good point, thanks for calming me down. Might right click isn't working today and I'm uppity. LOL
Fastback is offline  
post #30 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:18 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Intersting that you mentioned this in that way. I have had this wacked out theory of travel using refracted light as a path. Given the fact that we are simply looking at light being absorbed into matter for what we actually see, plus, the distance in which we can see with a telescope, and how fast light travels......ouch.....my brain just went on vacation for that type of thought. I'll be sticking with philosophy and welding for today.
But time and what you see are two different things. You can look into the past, but not be there.
Denny is offline  
post #31 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:19 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Good point, thanks for calming me down. Might right click isn't working today and I'm uppity. LOL
Mine wasn't earlier either. I rebooted and everything is cool. Weird that that happens the same day as someone else and has never happened to me before.
Denny is offline  
post #32 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:30 PM
 
Murph Tang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 2,843
Brian says everything must have a beginning.....thus a start.

Is there a specific beginning or has this universe always existed?

Murph

1992 Taurus Half-Breed
whining alternator pulley

Domestic with an Import heart.
Murph Tang is offline  
post #33 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:32 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph Tang
Brian says everything must have a beginning.....thus a start.

Is there a specific beginning or has this universe always existed?
If you go with a Steady State Theory, it has no beginning or end, even though it constantly changes.
Denny is offline  
post #34 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:37 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Dang, that sounds much simpler than what I was attempting to say. I guess I was trying to sound smarter than I are.
That's just me... I can dumb almost anything down
Denny is offline  
post #35 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:54 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Mine wasn't earlier either. I rebooted and everything is cool. Weird that that happens the same day as someone else and has never happened to me before.
Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:

If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?
Fastback is offline  
post #36 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:14 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
You'd create a black hole. Not only that, but you'd need even more force to stop it. Not only THAT, but how would you stop it if you couldn't get past the event horizon?
Denny is offline  
post #37 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:15 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:


If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?
I think you may be talking about teleportation, which you can read about here:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/b...hes-205448.php


BTW, fastback, have you opened your config and changed your startup options to cut down on all that time?


The fact is Brian is that from an atheist standpoint, your question has no "answer" per se, because even the big bang theory started somewhere with dense material. (One of the most ridiculous theories around IMO).

So I don't think that you will get an answer, but then again, I think that was probably your point.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #38 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:23 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Have you guys heard of CERN's collider?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
Denny is offline  
post #39 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:32 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
I have often wondered when we will figure out how to use black holes for time travel. They have to go somewhere.


There is evidently quite a few people trying to see how light photons communicate with one another in their quest for sending photons to the past. Perceivably, this would allow you to recieve a message miliseconds before you send it.
Assuming that the photons aren't altered once they pass.
Denny is offline  
post #40 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:46 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Seeing as light photons can be either waves or particles, I have started wondering if they change at a boundary of the space/time continuum. If there is a boundary at all. This could be the boundary that would keep us from changing time deminsions. If we were to try, then maybe we would be broken down to waves and particles, only to be re-distributed as light.

Heh....A different spin on reincarnation
Given that we could withstand the massive gravitational force. Physical life wouldn't make it, I'm sure.
Denny is offline  
post #41 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:55 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
I rebooted my computer. I am back now. LOL. It is hanging up in the BIOS screen failing to quickly launch Windows Xp for some unknown.
I am searching the internet now about Time travel, and the more I think about it, I believe I misspoke earlier. I think it was sound waves that some scientist at a major university sent back into time but only like 5 seconds (not photons). I can't find it on the WWW... atleast not yet. I guess I will shut up when I am not sure.
Fastback is offline  
post #42 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 03:00 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
I wasn't building a foundation. You asked for the origin of origin. Originalis is Latin, it comes from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise".
What is the origin of oriri?
What is the origin of the (any) origin.
FSON is offline  
post #43 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 03:29 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
What is the origin of oriri?
What is the origin of the (any) origin.
God. Now quit it.
Denny is offline  
post #44 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 04:30 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?
it seems that people, all too often, have the wrong view of how a theory works. It is not that a theory is "how it works" but "how it may work". God remains a possible theory, but there is more evidence to be taken from the natural world for other theories. Thus the general avoidance of theological discussions as science, by definition, doesn't deal with the supernatural.

And i dont get what you mean about darwin. His general theory stll stands and the arguments for evolution are only growing stronger. Yes he was wrong on points, but the theory developes. Most models in science have that "living" quality.
exlude is offline  
post #45 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 04:42 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
Yes, something must have been eternal. But who's to say that eternal "thing" is a god?

There are some false statements in your original argument. You ASSUME that what is "created" is not eternal. And ASSUME that it must have had a creator. Neither of which are necessarily true.

Further, given conservation of certain parts of the known universe...why can't those parts be eternal (e.g: mass, energy)?
The simple fact that there is balance to everything shows intelligence. Intelligence must come from somewhere. You're saying everything just simple existed with no beginning and no end and no intelligence to create the perfect balance? Everything came from chaos? No offense, really...but that sounds really scientific; not to mention, statistically probable (extreme sarcasm).

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #46 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 06:17 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
The simple fact that there is balance to everything shows intelligence. Intelligence must come from somewhere. You're saying everything just simple existed with no beginning and no end and no intelligence to create the perfect balance? Everything came from chaos? No offense, really...but that sounds really scientific; not to mention, statistically probable (extreme sarcasm).
The simple fact is that there is no real balance. I see nowhere in this world where there is perfect balance, it seems to be a huge misnomer. The universe revolves around chaos and it is the property of the universe to fall into disorder, naturally.

Further, I was thinking about these "statistic probabilities" arguments a whole ago. These are the basis for the whole Intelligent Design argument. The problem with them is that people are considering things in the complete wrong order.

People look at the current human, as if that's what things were SUPPOSED to be and then OMG it's so improbably that things would ever end that way. They don't consider that the current state may be how things just so happened to end up.
exlude is offline  
post #47 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 08:27 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
And i dont get what you mean about darwin. His general theory stll stands and the arguments for evolution are only growing stronger. Yes he was wrong on points, but the theory developes. Most models in science have that "living" quality.
More than 600 members of the scientific community with PhDs have signed the document entitled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism:

Here's an article I dug up:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072204.html

I didn't read the article in full but I scanned it and thought it was cool because it links to dicovery where their names are recorded. It is also on Wiki. even though the article says 400, it is more than 600 according to other sources.

Last edited by Fastback; 10-31-2007 at 09:30 PM.
Fastback is offline  
post #48 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 09:22 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
The simple fact is that there is no real balance. I see nowhere in this world where there is perfect balance, it seems to be a huge misnomer. The universe revolves around chaos and it is the property of the universe to fall into disorder, naturally.

Further, I was thinking about these "statistic probabilities" arguments a whole ago. These are the basis for the whole Intelligent Design argument. The problem with them is that people are considering things in the complete wrong order.

People look at the current human, as if that's what things were SUPPOSED to be and then OMG it's so improbably that things would ever end that way. They don't consider that the current state may be how things just so happened to end up.

If you don't see the perfect order and balance of things, then you really haven't studied much science.

Ever seen the video of how a cell works? Someone scientists made a video a while back that's computer graphics, and it shows the human cell and how it works in real time. It literally looks like an assembly line in a factory. You don't call that balance and order? A stem cell can turned into any one of the organs found in the body, or into any type of cell in the body, and the DNA tells each one what to turn into. You don't call that balance or order or intelligent? The tail of a flagellum has 72 parts in common with an outboard motor. They're biological parts, but they are exactly like the parts used in our outboard motors. But here's the thing... the tail of the Flagellum spins at over 100,000 rpm. Don't think we have any engines that can pull that off. Yeah, I'd say that's order and balance. Engines must be balanced in order to work properly, and they have a perfect order to the parts and how they work. So do the mechanisms in nature and physics.

The fact is this: people interpret scientific data from different worldviews. The science in favor of evolution is not increasing, actually. Evolution theory has to constantly adjust because of new finds. Why? Because they keep finding out that parts of their theory don't fit correction as they find out new things. We have no dating methods that work or are even remotely accurate at all, and all are based on uniformitarianism which has been long proven to be completely inaccurate and should not be used by any serious scientists. Sorry, but chaos creating order and balance makes absolutely no sense...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #49 of 100 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 12:06 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
If you don't see the perfect order and balance of things, then you really haven't studied much science.

Ever seen the video of how a cell works? Someone scientists made a video a while back that's computer graphics, and it shows the human cell and how it works in real time. It literally looks like an assembly line in a factory. You don't call that balance and order? A stem cell can turned into any one of the organs found in the body, or into any type of cell in the body, and the DNA tells each one what to turn into. You don't call that balance or order or intelligent? The tail of a flagellum has 72 parts in common with an outboard motor. They're biological parts, but they are exactly like the parts used in our outboard motors. But here's the thing... the tail of the Flagellum spins at over 100,000 rpm. Don't think we have any engines that can pull that off. Yeah, I'd say that's order and balance. Engines must be balanced in order to work properly, and they have a perfect order to the parts and how they work. So do the mechanisms in nature and physics.
Well, my BS in Human Biology may not be studying it much. But I like to think I know a little bit about this.

First off, I have seen the video you speak of numerous times (both with and without commentary) and it is a HUGE simplification. That's just an FYI. Things working as they should is not perfect balance in order. For example, the fact that we use oxygen as the electron receptor in our electrochemical exchanges when oxygen is a very potent free radical that actually degrades our cellular mechanisms over time.

The whole world is based on the destruction of one thing to create/sustain another, and it isn't in a perfectly revolving "circle of life" kum-ba-yah fashion either. Things do not turn around perfectly circularly and there is no perfect balance.

First, most flagella spin to the tune of about 20,000rpm and they do not move distances proportional to manmade motors. Further, 72 parts in common in the tail of a flagellum? How? The tail is made of about 30k units of the SAME repeated protein calling flagellin and a pentameric cap protein. The flagellum in total is only about 25 different proteins (depending on the species). Many flagellar mechanisms can barely move in a semblance of a straight line, and even more simply tumble randomly in hopes of getting somewhere useful. The most common system is a combination of random tumbling and "straight" lines in hopes of getting somewhere. Random tumbling = perfect order? Not in my books.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC
The fact is this: people interpret scientific data from different worldviews. The science in favor of evolution is not increasing, actually. Evolution theory has to constantly adjust because of new finds. Why? Because they keep finding out that parts of their theory don't fit correction as they find out new things. We have no dating methods that work or are even remotely accurate at all, and all are based on uniformitarianism which has been long proven to be completely inaccurate and should not be used by any serious scientists. Sorry, but chaos creating order and balance makes absolutely no sense...
As I mentioned early, critics seem to think that modifying a theory makes it a weaker theory. Not true, it's just how the living models of science work: they are developing theories. Thus why so few things are called laws. I don't know who is lying to you, but the evidence for evolution is always increasing. Yes, the theory has to adjust because within the grand idea of macroevolution there are many different, sub-theories that explain different aspects. So, yes, those change. They get refined, the argument gets stronger. Until you get more specific, that's hard to address though. I am more than willing to discuss macro and microevolution in depth with you. We don't even have to have fossil models to prove evolution in the works, however. We can look at current cellular models, see them speciating...find evidence of this in past models (similar cellular mechanisms, a big one would be DNA) and conclude from that alone. Evolution is more a theory because we can't explain every nuance of the model, but it's a very strong theory as a whole.

Who said chaos creates order? Energy is applied to chaotic situations to make them less chaotic. For example, many enzymes in the cell act on their own and transform substrate spontaneously as doing so allows them to collapse to lowest state of energy. The only way for a cell to stop this and keep the enzyme from killing the cell is to bind a blocking protein to the enzyme that requires an ATP->ADP phosphorylation (a type of energy application). Within any cellular model there are countless controls to keep the cell at a certain state. The cell is having to fight the "natural way of things" to live how it lives. Want to leave a cell to the controls of nature? Sometimes the "natural way" gets control of the cell. Guess what happens. Cancer. Uncontrolled growth, chaos.

Last edited by exlude; 11-01-2007 at 12:15 AM.
exlude is offline  
post #50 of 100 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 12:14 AM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
More than 600 members of the scientific community with PhDs have signed the document entitled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism:

Here's an article I dug up:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072204.html

I didn't read the article in full but I scanned it and thought it was cool because it links to dicovery where their names are recorded. It is also on Wiki. even though the article says 400, it is more than 600 according to other sources.
Of the 400 listed, less than 1/4 were Biologists. Nevermind it's produced by Discovery Institute, a group with an agenda to promote Intelligent Design and creationist beliefs.

From the wikipedia article:
Quote:
[edit] Expertise relevance
On November 29, 2001, the National Center for Science Education produced a critique of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, describing the wording of the statement and of the initial advertisement as misleading. The NCSE also noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed, less than 1/5 were biologists, with the remainder including chemists, engineers, geologists, mathematicians, medical professionals, social scientists, physicists and astronomers, and that none of those listed was recognizable as a prominent contributor to the scientific literature debating the role of natural selection in evolution.[1]

A February 2006 New York Times article criticized A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, stating that only 25% of the signatories were biologists and a sampling of those signing "suggest(s) that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs."[4] The Discovery Institute responded that the NY Times article had missed the point, and that "engineers and other scientists have realized that the primary problems facing modern evolutionary theory are engineering problems"[24].

TIME senior writer Michael Lemonick describes A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as "an attempt to divert your attention" by citing the opinions of scientists who have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology, which he describes as "intellectual dishonesty." For example, Lemonick, pointed out that another one of the more prominently described members of the list is a surgeon with no expertise relevant to evolution.[5] The Discovery Institute responded by labeling Lemonick "Times [sic] Magazine's Darwinist Thought-Cop ... who writes for a weekly news tabloid" and by questioning Lemonick's credentials and qualifications.[25]

Referring to the number of people on the Dissent list and their claimed relevance, University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers writes, "Not only is the number that they cite pathetically small, but they rely on getting scientists whose expertise isn't relevant." Addressing a specific example, Myers says of one signer, "The Discovery Institute may like to trumpet his expertise in neurosurgery as an indicator of the significance of his dissent from evolutionary biology, but I think I'd rather trumpet his ignorance of evolutionary biology as an indicator of the uselessness of the Discovery Institute's list."[26] Myers continued to state that the signer "is not only wrong, but he's pretty damn arrogant about it — how else to explain someone who is proud of the fact that he knows nothing about a subject, and is proud of his inability to find sources that would correct his ignorance, even when they're pointed out to him directly? He's like Michael Behe, in that we can plop mountains of information in front of him, and he'll just blithely claim it doesn't exist."[27]

Writer Ed Brayton, co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the The Panda's Thumb website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."[28]
and
Quote:
The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[1][40] For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.”[41] However, Salthe prominently appears on the list as "Emeritus Professor, Biological Sciences, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York."

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis." "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it." "When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[42]

A careful analysis of the 34 nominally British, or British-trained signatories of the Dissent list by the pro-evolution group British Centre for Science Education found similar problems with the list. The BCSE raised doubts about the claimed affiliations, commitment to intelligent design and relevant expertise of those on the list.[43]
There are obviously people who don't believe in any notion stemming from Darwinian evolution for various reasons, but I would be a little critical of a bunch of social scientists trying to argue it to me.
exlude is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome