Monday, June 23, 2008

Money and thermodynamics

Here's an addendum to Sunday's show on financial scams. It's a thought that I had while preparing the topic, but didn't wind up using while on the air.

Your financial situation is a lot like the second law of thermodynamics -- a concept which creationists frequently and (perhaps) deliberately misunderstand. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, which is hard to explain in abstract terms, but it is often described as "chaos." It is a function of the amount of energy in a system which is no longer available to do work.

In a closed system, entropy always increases, which means that orderliness is being drained away all the time. The only way to restore that order is to bring new energy into the system which can do work. Here on earth, the sun is always shining down, bringing new energy from space. That energy is absorbed by plants, which are eaten by herbivores, which are both eaten by people, which channel that energy into creating orderly things. If all the people in the world were to disappear tomorrow, within a very short time our buildings would decay and rust, and eventually fall down. What is biodegradable would be eaten by bacteria. And so on. Keeping our civilization going takes work.

The sun provides "free energy" for us and so powers order and life and yes, evolution too. Eventually the sun will burn out, but this is too far in the future for us to care about that problem right now. You can't just keep spend energy without bringing more of it in: if the sun vanished, all life on earth would likely be dead in a matter of days. It doesn't matter how clever our science is at that point; without new energy coming in, you can only shuffle existing energy around for so long before using it up.

In your personal life, money plays a similar role to order. Most of the things you do as a citizen of the 21st century require money in some way. Keeping a roof over your head costs money, or it costs somebody else money (if, for example, you live with your parents). Feeding yourself costs money. Traveling around costs money. The highways and buildings that keep our economy running cost money to maintain.

So in order to keep this system afloat, we have to do new things all the time that generate wealth. At a basic level, we have to grow enough food to feed everyone. We have to build houses, and create roads. At a less crucial level, we give each other reasons to go on living when we create art and design cool technology and educate one another. These are the things that we do that are of lasting value to our species, and they are things that are worth paying for.

A financial scam is the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Scam artists will tell you that you can get your money for nothing (and, as Dire Straits tells us, your chicks for free). They say that if you mail their chain letter to other people, or build your downline as an Amway distributor, or hype up Liberty Dollars, or "pay the processing fee" to release the funds from your rich uncle in Nigeria, then you'll get money without doing work.

Thanks to thermodynamics, we know that perpetual motion machines don't work, and that anyone who claims to have built one is a charlatan. In order to create motion, you have to spend new energy. In order to keep a lifestyle going, you have to do something of value that brings in new money. In other words, an economic closed system is guaranteed to burn itself out sooner or later.

In a nutshell, that is what I mean when I say that you should always approach a new financial opportunity by asking: "Where is this money coming from?"

31 comments:

  1. I see where you're coming from, but I think there's an important difference: it's possible to create wealth, in a way that it's not possible to create energy. In fact, big chunks of our economy are based on that.

    Of course, wealth is created by adding value to something through work. But get-rich-quick schemes and scams are pretty much predicated on the notion of not doing that work, and just shuffling dollar bills around.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe I should have been a little stricter in how I applied the analogy. I think what I really meant to indicate is that "wealth" does not correspond to "energy," but to "order." "Entropy" in this case is an analogy to how broke you are.

    The point here is that you can't create new energy, but you can harness existing energy to create both order and wealth. The energy still comes from the sun, and through a roundabout route it powers our minds which create that wealth. However, note that just because there is always energy flowing into the system doesn't mean that it is necessarily creating order. You need some kind of mechanism to harness that energy and make it orderly; otherwise, solar energy just falls on the ground and is wasted.

    The problem with a scam is that there is no such mechanism for generating wealth. Energy is being used only to transfer money; none of it has been applied to create it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...which is how we know the universe is not infinitely old and that a cyclical universe is not an option either.

    Good points.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry, that's an incorrect assumption. "The universe" has more that one potential meaning - it can refer to the current universe that exists now, or it can refer to "the set of all things that exist." The two are not equivalent.

    Our knowledge of the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to what we know of the current universe. Before the event horizon of 10^-43 seconds after the big bang, we simply don't know enough about the way the rules work to describe thermodynamics. For all we know, before this event horizon there was a universe where time and entropy run backwards.

    Although you didn't say so, your assumption is that the way to get around the 2LoT is to assume the existence of a God who can break all the rules. This implies that you already believe that 2LoT does not apply in all cases. I would point out that if you have already made this assumption, then there is no further need to assume a God.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, so "the set of all things that exist" is NOT subject to entropy or laws of thermodynamics? Do tell!

    Our knowledge of the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to what we know of the current universe.

    And that is, kinda, in operation, you know, right now. Nobody's arguing that the universe was on the verge of heat death at 10^-43 seconds after the Horrendous Space Kablooie.

    before this event horizon there was a universe where time and entropy run backwards.

    Well heck, for all you know the laws of physics will fundamentally and radically change one second after you read this.
    For all you know the previous universe was one in which the God you dislike so much existed.
    For all you know, He still does. It's funny like that.

    to assume the existence of a God who can break all the rules.

    Well, to presuppose Him, yes.
    And He's outside time and space and energy, He created it all, so... yeah.

    This implies that you already believe that 2LoT does not apply in all cases.

    It applies to the physical universe. Right?
    Besides, I'm answering you on your own grounds, and you presuppose NO God, so go ahead and answer my question from YOUR POV, please.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, to presuppose Him, yes.

    Thought you weren't a presuppositionalist, Rho.

    And He's outside time and space and energy

    In what realm, exactly? Where does this place "outside time and space and energy" exist, what are its physical laws and properties, and what evidence do you have for its existence that anyone can confirm independently? (The Bible doesn't count.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, I am presuppositionalist.

    In what realm, exactly?

    Spiritual.

    Where does this place "outside time and space and energy" exist, what are its physical laws and properties, and what evidence do you have for its existence that anyone can confirm independently?

    There's no "where".
    It has no physical laws or properties; it's not physical. Such category errors!
    Evidence - the impossibility of the contrary.
    What evidence do YOU have that you're not a brain in a vat?
    Maybe could do a post on that - how your atheistic presuppositions are not hopelessly vulnerable to solipsism.
    Whatever else one wants to say about my presuppositions, they're not vulnerable to solipsism. That's nice for me.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rho:
    And He's outside time and space and energy

    I can understand "outside time and space" (not easily, and my mental image of this is probably very different from what most people imagine, but okay).

    But what does "outside energy" mean? That makes as much sense to me as "outside of blue".

    ReplyDelete
  9. In what realm, exactly?

    Spiritual.


    Define.

    There's no "where".
    It has no physical laws or properties; it's not physical. Such category errors!


    Then explain it.

    Evidence - the impossibility of the contrary.

    If you're arguing that it's impossible to explain the existence of anything without recourse to this being who operates in some way out of a realm the nature of which you cannot seem to explain (in contrast to the way, for instance, in which, physicists can explain the laws of our own universe), then demonstrate why this is so, and why your invisible magic being of choice is the preferred solution over any of the other thousands of invisible magic beings created throughout humanity's history to explain that which you seek to explain now. Moreover, please provide an explanation as to how someone like myself can distinguish your deity, and the "spiritual realm" with no physical laws in which you claim it lives, from ideas that may only inhabit your imagination.

    What evidence do YOU have that you're not a brain in a vat?
    Maybe could do a post on that - how your atheistic presuppositions are not hopelessly vulnerable to solipsism.


    Ah, the Matrix! Time for the stoner philosophizing!

    We may all be brains in vats, or we may all be inhabiting an objective reality in which we interact with one another, our environments, and in which people interact with each other completely outside of our experience of that. All I can say is that I consider the evidence that there's a big wide physical world out there I'm living in, which will go on without me after I die and which went on without me just fine before I was born, to be far more parsimonious and persuasive than any evidence (none of which I've ever found) that I'm floating in a vat providing sustenance to our evil machine overlords.

    When I interact with other atheists, we have a shared experience we can confirm independently. Of course, we may be brains in vats, having a shared hallucination programmed by the overlords to fool us into thinking we live in an objective reality. But where's the evidence for that, and is it more persuasive than the evidence that objective reality is, you know, real? I say not.

    I could be wrong, of course. But most people generally considered sane would be likely to agree with me, I suspect. Maybe I should follow the white rabbit and find the truth!

    (Anyway, atheism isn't based on presuppositions. It's a response to the claims made by religionists, and the failure on their part to support them adequately with evidence. Come on, Rho, you're smarter than that — save the projection for the tongue-talking TBN crowd.)

    Whatever else one wants to say about my presuppositions, they're not vulnerable to solipsism. That's nice for me.

    They're only vulnerable to being indistinguishable to anyone but yourself from something you may be only imagining. That may not be solipsism. But it does mean you still have weaker evidence for your "spiritual realms" than we do for physical reality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spiritual.
    Define.


    Of or pertaining to spirit.

    Then explain it.

    In what sense?
    Read the Bible's references to God. Some of them will help.

    it's impossible to explain the existence of anything without recourse to this being who operates in some way out of a realm the nature of which you cannot seem to explain

    Correct. Though I can explain Him somewhat. It depends on the question; whether that info is available or not. I'm not omniscient.

    (in contrast to the way, for instance, in which, physicists can explain the laws of our own universe

    You must have missed Kazim's first two comments where he claimed that the laws of thermodynamics and such could easily simply be reversed in alternate universes or even in this one before a certain time.

    why your invisible magic being of choice is the preferred solution over any of the other thousands of invisible magic beings created throughout humanity's history to explain that which you seek to explain now.

    The impossibility of the contrary. None of those other ones account for reality, intelligibility, and rationality like TGOTB does.

    how someone like myself can distinguish your deity, and the "spiritual realm" with no physical laws in which you claim it lives, from ideas that may only inhabit your imagination.

    For one thing, check whether those ideas account for reality, intelligibility, and rationality like TGOTB does.

    We may all be brains in vats, or we may all be inhabiting an objective reality in which we interact with one another, our environments, and in which people interact with each other completely outside of our experience of that.

    So IOW, you don't know and take it on faith.
    Wise, but sad at the same time. I'm glad my presuppositions rule solipsism out.

    All I can say is that I consider the evidence that there's a big wide physical world out there I'm living in, which will go on without me after I die and which went on without me just fine before I was born

    Your faith is pretty deep, then. Any pastor would be proud of such faith in a Christian, properly directed of course.

    we have a shared experience we can confirm independently

    You THINK you do. No way to know nor verify such.

    But where's the evidence for that, and is it more persuasive than the evidence that objective reality is, you know, real?
    But it does mean you still have weaker evidence for your "spiritual realms" than we do for physical reality.


    Evidence? Evidence is a posteriori to the determination of whether you're a brain in a vat. If you are, "evidence" is imaginary.

    atheism isn't based on presuppositions.

    You've just disproven that in this very comment.


    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyway, atheism isn't based on presuppositions. It's a response to the claims made by religionists

    To quote TracieH, "Saying ``you're wrong'' is not a religion."

    ReplyDelete
  12. What's the TBN crowd?

    I'm not omniscient.

    Gosh, I'm shocked! I thought you knew everything.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tommy,

    I know, you're shocked that
    1) I'm not omniscient ;-) and
    2) I don't think I'm omniscient. Either way... [/tongue in cheek]

    TBN = Trinity Broadcasting Network, THE hotspot for prosperity "gospel" and Word of Faith loonies and snake-oil salesmen. On your UHF dial, probably (provided you live in the US). 'Round these parts it's channel 23.
    Oh, you're in NY, right? Well, no idea if they're up there. If not, you're better off for it though it can be highly amusing TV.


    Lui said:
    "Spirit" is really just a pre-scientific conception of consciousness

    Which assertion tells us nothing about its truth or untruth. Just so we're clear.

    Yet science has made it abundantly clear that the mind is married to matter.

    Has it, now?
    So much the worse for "science" if it is stuck in materialism.
    One would be interested to see science proven as a good way to find truth thru the scientific method. Does "science" grow somewhere? Can it be mined? Found on a meteorite? Of what elements is it composed?


    Biochemistry, not vitalism, can explain life.

    Oh? Do tell - how did life arise from non-life?

    It's simply that religion had a biological predisposition almost ready-made for its proliferation

    This assertion is a double-edged sword that can be invoked back at your (or any) position as well.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  14. TBN = Trinity Broadcasting Network, THE hotspot for prosperity "gospel" and Word of Faith loonies and snake-oil salesmen.

    Would that be people like Creflo Dollar? "My beloved flock insisted on buying me a jet plane, so how could I insult them by turning it down?"

    As an aside, I just love that name.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, that is a great name!
    I actually saw him in person once. {shudder} Yes, he's definitely one of them.

    Just for the record, asking for Gulfstreams and such is not Christianity. I don't consider these guys on my side at all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No one actually knows how life arose from non-life (including you).

    Translation: I have faith that biochemistry, not vitalism, can explain life, but I can't show you how - you just have to have faith.
    Wow, that's good stuff man.

    we're obliged to invoke Sky-Daddy

    Only if you want to make sense. But you're not obligated to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bono of U2 had a good line in the live version of "Bullet the Blue Sky" on the Rattle and Hum album.

    "Well the god I believe in isn't short of cash, mister."

    ReplyDelete
  18. no one knows how life arose from non-life

    You mean on your side. OK, check.
    But you're just SURE that no one on MY side knows. That's faith. My point exactly.

    Including you (or your pastor, who can be counted on to provide expert advise on all matters scientific).

    Which I never claimed he could be. Are you now reduced to putting words in people's mouths? How are you leading the rational charge, doing stuff like that?
    How do you know I don't know? How do you know that God didn't let me know thru His self-revelation?

    Unlike vitalism, of course, the naturalistic origin for life has some actual evidence to back it up

    Sure it does, though you have no idea how.
    How could you know that there's evidence if you don't know anythg about how it came about?

    which is why we engage in this little thing called research

    Without a time machine, "research" apparently means "making massive assumptions about how the earth was back in the day, putting stuff together in the lab that MIGHT MAYBE have been PARTIALLY present, leaving out other aspects of the environment (which, again, we don't know; we're assuming), and then observing what happens TODAY". Wow - that's really impressive. I mean, I'm impressed.

    is to terminate inquiry

    ?? Now you're just making stuff up. Where have I ever advocated that? 'Tis the secularists who would push my expressions of religion out of the public square.
    I advocate refutation of your deformed religion, not forceful squelching.

    I'm right and you should all listen to me instead of people who actually know what they're talking about."

    Better said:
    God is right b/c He was there and you weren't and you should all listen to Him instead of people who pretend to know what they're talking about.

    You never know when a J.Craig Venter or some other pesky scientist is going to make you look like a dolt once again.

    It's going to take a few times to overcome the score you've already racked up in this comment alone.
    If you like comments that are long on fluff and self-congratulation, Lui's apparently your man/woman (I don't know your gender).


    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  19. we have some idea of how it probably happened

    Which is?

    I'm not absolutely sure, I'll give you that.

    Kudos, then, for realising your limitations.
    You'd be even better off expressing those limitations up front before getting called on them. Now it looks like you're backtracking hastily. Uncanny.

    Actually, it's a simple observation on my part.

    Oh, really? You've observed that nobody of my persuasion knows how life arose from non-life?
    Did you publish that study? Which books did you check and which did you cite? Which publications? Was it peer-reviewed?
    Or is this another occasion where you should have been more careful up front but now have to backtrack again?

    And yet, like all creationists, you act as though he does.

    Quote me citing my pastor. Is it your view that I take all that my pastor says w/o checking to see whether what he says lines up with the Bible?

    Because of your pitiable ignorance of everything scientific, that's how.

    Everything?
    Lui, you don't even know me. This comment is quite obviously a case of a fundy's emotions getting the better of his reason. You're virtually foaming at the mouth here. May I suggest you take a long weekend?

    I'd have to be pretty gullible to take that seriously, just as I'd have to be pretty gullible to take seriously the ranting of a Muslim claiming that Allah had revealed things to him.

    Certainly for the latter, since Islam is self-refuting.
    Perhaps you could make the argument that Christianity is self-refuting sometime.

    This "trust me" nonsense

    Which is not what I was referring to, as the careful reader will note.
    The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to mankind.

    how do you know I don't?

    My own reading and the fact that you haven't presented any yet, but here's your opportunity to bring it forth.

    The evidence gives us clues as to how it may have come about.

    You don't even know the definition of "evidence", it seems quite clear.

    Massive assumptions that happen to be corroborated by independent evidence

    Oh, yes, I'm sure.
    How could you justify the assumption of the principle of uniformity? That the same physical processes that are in operation today were the same back then? Even if they were similar, that can change a lot.
    Let's just start there - go ahead and prove that point and we can move on to the other big assumptions.

    perfectly reasonable ones given what we know of chemistry and geology.

    You must have forgotten, then, what we know of philosophy and metascience.
    1) You admit these are assumptions. Good, we're getting somewhere.
    2) You can't observe these things, so no scientific method.
    3) You still have a problem of induction.
    In short, you're in trouble.

    A good start, unlike the invocation of a pre-scientific book as the only possible authority.

    Yes, putting stuff together in the lab that MIGHT MAYBE have been PARTIALLY present is WAY better than listening to the God Who is the ultimate ground for intelligiblity and, yes, science. Your bias is showing.

    (creation science) relies purely upon poking holes in current scientific knowledge.

    1) It's quite good at poking holes. Big ones.
    2) Why aren't you, rather, grateful for the holes? Aren't you all about "self-critique" and "passing a battery of peer-review" and stuff like that? Or is it only when such reviews come from approved Darwinians? And only when they go only so far in challenging the current Darwinian view, but not TOO far so as to make the establishment uncomfy?
    3) I have never appealed to creation science, so take your strawman elsewhere to blow up.


    When have we ever implied that we would push your nonsense out of the public square?

    2 words for you.
    AC and LU.

    What we don't defend, however, is the "right" of fundamentalist ignoramuses with a pious agenda to impose their brand of archaic superstition into the science curriculum.

    Which would be "speech".
    You went too far again. You've got a real exaggeration problem.

    how can you judge that God was there and that the Bible can be trusted to this effect?

    1) How would I have been there? I don't get it.
    2) If God weren't there, the universe would not exist.
    If God didn't tell the truth about it, that would mean He lied, and there would be no way to know truth at all.
    It is impossible for the God of the Bible not to exist, in short.

    Perhaps you should stop hiding behind God's skirt and come up with something that isn't so transparently ridiculous and hypocritical.

    Given your obvious penchant for gross, emotional overstatement, one wonders how to take this statement.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lui,

    Wow, you linked me to a site that expects me to believe in spontaneous generation of organic from non-organic. And somehow you must think that doesn't require faith.
    As an added bonus, it's not scientific in the slightest. You can't OBSERVE that going on. You can't observe the conditions of the early earth. You can't observe how it did happen. You can't observe what elements were present. You can't observe whether there was lightning or volcanic eruptions or not. Etc.
    By far your best answer is: "We don't know yet."

    Do you mean to tell me you don't know what the naturalistic hypothesis is in even its broadest terms? Really?

    There are quite a few naturalists including Ruse and Dick Dawk who endorse other hypotheses than spontaneous generation in the way you describe it here.
    Yours seems the weakest of the three options I've heard, so I had trouble believing that there are people out there who actually hold to your position.
    This is more like alchemy than science. Do you apply your "values turn into their opposites when it's convenient to my argument" position to other things too? Like maybe non-being spontaneously became being once upon a time?

    I do wish, however, that fundamentalists also exhibited the same degree of integrity

    Fundamentalists?
    Look, either "fundamentalist" means "one who is committed to a strict position and refuses easy compromise" or it means "a movement among AMerican Christianity in the 70s and 80s that advocated withdrawing from society".
    The former applies to either of us, and your critique has no referent.
    The latter doesn't apply to me at all (else why would I be here?) and thus has no bite.

    Still, by all means, go on implying that you're more well-informed than the world's leading experts.

    Since I don't base my argument on such, I don't know why you'd say that.
    I identify biases and faulty presuppositions on which these expert observations and "observations" are based and my critique flows therefrom. Strawman again.


    I have always stated clearly that I don't know how life actually began

    Except apparently when you link to a flashy website that you like.

    I can't be absolutely sure that you're wrong

    I know that, but it's gratifying to see the admission.
    Incidentally, can you be sure about ANYthing? Anything at all?


    that doesn't mean I think you have any actual warrant in believing in a divine origin of life.

    It's pretty obvious what you believe. It's far more interesting to anyone that you present an ARGUMENT for why such is not warranted.

    "You've observed that nobody of my persuasion knows how life arose from non-life?"

    Effectively, yes. I've observed a lot of hot air and arrogant pronouncements coming from the propaganda mills of the scientifically illiterate, with no actual substance ever emanating from these sources.


    That's not an observation. That's a judgment on your part, an interpretation of the data.
    If you don't even know how to use the term "Observation" properly, can you help me understand why I should have a lot of confidence in other assertions you make?


    so I’ve never been given any reasons to take the pronouncements at all seriously. It's always amounted to "No one knows such and such, therefore we're right and if you don’t believe us you hate God".

    Oh I'm sure you've been given reasons, but proof is not the same as persuasions. Some argument from you would need to be forthcoming to overturn those things.
    And please don't act like this "you hate God" thing is made up on the spot. It's straight from the Bible. And it's fairly obvious from what you say, the way you say it, and the way you spend significant amounts of your time.

    "Is it your view that I take all that my pastor says w/o checking to see whether what he says lines up with the Bible?"

    No, I DEFINITELY don't believe THAT. :)...It's true, I don't know you.


    Once again you backtrack. Your penchant for embellishment is coming thru loud and clear.

    But I can still gauge your scientific literacy (or lack thereof) according to the things you actually say.

    More embellishment? How could anyone know?

    Christian faith relies upon the supposition that humans aren't capable by themselves of coming to a higher understanding of things if not for the deferment to God on these "deep matters", yet it supposes that humans are capable of judging that God is to be that guide in the first place.

    Looks like you've had some bad presentations of arguments for CHristianity, then.
    We require God's example and standard for intelligibility lest every human make it up as he goes along, which provides no guarantee that any of our thoughts actually lead to true beliefs.
    This is the very essence of the concept of the impossibility of the contrary.
    We don't do any judging at all - God speaks, we listen, and we base everythg else off of the fact that God is and that He has spoken.


    "The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to mankind."

    According to one of two possibilities: physical evidence (which you routinely disqualify), or "personal revelation" (which cannot be distinguished from wishful thinking, and works just as well as for any other religion).


    Rather, we know it is from its self-attestation and the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible for the Bible not to be God's self-revelation.

    It doesn't mean you'd have to agree with what I say, but you'd at least know basically what the argument is.

    Your argument alternates - you're not sure, then you point out a highly disputed hypothesis within your own camp, then you're sure alluvasudden. You're like a top; how am I to blame for not knowing whether I"m talking to Lui1, Lui2, or Lui3?

    "You don't even know the definition of "evidence", it seems quite clear."

    Sorry, I forgot that I'm obligated to incorporate God into it before it will mean anything to you


    Your ignorance thickens.
    "Evidence for position X" is data that supports position X to the exclusion of position Y, Z, and R.
    You cite "evidence" for TOE and yet all of what you cite is perfectly compatible with YEC, so it's singularly unimpressive.



    Ah, now my favorite part - your "confirmations" of the principle of uniformity.
    You really don't get it - we're dealing with presuppositions here. You need to provide a presuppositional, a metaphysical argument for how one could confirm what happen***ED*** in the past. Otherwise, ALL of your physical data is 100% dubitable. That's how presuppositions work.

    I'll demonstrate:

    * The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from products of the Oklo reactor, where a natural nuclear reaction ...for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

    You assume that a natural nuclear reaction occurred.
    You assume that it happened 1800 million yrs ago.
    You assume that other conditions in the world and other physical laws have remained constant all that time so as to leave all the surrounding constants constant and unmolested. You can't observe any of that, so you assume it. You just can't imagine life being any other way, ESPECIALLY not if God is necessary; that's ruled out already for you.



    * Despite some weak evidence that the fine structure constant may ...0.6 parts per million over the last ten billion years (Chand et al. 2004)

    You assume that light behaves the same way in distant bodies like quasars.
    You assume that light behaves the same way in different areas of the universe.
    You can't OBSERVE that. So you assume it.

    * Experiments with atomic clocks show that any change is less than a rate of about 10-15 per year (Fischer et al. 2004).

    That is, in the last <100 years of recorded history. You have no idea whether it was changing more rapidly or slowly beforehand. You can't OBSERVE that.


    * The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary ...but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

    Exactly - "have not been observed to vary". But you can't observe before recorded history.
    You can't observe how much decay of that element was already present in the immediate environment or sample when it started decaying.

    Etc.

    What's more, a universe in which things changed too capriciously wouldn't be the sort of universe in which scientific discoveries could be made because we wouldn’t be here to talk about them.

    1) Yes, b/c the anthropic principle is in operation.
    2) You have no way, on atheism, to justify believing that there IS a universe at all, that you're not a brain in a vat.
    3) You assume that these scientific discoveries are true rather than just leading to semi-correct practice.

    Thirdly, there is no a priori reason why we must regard capricious change as the "default behaviour” for a universe,

    What's your argument for that? Why not?


    In short, I don't grant your presuppositions. Prove them true before citing "evidence" at me. Prove that examining evidence is a reliable way to discovering truth, for starters. Problem is, to state that "evidence is a reliable way to discovering truth" requires evidence, so make sure to provide some evidence for that.
    And presumably you'd think that that evidence truly applies to the situation at hand, so provide some evidence to that effect. And of course, you believe it's true evidence rather than false evidence, so provide evidence to that effect.
    See how fun this is? I'm not kidding around - I really want you to do this. Problem is, I could go on to infinity, and that's where your worldview leads you. Notice I'm taking YOUR worldview and working it out to its logical conclusion.




    Not directly, anyway, but since the theories and models in which these assumptions are built in happen to work (as can be seen in their utility in practical applications), we are given reasons to suppose that these assumptions are acceptable approximations of reality.

    YEC "works" for me, but you wouldn't claim it's truth.
    Believing that a hungry tiger right running towards me with bared claws and fangs is actually a doll wanting to play hide and seek with me, to which effort I run to hide as best I can "works" to keep me from being eaten, but it's not true.
    Find another standard, one that makes sense.



    "3) You still have a problem of induction.
    In short, you're in trouble."

    Not really, but you are, because when it's found that something in science contradicts a literal reading of the Bible, you are forced to engage in verbal gymnastics and sophistry dressed up as "logic".


    You didn't even attempt to answer the question. That should be troubling for anyone who would be tempted to take you seriously.
    And as for science/Bible, I have a presuppositional stance that answers the question of why I do that. What God says is far more binding and accurate than what a person says or many persons say when they conflict.


    So you don't even factor the word science into your accounting.

    Neither does your position, since science requires OBSERVATION. YOu've made a ton of assertions here that are not observable and labeled them "scientific". It's very impressive, sure.
    Maybe I could play that game too.
    I hereby label all of this comment "scientific". Why? B/c, following in Lui's example, I can just because I can. "Scientific" means anythg anyone apparently wants it to mean. Or maybe it's just the people on Lui's approved list who can define "scientific". Poop, I guess I didn't get an invite to the elitist We Define Science SO Go Away party.

    So how can you verify that what he "tells you" is true in the first place?

    We've been over this. God's word is far more reliable than any human observation, let alone human non-observation like that for which you're arguing.

    A baseless assumption (not even supported by the evidence) and an argument from incredulity.

    Oh, now you ARE making a 'non-being leapt into being' argument, as I said above. Wow. Go ahead and provide us some evidence for your assertion.

    The notion that only your God could be the cause of the universe is a self-referential presupposition.

    And logical. And such propositions need justification, but the chain of justification has to stop somewhere. Mine stops at God, and mine is logical. Yours is an infinite regress, absent some ultimate justification you've yet to bring out. Of course, you don't show much understanding of the issue, so maybe you've never thought that far ahead. Well, now's your chance.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  21. I know there's little point in replying to ρ, so I'll try to keep it short.

    Exactly - "have not been observed to vary". But you can't observe before recorded history.

    Actually, we can: looking far into space is also looking back through time. Thus, through observation of the light from SN1987A, we know that radioactive cobalt decayed at exactly the same rate 160,000 years ago as it does today.

    You can't observe how much decay of that element was already present in the immediate environment or sample when it started decaying.

    Actually, geologists use techniques like isochrons, which not only tell you how old a rock is, but also whether your sample is contaminated.

    ReplyDelete
  22. thus, through observation of the light from SN1987A, we know that radioactive cobalt decayed at exactly the same rate 160,000 years ago as it does today.

    On your view, the universe is 10-15 billion yrs old. So even if I granted this, that would mean you can look back thru time at less than 1% of the time elapsed. Congratulations.
    Still assumes that light and cobalt, etc, act the same way outside your observation, that there's not some sort of filter that makes it LOOK like it acts the same in between here and there. You don't know.


    geologists use techniques like isochrons, which not only tell you how old a rock is, but also whether your sample is contaminated.

    I'm not talking contamination, I'm talking how much of the decay was already present at the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm not talking contamination, I'm talking how much of the decay was already present at the beginning.

    One of the beautiful things about isochrons is that it doesn't depend on the amount of daughter isotope present originally.

    I'd suggest that you look up "isochron" before shooting your mouth off about it, but if you learned anything, you wouldn't be a creationist anymore, would you? And then who would watch Ben Stein movies?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ben Stein is not a creationist. You are either completely ignorant, stupid, or dishonest to say such a thing. Nor is "Expelled" creationist. It's ID. Is this all that hard?

    From here:

    Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay.

    Does this not lead to an infinite regress of "fourth measurement"s? How do you measure whether this alternative isotope had already-present decay at the beginning? Hasn't this just moved the question back one step?

    The article seems to make some concessions in that direction:

    ---All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time.

    ---One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously.

    Your thoughts on this are welcome, arensb. It's a fairly large point for your position and a virtually negligible one for my own, but it's fun while it lasts.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  25. Does this not lead to an infinite regress of "fourth measurement"s? How do you measure whether this alternative isotope had already-present decay at the beginning? Hasn't this just moved the question back one step?

    No, because the second isotope (the one in the denominator) is non-radioactive and non-radiogenic, meaning it doesn't decay, and it wasn't produced through decay.

    This leads to the broader question of, "okay, so it doesn't decay, but how do you know there's the same amount of that isotope now as there was when the rock was formed?" That's basically what the first "concession" you quote addresses:

    All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time.

    This is true: if the amount of whatever it you're measuring has changed over time (either gone up or gone down), then you won't get an accurate measurement of the thing you really want.

    But that's the beautiful thing about isochrons: you can tell if a sample's been contaminated. Without getting too detailed, in the ideal case, your measurements would produce a set of points, all in a straight line. The slope of the line indicates the age of the rock: the steeper the slope, the older the rock.

    In reality, of course, either the radiogenic or non-radiogenic isotope can be added or removed, say by seeping in or out (it takes a while for anything to seep through rock, but on the timescales we're talking about, significant amounts of it can happen). But when that happens, the corresponding point on the graph moves up, down, left, or right. So if you plot your points, and you find that nine of them are in a nice straight line, and the remaining one is off to the side, you know that the tenth sample has been contaminated, and is unreliable.

    In real life, of course, there's error in every measurement, which is why geologists use well-known mathematical formulas to quantify how tightly grouped the points are (i.e., to put a numerical figure on "yeah, that's a nice straight line" or "it's sort of a line if you squint" or "c'mon, there's no way you can call that a straight line"). From what I've seen, what it amounts to in practice is that if you need to use a magic marker to make your line go through all the data points, then the isochron is thrown out.

    One of the requirements for isochron dating is that the samples be cogenetic, meaning that they all formed at about the same time from a common pool of material in which the relevant elements and isotopes were distributed reasonably homogeneously.

    Yup. Basically, this is saying that if your samples were formed at different times, you're going to get nonsense results.

    As for the homogeneity requirement: let's say there's a rock, and it contains radioactive elements that decay in the normal way. This rock gets heated up a bit and turns mushy, but not liquid lava or anything. Then the heat goes back down and the rock resolidifies. The isotopes you want to measure got spread out a bit while the rock turned mushy, but not very much. A part that had a lot of radiogenic isotope will still have a higher-than-average amount of it, and a part that didn't have any radiogenic isotope might have some, but less than average for the whole rock. The radioactive elements continue to decay normally until the present day. Effectively, what you wind up with is a rock that doesn't have a well-defined age.

    Here's an analogy: let's say in 1988 I took some wax and made a candle. Then in 1998, I melted the candle down, stirred up the paraffin thoroughly, and poured it into a mold and made a new candle. What I have in 2008 is a 10-year-old candle, not a 20-year-old one.

    But what if, in 1998, instead of melting it down completely, I simply left the candle out in the sun until it got soft, then shaped it with my fingers? Now, in 2008, do I have a 20-year-old candle, or a 10-year-old one? If you measure from the last time the paraffin was completely melted, then 20. If you measure from the last time it changed shape, then 10. If you measure by how long individual paraffin molecules have been neighbors, some will say 10, others will say 20. Same thing in the rock.

    I'm not sure how geologists can determine this sort of event in a rock's history, but I suspect it's possible.

    ReplyDelete
  26. arensb,

    You're still making quite a few large and unobservable assumptions.
    You can't observe whether these non-radioactive elements didn't decay in the past.
    Shoot, you can't observe whether these elements weren't bird droppings that spontaneously became these elements at some point. You can't observe these physical laws in operation. Sure, bird droppings don't spontaneously become other elements NOW, but what about THEN? You can't observe it; you have faith.

    The more you go on about isochrons (and it is interesting and ingenious, I'll give you that), the more assumptions you expose. The problem is, you're trying to refute the idea that you make these massive assumptions.


    Lui,
    ID is just sexed-up creationism, "designed" (rather intelligently, but in the case of "Expelled", not so) to circumvent constitutional prohibitions on the government promoting religion

    Sure, whatever. ID's Wedge strategy is for...ID teachings. Perhaps you're unaware of the chasm between ID and creationist teaching and ideas, not to mention between the organisations personally.
    or maybe it's just all a big fundy conspiracy in your mind.

    Spontaneous generation of the precursor systems, not spontaneous generation all the way from non-organic to organic.

    So there's non-organic, kind of organic, semi-organic, and then organic, eh?

    You “observe” the conditions of the early Earth by measuring chemical compositions in rocks

    No, measuring chemical compositions in rocks is observing chemical compositions in rocks. There are many conceivable ways such compositions could have arrived there.
    One way is the way you describe, let's say. Another way is that God made them that way. Another way is that bird droppings spontaneously became that way (much like organic life spontaneously became organic out of non-organic stuff). You weren't there, you can't observe how it was nor how it happened. You make many assumptions and then base your conclusion off of them.

    You clearly have no clue how elements are actually formed.

    1) Elements aren't "formed" - they're irreducible in their atomic structure.
    2) What is this supposed to mean? Even Stephen Hawking and much smarter men than you don't know what happened before some fraction of a second after the Big Bang. So you don't know either - and if neither of us know, what's the big deal?
    3) Now, I do know - God made them. But I'm focusing on the maladroit challenge you fwded.

    Never heard of the Siberian Traps? No one was there to “observe” them, but we know they happened because we can study what was left behind – and what was left behind indicates massive volcanic eruptions during the latter part of the Permian.

    Once again, massive assumptions are required to make that conclusion.
    You're a faith artist, much like a faith healer. You claim results and don't show us the assumptions behind the curtain. Why not just be honest and admit these massive assumptions? Science will be the better for it - get it ALL out on the table, then work to deal with what you really have, rather than what you wish you had.

    We observe the evidence, and the evidence can tell us about things that occurred.

    If you make massive assumptions about it, sure.
    But I can do the same thing.

    So you DIDN’T look at the site. Well done.

    I did look at the site. Are you claiming mind-reading powers now?

    But “God did it” obviously isn’t.

    No, "God did it" is miraculous activity, not alchemy.
    Let's see - to recap, you won't admit your assumptions, don't know what 'evidence' means, and don't know what 'alchemy' means.

    Quantum mechanics? Symmetry breaking? No-boundary condition?

    I'd be interested to know how values spontaneously become their opposites when such things are brought to bear. Have at it.

    Actually, it only applies to you since I’m not committed to a strict position. But thanks for admitting that you are.

    Haha. Let the reader judge who's being fair here.

    and faulty presuppositions

    I.e. anything that doesn’t put God in the driver’s seat.


    More like anything that is based on a presupposition or set of presuppositions that are self-refuting.

    You do indeed pretend to be in a better position to know things that the world’s leading experts.

    [shrug] Your head is apparently impervious to counter-argumentation, even when you're clearly refuted. Let the reader judge.

    which you misconstrued as presenting “spontaneous generation from non-organic to organic”.

    Misconstrued? In what way?

    In fact, you can’t prove that YOU’RE not a brain in a vat.
    After all, how can you prove that YOU’RE not a brain in a vat and that the Bible is actually just a fiction being fed to you?

    Atheism is highly vulnerable to that, b/c your presuppositions allow for it.
    Mine don't, so no, my position is not vulnerable to it. God is and speaks - that is my 1st principle. One thing about Him is that He tells the truth, and He tells me I'm not a brain in a vat. You have no such confidence, evidence, authority, nor basis to know you're not.
    Solipsism is self-refuting, but then again so is atheism. the biblical worldview isn't, which is nice.

    Because it’s baseless.

    This is apparently what passes for argumentation from Lui.

    point me to someone of your persuasion who knows how life arose from non-life

    Hmm, I guess I misspoke there and mistakenly equated "life arose from non-life" with "life arose". My mistake - what I meant to say was "You've observed that nobody of my persuasion knows how life arose?"
    In which case, yes, everyone of my persuasion knows. God created life.

    religionists much like you DO use the “atheists hate God” card to weasel their way out of having to provide an actual argument for their convictions.

    Perhaps they do; quote me doing it, though. You're not talking to others.

    Right – even thought it’s EXACTLY what you’ve been pushing ever since you came onto this blog

    The 2nd phrase more particularly is what I object to: "it supposes that humans are capable of judging that God is to be that guide in the first place".
    The 1st is closer, though it's not exactly right. It's more like "Christian faith relies upon the supposition that humans aren't capable by themselves of coming to a higher understanding of things if not for the deferment to God on every question."

    You can’t go more than a few sentences without contradicting yourself

    Hopefully I've cleared up what I meant.

    (the impossibility of the contrary) Based upon what?

    An atheistic worldview's self-refuting nature.
    You can't know that you know anything. You are highly vulnerable to solipsism. You have no standard for judging true from false. You have no way to know that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true beliefs. Etc. It's impossible that such statements be true, b/c then they would be either untrue or unknowable.


    When was I “sure”?

    You crack me up. Let the reader judge whether you ever make "sure" statements or not.

    That’s one of the most pathetic, imbecilic things I’ve ever read.

    You just vented w/o even interacting with what I said. It's a fairly elementary point. You seem not to be very good at taking even the simplest correction.

    I’ll tell you what, though: go look up the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Then come back and tell me how it’s “perfectly compatible” with YEC.

    God created it. Next?

    The reason I think there was a natural nuclear reaction at Oklo but not beneath Sydney is because one location has something that would be expected of a past nuclear reaction, while the other doesn’t.

    Which, again, you have to assume a zillion things for.
    I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. Either you get it or you don't; you haven't exhibited any great potential for taking correction, so we'll just have to let the reader judge.

    you need to believe that the speed of light was different in the past since there are stars mentioned in the Bible that are actually millions of light years away.

    I'm amazed people still say this.
    So the God Who made the stars and galaxies couldn't also create the light beams stretching from here to there or stretching most of the way here from there?

    Why would it change beforehand?

    I don't know, but you're the one who needs to prove it. You ASSUME they didn't and then try to weasel out of it by asking me why I think they'd change.

    There’s no logical connection between humans being here to directly measure something and that something being any different to when we weren’t around

    I agree, and that's not what I'm arguing.

    we would have no reason to suppose that such a change “must have” happened.

    I agree, and that's not what I'm arguing. Yuo don't know either way.
    You're really good at typing long paragraphs that have a lot of anger, but not very good at actually interacting with my points.

    And another case of ignoring parsimony.

    Which is simply another case of your assuming that parsimony has always been the preferred way to weigh options. Maybe non-parsimony was in "operation" more than 1000 years ago. You don't know, but you assume it. I'm just asking you to be honest about your assumptions. Why are my calls for increased honesty on your part such a bad thing? Does it hurt?


    You say that even while you use a computer!

    B/c my worldview accounts for evidence and truth - God thinks logically and is a logical being. We think our thoughts after Him; He is our example for thinking. He has made the universe so that evidence leads to true conclusions.
    So, your accounting of it?
    You're just borrowing from my worldview and calling it yours until you provide your own.
    To quote you: Frankly, what works for you is irrelevant.

    Your computer, which couldn’t have been built without the advances made in chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.

    Modern science is built on the foundation of theistic presuppositions - that the universe is ordered, that things make sense, that evidence leads to truth. Provide an atheistic alternative that gets you there.
    Just saying "but it's worked!" a few times doesn't help you. Lots of wrong things work and can be conceived to work, like my tiger example.
    To quote you: Frankly, what works for you is irrelevant.

    So you can keep on engaging in more mysticism and convoluted nonsense about “the evidence for evidence”?

    Is that a refusal to answer the question. I'm glad this is being written down. You're substituting bluster and incredulity for real answers.

    Which must explain why you trust in an archaic book.

    Which at least answers the question, which is more than you've done here.

    Frankly, what works for you is irrelevant.

    So which is it?

    Fuck yourself.

    You are doing great - keep your head and you might even make it to the end of this comment before trailing off into gibberish.
    Aren't you going to answer any of my central questions?

    That coming from someone who believes that the Earth is younger than the domestication of the dog.

    This is how you answer the problem of induction. OK.

    Then explain sexually antagonistic genes in that context

    God created them.
    Now YOU explain them in a Darwinian context.

    It’s not my fault you don’t get “invited”. It’s not like you ever bothered to study science in the first place, so who would even think to invite you? You think too big of yourself. You should be grateful than I even give you the time of day.

    I guess anyone can see Lui's snootiness and elitist attitude on display. Yes, he's definitely egalitarian and levelheaded. It's obvious to everyone.

    Lui, that was a disgraceful performance. Apparently you think you can just ride on your laurels and act all high-minded and that should carry the day. Could you try actually interacting with what I ask you?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow, somebody give these two (Lui and Rhology) some brass knuckles and lock them in a cage! I would pay money to see that!

    Fuck yourself.

    So Lui, when are you going to bow to the inevitable and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior? LOL!

    In fact, you can’t prove that YOU’RE not a brain in a vat.

    Well, if we are just a brain in a vat, I just hope the program isn't running on Microsoft Windows, because otherwise our universe would be constantly freezing up and crashing.

    Regarding Old Universe view versus YEC, it's funny how two people can look at the same things and see it in totally different ways.

    While I reject the YEC view that Rhology espouses, I grant that the Bible does seem to allow for enough "wiggle room" so that the YEC can manage to retain their beliefs. If the creation account in Genesis said flat out that god created the Earth as a cube or a triangle, I am sure even Rhology would have to concede that the account is wrong. On the other hand, if Genesis specifically contained detailed information that no humans at the time could be expected to know from direct observation, such as the existence of Antarctica, or that the Earth was a planet orbitting the sun in a galaxy filled with stars that had planets of their own orbiting them, to me that would be very powerful evidence in favor of Genesis being a product of divine revelation.

    However, the way the creation account in Genesis is worded, the purpose of all those stars shining in the sky at night is to provide us with light. But based on the fact that we are now discovering planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy, it would seem more accurate to say that those stars are providing light for their own planets.

    And then there is the fact of all those galaxies packed with stars that are too far away to be seen with the naked eye (please note that this does not include the Andromeda Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds, which are of course close enough to be seen by the naked eye if one is lucky enough to live somewhere not affected by light pollution). They certainly aren't providing us with any light in our sky at night.

    It is because of this that I have a hard time squaring a belief in a god that created us specifically to worship and praise him with a virtually infinite universe. I mean, if Jesus could return any day now and history will come to an end, with some people dwelling forever in heaven, and the rest (including, presumably, me) will suffer an eternity in hell, then a virtually infinite universe does not strike me as necessary for that end.

    Now, I have had some Christians tell me in response that a vast universe simply shows how great and powerful god is. Perhaps, but if our universe was just the Milky Way galaxy surrounded by nothing but blackness, it would be no less impressive because we would have nothing to compare it with. And it would certainly make a god such as the one described in the Bible more plausible.

    I don't offer this as a formal argument, but as my own personal observations on the matter.

    Okay, I have to wrap this up now and get back to work.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Two comments:

    then a virtually infinite universe does not strike me as necessary for that end.

    No one said it was 'necessary', so just for clarification.

    it would be no less impressive because we would have nothing to compare it with. And it would certainly make a god such as the one described in the Bible more plausible.

    True, it would be no less impressive. And tell me you're not impressed with how cool something like a quasar or black hole is. I know I am.
    But "plausible" - I don't see why.

    Anyway, back to your regularly-scheduled Lui Hurls Profanities At Rhology program...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lui, while I admire your efforts, sadly they are in vain. Someone like Rhology is unreachable. And when you do get visibly agitated with him in the choice of words you use, in his mind you are just validating him. Just remember he is a flawed human being who believes in things that are bizarre to us, and nothing is going to change that. Our lives go on regardless of what he says or thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lui has made his statement on how he thinks life began. I'm very pleased.

    That absolutely anything he can conjure up in his mind is equally likely as anything that modern science has uncovered – because he says so.

    Rather, b/c I don't see a reason to assume that it did happen the way you say.
    So you're counting noses at this point. How about you offer an argument to that effect?
    Yes, I'm asking you to solve the problem of induction. But you exaggerate so many other things, I just figured you'd be willing to exaggerate your ability to solve age-old conundra.

    I wasn’t there.

    So you can't observe it. So on what basis is your conclusion properly scientific, if you can't observe it and can't test it repeatedly?

    Because you don't concede that you don't know

    But you do concede that. Duly noted.

    You assume assumptions

    Then make the argument that you have solid bases for these assertions rather than assumptions.

    Translation: nothing science ever tells us is worth bothering with

    Strawman.


    You assume that the Bible is inerrant, because you need it to be.

    I don't "need" it to be.
    Nor do I assume it is. That the God described in the Bible is and speaks is my fundamental presupposition, but that's not the same thing as an assumption, particularly not on the level that you're making assumptions left and right and as I'm pointing out.


    ”No, "God did it" is miraculous activity, not alchemy.”

    Same genus of bullshit.


    Note the lack of argument. Just a mean-spirited, nasty, bald assertion.

    The same “assumptions” that the scientific community uses to get things right more often than you do.

    Begging the question. Whether they DO get these things right is the very topic at hand.

    so you’re NOT the least bit well-read?

    Guess not - I missed the books that describe how, when, and where good spontaneously becomes evil, non-organic becomes organic, non-life becomes life, chaos spontaneously becomes order, void spontaneously becomes matter and energy.

    >which you misconstrued as presenting “spontaneous generation from non-organic to organic”. <

    --”Misconstrued? In what way?”

    Because it’s not true, dumb arse.


    Once again, no argument is offered. Just an insult. It's a pattern all thru this post.


    According to the Bible, which might just be signals sent to you by a lying demon to your brain in a vat.

    Not true, since such a view is self-refuting, and it is ruled out a priori by my presupposition.
    I bring it up b/c I'm curious how your presuppositions rule it out.


    Are you saying that humans aren’t capable of judging that God is to be the guide in the first place?

    Correct, unless you can offer an atheistic alternative whereby humans can judge intelligibility without God.
    I'd be interested to see that.

    Since that would be awful, “therefore” God exists, “therefore” we know the truth.

    Strawman. Again. Not since it would be awful. Since it would be impossible to know it, communicate it, or discuss it. But we are doing those three things, now we have to account for them. Well, YOU have to.

    yet it’s YOU who thinks that the universe was made for you as an arena onto which to prove yourself to Sky-Daddy. But I’m the one who’s “highly vulnerable to solipsism”.

    You don't appear to know the definition of "solipsism".

    Evidence and the scientific method – the most powerful tools humanity has for discerning truth from fiction,

    Give evidence for that claim. Make sure you use the scientific method.

    Sorry, I forgot: scientists can only produce “assumptions”

    Amazingly, you fail even to see the massive assumption even one sentence preceding. Go ahead and provide evidence, I'll be patient.

    Enough of this “let the reader decide” crap. Everyone thinks you’re a sophist

    Come now, don't posture like such a big bad bully. I don't think you think you're going to convince ME, so aren't you indeed arguing for the benefit of the reader? Same here.

    >I’ll tell you what, though: go look up the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Then come back and tell me how it’s “perfectly compatible” with YEC.<

    ”God created it. Next?”

    What a fucken joke.


    For the nth time, no argument is offered, this time as to how YEC doesn't account for it.
    Lui apparently believes that, if he doesn't like the argument, it doesn't fly. Period. Thus the futility of talking to such a closed-minded fundy.


    so we'll just have to let the reader judge.

    Fine by me.


    Didn't you just finish saying "Enough of this “let the reader decide” crap."?
    Which one is it?


    Creationists don’t get to make things up and then expect the sane people to go off on wild goose chases.

    But evolutionists like Lui evidently don't have to justify the assumptions they make. Special pleading.


    Rho: Maybe non-parsimony was in "operation" more than 1000 years ago. You don't know, but you assume it.

    Lui: But I have reasons to presume one way: consistency of disparate evidence, and parsimony (and the interaction of the two).


    1) I ask you how you know parsimony has been in operation more than 1000 yrs ago, and you answer "parsimony". Weren't you just berating me for answering "God did it" too many times for your taste?
    2) What evidence do you have for this?


    Unlike the scientists and engineers who designed your computer.

    This just doesn't make any sense. Where did I claim that people CAN'T use logic or evidence if they don't believe in God? My point is that their worldview can't ACCOUNT for such.


    We think our thoughts after Him;

    Undemonstrated assumption.


    Actually:
    1) it follows from the impossibility of the contrary, and
    2) follows directly from my presupposition.

    Haha…one thing I DEFINITELY don’t need to do is to borrow anything from you or your worldview.

    Wrong again. You have no reason to conclude that murdering your family member is wrong or even bad, yet I certainly don't doubt you would spring to their defence if you had to. On atheism there's no reason to, but on Christianity there are a great many reasons to. You borrow unconsciously from my worldview; that's just one example.

    “modern science” (which you completely disregard whenever it suites you) as being founded on theistic presuppositions when your own “theistic presuppositions” don’t even agree with it.

    Modern BIOLOGY might be founded to a large extent on the theory of common descent via natural selection and selective mutation, but not the rest of science, for one thing.
    And again, scientists are all about reforming and streamlining science. I imagine you are as well, except when the streamlining touches the raw nerve of your sacred cow, and then you're fighting tooth and nail to keep it.

    Modern science logically leads to atheism.

    Reeeaalllly? What's your argument for that?

    I’m not that committed to convincing you.

    Let the record show it, then. I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter, and Lui is hurling insults and running away when the going gets tough. Maybe someone else can cover Lui's retreating hindquarters and answer the question.

    A young Earth creationist has no business using words as sophisticated as “induction”.

    This is just mindless bigotry.

    This is passes muster as “logic” and “argumentation” for Rhology, people: “God created them”

    What law of logic does the statement "God created humankind" break?

    any state of the universe can be retrospectively fitted to Genesis

    What is your argument for that? Genesis means sthg, after all, and so that which is contradictory to Genesis' text therefore would NOT fit it.


    All in all, Lui is degrading the conversation.
    No doubt the length of this exchange has exhausted most everyone - that is the most charitable interpretation of the fact that no other atheist has stepped in to correct Lui on his pitiful practice of insulting, avoiding arguments, and making bald assertion after fallacious assertion after bald assertion.

    Peace,

    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  31. Here I hasten to echo the words of the Jolly Nihilist:

    I always have found that, when personal insults are resorted to, it is a clear sign the debater is desperate...if not already thrashed.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.