Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Engineers Have an 'Ear' for Natural Design
ICR ^ | June 19, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 06/20/2009 6:50:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The human ear is an amazing device. In a recent press release, an MIT engineer said that the ear is “like a super radio with 3,500 parallel channels.”[1] In fact, its design inspired the development of a new space and energy-saving radio receiver chip...

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: asterisk; brianthomasms; creation; cretinism; evolution; fools; frembarrassment; intelligentdesign; pseudoscience; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 06/20/2009 6:50:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; ...

Some smart engineers are learning how to benefit mankind by mimicking God’s amazing biological designs...Ping!


2 posted on 06/20/2009 6:55:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

THe Engineers better add another 1000 ch’s then they’ll have “Mommy Ears”.


3 posted on 06/20/2009 6:59:49 PM PDT by TaMoDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TaMoDee
For some people, for example, the Democrats have only selective hearing, only hear what they want to hear..
4 posted on 06/20/2009 7:04:51 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TaMoDee

I think I respond more when I don’t hear anything! That’s when they’re up to something. :)


5 posted on 06/20/2009 7:35:53 PM PDT by huldah1776 ( Worthy is the Lamb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

True. But then all 4500 ch’s were working to hear nada. :>)


6 posted on 06/20/2009 7:39:35 PM PDT by TaMoDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Maybe that's why I find the idea of evolution so laughable. I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and as a mechanical engineer, I can tell you that the human musculo-skeletal system is far more complex than the most complicated machine. The level of complexity is staggering. At the very least, the human body is many orders of magnitude greater in complexity than the finest watch or robot. But we really don't even know how many orders of magnitude greater in complexity, because we don't know what we don't yet know.

Think of the human body as an engineering problem. Your job is to design a machine to the following specifications. This machine must:

-Begin at the size of a speck and self-organize to a final weight of 180lb.
-It will be fueled by animal meat, vegetation, air and sunshine.
-It must be able to self-heal.
-It must be able to travel over land, climb up and over objects, and through water.
-It must remain functioning for 30 years.
-It must generate copies of itself with the same capabilities.
-The machine must be able to measure sound, pressure, light, flavor, and odor.
-It must be easily able to differentiate objects.

You get the idea. Anyway, present that list to any engineer or any group of engineers, and they'll laugh their butts off.

7 posted on 06/20/2009 7:51:12 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Good post. I enjoyed reading it. We have no idea of the awesomeness of God - we just know He is.


8 posted on 06/20/2009 8:08:14 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


9 posted on 06/20/2009 8:08:34 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

...and then you just take just one of it’s systems, the cardiac system for instance and realize it’s broken down into electrical, chemical, and mechanical subsets...and if you examine cardiac muscle/tissue/cells under a microscope, you see that it actually pulsates, and “beats” if you will, purposefully, rhythmically.


10 posted on 06/20/2009 8:28:23 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Carry_Okie

Ping...


11 posted on 06/20/2009 8:40:54 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Galloping suffocating American Socialism stinks like BO!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Excellent reply, AF. Hope to hear from you more often on these threads!

All the best—GGG


12 posted on 06/20/2009 8:44:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

See my tagline...


13 posted on 06/20/2009 8:53:01 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God gives countless, indisputable, and unambiguous clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

I am an engineer. I would not bid on this job. :)

And what you have stated is just the tip of the iceberg.


14 posted on 06/20/2009 8:54:35 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God gives countless, indisputable, and unambiguous clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”

Only the ones who couldn't pass biology.

When are you going to get it through your head? There are thousands of examples that unequivocally show the earth is far, far older than your cooked up number. It's hard for me to believe anyone could be that stupid.

15 posted on 06/20/2009 9:23:44 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DennisR

Amen, brother! As with Aquinasfan, I hope to see you in these threads more often :o)

All the best—GGG


16 posted on 06/20/2009 9:26:07 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
— John 1:3-4


17 posted on 06/20/2009 9:31:43 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Your Jeddi tricks won’t work on me.


18 posted on 06/20/2009 9:34:47 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DennisR

The tip of the iceberg. Consider the eye. It does things that engineers and software types cannot even begin to approach. I recently heard someone speak on trying to do just that in connection with missile defense projects for the Pentagon. He then went to medical school where he learned that the eye was capable of doing things far greater than what he had just spent several years and millions of dollars designing. He knew from personal experience that something so complex could not have possibly just evolved.


19 posted on 06/20/2009 9:35:26 PM PDT by yawningotter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stormer

I’m not the one we all have to answer to...don’t take my word for it, take His.


20 posted on 06/20/2009 9:37:06 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stormer

==It’s hard for me to believe anyone could be that stupid.

You should try looking in the mirror. But then again, you probably wouldn’t understand what you see. Indeed, you would probably find the experience positively blissful.


21 posted on 06/20/2009 9:37:31 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I always contemplate the complexity of the human eye. According to the Darwinists, A bunch of cells got together one day and said, “We believe there is a medium as yet undetected which we will refer to as light. We believe if we organize ourselves properly, we can detect it and it will reveal our surroundings at great distance without even having to touch it. Now, what we need is for a bunch of you cells to arrange yourselves into what we will call a lens. The diameter and thickness of which needs to be very precise. This light will pass through and hit some other cells at a precise focal length and we will be able to detect it. Next, we need a processing system to interpret what was detected and and a way to transmit the information there. This information will not be used by us, but the processing cells will direct the information to other cells to take apropriate action.”
Pretty damn good organizational skills for a bunch of cells, wouldn’t you say?


22 posted on 06/20/2009 9:41:15 PM PDT by Boiling point (If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling point

Your reply caused an involuntary, hearty and prologued LOL, followed by several aftershocks. And now that you mention it, it really is that silly. LOL funny silly!


23 posted on 06/20/2009 9:47:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Mention my name when you get there - you’ll get a seat in the front.


24 posted on 06/20/2009 9:50:33 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So you're telling me that virtually every scientific discipline, the product of observation, experimentation, and inspiration for the last several thousand years, the pinnacle of human civilization, is wrong; ‘cause is it doesn't jive with your book, ‘cause you can't understand that unexplainable is not inexplicable, ‘cause you just don't “get it”, is wrong. I really feel sorry for you, man.
25 posted on 06/20/2009 9:58:50 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stormer
"There are thousands of examples that unequivocally show the earth is far, far older than your cooked up number. It's hard for me to believe anyone could be that stupid."

Examples? You mean radio carbon dating? Fossil evidence?

How is it verifiable that these testing devices are accurate? Where is the infallible constant which proves the the theory?

Yes that right; I said THEORY.

For you the science of life is settled, because it makes sense to you. But for those of us who can't deny the fallibility of our own species, we realize that there is something or someone far greater than ourselves, who is responsible for our being, and of whom is far beyond a simple explanation of just a "happy accident of chance" in the prime conditions for life within the cosmos.

For us, it's hard to believe that anyone could be so stupid as to not see the exact same evidence we see, and still maintain the contrary.

26 posted on 06/20/2009 9:59:39 PM PDT by Hillarys nightmare (So Proud to be living in "Jesus Land" ! Don't you wish everyone did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys nightmare
Scary word, theory. You might want to attempt to understand it in a scientific context. The science of life is far from settled, and as we explore beyond our traditional biosphere the situation will only grow more complex. But using supernatural explanations to avoid the stark reality of existence is just plain silly.
27 posted on 06/20/2009 10:29:43 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stormer
But using supernatural explanations to avoid the stark reality of existence is just plain silly.

Define your terms such as "stark reality of existence".

Demonstrate how those on this thread, with whom you disagree, are avoiding it; and then describe who they are using supernatural explanations to avoid said "stark reality".

You're talking like a homosexual activist or AGW proponent.

Using ad hominem strawmen to attack one's ideological opponents, while presenting oneself as an apostle of logical thought and empiricism, is worse than silly.

Cheers!

28 posted on 06/20/2009 10:58:54 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Define your terms such as "stark reality of existence".

A reality based on empirical evidence that does not require supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena or provide for a psychic existence beyond death.

Demonstrate how those on this thread, with whom you disagree, are avoiding it...

By utilizing said supernatural explanations, i.e. Young Earth Creationism.

...and then describe who they are using supernatural explanations to avoid said "stark reality".

I have no idea what you intended to say...

You're talking like a homosexual activist or AGW proponent. Using ad hominem strawmen to attack one's ideological opponents...

Nice steaming pile of hypocrisy there, eh? Cheers yourself!

29 posted on 06/20/2009 11:45:46 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: stormer
A reality based on empirical evidence that does not require supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena or provide for a psychic existence beyond death.

Why do you feel that the supernatural is invoked as an "explanation for unexplained phenomena" ? Most of morality and the Bible are not there "to explain things" but to give detailed instructions as to conduct -- societal, personal, and ritualized. Compare and contrast that to the Greek mythologies (with their myriad gods) where drunkenness and sex with temple prostitutes are acts of worship. That sounds much more "invented" to me than a list of "Thou shalt nots" and injunctions to cancel all debts every 50 years.

The main "unexplained phenomena" --at least, of the sort I think you have in mind -- I can think of in the Old Testament are Creation, the pains of childbirth, and rainbows. Again, ontrast that to Greek mythology. There is a great deal of *explicit, individualized* anthropomorphism in the Greek myths; and such myths are directly tied to explanations for everyday phenomena after the fact, rather than predictions of major irregularities *before* they occur.

And it is fascinating that you use the word stark. Why do you use that word, how does it add to the validity of your statements?

By utilizing said supernatural explanations, i.e. Young Earth Creationism.

Why does this get under your skin so much?

I have no idea what you intended to say...

Sorry 'bout that, late night typo. The correctly-typed-in quesion is :



...and then describe why they are using supernatural explanations to avoid said "stark reality".

Nice steaming pile of hypocrisy there, eh? Cheers yourself!

No pile of hypocrisy. You began by objecting to some religious people's attitudes, and rather than laying out what was wrong and engaging them, you engaged in ad hominem as though that were enough to demonstrate the fallacy in their position. (That is where the resemblance to AGW and homosexual activists comes in). I, on the other hand, did not attack you personally: I directly asked questions so that you would flesh out your arguments, rather than going right to your conclusions. And pointing out logical flaws in the argument of one's opponents is not hypocritical. But holding oneself out as the champion of empiricism and logic, and then using emotionally-laden words such as "stark" does tend to look hypocritical.

Incidentally, what is there which is "un-stark" about facing eternal fire in Hell? Or of the worldwide symbol of the religion being an instrument of torture, or of the religion's founder being unjustly executed ON said instrument of torture?

Cheers!

30 posted on 06/21/2009 4:35:18 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stormer
A reality based on empirical evidence that does not require supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena or provide for a psychic existence beyond death.

Not all reality is empirical, but the irrefutable stark reality of its existence remains.

31 posted on 06/21/2009 4:38:54 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Some smart engineers are learning how to benefit mankind by mimicking God’s amazing biological designs...Ping!”

And somehow it surprises you that “observation” is part of scientific study?

So when man tried to invent a machine that flies, you take it as some “creation science” vindication that we looked at birds, rather than turtles to try and figure out how to do it?

“creation science” does not have a monopoly on belief in God. However, actual scientists and engineers DO have a monopoly on intelligence and understanding of our physical world.

Now go play “scientist” but be back in time to clean your room.


32 posted on 06/21/2009 5:09:53 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
However, actual scientists and engineers DO have a monopoly on intelligence and understanding of our physical world.

Epic FAIL

Scads of other people besides scientists have an understanding of our physical world -- they just haven't categorized it mathematically in a way which allows them to predict and control it as successfully.

Not just doctors -- even traditional Chinese medicine or chiropractors can get things right occasionally.

Or weatherpeople -- I'm still looking for the legendary clip on The Weather Channel where the female weatherbabe is having to say the words "Typhoon Longwang" on the air...

Cheers!

33 posted on 06/21/2009 6:17:52 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

“Scads of other people besides scientists have an understanding of our physical world — they just haven’t categorized it mathematically in a way which allows them to predict and control it as successfully.”

No doubt you are correct....but the context of the discussion was between “Creation Scientists” and real scientists.....

As you rightfully point out many many people do and have very detailed understanding of the physical world - however NONE of these people are “creation science” types - which was the context of my point. I’m sure you understand it now.

I stand corrected.


34 posted on 06/21/2009 9:01:53 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Stark: rigid or absolute. Not sure why you find that use fascinating, but... As to your “eternal fire in Hell”, it has no more validity than any other of the countless myths that mankind has ginned up. Vishnu, Jupiter, Thor, Baal, Yahweh (the list goes on ad nauseum), are all human constructs. Your hell is as real as the turtles that support the pillars of the Earth. Sorry.
35 posted on 06/21/2009 9:43:30 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

“Not all reality is empirical...”

I would say that, almost by definition, it is.


36 posted on 06/21/2009 9:50:31 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Stark: rigid or absolute. Not sure why you find that use fascinating, but... As to your “eternal fire in Hell”, it has no more validity than any other of the countless myths that mankind has ginned up.

LOL, child.

The use of the word stark is often used by atheists, to show that they are bold, unflinching, facing a bleak world with a unique courage, as opposed to the weak, timid religionists, who need squishy comfort and pie in the sky.

But such a construct is ITSELF mythological: since the prospect of being roasted alive forever is even more stark than oblivion (Sartre notwithstanding). And Prometheus (for whom the publishing house catering to "brights" was named) was explicitly mythological.

Second: you moved the goalposts, and again enganged in begging the question -- as you are assuming without proof that all the supernatural is made up.

Third: You apparently didn't even consider the contrast with a theology which everyone here appears to agree is man-made: the Greco-Roman pantheon; and the differences in the explanations and moral requirements.

Fourth: no mention of how namby-pamby the crucifixion was, either.

Do you read anything besides the "puzzles for the pious" pamphlets one can order from the back pages of the comic books?

Cheers!

37 posted on 06/21/2009 9:50:31 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stormer
"You might want to attempt to understand it in a scientific context"

You don't think that we consider the science? We do! However, we don't buy into something that can't be proven simply because it's plausible.

We do however accept by faith, that there is a Higher power, or Grand designer, because the miraculous evidence that is all around us stands as a stark reminder that there is far more to understanding creation, than we will ever grasp by our finite minds.

And don't bother telling me that Science doesn't change due to new discoveries.

The simple fact that Eisenstein changed our understanding of "Gravity" with his theory of Special relativity, has still got the scientific community in a state of confusion!

For those who profess to know so much, they can't even get a definitive handle on something that has been studied for better than 400 years.

And you dare say that science contains all the answers? All science does is raise more questions for us to wonder and postulate over!

But then, that is exactly why I like science. I just don't happen to believe that scientist are equal to or smarter than GOD. But then again, I don't think they are any smarter than myself either.

38 posted on 06/21/2009 10:06:51 AM PDT by Hillarys nightmare (So Proud to be living in "Jesus Land" ! Don't you wish everyone did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys nightmare
The simple fact that Eisenstein changed our understanding of "Gravity" with his theory of Special relativity, has still got the scientific community in a state of confusion!

And Ludvig von Boltzhoven, with his 2nd Law of Thermal Documents, and Ninth Symphony (Ode to Joules), confused things even more!

Cheers!

39 posted on 06/21/2009 10:27:15 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Child? Moi? I'm sorry, but I'm not the one with an invisible friend in the sky. You might want to look up “supernatural”, because what is perceived as such IS “made up”. Not sure what you meant about crucifixion; pretty common Roman torture/execution device. If I had a dollar for every person crucified, I be a rich man.
40 posted on 06/21/2009 10:36:23 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys nightmare
“And don't bother telling me that Science doesn't change due to new discoveries.”

Ok - I won't. I will say that science constantly changes as new information is added - that is its strength and vitality. Religions on the other hand, are static.

41 posted on 06/21/2009 10:42:56 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Child? Moi? I'm sorry, but I'm not the one with an invisible friend in the sky.

So what? Why is that relevant? I called you a child to draw attention to your sophomoric style of debate.

If you want to accuse theists (at least Christians) of being childlike, you are in fact consistent with *their* claims -- Christ himself said whoever does not receive the Kingdom of Heaven like a child, will never enter it. Matthew 18:3 or Mark 10:15.

You might want to look up “supernatural”, because what is perceived as such IS “made up”.

Repeating your unsubstantiated assertion does not prove it. You claimed that the supernatural is "made up". But you haven't backed it up.

Not sure what you meant about crucifixion; pretty common Roman torture/execution device.

It was a common Roman torture/execution device, which was my point: the word excruciating is synonymous with relentless, unendurable pain.

Goes back to your use of the word "stark" -- which I suggested you used as a vague term of self-approbation, and which characterization you did not dispute. The point is that the symbol of Christianity is that of someone being tortured to death, which is itself pretty stark.

If I had a dollar for every person crucified, I be a rich man.

Do you mean like the followers of Spartacus?

Cheers!

42 posted on 06/21/2009 11:08:20 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
What's it going to be?

You've likened me to a homosexual activist to illustrate my alleged ad hominem attacks;

You accuse me of begging the question when I ask for evidence other than divine revelation;

And you've used name calling in condemning my "sophomoric style".

Do you notice a trend? I think it's what the psychologists call "projection". I don't know how grey your whiskers are, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maturity behind them.

Oh, Cheers!

43 posted on 06/21/2009 11:35:36 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stormer
What's it going to be?

You've likened me to a homosexual activist to illustrate my alleged ad hominem attacks;

Yes, because homosexuals engage in ad hominem, as do anthropogenic global warming proponents. I explained this in post #30.

Calling you out on using ad hominem is not itself ad hominem. Saying (as you did) "It's hard for me to believe anyone could be that stupid. " (post 15) or " Your Jeddi tricks won’t work on me." (post 18) ARE ad hominem.

You accuse me of begging the question when I ask for evidence other than divine revelation;

In our disputations, you have not asked me for evidence other than divine revelation. On the contrary (see for example posts 35 and 40 this thread), you continually asserted, without adducing further evidence, that the supernatural *is* made up.

When I pointed out that this was not sufficient, you did not rectify the omission.

I'm not going out of my way to argue *for* theim: I'm waiting for you to post a cogent case *against* it. And the rudiments of the case you posted to me (say in post 29) look like circular reasoning or begging the question, as in this paraphras:

"Religion is wrong, because it involves the supernatural. The supernatural is made up, because it is associated with religion. And we know already that religion is wrong."

And you've used name calling in condemning my "sophomoric style".

It is sophomoric of you to tell your opponent that "I'm sorry, but I'm not the one with an invisible friend in the sky." and consider that that is necessary and sufficient grounds to settle the matter.

Do you notice a trend? I think it's what the psychologists call "projection". I don't know how grey your whiskers are, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maturity behind them.

I explained in Post 30 why I made the characterizations of you that I did: and I did not pretend that merely giving such a characterization rendered all of your positions null and void; I just pointed out that by relying on ad hominem you fell short of the evidentiary standards you apparently insist on from others.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that all instances of the supernatural are only human constructs.

Oh, Cheers!

44 posted on 06/21/2009 11:56:52 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
This isn't an argument, it's mutual obfuscation. Let's go back to the original claim:

“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”

Do you agree with that statement (and all it implies)?

45 posted on 06/21/2009 12:05:50 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: stormer
This isn't an argument, it's mutual obfuscation.

No it isn't. You said that all claims of the supernatural were invented by people, and I asked you to back it up.

So far, you haven't backed up your statement, nor have you retracted, nor have you given additional information.

Let's go back to the original claim:“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”

Do you agree with that statement (and all it implies)?

"I agree that engineers can learn a great deal from studying today's copies of biological systems..."

Otherwise, why have biochemists or molecular biology, or kinesiology?

"...that were created roughly 6,000 years ago."

I don't know if they were created roughly 6,000 years ago or not. There are a number of non-trivial problems involved in this.

If you are referring to Genesis, then you have to consider:

a) whether God exists

b) whether God inspired Genesis

c) if Genesis was intended literally

d) if Genesis was intended as allegorical, metaphorical, or as a legend to instill moral values

e) if Genesis is still in substantially the same form as originally

f) if Genesis *was* meant as literal, whether or not we know the state the Universe was created in (brand new, or with some supernovae, old stars, bones, etc. spotted in here or there already)

g) what, if any effect the Fall of Man, or even (see Tolkein) the fall of Lucifer had on the material world

h) Whether or not any supernatural agents screwed around with the original blueprints, or the appearance of things after the fact, or interfered unpredictably with the laws of nature in the meantime

Only if we have a straight run of "yes" or "no" answers to most or all of these, does the answer come out as the strawman characterizations so prevalent on crevo threads--and which I assume you were waiting with bated breath to skewer me on.

And of course, you then have the hermeneutic problems of falsifiability, the uniformity of the laws of nature (correleation necessarily implies causation, or "empirical induction") and methodological vs. philosophical naturalism to muck up the water.

Cheers!

46 posted on 06/21/2009 12:19:36 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stormer
"Religions on the other hand, are static."

That's right they are. Their assertions don't need to change. They give all the information that is necessary to complete their own central thesis, and that's all.

I don't know of any of them that give concrete details concerning creation, and some don't bother to provide conclusive answers to animals plants and such. However, what they do offer, is something that science can't, and that is enough of an explanation so that one can find meaning in life. And when it's all said and done, isn't that what everyone is looking for, really?

You might as well face the fact, that Science (as you correctly stated) is constantly evolving, therefore it's safe to say that no one can ever be completely satisfied with it's findings on anything. So, if you think that science can answer your deepest questions of creation beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I'm afraid your the one who is deluded my friend.

But even if they eventually could, I'm afraid that neither you nor I will ever live long enough to know about it!

47 posted on 06/21/2009 7:31:34 PM PDT by Hillarys nightmare (So Proud to be living in "Jesus Land" ! Don't you wish everyone did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"Cheers!

Back atcha! Now that's what I'm talkin about.

48 posted on 06/21/2009 7:35:55 PM PDT by Hillarys nightmare (So Proud to be living in "Jesus Land" ! Don't you wish everyone did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stormer
I would say that, almost by definition, it is.

Such a definition begs the question.

49 posted on 06/21/2009 8:26:09 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Can you provide a valid example of non-empirical reality?


50 posted on 06/22/2009 8:30:52 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson