The Supernatural - Science?

[siti]

At this point, you can add my pots, and think a little deeper about the post.

I'm sorry @nPeace - the post that you linked to consists of a link that doesn't work and then a series of questions that presumably relate to the information in the link. I still can't follow.

Anyway,

I can't answer the three questions with either yes or no, so I hope I did answer. I tried.

You did answer the questions - you said (for example):

if you are talking about the natural way genes are passed on by reproduction, and vary in offspring, this is what I can agree with.
Genes play a role in variations.

A child is not specifically designed to resemble it's parents...otherwise logically it would be expected that every child would have twin features.

So, you agree that the genetic features of a child do not exactly match the genetic features of the parents they are inherited from because they are "imperfectly replicated" (by which I don't mean there is something wrong, just that the copies are not exactly duplicated).

And presumably you agree that the closer resemblance of a child to its parents is simply because the child is genetically more closely related to its parents.

So the next question then is why do primate ears bear a much closer resemblance to human ears than other mammals? Why are other mammals ears more like human ears than reptile ears? Could it be because humans are genetically more closely related to other primates than they are to other mammals like cats and dogs and elephants? Could it be that mammals are genetically more closely related to each other than any of them are to reptiles? OK - let's leave that as a "maybe" for now.

The alternative to evolution of course is creation. You asked us to consider ears in particular - so the question now arises - if ears are specifically designed for hearing, why don't they all look alike. Why are there so many different "designs" of ear? Surely, mammal-like hearing would be a great advantage to a lizard - but it doesn't have it. Why were lizards designed with rather different ears? And fish ears are almost unrecognizable by comparison and completely unlike the mammalian ears of whales and dolphins. And if all that variety has come about as the result of deliberate design it seems that the design process was very ad hoc - doesn't it? Why, for example, would the designer put ears that are much more like those of a grassland herbivore than a seafaring shark in a whale?

On balance, I think common sense suggests that imperfect genetic replication (now that we know for sure that this happens) is a far more sensible explanation for the "diverse" designs of ears than the idea of a divine creator scratching his ear as he tries to think of yet another ear design to pop into his latest masterpiece. And it is surely confirmatory evidence to note that animals that bear a closer resemblance to humans in other respects - giving birth to live young, larger brains, ability to walk on two legs...etc...also happen to have more similar ears. Don't you think?

BONUS FACTOID: Since you mentioned cerumen, did you know that plugs of cerumen as long as ten inches have been extracted from whale's ears? And that examining the content of the earwax allows scientists to discover important information relating to the whale's lifecycle - where it has been swimming, pollutant levels in its habitat, its diet...etc?

 

[nPeace]

It occurs to me that if we go with the notion that for everything we observe, experience, and/or measure, "maybe that's just how God made it", doesn't that mean we can never really know anything?

Because no matter what we're talking about, while it may appear to be one way, it could actually be something completely different. It's just that God manipulated things to make it seem some other way.

IOW, if that's possible, we can never truly know what is real and what has just been supernaturally made to seem real.

I don't think it's just a notion Christians have about the supernatural. We base our faith on evidence. Hence, we have not closed our eyes and said, 'God. God. God.' as some think we have.
If what we believe is proven wrong, we have no choice but to admit we are wrong, and submit to the facts.
No one has proven anything have they?

Then we feel confident that the evidence we have is worth holding to, and our faith is like an anchor - keeping us from drifting, or being tossed here and there by every wind.
(Hebrews 6:19) . . .We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, . . .
(Ephesians 4:14) . . .So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching. . .

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think it's just a notion Christians have about the supernatural.

I didn't say anything about Christians or any other religious group. I was speaking to the idea of "God just made it that way".

If what we believe is proven wrong, we have no choice but to admit we are wrong, and submit to the facts.
No one has proven anything have they?

How could anything be proven at all? God can do anything, right?

 

[nPeace]

I'm sorry @nPeace - the post that you linked to consists of a link that doesn't work and then a series of questions that presumably relate to the information in the link. I still can't follow.

Anyway,
You did answer the questions - you said (for example):





So, you agree that the genetic features of a child do not exactly match the genetic features of the parents they are inherited from because they are "imperfectly replicated" (by which I don't mean there is something wrong, just that the copies are not exactly duplicated).

And presumably you agree that the closer resemblance of a child to its parents is simply because the child is genetically more closely related to its parents.

So the next question then is why do primate ears bear a much closer resemblance to human ears than other mammals? Why are other mammals ears more like human ears than reptile ears? Could it be because humans are genetically more closely related to other primates than they are to other mammals like cats and dogs and elephants? Could it be that mammals are genetically more closely related to each other than any of them are to reptiles? OK - let's leave that as a "maybe" for now.

The alternative to evolution of course is creation. You asked us to consider ears in particular - so the question now arises - if ears are specifically designed for hearing, why don't they all look alike. Why are there so many different "designs" of ear? Surely, mammal-like hearing would be a great advantage to a lizard - but it doesn't have it. Why were lizards designed with rather different ears? And fish ears are almost unrecognizable by comparison and completely unlike the mammalian ears of whales and dolphins. And if all that variety has come about as the result of deliberate design it seems that the design process was very ad hoc - doesn't it? Why, for example, would the designer put ears that are much more like those of a grassland herbivore than a seafaring shark in a whale?

On balance, I think common sense suggests that imperfect genetic replication (now that we know for sure that this happens) is a far more sensible explanation for the "diverse" designs of ears than the idea of a divine creator scratching his ear as he tries to think of yet another ear design to pop into his latest masterpiece. And it is surely confirmatory evidence to note that animals that bear a closer resemblance to humans in other respects - giving birth to live young, larger brains, ability to walk on two legs...etc...also happen to have more similar ears. Don't you think?

BONUS FACTOID: Since you mentioned cerumen, did you know that plugs of cerumen as long as ten inches have been extracted from whale's ears? And that examining the content of the earwax allows scientists to discover important information relating to the whale's lifecycle - where it has been swimming, pollutant levels in its habitat, its diet...etc?

Okay, don't worry about the link, I'll repeat the information here.
"imperfectly replicated"
Um... Let's see...
I believe your "imperfectly replicated", and mine may not necessarily be the same.
I believe that the genetic code written in each organism does what it's supposed to - that is, it copies as it was designed to copy - randomly? Yes.

To this

And presumably you agree that the closer resemblance of a child to its parents is simply because the child is genetically more closely related to its parents.

Not necessarily.
A whole lot of mixing goes on. X+Y=R, but X+Y doesn't always = R.
X+Y may also equal R1, or R2... all the way through to R1 with the mosts possible 0s behind it.

The reason for this is that the genetic info is always random, and stronger genes sometimes "remove" (want of a better word) what may be more closely related.
For example, a family may have within it one that have very distinct differences - the texture of the hair; the eye color; etc.
Some may comment, 'He looks more like granddad, or his great uncle.'
The genetic information did come from an ancestor, even ancestors, because they are all mixed.

Sorry if I confused you. This is just my simple way of explaining it.

For the next question - enter my illustration.
[GALLERY=media, 8575]Art-701749_1920 by nPeace posted Jul 9, 2018 at 8:42 PM[/GALLERY]
Are all of the above the same? No.
Do they all have the same function? No.
Why do saucers more closely resemble plates, than cups or jugs?

We could go on and on.
Yet they all have one thing in common.
They were all made with the same process, and from the same material?

The potter produced variety to suit their purpose, or just for the sake of interesting characteristics.

Why don't we have webbed feet, and hands to climb walls like Spider-man? The gecko does.
Each was designed with their own characteristics.

You asked

Why are other mammals ears more like human ears than reptile ears? Could it be because humans are genetically more closely related to other primates than they are to other mammals like cats and dogs and elephants? Could it be that mammals are genetically more closely related to each other than any of them are to reptiles?

I would want to know, if that's the case why are animals that are so closely related according to the evolutionary tree, so different in features? Why are seals smooth, and bears full of thick fur?
Why aren't bananas hairy?
I'm sure I can find great contrasts in "closely related" um... things.

I have observed throughout my life, that everything has its own feature, or characteristic. I have never seen a baboon give birth to anything other than baboons. Likewise, everything else. The seeds from a pawpaw tree has never produced plum trees.

I really can't see any other sensible conclusion to come to, other than what the Bible says.
Genesis 1:11, 21, 24
. . .seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.. . .
. . .living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. . . .
. . .wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.. . .

You do realize that after all of this, you haven't addressed my request.
To explain how the ear with all it's working parts, including the function of the cerumen was a product of evolution, actually means starting from what the ear evolve from, and how it started to, and continued to worked.
No obligations if you aren't up to it.

 

[nPeace]

I didn't say anything about Christians or any other religious group. I was speaking to the idea of "God just made it that way".


How could anything be proven at all? God can do anything, right?

You're right, I read, but then my mind mixed your words. Sorry.
That's my imperfect brain's fault.

 

[siti]

You do realize that after all of this, you haven't addressed my request.
To explain how the ear with all it's working parts, including the function of the cerumen was a product of evolution, actually means starting from what the ear evolve from, and how it started to, and continued to worked.
No obligations if you aren't up to it.

Yes I have - the mammalian ear is made of bones that used to be part of the jaws of reptiles...its not that I haven't explained how ears evolved, its that yours are not working - apparently! Anyway, if you want to bang the (ear)drum for Biblical creationism carry on - I gave you enough pointers to see where you are going wrong - if you're honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads, you'll get there eventually - if not, nothing I say will make any difference. Its all the same to me. as Noddy used to say (or perhaps not) - Cheers Big Ears!

 

[nPeace]

Yes I have - the mammalian ear is made of bones that used to be part of the jaws of reptiles...its not that I haven't explained how ears evolved, its that yours are not working - apparently! Anyway, if you want to bang the (ear)drum for Biblical creationism carry on - I gave you enough pointers to see where you are going wrong - if you're honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads, you'll get there eventually - if not, nothing I say will make any difference. Its all the same to me. as Noddy used to say (or perhaps not) - Cheers Big Ears!

Some explanation...
Maybe I had trouble hearing as my jaw was moving. Cheers.

 

[siti]

Maybe I had trouble hearing as my jaw was moving.

That's good - that's what causes the cerumen to move and eventually pop out thereby unblocking the ear.

 

[nPeace]

What is the 'supernatural' phenomenon that you want to investigate using the scientific method? First you need to propose a hypothesis... such as ghosts exist... or magical fairies exist... or a creator god exists.... THEN you need to devise a means of testing your hypothesis. IF it is not possible to test your hypothesis, then there's nothing more that the scientific method can do for you. Until or unless you can find a means of testing your hypothesis, it will forever remain an untested hypothesis. It's the same way for those who propose a multi-verse hypothesis. Until or unless they can find a way to test their hypothesis, it will forever remain an untested hypothesis and will never become an established scientific theory.

Yes. I understand that.
So for example SETI, where the government pulled the plug on funding it.

Contrary to popular belief, and their Form 990, no government funds are allocated for its SETI searches – these are financed entirely by private contributions. Other astrobiology research at the SETI Institute may be funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, or other grants and donations.
SETI Institute - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI_Institute

So, this hypothesis remains until when... Maybe forever.
The multiverse hypothesis remains until when...

So can this hypothesis remain until forever?
Hypothesis
Lifeforms alien to our world - far superior in form and intelligence - existing way beyond our universe - responsible for what banged the bang - as well as interacting with what we don't fully understand about the forces in our universe - responsible for the origin of life.

Testing
Listening for any form of communication signals. Watching for any activity that indicates outside interference...
Further tests can be done, with more advanced equipment.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I understand that.
So for example SETI, where the government pulled the plug on funding it.

Contrary to popular belief, and their Form 990, no government funds are allocated for its SETI searches – these are financed entirely by private contributions. Other astrobiology research at the SETI Institute may be funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, or other grants and donations.
SETI Institute - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI_Institute

So, this hypothesis remains until when... Maybe forever.
The multiverse hypothesis remains until when...

So can this hypothesis remain until forever?
Hypothesis
Lifeforms alien to our world - far superior in form and intelligence - existing way beyond our universe - responsible for what banged the bang - as well as interacting with what we don't fully understand about the forces in our universe - responsible for the origin of life.

Testing
Listening for any form of communication signals. Watching for any activity that indicates outside interference...
Further tests can be done, with more advanced equipment.

I do not consider SETI to be that productive and kind of outdated as it functioned. Nonetheless there are other systems that can detect any intelligent transmission outside our solar system on satillites. Our efforts were never intended to find intellegent sources beyond our present gallaxy, and most likely never can.

Actually as far as looking for life in the universe the emphasis has changed to looking for other planets in the nearby universe that may have life and possibly advanced form of life.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have never seen a baboon give birth to anything other than baboons. Likewise, everything else. The seeds from a pawpaw tree has never produced plum trees.

Didn't we go over this in another thread? I thought you'd understood that no one expects that sort of thing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes. I understand that.
So for example SETI, where the government pulled the plug on funding it.

Contrary to popular belief, and their Form 990, no government funds are allocated for its SETI searches – these are financed entirely by private contributions. Other astrobiology research at the SETI Institute may be funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, or other grants and donations.
SETI Institute - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI_Institute

So, this hypothesis remains until when... Maybe forever.
The multiverse hypothesis remains until when...

So can this hypothesis remain until forever?
Hypothesis
Lifeforms alien to our world - far superior in form and intelligence - existing way beyond our universe - responsible for what banged the bang - as well as interacting with what we don't fully understand about the forces in our universe - responsible for the origin of life.

Testing
Listening for any form of communication signals. Watching for any activity that indicates outside interference...
Further tests can be done, with more advanced equipment.

No, it's clear that you sadly do NOT understand. I asked you what SUPERNATURAL phenomenon you wanted to investigate via the scientific method. YOU replied with SETI, which is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The concept of intelligent life developing elsewhere in the universe is NOT supernatural. Nothing about the concept defies or is beyond any of the natural laws we are aware of. It's simply a proposed phenomenon that we have yet to find any verifiable evidence for.

So let's try again. what SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want to investigate using the scientific method?

(This is just like the other thread we're on, where I asked you why the historical accuracy of the bible would lead you to believe that the fantastical/supernatural parts were accurate as well, and you replied with a story about a family that was wiped out in a flood and had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.)

 

[nPeace]

No, it's clear that you sadly do NOT understand. I asked you what SUPERNATURAL phenomenon you wanted to investigate via the scientific method. YOU replied with SETI, which is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The concept of intelligent life developing elsewhere in the universe is NOT supernatural. Nothing about the concept defies or is beyond any of the natural laws we are aware of. It's simply a proposed phenomenon that we have yet to find any verifiable evidence for.

So let's try again. what SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want to investigate using the scientific method?

(This is just like the other thread we're on, where I asked you why the historical accuracy of the bible would lead you to believe that the fantastical/supernatural parts were accurate as well, and you replied with a story about a family that was wiped out in a flood and had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.)

Where in the hypothesis do you see supernatural?

I think this is where you are having the problem understanding.
You seem to be nitpicking certain things your eyes latch onto, and focusing on it without letting go - even when it's long passed.

You could go through the thread, and see what you might have missed that answers your question - although I doubt you will find - note - what you are looking for.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Where in the hypothesis do you see supernatural?

I think this is where you are having the problem understanding.
You seem to be nitpicking certain things your eyes latch onto, and focusing on it without letting go - even when it's long passed.

You could go through the thread, and see what you might have missed that answers your question - although I doubt you will find - note - what you are looking for.

Are you genuinely this obtuse?

The problem is that I DON'T see anything about a SUPERNATURAL hypothesis. Did you READ my original question? It was: What SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want to investigate via the scientific method. I asked this question because in YOUR OP you asked, "Does science consider what's supernatural?"

So, when my question is what SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want the scientific method to investigate, why the heck did you reply with SETI, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SUPERNATURAL?

It's really not that difficult a question. Is there a reason why you keep avoiding it and pretending as if I've 'missed; the answer? If you're not pretending, then PLEASE copy and paste the answer you provided to the question, What SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want to investigate via the scientific method?

 

[nPeace]

Are you genuinely this obtuse?

Are you talking to yourself?
Dude, that's madness. Although it might be appropriate this one time.

The problem is that I DON'T see anything about a SUPERNATURAL hypothesis.

...and why is that?
Because it's not there.

Did you READ my original question?

I think I did.

It was: What SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want to investigate via the scientific method.

Okay.

I asked this question because in YOUR OP you asked, "Does science consider what's supernatural?"

Yes I did ask that.

So, when my question is what SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want the scientific method to investigate, why the heck did you reply with SETI, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SUPERNATURAL?

Perhaps if you had answered the question like everyone else did, instead of as I said, nitpicking certain things your eyes latch onto, and focusing on it without letting go - even when it's long passed.
You would realize that I was not seeking to investigate any supernatural phenomenon via the scientific method.

Hence, I suggested you read through the thread to see if you find any such.

The reason - if you were paying attention to what I was getting at, rather than ...as I stated above - I mentioned SETI, and multiverse, was to lead up to a hypothesis that I think could be considered
Knock knock. Is anyone there.

It's really not that difficult a question. Is there a reason why you keep avoiding it and pretending as if I've 'missed; the answer? If you're not pretending, then PLEASE copy and paste the answer you provided to the question, What SUPERNATURAL phenomenon do you want to investigate via the scientific method?

Are you fuming?
Please. I really do hope you understand the above.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Are you talking to yourself?
Dude, that's madness. Although it might be appropriate this one time.


...and why is that?
Because it's not there.


I think I did.


Okay.


Yes I did ask that.


Perhaps if you had answered the question like everyone else did, instead of as I said, nitpicking certain things your eyes latch onto, and focusing on it without letting go - even when it's long passed.
You would realize that I was not seeking to investigate any supernatural phenomenon via the scientific method.

Hence, I suggested you read through the thread to see if you find any such.

The reason - if you were paying attention to what I was getting at, rather than ...as I stated above - I mentioned SETI, and multiverse, was to lead up to a hypothesis that I think could be considered
Knock knock. Is anyone there.


Are you fuming?
Please. I really do hope you understand the above.

WOW... you really ARE that obtuse. How sad. At least now I know not to waste my time responding to any of your future OPs.

 

[nPeace]

WOW... you really ARE that obtuse. How sad. At least now I know not to waste my time responding to any of your future OPs.

That will certainly save me some time. Thank you for being so kind.

 

[Polymath257]

Info:
supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

...is that which exists (or is claimed to exist), yet cannot be explained by laws of nature. Examples often include characteristics of or relating to ghosts, angels, gods, souls and spirits, non-material beings, or anything else considered beyond nature like magic, miracles, etc.

Over time, things once thought to be supernatural such as lightning, seasons, and human senses have been shown to have entirely naturalistic explanations and origins. Some believe that which is considered supernatural will someday be discovered to be completely physical and natural. Those who believe only the physical world exists are called naturalists. Those who believe similarly often maintain skeptical attitudes and beliefs concerning supernatural concepts.

So this is the problem. We don't know all of the laws of nature. And there are many phenomena that we do not understand. But not all of those phenomena should be called supernatural. For example, we don't understand the laws governing dark matter or dark energy. That doesn't make them supernatural. it only means we don't currently understand them.

So I would say that your definition of the term 'supernatural' is a moving target with no real value. The question is whether there really are phenomena like ghosts, angels, gods, etc. And if such phenomena exist and we can learn how they operate, then maybe they *could* be understood via the scientific process. Would they thereby be natural, as opposed to supernatural?

Maybe you need to rethink your definition of the term 'supernatural'. I think it is rather confused and doesn't describe the phenomena you want it to.

 

[Polymath257]

'Supernatural' is a fanciful word used to describe things that occur outside of normal phenomenom.

For creationists, since God created the universe, religious experiences etc arent supernatural, they are natural to the paradigm of the religious belief.
So, religious things are simply occurences that may not be common, yet are considered normal, for the paradigm.

There is a great deal of science that deal with phenomena outside of the 'normal'. But that doesn't make the subject supernatural. It just means that a great deal of what is natural isn't necessarily 'normal' to us humans.

So even very unusual events, if they are repeatable and testable, are subject to scientific inquiry. The only way to avoid that is something that is not repeatable and not testable in any way. That looks a lot like non-existence.

 

[nPeace]

So this is the problem. We don't know all of the laws of nature. And there are many phenomena that we do not understand. But not all of those phenomena should be called supernatural. For example, we don't understand the laws governing dark matter or dark energy. That doesn't make them supernatural. it only means we don't currently understand them.

So I would say that your definition of the term 'supernatural' is a moving target with no real value. The question is whether there really are phenomena like ghosts, angels, gods, etc. And if such phenomena exist and we can learn how they operate, then maybe they *could* be understood via the scientific process. Would they thereby be natural, as opposed to supernatural?

Maybe you need to rethink your definition of the term 'supernatural'. I think it is rather confused and doesn't describe the phenomena you want it to.

My definition of the term? I don't understand. What do you mean?