Forum

A well-formed system aligns all variables so that anything outside an acceptable result fails loudly, so noticeably that it becomes painfully obvious something unexpected occurred outside the tolerances of the designed system.  There is gravity in a well-formed system that keeps everything operating in a well-tuned manner; so much so that if something resists that gravity, it becomes obvious.  When it operates correctly, it all flows as expected, and each variable answers a need or asks for a need to be met to maintain the system’s harmony.  What happens in a well-designed system: inconsistencies emerge naturally when viewed holistically. If we apply this to life, do we see it as something that speaks loudly as something carried forward by a bottom-up design without any purpose, a totally undirected series of occurrences that molded itself without any outside involvement at all, or something so well designed that we can spot something anomalous at a glance?

When we seek the truth about anything, we look for multiple lines of evidence that converge.  When independent facts intersect in consistent ways, our hypothesis becomes more credible.  True claims tend to coalesce; they can be integrated into a single account without contradiction, because true things do not contradict other true things. A healthy set of propositions supporting a hypothesis should also be able to fail—clearly, loudly, and publicly—so that if what we are proposing is false, that falsity becomes obvious.  If our framework cannot fail, we can become highly confident in mistaken assumptions, which is far worse than an honest error.  It is like building a calculation that always produces the answer we want; instead of exposing flaws, it rewards our bias and can lead us to ignore red flags that we have misunderstood something. When we set up experiments, we should design them to break under the pressure of counterexamples.  Claims that cannot be falsified can appear to “give an answer” every time, rather than warning us that our questions fall outside the scope of what the method can reliably test.  In that way, we can be deceived.

Another posted this in another club, I liked it.

I know this isn't about Evolution, of course. But Big Bang and Evolution always seem to be intertwined for some odd reason. (Maybe because both fly in the face of Young Earth. Not sure.) So, I am starting this thread, hoping it will be fruitful.

Very nice talk.

I have posted links from both of these guys. It is nice to see them talking.  If you don’t want to listen to chemistry spoken about by chemists, this isn’t for you.

#1 http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/visual.html In the link you will see several examples of pictures dinosaurs drawn by ancient man. How could ancient man know anything about dinosaurs if dinosaurs supposed to millions of years old? Top

Has anyone, when they tried to post, been told no?

I once asked someone about their five biggest contradictions with the Bible, and they immediately came up with five well-thought-out ones. I asked if those were his; they were things that bothered him about scripture, he said, "No, he asked AI." Now I asked for his, he gave me five, not his, so his answer was a lie; if he had any, he didn't share them. I told him that and reminded him I could ask AI to give me answers for why those were not contradictions, and AI would have given me reasons for that, too. It gives answers to the questions asked the way they are asked.If we are going to try to learn anything real, we need to critically examine the questions from several points of view, not just the one we like or favor. My wife taught debate, and her students had to be able to debate both sides of every issue. This forced them to learn all of the strengths and weaknesses of the topic from both sides. If you hold one side in contempt, it will not be the topic, but your attitude that hinders you from an honest examination of the truth about any topic.If you hold those who hold a different view from yours in contempt, you’ll learn nothing; you will live in an echo chamber. The only solace you'll enjoy is your delusion that you are in the majority because the only voices you listen to will be those who agree with you; others are less than.Sadly, a large portion of the populace worldwide would prefer to silence the voices that disagree with them, labeling them names at the first hint of disagreement, as if that wasn’t unhealthy, and accusing them of hate instead of respecting an honest disagreement from another individual.

When contemplating the universe and God, do you think it requires more faith to believe that the universe we live was created by God, or that it is here but there is no God? The point of my question is regardless of your answer the universe is here as is, so both answers must account for everything in it.   That being true both responces equally must carry the same weight making them equal in necessity explanations for everything.

Do you think cells were formed from the outside meaning an agent acted up them? Do you think we were formed from the outside meaning an agent acted upon us too?