• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are we missing something?

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Only knowledge

Knowledge is a key.

I have previously read these two quotes about knowledge and now offer them to you.

"Knowledge is one point, which the foolish have multiplied."

"Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone."

Both quotes are from Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Hey blü, hope you’re well....
We have an evidence-based reasoned view of the formation of the universe, the stars, elements, planets, our sun and the earth.

A natural, unguided explanation? Based on what evidence, and what reasoning?
Ever see a scientific explanation of how they think the Earth formed? It’s funny.


We have evidence pointing to the start of life on earth some 3.7 bn years ago

Again, no evidence providing for a natural unguided explanation. Not even recreated in a lab.

But the evolution of man from those beginnings is reasonably clearly drawn from evidence.

Only if you believe in the gaps, of which there are plenty! Nothing is clearly drawn from the evidence.
To many scientists, the evidence from the Cambrian Explosion blows current interpretations out of the water.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hey blü, hope you’re well....
So far so good. I hope your own paths are smooth.
A natural, unguided explanation? Based on what evidence, and what reasoning?
Back when Einstein was writing his 1915 paper on Relativity, he, like Newton, thought the universe was static ─ "steady state". It's why he included a 'cosmologcal constant' in his maths. But Alexander Friedmann, a Russki, thought the cosmological constant was mathematically ugly, and merely an expedient, and in 1922 he published a paper on how the universe would look without it ─ namely passively subject to gravity. Since that doesn't work for an eternal universe, he instead hypothesized an initial impetus and an expanding universe. Einstein was slow to accept Friedmann's maths, but did so still refusing to accept that the maths had anything to do with physics. The happy ending was brought about by the RC priest Georges Lemaìtre. who, unaware of Friedmann, had covered the same terrain himself. And he saw that not only was an initial impetus required, but as part of it, a moment of creation, a beginning ─ a Big Bang. Einstein gave him the Friedmann treatment when they met in 1927. Who was right?

A clever lady called Henrietta Leavitt noticed that you could use the regular pulsations in brightness of "Cepheid variable" stars to work out relative cosmic distances. Edwin Hubble was thus able to measure the distance to the Andromeda nebula, a then jaw-dropping 900k light years, and thus, importantly for the debates of the day, an entity independent of the Milky Way. And when he expanded his enquiries to other galaxies, the relationship of redshift to distance compelled the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

The Big Bang notion is the logical result of this evidence and (now) a great deal more.
Ever see a scientific explanation of how they think the Earth formed? It’s funny.
But again, it's evidence-based. I'm happy to outline the reasoning if that would be helpful ─ though you may know it already.

The punchline in each case is that the hypotheses for testing are drawn from examinable evidence, so that the conclusions can always be related back to known facts. That doesn't mean our descriptions of the early universe are final, but the evidence that there was indeed an early universe is extremely strong.
Again, no evidence providing for a natural unguided explanation. Not even recreated in a lab.
What makes you say that the rules of physics are insufficient to explain it?

And what evidence is there ─ you'd never commit the fallacy of using arguments from incredulity, I know ─ that any guiding was needed, let alone available?
To many scientists, the evidence from the Cambrian Explosion blows current interpretations out of the water.
Debate is a very usual part of science, but the fossils are there, and modern dating techniques are pretty smart and give consistent results. Better than half a billion years ago there was a period in which, according to the fossil record, all the prototypes of our modern phyla, and more that have gone extinct, came into being (though I leave open the question whether a process taking place over tens of millions of years is properly called an explosion).
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A natural, unguided explanation? Based on what evidence, and what reasoning?
Ever see a scientific explanation of how they think the Earth formed? It’s funny.
Yes science does explain this. Goddidit, by the way, does not, it just posits a creative agent.
How did you not learn this in school? I thought every schoolboy knew about universal gravitation and the surface:volume ratio of a sphere -- and how these formed the Earth.
You're arguing from ignorance.

It's the extraordinary claim that Goddidit! that begs explanation. You've created a deus ex machina to "explain" what seems incomprehensible to you. This expediency is a false dichotomy, born of an argument from incredulity -- if no current explanation, then, God!
Again, no evidence providing for a natural unguided explanation [for abiogenesis]. Not even recreated in a lab.
1. A natural explanation is reasonably assumed. It needs no evidence. It's the default position. Goddidit is an expediency, to bolster your incredulity.
2. A natural , unguided explanation relies on the known, observable principles of chemistry, plus, many of the steps have been observed in the lab. I think you're arguing from ignorance and incredulity, as well as implying a false dichotomy.
3. Has anyone actually observed this magic poofing you believe in? I mean, it must be happening all the time, considering the myriad species that have come into being over the years, not to mention the myriads that have apparently poofed out.
Only if you believe in the gaps, of which there are plenty! Nothing is clearly drawn from the evidence.
We don't need to watch every minute of development from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly to know that the butterfly developed from the egg. A snapshot every day or two is enough evidence to reasonably conclude this.
And today we also have genetics to trace descent and speciation.
To many scientists, the evidence from the Cambrian Explosion blows current interpretations out of the water.
To many poorly informed creationists, you mean.
So how does the Cambrian "explosion" support creationism, or discredit the ToE?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Yes science does explain this. Goddidit, by the way, does not, it just posits a creative agent.

Yes, an intelligent cause...that’s it.
Knowing that, though, doesn’t inhibit any curiosity as to how these things were created. In fact, it gives a person a reason to search for the why...the purpose they exist. Something unguided naturalism doesn’t concern itself with.

It's the extraordinary claim that Goddidit! that begs explanation.

“Extraordinary”? (Sounds like an argument from incredulity.) Is this too incredulous for you? Why? Whenever patterns of functional information is found in other sciences, Intelligence is always considered the cause! Grief, the entire SETI program was based on it!

So how does the Cambrian "explosion" support creationism, or discredit the ToE?

Look at the evidence / facts: complete and functioning organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, with no obvious precursors discovered, even tho the strata of those periods contain finely-detailed soft anatomy...but obvious precursors are still missing!

No gradualism found.

You tell me.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, an intelligent cause...that’s it.
Knowing that, though, doesn’t inhibit any curiosity as to how these things were created. In fact, it gives a person a reason to search for the why...the purpose they exist. Something unguided naturalism doesn’t concern itself with.
Exactly my point. The scientific method has become quite good at figuring out mechanism; at discovering the how of things, and that's as far as the discipline goes. It makes no value judgements or claims of purpose or intent.

Purpose
and intent are the bailiwick of religion, but, unlike science, ID hasn't yet come up with reliable methods of discovering and testing these. In fact, it hasn't even been determined that there is any intent or purpose, yet they're assumed and treated as axioms by the faithful.
“Extraordinary”? (Sounds like an argument from incredulity.) Is this too incredulous for you? Why? Whenever patterns of functional information is found in other sciences, Intelligence is always considered the cause! Grief, the entire SETI program was based on it!
Yes, ID is an unevidenced and unnecessary deus ex machina; something just pulled out of a hat to satisfy a psychological need, so, yes, it's an extraordinary claim.
No God, ie: nothing, is the epistemic default position; a blank slate. It's not a claim. It's a lack of claim, so bears no burden of proof.

You are wrong. This is a misunderstanding of science.
Science does not consider intelligence, ie: intent, a cause. Science makes inferences from evidence. Until science finds evidence of Intelligent or intentional design, it is not assumed to exist.

SETI is not a search for God. It's a research project seeking evidence to support a hypothesis that intelligent, technologically proficient life exists elsewhere in the universe. Until it actually finds empirical evidence for such life, "life exists" is only a working hypothesis, not a definitive claim.

Look at the evidence / facts: complete and functioning organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, with no obvious precursors discovered, even tho the strata of those periods contain finely-detailed soft anatomy...but obvious precursors are still missing!

No gradualism found.
We wouldn't expect to find 'fossils' of chemical evolution. Fatty acids, membranes, amino acids, &c are not going to fossilize, yet these components of life will self assemble, by ordinary chemistry, under conditions known to exist on Earth. You could do it in a high school lab.
Likewise, single celled organisms are also unlikely to leave many traces of themselves, but once larger organisms appear in the fossil record we do observe a gradual increase in complexity.

Here are the two hypotheses:
1. Complex organisms poofed into existence fully formed, intentionally, by magic.
2. Complex organisms began with simple, observable chemical reactions, producing various components of life. Interaction between these led to self-reproducing assemblages of more and more complex structures -- also observable in nature and in the lab today. At some arbitrary point these self-generating structures become complex enough to be called 'alive'.

Which is more plausible?
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Why do you obfuscate by constructing strawmen?
No God, ie: nothing, is the epistemic default position; a blank slate. It's not a claim. It's a lack of claim, so bears no burden of proof.

Actually, intelligence is always recognized as the source for functional structure. (It's an argument from repeated empitical observation.) So it's, "Structure existed before humans, i.e., there must be an intelligent source."

ID is..... something just pulled out of a hat to satisfy a psychological need.
ID is about there being an intelligent cause behind existence of matter and the forces exerting control over it.
But I know you think we're saying its God. So you equate God with only satisfying a "psychological need"? (Interesting you call it a need, but yet, you don't need it?) Ultimately this sounds like something Aldous Huxley would have said, like his 'need' to throw away the idea of God.

Until science finds evidence of Intelligent or intentional design, it is not assumed to exist.
On Earth, It's everywhere: in the interactions between organisms revealed in the oxygen cycle, to interactions between diverse organisms, and to that between fine-tuned physics and how it supports life. But when one narrows their POV by concentrating only on one field -- biology, for example, they won't see "the forest".
SETI is not a search for God
A strawman. It's a search for intelligence. How? By looking for patterns of information!
We wouldn't expect to find 'fossils' of chemical evolution.
Another strawman. Lol. The Cambrian Explosion reveals multicellular, highly complex forms of life, way beyond just 'chemicals'! Yet no obvious ancestral forms are found.
1. Complex organisms poofed into existence fully formed, intentionally, by magic.
No...by purposeful and intelligent engineering.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you obfuscate by constructing strawmen?


Actually, intelligence is always recognized as the source for functional structure. (It's an argument from repeated empitical observation.) So it's, "Structure existed before humans, i.e., there must be an intelligent source.
"This is irrelevant. Please point out my strawman.
Structure = intelligence doesn't follow.
I am correct in my belief that ID is an unnecessary and unevidenced Deus ex machina. My logic is correct. A blank slate is the reasonable starting point.
ID is about there being an intelligent cause behind existence of matter and the forces exerting control over it.
But I know you think we're saying its God. So you equate God with only satisfying a "psychological need"? (Interesting you call it a need, but yet, you don't need it?) Ultimately this sounds like something Aldous Huxley would have said, like his 'need' to throw away the idea of God.
Characterize it any way you will, there is neither evidence for nor need of an "intelligent cause." Your objection is emotional.
On Earth, It's everywhere: in the interactions between organisms revealed in the oxygen cycle, to interactions between diverse organisms, and to that between fine-tuned physics and how it supports life. But when one narrows their POV by concentrating only on one field -- biology, for example, they won't see "the forest".
This is not evidence for intentionality and magic. It's evidence for chemistry, physics and biology.
A clear, observable, familiar, testable explanation exists for these phenomena, yet you insist there's an invisible wonder worker involved. Why?
You're trying to fit the facts into a preconceived mythology.
A strawman. It's a search for intelligence. How? By looking for patterns of information!
Of course. Research is what science does. I don't get your point.
Another strawman. Lol. The Cambrian Explosion reveals multicellular, highly complex forms of life, way beyond just 'chemicals'! Yet no obvious ancestral forms are found.
That's your objection, a God-in-the-gap? Why should we expect to find missing links? This is a typical ID false equivalency.
No...by purposeful and intelligent engineering.
Which doesn't change the claim of it all being poofed into existence by magic. You're just tacking on an invisible poofer.
 
Top