Jack the Bodiless

And I have seen Christians make exactly the same claim about the Flood.

...So, Ed: if there is a special literary style used for flat-Earthism, geocentrism and the Flood, please explain why you believe the Flood actually happened.

Let me guess: the Eddian interpretation is that the Flood ISN'T written in "phenomenological language", and all those Christians who believe otherwise are wrong.

What about the Resurrection? Is that written in "phenomenological language"?

Perhaps a demonstration of what IS and IS NOT "phenomenological language" is in order.

Ed

Hello Nickle. No, all the evidence points to the universe being an effect and therefore requiring a Cause.

Ed

No, it was recommended by Oolon and he is shown to contradict every statement mentioned in your site by a fellow atheist. See http://home.twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm.

Quote:

lp: And here is more on the H. erectus - H. sapiens question. Ed: No, homo erectus is 100% human see above and there are the other big gaps, ie the movement forward of the foramen magnum and the other changes from facultative bipedalism to obligate bipedalism. Except that the australopithecines were more humanlike than what His Eddianness seems to believe.

Not in the key areas of difference between man and ape, ie mode of locomotion and brain development. In everything else we have already known about similarities for thousands of years.

Lobstrosity

This is an untrue assertion. No evidence indicates that the universe needs an external cause. Current theory does imply that the universe originated from the quantum domain, however, and in the quantum domain we know that classical notions of cause and effect (i.e. your notions) are invalid. For example, radioactive decay is an uncaused event, though ensembles do conform to known probability distributions. Classical cause and effect (in the sense that if you do X with 100% precision, consequence Y will follow with 100% certainty) isn't a physical requirement of this universe; it's not a law, t's simply a characteristic we have observed to approximately hold true in the macroscopic world that surrounds us and upon which we have thusly come to intuitively rely. There is nothing that bars the existence of uncaused events and we find that in the quantum world such events actually do happen with startling regularity. Your rejection of acausality is simply based on faulty intuition, not actual logic. This is the same kind of intuition that tells you that a single particle cannot simultaneously pass through two separate apertures (though it can be demonstrated that this notion is incorrect). This is the same kind of intuition that tells you that time and geometry are independent of how fast something is moving (though this is false). This universe requires no primary cause, just like God requires no primary cause.

To be fair, however, I cannot say that the universe did not actually have a primary cause. Who knows, right? What we can say is the following:

Either
(1) The creation of the universe was an uncaused event
or
(2) The creation of the universe was caused

Both are valid. If (1), then we're done...bye bye God. If (2), then we have two possibilities:
Either
(a) An intelligent being (i.e. God) caused the creation of the universe
or
(b) Some unintelligent process provided the cause

You see, you cannot leap to the conclusion that God was behind creation simply because it was caused. Perhaps our universe exists within some eternal uberverse that periodically craps out normal universes according to some blind laws of uberphysics.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with evolution, but hey, I really wanted to post in this thread. Maybe I can make up for that by adding that evolution = the product of good science where as creationism = the product Equus recta.

Ed

Actually we do not KNOW that quantum events occur without a cause. It just appears that they do. There could be a cause that we have yet to discover. No great scientist of the past ever looked for the cause of an event for awhile then threw up his arms and said "well there must not be a cause". This would be terrible science. Also, without the law of causality science becomes impossible. But even if we grant that a quantum event could create the universe, it would require an interval time to occur but at the origin of the space-time universe time=0. So a quantum event could not occur.

Quote:

lob: To be fair, however, I cannot say that the universe did not actually have a primary cause. Who knows, right? What we can say is the following: Either (1) The creation of the universe was an uncaused event or (2) The creation of the universe was caused Both are valid. If (1), then we're done...bye bye God. If (2), then we have two possibilities: Either (a) An intelligent being (i.e. God) caused the creation of the universe or (b) Some unintelligent process provided the cause You see, you cannot leap to the conclusion that God was behind creation simply because it was caused. Perhaps our universe exists within some eternal uberverse that periodically craps out normal universes according to some blind laws of uberphysics.

No, uncaused events are logically impossible because they would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship thereby violating the law of noncontradiction. We also can logically assume that the cause of the universe has a personal aspect to it because of the law of sufficient cause. The universe contains personal beings and we know from experience that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore we can logically deduce that the cause of the universe is an intelligent personal being. As far as some uberverse, yes that may be the case but unlike theism there is absolutely no rational basis for believing such a thing exists.

Quote:

lob: Anyway, none of this has anything to do with evolution, but hey, I really wanted to post in this thread. Maybe I can make up for that by adding that evolution = the product of good science where as creationism = the product Equus recta..

But you contradicted yourself above where you said that the law of causality and noncontradiction are not always true, if that is the case then good science is impossible.

Lobstrosity

We also don't KNOW that Neptune orbits the sun. It just appears that it does. There could be a path that Neptune takes that we have yet to discover. Perhaps it's time we discard all our scientific theories! Or, perhaps we should stick with the theories that have overwhelming empirical support (such as quantum) until they are falsified. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of established theories you want to believe based on which parts require the existence of God. Oh no, this aspect of the theory means that the universe could have formed without God...quick, burn it, BURN IT!

Basically, Ed, you're just arguing from ignorance, here. You don't seem to understand causality or quantum theory. For example, quantum assumes as given that classical causation is mere fiction and yet it is one of the most successful theories ever developed. This assumption is not considered a weakness of the theory, it is a strength. Furthermore, the assumption has since been strongly supported by Aspect's experiments in the eighties that demonstrate violations of Bell's inequalities. Your assertion that "science is now impossible in the quantum domain" is rather ridiculous, don't you think? Perhaps you should actually learn what quantum implies before making such grandiose claims. This would give you a glimpse at what causation really seems to mean at the most basic level. Your idea of causation is simply an approximation of the truth that holds true only in the macroscopic world. In reality, A does not cause B, A collapses a wave function, resulting in either B, C, or D. The result is perfectly random but governed by known probability distributions. It is the probability distributions that allow science to continue. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about a world in which nothing is as simple as A causes B.

Ever hear of Schrodinger's cat? Yeah, kind of "logical impossibility" is now considered perfectly reasonable so long as one has not collapsed the wavefunction governing the quantum superposition of states. Once again you're using intuition, and once again, it's failing you. You know what else you might call "logically impossible"? The idea that one particle can simutaneously pass through two separate slits on the way to a target. I mentioned this in my previous post, but interestingly you neglected to address it. Is it not logically impossible for one thing to be in two places at the same time? By your naive application of the law of noncontradiction you'd have to say yes. By your naive application of the law of noncontradiction you'd be completely wrong.

And this leaves me wondering whether you even know what logic is. I'm honestly dumbfounded...you can deduce from experience? What experience? You are in reality deducing from lack of experience, from ignorance. There is zero logic in the above quote.

To illustrate this point, allow me to counter the statement "only persons can produce the personal" with the following arguments based on similar "logic":
* Only cows can produce the cowish (you know, that intangible quality that represents all it means to truly be a cow), therefore this universe was created by a cow.
* Only rocks can produce the rocky, so therefore this universe was created by a rock.


I did not contradict myself. So long as one knows when noncontradiction fails, how it fails, and why it fails, it's hardly an impediment to science. Similarly, so long as the true nature of causality is understood (and this nature need not be classical-- there can be spontaneous events that occur in this world as guided by predictable probability distributions), there is no impairment of science. This is why quantum theory actually works. This is why quantum theory is one of the most phenomenal scientific achievements to date. This is why you're sitting at a computer right now.

And Creationism is still the equivalent of logical horseshit. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and can be molded to fit any arbitrary data. It's the opposite of a theory--an antitheory, if you will. Instead of explaining things, it serves only to prevent anyone else from even trying to explain things. According to current data, all we know is that Creationism mandates that God was trying to fool us into believing in evolution, which makes Creationism seem ridiculous beyond measure (still unfalsifiable, but ridiculous nonetheless).

Doubting Didymus

A very palpable hit!

GunnerJ

Don't bet on it. I took a quick look at Ed's replies: he's using the exact same lines that he used a year ago! There isn't a single argument logical and well supported enough to dent the mind of Ed

Ed

I measured how far back it was on those drawings you provided and it is plainly in the rear, though not as far as the gorilla. Nevertheless, it is in the position for facultative bipedalism and not in the basal position which means obligate bipedalism.

Quote:

jtb: Do you now regard the australopithecines as "fully human" due to the position of the foramen magnum? Their brains were no larger than chimp brains!

No, see above.

Quote:

jtb: Humans are descended from (other) apes. This is a scientific fact, and we have the transitional fossils to prove it. A lack of pre-australopithecine fossils does nothing to help your cause, because you must accept that the australopithecines weren't human: creationists call them "apes", but they were bipedal apes. Do you accept that we have a complete range of transitional forms between bipedal apes and bipedal humans? If not: where is the gap?

See above.

Ed

There is no empirical evidence that Hox genes even existed at that time since we do not have fossil DNA. Any evidence for the seawater assertion?

Quote:

jtb: Besides, the Cambrian explosion doesn't help the cause of Biblical creationism anyhow (not even the Old-Earth variety). Not a single creature mentioned in the Bible appeared in the Cambrian explosion: no mammals, no birds, no reptiles, no fish, no land plants, no insects, nothing at all. Every single creature in the Bible evolved much later. The Cambrian explosion does not fit with any of the Genesis "days".

Fraid so, they fit perfectly with Day 5.

Quote:

Ed: Yes, there are no transitions showing a movement from bilateral symmetry to radial symmetry. This is another problem for evolution. jtb: Why should there be any transitions between bilateral and radial symmetry? I think it's highly unlikely that ANY scientist believes that either evolved from the other! Both evolved independently from unsymmetric creatures (which still exist). You obviously need to learn MUCH more about evolution!

Because chordates (bilateral symmetry) supposedly evolved from echinoderms (radial symmetry). This is basic evolutionary biology.