PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[Radrook]

Funny how they are so keen in detecting design in any other thing they deem unrelated to a creator.

 

[xianghua]

...

 

[xianghua]

Thanks. I already know about it though, I was a creationist. If you're looking for a cat to turn into a dog then you don't understand evolution. Nobodies saying that happens.

of course not in one generation but in many. so it make it a belief that we cant test because we need milions of years. this is the problem. you are saying that we can prove evolution and its not just a theory? show me what you mean by that.

Can you in your own words write a basic description of what you think evolution is? Perhaps than I could or others could, help with your misunderstandings.

by evolution i mean changes that can evolve a new family\creature. for instance: according to evolution a fish evolved into a tetrapod. can you prove that such a change is possible?

 

[xianghua]

Right (assuming that your "tool marks" stands for all of the various possible evidences of intentional manufacture). Design can either be concluded or not, but it cannot be ruled out. But design cannot be concluded merely on the basis of complexity or functionality.

so the watch alone isnt evidence for design? ok.

 

[Doveaman]

evolution was the designer of the flagellar rotor.

So would that be intelligent design or unintelligent design?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So would that be intelligent design or unintelligent design?

Unintelligent design (i.e. with no guiding purpose or intent).

If you want to call it design, then evolution is the designer. There's an interesting parallel with another thread, where it was suggested that a medium is required for the Doppler effect - although light is subject to the Doppler effect and the vacuum of space isn't usually considered to be a medium (i.e. an aether). But Einstein said to the aetherists that if they insist on having a medium for transmission of light, then space is an aether - but not the kind of aether they were familiar with. Likewise, for design - if you insist on calling cellular structures like the flagellar rotor 'designed', then evolution is the designer - albeit not necessarily the kind of meaning for 'designer' that you're familiar with.

I don't have a problem with using the term that way. If you do, then don't use it that way.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Unintelligent design (i.e. with no guiding purpose or intent).

If you want to call it design, then evolution is the designer. There's an interesting parallel with another thread, where it was suggested that a medium is required for the Doppler effect - although light is subject to the Doppler effect and the vacuum of space isn't usually considered to be a medium (i.e. an aether). But Einstein said to the aetherists that if they insist on having a medium for transmission of light, then space is an aether - but not the kind of aether they were familiar with. Likewise, for design - if you insist on calling cellular structures like the flagellar rotor 'designed', then evolution is the designer - albeit not necessarily the kind of meaning for 'designer' that you're familiar with.

I don't have a problem with using the term that way. If you do, then don't use it that way.

I've wondered if the astrophysics community will come to the conclusion that the quantum foam is the ether. That is, quantum foam is in fact necessary for light to transmit.

Any insights?

 

[Speedwell]

of course not in one generation but in many. so it make it a belief that we cant test because we need milions of years.

If a cat evolved into a dog it would disprove the theory of evolution no matter how many generations it took.

this is the problem. you are saying that we can prove evolution and its not just a theory? show me what you mean by that.

The theory of evooution is a theory, a "well-evidenced scientific explanation for a phenomenon or group of phenomena." It is not subject to "proof," only confirmation.

 

[Doveaman]

Unintelligent design (i.e. with no guiding purpose or intent).

Design by chance?!

If you want to call it design, then evolution is the designer.

Design by definition suggests an intelligent designer since a design involves thoughtful planning.

Evolution does not think, nor does it make plans.

There's an interesting parallel with another thread, where it was suggested that a medium is required for the Doppler effect - although light is subject to the Doppler effect and the vacuum of space isn't usually considered to be a medium (i.e. an aether). But Einstein said to the aetherists that if they insist on having a medium for transmission of light, then space is an aether - but not the kind of aether they were familiar with.

Maybe Einstein knew that space was permeated with cosmic plasma and was not a vacuum.

Likewise, for design - if you insist on calling cellular structures like the flagellar rotor 'designed', then evolution is the designer - albeit not necessarily the kind of meaning for 'designer' that you're familiar with.

So what kind of designer is evolution? Is it an unintelligent designer? a dumb designer? or a designer by chance?

I don't have a problem with using the term that way. If you do, then don't use it that way.

I have no problem calling evolution a dumb designer.

What kind of designer do you call it?

 

[Doveaman]

If a cat evolved into a dog it would disprove the theory of evolution no matter how many generations it took.

If a human could rise from the dead this would cast doubt upon the theory of human evolution, or at least offer an alternative explanation.

The resurrection of a human being from death would prove that new life can be re-created with similar DNA to the previous life. No evolution required.

For example, a dead ape can be resurrected into a living human and a dead human can be resurrected into a living angel.

The ape and the human can share similar DNA just as the human and the angel can share similar DNA, but this would be the result of re-creation/resurrection and not the result of evolution.

The theory of evooution is a theory, a "well-evidenced scientific explanation for a phenomenon or group of phenomena."

That's correct, a scientific theory is only an explanation and not a fact, no matter how well evidenced it is.

It is not subject to "proof," only confirmation.

That's because scientific theories are never proven and are always held tentatively because of the never ending uncertainty.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've wondered if the astrophysics community will come to the conclusion that the quantum foam is the ether. That is, quantum foam is in fact necessary for light to transmit.

Any insights?

Interesting question; as I understand it, in quantum field theory, quantum foam would be the manifestation of the fluctuations (and interactions) of those fields, so the electromagnetic force would be a contributory part of the quantum foam. Unfortunately my 'understanding' at this level is more informed guesswork than real knowledge... Whatever the case, the quantum foam doesn't seem to impede photons, as had been conjectured.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Interesting question; as I understand it, in quantum field theory, quantum foam would be the manifestation of the fluctuations (and interactions) of those fields, so the electromagnetic force would be a contributory part of the quantum foam. Unfortunately my 'understanding' at this level is more informed guesswork than real knowledge... Whatever the case, the quantum foam doesn't seem to impede photons, as had been conjectured.

Thanks. I suppose quantum foam could in some sense impel photons? But, I guess the gist of your answer is that we are a bit away from understanding the relationship between light and quantum foam -- or perhaps that there isn't one.

 

[Radrook]

Then why does the entire publishing scientific community unanimously reject it?

People do strange things when career, prestige and especially money are involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Design by chance?!

More than chance - don't forget selection. Chance provides the variation, natural selection winnows out the less successful variations (where success is survival and reproduction).

Design by definition suggests an intelligent designer since a design involves thoughtful planning.

If you feel that design must involve thoughtful planning, then evolution isn't a designer and the products of evolution are not designed, by that definition.

I can understand that viewpoint, it's one many people hold, but personally I think it's overly restrictive. Iterative selection processes like evolution produce results that, from an agent-centric viewpoint, appear 'designed' to pass the selection criteria. It also seems to me that human design-by-trial-and-error or stepwise refinement (particularly before the functional principles are understood), is qualitatively similar, with human activity providing both the variation (which can be fairly random) and the selection criteria.

For example, the development of early tools, where a chance sharp edged stone leads to random chipping at the rock to get a more successful cutting tool. Once the functional principles are grasped (e.g. understanding of what makes a more effective cutting tool, and how to achieve it), trial and error give way to more directed activity - but perhaps you wouldn't call the results of trial & error activity 'design'?

I agree that sophisticated or advanced design generally involves forethought and planning, which does introduce a qualitative difference, but typically the basic processes of variation, selection, and iteration remain, although more complex, and much of it done by mental modelling.

I think it can all be called design - iterative selection processes of varying degrees of complexity and refinement. But I'm happy to accept that most people feel design requires thinking, as long as they're consistent about it.

Evolution does not think, nor does it make plans.

Quite.

Maybe Einstein knew that space was permeated with cosmic plasma and was not a vacuum.

Judging from the talk he gave, he was describing spacetime as the theoretical abstraction of General Relativity, the metric tensor, rather than the stuff in it.

So what kind of designer is evolution? Is it an unintelligent designer? a dumb designer? or a designer by chance?

I have no problem calling evolution a dumb designer.

What kind of designer do you call it?

A designer by genetic variation and natural selection.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks. I suppose quantum foam could in some sense impel photons?

Well, photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field, and if the electromagnetic field contributes to the quantum foam, then there's a (limited) sense that's true - but as massless particles, photons must travel at c, just as particles with mass cannot.

But, I guess the gist of your answer is that we are a bit away from understanding the relationship between light and quantum foam -- or perhaps that there isn't one.

The gist was really that you need to ask a quantum physicist to get chapter and verse

 

[Radrook]

Dealing with the math is one way. Not the exclusive only way. They say natural processes or chemical reactions in which evolution is the supposed result. Our ancient ancestors were fish. It is a counter and inferior explanation based on modern and secular creation myths. Not exact science.

Funny how they tag abiogenesis as natural when they can't observe it happening in nature nor force nature into making it happen in a lab.

BTW
I know the dif between abiogenesis and the evolution idea.

 

[joinfree]

PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God, but simply declares His existence as a settled fact. ....

I disagree, because I am reading following verse:
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." Matthew 27:54 KJV

Secondly, why are you calling the Proofs of God as simply "arguments"? They are not debunked, for you to know.

 

[Kiwi Christian]

I disagree, because I am reading following verse:
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." Matthew 27:54 KJV

Secondly, why are you calling the Proofs of God as simply "arguments"? They are not debunked, for you to know.

SON of God.

 

[joinfree]

SON of God.

Is son of bird the bird?

 

[Kiwi Christian]

Is son of bird the bird?

No.