Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

[dlamberth]

What's being lost in this conversation is basic Geology. How heated water effects the mantel is not even being looked at. The effects of water at depth in the earth melts the mantel by water flux. This is the source of lava that builds mountains. Long before the level of heat required to make Hydroplate possible, the surface of the earth would be covered with mountain building basalt. It's basic geology 101.

 

[SelfSim]

But sometimes, science can take a hike................at least from a Christian perspective.

When advocation of deliberate ignorance of science becomes the means for disputing its consistencies .. and substitutions by literal tales such as matter being created ex nihilo, creation of the Earth with embedded age, biblical world-wide floods and totally subjective notions of the passing of local time, (for eg), the Christian perspective itself becomes completely lost in the enormity of conceivable and unconceivable possibilities.
The only option left in that situation for such advocations, is forced conscription of the intellect, ie: the so-called (offensive) notion of some form of sanctioned: 'Great Commission'.

Its a slippery path towards irrationality which we do frequently witness these days ... (as I realise; you're also well aware).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When advocation of deliberate ignorance of science becomes the means for disputing its consistencies .. and substitutions by literal tales such as matter being created ex nihilo, creation of the Earth with embedded age, biblical world-wide floods and totally subjective notions of the passing of local time, (for eg), the Christian perspective itself becomes completely lost in the enormity of conceivable and unconceivable possibilities.
The only option left in that situation for such advocations, is forced conscription of the intellect, ie: the so-called (offensive) notion of some form of sanctioned: 'Great Commission'.

Its a slippery path towards irrationality which we do frequently witness these days ... (as I realise; you're also well aware).

Maybe. But we have to remember that the sciences (plural) are a human endeavor, not a divinely authored endeavor and treating the sciences as if they (and their always partial data) have some kind of inherent authority in and of themselves is a misguided model by which to adjudge the value of those sciences. And in this, I'm not referring to those sciences pertaining to what happened thousands or millions, or even billions, of years ago. I'm referring to those sciences of today that are technological tools by which human beings, i.e. those in power wherever and whoever they may be, make daily decisions in the realm of public discourse.

 

[AV1611VET]

When advocation of deliberate ignorance of science becomes the means for disputing its consistencies .. and substitutions by literal tales such as matter being created ex nihilo, creation of the Earth with embedded age, biblical world-wide floods and totally subjective notions of the passing of local time, (for eg), the Christian perspective itself becomes completely lost in the enormity of conceivable and unconceivable possibilities.

We call those substitutions "miracles."

The only option left in that situation for such advocations, is forced conscription of the intellect, ie: the so-called (offensive) notion of some form of sanctioned: 'Great Commission'.

Either that, or you can use "then a miracle occurred" as an option.

Its a slippery path towards irrationality which we do frequently witness these days ...

We call those irrationalities "miracles."

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe. But we have to remember that the sciences (plural) are a human endeavor, not a divinely authored endeavor and treating the sciences as if they (and their always partial data) have some kind of inherent authority in and of themselves is a misguided model by which to adjudge the value of those sciences. And in this, I'm not referring to those sciences pertaining to what happened thousands or millions, or even billions, of years ago. I'm referring to those sciences of today that are technological tools by which human beings, i.e. those in power wherever and whoever they may be, make daily decisions in the realm of public discourse.

Serious question:

Do you write books?

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe. But we have to remember that the sciences (plural) are a human endeavor, not a divinely authored endeavor and treating the sciences as if they (and their always partial data) have some kind of inherent authority in and of themselves is a misguided model by which to adjudge the value of those sciences. And in this, I'm not referring to those sciences pertaining to what happened thousands or millions, or even billions, of years ago. I'm referring to those sciences of today that are technological tools by which human beings, i.e. those in power wherever and whoever they may be, make daily decisions in the realm of public discourse.

No. The sciences and 'a divinely authored endeavor' are both demonstrably human creations (unless 'endeavor' has abruptly changed its everyday meaning).

Both are constrained (and thus guided by) the information embedded within us humans .. the difference is that science's constraints do not include possibilities which are demonstrably not already part of our own embedded history, (or what it is that actually accounts for our intelligence and our capacity of rational reasoning).

By excluding that embedded history, your argument boils down to purely circular reasoning by virtue of yet more wilfull ignorance .. (which is yet another human endeavor having little to no practical purpose).

 

[SelfSim]

We call those irrationalities "miracles."

'Irrationalities' are demonstrably human conceptions which materialise upon examination of the boundaries of human rational thinking.
(Just ask @2PhiloVoid .. I'm sure he'd love to explain that one for you).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Serious question:

Do you write books?

No. I'm not sure who'd publish me if I did, AV. At the rate things are going in my life, I might find myself having the time to try it, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I'm not sure who'd publish me if I did, AV. At the rate things are going in my life, I might find myself having the time to try it, though.

You seem to have the talent for it.

You certainly have an expanded vocabulary anyway.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. The sciences and 'a divinely authored endeavor' are both demonstrably human creations (unless 'endeavor' has abruptly changed its everyday meaning).

I notice you like to you a lot of generalities to cover over your descriptions. Would you mind being specific about how you define a "human creation"?

Here's the thing: if the universe and our world just happens to be a divine creation, in my view, I don't think we will see much, if any, difference from what we think we do see in the World right now. I wouldn't really expect to see some sort of identifiable "design" inbuilt into everything by contrast between knowing what to look for at a human level and somehow being informed about what we should look for at a divine level.

Both are constrained (and thus guided by) the information embedded within us humans .. the difference is that science's constraints do not include possibilities which are demonstrably not already part of our own embedded history, (or what it is that actually accounts for our intelligence and our capacity of rational reasoning).

Yes, I get that.

By excluding that embedded history, your argument boils down to purely circular reasoning by virtue of yet more wilfull ignorance .. (which is yet another human endeavor having little to no practical purpose).

You could be correct, but I think you underestimate the education of all those I read or hear, Selfsim. And I've read a lot and heard a lot, and you're human made interpretation of what it is you think our embedded history is and how that emerges from without in due time is ............ you're own model of how it is you think an embedded history would work. Besides, for those of us who are into 'History,' we realize that it is not identical with the actual past, the latter of which none of us has the full account for, and we will never have it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to have the talent for it.

You certainly have an expanded vocabulary anyway.

You're too kind, AV. But let's say too that in my life, I've had a number of "practical" persons around me who have told me they think I should refrain from making the effort.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to have the talent for it.

You certainly have an expanded vocabulary anyway.

Also, I'll just say that despite the fact that you and I may disagree on about 22 chapters worth of the Bible (to some moderate although not complete degree), I appreciate your faith in Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, I'll just say that despite the fact that you and I may disagree on about 22 chapters worth of the Bible (to some moderate although not complete degree), I appreciate your faith in Christ.

Thank you, my friend!

 

[SelfSim]

I notice you like to you a lot of generalities to cover over your descriptions. Would you mind being specific about how you define a "human creation"?

In this sub-conversation, its what humans come up with (or invent).

Here's the thing: if the universe and our world just happens to be a divine creation, in my view, I don't think we will see much, if any, difference from what we think we do see in the World right now. I wouldn't really expect to see some sort of identifiable "design" inbuilt into everything by contrast between knowing what to look for at a human level and somehow being informed about what we should look for at a divine level.

.. all constrained by your opening condition of: 'if the universe and our world just happens to be a divine creation' .. which, if you consider yourself a human, is a human constraint which denies our in-common informational history embedded within our type of lifeform.
What we don't know yet, are the uncertainties which you, yourself, acknowledge as being part of science. This is the field from which human discoveries (or new physics) emerge.

What we can't possibly know is an enormously larger field containing other objects which branched off from our own prior to them acquiring their own unique histories. They would now be temporally disconnected from us .. thus they are now unknowable.
The concept of a divine creator as you point out above, ensures that what we currently know, will stay the same because we cannot make predictions from that. It is a human introduced constraint .. and not one that the universe (and its possible new physics) has dished up to us no matter how much anyone tries to shoehorn their own beliefs into what we already know the universe always works out for us, as being.

Yes, I get that.

You could be correct, but I think you underestimate the education of all those I read or hear, Selfsim. And I've read a lot and heard a lot, and you're human made interpretation of what it is you think our embedded history is and how that emerges from without in due time is ............ you're own model of how it is you think an embedded history would work. Besides, for those of us who are into 'History,' we realize that it is not identical with the actual past, the latter of which none of us has the full account for, and we will never have it.

Whatever ..
Mine works, is testable, is based on tested data and it makes firm predictions of where to look next, (the laws of physics and new physics).
Its not a buch of non specific word salad based on circular definitions which has been unable to make any progress for at least a couple of hundred years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's the thing: if the universe and our world just happens to be a divine creation, in my view, I don't think we will see much, if any, difference from what we think we do see in the World right now. I wouldn't really expect to see some sort of identifiable "design" inbuilt into everything by contrast between knowing what to look for at a human level and somehow being informed about what we should look for at a divine level.

if a non-divinely created world looks nearly the same as a divinely created one, then why should anyone insist that explanations based on physical properties be suspended in the examination of a clearly physical event, i.e., that science "take a hike" or back off in favor of other explanations?

Under the view just professed, we are unlikely to have any definitive signals of divine creation, so nothing is lost in not looking for them. If any such divine creator should decide to declare their involvement, they are welcome to do so. It would be an interesting "Q&A".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In this sub-conversation, its what humans come up with (or invent).

.. all constrained by your opening condition of: 'if the universe and our world just happens to be a divine creation' .. which, if you consider yourself a human, is a human constraint which denies our in-common informational history embedded within our type of lifeform.
What we don't know yet, are the uncertainties which you, yourself, acknowledge as being part of science. This is the field from which human discoveries (or new physics) emerge.

What we can't possibly know is an enormously larger field containing other objects which branched off from our own prior to them acquiring their own unique histories. They would now be temporally disconnected from us .. thus they are now unknowable.
The concept of a divine creator as you point out above, ensures that what we currently know, will stay the same because we cannot make predictions from that. It is a human introduced constraint .. and not one that the universe (and its possible new physics) has dished up to us no matter how much anyone tries to shoehorn their own beliefs into what we already know the universe always works out for us, as being.

Whatever ..
Mine works, is testable, is based on tested data and it makes firm predictions of where to look next, (the laws of physics and new physics).
Its not a buch of non specific word salad based on circular definitions which has been unable to make any progress for at least a couple of hundred years.

............It's good for me to know I'm the only one around here who produces "word-salad." Thanks for informing me of this. It'll help me to better understand that unless I cooperate, I'll be promptly panned and banned, tattooed, branded and otherwise vaccinated.

Just don't expect me to take the Mark of the Beast, too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

if a non-divinely created world looks nearly the same as a divinely created one, then why should anyone insist that explanations based on physical properties be suspended in the examination of a clearly physical event, i.e., that science "take a hike" or back off in favor of other explanations?

You don't think anyone should contest nuclear weapons, organ transplants, genetic manipulation for "gain of function," or various other possible Frankensteinian scenarios where scientists and politicians decide for the public masses what to believe about technology, the future and **cough** ..."appropriate ideals or beliefs"?

Under the view just professed, we are unlikely to have any definitive signals of divine creation, so nothing is lost in not looking for them. If any such divine creator should decide to declare their involvement, they are welcome to do so. It would be an interesting "Q&A".

I don't expect to see or find much in the way of any definitive signals in creation from a Creator, and I never really have, especially with the use of the Modern Sciences. If anything, my views for almost 40 years have sounded something like this:

History and Prophecy are a different story, however cryptic and ancient the interpretation and teleology involved may be.

 

[AV1611VET]

if a non-divinely created world looks nearly the same as a divinely created one, then why should anyone insist that explanations based on physical properties be suspended in the examination of a clearly physical event, i.e., that science "take a hike" or back off in favor of other explanations?

Good question.

This is why I say that I believe that God "jumbled" the events of the creation week.

Under the view just professed, we are unlikely to have any definitive signals of divine creation, so nothing is lost in not looking for them.

Do you even know what to look for?

If any such divine creator should decide to declare their involvement, they are welcome to do so.

And do you really think that would work?

John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

And here's how academia reacted to the Divine Creator declaring His involvement ...

John 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

It would be an interesting "Q&A".

Jesus was "Q&A'd" to death.

You want Him to come back and do it again?

 

[sjastro]

O great an AI (artificial idiot). [I despise those things.] Its work seems OK this time.

Around 18 months ago I would have agreed with you, these days AI is no artificial idiot.
There use to be a time when one could manipulate the answer supplied by AI by the context of the question.
I asked DeepSeek what was right about hydroplate theory, in the old days AI would have taken the question literally and found everything "right" about the theory with the implication it was accepted science.

DeepSeek's response was much balanced with the emphasis of comparing with mainstream science.

​

Earlier in this thread I suggested earthquake seismic S and P waves could be used to refute hydroplate theory.
As a challenge to DeepSeek I asked it to model seismic S and P wave trajectories for both mainstream and hydroplate models, it came up with the correct answer for the mainstream model and made a prediction for the hydroplate model.
There is nothing in the literature for the hydroplate model, DeepSeek came up with the answer using reinforcement and unsupervised learning.

​

Whether the prediction highlighted in yellow is right or wrong requires an expert, my long deceased uncle who was a geophysicist and expert on seismology would have been an ideal candidate.