Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[novice]

Originally posted by Flipper
Novice, the point is that if there are alternate possible explanations for some of these fundamental questions (and there are, although they are extremely tentative), then the existence of the universe and life ceases to be proof of God's existence. Furthermore, if a naturalist explanation is found, it then negates a key reason for the existence of a hypothetical deity or deities.

Wow a 4th option???

Can you tell me what that might be?

So... we have these options so far...

A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists

Without making the 4th option fit into any of the above three options I would REALLY be excited to hear (even in rough concept) what that 4th option might be!

Please enlighten us.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
You keep referring to letters having absolute values. Numbers have absolute values, not letters...

Can the letter 'C' be anything but 'C'?????

It has value. Are you telling me you do not acknowledge the absolute form of constructions of words?

Can "computer" be "land?" Of course not. The very word "computer" (again I'm not referring to the meaning of the word) is "computer."--just as 23 is 23. When I write 23 on a paper it is 23--it is absolute.

 

[Flipper]

I'm always hugely amused by any discussion of Noah's ark. And yes, i'm aware of Woodmorrape's book.

I think he should do what I did, and work summer and winter holidays at a zoo. Every time I read about the ark, a sardonic smile plays about my lips.

Just looking after the reptile house was a full-time job that required four of us on a daily basis. The needs of many of those animals were considerable. For a start, most of them need heat and sunlight on a daily basis, something I don't really see as possible inside the ark, especially with the venomous creatures.

Other species are just too darn delicate. The chameleon wouldn't have lasted a week in such an environment.

And don't even get me started on the big mammals, which is the other part of the zoo that I worked in. So they'd be stabled for a year, would they, or would Noah and his sons take them out every other day for a bit of a walk on a leash? The senior keeper had four of his ribs broken by a rhino while he was there, because he wasn't fast enough in getting out of his pen.

Yes, I'm aware of this suggestion that many of these animals were cubs. Unfortunately, with many species, bringing up cubs away from their mothers is tough to do (and is often a 24 hour task), even with all the resources we have today. The mortality rate would have been hideous. And then you're left with the difficulty of teaching them all the things they learn from their peer groups and parents about hunting and surviving, otherwise they don't last a week.

Anyone who argues in favor of the ark myth has zero experience with exotic animals. I would wonder how much time they've spent talking to people with actual hands-on experience in looking after these creatures. Not a whole lot, I might suggest.

 

[Freak]

I asked Zakath...

Originally posted by Freak
The absolute value of the word structure "chair" is self evident. Can "chair" be spelled "spider?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zakath responds:

Not that I am aware of.

Of course that is true. "chair" is not spelled out as "spider"---just look at it's absolute form.

So that is absolute then, correct?

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Freak
A spider chair is not structured the same as chair. I'm speaking of it's structure. The absolute value is defined for real and complex letters (as it is structured).


c h a i r

is different from...

s p i d e r c h a i r

In it's structure.

Chair can only be structured chair. It is absolute.

Are you seriously only talking about spelling and not about the actual chair? I think you just fell off the "absolute" wagon.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
A kind can be a species, a genus, or even a family, depending on the kind of animal in question. For instance, brown bears, black bears, asiatic black bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears, sun bears, polar bears, and probably giant pandas would all fall under the heading of bear-kind. Similarly, lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, lynxes, leopards, panthers, cougars, ocelots, bobcats, and even housecats would fall under the heading of cat-kind. Another example would be wolves, coyotes, dingoes, dogs, jackals, and perhaps foxes making up the dog-kind.

I mentioned this in a previous post, but it appears to have been overlooked by those asking what a 'kind' is. It's not easy to give a hard and fast definition of 'kind' because it doesn't line up exactly with the taxonomic system we currently use. Nonetheless, I have attempted to clarify what the creationist is talking about when the different 'kinds' of animals are mentioned.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
So that is absolute then, correct?

Not absolute, but an arbitrary decision based on human convention.

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
First of all, this is a strawman. Noah didn't take all kinds of animals on board the ark -- just land-dwelling creatures that breathe through nostrils. That rules out the vast majority of the animal kingdom. Nor did they evolve into anything -- they're still the same kind of animals they always were.

Well there are more species of land-dwelling creatures that breathe through nostrils than will fit on the ark. So they had to at least evolve into the different species. Now I’ll ask you like I did the others, define a kind.

Secondly, the evolutionist has a much bigger problem than we do. Sure, we believe many of the animals alive today descended from animals on Noah's Ark. The typical evolutionist believes all the animals (and plants) on Earth descended from a batch of chemicals that somehow came to life. Now, which sounds more implausible?

You mean more implausible than all those animals leaving the ark at one time and the carnivores not eating all those slow-moving lamb-chops?

Or how all those animals got to South America? If you assume they went over a land bridge at Alaska, I guess you assume that since it’s the shortest land route. That’s a trip of about 14,000 miles. Give them 2000 years and that’s 7 miles a year. That’s a pretty good pace for a lot of animals. Makes you wonder when they had time to repopulate the earth doesn’t it? LOL

Oh and how about all those marsupials in Australia. They didn’t seem to head many other places. Did they call a meeting after landing and one of them said “Hey let’s check out that island down south. It’s only a short 1000 mile swim.”

There is at least one thing I like about creationist; y’all have a sense of humor.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Are you seriously only talking about spelling and not about the actual chair? I think you just fell off the "absolute" wagon.

I'm speaking of the the absolute value of the structure of words. For example: "chair" is self evident. Can "chair" be spelled "spider?"This is at the heart of understanding philosophy of language.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Not absolute, but an arbitrary decision based on human convention.

So the structure of "spider" is not absolute? Can "spider" be structured in any other way?

You are truly insane to think "spider" can be structured in another way besides "spider."

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Freak
I'm speaking of the the absolute value of the word structure of words. For example: "chair" is self evident. Can "chair" be spelled "spider?"This is at the heart of understanding philosophy of language.

Standardized spellings in language came about only recently due largely to the invention of the printing press. Prior to that spelling was pretty much phonetic. Pre-printing press manuscripts have all sorts of different spellings for words, sometimes even on the same page. It all depended on the writer interpreting the sounds into the yet plyable alphabetic spellings.

 

[Freak]

Let me get this right, Zakath...

You believe if I type the words "spider" that it could possibly be structured another way? It has sequence...how could it be changed other then the way I presented it?

If I type ^34.

Can it be smoke?

Of course not. The words/symbols are absolute as I put it. No?

 

[Flipper]

A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
D. Time and energy was created in a non-supernatural event i.e. the collision of two P-branes in different dimensions, or a series of quantum events

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

A kind can be a species, a genus, or even a family, depending on the kind of animal in question. For instance, brown bears, black bears, asiatic black bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears, sun bears, polar bears, and probably giant pandas would all fall under the heading of bear-kind. Similarly, lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, lynxes, leopards, panthers, cougars, ocelots, bobcats, and even housecats would fall under the heading of cat-kind. Another example would be wolves, coyotes, dingoes, dogs, jackals, and perhaps foxes making up the dog-kind.

And you don’t think going from a wolf to a fox in a couple thousand years is evolution?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Standardized spellings in language came about only recently due largely to the invention of the printing press. .

Ok.

What does have to do with the reality of the absolute truth that if I type the word (right now) "spider"--that it can be anything but "spider?"

 

[Flipper]

But the meaning is not absolute, as we all agree.

So how, exactly, have you proven an absolute?

 

[shima]

Novice
>>
IF there are only three solutions to the origin of energy and matter

A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
(you do agree there is no 4th option right?)

Bob has made his case that WE KNOW through science that A and B must be incorrect therefore the only option left is C.>>

Science has proven that A is wrong. Science has in no way proven that B is wrong.

Now to get a head jump on your awnser: You will most likely site the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy is never destroyed, and always exists.

Now, for this law to have any meaning, we need to establish something first: cause and effect. Within our universe, cause and effect follow the arrow of TIME. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics is bounded by cause and effect being in place. It states simply: there is no CAUSE that has as its EFFECT a loss of energy within a closed system.

However, time and space are properties of this universe. Science has not yet established wether time and space exist APART from our universe. That is: if we take away the universe, does the "thing" that remains (if any) still experience time and space? Or, does it NOT experience time and space but some other, more esoteric set of dimensions?

Science has no awnser to this question. Since science has no awnser, science therefore has NOT disproven option B: the energy of the universe created itself.

And since there ARE quantummechanical laws that provide means to create energy locally, we do NOT know how "locally" our universe is. Perhaps our universe has a twin with NEGATIVE energy, which perfectly balances the positive energy of our universe. But ofcourse this is pure speculation, and as such can neither be proven nor disproven at this point.

 

[Flipper]

Or, rather, the meaning of "spider" or "chair" is situational.

I can "chair" and be the "chair" of a meeting, and that meaning is not wrong. The meaning is conditional on context.

It's a lot like morality, really.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by Hank
Well there are more species of land-dwelling creatures that breathe through nostrils than will fit on the ark.

That's all right -- he didn't have to take every species. How many times have I got to tell you guys this?

So they had to at least evolve into the different species.

They're still the same kind of animal. A cheetah might be a cheetah, but it's still a cat.

Now I’ll ask you like I did the others, define a kind.

See post #774.

You mean more implausible than all those animals leaving the ark at one time and the carnivores not eating all those slow-moving lamb-chops?

How do you know they all left at one time? Perhaps Noah let the 'slow-moving lamb-chops' off first.

Or how all those animals got to South America?

How do you think they got there? My guess is they walked, for the most part.

If you assume they went over a land bridge at Alaska, I guess you assume that since it’s the shortest land route. That’s a trip of about 14,000 miles. Give them 2000 years and that’s 7 miles a year.

What makes you think it took them 2,000 years to get here?

That’s a pretty good pace for a lot of animals. Makes you wonder when they had time to repopulate the earth doesn’t it? LOL

I have no idea what you're getting at.

Oh and how about all those marsupials in Australia. They didn’t seem to head many other places.

We've got marsupials in America right now, and there used to be a lot more -- check the fossil record. They simply managed to thrive in Australia, whereas they didn't in other places.

Did they call a meeting after landing and one of them said “Hey let’s check out that island down south. It’s only a short 1000 mile swim.”

Is that how you think they got there -- by swimming?

There is at least one thing I like about creationist; y’all have a sense of humor.

Our sense of humor tends to wear thin when we keep getting asked the same questions over and over. What do you guys do -- ignore the answers you don't like, and ask the questions again?

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Flipper
A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
D. Time and energy was created in a non-supernatural event i.e. the collision of two P-branes in different dimensions, or a series of quantum events

Using Star Trek quantum or alternative dimension theories is creative, but not very tenable.

Even if such were phenomena were viable, then such alternate dimensions would be the "energy and or matter" which are under consideration. You haven't expanded the options at all, that is where did these other dimensions come from?