TrulyE: I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)?
Yes, and your answers will all necessarily derive from previously existing things and processes - meaning, per this thread, you must be able to explain things showing design and massive intelligence coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things. Else, you've merely "kicked the can down the road!" Connecting the dots of things is not enough - you must explain how the dots exist to begin with, and why they have the abilities they do/why they obey very strict, complex laws - with all first things immediately showing precision and order, at the root of any perceived "chaos."
Byblos: He's not asking from a scientific point of view but from a metaphysical one.
Exactly, but TrulyE doesn't seem to realize that is where the answers ultimately lie.
Firstly, I can only answer questions based on the my understanding of the words that are used. I can't answer questions based on my understanding of the mind of the person asking the question. That would require the ability to mind-melt with the person asking.
Secondly, I'm not sure if the questions were even directed towards me in the first place. Thirdly, and with all due respect, it is arrogant for anyone to place conditions
on, or suggest HOW
I should connect the dots in my response to any question. Finally, your continued chanting of creationist dogma as mantras for absolute truth, only demonstrates a new level of intellectual dishonesty and avoidance. Asking me to only answer questions in such a way to prove your own belief assertions, is deceptive, manipulative, and dishonest. And, since any answers using "design'' was off the table, so would be any "metaphysical" answer. By stating, "you must
be able to explain things showing design
and massive intelligence
coming from non-intelligent, random/blind things
", you are simply being deceptive. You have not established the truth in any of your belief assumptions. The standard of proof works both ways. Simply asserting your belief, does not automatically make your assumptions true. Simply asserting your beliefs, does not simply make the evidence against your assumptions go away. Let me explain by example.
We KNOW that the Universe is not only expanding, but is accelerating as well. In billions of years from now, it will be expanding at the speed of light. At this speed, matter loses all cohesion and will break apart. There will be nothing left but what was present in the Universe's early beginnings, where 2-dimensional space was moving faster than light. To suggest that there will be some kind of spiritual intervention, or that another reality may exist, IS A BELIEF. There is no evidence to support this belief.
Everything that we observe or detect in our universe is based in the past. This is because nothing of mass can travel faster than the speed of light(photons, which are massless). All events that happen require time(time stops, events stop). Without time, no events can happen(temporal). At least not within our 4-dimensional reality(3-spacial, and 1-time). What does this all mean? We need light to observe both mass and events, and events need time to be observed, therefore we can only see events that have already happened. In fact, we all live less than a millisecond in the future, and can only see what has already happened. This also means that many events in the future have already happened from our perspective, since light and time have been traveling for over 14.8 billions years. To suggest that overpopulation, a collision with Andromeda, or the death of our Universe may or won't happen, IS ALSO A BELIEF. Again, no evidence to support this belief.
Please understand that science is science and faith is faith. One requires evidence, the other does not. I have faith in my own personal spiritual beliefs, but I know that it is NOT
science. So I don't need to tweak any scientific understanding to justify my religious or personal beliefs. I simply need to learn BOTH. Even after many years of teaching the Bible and science, I agree with Carl Sagan in matters of science and the Universe,
“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why’s he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer
. He’s not good at design
, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business, if there was any competition.” Don