Sand Castles and Science

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Hello and welcome to another installment in my favorite forum. Hope I have it right this time Mods. If not please forgive and move as you must.

Sand castles never occur by chance. I was born in Missouri, the show me stste. As in don't tell me. Show me.
God has shown me many things that science can't duplicate. I don't even believe it ever will. I can't think of even one occurance where science has made a sand castle.Why ? Because science with out man is nothing. Man witrhout God is nothing. God created man and man thru God creates sand castles. How can some one argue this basic point ?

I'm sure their are those who will. I'll try to refrain for at least a page or two if this little G.O.D. experiment gets moving thru a page or more.

I believe in a creator because it's truely the only thing that makes the most sense.

Randyvious
edit on 2-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I'll keep this as simple as possible.

Life as we know it, did not pop into existence in it's current form. Through gradual change, we have become what we are. The analogy of a sandcastle is flawed I think.

If you are familiar with Richard Dawkins, think of his 'Methinks it is like a weasel' experiment. To try to counter the "this is too complex to have just evolved...it HAD to have been designed" argument. In this video, he tries to get the computer to type a certain phrase by altering random characters at random. He starts with, for example, "uadfslakhadkjahsdkjagslfhdgasldfhgaslha" and calculates how many "generation" it takes to form that word. This is also similar to the "will a room full of monkeys and typewriters ever pen Shakespeare?"

www.youtube.com...

(EDIT: The linked video is not FROM Dawkins, but it is the same experiement. If this is of interest to you, I would suggest his books "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mt. Improbable"
edit on 2-2-2012 by Daemonicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Ah, the ol' watch on a beach argument in a different form.

Science explains things, it's doesn't "create" things (although the knowledge if science can lead to creation). It is a method of understanding and subsequent application.

The idea that there must be a conscious intelligent "creator" is equally faulty. Just because humans are aware of the concept of things being created, and things having a definite beginning and end, does not mean that there is a creator for everything or that everything has a beginning or an end.

"God" could just as well be the universe, a fully functioning entity unto itself--that is not aware of itself and certainly does not consciously "create." Therein lies the fundamental (and somewhat self-centered) problem, that there must be a human-esque "being" like us. It's just a convenient way to explain the unexplainable, which does not make it any more accurate.

Additionally, the idea of a "creator" is no more probable than the idea of chance, or that everything has always existed.

Of course, if you see the many wonders in nature, many of them were not "designed" per se, in themselves, they came about through various factors over time; one who did not understand something could easily say something caused it to directly be there (and this has happened in the past: attributing a creator to the unexplainable, a convenient explanation). A sandcastle is obviously different, but there are sand structures that could be seen as a sand castle and were due to the effects of nature and time. Just because we know a sandcastle is manmade doesn't mean a sandcastle can't-or hasn't-been made "naturally," because we haven't seen everything.

Who's to say science doesn't explain god in a way that mathematical, that god IS the laws and theories of science, even the ones we don't know?

Why must we make him "like us?" To understand him?

ETA:

I am not an atheist.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
These are meatless assertions, not points.

I'm not going to 'debate' in this topic. The argument of complexity(both in life and the universe), has grown very stale, there's nothing new on the creationists side there, and there never was anything convincing to start with. No brain food for me, so I won't involve. Others can explain that.

However, I'm posting just so i can show you; A picture of a Naturally formed sand castle.



~
Enjoy your discussion.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
If evolution and survival of the fittest were true then we would have fish that developed detachable jaws or fish that could eat fishhooks. We would have prey and predators that both would be able to move at near light speed through slower ones constantly dieing.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


Thank you xx. As I see it you pic only serves the purpose of this thread. IMO of course.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Sand castles never occur by chance.

What if I step in a hole, fall down into a pile of sand, and then at that moment decide to build a sand castle. Would that make it chance since it would have never happened unless I tripped? Does a Beaver dam occur by chance? Does a squirrel burying a nut that later grows into a tree by chance? The sand on the beach? I'm just curious how you define "chance". Did you maybe mean natural occurrence? One could say that everything to ever happen is by chance. It's really just cause and effect. Humans are just smart enough to realize its going on.


God has shown me many things that science can't duplicate.

For example?


Man witrhout God is nothing. God created man and man thru God creates sand castles. How can some one argue this basic point ?

By simply saying there's no evidence to back that up.


Originally posted by randyvs
I believe in a creator because it's truely the only thing that makes the most sense.

Right on. I don't share the belief, but you're certainly welcome to it.

Science is not a conscious entity. It doesn't create things. It is the knowledge of how things work and how we can use it to benefit us. WE create things. WE use science. Give us a little credit here.

To validate your sand castle theory, give me one example of a human ever creating a planet or a star or a tree or a bird or anything in nature. Heck I'll give you anything in the entire universe that isn't exclusively known to be manufactured (not created from scratch mind you) by humans. I don't follow the logic

This thread should really be called Sand Castles and Philosophy.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshF
If evolution and survival of the fittest were true then we would have fish that developed detachable jaws or fish that could eat fishhooks. We would have prey and predators that both would be able to move at near light speed through slower ones constantly dieing.


You've never seen a fish eat a fish hook? You need to go fishing more often!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 


Thank you xx. As I see it you pic only serves the purpose of this thread. IMO of course.



Did god make that one or science? Im confused.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





For example?


Myself for the first one. You for the second.




You've never seen a fish eat a fish hook? You need to go fishing more often!


Good one.



Josh



Did god make that one or science? Im confused.


If our creativity is to be acredited it would be to God not science.
edit on 2-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs


For example?

Myself for the first one. You for the second.


Interesting. So god showed you yourself and then showed you me? What did he say? Describe my appearance and you'll make a believer out of me.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by JoshF
If evolution and survival of the fittest were true then we would have fish that developed detachable jaws or fish that could eat fishhooks. We would have prey and predators that both would be able to move at near light speed through slower ones constantly dieing.


You've never seen a fish eat a fish hook? You need to go fishing more often!


They may take it in their body but they do not digest it and use it as fuel.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


A good looking head with a wonderful brain. You possess freedom of choice you're around 28, well fed, ten fingers on two hands on two arms, ten toes on two feet on two legs. You love brown gravy poured over real mashed potatoes and a meatloaf comparable to moms.


In fact I just described myself at the same time.
Uh hem except I'm fifty two for one more day.
edit on 2-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshF
 



Just a simple question. Do you realize that evolution takes millions of years? Man hasn't been fishing with hooks for millions of years, so that point is moot.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by JoshF
 



Just a simple question. Do you realize that evolution takes millions of years? Man hasn't been fishing with hooks for millions of years, so that point is moot.

No it doesn't
www.livescience.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshF
 


Alright Josh. Great to see some new blood in this forum.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
What happened Barqs ? Did you become a believer ?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs
 


A good looking head with a wonderful brain. You possess freedom of choice you're around 28, well fed, ten fingers on two hands on two arms, ten toes on two feet on two legs. You love brown gravy poured over real mashed potatoes and a meatloaf comparable to moms.


In fact I just described myself at the same time.
Uh hem except I'm fifty two for one more day.


Well I have to admit I am a stud and do love meatloaf! Haha jk, but my roommate used to make some amazing meatloaf, now you've made me hungry! I was more interested in the "god showed you" part. Did he actually point this out to you or are you utilizing your own senses and attributing it to god because of how amazing it is?

I'm also interested in what your definition of chance is as indicated my response above. I'm just having fun with this philosophy stuff. It's more fun than debating science because we already know what the outcome will be with science.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshF
If evolution and survival of the fittest were true then we would have fish that developed detachable jaws or fish that could eat fishhooks. We would have prey and predators that both would be able to move at near light speed through slower ones constantly dieing.


All vertebrates are of common descent, in the real world a fish can remove the hook with his hands.
The light speed analogy is just rubbish.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
From Slug to Man -
Man the Crown of Creation - all else a reject version left behind by "Evolution" because Darwin and his followers say so - thats is funny





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join