CDZ Questions About Creation

[S.J.]

S.J., out of sheer curiosity, are you a member of the Society of Jesus?

Never heard of it, why?

Red:
Only because of your ID and the inherent scholarship and intellectualism the thread topic requires in order to have any sort of good discussion about it.

• Jesuit formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By universal canon law, every candidate for priestly ordination must complete four years in the study of theology, though part of this requirement may have been met in the first period studies. This will include the attainment of a first degree in theology (such as the Bachelor of Sacred Theology), and usually a second (masters level) degree in a specialized area related to theology. (As such, it is not uncommon for a Jesuit to hold a master's level degree in Theology, and, as mentioned above, a second master's or a doctorate in a completely different field.)​

• The Jesuit Model of Education

Blue:
Astounding....

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2013/03/economist-explains-who-are-jesuits-exactly

Here we go again.

 

[320 Years of History]

S.J., out of sheer curiosity, are you a member of the Society of Jesus?

Never heard of it, why?

Red:
Only because of your ID and the inherent scholarship and intellectualism the thread topic requires in order to have any sort of good discussion about it.

• Jesuit formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By universal canon law, every candidate for priestly ordination must complete four years in the study of theology, though part of this requirement may have been met in the first period studies. This will include the attainment of a first degree in theology (such as the Bachelor of Sacred Theology), and usually a second (masters level) degree in a specialized area related to theology. (As such, it is not uncommon for a Jesuit to hold a master's level degree in Theology, and, as mentioned above, a second master's or a doctorate in a completely different field.)​

• The Jesuit Model of Education

Blue:
Astounding....

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2013/03/economist-explains-who-are-jesuits-exactly

Here we go again.

Purple:
??? I have no idea what you are referring to.

Perhaps I should have noted that Jesuits place the abbreviation "S.J." (Society of Jesus) after their name. Would that have helped make it more clear why your ID played a role in my asking whether you are a member of that society?

 

[S.J.]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

In what ways do you think creationism/intelligent design helps understand biology better than evolution?

I don't claim that it does. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[pinqy]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

In what ways do you think creationism/intelligent design helps understand biology better than evolution?

I don't claim that it does. Not sure what you're getting at.

Well, to decide which theory is better, we have to look at which theory explains the observed phenomena better, and that is the the better theory and the one that should be tentatively accepted until either falsified or another theory proves better.

Therefore, if evolution explains biological diversity better, then why would anyone accept creationism or intelligent design?

 

[320 Years of History]

Questions:

• What are the central elements to which adherents of intelligent design point and that forms the basis for their attempts to present that concept as being scientific? Compare and contrast that with adherents of theistic evolution who do not make any such claims.
• How, as an adherent to intelligent design, do you overcome the rational flaws inherent in the premise of irreducible complexity that biochemist Michael Behe presents as evidence of the verity of intelligent design?

​

 

[jwoodie]

Therefore, if evolution explains biological diversity better, then why would anyone accept creationism or intelligent design?

IT'S NOT EITHER/OR. Let me give you a "scientific" example: There are several acknowledged Light Theories, because no single theory has been able to explain it. This doesn't mean that some people don't believe light exists, or that they have some hidden religious agenda.

Similarly there are gaps in Evolution Theory that have yet to be explained. The fact that its acolytes feel compelled to attack religion (especially Christianity) as a substitute for further unbiased inquiry merely underscores the tentativeness of this theory.

 

[320 Years of History]

Similarly there are gaps in Evolution Theory that have yet to be explained. The fact that its acolytes feel compelled to attack religion (especially Christianity) as a substitute for further unbiased inquiry merely underscores the tentativeness of this theory.

• The actions of adherents to any ideas say nothing about the idea, but do say something about the person(s) making the attack.
• "Evolution" is preceded by the words "theory of," and it is unfortunate at best that it is, for far too often people, notably among them many theists, misconstrue and/or misinterpret/misapply (via pardonable ignorance or willful "whatever") what that word means in science. Lay folks, that is, non-scientists, ascribe a very different meaning to the word "theory" than do scientists. It is not uncommon to see/hear creationists accost the veracity of the theory of evolution based on the lay meaning-- hunch or best guess -- thereby taking the word "theory" out of the scientific context and committing contextomy or, as noted above, quote mining.
  
  When refuting an idea, if one is to have any credibility, one must do so while retaining the denotation and connotation that the idea's proponents/developers applied. In matters pertaining to ideas presented by science, there is no debate over what scientists mean when they use the word "theory" to identify a scientific idea they present.

Red:
See the videos I posted above.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"Creation" is pretty vague. I assume you're referring to creationism? Creationism is a political effort. An attempt to give religious beliefs a scientific legitimacy. Descartes tried that. It didn't work. Creationism works less well even than his Meditations on First Philosophy.

This illustrates the reflexive attack mode adopted by Darwin's True Believers when face with questions they can't answer.

As to the OP, there are certain assumptions about "Intelligent Design" which need to be clarified. First, this is not a religious theory, but an alternative explanation for biological events that seem to have occurred outside of natural processes as we know them. Secondly, it does not purport to specify the nature of any intelligent being or beings who may exist. Instead, it acknowledges the possibility of some sort of external influence in the development of life on Earth.

This entire debate reminds me of the dissension that occurred after it was first postulated that the Sun was the center of our known universe. People who pointed out that the Moon and some stars didn't behave themselves according to this theory were condemned as heretic troglodytes until further discoveries were made. In the same way, Darwin's commendable, but simplistic, theory of how all life developed on Earth engenders hostility, rather than honest discussion, when challenged with contrary facts.

What we do know are these facts:

1. Earth seems to possess unique attributes regarding life which do not seem to be replicated in any part of the known universe (statisticians and Trekkies notwithstanding).

2. Pre- and post-life conditions on Earth do not provide answers as to what might have actually triggered the initial development of life on this planet.

3. The appearance of different life forms seems to have occurred en masse during discrete periods of the Earth's History.

4. The geologically recent appearance of human beings, possessing unique qualitative differences from all other animals, has yet to be understood, much less explained by natural occurrences.

Given what many perceive to be arrogant conjecture regarding these facts by the "scientific community," some have suggested that extraterrestrial forces may have played a role, While "intelligent design" suggests an intelligence greater than our own, it also contemplates the larger question of life itself: Are we anything more than just a curious collection of chemicals?

First of all, I'm not a "true believer" in Darwinism. "True believer" is a phrase that is compatible with religious thought, but has no place in science.

Secondly, the "scientific community" is the sole arbiter of what is and is not science. Period. Not a bunch of random posters on a forum board. The process is called peer review. You publish your paper and if all you hear is the mocking, dismissive laughter of scientists, you're screwed. Creationism and intelligent design tried to get in the scientist's club and were tossed out by the club's irresistible bouncer, rationality.

Third, you know what would be really amazing? Proving Darwin wrong. Coming up with fossil evidence that bolsters an entirely new theory. Everyone's mind would be blown. Headlines around the world. The new king of science would be crowned and worshiped. You know why? Because people want to know things. More than that, they need to know, have to know. Do we know? Hell no. Very frustrating. Tends to make many, many people claim they know things they don't really know. I have absolute certitude about nothing.

I have faith though. Faith that knowledge is the only true value that human beings create. Faith that science is the best tool available for the study of the physical universe. Faith that the good ship epistemology will take us to the heart of the universe, in time. Science is science, but epistemology is all knowledge, including religion, art, philosophy. It's all of value, but not all of it is science, and not all of it is fit for the classroom.

Secondly, the "scientific community" is the sole arbiter of what is and is not science

Except that they are human and prone to human weakness....so money, fame and jealousy can also infect the peer review process........that and the various hoaxes that "scientists" have pushed..........

All of which is true, and all of which means nothing. You're not science till the imperfect human scientists say you are.

 

[Boss]

I have a somewhat unorthodox view on this subject. Perhaps "intelligent" design is an improper term? Maybe what we are defining as "intelligent" is so defined because that is the closest grunting noise we can make to describe it? Could be that we are so primitive we simply can't comprehend the force which was responsible for our creation and we never will. It would be like monkeys figuring out cold fusion. It's beyond their ability to even begin to comprehend.

People often make the argument that surely our universe is teaming with life elsewhere. They point out that we have 100 billion stars within our own galaxy and there are millions of galaxies. Odds are, there are other planets with life just the same as Earth... but is there, really?

Think about the millions of circumstances which have to be as they are for life to exist. Some will assume if a planet is in the "Goldilocks Zone" then life probably exists, but there is no evidence for this other than speculation. First of all the GZ is going to vary in accordance with the size of the sun. Then there is the matter of water and atmosphere. Not every planet in the GZ are going to have both at the sufficient levels to sustain life. Our planet has a special and unique iron-nickel core which enables a magnetic field and atmosphere to protect us from the sun's radiation. How prevalent is all this in the universe? We don't know. And that's just the basic tip of the iceberg, there are literally thousands upon thousands of other variables which enable life as we know it.

So okay... We believe a Big Bang happened... no physical explanation for this because physics didn't exist until time and space existed for physics to function. But nevertheless, this giant explosion of energy happened for some unknown reason, blasting all the assorted elements out into what became our universe. Then we have this thing we cannot really explain called "gravity" which caused all these elements to begin to coalesce into larger clumps which eventually became planets and suns. But there is a deeper mystery when it comes to our planet. Remember the iron-nickel core mentioned earlier? Well how did it come to exist? Scientists believe the clump of materials which formed the planet must have undergone some kind of super-heating to literally "cook" the planet. The sun isn't hot enough to do this and we don't find it to be the case with any other planets in our solar system. Obviously water couldn't have survived such an event and yet it is here. In fact, it's the most abundant compound on Earth. How did we get so lucky? Why don't we find oceans on Mars? Same universe, same materials, same relative conditions... but Mars doesn't have much atmosphere and very little water.

Did "Nature" just so happen to know all the various things which had to happen in precise order for the creation of a planet such as ours? Most evolutionists believe life began in our oceans... well okay, again we have some major quandaries. In order for life in the ocean to even be there, we must have tides and movement or the ocean is a stagnant pool where life can't exist. Well, the tides are the result of a moon that happens to be just the right size and positioned in just such an orbit so as to enable this. Likewise, our planet has a distinct wobbly rotation, probably as a result of collision with something which ultimately created the moon. Now we're getting in to some really amazing trick shots in the game of cosmic pool. And while we think of gravity as the thing that keeps us anchored here on the planet, amazingly enough, it's also what keeps the moon in perpetual orbit around the Earth. The moon is literally in perpetual free fall due to gravity.

To top it all off, there is nothing in physics which says a universe MUST contain these parameters we understand as "cosmological constants" ...the rules of nature which govern physics literally do not HAVE to exist and there is no real explanation for why they do. This has prompted new theories of "multiverses" but now we're talking about something science can't observe or evaluate. No different than God.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I have a somewhat unorthodox view on this subject. Perhaps "intelligent" design is an improper term? Maybe what we are defining as "intelligent" is so defined because that is the closest grunting noise we can make to describe it? Could be that we are so primitive we simply can't comprehend the force which was responsible for our creation and we never will. It would be like monkeys figuring out cold fusion. It's beyond their ability to even begin to comprehend.

People often make the argument that surely our universe is teaming with life elsewhere. They point out that we have 100 billion stars within our own galaxy and there are millions of galaxies. Odds are, there are other planets with life just the same as Earth... but is there, really?

Think about the millions of circumstances which have to be as they are for life to exist. Some will assume if a planet is in the "Goldilocks Zone" then life probably exists, but there is no evidence for this other than speculation. First of all the GZ is going to vary in accordance with the size of the sun. Then there is the matter of water and atmosphere. Not every planet in the GZ are going to have both at the sufficient levels to sustain life. Our planet has a special and unique iron-nickel core which enables a magnetic field and atmosphere to protect us from the sun's radiation. How prevalent is all this in the universe? We don't know. And that's just the basic tip of the iceberg, there are literally thousands upon thousands of other variables which enable life as we know it.

So okay... We believe a Big Bang happened... no physical explanation for this because physics didn't exist until time and space existed for physics to function. But nevertheless, this giant explosion of energy happened for some unknown reason, blasting all the assorted elements out into what became our universe. Then we have this thing we cannot really explain called "gravity" which caused all these elements to begin to coalesce into larger clumps which eventually became planets and suns. But there is a deeper mystery when it comes to our planet. Remember the iron-nickel core mentioned earlier? Well how did it come to exist? Scientists believe the clump of materials which formed the planet must have undergone some kind of super-heating to literally "cook" the planet. The sun isn't hot enough to do this and we don't find it to be the case with any other planets in our solar system. Obviously water couldn't have survived such an event and yet it is here. In fact, it's the most abundant compound on Earth. How did we get so lucky? Why don't we find oceans on Mars? Same universe, same materials, same relative conditions... but Mars doesn't have much atmosphere and very little water.

Did "Nature" just so happen to know all the various things which had to happen in precise order for the creation of a planet such as ours? Most evolutionists believe life began in our oceans... well okay, again we have some major quandaries. In order for life in the ocean to even be there, we must have tides and movement or the ocean is a stagnant pool where life can't exist. Well, the tides are the result of a moon that happens to be just the right size and positioned in just such an orbit so as to enable this. Likewise, our planet has a distinct wobbly rotation, probably as a result of collision with something which ultimately created the moon. Now we're getting in to some really amazing trick shots in the game of cosmic pool. And while we think of gravity as the thing that keeps us anchored here on the planet, amazingly enough, it's also what keeps the moon in perpetual orbit around the Earth. The moon is literally in perpetual free fall due to gravity.

To top it all off, there is nothing in physics which says a universe MUST contain these parameters we understand as "cosmological constants" ...the rules of nature which govern physics literally do not HAVE to exist and there is no real explanation for why they do. This has prompted new theories of "multiverses" but now we're talking about something science can't observe or evaluate. No different than God.

The concept of the multiverse and string theory have both been attacked as untestable, therefore not valid science.

The uncertainties you're describing are the human condition. No knowledge is certain. Knowledge results from different disciplines though. Art is not theology and neither of them is science. The only problem with creationism is that it pretends to be science, but isn't.

 

[Boss]

I have a somewhat unorthodox view on this subject. Perhaps "intelligent" design is an improper term? Maybe what we are defining as "intelligent" is so defined because that is the closest grunting noise we can make to describe it? Could be that we are so primitive we simply can't comprehend the force which was responsible for our creation and we never will. It would be like monkeys figuring out cold fusion. It's beyond their ability to even begin to comprehend.

People often make the argument that surely our universe is teaming with life elsewhere. They point out that we have 100 billion stars within our own galaxy and there are millions of galaxies. Odds are, there are other planets with life just the same as Earth... but is there, really?

Think about the millions of circumstances which have to be as they are for life to exist. Some will assume if a planet is in the "Goldilocks Zone" then life probably exists, but there is no evidence for this other than speculation. First of all the GZ is going to vary in accordance with the size of the sun. Then there is the matter of water and atmosphere. Not every planet in the GZ are going to have both at the sufficient levels to sustain life. Our planet has a special and unique iron-nickel core which enables a magnetic field and atmosphere to protect us from the sun's radiation. How prevalent is all this in the universe? We don't know. And that's just the basic tip of the iceberg, there are literally thousands upon thousands of other variables which enable life as we know it.

So okay... We believe a Big Bang happened... no physical explanation for this because physics didn't exist until time and space existed for physics to function. But nevertheless, this giant explosion of energy happened for some unknown reason, blasting all the assorted elements out into what became our universe. Then we have this thing we cannot really explain called "gravity" which caused all these elements to begin to coalesce into larger clumps which eventually became planets and suns. But there is a deeper mystery when it comes to our planet. Remember the iron-nickel core mentioned earlier? Well how did it come to exist? Scientists believe the clump of materials which formed the planet must have undergone some kind of super-heating to literally "cook" the planet. The sun isn't hot enough to do this and we don't find it to be the case with any other planets in our solar system. Obviously water couldn't have survived such an event and yet it is here. In fact, it's the most abundant compound on Earth. How did we get so lucky? Why don't we find oceans on Mars? Same universe, same materials, same relative conditions... but Mars doesn't have much atmosphere and very little water.

Did "Nature" just so happen to know all the various things which had to happen in precise order for the creation of a planet such as ours? Most evolutionists believe life began in our oceans... well okay, again we have some major quandaries. In order for life in the ocean to even be there, we must have tides and movement or the ocean is a stagnant pool where life can't exist. Well, the tides are the result of a moon that happens to be just the right size and positioned in just such an orbit so as to enable this. Likewise, our planet has a distinct wobbly rotation, probably as a result of collision with something which ultimately created the moon. Now we're getting in to some really amazing trick shots in the game of cosmic pool. And while we think of gravity as the thing that keeps us anchored here on the planet, amazingly enough, it's also what keeps the moon in perpetual orbit around the Earth. The moon is literally in perpetual free fall due to gravity.

To top it all off, there is nothing in physics which says a universe MUST contain these parameters we understand as "cosmological constants" ...the rules of nature which govern physics literally do not HAVE to exist and there is no real explanation for why they do. This has prompted new theories of "multiverses" but now we're talking about something science can't observe or evaluate. No different than God.

The concept of the multiverse and string theory have both been attacked as untestable, therefore not valid science.

The uncertainties you're describing are the human condition. No knowledge is certain. Knowledge results from different disciplines though. Art is not theology and neither of them is science. The only problem with creationism is that it pretends to be science, but isn't.

Oh, I've always said that we cannot KNOW things, we can only have faith that we know. A lot of people become upset when they hear this but it's a fact. Physical science is bound by the laws of physics and nature, it cannot evaluate that which is outside of physics. Therefore, creative forces beyond the physical are not something we can examine with physical sciences.

Furthermore, if there were ever to become some way of verifying a creative metaphysical force through science, it would automatically cease to be something metaphysical, by definition. I've often said, if science ever proved God exists, the Atheists would chortle... See? We told you there was no such thing as God!

Think about that... once upon a time, humans believed the rain came from God. Then science comes along and explains how rain happens and suddenly, the rain doesn't come from God, it's a natural phenomenon. BUT... do we understand why two molecules of hydrogen bond with one molecule of oxygen to form a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it? Do we understand why (not how) these elements evaporate into the atmosphere to form clouds and then become too heavy to stay there and fall back to the ground? Nope... we just know that it does and we can explain how it works.

The cosmological constants... there are about 40 of them... are set precisely as they need to be in order for a physical universe to exist and in order for carbon-based life to exist as well as planets and suns. Nothing in physics dictates that universes MUST contain these constants, ours just does. Many will shrug this off and say... just the way it is... but it's like someone winning the powerball lottery 40 times in a row, except with 10^120 numbers available as possibilities. Are we really THAT lucky? I don't think that is rational.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....let's trust the scientists....

Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal

 

[S.J.]

Yes.....let's trust the scientists....

Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal

That's another thing to consider. Scientists live on government grants and are often paid to arrive at certain scientific conclusions.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh, I've always said that we cannot KNOW things, we can only have faith that we know. A lot of people become upset when they hear this but it's a fact. Physical science is bound by the laws of physics and nature, it cannot evaluate that which is outside of physics. Therefore, creative forces beyond the physical are not something we can examine with physical sciences.

Furthermore, if there were ever to become some way of verifying a creative metaphysical force through science, it would automatically cease to be something metaphysical, by definition. I've often said, if science ever proved God exists, the Atheists would chortle... See? We told you there was no such thing as God!

Think about that... once upon a time, humans believed the rain came from God. Then science comes along and explains how rain happens and suddenly, the rain doesn't come from God, it's a natural phenomenon. BUT... do we understand why two molecules of hydrogen bond with one molecule of oxygen to form a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it? Do we understand why (not how) these elements evaporate into the atmosphere to form clouds and then become too heavy to stay there and fall back to the ground? Nope... we just know that it does and we can explain how it works.

The cosmological constants... there are about 40 of them... are set precisely as they need to be in order for a physical universe to exist and in order for carbon-based life to exist as well as planets and suns. Nothing in physics dictates that universes MUST contain these constants, ours just does. Many will shrug this off and say... just the way it is... but it's like someone winning the powerball lottery 40 times in a row, except with 10^120 numbers available as possibilities. Are we really THAT lucky? I don't think that is rational.

Red:
Yes, we do know why, and the reason why has nothing to do with forming "a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it." The things you identified -- forming a compound that can exist in multiple matter states, or forming one that is able to serve as the foundation of life as we know it -- are outcomes of the fact that hydrogen and oxygen atoms do bond for form a water molecule. They are not the reason why those two atoms do so.

The reason they do so is found in the "octet rule," that is, because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells, and lacking enough electrons to do that on their own, they find other atoms with which they can bond, thereby producing an overall stable molecule even though alone neither element was stable. This can be relatively easily seen when one examines what inert elements do as compared and contrasted with what unstable elements do. Take neon or helium, for example. Neither any need or "inclination" to bond chemically with anything else. They're fine with forming a physical bond with other substances, but not a chemical one.

As for the liquid, gas, or solid thing, that's just a matter of the temperature at which one encounters a given element. Go somewhere cold enough, for example, and nitrogen is a liquid, colder still and it's a solid. The same thing happens with gold, which in hot enough environments will become a gas. That is so with all elements except helium.

Blue:
Are you by some chance seeking to highlight the distinction between sentient action and non-sentient action? Something akin to "why Billy stepped on Mary's foot" as opposed to "by what mechanism ihs limbs and muscles did so?" That statement sure seems like you are.

 

[320 Years of History]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

....

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

 

[Elvis Obama]

I have a somewhat unorthodox view on this subject. Perhaps "intelligent" design is an improper term? Maybe what we are defining as "intelligent" is so defined because that is the closest grunting noise we can make to describe it? Could be that we are so primitive we simply can't comprehend the force which was responsible for our creation and we never will. It would be like monkeys figuring out cold fusion. It's beyond their ability to even begin to comprehend.

People often make the argument that surely our universe is teaming with life elsewhere. They point out that we have 100 billion stars within our own galaxy and there are millions of galaxies. Odds are, there are other planets with life just the same as Earth... but is there, really?

Think about the millions of circumstances which have to be as they are for life to exist. Some will assume if a planet is in the "Goldilocks Zone" then life probably exists, but there is no evidence for this other than speculation. First of all the GZ is going to vary in accordance with the size of the sun. Then there is the matter of water and atmosphere. Not every planet in the GZ are going to have both at the sufficient levels to sustain life. Our planet has a special and unique iron-nickel core which enables a magnetic field and atmosphere to protect us from the sun's radiation. How prevalent is all this in the universe? We don't know. And that's just the basic tip of the iceberg, there are literally thousands upon thousands of other variables which enable life as we know it.

So okay... We believe a Big Bang happened... no physical explanation for this because physics didn't exist until time and space existed for physics to function. But nevertheless, this giant explosion of energy happened for some unknown reason, blasting all the assorted elements out into what became our universe. Then we have this thing we cannot really explain called "gravity" which caused all these elements to begin to coalesce into larger clumps which eventually became planets and suns. But there is a deeper mystery when it comes to our planet. Remember the iron-nickel core mentioned earlier? Well how did it come to exist? Scientists believe the clump of materials which formed the planet must have undergone some kind of super-heating to literally "cook" the planet. The sun isn't hot enough to do this and we don't find it to be the case with any other planets in our solar system. Obviously water couldn't have survived such an event and yet it is here. In fact, it's the most abundant compound on Earth. How did we get so lucky? Why don't we find oceans on Mars? Same universe, same materials, same relative conditions... but Mars doesn't have much atmosphere and very little water.

Did "Nature" just so happen to know all the various things which had to happen in precise order for the creation of a planet such as ours? Most evolutionists believe life began in our oceans... well okay, again we have some major quandaries. In order for life in the ocean to even be there, we must have tides and movement or the ocean is a stagnant pool where life can't exist. Well, the tides are the result of a moon that happens to be just the right size and positioned in just such an orbit so as to enable this. Likewise, our planet has a distinct wobbly rotation, probably as a result of collision with something which ultimately created the moon. Now we're getting in to some really amazing trick shots in the game of cosmic pool. And while we think of gravity as the thing that keeps us anchored here on the planet, amazingly enough, it's also what keeps the moon in perpetual orbit around the Earth. The moon is literally in perpetual free fall due to gravity.

To top it all off, there is nothing in physics which says a universe MUST contain these parameters we understand as "cosmological constants" ...the rules of nature which govern physics literally do not HAVE to exist and there is no real explanation for why they do. This has prompted new theories of "multiverses" but now we're talking about something science can't observe or evaluate. No different than God.

The concept of the multiverse and string theory have both been attacked as untestable, therefore not valid science.

The uncertainties you're describing are the human condition. No knowledge is certain. Knowledge results from different disciplines though. Art is not theology and neither of them is science. The only problem with creationism is that it pretends to be science, but isn't.

Oh, I've always said that we cannot KNOW things, we can only have faith that we know. A lot of people become upset when they hear this but it's a fact. Physical science is bound by the laws of physics and nature, it cannot evaluate that which is outside of physics. Therefore, creative forces beyond the physical are not something we can examine with physical sciences.

Furthermore, if there were ever to become some way of verifying a creative metaphysical force through science, it would automatically cease to be something metaphysical, by definition. I've often said, if science ever proved God exists, the Atheists would chortle... See? We told you there was no such thing as God!

Think about that... once upon a time, humans believed the rain came from God. Then science comes along and explains how rain happens and suddenly, the rain doesn't come from God, it's a natural phenomenon. BUT... do we understand why two molecules of hydrogen bond with one molecule of oxygen to form a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it? Do we understand why (not how) these elements evaporate into the atmosphere to form clouds and then become too heavy to stay there and fall back to the ground? Nope... we just know that it does and we can explain how it works.

The cosmological constants... there are about 40 of them... are set precisely as they need to be in order for a physical universe to exist and in order for carbon-based life to exist as well as planets and suns. Nothing in physics dictates that universes MUST contain these constants, ours just does. Many will shrug this off and say... just the way it is... but it's like someone winning the powerball lottery 40 times in a row, except with 10^120 numbers available as possibilities. Are we really THAT lucky? I don't think that is rational.

Who can say? Personally, I don't believe such questions are worth our time. We cannot see the physical universe in its entirety. We are like the blind men examining the elephant. So we don't try to see the whole. We try to see what's in front of us. Observe the moon and its effect on the tides. You can benefit from the knowledge without understanding what the moon is or how its appearances cause the tidal phenomenon you've observed.

Incomplete knowledge is the building material of science. The structures that science constructs are never considered complete. They are built to specific standards though, that are different from the standards of other disciplines.

As far as your probabilistic analysis of the universe being the result of the intervention of an intelligence goes, why do you care? Do you think you've discovered some breakthrough that should be of concern to every scientist and thoughtful person on the planet? Well then, publish it. Every ID effort so far has been rejected by the scientific community.

Science probes into areas hitherto considered the realm of religion and finds things that make religious people uncomfortable. Creationism and ID are pseudo-science designed to fight back. They would be sad if they weren't so dangerous. The religious conspiracy behind ID has achieved victories, and this means they are getting their pseudo-science included in curricula. Whenever science and politically/religiously motivated pseudo-science are debated on an equal footing it creates that false impression that there is an equivalency. There is not.

 

[S.J.]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

....

I asked some and nobody has yet offered a cogent reply. Apparently the intended purpose of the thread isn't materializing....that or receiving cogent answers isn't part of the offering/intent....

Clearly not the way you would like it to. The purpose of this thread is not to prove anything or to discredit those with whom you disagree. If that is your objective (as I suspect it is), you're probably in the wrong thread.

 

[Boss]

Oh, I've always said that we cannot KNOW things, we can only have faith that we know. A lot of people become upset when they hear this but it's a fact. Physical science is bound by the laws of physics and nature, it cannot evaluate that which is outside of physics. Therefore, creative forces beyond the physical are not something we can examine with physical sciences.

Furthermore, if there were ever to become some way of verifying a creative metaphysical force through science, it would automatically cease to be something metaphysical, by definition. I've often said, if science ever proved God exists, the Atheists would chortle... See? We told you there was no such thing as God!

Think about that... once upon a time, humans believed the rain came from God. Then science comes along and explains how rain happens and suddenly, the rain doesn't come from God, it's a natural phenomenon. BUT... do we understand why two molecules of hydrogen bond with one molecule of oxygen to form a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it? Do we understand why (not how) these elements evaporate into the atmosphere to form clouds and then become too heavy to stay there and fall back to the ground? Nope... we just know that it does and we can explain how it works.

The cosmological constants... there are about 40 of them... are set precisely as they need to be in order for a physical universe to exist and in order for carbon-based life to exist as well as planets and suns. Nothing in physics dictates that universes MUST contain these constants, ours just does. Many will shrug this off and say... just the way it is... but it's like someone winning the powerball lottery 40 times in a row, except with 10^120 numbers available as possibilities. Are we really THAT lucky? I don't think that is rational.

Red:
Yes, we do know why, and the reason why has nothing to do with forming "a compound which is liquid at a certain temperature range, a solid or gas if the temperature is extreme, and a foundation to all life as we know it." The things you identified -- forming a compound that can exist in multiple matter states, or forming one that is able to serve as the foundation of life as we know it -- are outcomes of the fact that hydrogen and oxygen atoms do bond for form a water molecule. They are not the reason why those two atoms do so.

The reason they do so is found in the "octet rule," that is, because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells, and lacking enough electrons to do that on their own, they find other atoms with which they can bond, thereby producing an overall stable molecule even though alone neither element was stable. This can be relatively easily seen when one examines what inert elements do as compared and contrasted with what unstable elements do. Take neon or helium, for example. Neither any need or "inclination" to bond chemically with anything else. They're fine with forming a physical bond with other substances, but not a chemical one.

As for the liquid, gas, or solid thing, that's just a matter of the temperature at which one encounters a given element. Go somewhere cold enough, for example, and nitrogen is a liquid, colder still and it's a solid. The same thing happens with gold, which in hot enough environments will become a gas. That is so with all elements except helium.

Blue:
Are you by some chance seeking to highlight the distinction between sentient action and non-sentient action? Something akin to "why Billy stepped on Mary's foot" as opposed to "by what mechanism ihs limbs and muscles did so?" That statement sure seems like you are.

Everything you are explaining is HOW things work.
You tell me atoms "want" to do stuff... are they intelligent?

"because the atoms "want to"/"prefer to" exits with stable electron shells"

So you still have not answered WHY this happens.

And you can explain how things happen to me all day long... you can't explain why they are that way. I understand the principles behind nitrogen and solid-liquid-gas states but that doesn't tell me why those principles are the way they are.

Why do atoms behave the way they behave?

This stuff fascinates me because every time science thinks it is finally going to be able to peek into something and reveal the answers to our universe, it discovers things that can't be explained. It runs into things that don't fit our physics in some fundamental way. For instance, they cannot isolate and measure nature's most fundamental elements, they refuse to allow it. Particles behave as waves until they are observed and then become particles. If we try to fool them, they can seemingly go back and time and change what they were. Electrons can be in two places at the same time... how is that possible? They can also be no place in time but still exist. "Spooky action at a distance" is what Einstein called it.

We look into a black hole... which Einstein predicted the existence of and later said it was his "biggest blunder" but then we actually discovered many of them and they are at the center of virtually every galaxy. We see that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is demonstrated at the Event Horizon where matter approaches the speed of light and time slows down... inside the black hole, beyond the Event Horizon, time no longer exists. Physics spirals wildly out of control. Mathematics says there is literally infinite energy and gravity but no time or space. What does that even mean in terms of our physics comprehension?

 

[xband]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

God does not roll dice. Albert Einstein

 

[Boss]

Personally, I don't believe such questions are worth our time.

Well it's fine for you to say this but Science simply begs to differ.

As far as your probabilistic analysis of the universe being the result of the intervention of an intelligence goes, why do you care?

Like I said, perhaps "intelligence" is simply the most suitable grunting noise us carbon forms can make to describe it?

I think I care because I think most humans would like to feel they know the truth. I can't accept the idea that this is all a fluke of circumstance and has no real purpose or reason. Basic logic tells me that is probably not the truth because the laws of physics as we understand them are ordered and logical as opposed to chaotic and random. There is more to it than math and chemistry can reveal.