Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Please give us quotes where OECers have done this. I have never seen an OEC retreat to Spinoza's idea of deity.That's the real killer right there with OEC's. When all else fails, just say that Spinoza's metaphorical god is the Abrahamic God
Well, all the creationists. In the 18th and 19th century deism was very popular. Evolution ended that because it made deism untenable. Christians recognized this:I mean seriously, just how much has Christianity fell into Deism?
Thats still faith. You can't possibly check every experiment from everyone else, just like they couldn't check every experiment that they built upon.Now you are talking practicality. If I wanted to, had enough time, the equipment, and the training, I could. This is contrasted to Christian faith. You and I can't go to the shores of the Red Sea, lift up our arms, call upon God, and see the waters part, can we? We can't put our hands in the wounds of the risen Christ, can we? In principle, everything in science can be checked. In principle, we cannot check the things we have faith that God did, can we?
In every experiment there are assumptions. A biological researcher at Duquesne University told me that. Without assumptions, there is no progress at all. Assumptions are faith.The "assumptions" in this case are that the underlying hypotheses are true. But then we end up testing those underlying hypotheses as part of the bundle we are testing. So the "assumptions" turn out not to be faith after all, but something we confirm in the process of doing the experiment.
Let's look at another example: heliocentrism. Lots of observations of the position of planets in the night sky went into heliocentrism, observations of Tycho Brahe (who had tens of thousands of such observations) and others. It's also based on the theories of planetary motion by Kepler and Newtonian mechanics. NASA has been launching planetary probes for the last 50 years or more. Every one of them has the course plotted using the theory of heliocentrism. Now, if any of the background work I describe above is wrong, any part of it, then the probes would not arrive where and when NASA calculated they should arrive. So, when the probes do follow the courses and arrive at the planets where they are supposed to arrive at, all that work was tested again.
I'm saying that sooner or later there are assumptions made and those assumptions are faith.
Yes. I'm saying that the faith is not where you say it is.In any search for truth, we start with 2 basic assumptions:
1. I exist.
2. I am sane.
To do science we also have 5 assumptions about the universe:
1. It is rational
2. It is objective
3. It is contingent
4. It is accessible
5. It is unified.
However, what I am saying is that Christians and scientists share the assumptions. Science itself is not making any assumptions different than those Christians do. In fact, science got those 5 assumptions from Christianity as conclusions about the universe. The conclusions come from the faith that God exists, God created, and God has the characteristics we have faith that He does.
Remember, I am not the only scientist working. When we consider all the scientists working and all the fields in which they are doing research, yes, all the facts not only can be checked, but they are being checked.
Waaaaaiiittttt. There is very little design in messy road systems and plagiarizing college students?
How are the roads of Pittsburgh not designed? As far as I know, whenever a road is built, it is because somebody somewhere believes that this road will make transportation easier in a city. In other words every single road in Pittsburgh was placed exactly where it is by a conscious decision of someone. You will not find a single road for which there isn't someone who can say "Yes, this was built in such-and-such a year, because I realized that people over yae needed a way to get over thae."
And how is a plagiarized college paper not designed? Do you know how we detect plagiarism? We do so by detecting low-probability events. For example, suppose I write in an essay that "the hyperventilated buffoonery of evilutionists inevitably cascades into the conclusion that they are either unmitigated geniuses or incredible dullards". What is the probability of such a sentence being arrived at independently by another writer? About zero. Therefore, it is precisely because of the sentence's low probability that plagiarism is detected.
And you think road systems and plagiarism are examples of non-design? Well, that just means:
This is basically opposite to everything any Intelligent Design proponent has ever said about design. Do you see how scientifically useless your concept of "design" is?
- A process completely controlled by deliberated, rational human behavior can result in a non-designed system
- and non-designed systems can be diagnosed by the presence of low-probability events.
A misconception of science that it must be done by repeating an experiment. Science works by making a hypothesis and then deducing consequences of that hypothesis. Those consequences are observations that we should see today.
As it happens, there are several hypotheses that tested common ancestry:
1. If common ancestry is true, then living beings can be classified in a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are a consequence of common ancestry or "descent with modification". As it happens, evolution passed that test. Not only that, but every measurement to put living beings in a nested hierarchy worked: morphological (Linneaus), physiological, sequences of amino acids in proteins, genetic analysis.
2. If creationism is true and God created separate basic kinds, then we should find that sequences of bases in DNA in comparable genes are independent observations.
OTOH, if evolution is true, then those sequences should not be independent. Result: phylogenetic analyses have been done in the last 20 years when cheap and fast DNA sequencing became available. Time after time, it has been found that DNA sequences are not independent observations, but related by historical connections. And this involves DNA sequences from creatures as varied as corn, ferns, worms, insects, rats, and humans.
Everything was done without planning. That doesn't mean that roads were put places unintentionally. It means they weren't really planned. It was a "just get it done today, don't worry about tomorrow" attitude.
As for plagiarism, a person copying someone else's work is not designing their own work.
As for me understanding the uselessness of the design argument, evidently I don't see any uselessness in it. People don't fully know how much their creator loves them until they see how much care He put into the design ofo the world. The uselessness i see is in trying to prove evolution. I have heard over and over again that the design argument doesn't work, but as of yet no one has ever proven to me why.
Bait and switch. We're talking about design, and that was the term you used, not "planned" which neither you nor any ID proponent has ever defined in the context of evolution.
Let's look at Dembski's explanatory filter, a standard ID argument:
The key step in formulating Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is to delineate a method for detecting design. Such a method exists, and in fact, we use it implicitly all the time. The method takes the form of a three-stage Explanatory Filter. Given something we think might be designed, we refer it to the filter. If it successfully passes all three stages of the filter, then we are warranted asserting it is designed. Roughly speaking the filter asks three questions and in the following order: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it?The Explanatory Filter: Dembski, William A.
Let's apply this filter to the roads of Pittsburgh.
Does a natural law explain them? Clearly not.
Does chance explain them? You yourself have admitted that every single road was the result of intentional actions of a team of volitionally free human beings. So, not either.
The only possible recourse, according to Dembski, is that they are the result of design. And yet they don't "look designed" to you.
Whether natural law explains them depends on your point of view. Its natural law for species to try to survive. The pragmatic throwing together of roads so that mining could commence was based on a natural fear. They didn't put much thought into it, but just started paving roads. Thats not true design. True design is planning based on what you already know in an effort to solve a problem. The culture in western PA was like that, manily because of the coal/steel industry- it was make it up as you go. That is not really design. The design in nature has order to it. Was there any thought put into it?- sure. But designing is more than just a mere thought.
I think I just have.As for me understanding the uselessness of the design argument, evidently I don't see any uselessness in it. People don't fully know how much their creator loves them until they see how much care He put into the design ofo the world. The uselessness i see is in trying to prove evolution. I have heard over and over again that the design argument doesn't work, but as of yet no one has ever proven to me why.
Here are two exquisitely human artifacts, the roads of Pittsburgh and the plagiarized essay, that are intelligently designed according to one of the oldest ID arguments, Dembski's explanatory filter. Not only so, you yourself agree that they are the intentional result of human volitional agency.
And yet they don't "look designed" to you.
If design is something so arbitrary that two proponents of Intelligent Design can't even agree over whether something is designed or not, how can it possibly be useful in a scientific context?
They aren't designed because they aren't really planned. They are thrown together at the last minute. Remember my original point was in response to the idea that there is no "not design." I am replying by saying that there is- haphazard design. Just to eliminate some confusion-I'm not saying that just any appearance of design is evidence of a creator. I'm saying that good design (order, function) does not happen by chance. The universe (aside from how we screw it up) is very well designed, as opposed to our lazy haphazardness. Its order, not just a minimal thought process that is the basis for the design argument. Also remember that I said design is not scientific evidence for a creator. Its more like the evidence presented in court.
I have no idea where this thread was going. XD Do you mind if I reset the discussion? It'll still be something along the lines you're exploring, but I want to ask a question.
Suppose I showed you an electronic circuit that performs a particular function (specifically distinguishing between a low pitch, 1kHz signal, and a high pitch, 10kHz signal). A team of electrical engineers have examined the circuit and determined that:
Would you consider that circuit to likely be a product of deliberate design, however you may want to define that term?
- Removing any component would affect if not destroy the circuit's functioning;
- while the circuit uses conventional components, they are connected in unusual ways, so that the engineers are unable to describe how exactly the circuit works;
- nevertheless, the circuit performs the function admirably well over long time scales without becoming unstable.
If it was a team of engineers that werw working together to intentionally design this circuit then yes the parts of it they intentionally designed are deliberate designs, even if they don't fully understand every aspect of it, although the "accidental" parts were not deliberate design.
There are three challenges here. The second one is is exponentially more difficult than the first and the third even more so.
1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)
2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution that explains current observations and makes predictions or even a single prediction for future discoveries or tests with positive results.(or even some part of current bservations, especially the observed age of the earth. Note the age of the earth is not itself a part of the theory of evolution, but an old earth is predicted by the theory of evolution.)
3.) Do #2, while providing a hypothesis that honors the Christian God as well as or better than the theory of evolution or alternatively satisfies todays religious anti-evolutionists.
What if the "accidental parts" work very, very well? Are you trying to say that there is some detectable difference between a designed circuit that works very well and an "accidental" circuit that works very well? (If so, I would be curious to know what it is.)
Or are you simply saying that the latter (an "accidental" circuit that works very well) simply doesn't exist? In that case, I hope you can familiarize yourself with the field of evolutionary electronics and the work of Adrian Thompson in particular.
There are three challenges here. The second one is is exponentially more difficult than the first and the third even more so. The rewards start big and also increase exponentially. To the best of my knowledge, no anti-evolutionists have really given these a serious college try, though scientists are constantly trying. You've got competition. If you accomplish any fraction of any of these your anti-evolutionary peers will reward you richly and you will make many converts. If you can supply positive results you will be amply rewarded by sicentists of all faiths.
1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)
The reward for meeting this challenge is scientific fame and job offers. If you carry out the test, even without positive results, your fame and fortune will grow. If you have positive results you will likely receive publication in Nature or Science, the flagship science journals. It's a bit like a musician appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. You are also going to receive job offers, acclaim and essentially rock stardom. Scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have made entire careers out of attempting this with no positive results or subtly (but without luck) trying to nudge the picture of evolutionary
gradualism.
2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution that explains current observations and makes predictions or even a single prediction for future discoveries or tests with positive results.(or even some part of current bservations, especially the observed age of the earth. Note the age of the earth is not itself a part of the theory of evolution, but an old earth is predicted by the theory of evolution.)
This one is a big order and your competition is stiff. Darwins' hypothesis and the subsequent modifications (such as the modern synthesis) have currectly explained and predicted so many observations, discoveries and positive tests that this is your biggest competitor. The field is filled with competitors. Although he failed to make any correct predictions or explain many phenomena and has been thouroughly debunked on geological and other levels(as well as having been shown to be unbiblical) Morris's revival of a long dead timeline from the 7th Day Adventists in "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Implications" gained him acclaim and
sold very well. Biologists of all types are seeking this prize. The reward for
providing even a partial replacement or modification for the theory of evolution the yeilds positive results is undying fame. Slight modifications will causeyour name and hypothesis to be learned by every freshman biology student. Areplacement would eclipse Darwin and launch you into the type of undying fame of Einstein.
3.) Do #2, while providing a hypothesis that honors the Christian God as well as or better than the theory of evolution or alternatively satisfies todays religious anti-evolutionists.
In either of these cases, you would attain not only the top peir of scientific stardom and rewards, but would also eclipse Origen, Augustine, Luther andpossibly even Paul as the preeminent theologian and church leader. I would most probably become your follower as would essentially all Christians working in science and a host of thers.
Go forth! And, good luck.
I'm not ANTI-evolutionist. but I do not believe that mankind is decending from anything other than mankind, so I hope this will suffice.A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists
REally, I could care less about any rewards that man can offer me, I'm just after my Father Heart!There are three challenges here. The second one is is exponentially more difficult than the first and the third even more so. The rewards start big and also increase exponentially. To the best of my knowledge, no anti-evolutionists have really given these a serious college try, though scientists are constantly trying. You've got competition. If you accomplish any fraction of any of these your anti-evolutionary peers will reward you richly and you will make many converts. If you can supply positive results you will be amply rewarded by sicentists of all faiths.
Matt 4:1 said:Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
1.) Provide a testable hypothesis that calls into question descent with
modification from common ancestors. (The theory of evolution)
Matt 4:3-4 said:And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The reward for meeting this challenge is scientific fame and job offers. If you carry out the test, even without positive results, your fame and fortune will grow. If you have positive results you will likely receive publication in Nature or Science, the flagship science journals. It's a bit like a musician appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. You are also going to receive job offers, acclaim and essentially rock stardom. Scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have made entire careers out of attempting this with no positive results or subtly (but without luck) trying to nudge the picture of evolutionary
gradualism.
Matt 4:5-7 said:Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
God never says how old the earth is, nor man, for that matter, specifically, throughout the body of Scripture. Though, through a process of elimination, we can assertain, with some degree of certainty, that mankind if aproxamately 6 or 7 thousand years old through the genologies afforded us in the Scripture. This leaves very little room for any 'evolution', which is hypothosized to take X (to the infinity) amount of years to ocurr.2.) Provide a replacement hypothesis for the theory of evolution that explains current observations and makes predictions or even a single prediction for future discoveries or tests with positive results.(or even some part of current bservations, especially the observed age of the earth. Note the age of the earth is not itself a part of the theory of evolution, but an old earth is predicted by the theory of evolution.)
This one is a big order and your competition is stiff. Darwins' hypothesis and the subsequent modifications (such as the modern synthesis) have currectly explained and predicted so many observations, discoveries and positive tests that this is your biggest competitor. The field is filled with competitors. Although he failed to make any correct predictions or explain many phenomena and has been thouroughly debunked on geological and other levels (as well as having been shown to be unbiblical) Morris's revival of a long dead timeline from the 7th Day Adventists in "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Implications" gained him acclaim and
sold very well. Biologists of all types are seeking this prize. The reward for
providing even a partial replacement or modification for the theory of evolution the yeilds positive results is undying fame. Slight modifications will causeyour name and hypothesis to be learned by every freshman biology student. Areplacement would eclipse Darwin and launch you into the type of undying fame of Einstein.
Matt 4:8-10 said:Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
I am that I am.3.) Do #2, while providing a hypothesis that honors the Christian God as well as or better than the theory of evolution or alternatively satisfies todays religious anti-evolutionists.
John 6:27In either of these cases, you would attain not only the top peir of scientific stardom and rewards, but would also eclipse Origen, Augustine, Luther andpossibly even Paul as the preeminent theologian and church leader. I would most probably become your follower as would essentially all Christians working in science and a host of thers.
Go forth! And, good luck.
And here I reasoned that 'common decent' was a literal termProof that common decent is false has been around since the beginning of humanity. Information cannot be created through random processes because language is an arbitrary convention and laws of physics are incapable of making arbitrary decision. If I were to make up my own language but not tell anyone about it, then it would be impossible to for anyone other than me to know it's meaning because it's completely arbitrary. Studying the laws of physics would not help you decipher my language one bit, because laws of physics have nothing to do with arbitrary decisions.
I'm not ANTI-evolutionist. but I do not believe that mankind is decending from anything other than mankind, so I hope this will suffice.
REally, I could care less about any rewards that man can offer me, I'm just after my Father Heart!
Thanks for replying to my post. I didn't know anyone was still listening.
If something is accidentally done right in a design, of course it exists, but it still cannot be qualified as a design itself because it was not intentional. I don't rule out the involvement of chance in the origin of the universe. I rule out chance as the main origin of the universe. There are some good things that happen by chance. But in nature we see not one, two or three good designs- we see a seemingly infinate number of good designs- "good" as compared to our own capacity to create.
Understand that "good design" is a relative term, but when something is infinately complex and still works, one has to ask questions. We boast and brag about how smart we are when it comes to reproducing life by stem cell research, yet we start with existing stem cells that were not designed by us in the first place. We haven't in all our scientific research come up with a robot that can do everything a human being can do and reproduce its own design that develops and grows in size. As a designer, I can't believe that chance and trial and error are the chief origins of the universe. All we really do is copy whats already out there. The only thing we do that is original from an eternal perspective is sin, and even that was Satan's idea in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?