Kent Hovind: Broccoli man

[bilby]

Example: Why is the sky blue?
Theist: Because God made it blue and do you know why its blue?
Scientist: The sky is blue because certain portions/wavelengths of the light spectrum reaching the Earth gets scattered by dust and moisture in the atmosphere, and these wavelengths correspond to the part of the color spectrum we call blue.
Theist: Yes that's right.

The reason that the sky is blue is because of Rayleigh Scattering.

The difference between Lord Rayleigh's explanation and the theists statement that 'God made it blue', is that Rayleigh's explanation allows us to understand other related phenomena, and to predict the behaviour of specific wavelengths of light in given conditions.

'God made the sky blue' is in no way helpful to an engineer trying to design an efficient optical fibre communications system, such as the one that is carrying this message from me to you.

In contrast, Rayleigh's description and quantification of the scattering effects of various molecules on different wavelengths of light is very helpful to that engineer. And his work has other applications, and advises other parts of the body of scientific knowledge.

The two explanations are qualitatively different - both give the answerer the feeling of having known something - but only one represents actual knowledge, and the difference lies in the ability for the answer to be applied to other systems than the one being discussed.

'God made the sky blue' is a valueless observation. If you take that away, all of the benefits of knowing about Rayleigh's work still remain; But take away Rayleigh, and you are left with an answer that takes you nowhere.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Using your (non-theist) notions of billions of years ago logical theories against you ...so to speak.

So, you still want to frame the discussion about what science finds as theist vs. atheist?

Rather than people who understand the evidence that supports current theory vs. people who don't? That's Hovind's (and Ham's and Comfort's) schtick, pretending it's a moral crusade rather than a scientific investigation.

And, no. If 'believers' are acutally using actual science (repeatable observations, methodology, peer review) as you say, 'against,' as you say 'us,' that would actually be science. Plenty of believers already accept evolutionary theory based on the evidence. Weird that they have an integrity issue with going where they honestly understand the evidence leads them.

Now, if apologists are starting with their desired conclusions, and trying to 'use science against' the dominant theory, it's just more clown in the circus.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well I'll have to admit here (not that it was a hidden thing) and as coming from a different angle, I never knew much about the cosmological argument and a few others, (if I did at all) not untill I read Lion's and Remez's posts (plus others in discussion) and believe it or not : discovered who William Lane Craig was (genuine thanks to members on the forum ) I leave other theists to it , not needing to attempt to try and understand if I think its a little complex to delve into (I'm converted anyway).

The Cosmological Argument, as against spontaneity-of-the-gaps, is as easy to understand (parsimonious) as the claim that a stationary billiard ball sitting on a billiard table won't suddenly start moving spontaneously. It certainly won't randomly start moving (for no apparent reason) in a straight line at the exact required angle aimed directly towards the back left pocket.

And yet according to atheism we are expected to believe that such a spooky scenario is a perfectly reasonable theory and better alternative to the theistic First Cause argument which says that deliberate (personal) intent is the instigator of such an event.

Atheism traces to motion of the billiard ball back in time to when it first started moving (Big Bang) and wants us to believe that the ball spontaneosly popped into existence and began to roll. And when asked why the billard ball is not only moving but accelerating, once again, they appeal to spooky invisible dark energy whose ways are mysterious and beyond understanding.

And when the perfectly aimed billiard ball lands squarely in the pocket we are still told it's not billiards - but some trompe L'oel which our pattern seeking brains are imagining.

 

[Learner]

Cheers Lion, much appreciated,

 

[Learner]

The two explanations are qualitatively different - both give the answerer the feeling of having known something - but only one represents actual knowledge, and the difference lies in the ability for the answer to be applied to other systems than the one being discussed.

The above are not quite the two opposing explanations as it would be for example:

"God caused the beginning and therefore the blue sky" as opposed to "no reason but chance causing the Big bang , therefore blue sky".

The reason that the sky is blue is because of Rayleigh Scattering.

After either one of the above original-causes (Creation or Chance) having taken place; the explanation for the blue-sky ,the nature of processes involved are neutrally in position so far, which is that part that is (or should be) contested for! Obviously requiring more knowledge-data to make claim as conclusive evidence .

 

[bilby]

The two explanations are qualitatively different - both give the answerer the feeling of having known something - but only one represents actual knowledge, and the difference lies in the ability for the answer to be applied to other systems than the one being discussed.

The above are not quite the two opposing explanations as it would be for example:

"God caused the beginning and therefore the blue sky" as opposed to "no reason but chance causing the Big bang , therefore blue sky".

Literally nobody in the history of forever has made the second claim here. It's a pure fiction designed by theists either to pretend that everyone else's arguments are really dumb, or because the theists are too caught up in their little bubble to have a clue what the arguments of their opponents are.

The cause of the big bang is currently both unknown and unknowable. That's not the same as "No reason", and certainly not the same as "no reason but chance".

The reason that the sky is blue is because of Rayleigh Scattering.

After either one of the above original-causes (Creation or Chance) having taken place; the explanation for the blue-sky ,the nature of processes involved are neutrally in position so far, which is that part that is (or should be) contested for! Obviously requiring more knowledge-data to make claim as conclusive evidence .

To ascribe the colour of the sky to the beginning of the universe is utterly useless. That which explains everything explains nothing. If the sky were pink, your explanation would still be just as good as it is given that the sky is blue - whereas a pink sky would be proof that Lord Rayleigh was wrong, and would demand a new explanation from physics.

 

[Learner]

Literally nobody in the history of forever has made the second claim here. It's a pure fiction designed by theists either to pretend that everyone else's arguments are really dumb, or because the theists are too caught up in their little bubble to have a clue what the arguments of their opponents are.

The cause of the big bang is currently both unknown and unknowable. That's not the same as "No reason", and certainly not the same as "no reason but chance".

Its my own answer to your previous post and its "not pure fiction designed by theists" or that matter, a method as according to Christianity, although I understand what you're getting at. The fault is mine (if this is one) when I phrased "No reason" is merely mean't to mean "no intelligent intention ". However the processes of nature HAS generally been in the past , used erroneously as arguments against the theism / design.

Sort of like saying (for lack of a better example) : No God because of gravity or because of knowing the processes of the observed blue sky.

To ascribe the colour of the sky to the beginning of the universe is utterly useless. That which explains everything explains nothing. If the sky were pink, your explanation would still be just as good as it is given that the sky is blue - whereas a pink sky would be proof that Lord Rayleigh was wrong, and would demand a new explanation from physics.

I would agree with your underlined as with your previous post i.e. being useless to an engineer. From one logical sense Its usless in one way IF its not of "interest" to the engineer , but for the really curious who want to investigate why we're here or discuss and debate etc.. Its not useless at all.

 

[bilby]

Literally nobody in the history of forever has made the second claim here. It's a pure fiction designed by theists either to pretend that everyone else's arguments are really dumb, or because the theists are too caught up in their little bubble to have a clue what the arguments of their opponents are.

The cause of the big bang is currently both unknown and unknowable. That's not the same as "No reason", and certainly not the same as "no reason but chance".

Its my own answer to your previous post and its "not pure fiction designed by theists" or that matter, a method as according to Christianity, although I understand what you're getting at. The fault is mine (if this is one) when I phrased "No reason" is merely mean't to mean "no intelligent intention ". However the processes of nature HAS generally been in the past , used erroneously as arguments against the theism / design.

Sort of like saying (for lack of a better example) : No God because of gravity or because of knowing the processes of the observed blue sky.

To ascribe the colour of the sky to the beginning of the universe is utterly useless. That which explains everything explains nothing. If the sky were pink, your explanation would still be just as good as it is given that the sky is blue - whereas a pink sky would be proof that Lord Rayleigh was wrong, and would demand a new explanation from physics.

I would agree with your underlined as with your previous post i.e. being useless to an engineer. From one logical sense Its usless in one way IF its not of "interest" to the engineer , but for the really curious who want to investigate why we're here or discuss and debate etc.. Its not useless at all.

Sure it is. It's useless to the curious, because it cannot satisfy his curiosity - unless he's a blithering idiot.

Referring to the beginning of the universe as an 'explanation' for any observed phenomenon in the present is useless, because it could equally explain absolutely anything. It does three eighths of bugger all to satisfy the curiosity of anyone with half a brain.

It is useless on every single possible level. It contains exactly the same information content as saying 'Because it is.' - viz none at all.

 

[Learner]

Sure it is. It's useless to the curious, because it cannot satisfy his curiosity - unless he's a blithering idiot.

Referring to the beginning of the universe as an 'explanation' for any observed phenomenon in the present is useless, because it could equally explain absolutely anything. It does three eighths of bugger all to satisfy the curiosity of anyone with half a brain.

It is useless on every single possible level. It contains exactly the same information content as saying 'Because it is.' - viz none at all.

Intelligent design is a valid theory and is debated for by those curious investigators who also know science and have a different interpretation of the same data ( No theology).

 

[bilby]

Sure it is. It's useless to the curious, because it cannot satisfy his curiosity - unless he's a blithering idiot.

Referring to the beginning of the universe as an 'explanation' for any observed phenomenon in the present is useless, because it could equally explain absolutely anything. It does three eighths of bugger all to satisfy the curiosity of anyone with half a brain.

It is useless on every single possible level. It contains exactly the same information content as saying 'Because it is.' - viz none at all.

Intelligent design is a valid theory and is contested for by those curious investigators who also know science (without the theology).

Wrong on every single count.

And if that's not bad enough, it also bears zero relationship to the post to which it appears as a reply. So it's irrelevant, as well as wrong.

That's actually quite impressive, in a way.

 

[Learner]

Wrong on every single count.

And if that's not bad enough, it also bears zero relationship to the post to which it appears as a reply. So it's irrelevant, as well as wrong.

That's actually quite impressive, in a way.

If you have time ... by all means point it out , I'm willing to learn.

 

[skepticalbip]

Sure it is. It's useless to the curious, because it cannot satisfy his curiosity - unless he's a blithering idiot.

Referring to the beginning of the universe as an 'explanation' for any observed phenomenon in the present is useless, because it could equally explain absolutely anything. It does three eighths of bugger all to satisfy the curiosity of anyone with half a brain.

It is useless on every single possible level. It contains exactly the same information content as saying 'Because it is.' - viz none at all.

Intelligent design is a valid theory and is debated for by those curious investigators who also know science and have a different interpretation of the same data ( No theology).

A theory is a formal model that includes testable and falsifiable claims. Intelligent design wouldn't qualify as a theory. It is a philosophical position that can only be argued, not tested. At least I have seen nothing testable in the philosophical assertion of god did it.

 

[Learner]

A theory is a formal model that includes testable and falsifiable claims. Intelligent design wouldn't qualify as a theory. It is a philosophical position that can only be argued, not tested. At least I have seen nothing testable in the philosophical assertion of god did it.

I wonder how the underlined works for non-intelligent design. Testing the properties of matter or describing the processes of matter will still conclude lab results as: "origin" not observed or testable and falsifiable.

Its merely a point of view to those who see nothing and those who see something in the same data. DNA for one of many examples; looks like coding by intelligent-design to some people and not to others.

 

[Keith&Co.]

. DNA for one of many examples; looks like coding by intelligent-design to some people and not to others.

But does it look like coding to anyone who isn't looking for an intelligent designer?

Coding languages, all languages, have an arbitrary value. We can give a hexadecimal sequence of 0101 the value of CAT or DOG in a program. Command a right turn or left turn. Turn a power supply ON or OFF. Print a 'five' or a 'two.' Whatever our program needs, nothing intrinsic to the sequence demands that it be a command or a noun or a measurement...

DNA is a chemical sequence. Can the sequence for 'feathers' be reassigned to make it the part for 'eyes'?

 

[skepticalbip]

A theory is a formal model that includes testable and falsifiable claims. Intelligent design wouldn't qualify as a theory. It is a philosophical position that can only be argued, not tested. At least I have seen nothing testable in the philosophical assertion of god did it.

I wonder how the underlined works for non-intelligent design. Testing the properties of matter or describing the processes of matter will still conclude lab results as: "origin" not observed or testable and falsifiable.

There is no "theory of non-intelligent design" that I have seen. I would like to see such a theory if you have a link to the model. I have seen a few hypotheses that describe possibilities for some minor steps in a possible process. Getting away from the various ideas for abiogenesis, there is a theory of evolution that has been tested quite a bit and still undergoes testing just as the theory of relativity has undergone testing and is still being tested.

Its merely a point of view to those who see nothing and those who see something in the same data. DNA for one of many examples; looks like coding by intelligent-design to some people and not to others.

Pattern recognition is a trait in humans that has served us well. Without that trait we likely would have never developed as a species. Some side effects are we see patterns everywhere. Early humans would see a mountain crag, tree trunk, or cloud and can identify a human form in them - early humans "explained" them by assuming they were gods, homes of gods, or omens from gods. For modern humans, identifying human faces or animals in clouds is a childhood game, sometimes even enjoyed by adults.

 

[Lion IRC]

. DNA for one of many examples; looks like coding by intelligent-design to some people and not to others.

But does it look like coding to anyone who isn't looking for an intelligent designer?

Coding languages, all languages, have an arbitrary value. We can give a hexadecimal sequence of 0101 the value of CAT or DOG in a program. Command a right turn or left turn. Turn a power supply ON or OFF. Print a 'five' or a 'two.' Whatever our program needs, nothing intrinsic to the sequence demands that it be a command or a noun or a measurement...

DNA is a chemical sequence. Can the sequence for 'feathers' be reassigned to make it the part for 'eyes'?

I've never seen language/coding which didn't have a purpose - intent.

 

[skepticalbip]

. DNA for one of many examples; looks like coding by intelligent-design to some people and not to others.

But does it look like coding to anyone who isn't looking for an intelligent designer?

Coding languages, all languages, have an arbitrary value. We can give a hexadecimal sequence of 0101 the value of CAT or DOG in a program. Command a right turn or left turn. Turn a power supply ON or OFF. Print a 'five' or a 'two.' Whatever our program needs, nothing intrinsic to the sequence demands that it be a command or a noun or a measurement...

DNA is a chemical sequence. Can the sequence for 'feathers' be reassigned to make it the part for 'eyes'?

I've never seen language/coding which didn't have a purpose - intent.

DNA has recognizable and identifiable patterns. Patterns do not need to have purpose or intent such as snow flakes have a very identifiable pattern. The researchers calling DNA patterns a code is metaphor. But then apparently some people take metaphors as reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I've never seen language/coding which didn't have a purpose - intent.

DNA has recognizable and identifiable patterns. Patterns do not need to have purpose or intent such as snow flakes have a very identifiable pattern. The researchers calling DNA patterns a code is metaphor. But then apparently some people take metaphors as reality.

And misunderstand the meaning of 'arbitrary' in this context.

 

[blastula]

. DNA for one of many examples; looks like coding by intelligent-design to some people and not to others.

But does it look like coding to anyone who isn't looking for an intelligent designer?

Coding languages, all languages, have an arbitrary value. We can give a hexadecimal sequence of 0101 the value of CAT or DOG in a program. Command a right turn or left turn. Turn a power supply ON or OFF. Print a 'five' or a 'two.' Whatever our program needs, nothing intrinsic to the sequence demands that it be a command or a noun or a measurement...

DNA is a chemical sequence. Can the sequence for 'feathers' be reassigned to make it the part for 'eyes'?

I've never seen language/coding which didn't have a purpose - intent.

DNA is not a language.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Coding languages, all languages, have an arbitrary value. We can give a hexadecimal sequence of..."

Interesting that Keith&Co used the third person plural. "We can"
As I said. There is intent/design/purpose.