Comments by "" (@louistournas120) on "" video.
-
12
-
9
-
6
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@damminers49 :
You also disagreed with the point that Jens Raab was making.
Jens Raab says:
"Oh, and another thing: all sciences presuppose naturalism. Can you name one that doesn't?"
Why not look at what science is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Natural_science
"Modern natural science is the successor to the natural philosophy"
So science itself has a foundation in natural philosophy. The idea is to use the inductive method: observe nature, collect data, when enough data is collected, try to explain the data, form laws, form models. This initial explanation is the hypothesis. The hypothesis gets refined over time until it is acceptable to the vast majority of scientists and it gets promoted to the status of scientific theory.
Saying that "the gods did it" or some other type of fairy creature is not an explanation that will be respected in science.
Those kinds of "explanations", and I use the term very loosely, are part of the religion of the particular scientist and it is expected that he will leave his religious leanings and political biases aside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
"Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy."
You wrote:
"Not all sciences presuppose naturalism"
Ok, give me an example of a scientific field that doesn't presuppose naturalism.
"Second, I was very clear in stating that science doesn’t presuppose, but scientists do"
==First off, you should educated yourself as to what science is.
Second, science is done by scientists and they have agreed as to what constitutes science.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@damminers49 :
I think the chances of nature producing certain things, even simple things such as a sheet of zinc is 0. If you take a torch and melt some zinc, the forces of attraction between the atoms of zinc would try to shape the zinc into a ball, while gravity pushes the zinc ball onto the ground.
As for the book, the probability of finding processed wood and shaped into paper form is pretty much 0, just like the zinc sheet example.
There is also little chance that the forces of nature would pick up a pen and have it move around the paper to form words/sentences.
In order to make a sheet of zinc, industry uses rollers to press down on a block of zinc and they pass the zinc multiple times between rollers.
The same kind of technique is need to make paper. Paper also requires chemical processes to break down the lignin in the wood.
As for the zinc, there is no zinc in metallic form on Earth. It is a very reactive metal. You can find compounds like ZnO, ZnSO4, ZnCO3 and more complex compounds that contain zinc atoms.
Therefore, molds and tools are needed to make a sheet of zinc or a sheet of paper. Chemical reactions are also needed to make the starting material. On top of that, the tools and molds aren't made by nature either.
So, if I ever find a book in nature, I would conclude a intelligent being created it.
There are certain shapes that nature doesn't tend to produce, like iron nails, hammers, sheet of glass, bricks, copper pipes. All those things require molds and tools to shape the material.
Nails, hammers, sheets of glass are all very simple shapes. Much more simpler than a book.
We don't find any of them in nature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damminers49 :
"It’s one thing to find assembled amino acids, etc. Its another to assemble them at random."
==#1. There aren't just amino acids that can be made, but also nucleobases and sugars and more complex molecules but that is besides the point.
#2
My POINT IS
I'll give you a very short explanation as to what I was talking about.
When an ID "scientist" compares an engine to a cell, his comparison is deeply flawed.
Like I already explained, the chances of components for your engine to come together properly is 0.
Not only that, but you won't even find the components in nature. The chances are 0.
You won't even find the molds and tools in nature. The chances are 0.
How do you expect an engine to get assembled?
For a cell, the components (amino acids, sugars, nucleobases and various substances) can be made easily. We can say the chances are 100%.
We are already a good step ahead compared to your engine.
The missing piece in our knowledge is how did the first cell form, what was it like, what were the next steps in their evolution?
So don't compare bulk objects to molecular machines.
You were comparing a book with a molecular machine (the cell).
1
-
@damminers49 :
"ok how can those things be easily made?"
==Abiogenesis is not a solved problem, however, there are ideas. For example, look up RNA world hypothesis and the experiments that relate to it.
It is better to try to figure out a solution and experiment rather than give up and claim "the gods did it", which is the lazy man's answer to everything.
That's like going to the hardware store and asking the helper, "How do I paint my room" and he answers "You paint a room by painting the room".
"Second, can our brightest make a functioning cell, if it’s a simple process?"
==Intelligence is irrelevant.
I am not talking about intelligent design where the designer sits down and tries to figure out which sequence of nucleobases makes a human. That is something that is proposed by theists.
The RNA world hypothesis proposes that a short RNA sequence forms and is able to self-catalyze and make duplicates of itself.
The best replicator wins.
"You are simply speaking about what is seen in nature, it exists ie amino acids and what isn’t seen as a natural complexity such as an engine."
==You are stuck in thinking that if something is complex, then it is not natural. You don't even know what complex means. It is just a word you and ID people throw around. Even I throw it around as you can see. It doesn't have any particualr meaning.
I gave you an example of how complexity is meaningless.
There are certain things that nature cannot do, even if it is simple: iron nails, copper pipe, brock, sheet of glass.
Is number 1 less complex than 111111111?
What is DNA? It is a sequence of nucleaobases than can be converted to letter AGCTAGCTGAGAGA.........
which can be converted to numbers.
If you can have 1, why can't you have 11 or 111, etc?
"How does he misunderstand evolutionary theory"
==I gave you the link to the video. He is confusing abiogenesis with Evolution theory.
Did you watch his video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damminers49 :
"but that doesn't say why we should presuppose naturalism."
==A scientist can have his own religion and believe in supernatural stuff but when he is doing work, he should leave his religious beliefs out of it. We expect him to behave professionally.
Otherwise, the scientific field will become a battleground between different religions and we don't want that. They are a waste of time.
The goal of science has been to learn about the universe. The best way to learn about something is to discover it.
As for a religion like judaism, all you can do is read a book. You either believe the wild stories in it or you don't. But how is that any different than reading Spiderman comic books? That's what a theologian is. They just have a degree that says that they read some books.
"General relativity was based on theoretical findings. Einstein couldn't really prove the theory, but if the ideas or results don't match the theory then it doesn't work."
==No, actually, Einstein based his theory of Relativity on experiments that had already been carried out. He also performed what he calls thought experiments. A myth has been going around that he made it all up in his mind. There is another myth that he was bad at math. (That one started when he was alive and he gave interviews about it and showed his grades).
Anyway, a good theory should be able to make predictions that can be tested to validate or falsy the theory. One of them was that increasing the speed of an object also has the effect of slowing down the passage of time for that object. This was confirmed with unstable particles being accelerated at high speeds. Their half-lifes became elongated by the amount of time predicted by the theory of Relativity.
"There is a very long list of scientists and mathematicians that presupposed supernaturalism. I can name a few. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Carl Linnaeus, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler, Brian Kobilka, Gerald Gabrielse, Francis Bacon, and of course Sir Isaac Newton in his work "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica." There are hundreds more I can name, in every field of science and education. The education system as we know it was largely founded on Christian, or super naturalistic fundamentals."
==Yes, some people say that the education system was founded by christians. Some say that modern science was founded by christians. Some would even say that it was founded by the white race, which means it is the superior race.
I would not make those statements.
Yes, I agree that those people were christian but that is normal. It was a long time ago.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was born in 1632 in a christian family. The chances are pretty high that the kid will also be christian and remain so as he grows up.
The Europeans had an advantage. They were advancing. They were ship builders. They had the best weapons. They would go around the world and discover new locations. They had creative people. How did christianity play a role in this?
I don't think it played any role.
A good scientists, a creative person, given the right environment, the right entourage of encouragement, would be able to work and make discoveries no matter what his religion is and that is what we see today.
BTW, Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy which is none sense. He also could not explain the precession of Mercury and said that is evidence of the jewish god.
The theory of Relativity was able to match the observation quite precisely and so, the idea of "the gods did it" have once again been replaced by a naturalistic explanation.
"You go back to the god of the gaps argument, no one is doing that. You must not have read ID material, Principia or any other serious scholar that comes to the conclusion that there is a creator."
==I have read a couple of papers that they don't publish in anything official. ID summarizes to this: It is complex, therefore nature could not come up with it, therefore the gods did it.
Another formation of theirs is that the chances of forming a protein is 10^120, therefore, the chances of forming via natural means is unlikely. (This one I have heard numerous times from creationists).
Anything else?
"You dismiss dreams, but you should read works like "Man and his Symbols" by Carl Jung. I would recommend "Orthodoxy" by GK Chesterton, that will help you value myth, imagination, and the mind."
==Feel free to give me an example.
"I would recommend looking into William Lane Craig, reading some of his material and dealing with serious scientists like James Tour, Stephen Myer and John Lennox"
==I have seen William Lane Craig in debates. I was not impressed. He does not do scientific research and thinks that the kalam cosmological argument means a god exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
The kalam cosmological is not an argument for a god. It is an argument for a cause.
I also looked at a couple of James Tour videos. In one of them he was crying and says Jesus popped up in his room. Sorry, I don't buy it.
In another, he shows that he doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and Evolution theory.
On top of that, he shows that he doesn't understand that science replaces his religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
"Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.[1][2][3] Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.[4]"
I have seen John Lennox in debates. I was not impressed. He makes appeals to emotions rather than talking about evidence.
In summary, it doesn't matter if a scientist believes in whatever gods. None of them have any evidence and none of them can present a supernatural material that has been analyzed.
"This will be my last message."
==Why? This was an interesting conversation.
Show me the best material, the best evidence or any evidence that supports ID.
What does ID teach us?
As far as science goes, physics, chemistry, biology and all of the subdomains ... none of them include anything supernatural. So it is perfectly fine to presuppose naturalism. As far as any scientist can tell, we are living in a natural universe.
What is a god? It is an old fashion term. They are suppose to be "super" men or women with super powers. The were basically the Superman, Spiderman, Wonderwoman of the old days. Once in a while they show up to help humanity or something.
They are basically aliens but the ancient people called them "gods".
1
-
1
-
1