|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
It's a general observation ... Its tried by folks who study law and not science, and who are trying to take a society down a liberal path of socialism, and in order to do so need to get it banned from the public school system. However it is not legally banned from being taught in all states here. The communists also followed this path and banned theistic science also under the guise of true science. The real intent here is not to teach pure science at all, but rather to ensure the erosion of all moral absolutes from our theistic based societies.
Spewing more garbage again, so early in the morning. So, perhaps you can tell us WHY the real intent of schools is to NOT teach science and how do they benefit or profit from ensuring the erosion of all moral absolutes? What is in it for them? You are so ridiculous, but at least we can laugh at you. Sounds like another emotional outburst--use sarcasm when lacking substance. Maybe you could discover an answer on your own if you can tell us why the NEA would encourage teachers to only present science from one point of view. If for some reason you cannot comprehend the clash taking place in public schools regarding the teachings on gender and sexuality and moral absolutes you are living in isolation or in denial. Gender and sexuality issues can only be redefined if we first remove the moral basis for properly understanding gender and sexuality that is given at birth in our DNA. A deceptive way of redefining gender and sexuality is by first using science to attack the idea of the existence of God under the guise of teaching science. Then when we come to biology and sociology we can establish a new morality for gender and sexuality related topics. A person does not need to be very astute to notice the obvious connections. Science is presented from a scientific point of view. Pretty simple, eh? One doesn't present science from a mythology point of view. That's really quite irrational, but then you are like that. So, since you don't have a good answer, you now jump from evolution to sexuality. I know you don't even believe that yourself. Why would you expect me to believe it? Where are all these schemes being hatched and directed? Must be a really top-secret society that is doing this at all the schools across the country. Amazing, isn't it? Science was taught long before Darwin postulated his theories, so to assume evolution as an apriori of science is a bit irrational. You are deflecting again. Once more, you avoid the question with an answer to a question that was never asked and not relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
If we made such illogical assumptions in daily life and left everything go random--well everything would certainly go from random into chaos and never once from random to order. Evolution also defies basic common sense.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Another bad argument because I did not say that God created evil out of His infinite goodness.
I said it. It's just basic logic.
God is a source of natural calamity that is sometimes called evil in a general sense, but He is not author of sinful or moral evil. If you design a rifle for hunting to put food on the table and it gets used to commit a crime, are you the ultimate source of the crime? Think about the logic of your argument.
You completely ignore both what the bible says about God in relation to creating evil, verses that have been quoted, and the logical implications of omniscience and omnipotence in relation to a created world, while repeating objection that are not related to these issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[quote=DBT]
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it' How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning. Please pay attention. I have said that it is not known what came before the BB, whether the universe is cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc,....what we do know is that a universe exists. Its nature and how matter/energy came about (if it did) is a work in progress. "God did it" is just a belief and an assertion....which doesn't really explain a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems. So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome. The question is: why do people assume that their own holy book, the Bible, Quran,Gita, etc, is a source of factual information about the world as it is? That the world was created by Brahman or Yahweh or Allah....? Each assuming that they have the truth, that their own book is reliable, while the other are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[/b]"In 1961, astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as "fine-tuned" to make physical life possible. The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in 10 40 (one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life. Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for life—any conceivable kind of physical life—stands at thirty-eight. Of these, the most sensitive is the space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more than one part in 10 120 and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires."
[b]The mathematical probabilities of all these fine-tuned characteristics randomly coming into being at precisely the right time, and then being maintained, to support the spontaneous generation of life is statistically nil. In fact there is far more probability of the most ardent atheistic evolutionist being converted to the truth than for materialistic evolution to have brought this universe with life into existence.
The fine tuning argument for God is essentially the argument from incredulity;
“I can’t imagine how X can be true; therefore, X must be false.”
“I can’t imagine how X can be false; therefore, X must be true.”
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.
Conclusions: proposition X is false.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
[quote=DBT]
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it' How do you know that it existed before the Big Bang? You will say because the Big Bang used it. How do you know the Big Bang used it? Because it made a Big Bang. Talk about unverifiable circular reasoning. Please pay attention. I have said that it is not known what came before the BB, whether the universe is cyclic, part of a multiverse, etc, etc,....what we do know is that a universe exists. Its nature and how matter/energy came about (if it did) is a work in progress. "God did it" is just a belief and an assertion....which doesn't really explain a thing. You don't seem to get the idea your argument is even less valid than the creationist's. At least they appeal to intelligence to create information. There's nothing in nature to show information coming from anything other than a mind.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
If we made such illogical assumptions in daily life and left everything go random--well everything would certainly go from random into chaos and never once from random to order. Evolution also defies basic common sense. The world isn't random. Evolution is not random.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence. a. They can be and have been. b. Evolution is NOT a random occurrence. Mutations of genes may occur randomly. However, whether they (a) go away, (b) propogate throughout a population, thus causing the species to evolve, or (c) have no effect at all depends on whether or not they are good or bd for the survival and increase in the population.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
You don't seem to get the idea your argument is even less valid than the creationist's. At least they appeal to intelligence to create information. There's nothing in nature to show information coming from anything other than a mind.
What is my argument? Can you say? I get the impression that you either don't understand what I said, or you misrepresent what I say for your own purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993 |
If we made such illogical assumptions in daily life and left everything go random--well everything would certainly go from random into chaos and never once from random to order. Evolution also defies basic common sense. The world isn't random. Evolution is not random. Additionally, natural processes create order all the time. The Rings of Saturn are "herded" into place Sheppard moons. Look at our Solar System as a whole, with planets in orderly orbits around our sun.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993 |
Well sir as we all know neither you nor any other evolutionist has a reasonable answer for the statistical impossibility of the conundrum. The claims of evolution cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment let alone being observed as a totally random occurrence.What is being being passed off as science is not only a myth, but also a hoax.
Not only do those anthropic principles need to be introduced at precisely the right time, but they need to be maintained with the same precision for life to be maintained. Where else do we have such precision without original design or superintending maintenance? This is incontrovertible evidence for both an Intelligent Designer and an omnipotent Being. Was the Pothole made to fit the mud puddle, or does the mud puddle conform to the existing pot hole. Image you have a road, a million miles long, and it's perfectly smooth at every point except one, where there exits a single pot hole. If it rain on the entirety of the road, there's only one place the mud puddle can form. See, part of the problem with your "statistics", is you don't know the denominator. You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen. Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. Change the variable and you may get a "failed Universe" by our standards, but it might be perfect for some other version of "life". Consequently, we don't have enough information to accurately calculate the probabilities in question.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993 |
How about we don't assume anything, and base our beliefs on good evidence?
That would be far too rational and reasonable for some folks. Too much reality is a bad thing it seems. So if we don't assume anything can we assume that we have no reason to believe anything that is taught in our public school systems? Should parents tell their children every day they go to school, "Don't assume that anything you are taught is correct." Would it not be better to say, learn all you can, but ask for evidence about anything that doesn't sound right? No one can start the learning process without trusting in something as a starting point. It is better to seek truth than to rely on doubt as a guide--otherwise the best you can become is a doubter and I doubt that will have a good outcome. I can tell it's been a loooooong time since you've been in school, or even had kids in school. Either that, or you never cared enough to actually look at their homework? Education today is less about what to think and much more about how to think. As early as 4th grade they have lessons on evaluating the quality of arguments and the strengths and weakness of the evidence presented. Sure you first need to learn our agreed upon conventions and labels, there are the letters and how they sound, and these are the numbers and how to count, but after that, it's time to get onto most kids favor question, "Why", and more importantly, and more importantly, how do we know, and how they can evaluate for themselves it that's a good answer or not.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 407
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 407 |
[quote=GunGeek]In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise.
What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.[/quote]
YUP! Well said.
Last edited by benquick; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
[quote=GunGeek]In this day, the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely MASSIVE; more evidence than ever before. We have many cases of observed evolution (something a bit new), and DNA evidence that that shows it to be true. Yet, skepticism is on the rise.
What that shows is national values that put religious dogma ahead of rational thought.[/quote]
YUP! Well said. Sadly, this same inability to reason and accept the world for what it is, extends to many other issues with these same people. They live a life of almost constant denial to stay true to their dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. First, if you are going to argue infinities I'll state that lead will turn into gold. It just takes time approaching infinity. Prove me wrong. Second. Change a constant like the gravitational constant either way by something like 1 part in 10e50 and life CANNOT exist. The universe either blows up or collapses. Not a proof but to be completely dismissive of the long odds is absurd. Most would call it of some probative value. a.k.a. evidence.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
What was God, for the sake of argument, doing for an eternity before creating this Universe?
Nothing for an eternity...suddenly, ''hey, lets create a Universe, a great big Universe, that'll be nice!''
Last edited by DBT; 08/13/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,785
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,785 |
After 55 pages, where is Big Stick? I am sure he has ALL the answers...doesn't he always?
"I didn't realize we had so many snipers in this country." by J23
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,993 |
You have no idea how long the road is, nor how long it rains, consequently you have no idea if the number that you think are so big are actually large compared to the number of total opportunities for the occurrence happen.
Second, there's an additional flaw in your "fine tuning" argument. Those estimates you present are for life to occur as we know it. First, if you are going to argue infinities I'll state that lead will turn into gold. It just takes time approaching infinity. Prove me wrong. Second. Change a constant like the gravitational constant either way by something like 1 part in 10e50 and life CANNOT exist. The universe either blows up or collapses. Not a proof but to be completely dismissive of the long odds is absurd. Most would call it of some probative value. a.k.a. evidence. Your assertion about the gravitational constant brings up another flaw in your reasoning. That presumes all other constants remain constant. A multi-variable equation can have more than one solution. Remember those pesky functions in high school algebra? For each x there a given y, but as x changes, so does y giving many such equations an infinite number of solutions.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
169 members (300_savage, 338reddog, 308xray, 673, 16penny, 27 invisible),
2,079
guests, and
1,022
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,367
Posts18,488,265
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
