4 of 7
4
Please present convincing reasons based on scientific findings, that naturalism is more compelling than theism. 
Posted: 24 March 2012 10:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 24 March 2012 08:55 PM

I suppose I should continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are merely dull-witted and gullible.
You said “What makes you so confident about that ? ” as if I was talking about a case still pending or something. I am confident that the courts will rule against creationism, under any guise, in cases like Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board, McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, Epperson v Arkansas, etc.. because the cases are over and the rulings have already been handed down. The best of reasons to be confident. It has already happened.

so does it come down to this, that you guide your world view on what some courts judged , like at the dover trial ? is it that what you mean ?

You say “I have not seen good, convincing arguments from you so far…..” as if all of your erroneous claims

what erroneous claims ?

about the reality of nature have gone unanswered.

indeed. i dont know based on what you think you have a case. i really don’t see it ( yet )

You have seen plenty of good, convincing arguments that show you are just plain wrong on every point that you have tried to make,

sorry, no. i have not. i have REALLY not….. that is just wishful thinking of yours.

 

and I have only mentioned the tip of the iceberg, it’s just that no amount of evidence is sufficient to sway you from your fairy tales.

how about you ? are you ready to give up your world view ? it does not seem so. Instead to look at the evidence, you just make things up. that is becoming boring…...

 

The problem is that you are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept that which is so obviously true.

i don’t see, why chance, or physical necessity, should be good explanations for our existence. Could you point out a littlebit, what you think makes these hypotheses so compelling ? i really dont get the point yet.

To try and use “god created it” as the explanation for how the universe came into being is to dodge the question, because the next question is “where did god come from?”.

to that, i would answer : God does not come from ” somewhere “, as if he was created or so. The bible describes God as a eternal being, that was not created. And it must be so. Otherwise, we would have a infinite regress.

 

Your original question was why is methodological materialism accepted by scientists, but supernatural explanations are not even considered. The answer is still because methodological naturalism works

Well, if we would cancel out methodological naturalism, why would science stop to work ? why would it be a problem, to let the evidence lead, wherever it is ? why is it wrong, to deduce God, based on the scientific knowledge we have today, and understand, that natural causes cannot explain our existence satisfactorly ?

 

and has a proven track record of results, while supernatural explanations fail immediately when examined.

how so ?

please explain, how naturalism can explain compellingly the origin of the universe, its fine tuning, the arise of life, and consciousness.

 

You are your own worst enemy in that conversation because the nonsense, errors and lies that you have posted have articulated my point far more clearly than I ever could.

how about you stop your drivel, and start actually present good solid explanations for your case ? that way, you will be much more convincing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2012 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11

Ok, I’m going to try this one more time. Now, I have to tell you that, if your response is in the form of spreading my post across a couple of pages and inserting some variation of “How do you know?” or, “I do not believe that” between each line, what is going to happen will be that I will call you an idiot and abandon you to your ignorance, and this conversation will come to a screeching halt. If, on the other hand, you decide to investigate what I tell you, you will find that what I have told you is true. I will take one of these whacko religious sites that has been poisoning you and show you what is wrong with the bullshit they have been feeding you.
At this one http://www.icr.org/article/planet-earth-plan-or-accident/

He starts right off with this.
“Since scientists agree that the earth has not existed eternally, simple logic dictates that no middle position exists on the important issue of plan versus accident. Either a superintending Mind planned and designed our planet, or it all originated by a fortuitous accident without a plan and design! To help resolve the matter let us consider some amazing facts about the earth.”

This is incorrect. The process by which the sun and the planets formed is very well understood. A cloud of gas and dust collapsed on itself. There is nothing fortuitous about it, it is what gravity does. Mass attracts mass. Nothing strange or rare about it. It has happened a couple of hundred billion times in our galaxy, and there are a couple of hundred billion galaxies in the known universe.

He goes on to say
“The most important factor affecting the surface temperature of the earth is obviously the distance from the sun.”
This is wrong. Mars had an atmosphere, oceans, weather, etc…. The reason that it does not now is that, being a smaller body than the earth, it cooled more quickly, its molten core solidified, causing it to lose it’s magnetic field. This allowed the solar wind to blow off its atmosphere. No atmospheric pressure, no more water. It’s quite simple and well understood. Mars is 50% further from the sun than the earth.  Basically, those two paragraphs are riddled with errors and unsubstantiated suppositions, but this one point is sufficient. When he says, in summary, “From this discussion we see that the earth is just the proper distance from the sun to maintain the right surface temperature suitable for life and the many important geologic processes!” Unless he is saying that just the proper distance means a band nearly equal to the earth’s average distance from the sun, and he isn’t, he is wrong.

The next section is about the tilt of our axis of rotation. By say ‘23 1/2’ degrees, he is implying that the 1/2 degree matters. It doesn’t. Life could just as easily developed on this planet if the tilt was 18, or 30, or anything in between.

First, if you imagine our solar system as being the size of the dot over the letter I in type font used in your average book, our galaxy would be the size of the continental United States. That’s just our galaxy. To say that there is something requiring divine intervention about having a rocky planet fall within that broad band of space and have a rough approximation of our axial tilt is is to have no understanding at all of how immense our universe is, and how much ‘stuff’ there is in it, even though most of it is basically empty.

The next section is about the earth’s atmosphere. The current level of oxygen is something that he takes as significant, arguing that more or less of it would be horrible. But, the earth’s atmospheric oxygen levels have varied very significantly over it’s 4.5 billion years, and it started out with almost none. And yet, life developed under exactly those conditions. It was cyanobacteria that pumped all of that oxygen into the atmosphere. Read this article. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html It was written by scientists, not religious whackos. That means that you can independently verify everything that it says, go see the fossils for yourself, look at the methodology of the experiments, all of that stuff. Then, you can know something, rather than believe something. How it is that the earth has oxygen in it’s atmosphere is well understood.

The last three or four paragraphs of that are just plain silly, because all of the conditions that he mentions as being terrible have actually occurred at one time or another, and none of those apocalyptic consequences came to pass.

The next section is about our oceans. He starts right out with a straight up lie when he says “Water is an extremely rare compound in space. A permanent reserve of liquid water, a very unlikely occurrence in space, is known to exist only on the earth.” As I have already mentioned, there is more liquid water on Europa than there is on Earth. And that is just one moon of one planet in our solar system. So, you have to replace the word ‘unlikely’ with the word ‘commonplace’ and delete the substance of the rest of that to make it be an accurate representation of reality. He then explains in intricate detail the fact that water has properties, almost as if there were molecules that did not have properties. Water is made of two of the most common things in the universe. The vast majority of the matter in our universe is hydrogen. There is also a butt-load of helium, which is chemically inert, then it’s carbon and oxygen. If all that you need is hydrogen and oxygen to make it, how silly is it to try and argue that it is somehow rare? Extremely.

Next, we have the earth’s crust. In the first paragraph, he mentions ‘lofty continents and deep ocean basins’. That is silly, and the last sentence of that paragraph is all that one needs to know to show that.  He says ” We would expect, using simple probability estimates, to have an earth of nearly constant elevation.” which is exactly what we do have. The deepest spot in the ocean is the Marianas Trench, which is about seven miles. The highest peak is Everest, which is slightly over five miles. That is a range of about twelve miles. The earth is about 8000 miles in diameter.  If you scale that down to a one inch ball bearing, it would have a total variation from perfectly spherical of about .0015 inches. That’s 15/10,000 of it’s diameter. And it has that much variation from perfectly spherical because other forces, tectonic plate movement, has slammed continents into each other to form these peaks and dips. The mountains still eventually crumble. So, what he says we should expect is exactly what we have. But, he says that this is not what we have. He is wrong.

He goes on to talk about how the earth’s crust is just the right thickness. He is, again, wrong. The thickness of the earth’s crust varies from place to place right now, and has varied considerably throughout the entire history of life on this planet, starting with no crust at all. The earth’s crust is right now what it is right now, but that has changed dramatically, and will continue to change.

And then comes his conclusion, in which he tells you where he is actually getting his ‘science’, and that is from a bronze age savage. He even quotes this bronze age savage. ““In His hand are the deep places of the earth; the strength of the hills is His also. The sea is His, and He made it, and His hands formed the dry land. Oh, come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our maker” Psalm 95:4-6.”

Any of the sites that you posted are vulnerable to exactly the same examination, and fare exactly as well when one does so. So, again, to accept intelligent design, one has to begin with the conclusion and back-track to try and put legs under it. If one simply examines the evidence, asks questions, gathers data, and performs experiments to test the ideas, intelligent design would not even cross their mind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 March 2012 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 26 March 2012 09:03 PM

This is incorrect. The process by which the sun and the planets formed is very well understood. A cloud of gas and dust collapsed on itself. There is nothing fortuitous about it, it is what gravity does. Mass attracts mass. Nothing strange or rare about it. It has happened a couple of hundred billion times in our galaxy, and there are a couple of hundred billion galaxies in the known universe.

No kidding ?!! It seems you believe everything, secular ” science ” websites tell you, without thinking if what they serve you could actually be really true.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic-formation-of-planets-exceedingly-difficult

Planet formation is just one of the many hypothetical evolutionary processes that started with the big bang and ended with humans on Earth after many billions of years. Since planets exist, evolutionists reason they ‘must’ have formed from a dust cloud called a nebula. The dust must first develop from dead stars because dust does not just develop from gas molecules. So the dust is believed to have ‘evolved’ from the explosion of a star in a supernova. Hence our solar system is believed to be the result of a collapsed dust cloud from an exploded star. These are the simple naturalistic deductions, assuming evolution is the only mechanism.

Many people are satisfied with this scenario and take it no further. But if an inquiring person were to ask how the planets actually formed from the dust, he would get a surprising answer:

  ‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly

i wont answer the other issues. I think one at the time is better…....

and please : keep our sharing polite, do not start to namecall me ignorat. I know, i am ignorant on many things. Thats why i want to learn….....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2012 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11

You answered too quickly. You need to actually read what I wrote, and then go look for yourself at the experimental results. I shred one of these goofball sites and your response is to bring in the second string of crazy people? Creation dot com? You can’t be serious. The rate at which the accretion process occurred is well understood based on actually data from experiments conducted in near zero-gravity conditions. It’s not that you won’t address what I said in my last post, it’s that you can’t. You asked for evidence in a dumbed down, capsulized form and I gave it to you. You don’t get to ignore it and quote an equally crazy alternate source that is vulnerable to exactly the same criticisms because it is saying essentially the same thing as the first crazy person. Acknowledge that those charlatans at the institute for creation research are dead wrong on every point they tried to make, as I demonstrated for you, and then we can proceed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2012 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 27 March 2012 06:26 AM

You answered too quickly. You need to actually read what I wrote, and then go look for yourself at the experimental results. I shred one of these goofball sites and your response is to bring in the second string of crazy people?

you shred one of these sites ? wow. amazing !! could you point out where you did so ? i guess i overlooked it.


Creation dot com? You can’t be serious. The rate at which the accretion process occurred is well understood based on actually data from experiments conducted in near zero-gravity conditions.

please point to a website, which presents the scientific results. i would like to see them.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2012 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11

You are an idiot, and I have no choice but to abandon you to your ignorance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2012 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 27 March 2012 04:08 PM

You are an idiot, and I have no choice but to abandon you to your ignorance.

oh, i see. showing your real face now…. didnt take too long…..you have shown all along this thread, that your world view is based on wishful thinking, nothing else. No solid ground to back up your claims….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 March 2012 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11
Lindoia - 27 March 2012 05:17 PM
VeronicaS - 27 March 2012 04:08 PM

You are an idiot, and I have no choice but to abandon you to your ignorance.

oh, i see. showing your real face now…. didnt take too long…..you have shown all along this thread, that your world view is based on wishful thinking, nothing else. No solid ground to back up your claims….

Statements like this are what convinced me that you are, in fact, an idiot. You refuse to see what has been handed to you on a silver platter. Well, that is your problem, not mine. At least you now know the answer to your original question. Methodological naturalism works, and magic does not. That is why you have to try and get laws passed requiring schools to teach magic. Nobody has to get laws passed requiring schools to teach Euclid or Pythagoras, no laws are required to get people to teach that Canada is in the northern hemisphere, Newtonian gravity, calculus, any of that stuff. You do have to get the courts and elected officials involved to give magic equal footing with science in the schools, though. I am through with this conversation with you. You will probably feel compelled to post a brutally ignorant statement in response to this. I would say give the internet a break because there is already enough stupidity being posted there, like in those sites you quoted, for example, but, if you simply can’t resist the compulsion, have at it. I won’t be posting a response to it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2012-03-29

VeronicaS, your patience is formidable and far more than she deserved.
Lindoia, your stubborn refusal to even entertain the possibility that VeronicaS has been trying to help you see more clearly is formidable,
you do yourself a massive disservice. Hope you open your mind one day.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
Nick C - 29 March 2012 07:06 AM

VeronicaS, your patience is formidable and far more than she deserved.
Lindoia, your stubborn refusal to even entertain the possibility that VeronicaS has been trying to help you see more clearly is formidable,
you do yourself a massive disservice. Hope you open your mind one day.

hi Nick

are you openminded ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2818
Joined  2005-04-29
Lindoia - 29 March 2012 10:32 AM

hi Nick

are you openminded ?

What an annoyance you are, Lindoia. The idea that you can drum up more and more evidence against magical thinking is, as you’re well aware, nonsense. Magic is for magicians. Why not leave it to the pros and attend to the details of the non-magical world? In a forum such as this, it might result in your not being insulted. As it is, you’ve opened the door to all manner of abuse. Maybe you appreciate being abused. You certainly appreciate ignorance of reality.

 

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
nonverbal - 29 March 2012 03:02 PM
Lindoia - 29 March 2012 10:32 AM

hi Nick

are you openminded ?

What an annoyance you are, Lindoia. The idea that you can drum up more and more evidence against magical thinking is, as you’re well aware, nonsense. Magic is for magicians. Why not leave it to the pros and attend to the details of the non-magical world? In a forum such as this, it might result in your not being insulted. As it is, you’ve opened the door to all manner of abuse. Maybe you appreciate being abused. You certainly appreciate ignorance of reality.

 

If a atheist wants to make a convincing case for naturalism, he must be able to present his ideas without attacking the counterpart personally. Unfortunately, it seems that is a too difficult task. So they shoot in their own foot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2818
Joined  2005-04-29

Your’re seeking evidence that the natural world works the way a natural world works? Keep going. Saturday Night Live might start paying attention to this thread.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
nonverbal - 29 March 2012 03:38 PM

Your’re seeking evidence that the natural world works the way a natural world works? Keep going. Saturday Night Live might start paying attention to this thread.

of course not. are you sure, you don’t know what i was writing about ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2012 06:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2818
Joined  2005-04-29

For most of my adult life, I was a sincerely practicing Christian. But I never doubted the legitimacy of Darwin. So to answer your current question directly, I probably don’t understand your OP question. Certain things just don’t compute in my admittedly limited mind.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 7
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed