PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     order
       where did laws come from?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,

It is not my "incredulity" but my real life experience which proves: order does not come
from disorder "by itself".
Your credulity does not change that. I never
accepted nonsenses. That is why I reject the
"theory" that order comes out "naturally" from
the lack of it.

Void,

You would not believe that the TV set came into existence by itself would you?

The question is not whether God is the "explanation" for the origin of laws. The
question is : what is ? You say there are many.
Tell me one please.

Cheers.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 4:46 PM on June 12, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,

It is not my "incredulity" but my real life experience which proves: order does not come
from disorder "by itself".
Your credulity does not change that. I never
accepted nonsenses. That is why I reject the
"theory" that order comes out "naturally" from
the lack of it.

Void,

You would not believe that the TV set came into existence by itself would you?

The question is not whether God is the "explanation" for the origin of laws. The
question is : what is ? You say there are many.
Tell me one please.

Cheers.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 4:50 PM on June 12, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is not my "incredulity" but my real life experience which proves: order does not come
from disorder "by itself".


And yet in real life we see higher order coming out of lesser order, seeds grow into much more complex plants, simple egg cells grow into much more complex, much more ordered animals, atoms combine to form much more ordered molecules, the list goes on and on....
What real life experience shows you order can not arise from chaos?  Your problem is in using simple terms to prop up your simple beliefs.   What science finds every day is that reality is more complex than we ever realized.  Laws were never imposed by a supernatural force, they are a function of reality.  You claim that the universe came out of chaos, that there was no order, no laws.  You assume that this is fact because it is the only way you can support your quaint myth of creation.  Why do you assume there were no laws or order prior to this universe?  Any evidence to back that up?  
Theoretical physicists are constructing plausible hypothesises that detail what came before our universe, are they right?  You got me, much too complex for me to understand.  But one thing I did notice, no supernatural forces are involved in these hypothesises.  Like I said, reality is much more complex than we ever realized, your simplified, unsubstantiated myths get more and more ridiculous every day.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:28 PM on June 12, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void,

You would not believe that the TV set came into existence by itself would you?


I thought I had made myself clear in my last post. No, I would not believe a TV set coming into existance by itself because I KNOW TV's are made in factories by humans.

The question is not whether God is the "explanation" for the origin of laws. The
question is : what is ? You say there are many.
Tell me one please.


I have listed them before but here goes again:

1) There are an infinite amount of universes which all have different random laws. This one happens to have laws that support life.

2) This universe is the only one and the laws were created naturally by random. It just so happens that these laws support life. Yes, the laws could be worse, but they could be better too. Therefore there is nothing "special" about our universe.

3) The formation of laws is natural. One day we will discover that the laws had to form this way and there was no other way.

4) The laws were created by many supernatural beings that are not all powerful and their only ability is to be able to change laws. They decided to shape the laws so that termites exist. Humans are just a by-product.

5) The universe contracts and expands in cycles. Every cycle the laws change. This cycle supports life, the next one probably won't.

6) The laws were created by a supernatural force which is not concious. This force is spiritually everything and everywhere. It caused the laws to be how they are because there was a reason and the course of the universe has meaning. The force doesn't understand this, it merely follows it out.

7) The laws were created by the christian God, a supernatural being who wanted to create a universe for one species, humans. This God has many specific properties.

The seven possibilities above are neither provable or disprovable, they have no evidence and are merely guesses.
You believe the explanation you do because of faith. Now you have to understand that people without faith are not going to believe in any specific answer above but will accept them all as possiblities.

Science will only accept the natural explanations. That is not because it denies the supernatural, it is because science doesn't work on the supernatural.
The supernatural is untestable and therefore the scientific method is unable to study it.

Science is about studying the observable universe and its mechanisms. By understanding this we can make cars and computers and medicine and stuff.
It doesn't mean there is no supernatural - it just means that for the purposes of the above, science cannot take the supernatural into account.
Religion and Science are different methods of looking at our world. Religion tells us spiritual meanings while science tells us physical meanings. There should be no conflict and both can exist together.
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 08:02 AM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,

And yet in real life we see higher order coming out of lesser order, seeds grow into much more complex plants, simple egg cells grow into much more complex, much more ordered animals, atoms combine to form much more ordered
molecules, the list goes on and on....


All what you talk about is pre-programmed. Matter follows the order which was in the plan(design) given. That is not "order from disorder" as you assume.

What real life experience shows you order can not arise from chaos?


Every single experience in life teaches us the
same truth: order is NOT created by chaos. It
is done by an organizer force.  

Theoretical physicists are constructing plausible hypothesises that detail what came before our universe, are they right?  You got me, much too complex for me to understand.


They are much too complex for the physicists
themselves too. Do not be overly gullible Demon. Use your critical thinking abilities. Fancy words do not mean true answers. Do
you think "singularity" or "string theory" is an
impressive answer to real problems? Do not
think Steven Hawking can tell you the brief
history of time because he can not. Nobody
can unless that one was there all along.
I hope I am not insulting you Demon by saying
that.

Cheers.

(Edited by Gabor 6/19/2003 at 08:27 AM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 08:05 AM on June 19, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void,

I thought I had made myself clear in my last post. No, I would not believe a TV set coming into existance by itself because I KNOW TV's are made in factories by humans.


What if you would be an "alien" not knowing
the TV set was manufactured? Would you assume that the dirt developed itself into a
"higher level of sopfistication"?

The seven possibilities above are neither provable or disprovable, they have no evidence and are merely guesses.
You believe the explanation you do because of faith. Now you have to understand that people without faith are not going to believe in any specific answer above but will accept them all as possiblities


Since I do not think a TV can develop itself from
nothing because it is not reasonable, or logical
if you wish neither do I think that creation can exist without a Creator - whom we call God. The same way from the seven "alternatives" I
reasonably can accept the seventh only. The
rest are not valid answers because each one
of them leaves the same problem unanswered.

Science will only accept the natural explanations. That is not because it denies the supernatural, it is because science doesn't work on the supernatural.
The supernatural is untestable and therefore the scientific method is unable to study it.


"Science" which accept only "natural" explanations is called "naturalism" which is a
system based on unreasonable assumptions.
The far past and far future are not testable experimantally. That would be O.K. if "science"
would not publish statements about them as facts. That is lacking intellectual honesty and defies real science.

Religion and Science are different methods of looking at our world. Religion tells us spiritual meanings while science tells us physical meanings. There should be no conflict and both can exist together


I fully agree with that Void. The problem is that
some "representatives of science" keep ridiculing that possibility. Please do not be offended, I have no intention to insult you.









(Edited by Gabor 6/19/2003 at 09:38 AM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 09:37 AM on June 19, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The far past and far future are not testable experimantally. That would be O.K. if "science"
would not publish statements about them as facts. That is lacking intellectual honesty and defies real science


Do you also disagree with the court system? If noone observed the murder and it cannot be tested experimantally does that mean the murder can not be solved? The earth has clues of what the past earth was like just as the murder scene will have clues of who the murderer was.

It just so happens that there is an abundance of clues on earth that point at the same conclusion. From a natural point of view it is beyond reasonable doubt. Notice that science does not present evolution as absolute fact but as scientific fact. Scientific fact is only based on natural evidence. Science makes no appeals to supernatural entities. There is a good reason for this.
Newton could easily have assumed that everyone was held to earth by invisible supernatural string. While this does explain everything, it is untestable. The supernatural is untestable. It is unprovable and undisprovable. It gets us nowhere from a scientific point of view. For the purpose of science we can only accept natural explanations that can be tested. So far it has worked, we have computers, cars, cameras, medicine, fertilizers all because science only accepted natural explanations.
Naturalistic science does not say "God doesn't exist" it says something more like "Maybe God does exist but for the purpose of creating useful tools lets focus on natural explanations". Most scientists believe in God.

Currently you believe evolution is wrong and creationism is right.

Here is another position you could take while still believing in creationism 100%:

It basically hinges around the fact that you don't have to agree that evolution is absolute truth to accept that the evidence supports it.
Basically evolution could be wrong. That is not to say science has got it wrong, science has done the best job it can with the evidence. But if the evidence decieves us then scientific conclusions will be wrong.

Here is an analogy:
Imagine that you live near a river. It is very useful, everyday you drink from it, wash in it, fish in it. To your observation it is a river.
Now imagine someone came up to you and convinced you that due to some valid reason it acted like a river but was actually an illusion.

Even though you know the observation and evidence is wrong, you could live your life treating it as a river because of the benefits of doing so (drinking, washing, etc). So you have two truths, one absolute truth that the river isn't there and one useful truth that it exists.

Now in terms of evolution, you can have two truths. One absolute truth that evolution is an illusion - that it isn't true, that God Created the earth. You can also have a useful truth that for purposes of observation evolution is true. (I emphasise that calling one of them "useful" truth isn't implying that the other is not useful..it is the only word i could think of).

Now I know you will be wondering what use evolution is but it is very useful for medicine. Evolution showed that the SARS virus had evolved from a previously known corona virus. It also predicted that the SARS virus might mutate into other strains, some mabye more virulent. If we fully understood evolution it would allow us to understand how viruses and diseases change which would be very useful. This is what makes evolution useful and makes it worthwhile teaching it so maybe in the future someone will make better medicines.
Now I know naturalists and atheists will sometimes use evolution in an attempt to disprove God creation but that is thier problem and mistake.

I have no intention to insult you.
me neither!
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 11:59 AM on June 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Science" which accept only "natural" explanations is called "naturalism" which is a
system based on unreasonable assumptions.


Gabor, can you name some areas of science which invoke the supernatural and magic and how they do?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:17 PM on June 19, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every single experience in life teaches us the
same truth: order is NOT created by chaos. It
is done by an organizer force.


What experience?!  We see greater order arise in reality.  There is no universal organizer force.  Order arises due to the instinsict properties of matter.

All what you talk about is pre-programmed. Matter follows the order which was in the plan(design) given. That is not "order from disorder" as you assume.

And still you can give no evidence of this pre-program.  We see the mechanisms for matter to increase it's order and it does not look designed.  Until you can show us empirical evidence, any evidence for that matter, it's just wishful thinking on your part.

Do you think "singularity" or "string theory" is an impressive answer to real problems? Do not think Steven Hawking can tell you the brief
history of time because he can not. Nobody
can unless that one was there all along.
I hope I am not insulting you Demon by saying
that.


Nah, you're not insulting me, this is a debate after all.  I won't take offense if you won't.
But I reject your premise that we can't know something if we were not there.  This is total anti-science.  Evidence can be examined and analyzed.  The better the evidence, the better the theory we can construct from it.  Answer my question, are you claiming that scientists like Hawking have no idea what they're talking about?  That they are just fooling themselves along with everyone else?  Do you have the necessary expertise to debunk their hypothesies and calculations?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:36 AM on June 20, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon,

We see greater order arise in reality.  There is no universal organizer force.  Order arises due to the instinsict properties of matter.


Sorry friend, the above sentence of yours is a definite statement of belief (faith if you wish)
Because "science" is not able to speculate out
the source of order in nature (living or inanimate) there comes the over-confident statement : "laws are the intrinsic properties
of matter". This is more religious than the acceptance of the existence of an omnipotent
Creator. The problem is He claims He is. It is
not a hypothesis. It is a message and it is proven true.

no evidence of this pre-program.


What about the genetic code? You say it is the
result of chance mutations do not you? Do you know that the there is no "feedback" from the
phenotype to the genotype? So the evolution
idea is inevitably based on "chance" mutations.
But there is a mindbogleingly fantastic design
in the "code". To assume that it is the result
of the "intrinsic" property of lifeless matter is
absurd to the extreme.

We see the mechanisms for matter to increase it's order


Where is that "mechanism" coming from? How
does it work? Is it chaotic?

Evidence can be examined and analyzed.  The better the evidence, the better the theory we can construct from it.  Answer my question, are you claiming that scientists like Hawking have no idea what they're talking about?  That they are just fooling themselves along with everyone else?  Do you have the necessary expertise to debunk their hypothesies and calculations?

Evidence can be examined and analyzed.  The better the evidence, the better the theory we can construct from it.  Answer my question, are you claiming that scientists like Hawking have no idea what they're talking about?  That they are just fooling themselves along with everyone else?  Do you have the necessary expertise to debunk their hypothesies and calculations?


Hawking has ideas about the evidences. Evidences are facts. Calculations about them
are assumptions upon assumptions. They can be brilliant (and I know Hawking has a brilliant
theoretical mind) yet they remain exactly that:
ideas without proof.

Cheers.




-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:54 PM on June 20, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because "science" is not able to speculate out
the source of order in nature (living or inanimate) there comes the over-confident statement : "laws are the intrinsic properties
of matter". This is more religious than the acceptance of the existence of an omnipotent
Creator.


Why is it more religious to say the properties of matter (and energy) are intrinsic?  Everything we observe thus far is natural.  There is nothing that requires a supernatural explaination.  I keep asking for evidence for the supernatural and you haven't provided any.  God is not proven true.  The only support you can provide for your position is that you desperately want God to be behind everything, that's all you have.

What about the genetic code? You say it is the result of chance mutations do not you?

No I don't.  Mutations are a result of chance but they are selected by the environment.  Selection is not random.  Natural selection is non intelligent but it is not random.

Do you know that the there is no "feedback" from the phenotype to the genotype?

Yes there is.  A phenotype that is unsuited to the environment it manifests itself in dies out, the genotype is eliminated.  You're 100% wrong here Gabor.  Once again, natural selection is a powerful source of feedback.

But there is a mindbogleingly fantastic design in the "code".

And that mindbogglingly fantastic design is clearly the result of non random, but unintelligent natural selection.

Where is that "mechanism" coming from? How does it work? Is it chaotic?"

Notice I said mechanisms,plural.  Water freezes and becomes more ordered due to natural processes.  Gas clouds condense and form stars all due to natural processes. And these natural processes occur because of the intrinsic properties inherent in the matter that is becoming more ordered.  Many different mechanisms, and they can all be explained naturally.  Once again, you have provided not evidence to the contrary.

Hawking has ideas about the evidences. Evidences are facts. Calculations about them
are assumptions upon assumptions. They can be brilliant (and I know Hawking has a brilliant
theoretical mind) yet they remain exactly that:
ideas without proof.


Calculations based on limited evidences are not assumptions based on assumptions, they are assumptions based on limited facts, big difference.  You're missing the point, here is an explaination that does not need the supernatural.  Is it right?  I don't know but it is a start, an hypothesis to build upon.  What do you have for your hypothesis, it's still just "I can't understand how the universe came into existance, so Goddidit.."   One last question, why do you say Hawking has a brilliant theoretical mind when you think his theories, calculations, hypothesises are junk?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:08 AM on June 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  One thing I hear in these arguments, “You see a TV where did it come from?”  In our past experience we assume that some one designed it.  This may be coming to an end.   One of the latest developments is designing electronic circuits using evolution.  What is done is to start with a random design and with each generation selection is made for the fittest to do the job.  The first generation did not work at all but was the closest to the desired result but a long way from there.  In the next generation, small random variation is introduced in a subset of the population, marriages amongst members of the previous generation etc. and the fittest is again picked.  After 5000 generations a working circuit was developed that even the designers did not understand.   Was this chance?  No, it was just natural selection at work.  Some of these circuits were even patented.  You can read about it at www.genetic-programming.com  Yes, a company has been formed to use evolutionary algorithms to design electronic circuits.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:19 PM on June 21, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.