Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 generalgrog wrote:
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system

But it isn't faith. It is a logical prerequisite for the possibility of science, as I explained at least twice above. Also, unlike an actual faith component (like reading the Bible as a literal scientific account of the natural world, for example), uniformitarianism is falsifiable.

 Peregrine wrote:
one where the dinosaurs never went extinct and eventually produced a sentient dinosaur species and a human-like civilization

Enjoy:

Keep in mind that Ham is NOT just saying "we don't know whether natural laws worked the same way in the past because we weren't there." He's actually saying "we know that natural laws did not work the same way in the past because if they did then the Bible as a literal account of the natural world would be incorrect, which is impossible."

Ooooh - just got to the bit where Nye is talking about astrophysics.

If I didn't know better I would say I was psychic

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system

But it isn't faith. It is a logical prerequisite for the possibility of science, as I explained at least twice above. Also, unlike an actual faith component (like reading the Bible as a literal scientific account of the natural world, for example), uniformitarianism is falsifiable.

so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm? So speed of light "has" to be the same now as in the past otherwise science just somehow stops working?

BY the way..I thought you were Roman Catholic..don't you believe that God can choose to intervene in the events of man? Do you think God just sits back there in the heavenly realm and is just disinterested in what goes on? Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted evolutionary path to man. If anything that is illogical.

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
I believe that uniformitarianism is just a competing faith system

But it isn't faith. It is a logical prerequisite for the possibility of science, as I explained at least twice above. Also, unlike an actual faith component (like reading the Bible as a literal scientific account of the natural world, for example), uniformitarianism is falsifiable.

so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm? So speed of light "has" to be the same now as in the past otherwise science just somehow stops working?

Without an explanation as to why/how it would be different in the past, yes. When something that's a basic building block of physics which is assumed to be a universal constant turns out to not be constant, that means everything that was ever based on it has the potential to be false, and needs to be re-examined and explained.

BY the way..I thought you were Roman Catholic..don't you believe that God can choose to intervene in the events of man? Do you think God just sits back there in the heavenly realm and is just disinterested in what goes on? Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted evolutionary path to man. If anything that is illogical.

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

GG

He could also make a world without child molesters, but we still have those.

 generalgrog wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me.

GG

I would then posit that there is no god. Given your claims of its abilities completely contradict all we know about the universe, that there is no evidence that anything you claim to believe in is actually the case and we can quite happily construct a universe which runs along happily without any requirement for divine intervention...

 generalgrog wrote:

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

GG

For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Corinthians 2:11

Bloody hell - Nye ninja'd me on talking about the pyramids as well

 generalgrog wrote:
so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm? So speed of light "has" to be the same now as in the past otherwise science just somehow stops working?

Exactly. If the speed of light was variable in the past then you can't be sure that it isn't still variable. Science and engineering depend on a world in which fundamental constants and physical laws remain the same so that you can continue to use previous observations and expect that your current work will still function in the future. The only way to salvage any kind of productive work from that mess is to make up an even more ridiculous "theory" where god changed all of the laws once and only once and for some arbitrary reason can never do it again. IOW, even you realize that "non-uniformitarianism" is garbage, you just can't admit it because it would mean rejecting some of your religious ideology.

Plus, proposing ridiculous ideas about the speed of light being different in the past so that biblical literalism can be true shows that you don't give a about the scientific method if it happens to conflict with your ideology. I would have absolutely no trust in your scientific/engineering work because you've demonstrated very clearly that you don't respect the fundamental rules of your profession. Instead, you're doing cargo cult science where you perform all of the same rituals, but without ever understanding why.

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Isn't one of the rules of your religion that man can never understand god, because god is so far above us that it would be like teaching complex math to an ant? Why should god be bound by your concept of the most efficient way to create the world?

 generalgrog wrote:
so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm?

 Manchu wrote:

DjPyro3 wrote:
Why aren't natural laws just changing willy nilly then? How could science even..,be if that was the case?

What he's ultimately suggesting is an argument about the nature of the relationship between God and nature; namely, that God arbitrarily makes and changes "the rules" of physical reality. If that is how nature works, then the results of experiments that we observe, even if they are repeatable, only tell us about whatever God currently wishes nature to be like. Given that (this conception of) God could at any moment and in any instance change his mind about how nature works, any knowledge we might obtain through experimentation -- considering that each experiment only accounts for one particular instance -- has no necessary relationship with any other instance; that is, no necessary relationship with the rest of nature.

So we can build and fly planes ... as long as God allows it.

We can take MRIs and create vaccines ... as long as God allows it.

 Manchu wrote:
If the way nature operates is subject to change, then every observation we make of nature is a matter of chance. That is, observations might be repeated but they would not be repeatable. In other words, what we call science would not be possible at all.

 generalgrog wrote:
don't you believe that God can choose to intervene in the events of man?

I believe that God chooses not to intervene in the natural laws of Creation so that it is possible for the Creation to have its own existence -- including, among other things, so that human beings are possible.

 generalgrog wrote:
Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted evolutionary path to man. If anything that is illogical.

It is certainly non-obvious to human beings without scientific investigation. But what is illogical about it?

 generalgrog wrote:
so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm? So speed of light "has" to be the same now as in the past otherwise science just somehow stops working?

Yes, the speed of light as constant is the foundation for physics. You're an engineer, right? Did you not take any science courses? The idea that light travels at a known speed is how GPS works; if it could arbitrarily change, we wouldn't have reliable GPS.

Do you think God just sits back there in the heavenly realm and is just disinterested in what goes on? Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted evolutionary path to man. If anything that is illogical.

No. An impossibly large wooden boat carrying all the animals of earth is illogical. People living to be 900 years old is illogical. A talking, burning bush is illogical. The supernatural is illogical. You know what isn't illogical? Observing natural phenomena, formulating a theory, and then testing said theory to confirm or deny what was previously thought, which is what scientists do with evolution.

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

You are still combining religious faith with science. Besides, humans aren't all that great. Human childbirth is a horrendously complicated and dangerous affair; our hearing, sight, and smell aren't that great; we have vestigial structures all over our bodies; we aren't that strong; we can't run that fast; our swimming is terribly inefficient; we are susceptible to a large number of diseases. While we are the product of 3.7 billion years of evolution and currently at the apex of our evolutionary tree, we are in no way "perfect."

It just doesn't make sense to me.

That's because you refuse to let it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Human childbirth is a horrendously complicated and dangerous affair;

I'm pretty sure that is to punish women for taking the healthy option and grabbing an apple for lunch. Or something...

GOD LOVES YOU!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No. An impossibly large wooden boat carrying all the animals of earth is illogical.

Archaeologists are discovering ruins of what many of them believe to be an "impossibly large" boat in Turkey or Iran (one of those countries that are not very friendly with Western nations). These are run of the mill, non-religious types mind you. The actual dimensions are printed in the Bible, which modern engineers are using to reconstruct scale models to test whether a boat that large would work, and guess what...it does, remarkably well in the scale tanks being used. Although, it's quite clear the Ark wasn't carrying two of ALL creatures, as we have an abundance of sea life still around, and no dinosaurs (except for gators/crocodiles).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No. An impossibly large wooden boat carrying all the animals of earth is illogical.

Archaeologists are discovering ruins of what many of them believe to be an "impossibly large" boat in Turkey or Iran (one of those countries that are not very friendly with Western nations). These are run of the mill, non-religious types mind you. The actual dimensions are printed in the Bible, which modern engineers are using to reconstruct scale models to test whether a boat that large would work, and guess what...it does, remarkably well in the scale tanks being used. Although, it's quite clear the Ark wasn't carrying two of ALL creatures, as we have an abundance of sea life still around, and no dinosaurs (except for gators/crocodiles).

Source? All I could find was a hoax from 2010 and a bunch of young-Earth creationism "experts" showing off their models of Noah's Ark. The same people that lead expeditions to Turkey to bring back "proof" of the flood story.

It is a fable.

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
No. An impossibly large wooden boat carrying all the animals of earth is illogical.

Archaeologists are discovering ruins of what many of them believe to be an "impossibly large" boat in Turkey or Iran (one of those countries that are not very friendly with Western nations). These are run of the mill, non-religious types mind you. The actual dimensions are printed in the Bible, which modern engineers are using to reconstruct scale models to test whether a boat that large would work, and guess what...it does, remarkably well in the scale tanks being used. Although, it's quite clear the Ark wasn't carrying two of ALL creatures, as we have an abundance of sea life still around, and no dinosaurs (except for gators/crocodiles).

Whether or not some dude built his own version of the Spruce Goose several thousand years ago, it doesn't trump the rest of the irrefutable proof that the Genesis story of a global flood is bunk.

One simply has to look at geological strata and bam, story dismissed. That doesn't take into account of the lack of a significant fossil layer, today's widespread biodiversity, and a host of other things.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

An all powerfull God who can create the universe we live in, has to resort to some long evolutionary model to bring about his masterpiece.

You are still combining religious faith with science. Besides, humans aren't all that great. Human childbirth is a horrendously complicated and dangerous affair; our hearing, sight, and smell aren't that great; we have vestigial structures all over our bodies; we aren't that strong; we can't run that fast; our swimming is terribly inefficient; we are susceptible to a large number of diseases. While we are the product of 3.7 billion years of evolution and currently at the apex of our evolutionary tree, we are in no way "perfect."

You forgot the fact that waste disposal and reproduction use overlapping systems, as well as the respiration and beginning of the digestive system.

 djones520 wrote:


Whether or not some dude built his own version of the Spruce Goose several thousand years ago, it doesn't trump the rest of the irrefutable proof that the Genesis story of a global flood is bunk.

One simply has to look at geological strata and bam, story dismissed. That doesn't take into account of the lack of a significant fossil layer, today's widespread biodiversity, and a host of other things.

I wouldn't say that the Global Flood was in fact, an entirely global event... However, the particular program I saw was on the National Geographic channel, while I was stationed in Germany. The people in the show were using the Oregon State University's "Tsunami Simulation Table"

really, I guess what I'm saying is that the boat itself is not an impossibility, in and of itself. If you view the tale as an allegorical account, and have a flood large enough to destroy an entire nation, and depending on what region of the world one is on, that flood could stretch for the "entire world" so from an ancient mind, one writes from their own perspective, and if they cannot see land, then as far as they are concerned, the entire world has flooded. I mean, there are also stories in the Bible about a man turning water into wine with a "wave of the hand", but most all of us here would agree, without the physical, historical evidence to see that story as true, would mean that the tale is a tale, but one with allegorical and "teaching" value.

If the size of the flood is allegorical then why are we talking about the literal size of the boat?

 Manchu wrote:
If the size of the flood is allegorical then why are we talking about the literal size of the boat?

Because the measurements listed in the bible can be and have been translated into modern measuring devices, and used to create models, etc.

But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood.

 Manchu wrote:
But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood.

And as I suggested, perhaps from the writers' point of view the world was destroyed? It gains allegorical status for us, because we can see evidence to the contrary, but prior to us being able to see such evidence in that light, it was regarded as complete fact.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And as I suggested, perhaps from the writers' point of view the world was destroyed? It gains allegorical status for us, because we can see evidence to the contrary, but prior to us being able to see such evidence in that light, it was regarded as complete fact.

Plenty of things were regarded as fact before the present. People believed for centuries the fact that the heavens were immutable. Now we know they aren't. Just because belief in a "global flood" comes from one particular ancient holy book is no different, science has proved time and time again that it did not happen.

 generalgrog wrote:
Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted evolutionary path to man.

Who said he 'needed' to?


When my daughter was learning to walk, and wanted something from the other side of the room, I could have gone and got it for her. That would have been the fastest option. I chose to let her make her own way over there and get it herself, in order to encourage her development.



Or, to look at it another way - Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted developmental learning path to get man to the point where he can build, say, a computer, when he could have just given us all computer trees in the Garden?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood.

And as I suggested, perhaps from the writers' point of view the world was destroyed? It gains allegorical status for us, because we can see evidence to the contrary, but prior to us being able to see such evidence in that light, it was regarded as complete fact.

And the repopulation of the planet from the handful of animals and humans? Was that just allegorical as well?

At any rate, no flood event has taken place in that region of the world since humans have developed the technology to build a boat to that size. The only two events that could possibly come close to it were the Black Sea Deluge, and the filling of the Persian Gulf. At the time the Persian Gulf supposedly filled in (it's hardly concrete fact), boats were still extremely simple affairs.

 Manchu wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
so your saying science cannot work without uniformitariansm?

 Manchu wrote:

DjPyro3 wrote:
Why aren't natural laws just changing willy nilly then? How could science even..,be if that was the case?

What he's ultimately suggesting is an argument about the nature of the relationship between God and nature; namely, that God arbitrarily makes and changes "the rules" of physical reality. If that is how nature works, then the results of experiments that we observe, even if they are repeatable, only tell us about whatever God currently wishes nature to be like. Given that (this conception of) God could at any moment and in any instance change his mind about how nature works, any knowledge we might obtain through experimentation -- considering that each experiment only accounts for one particular instance -- has no necessary relationship with any other instance; that is, no necessary relationship with the rest of nature.

So we can build and fly planes ... as long as God allows it.

We can take MRIs and create vaccines ... as long as God allows it.

 Manchu wrote:
If the way nature operates is subject to change, then every observation we make of nature is a matter of chance. That is, observations might be repeated but they would not be repeatable. In other words, what we call science would not be possible at all.

 generalgrog wrote:
don't you believe that God can choose to intervene in the events of man?

I believe that God chooses not to intervene in the natural laws of Creation so that it is possible for the Creation to have its own existence -- including, among other things, so that human beings are possible.

 generalgrog wrote:
Why would God need to use this incredibly convoluted evolutionary path to man. If anything that is illogical.

It is certainly non-obvious to human beings without scientific investigation. But what is illogical about it?

You've kind of got the point. If God allows it...... That is my belief. I believe God is a personal God, He is involved in the day to day affairs of the world. How He does it.....I do not know.

And I'm glad you pointed out that it is your belief that God chooses not to intervene.

However that belief is inconsistent with your religion. Did God intervene by resurrecting Christ? Did God intervene when Christ raised Lazurus from the dead. Did God intervene when Mary was a virgin yet still became pregnant.

There isn't one scientifically proven instance of a virgin giving birth...yet I think you accept that miracle? There isn't one scientifically proven instance of a man being resurrected from the dead.. we certainly can't reproduce that in a lab somewhere...yet I think as a Roman Catholic you accept that?

GG

If God created the Universe, then whats the problem with believing in a virgin birth?

 djones520 wrote:
If God created the Universe, then whats the problem with believing in a virgin birth?

There is no problem...that's my point.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
However that belief is inconsistent with your religion.

And belief in creationism is inconsistent with reality.

 generalgrog wrote:
I believe God is a personal God, He is involved in the day to day affairs of the world. How He does it.....I do not know.

So if you have no idea how "god" is involved in the world then why are you so sure that he is, or that he even exists at all?

And why are you so confident that young-earth creationism is correct and god didn't create the world over billions of years (or just start the process and step away)? After all, you as a mere human have no idea how god works, even if you accept the general claim that god exists and created the world. It seems like you have a lot of confidence in a worldview that isn't supported by science or theology.