The Universe...created for life? or .....

neal · 04-18-09 6:53 pm

Here is a transcript of Morison's talk at Gresham College, London. (Hey, they have EIGHT professors and don't give out degrees.) <a href="http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=813" target=_top>http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&Event Id=813</a>

bob_2 · 04-19-09 4:25 am

I read the transcript, and not the same as what he said on the video. Look then listen. And I think I am on the right thread, when Intelligent Design is being talked about. Unless you can show that the transcripts says : <center>I don't think that science can say a God has to exist, it certainly cannot say a God or a creator does not exist. </center> (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 19, 2009) (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 19, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-19-09 4:39 am

In fact before the transcript is given, that does not have the statement above, the intro to the transcripts says: <center>Ian Morison explains why God will never be ruled out by scientific progress.</center> So enjoy your hunt within science for God. The transcendant God does exist but science will never prove it, until the actual observance of him coming in the sky is too late for the atheistic scientist. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 19, 2009)

neal · 04-19-09 4:51 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:I do not like this interpretation but one could perhaps argue the following if one believed that our universe was created by a "God". There seems little point for an artist or composer to create a work of genius if it could never be appreciated. If so, perhaps, one role of our human race is to be able to appreciate the beauty of "God's" universe. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> He's clearly distinguishing the "God" in his discussion from the God of the Bible. In fact, in the video he explicitly states that he, as a scientist, rejects the Biblical God (he rejects creationism). Could there be a creator somewhere sometime back billions of years ago? Scientists won't say that there cannot have been. I would not say that there cannot have been a creator. Scientists can and do state that the hebrew's story of their tribe being direct descendants from the first humans which were created 6000 years ago by their tribal deity is utterly and indisputably on the evidence FALSE. Did some creator "God" light the fuse for the Big Bang 13 billion years ago? Who in their right mind would say categorically that it didn't happen that way? Your astronomer guy clearly shows that our sun is a second generation star, that it took billions of years for life to evolve on this planet, etc.

neal · 04-19-09 4:55 am

Ian Morison explains why God will never be ruled out by scientific progress. Just like scientific progress will never rule out unicorns, the tooth fairy, fairies in your back yard, Big Foot, or the Creator Coyote.

neal · 04-19-09 4:58 am

So enjoy your hunt within science for God. Why hunt for a god when everything has a plausible natural explanation? Tell us ONE thing that does not have a plausible natural explanation.

bob_2 · 04-19-09 5:14 am

Above, Neal tries to belittle Ian Morison, or Gresham, well: Prof Morison from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at The University of Manchester <a href="http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/archive/list/item/?id=4211&year=2008&month=12" target=_top>http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/archive/l ist/item/?id=4211&year=2008&month=12</a>

neal · 04-19-09 5:14 am

Ian Morison explains why God will never be ruled out by scientific progress. By the way, that is a false statement. He states it as an assertion but does NOT explain why a "God" will never be ruled out by scientific progress.

bob_2 · 04-19-09 5:18 am

Neal, you are in Denver, the quote I made was not from something in Denver but in England. It is not a statement of Ian Morison's that I can tell, but an intro to his transcipt that does not state what he verbally states in his speech that I quote above.

bob_2 · 04-19-09 5:24 am

Guys, I don't plan to hang on one's man's statements, not when guys like Baumgardner are exploring other data. But to say science has ruled out a YEC Earth is overstating it. I will look for Neal's definitive quote to backup his statements above. Until then....

bob_2 · 04-19-09 5:26 am

John said: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=16&post=4047#POST4047" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=16&post=4047#POST4047</a> No one has shown a natural origin of this world, how it started and by what cause. Come on John, you know better. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 19, 2009)

neal · 04-19-09 5:29 am

Here is the first sentence in his transcript:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Looking up at the heavens on a clear night, we can imagine that the stars are located on the inside of a sphere, called the celestial sphere, whose centre is the centre of the Earth.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> That's exactly how the goat herders saw it. Its how they explained the cosmology, with the Book of Enoch even explaining how the tracks on the inside of the dome keep the sun and stars moving across the dome on the right path. The explanation of the cosmology in the Bible obviously did not come from a god, nor is it the Word of God. Its how things appeared to a goat herder laying on his back in bronze age palestine. It is not a statement of Ian Morison's that I can tell, but an intro to his transcipt that does not state what he verbally states in his speech that I quote above. Its possible that the intro was not written by Ian. However, I have read the complete transcript and watched the video multiple times. He never explains why a "God" will never be ruled out by scientific progress. If you can find it please point me to the place where he explains it. He makes an assertion. That's it.

neal · 04-19-09 5:40 am

No one has shown a natural origin of this world, how it started and by what cause. Come on John, you know better. You're tired. I said: Why hunt for a god when everything has a plausible natural explanation? All that is necessary is a plausible natural explanation. Here ya' go for planets: <blockquote>It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust. A protostar forms at the core, surrounded by a rotating protoplanetary disk. Through accretion (a process of sticky collision) dust particles in the disk steadily accumulate mass to form ever-larger bodies. Local concentrations of mass known as planetesimals form, and these accelerate the accretion process by drawing in additional material by their gravitational attraction. These concentrations become ever denser until they collapse inward under gravity to form protoplanets.[51] After a planet reaches a diameter larger than the Earth's moon, it begins to accumulate an extended atmosphere, greatly increasing the capture rate of the planetesimals by means of atmospheric drag.[52] When the protostar has grown such that it ignites to form a star, the surviving disk is removed from the inside outward by photoevaporation, the solar wind, Poynting-Robertson drag and other effects.[53][54] Thereafter there still may be many protoplanets orbiting the star or each other, but over time many will collide, either to form a single larger planet or release material for other larger protoplanets or planets to absorb.[55] Those objects that have become massive enough will capture most matter in their orbital neighbourhoods to become planets. Meanwhile, protoplanets that have avoided collisions may become natural satellites of planets through a process of gravitational capture, or remain in belts of other objects to become either dwarf planets or small Solar System bodies. The energetic impacts of the smaller planetesimals (as well as radioactive decay) will heat up the growing planet, causing it to at least partially melt. The interior of the planet begins to differentiate by mass, developing a denser core.[56] Smaller terrestrial planets lose most of their atmospheres because of this accretion, but the lost gases can be replaced by outgassing from the mantle and from the subsequent impact of comets.[57] (Smaller planets will lose any atmosphere they gain through various escape mechanisms.) With the discovery and observation of planetary systems around stars other than our own, it is becoming possible to elaborate, revise or even replace this account. The level of metallicity – an astronomical term describing the abundance of chemical elements with an atomic number greater than 2 (helium) – is now believed to determine the likelihood that a star will have planets.[58] Hence it is thought less likely that a metal-poor, population II star will possess a more substantial planetary system than a metal-rich population I star.</blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation</a> Again Bob, Tell us ONE thing that does not have a plausible natural explanation.

bob_2 · 04-19-09 5:43 am

That's all a lot of science is, especially evolutionary science, assertions. Right??? How about the synonym POSIT : 1 : to dispose or set firmly : fix 2 : to assume or affirm the existence of : postulate 3 : to propose as an explanation : suggest

neal · 04-19-09 5:49 am

That's all a lot of science is, especially evolutionary science, assertions. Right??? Wrong.

bob_2 · 04-19-09 5:50 am

Sorry, Neal, I attributed this to John, but it was you: Tell us ONE thing that does not have a plausible natural explanation. The orgin of the earth, and the creation of complex man and animals. No evolution has proven that, never will. No transitional animal fossils as you would expect. Sorry, I don't think I am the tired one!!!

neal · 04-19-09 5:54 am

But to say science has ruled out a YEC Earth is overstating it. I don't need to keep answering the same question over and over. Let's see. Hmmmm. 800,000 years of ice layers or a bronze age story about a tribal deity creating the universe, including our planet, 6,000 years ago. You're saying this is a tough choice for scientists? NOT!

neal · 04-19-09 5:57 am

No transitional animal fossils as you would expect. Bob, again, do we have to keep answering the same ridiculous assertions over and over? Repeating a false thing like you do over and over does not turn the falsehood into a truth. There are lots of transitional fossils. Get over it or accept the fact that you are delusional.

neal · 04-19-09 6:03 am

No transitional animal fossils as you would expect. I would encourage you to not keep making such blatantly false statements. We have been over this multiple times. A ridiculous number of times. If you want to make such silly, false statements show your evidence to talkorigins or wikipedia or .... <blockquote>I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with: 1. A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows. 2. A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals. 3. References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals. 4. Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record. If you have questions about this FAQ or want to send email to the author, click here. Contents PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS: 1. Introduction: 1. Types of transitions 2. Why are there gaps? 3. Predictions of creationism & evolution 4. What's in this FAQ 5. Timescale 2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays 3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish 4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians 5. Transitions among amphibians 6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles 7. Transitions among reptiles 8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long) 9. Transition from reptiles to first birds PART 2 has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you're particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ. 1. Overview of the Cenozoic 2. Primates 3. Bats 4. Carnivores 5. Rodents 6. Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares) 7. Condylarths (first hoofed animals) 8. Cetaceans (whales & dolphins) 9. Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs) 10. Elephants 11. Sirenians (dugongs & manatees) 12. Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.) 13. Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups 14. Conclusion: * A bit of historical background * The major features of the fossil record * Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best? * The main point. 15. References</blockquote> <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target=_top>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml</a>

neal · 04-19-09 7:22 am

Bob when pressed about scientific evidence for the Biblical God you have been falling back on the "But God is transcendent!" excuse. So, is God transcendent or omnipresent? The following is a logical argument with a logically true conclusion. Its from my favorite (he's at CU) astronomer/philosopher Victor Stenger. He is a Boulder resident and author of GOD: The Failed Hypothesis. Here is the argument: A Transcendent Being Cannot Be Omnipresent <blockquote>1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time). 2. If God exists, he is omnipresent. 3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space. 4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space. 5. Hence it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent. 6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist. page 33</blockquote>

neal · 04-19-09 7:28 am

unless you, Neal, are snowbound and have the time. John We have been snowbound since Friday morning. The snow line was right at our elevation so had some rain mixed in but still got about 20 inches of sloppy spring snow. They closed I-70 from here in Golden all the way to Vail which is about 80 miles west. We live a few hundred yards from the base of the foothills where they got 3-4 feet since Thursday afternoon. The temp was 76 on Wednesday and will be back in the 70's by Tuesday with a couple days of 30 and a couple feet of snow thrown in between. Ah, springtime in the Rockies!

neal · 04-19-09 8:14 am

Here is the Lehigh University Biology Department's "Behe Disclaimer". <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0> <blockquote>Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm" target=_top>http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm</a>

bob_2 · 04-19-09 8:32 am

All other posters, there it is concise what a true atheist believes. Laid out clearly for you to see. Good material to review when approaching an atheist/evolutionist to discuss the matter.

neal · 04-19-09 8:45 am

there it is concise what a true atheist believes. If you are referring to the "Behe Disclaimer" it would be what a true SCIENTIST believes, contrary to your claims otherwise. ID is not scientific. They have no scientific hypothesis, no tests, no nothing. Biblical creationism is not even discussed much anymore outside some fundamentalist churches like my old church. You may as well wear a sign around your neck admitting that you are a deluded fanatic and denier of reality. Again, give us an example of some observable phenomena that does not have a plausible natural explanation.

neal · 04-19-09 8:47 am

What say ye about all the transitional fossil evidence from talkorigins?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 04-18-09 6:53 pm

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#27 04-19-09 4:25 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#28 04-19-09 4:39 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#29 04-19-09 4:51 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#30 04-19-09 4:55 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#31 04-19-09 4:58 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#32 04-19-09 5:14 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#33 04-19-09 5:14 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#34 04-19-09 5:18 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#35 04-19-09 5:24 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#36 04-19-09 5:26 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#37 04-19-09 5:29 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#38 04-19-09 5:40 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#39 04-19-09 5:43 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#40 04-19-09 5:49 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#41 04-19-09 5:50 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#42 04-19-09 5:54 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#43 04-19-09 5:57 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#44 04-19-09 6:03 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#45 04-19-09 7:22 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#46 04-19-09 7:28 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#47 04-19-09 8:14 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#48 04-19-09 8:32 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#49 04-19-09 8:45 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

#50 04-19-09 8:47 am

Re: The Universe...created for life? or .....

Board footer