How about 700 million years in microseconds?
Posted on 04/08/2005 7:39:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Excellent. I hope you keep a link to that in your homepage. It's a subject that comes up often.
Excellent post and definitely worth a bookmark ;)
Don't get too far ahead of yourself... ID'ers get "bashed for their lack of scientific proof" because they claim to *have* "scientific proof" (actually "proof" is a poor choice of words on your part, try "support" or somesuch), but turn up empty-handed when asked to show it.
The ID movement claims to be a science-based one. The point is that contrary to their claims, they *aren't*. And if they're relying only on the kind of "untestable" declarations you produced by editing the earlier remarks, then indeed, they *do* deserve to be "bashed for their lack of" scientific support or evidence for their position, especially when they want to shoe-horn it into *science* classes in schools.
Saying, "No one can disprove my belief because it can't be tested in any way" is *NOT* the same thing as "scientific support" for that belief, and people rightly deserve to be roasted if they try to misrepresent the former as the latter, as the "ID'ers" all too often do.
Furthermore, two of your three examples mention "God", which the "ID'ers" tie themselves in knots attempting to claim they are *not* invoking as the hypothetical "designer".
This is, of course, one of the Fundamental Questions(tm).
It is often more succinctly stated as, "why is there something instead of nothing?"
However, it's thought-provoking to turn the question on its head: Why would there be "nothing" instead of something? *Can* there be "nothing"? "Nothing" is at best an imaginary abstract concept, but does it, can it, actually reflect any possible mode of reality or existence?
The only state *know* is possible is "something" -- perhaps there is no other possible alternative.
That was a pretty pathetic response.
Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you haven't a clue how science actually works, since you are completely unaware of the reasons that scientists employ such phraseology.
Hint: It has nothing to do with being "mere speculation", and everything to do with the awareness that empirical knowledge, no matter how solid, is provisional. That same kind of provisional knowledge got us successfully to the Moon and back.
Come back when you understand the topic enough to be able to critique it sensibly.
It depends on the beliefs of the observer. It's a variable. They need like minds to prove it.
Wow you don't know much about quatum physics either, I see. No, it doesn't "depend on the beliefs of the observer".
They've done studies on the "Jinx in the machine". They allowed balls to drop freely though pegs. Those who believed most of the balls would land on the left side of the machine got balls on the left side of the machine. Those who believed most of the balls would land on the right side got most of the balls on the right side of the machine.
"They" have, have "they"? Yeah, right, sure "they" have. You go right on believing that.
But for our amusement, feel free to try to provide citations to these "studies".
But... You yourself are "beginning research with an assumption" (the assumption that there is a God, *and* that it was necessarily directly involved in the processes being examined).
I'm trying to figure out how that doesn't make you a hypocrite.
And is it really your contention that people who (*ALLEGEDLY*) start with a presumption different from yours are completely incapable of presenting you with anything you might possibly learn from? Because that seems to be the bizarre position you're putting forth.
Finally, what if they happen to be *right* in that assumption after all, and thus are in a better position to find the answers than you yourself are? Or are you so certain of the answers already that you don't need to pay attention to alternative possibilities (in which case why bother at all)?
Well, hell, who can argue with *that* ironclad and well-reasoned rebuttal?
If you thought that was a valid challenge, you're mistaken.
Hey PatrickHenry, witness the "moving of the goalposts" right here.
How about 700 million years in microseconds?
But... You yourself are "beginning research with an assumption" (the assumption that there is a God, *and* that it was necessarily directly involved in the processes being examined).
I'm trying to figure out how that doesn't make you a hypocrite.
Two differences in this case:
One, I am supposing an opposite to what is being presented.
Two, I do not claim to be a foremost authority on the subject, I am merely debating my opinion with another.
"And is it really your contention that people who (*ALLEGEDLY*) start with a presumption different from yours are completely incapable of presenting you with anything you might possibly learn from?"
You mis-read. I do not like to study from people who have AND presumptions on their subject. I'll listen, sure. But that does not mean I will buy what they offer as true knowledge.
"Finally, what if they happen to be *right* in that assumption after all, and thus are in a better position to find the answers than you yourself are? "
I don't know, that whole "imperical thought" thing would nag me. If we all agreed, noone would be thinking. Quite frankly, I'd rather think than have all the answers.
You should have read the post I was responding to.
What would you accept as evidence?
By what I said, and by what I imply: God is the Truth of all things. "Truth" is a name for God.
Saying one exists does not make one THE Truth. As you state with " But that's true exactly like "'JennyP exists' is a statement that accurately describes reality."
Your existance PROVES existance, but it does not make YOU existance. What God is is the origin of all things. God is the perfect form that Plato spoke of.
While your latter statements are also correct, they are not what I meant by my statement.
A photograph would be good. ;^)
Well here is diagram of something that really doesn't exist.
Why do you think it more likely that things came about by chance rather than design?
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Thanks for the honest input. Again, it's nice talking to people who respond nicely.
I did have another thought though while I was away from the computer today:
Would it be easier to guide reactions at lower temperatures? I forget the enitre thought process that lead to this idea, but thats the conclusion of it.
Any help working it back into coherenace would be appreciated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.