Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
There is a fundamental difference in temperament here. Science does speculate and search for facts to support the speculation. Along the way, facts are sometimes foung that are inconsistent with the speculation.
Religion, on the other hand, makes assertions and claims that anyone who doubts those assertions will be punished for eternity. The worst science can do to non-believers is reject their articles for publication.
I suspect it is a desire to find observations to verify a stipulated conclusion--a desire to have it both ways, both to accept the validity of reason and the senses but also to accept predetermined beliefs obtained without need of those faculties.
I think Kierkegaard can provide a nice solution by allowing people to objectively observe then conclude (rather than the other way around) and still hold tight to whatever mystical beliefs they wish to stipulate. It provides a kind of epistemological separation of the real and the mystical so that people can still rationally function in this world.
(And it eliminates the need for all these silly, misguided, and contorted arguments.)
True. It is called petitio principii (begging the question). However there is no proof of evolution. There are only explanations posited to explain what is observed.
"Proof" is a strange word to use outside the field of mathematics or jurisprudence. There is no proof of the laws of thermodynamics either. There is however an immense amount of evidence that is consistent with these laws and a verifiable failure has yet to be observed.
If the universe were infinite, it could not expand, as you noted. I do not hold that the universe is infinite.
The argument of a time before the big bang is simply that time is infinite
You are exactly right and I have to chuckle when cosmologists say, "Before the Big Bang there was no time." Time as we know it, linear time, is finite. I do not argue that there is not another kind of time outside the universe. God Himself is beyond the temporal and has demonstrated this in various ways including the recording of specific prophecies fulfilled hundreds or even thousands of years later.
than what do you suppose separates the universe from that thing?
This is a problem for which your cosmologists are attempting to create a theory. The question is "what happens when you leave space if indeed we can leave space?" But the answer to your question is, at this point, "space." Since the universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light, and since we do not have the technology to reach or exceed that speed, space is indeed the barrier.
The universe is, *by definition*, all that exists.
Yes, when we speak of the temporal reality in which we exist we can properly use that definition. But to say there is no other realm of existence because the universe is all that exists is to exhibit the fallacy of equivocation. The definition of universe cannot change in the same argument from:
1) This physical, temporal realm of existence
-to-
2) All realms of existence.
If you insist on the materialist presupposition that this is the only realm of existence, you remove your a priori supposition of the eternal existence of matter. Can you shape reality with only words? If I define "coffee cup" as something that can only hold coffee will it not still be able to hold tea or mercury or sand?
You're out of your class here. Watch Beavus and learn.
We agree. My response was to your objection that a solution might raise more questions than it answered.
The trouble with the creationist view is that it not only ultimately doesn't explain anything (except to say "God makes it happen")
I was determined to not be moved off of the subject. Since you seem to have the ability to think, I'll respond.
If it is as you say, that the creationist view explains nothing and hides behind God for explanations, then what threat could it possibly be to evolution? Why don't the evolutionists simply grind creationism into the dust of history with their logic and proof? Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life. It is the interpretation of the evidence that differs. It is true we have slightly less evidence than you do. That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view; No Nebraska man, no Piltdown man, no Lucy.
Many evolutionary theories at least attempt to explain observations within the realm of the observable universe.
No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.
That's not exactly what I wrote. The universe could be infinite, with matter still spreading out within it. This could also explain what is observed.
exhibit the fallacy of equivocation
You can assume that I am not exhibiting this fallacy and reinterpret from there. If you suppose some other "realm of existence" that should properly be encompassed by the term "universe". I see no reason to EVER change the definition of "universe" from encompassing everything. To do so would begin a proliferation of words by attempting to define ever encompassing notions of existence--perhaps "superuniverse", or "metauniverse". That would indeed leave us susceptible to the fallacy of equivocation. Let's not do the corruption of the language that so many others have done but instead stick with the original definition. If something exists, it is part of the universe. This is true by definition, not by argument or observation.
supposition of the eternal existence of matter
If the big bang theory is true, then matter has existed for all time.
Then you have created reality by definition. That is fine for your own universe but reality itself exists apart from the will of man.
You have demonstrated well the bias of the materialist. The materialist lives in a room and refuses to look out the window. It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe. The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
That, of course, is your choice. But that choice robs you of the ability to point the finger at creationists and accuse them of intellectual stubbornness; it is hypocrisy. It also causes your "scientific" air of superiority to evaporate; you aren't interested in truth, only the support of your baseless suppositions.
Finally, it exposes the defenders of darwin to be volitional rather than thoughtful; dishonest rather than truthful; unscientific rather than scientific, biased rather than fair.
It means you lost the argument.
If the big bang theory is true, then matter has existed for all time.
Of course matter has existed for all time. Who would argue against that? Both views believe time began with the beginning of the universe. It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
A belief doesn't necessarily die simply because it is incompatible with reason or observation. In fact, it is often the opposite. It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation. The belief is the axiom, the undeniable truth to which interpretations of observations must be made compatible with.
That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view
Well, you need to study your opponents. Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence. Even Darwin's theories, as primitive as they may have been, were quite reasonable attempts to explain meticulous real world observations.
Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life.
Maybe I have been the victim of only reading ideas from some black sheep of the creationist movement, but repeatedly I read things such as false interpretations of the laws of thermodynamics that are like neon signs flashing "absurdity".
Even without all the absurd or contorted particulars, I am asked to accept that, given the world as I can observe it, it is more likely that multiple complex species magically popped into existence like a mammoth David Copperfield special than that there was some sort of continuum from the formation of the solar system to earth's present state.
No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.
Actually some posters on this thread have done a reasonable job of explaining the science of evolutionary theories. If you think the theories as described here go outside the realm of reality, I suggest you read a contemporary textbook on the matter. As far as brick walls, they result (in modern theories that are privy to them) in unsubstantiated explanations rather than contradictions. The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science. The process of fixed unfalsifiable conclusions followed by interpretations tailored to fit them is not.
This is rediculous, and disappointing. I have done nothing but define a word. I could just as well have created a new word called, say "poutriverse" and defined "poutriverse" = "all that exists". Fortunately a word already exists, it is called "universe".
Or, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a word that means "all that exists"?
It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe. The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.
What is disappointing is that my previous post was so meticulously clear. Perhaps you didn't read it. If you don't want to except the definition of "universe" I gave then simply say so.
However, in light of your incapacity to manage word definitions, let me simply say that all you are doing by using words like "reality beyond the universe" is saying that there are properties or qualities of the universe that are different than those we observe.
he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality
What you mean is that you somehow know of things that are not observable. Please explain how you then came to know them. Explain why I can't with equal legitimacy claim that there is a 2D realm of Mandarin-speaking Elvis's flying upside down on winged donkeys.
That, of course, is your choice.
It is my choice not to claim to know things that I cannot know.
It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
"Origin"? There is no origin if it has always existed. And I thought you were beyond the contradiction of a time before time.
You don't realize that you believe in an infinite universe containing unobservable properties that are incomprehensibly different from those properties we do observe, and yet are knowable.
Exactly, which is why getting you guys to think about it is like pulling teeth. Let me state evolution's vitamin deficiency in another way: If evolution is on such a sound foundation, why do defenders have convulsions at the thought of allowing criticism? If you fear criticism, you have something to hide. Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools. Darwinists, however, demand a government-funded monopoly. That's logical, fair, balanced and self-confident isn't it? No! It is the manifest paranoia of the darwinists.
It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation.
You reveal a paucity of knowledge regarding religion. Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious. Even Hume said it was reasonable to believe in a Creator. It is the materialistic foundation of darwinism that is impervious to reason. I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.
Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence.
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
I didn't know evolutionists feared criticism. I'll ask one next time I see one. As scientists I would hope they would be masters at producing criticism. In fact, the biological literature is full of criticisms, which is why evolutionary science has changed so much, and branched out, over the years.
Aside from evolutionists, anyone who values reason or simple truth may very well have convulsions at efforts to teach schoolchildren that the second law of thermodynamics means that only God can increase complexity.
I didn't know that "Darwinism" had an economic or political branch. I'll have to go back to Darwin's writings to see if I can find that. What are they doing advocating government monopolies? Perhaps you are thinking of a subset of Darwinists who also happen to be collectivists?
Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious.
What religion is not supersititious? What about Darwinism is superstitious?
I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.
How so?
Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
How do contemporary evolutionary theories depend on these?
The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
And creationists can conceive of empirical data that would disprove the existence of God? That is, the part of their theory requiring God's existence is falsifiable?
Well, erase for a moment, for the sake of argument, all you think you know about how people currently conceive evolutionary theories. Can you conceive of a rational way of tentatively explaining the existing biological and fossil evidence without the need of a deliberate intervention?
I beg your pardon.
We are not talking about a word but the concept the word represents.
You have limited reality to suit your worldview, which was my original contention: Philosophical materialists are stuck in their tiny materialistic mental box. They won't look out the window, not because there is nothing out there but because it makes them uncomfortable.
Or, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a word that means "all that exists"?
Since you are requiring that I break down your logic to show the flaws, I must assume you have had no training in logic whatsoever. If you have had training in logic, you are either ignoring its laws or have forgotten them.
Your syllogism:
Major premise:
The universe is all that there is.
Minor premise:
If something were outside the universe it could not be part of the universe.
Conclusion:
Therefore something outside the universe cannot exist.
This fallacy is called Petitio Principii or "begging the question," which is assuming the thing you are trying to prove. It is the most basic of fallacies.
What you mean is that you somehow know of things that are not observable. Please explain how you then came to know them.
Evolution is almost composed exclusively of elements that are not observable! Shame beavus! Was I mistaken when I gave you credit for thinking?
Do you know of things you cannot observe? The question absolutely absurd, hypocritical, and sophomoric. Everyone knows things they cannot observe! If you want a lesson in the theory of knowlege, I charge $105 an hour.
It is amazing to me that I so often have to give the high-brow evolutionists lessons in elementary logic. You people are supposed to be the enlightened ones yet you mock us if our vocabulary exceeds 800 words.
Explain why I can't with equal legitimacy claim that there is a 2D realm of Mandarin-speaking Elvis's flying upside down on winged donkeys.
You can. Here's another lesson in logic for free: The burden of proof is on the new idea.
You are certainly free to assert anything but you should be able to back it up. I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe. You can only offer the lame and trampled excuse that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist. Any 7th-grader of average intelligence who hasn't been force-fed darwinism through the elementary grades will be able to discern which position is superior. Deny it till you turn blue, but please offer some sort of rational basis.
"Origin"? There is no origin if it has always existed.
No kidding. The burden of proof is on you to show or at least provide some logic that indicates why matter is eternal.
You don't realize that you believe in an infinite universe containing unobservable properties that are incomprehensibly different from those properties we do observe, and yet are knowable.
Of course I understand the argument I put forth. I admit some of the properties are unobservable. Most of evolution's claims are unobservable. If the unobservable element makes it impossible, then evolution is impossible as well. The properties are not incomprehensibly different.
You see, beavus, your side tries to explain all the impossibilities of the Big Bang by telling us the laws of physics were different then. How convenient! That is no less intellectually cowardly than your claim that we hide behind God.
It does not wash, beavus, to say that
dirt is eternal = science
God is eternal = superstition
frog -> prince = fairy tale
frog + time -> prince = science.
Source is "Answers in Genesis" HERE.
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.