Questions for creationists

[-=Vagrant=-]

... When the threat of eternal damnation didn't work, torture and murder were used to purge the person, hence the world, of the science, at least during the spanish inquisition.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Our main weapon is Surprise and ruthless efficiency. Our two weapons are Surprise, Ruthless Efficiency and devoution to the Pope. No! Our three...

"You cannot apply the laws of physics to who created them."

Well, that's nice.

[Adalbertus]

Why not? You build, say, a car, within the laws of physics. You are also subject to the same physics as the car. If you were subject to a different set of physical laws, would you be able to interact with the physical laws bound by the materials which made up the components of the car, in order to make the car?

This analogy certainly doesn't work. If I had created a car, I would be able to change the behaviour of the car I created (including transforming it into a washing machine) in the limits of physical laws, which I did not create, and my intelligence, for which I'm partially responsible at best.

In any case, if you gave the car sufficient intelligence and ability to interact with it's surroundings, it could ultimately be able to detect your presence.

... Except the car refuses to believe in the existence of its creator and says the effects the creator causes are "not yet explained".
(Don't get me wrong. This is not intended as the proof of the existence of God, which in my opinion is as impossible as a proof of His non-existence).

"Supernatural" is used to defind that of which is beyond nature, but is can apply to anything that can't yet be explained. Something is only supernatural until such time as it can be proven otherwise

Exactly. But we never know beforehand if such a time will come.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lung
Is this thread still happening?

The last time i posted i was harrassed about letting the creationists continue their delusional ways unimpeded. The impressive persistence of Ethelred is proof about my claim that it is the proverbial "bashing your own head against a brick wall".

Sometimes I learn things. Not much here so far. Jack has managed to say a few things differently but I think its just a matter of rephrasing.

I said earlier in this thread that if god exists in this universe, he must be subject to the laws of physics of our universe. Moreover, he must be observable, at least indirectly.

If god created the universe it must have existed outside it at one time. There is no reason it must be limited to this one after creating it. Neither must it be bound by laws it created since it might have left itself the option to change things around from time to time.

Thats what you have deal with when someone is claiming an allpowerfull god. Sure does make a lot mistakes though for an all-knowing god.

For god to be above our laws of physics, he cannot interact with anything in it. So, either he created the universe, OR, he influences it. However, he cannot do both. It is what i call the theopic principle

Sure he can do both. We can do both with computers right now. Progammers do it all the time. Have the progam open in one window and an editor in another and even run a compile in the background. Think of god as doing that and you will see you are wrong on this.

As long as people are talking about a sufficiently nebulous god there is nothing you can do to disprove it. On this thread however we are NOT talking about such a god. Its not nebulous. Its in the Bible. That specific god, Jehovah, is easily disproved.

Convincing a closed mind to actualy see the evidence is the hard part.

You gotta try harder if you want to debate religion. If they go the nebulous route there is nothing to debate. I have never seen that though. There is always something that a person can be pinned down on.

Stealth creationists usually run as fast as they can when they get pinned down on anything. Suddenly their PC is broken or they lose their connection. The only hard part is trying to figure out what they are hiding when in stealth mode.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I think many have missunder stood some of the things I have posted on this thread. With the questions I posted form my english text book, I just put it there for people to use to answer them to themselves. I think that many may have gotten the impression that by posting such questions that I was implying that all of you were closed mined, this was not the case. I cant know that, I cant see into your mind. Sorry if this is the case. And is seems to me Ethelred is attacking it, I may be wrong on this, if so please explain what you are trying to say. IF you are attacking it, why are you? .

I thought it was pretty obvious that I was ANSWERING the questions. How is that an attack?

Form reading your posts, it seems you are very hostile to people who believe that their is a Creator. Sorry if I have missunderstood what you are trying to say.

You misunderstood. If truth looks hostile to you then perhaps you you are reaching the point where you can give up on unsupported beliefs.

I dont know all there is to know about science, many things I dont know, but I am willing to learn as much as I can.
I am also willing to look at the evidence and form a conculsion based on that evidence.

Well I have been giving you evidence. I am hostile to people that engage in deliberate lies, distortions of truth and con the unwary. You have posting stuff that was manufactured by that sort of people. My hostility is towards their active ingnorance and in particular their efforts to force their special brand of ignorance on the American public school system.

Dr. Hoyle did not fit in that category. He liked being a gadfly I think. I also suspect he was losing it as he got older. At one time he admitted that the cosmic background radiation disproved his Steady State theory. Yet he continued to push the theory anyway. I really don't understand why he couldn't give up on it when it became so obvious that he was wrong.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

I'm pretty darn sure we cannot. Theological reason:
God wants us to love Him (as the Gospel says). Being able to love means also being able to not love. When we have a proof of the existence of God there would be no other way than to accept Him as God (doing otherwise would be extremely stupid) which replaces love by fear. So given that God wants us to love Him, He's a good reason to make a proof impossible.

So you are saying then that god deliberatly made the Bible an easily disproven book then.

No. Mathematics is manmade, from structures we inherited by evolution.

Nonsense. Mathematics is something we discovered.

The evolutionary theory guarantees that those structures are suitable to live our daily life. It hasn't anything to do with understanding microcosmos or astronomy. For me it's a miracle that mathematics works for structures in nature that are out of the scope of daily life.

You have strange ideas of what constitutes a miracle. Mathematics is fully capable of working for structures that DON'T have anything to do with our universe. This can easily be seen by looking at geometry. We have two basic versions, Euclidean and Non-Eudlidean. We are taught Euclidean geometry when we first learn geometry. However the Universe we live in is a Non-Euclidean universe.

Also no. Analogy: There are programmers who are able to change/debug a running program. The only way to detect this from "inside" the program is the occurrence of something "supernatural".

Yes.

I take you have now changed who you are replying to. Its a good idea to make note of such changes. Less confusion that way.

You cannot apply the laws of physics to who created them.

I agree. I can apply the Bible and the real world we live in to Jehovah though by noting the conflicts between them.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Ethelred:
So you are saying then that god deliberatly made the Bible an easily disproven book then.

Probably you've not read all of my previous posts
I don't believe that God wrote the Bible but that it was written by highly religious people who added their perception on (more or less) the same faith. To what extent this is "real" experience of God, I cannot know. And honestly, I don't bother too much because I'm responsible (also to God) for my own life, and thus I'll have to live it myself and not being directed by others.

There are some points, however, that are important: A book like the Bible had to include a history of the beginning of the world. The reader 2500 years ago wouldn't have expected otherwise, and he knew about the content of truth. Many of the other histories (the flood and the tower of Babel included) have their roots in real occurrences, and are distorted in a way to make a good story. I think people knew this better 2500 years ago. The birth story of Jesus exists also to make a good story. People knew that 2000 years ago. There are, however, many instances where there are many important things of wisdom in the bible, and they are not invalidated by inconsistencies of other parts.

You seem to make the same mistake as creationists: To take the Bible literally word by word. "Even the Bible looses its worth if you regard it as a holy book" (Gabriel Laub). What a truth.

Nonsense. Mathematics is something we discovered.

This is not really a contradiction to what I said. We discovered it, but it is merely a structure of ourselves, not necessarily of nature. Mathematics is not a natural science but a science about a part of our brain. It can only be proven to be a property of nature as far as we know that it works. There is no guarantee that it always works.

You have strange ideas of what constitutes a miracle. Mathematics is fully capable of working for structures that DON'T have anything to do with our universe. This can easily be seen by looking at geometry. We have two basic versions, Euclidean and Non-Eudlidean. We are taught Euclidean geometry when we first learn geometry. However the Universe we live in is a Non-Euclidean universe.

There is no miracle in the fact that you mathematically can construct things that are not related to our universe (except for the fact that it works so flawlessly, which is not guaranteed a priori). Euclidean Geometry is "not taught" but an inherent property of our perception - You cannot change perception of room and space as being separate, even if you are educated in special relativity. "Perpendicular" is something fixed when you deal with things of your daily life. The miracle is that when our intuition (=Euclidean geometry) fails, we still are able to describe the universe more successfully by a non-Euclidean geometry. There is no reason a priori or given by evolutionary theory why this should be possible.

[Logical Realist]

Adalbertus:

You cannot prove absolute skepticism wrong, first, because it denies you the use of logic (in the case of Descartes), but also the use of a set of axioms. You can only show that it doesn't lead to anything, and so virtually any other system is superior (and if only because it can be proven wrong).

Actually to prove is to reason from given axioms, standards, and/or self-evident truths to a given conclusion. If I argue from the law of non-contradiction, that all contradictory arguments and positions are incorrect and show that universal skepticism is contradictory (since it would have to deny itself) I have proven that the pure skeptics position is incorrect: from axiom of non-contradiction, to the conclusion that universal skepticism is absurd.

Whether the skeptic accepts the axiom/self-evident truth or not is irrelevant.

Also though, your claim is inconsistent as well. Cause a skeptic can just deny that his position doesn't lead to anything, and that all other systems are superior. How could you prove that if the skeptic denies your methods? If you think denial of a method equals lack of proof, then you cannot. The opposite of this statement "You can only show that it doesn't lead to anything, and so virtually any other system is superior (and if only because it can be proven wrong)." is just as unprovable as its opposite.

Here we are at a typical problem of philosophy: The lack of definitions. "To think" can be treated as something quite obvious (at the moment, I hope). But what is "to exist"? If you define "existing" as "having some property" (which is probably difficult in itself), then the "I think therefore I am" is simply the application of a definition (I have the property to think. If you doubt I am thinking: I have the property to believe to think). This is at least not what is classically thought of as application of a logic argument. It uses the mechanisms of logic, however.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be saying that Descartes uses logical mechanisms and bases his argument on it but does not apply logic. That to me seems like you are making a sensless divide, as there really is no difference between using logical mechanisms and applying logic. Both methods assume that logical principles are true and use them as standards accordingly.

About "deceived by an evil God": We don't need it as soon as we accept the evolutionary theory.

That wasn't my point, I was just pointing out that Descartes made the idea of an evil God up. (Again though, evolution does not answer this, cause an evil, decieving God can make it look like life evolved).

We perceive having a logic. This is formed in an evolutionary process (even if mostly traded by education, this doesn't change the argument).

Logic's origins do not refute it. That is a genetic roots fallacy. We also evolved the capacity to learn of biology and physics, that hardly lowers the truth-value of such disciplines.

There is no reason to be sure that logic is an universal truth, or even that it exactly matches a property of nature.

I would say logic's self-evident nature and the fact that without it, all human knowledge becomes arbitrary(i.e. reduced to absurdity), is reason enough to think it reflects something universal.

By saying logic is universal I do not intend to mean that "logic" itself....human reasoning has some universal power, only that logic reflects some universal aspect of reality. Logic is thus a derived universal not an imposed one.

We only know it works quite well as a system in itself (Mathematics being the biggest test),

How did you come to know this without logic? Why must that statement hold?

and that it works quite well when dealing with nature (tested by natural sciences).

Again how do you know this without logic? Such an argument depends on the correctness of validity, if there is no logic, then non sequitars are allowed. Hence I can argue that our observations go well with logic, so logic must be false. Or that logic is good for making sense of observations so logic thus doesn't work at all when dealing with natural sciences.

There is no guarantee of an universal truth.

That itself a universal truth? If I am allowed non sequitars can I posit its opposite and be right?

And if validity is worthless your argument still wouldn't hold given your premise, hence you could not justify any of the above statements without logic.

Apart of that we are tied to logic. We cannot build a different system (when you change logic tables, it's changing of definitions, not of logic itself), the best thing we could do is to refuse using it.

We could try to build a different system but it would be arbitrary.

If we refuse using logic, we don't arrive at anything, even not at disproving Descartes' sentence.

Well that depends on whether or not refusing to accept evidence makes that evidence worthless.

If we accept logic, "I think therefore I am" is true (trying to use most natural definitions of "thinking" and "existence"). This works also if our logic is distorted (in the sense that it doesn't reflect any truth exceeding the personal frame).

Actually that doesn't work, if by "works" you mean stands unquestioned because then non-thinking beings can think. Descartes' personal statement still doesn't hold even in the personal frame. Again you are trying to jettison logic while applying it. Also how do you know what definitions are the most "natural"?

[mactbone]

As far as I and everyone I've ever heard of know, the Universe will last forever. Anything that does not have an end, necessarily does not have a beginning. So, the Universe always has been and always will be, it just changes. Maybe in the extremely distant future matter is spread so thin that nothing is distinguishable, that does not mean the Universe isn't there, it just means it has become very tiny to our understanding.

[Logical Realist]

Jon Miller: overall percentage of scientists who were atheist/agnostic has be fairly quite a bit lower than that of the field with the largest percentage

I don't know if that's true. And I've heard that there are more atheists in biology than physics. I guess since a physicist would be more succeptible to the argument of complex design. i.e. how could the eye evolve?

But I do know that among the top scientists: 94 percent are agnostic/or atheist.

Adalbertus: No. Mathematics is manmade, from structures we inherited by evolution. The evolutionary theory guarantees that those structures are suitable to live our daily life. It hasn't anything to do with understanding microcosmos or astronomy. For me it's a miracle that mathematics works for structures in nature that are out of the scope of daily life.

well instead of saying its a coincidence I see it as more reasonable to posit that mathematics reflects some necessary aspect of nature. Just like physics is man made but reflects some probable aspect of reality.

You cannot apply the laws of physics to who created them.

How do you know? And even if such a God wasn't limited by the laws of physics it doesn't mean that the claim "God exists" is not succeptible to physical evidence.

In regards to supernaturalism being based on ignorance:

Exactly. But we never know beforehand if such a time will come.

It's true that we can rarely be 100 percent certain that a supernaturalist claim will not be true, but we can use probabilities derived from what we know and past experiences with such claims to decide that the supernatural explanation is unlikely to be true.

[Jack_www]

Ethelred, you believe that all if not most of the information or evidencce that I posted on here is form Creationist or others who try and bend the facts to misslead other people. For example when I put down that the chances of the most simplist portein to form is one to the 10 to 113 power. Well you thing we must realize about protiens is that when they form they fold when forming into many different shapes, and even though a protien may have the same chain of amino acids, if their shape is different they will have different uses in the cell.

This is an article in the New York Times. The title of the article is "Designing life: Proteins 1, computer 0."
03/25/97, Vol. 146 Issue 50742, pC1
Scientists form all over the world "armed with their best computer programs competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protien, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . Scientists have estimated that for an averge-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 10" to the 27 power "years."

This is just to prove that proteins that are found in our body are extrimly complex with a numerous possible cominations of them.

[Logical Realist]

Yes, I agree with T Bone: "nothing came from nothing yet."

Also, note that this thread is not about the flaws of evolutionary theory but the merits of creationist theory. Creationists must realize that poking holes in one does not establish the other. They have yet to show me any merit for the creationist account, based on anything other than wild speculation.

[Zealot]

Hey evolutionists, why won't you make a scientific explanation about this question:
If amphibians evolved from fish, why and how did the spine evolved into the pelvis?

Happy researching!

Edit: Thanks Guynemer. I checked a dictionary first, and the answer I got was that that you saw. Because in portuguese we use the word pelvis too.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Zealot
Hey evolutionists, why won't you make a scientific explanation about this question:
If amphibians evolved from fish, why and how did the spine evolved into the pelve?

Happy researching!

Here's an answer: Huh?

Spine evolved into the pelve? I assume that means pelvis.

Amphibians still have spines...

[Adalbertus]

Whether the skeptic accepts the axiom/self-evident truth or not is irrelevant.

For you, maybe, not for him.

Cause a skeptic can just deny that his position doesn't lead to anything, and that all other systems are superior.

He can, but this still doesn't change the fact that he cannot do any progress. Other than that, before he had any progress, he would not communicate because of general scepticism about communication.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be saying that Descartes uses logical mechanisms and bases his argument on it but does not apply logic. That to me seems like you are making a sensless divide, as there really is no difference between using logical mechanisms and applying logic. Both methods assume that logical principles are true and use them as standards accordingly.

What I want to say is
1) With a suitable definition of "existence" you don't need the contraposition. So you get rid of everything that is classically summarized as logic (and expressed in truth tables).
2) What you still need is "how to compare a definition to something". This is not explicitly a law of logic. But you might argue that the mechanism in the brain is the same and that the "evil god" can be cheating you also when comparing a definition to something.

Logic's origins do not refute it. That is a genetic roots fallacy. We also evolved the capacity to learn of biology and physics, that hardly lowers the truth-value of such disciplines.

In the sense that they have no ("transcendent") truth value at all, it cannot be lowered. We do not know any absolute truth about the exterior world. The only thing we know is that what we think to know works quite well. If we had any absolute truth, there would be no scientific revolution in this point. We know that Newton's mechanics is wrong at any speed (except for a particle at rest) in a given inertial frame, when you compare it to special relativity. The only thing is that Newton's mechanics works quite well for low speeds. The same is with special relativity vs. general relativity (except you know any more than 0-dimensional space where there is no gravity).
We have no idea about an external truth neither in logic nor in physics nor in biology. The only thing we know is that it works quite well.

[QUOTE]I would say logic's self-evident nature and the fact that without it, all human knowledge becomes arbitrary(i.e. reduced to absurdity), is reason enough to think it reflects something universal.
[QUOTE]
The fact that a prisoner cannot escape doesn't mean that prison is the natural state of life. Logic is self-evident because it is a built-in property of humans, as it is the notion of Galilean space-time (which is wrong, but works for us, as we know since Einstein). That human knowledge becomes arbitrary without logic means we have to live with it, not that it reflects a universal truth.

We only know it works quite well as a system in itself (Mathematics being the biggest test),

How did you come to know this without logic? Why must that statement hold?

When I try to test the consistency of a system I'm well allowed to use the system itself. This consistency is the only thing why I think that logic might reflect a truth (and not only a "works somehow") outside our brains, and it is only verified as far as it is tested.

That itself a universal truth?

Good point, but it doesn't help as long as you cannot prove that there is any guarantee of any universal proof.

We could try to build a different system but it would be arbitrary.

How would you try to do that (other than changing truth tables or definitions)?

Actually that doesn't work, if by "works" you mean stands unquestioned because then non-thinking beings can think.

How do you come to that? If some being thinks it thinks, it thinks. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to be convinced in the personal view about "I think therefore I am". Note this is different from the BASIC program

PRINT "I think therefore I am"
END

I cannot trust you that you are thinking. You could be some computer programmed to post regularly at Apolyton (no offense intended). You cannot trust me I am thinking. But I can trust myself that I am thinking.

Also how do you know what definitions are the most "natural"?

Sorry, I thought you had over all those sophisms still a bit of common sense left.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Here's an answer: Huh?

Spine evolved into the pelve? I assume that means pelvis.

Amphibians still have spines...

Yes, thank you, I know they still have spines, but I think it's not hard to understand that I'm looking for an explanation about the appearance of the pelvis!