Real Science Friday: Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

[Granite]

Granite, If you really want to find out, call his show. He is on at 3pm in Colorado and his phone can be reached at 1 800 836-9278.

I know the number, Tom. Thanks.

Pick a science topic and challenge him.

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

 

[Frayed Knot]

Your brain is a physical organ. But your ability to reason is not part of your brain. You reason with your MIND. Your mind is not physical.

Again, the mind is what the brain does. In the computer example, the "ability to perform arithmetic" is not physical, it's an abstraction. But it depends on a physical thing, the computer, to make it happen.

I can tell my brain to send a signal to my finger to type five ttttt's. My brain just did what I told it to do. But my physical brain did not tell my physical brain to do that.

Sure, it did. What else would have triggered it? The only thing in your head is physical stuff, and we understand how that physical stuff works. It's immensely complex, and no one yet has a good picture of how all those interconnections firing gives you the sense of having a self, but there is no indication that there is anything else other than physics and chemistry going on.

I think it's very relevant. If you are trying to show an equivalency between an inanimate computer and a living reasoning being...

That's where the goal posts got moved. You had attempted to show a disconnect between physicality (the brain) and an abstraction layer (thinking), but I showed that those don't have to be disconnected. You then switched subjects and started talking about whether a computer can be self-aware.

[A computer] can reach correct calculations but it can't possibly "KNOW" that the calculations are true.

Not yet, but our computers are much much much simpler than the brain. Someday I think computers will be self-aware and "KNOW" that their calculations are true. It's not really a question of possibility, it's a question of whether human technology will still be around by the time we're able to put things together at that level of complexity.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2725534]I'm afraid he's been taken in on a very simple scam. The creationist who got the rocks made sure there were phenocrysts (unmelted rock particles) in them. These ancient bits of rock will always give a very old age, even when the are found in fresh lava flows.

The lab warned him that their particular set-up would not give an accurate reading with such things, and that they could not accurately detect amounts in rock less than 2,000,000 years old. The fact is, very young samples can be contaminated by "memory effect" caused by extremely tiny amounts of material remaining from previous samples. Austin insisted that they do the test anyway, and then professed surprise when he got an absurd result.

Whole Rock and Mineral/Glass 'Fractions' from the Dacite
K-Ar 'Date' in millions of years
Whole Rock 0.35 +/- 0.05
Pyroxenes 2.8 +/- 0.6
Pyroxenes, etc. 1.7 +/- 0.3
Amphiboles, etc. 0.9 +/- 0.2
Feldspars, glass, etc. ('Tedder' sample) 0.34 +/- 0.06

Notice only one of the fractions has an age as old as the limit of accuracy of the equipment. Austin was either completely ignorant of the way it works, or he was deliberately attempting a deception.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Here's a photo of the material showing phenocrysts:

Technically, it's called "evidence." They took you for a ride, Bob.



Indeed. In fact, there is no way to directly date fossils. Only some kinds of igneous rock can be directly dated. Fossils are dated by their positions in deposits between ingneous rocks of known age.


Scablands: cover thousands of square miles of eastern Washington and against fierce geologists claims of slow formation over millions of years, there is now overwhelming evidence as presented even in a NOVA TV show that the Scablands formed rapidly from catastrophic, regional flooding.

That was discovered in the 1920s.



Perhaps you've been misled. Even the strict gradualists knew there were examples of rapid change. It's just uncommon.

If there's any other of those shotgunned examples you want me to debunk, name a half-dozen, and we'll get started.

Barbarian, would you like to be on one of Bob's Real Science Friday's with him and Fred Williams. You can debate this very subject and show him where he is being taken for a ride. I can set it up for you.

Tom

 

[some other dude]

I'd tune in for that. :thumb:

 

[voltaire]

There are no non-scriptural miracles listed in my claim.

Let's take a look...

Nonscriptural miracle asserted:
Quote:
Potassium 39 and 41 would be the only ones that God placed in the original crust on day 3.
Unless your Bible is very different than mine, that's not Biblical at all.


The bible does not say God place Potassium 39 and 41 in the crust on day 3 explicitly. I have already been over this with you. Why be deceptive in your response? I said the miracle was the seperation of dry land. My specific claim about potassium is a possibility that could have occurred as part of that miracle.

Quote:
I am merely stating what scripture says happened on day 3 of creation.
Can't find anything on sorting of radioactive isotopes. Where is that verse?


The is no verse stating isotopes were seperated. I have been over this with you before. Why be intentionally deceptive? The verse is the one that tells what happened on day 3 of creation.

Quote:
He seperated dry land from the water and gathered it into one place.
Sorry. Doesn't say what you claimed.


Oh really? 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.




Quote:
You say this did not happen in one day but happened over roughly one billion years and by purely natural means with no input from God whatsover.
Nature is His tool. If he took His attention from it, it would not even exist.


Nature is his tool is a non sensical phrase only having meaning to you and others who have the same viewpoint. If God took his attention away from HIS CREATION (not nature) it would vanish indeed. He is the one that sustains it with his power. He is not a mere bystander that watches it progress while he gets up from the couch and goes to the fridge to grab a beer.

Quote:
Scripture does not say how God accomplished this seperation.
So why not just accept that He did it the way the evidence shows He did it?


Because the evidence does not show God did it that way.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, would you like to be on one of Bob's Real Science Friday's with him and Fred Williams. You can debate this very subject and show him where he is being taken for a ride. I can set it up for you.

Bob and I often talk here. I like that just fine. It makes me nervous arguing with the guy who controls the microphone. If he wants to debate that here in front of everyone, by all means, ask him to drop in.

Not saying Bob or Fred (both of whom I rather like as people) would do it, but a common creationist game is the "Gish gallop" where they fire out as many objections as possible, and claim victory for any that the scientist doesn't have time to debunk.

On a message board, as you can see, that doesn't work. One can pick specious claims apart at leisure.

 

[voltaire]

To summarize your deception and dishonesty barbarian, I will say the following: When a miracle is not specific about all of the details involved, it is dishonest to say I am claiming an unscriptural miracle when i discuss some of the possibilities of those details. I would be unscriptural if i were to insist that the potassium claim was indeed true and a necessary interpretation of scripture. I , however, did not make any such claim. I am only giving possibilities to how some of he details worked out in the miracle of day 3 of creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nonscriptural miracle asserted:

Potassium 39 and 41 would be the only ones that God placed in the original crust on day 3.

Barbarian observes:
Unless your Bible is very different than mine, that's not Biblical at all.
Show me that verse.

The bible does not say God place Potassium 39 and 41 in the crust on day 3 explicitly.

In fact, it doesn't even hint at it. Nothing at all about elements or radioactive isotopes at all. You just added that to make His word more acceptable to you.

I have already been over this with you.

Repeating it won't make it work any better. Making up new miracles to cover for problems in your ideas is a bad practice.

Why be deceptive in your response?

Just pointing out the fact. God doesn't speak of this at all. You just added it.

I said the miracle was the seperation of dry land. My specific claim about potassium is a possibility that could have occurred as part of that miracle.

But of course, with God all things are possible, so by your logic, we can imagine anything happened, and declare that God said so.

Barbarian asks:
Can't find anything on sorting of radioactive isotopes. Where is that verse?

The is no verse stating isotopes were seperated.

Is there one hinting at it? Show us.

You say this did not happen in one day but happened over roughly one billion years and by purely natural means with no input from God whatsover.

Barbarian observes:
Nature is His tool. If he took His attention from it, it would not even exist.

Nature is his tool is a non sensical phrase only having meaning to you and others who have the same viewpoint.

For example, He used nature to make you, did He not?

If God took his attention away from HIS CREATION (not nature) it would vanish indeed.

You misunderstand. Nature is His creation as much as anything else.

He is the one that sustains it with his power. He is not a mere bystander that watches it progress while he gets up from the couch and goes to the fridge to grab a beer.

Pleased to hear you admit it.

Barbarian suggests:
Scripture does not say how God accomplished this seperation.
So why not just accept that He did it the way the evidence shows He did it?

Because the evidence does not show God did it that way.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2725602]Bob and I often talk here. I like that just fine. It makes me nervous arguing with the guy who controls the microphone. If he wants to debate that here in front of everyone, by all means, ask him to drop in.

Not saying Bob or Fred (both of whom I rather like as people) would do it, but a common creationist game is the "Gish gallop" where they fire out as many objections as possible, and claim victory for any that the scientist doesn't have time to debunk.

On a message board, as you can see, that doesn't work. One can pick specious claims apart at leisure.

I just got off the phone with Bob. He said he would love to have you come on. And I can attest that Bob loves a good give and take debate. I've have never heard him Gish gallop anyone. He is very clever though at being able to show a person where a false worldview will end up if carried to a conslusion: absurdity.

I will tell Bob. He's has many irons in the fire and probably won't be able to debate you here. But who knows.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Granite;2725557]I know the number, Tom. Thanks.
What does that have to do with the question I asked?

Granite, You asked if Bob thinks he's smarter than the scientists he picks on. I don't think Barbarian or I or any other person on ToL can answer that. How would anyone but Bob himself know that? So I simply suggested that you call him and find out. Pick a scientist and ask Bob if he thinks he's smarter than Christopher Hitchens for example. Then you will have your answer.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

Again, the mind is what the brain does. In the computer example, the "ability to perform arithmetic" is not physical, it's an abstraction. But it depends on a physical thing, the computer, to make it happen.

Sure, it did. What else would have triggered it? The only thing in your head is physical stuff, and we understand how that physical stuff works. It's immensely complex, and no one yet has a good picture of how all those interconnections firing gives you the sense of having a self, but there is no indication that there is anything else other than physics and chemistry going on.

That's where the goal posts got moved. You had attempted to show a disconnect between physicality (the brain) and an abstraction layer (thinking), but I showed that those don't have to be disconnected. You then switched subjects and started talking about whether a computer can be self-aware.

I did not move the goal posts. I am doing all in my power to show you that there is no equivalence between a computer and your ability to reason.

Not yet, but our computers are much much much simpler than the brain. Someday I think computers will be self-aware and "KNOW" that their calculations are true. It's not really a question of possibility, it's a question of whether human technology will still be around by the time we're able to put things together at that level of complexity.

For computers to know anything, they would first have to be alive. Please post back and tell that you don't believe that computers will ever become self-aware. Please! This is getting too Star Trekish for me.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=voltaire;2725604]To summarize your deception and dishonesty barbarian, I will say the following: When a miracle is not specific about all of the details involved, it is dishonest to say I am claiming an unscriptural miracle when i discuss some of the possibilities of those details. I would be unscriptural if i were to insist that the potassium claim was indeed true and a necessary interpretation of scripture. I , however, did not make any such claim. I am only giving possibilities to how some of he details worked out in the miracle of day 3 of creation.

voltaire,

Please realize that Barbarian does not believe in a worldwide flood. All who deny the worldwide flood are forced to be uniformitarianists, i.e. processes in the past are the same as they are today or the present is the key to understanding the past. But we Christians who do a literal reading of Genesis, with no interpretations to fit our worldview, believe just the opposite--the past is the key to the present.

Barbarian and I can go to the Grand Canyon and observe the same strata. His worldview forces him to conclude that the strata was laid down over millions of years (uniformitarianism). I will conclude that the strata was laid down by a worldwide flood.

Barbarian will accuse me of reinterpreting Genesis if I read it literally. Go figure on that. Then after all this, Barbarian will argue with me that science is neutral and gives us truth. But he has yet to explain how science can give us truth without scientists to intrpret the science. An evolutionary scientist will interpret any scientific evidence through his worldview. A creationist scientist will interpret the evidence through his worldview. Both will come to different conclusions. So it comes down to which scientist has a rational worldview. An irrational worldview will force you to come to false conslusions.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

I just got off the phone with Bob. He said he would love to have you come on.

I appreciate the offer, but no. I like having a few moments to reflect before I make a statement. Often, I go get an iced tea and think it over before responding. And if I'm not sure, I go look it up.

My habit is to document frequently, and I don't carry that in my head, even if I know where to find it.

And I can attest that Bob loves a good give and take debate.

I've talked with him here. He's been a gentleman and a very decent debator. BTW, Fred and I used to go at each other hammer and tongs, but we're through that, I think. He is also a gentleman.

I've have never heard him Gish gallop anyone. He is very clever though at being able to show a person where a false worldview will end up if carried to a conslusion: absurdity.

I have no doubt that he's a better speaker than I am, and better on his feet. So again, I'll have to decline.

I will tell Bob. He's has many irons in the fire and probably won't be able to debate you here. But who knows.

I've enjoyed our arguments here; he is obviously intelligent and capable of presenting his case very well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Please realize that Barbarian does not believe in a worldwide flood.

Don't have much choice. The Bible doesn't say there was one.

All who deny the worldwide flood are forced to be uniformitarianists, i.e. processes in the past are the same as they are today or the present is the key to understanding the past.

That's not quite what it means. It means the rules that govern nature have been the same since the beginning. So the Earth, and the processes affecting it could have been different in the past, although governed by the same rules.

But we Christians who do a literal reading of Genesis, with no interpretations to fit our worldview, believe just the opposite--the past is the key to the present.

If you had a literal understanding of Genesis, you wouldn't covert "land" to "the whole world."

Barbarian and I can go to the Grand Canyon and observe the same strata. His worldview forces him to conclude that the strata was laid down over millions of years (uniformitarianism).

We know that, because a vertical wall of soft sediment nearly a mile high is not possible.

Nor will you find an entrenched meander cut by a sudden flood. Can't happen.

Barbarian will accuse me of reinterpreting Genesis if I read it literally.

The word (eretz) you take to mean the whole world, is used to describe the land ruled by David. If you took it literally, that's what you'd accept.

Go figure on that. Then after all this, Barbarian will argue with me that science is neutral and gives us truth.

Truth in science is always provisional on new information. But so far, it works fine.

But he has yet to explain how science can give us truth without scientists to intrpret the science.

The process does that. There is an inductive method that gives you good answers.

An evolutionary scientist will interpret any scientific evidence through his worldview.

Ah, the postmodernist again. Sorry, not buying it.

 

[The Barbarian]

To summarize your deception and dishonesty barbarian

There's no mess you can find yourself in, that you can't make worse by getting angry and making false accusations. In general, accusing people of dishonesty, when they merely disagree with you, is one sure way to make people question your own integrity. Avoid it.

I will say the following: When a miracle is not specific about all of the details involved, it is dishonest to say I am claiming an unscriptural miracle when i discuss some of the possibilities of those details.

Originally, you presented them as scriptural. Only later did you indicate them as possibilities. But there is nothing that is impossible with God, so anything goes by that standard.

I would be unscriptural if i were to insist that the potassium claim was indeed true and a necessary interpretation of scripture.

Once you start making up stories and presenting them as "possibilities", there is no limit to what you can suppose.

 

[TeeJay]

Barbarian,

You say you are neutral; yet you will argue with me that science reveals knowledge and not scientists. And then you post that Ham is unaware of his biases. Come judgment day, I would much rather be judged a post modernist than a hypocrite.

There is no neutral position. I know that you will not agree with this, but I will present the argument anyway. I know you will reject it. If you will not accept the simple truth that it is scientists and not science that tell us things, then I don't expect you to accept the following.

People falsely believe that a debate can be settled on neutral ground--a position in between evolution and creation. The neutralist believes that there is an intermediate worldview with things that both creationists and evolutionists can agree to. Once we agree on the rules of interpretation, we should then be able to come to an agreement as to which worldview is better supported by the evidence. On the surface, this certainly seems reasonable.

But such an approach is logically flawed and will not work and it is unBiblical as well. It is impossible to be neutral with respect to worldviews, and to pretend to be so is fallacious. Everyone must have an unquestionable ultimate standard that forms the basis of his worldview.

The pretended neutral position is logically flawed. The creationist and the evolutionist both have positive worldviews. Each believes that his worldview provides the correct way to interpret evidence. A third (hypothetical) "neutral" worldview will necessarily provide a different interpretation of some evidence than both the creation and evolution worldviews would; otherwise it would not be distinguishable from one of those worldviews.

If the neutral interpretation of some data is incorrect, hen why should we trust it to reliably point to either creation or evolution? Why would we trust a faulty worldview to point to a correct worldview? Alternatively, if the neutral interpretation is correct, then obviously the creation and evolution interpretations are both wrong--in which case, neither is the correct worldview.

Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which evidence is evaluated. That ultimate standard can't itself be judged by a lesser neutral standard, otherwise it would not be the ultimate standard. Clearly, a neutral position is logically flawed.

Secondly, a neutral approach is incompatible witlh the Bible. Jesus indicates that there is no neutral when it comes to an ultimate commitment. In Matthew 12:30 He says, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters", Many other verses could be listed: Rom. 8:7; James 4:4, etc.

At first glance, it may seem that this reason only applies to the Christian, since only the Christian regards the Bble as an infallible source of truth. But the nature of the claim forces the unbeliever to be non-neutral as well. Since the Bible indicates that there is no neutral ground, anyone who says that there is neutral ground is necessarily saying that the Bible is wrong. But anyone who says that the Bible is wrong is not being neutral since he has taken the position that the Bibl e is wrong. It is therefore impossible to be neutral with regard to biblical authority.

I will ask you again, Barbarian. If you died now would you go to heaven or hell? I would like you to answer. You claim to be a Catholic. So you should be able to answer this.

Tom

 

[Frayed Knot]

I did not move the goal posts. I am doing all in my power to show you that there is no equivalence between a computer and your ability to reason.

But that right there is where the goal posts got moved. The equivalence of a computer to human reason was NOT the question.

For computers to know anything, they would first have to be alive. Please post back and tell that you don't believe that computers will ever become self-aware. Please!

What exactly do you mean by "alive"?

I DO think that computers will someday be self-aware. Does that count as being "alive"? I guess that depends on your definition of the word "alive."

 

[The Barbarian]

You say you are neutral; yet you will argue with me that science reveals knowledge and not scientists.

One of the consequences of neutrality is taking things as the evidence indicates. Sorry.

And then you post that Ham is unaware of his biases.

At least he acts as though he is.

Come judgment day, I would much rather be judged a post modernist than a hypocrite.

I don't think he's a hypocrite; he just seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of objectivity.

There is no neutral position.

Science, as you know, is neutral on the supernatural. Science can't say anything at all about it. But scientists can.

I know that you will not agree with this, but I will present the argument anyway. I know you will reject it. If you will not accept the simple truth that it is scientists and not science that tell us things, then I don't expect you to accept the following.

I understand you want us to believe you. But you confuse science with scientists.

People falsely believe that a debate can be settled on neutral ground--a position in between evolution and creation.

That's pointless. There is no conflict between evolution and creation.

But such an approach is logically flawed and will not work and it is unBiblical as well.

Makes sense. YE creationism denies God's word in scripture.

I will ask you again, Barbarian. If you died now would you go to heaven or hell?

I'd probably spend some time in Purgatory first. No mortal sins on my soul, after all. But as you know, God always allows you to turn your back on Him, if you really want to. So no man knows until the end.

I would like you to answer. You claim to be a Catholic. So you should be able to answer this.

The sin of presumption is not a popular one with Catholics.

 

[Tyrathca]

How much does a "thought" weigh? Have you ever smelled a thought? Have you ever tasted one? Have you ever seen one? Thinking is not physical.

Nice dodge so let me repeat.

IS COMPUTATION OR ARITHMETIC PHYSICAL OR NOT?

You are self-aware, I hope. There are atheists who claim that they are not sure they exist. A computer does not know it exists let alone know that it is doing math. This to me is a point hardly worth arguinng. It's self-evident.

How do you know a computer doesn't "know" it exists?

But no animal has conceptional thought by which it can contemplate the abstract such as liberty, justice, nor can it use laws of logic.

False, I some several social species do have a sense of "justice" of a sort. Particularly in chimps (which have obvious similarities with us)

 

[The Barbarian]

False, I some several social species do have a sense of "justice" of a sort. Particularly in chimps (which have obvious similarities with us)

Turns out dogs have it, too:

The new study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is part of a growing body of research showing that many social animals, including dogs, wolves and marmosets, have emotions previously considered unique to humans. While biologists have long thought that mammals experience primary emotions like fear, more recent studies have found strong evidence that a range of animals also feel more nuanced, secondary emotions like a sense of fairness.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/dogenvy/