Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

It's a Duck.
The box says it's a Duck so it's a Duck.

If I actually could have put up the image. It would have been a good example of my argument. However, I don't know how to do that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I actually could have put up the image. It would have been a good example of my argument. However, I don't know how to do that.

If it's on your local drive you could upload it as an attachment -- look for the paperclip icon.

 

[lasthero]

IF I were to use just my observation, and it is limited since I can't really see the entire object, I would say it is petrified?

It's not. I mean, I suppose it is in a manner of speaking , but it's a flint axe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How so?

You statement makes a false choice. It implies that God is limited to acting in such a way as you think He would act.

Because the interaction of two particles has to have a constant result in a materialistic universe. I have said this time and again.

You are telling me that it is due to the interaction but not what causes the interaction or why it has to be constant. You are not telling me why the universe would have to be mathematical.

No, it would make for an irrational and inconsistent universe. When the universe is at the whim of a deity you lose all rational and consistent properties.

Again, you are using false dichotomy in your statement. God doesn't have to act in such a way as you think He would act. In fact, it is irrational to conclude that a being that was able to create the universe and the laws that govern it would be irrational and inconsistent. That isn't even logical.

So you accept that all life evolved from a single common ancestor?

I don't know and either do you.

I am still waiting for you to present evidence that God did anything. So far, you have shown me zero evidence, so how could I deny anything?

All I am saying is that you can not logically deny that God could have created the universe. You might not believe it, but you can not logically deny it.

Those are nested kinds, not separate kinds.

They are separated in kinds. You do not see kingdoms mixed with kingdoms or phylum mixed with phylum...

 

[Oncedeceived]

We can't see anything on your C: Drive.
Also you're showing your Computer's UserName that you're logged in as

So you removed it? Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not. I mean, I suppose it is in a manner of speaking , but it's a flint axe.

Ahhhhh! You got me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Edit it to ....

I don't see a delete option in edit.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK let's say it appears to be designed now what? who or what designed it and why and for whom was it designed?

If we can see that it appears to be designed we can reason that those who hold the Christian worldview have a "reason" to hold that a designer was involved in its design. In fact, that design in the universe would be evidence that what we believe is factual. Appearance of design is not just an illusion but in reality is what it appears to be. Why is also revealed in the Christian worldview for Scripture tells us that God had a purpose and that purpose was us. We see in the universe that all appears to be designed for our existence. IF any of the constants were any different life would not exist. Does it take more faith to believe that the appearance of design is just an illusion or that it is factual? I believe that it is more logical to surmise that it is factual since illusions are not a common occurrence in our universe.

how on earth can we even begin to answer those questions, where do we start? do we guess or make something up?

For someone who does not have a theological answer this is a dilemma. Is it consistent with those who hold to a purely materialistic position or worldview. Either one must determine that natural processes would create the illusion of design or one must surmise that there was a designer. It then comes down to our presuppositions. Do we believe that everything we see is based on the fact that it comes from an non-intelligent natural process or one of an intelligent being if we are discussing materialism vs. creationism, which we are.

or do we just not worry about it and assume it's natural until we have something more to go on?

That of course is our choice. However, if we are just results of materialistic processes and our brains are just materialistic in nature, do we have a choice?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If it's on your local drive you could upload it as an attachment -- look for the paperclip icon.

Its on my drive but I don't see a paperclip icon.

 

[Kellyvee]

OK let's say it appears to be designed now what? who or what designed it and why and for whom was it designed?

If we can see that it appears to be designed we can reason that those who hold the Christian worldview have a "reason" to hold that a designer was involved in its design.

We have already agreed it appeared to be designed, what we want to know now is the 'who' and the 'why',
how are we going to find out? should we make something up or agree that we can never know?
Please understand that the Christian idea is but one of many reguarding the creation of the universe.
They cannot all be right but they can all be wrong.

 

[Davian]

If we can see that it appears to be designed we can reason that those who hold the Christian worldview have a "reason" to hold that a designer was involved in its design. In fact, that design in the universe would be evidence that what we believe is factual. Appearance of design is not just an illusion but in reality is what it appears to be.

How did you determine this? By what testable criteria?

Why is also revealed in the Christian worldview for Scripture tells us that God had a purpose and that purpose was us. We see in the universe that all appears to be designed for our existence.

How did you get from "designer" to your particular god of your particular religion? Anything testable there?

IF any of the constants were any different life would not exist. Does it take more faith to believe that the appearance of design is just an illusion or that it is factual? I believe that it is more logical to surmise that it is factual since illusions are not a common occurrence in our universe.

Really? It is my understanding that the table that my monitor rests on is mostly empty space. How is that?

For someone who does not have a theological answer this is a dilemma. Is it consistent with those who hold to a purely materialistic position or worldview. Either one must determine that natural processes would create the illusion of design or one must surmise that there was a designer.

The theological answer merely moves the mystery one step back. That is your dilemma.

It then comes down to our presuppositions. Do we believe that everything we see is based on the fact that it comes from an non-intelligent natural process or one of an intelligent being if we are discussing materialism vs. creationism, which we are.

That of course is our choice.

Can you choose what you believe?

However, if we are just results of materialistic processes and our brains are just materialistic in nature, do we have a choice?

Ah, free will. There's a rabbit hole if I ever saw one.

What would it feel like if free will was an illusion?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't see a delete option in edit.

I think he means click 'edit', and then replace all the text with a few periods. It's the tradition on CF (and beyond) when you can't delete texts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We couldn't even know if we found every fossil, even if we somehow did it - it's not like we have a pre-established idea of how many species lived on this planet, there's no hard goal to reach and no way to tell when we'd be done. It's like collecting cards when you don't have any idea how many cards you need for a complete - no matter how many you get, there could always be more. Add on to that, the fact that many species rarely, if ever, fossilize, because of the way their bones are designed - bats, for instance.

But I don't think that's a fair analogy, somewhat. Just because you don't have all the pieces of a puzzle, doesn't mean we can't make judgments on the picture. I mean, look at this.

Yes, it's incomplete, but do I really need all the pieces in order to tell that it's a dollar bill?

It didn't work. :o

 

[pgp_protector]

It didn't work. :o

?? (only pic in the Album)

 

[Oncedeceived]

?? (only pic in the Album)

You are such a sweetheart! Thanks.

So my point in making this was to show that we don't know how many pieces of the puzzle we have and how many are still missing. So it may seem that this could be a person, we can't really know until more of the pieces are available. So it comes down to how much we think we have, and how do we really know?

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, but an omnipotent God surely wouldn't be stymied by such a simple problem - just make bigger or better gills. If this were truly the reason, we should see a sharp cut-off in size above which we only see lung-breathing cetaceans and below which we only see water-breathing fish. We don't - we see tiny cetaceans and huge fish(esque).

You're right (or rather, the article's right), gills become less efficient on larger creatures, but this doesn't take away from the point that whales contain the indelible mark of a terrestrial mammalian ancestor: lungs, nostrils, vertically oscillating spine (whales swim like a cheater runs, unlike fish, whose spines oscillate horizontally), middle-ear bones, a pelvis, even hair of all things.

God was not stymied by anything. You are stymied by the way God created. Instead you want to make up naturalistic guesses and believe them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is a bunch of gobbleygook. So you start with a set of faith based beliefs to start the process of scientific methodology? How?

Scientific methodology is based on the laws of logic. The laws of logic do not arise from man made constructs. If you feel they are, they are not absolute and if they are not absolute they can not have reliability of truth.

The real reason is that our logic works and is able to make accurate predictions.

Logic is not confined to predictions. The act of prediction does not affect truth. Someone can predict an outcome but it takes more than the fact that it works, it takes the belief that what we find can be most probably the truth. The laws of logic are universal and do not change by location, culture or whether an individual is aware of them or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are saying that evolution will produce a nested hierarchy, not intelligent design/creationism.

We really are not getting anywhere.

You still have not explained why DESIGN would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy.

Yes, I have. Numerous times.

So do you. Read the paragraph that you just wrote. You stated quite clearly that it is evolution that produces a nested hierarchy, not design. Therefore, if species fall into a nested hierarchy that means that they evolved from a common ancestor.

It could. Like I said, I don't know and either do you.

Humans design species that are designed to adapt and change, but they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. We created genetically modified species that clearly violate the nested hierarchy. So are you saying that God is less powerful than humans are?

I am saying that God is more powerful than humans, which should go without saying.

You have the cart in front of the horse. Our brains have evolved to recognize the already existent mathematical features of the universe. The universe did not have to predict the existence of man. It just was. Man developed a brain that was able to figure out how nature works, not the other way around.

So it just was... I think we will talk of this later.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are three kingdoms united by their common ancestry.

There are actually six kingdoms: Plants, Animals, Protists, Fungi, Archaebacteria and Eubacteria. There are three domains of life: The Archaea Domain, the Bacteria Domain and the Eukarya Domain.

Is a human part of the same Family as other apes? Yep. So that means we share common ancestor with other apes, correct? We are in the ape kind, correct?

We are categorized as such. There is evidence to support such a consensus. I also believe that new discoveries are shedding more light on the genome and we will have to see what comes of it all.

Are we also in the mammal kind, and the vertebrate kind, and the eukaryote kind? Do we share a common ancestor with all other eukaryotes, from ameoba to plants to birds?

We are the mammal kind, we are the vertebrate kind. We share common characteristics with all other Eukaryotes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think he means click 'edit', and then replace all the text with a few periods. It's the tradition on CF (and beyond) when you can't delete texts.

Correct. I didn't know what he meant. Thanks.