Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tesla Challenge
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 2 (450278)
01-21-2008 1:24 PM


In another thread Tesla was caught off topic and a response I had posted I subsequently removed.The matter concerned something posted by GDR concerning one John Polkinghorne located here
http://www.polkinghorne.net/action.html
After I had removed my post due to agreeing with AdminNosy that it
wasoff topic tesla got somewhat put out and posted this.
i was just saying what the scientist pastor said, in a different format. his opinion mirrors mine in that sense, but was said in a different way.
I've said already what i can say on his work. i leave the rest for your debates then.
i find it odd that my opinions would be considered irrelevant in any debate. especially when you agree to disagree, yet don't point out what flaws you did find. but instead just say i don't know what i am saying. i know what i have said. why do you crucify me because you don't understand it?
you can crucify my words, but Christ will not be crucified twice.
i have observed the truth, and its not easy to cope with truth is it? can you debate the laws i gave to you? as i do by obedience, bring to you?
i will pray for you all. let your arguments with the truth be with yourselves, for i have given what was told of me to give. and it is now yours to understand or not.
when you walk by a murder, you can look the other way. and tell yourself it wasn't real. but if it was real, it will come back to haunt you eventually. that is the way truth is.
i will pray for you, and for the work of the word. you can ban me, but you cannot ban the truth. God be with you, all of you. the will of the lord be done. so be it.
Despite the pandering to religious sentimentalities which had nothing to do with the post he placed here I thought I would open up a new thread to give him a chance to view the errors I found.First this is the post I responded to GDR's OP in the other thread.
sidelined writes:
GDR
Well in perusing the arguements we really do not come across anything mind boggling to begin with as he summerizes his first 21 paragraphs thus.
In summary, what I'm saying is that the physical world seems shot through with signs of mind and to me, indeed it is a Mind, spelled with a capital 'M.' I don't present that as a knock-down argument, for there are no knock-down arguments in this area of discourse. But I do present it as a deeply satisfying insight which supports the idea of a world upheld by the will of God.
It is deeply satisfying to have a viewpoint that arrives at the upholding of the world by the will of God by premises that only seem to show a sign of mind in operation?
It is not even close to a knock down arguement for a specific reason.
God is not really explained in any manner as to what John Polkinghorne
considers God to actually be. Time and again this is the problem that people such as John refuse to face. Not just that the evidence is weak but that the conclusion {God}is maintained in a level of belief far out of sync with the claims being perpetrated.
Then we come to the second part of his arguement.
We've come to realize that that amazing evolution of complexity from simplicity wouldn't happen in just 'any old world.' As far as we can figure it out, it's only possible in a world that is extremely finely-tuned in its given scientific law and circumstance.
Fine-tuning has been shown to be very weak in its presumptions and I am surprised that Mr Polkinghorne would not point out these weaknesses as he should do. The following is an example of the arguements brought forth concerning the fine-tuning hypothesis
The Fine-Tuning Argument Revisited » Internet Infidels
Next we have John imagining that God has given us the controls of his universe making machine and that we had access to the knobs and such that allowed us to change parameters of the cosmos.
Now, our understanding is this: unless you had adjusted those knobs very, very carefully, to settings very close to the settings specifying the actual universe in which we live, the world which you decided to create would be extremely boring in its history. In particular, it would not produce anything like such interesting consequences as you and me. It is not just any old world which is capable of producing men and women -- a scientific insight which I'm sure you know is called the Anthropic Principle.
So here we come upon a difficulty that is raised by the very principle that John is using to explain the Fine-tuning here.
Why has it not occurred to him that in us being limited to being able to choose only certain parameters to allow for the universe to unfold the way it has {as demonstrated with God's universe making machine} we must also in the same breath say that God is also limited in choice?
In other words this arguement is saying that God works within limits as well.
Now if God works within limits as well then what is the greater thing that is forcing God to do so?
Is this really where you want to take the discussion of God GDR?
Tesla's reply
sidelined writes:
In other words this arguement is saying that God works within limits as well.
i find this interesting. but what i see him doing is just pointing out the obvious, but not understanding how better to say it.
the limitations are set by conditions.
that energy is subject to the condition that it exists. but that the conditions are so perfect and complex in its perfect exchange with other energies that its arrogant and naive to believe that it could be possible without direction.
that's my take.
Then my reply
sidelined writes:
Could you possibly give an example to illustrate what you are asserting?
Perhaps you mean something like the balance of energies that work to produce snowflakes with always exactly 6 sides? Is it of this kind?
Now we get to the part that truly went off topic and thus we have this response to contend with.
tesla writes:
partly yes. a good example in conditions of energy is water.
ie: in all appearances, when something is too hot it becomes liquid which is lighter than its solid form. and a solid of the same substance will sink to the bottom, being cooler on the bottom.
but in water, its solid form floats. which all the life in the oceans would die if it didn't. i'm not aware of any other element that is lighter than its solid form when in its liquid form. but that is the condition of water.
the balance of the earth of its location to its proximity to our sun, and the suns energy bursts being shielded, and the moons existence at the right distance to balance out the plates of the earth and control tides is another condition of greater energies that must be in careful balance.
the balance of gravity being not to weak, or not too strong, so that everything doesn't directly swallow what is in proximity, but rather flows like a bubble around a drain is another careful balance.
if these balanced energies did not behave inside there conditions perfectly complimenting the others, our life would not be able to be on this planet.
like the G force that holds atoms together, being a big one, because without that, no shape of anything would be possible.
do you understand these? and how very delicate the balances are?
i hope so, but that is the problem with pointing out the obvious as this man is attempting to do..we have all seen it from birth, and take for granted this is just the way it is, and record it in science what we understand. but its perfection is taken for granted.
________________________________________________________________________
So on to the task at hand of replying once again to tesla
but in water, its solid form floats. which all the life in the oceans would die if it didn't. i'm not aware of any other element that is lighter than its solid form when in its liquid form. but that is the condition of water.
First off I will admit that I am not aware of a similar liquid with those properties. However since the reason for the ice being able to float in its own liquid form is due solely to the hydrogen bonds in water that alter upon a drop in temperature and thus increase the volume and thus lessen the density {mass per unit volume} it is simply a matter of the physics of elemental hydrogen.
the balance of the earth of its location to its proximity to our sun, and the suns energy bursts being shielded, and the moons existence at the right distance to balance out the plates of the earth and control tides is another condition of greater energies that must be in careful balance.
Not in the least since these locations are variable to a degree. We can move towards the sun or away from it within a 20 percent range and still have conditions suitable for life dependent upon liquid water.
That does not mean that water is absolutely necessary though.
The moon is responsible for the tides and it has varied in its distance to earth over the eons and continues to move away at 3.8 meters per century.The tides themselves are dependent upon an imbalance produced as a result of the earth moon barycenter, the location 1700 kilometers within the earth around which the earth and moon rotate.
These forces automatically balance out over time and indeed the moon has very nearly become tidally locked to the earth and this is why it shows only 59% of its surface over the course of its orbit since it is rotating on its axis in sync with its elliptical orbit around earth.
the balance of gravity being not to weak, or not too strong, so that everything doesn't directly swallow what is in proximity, but rather flows like a bubble around a drain is another careful balance.
The reason that gravity doesn't swallow what is in its proximity is because the gravitational force is balanced by the inertial straight line path that the planets would occupy without the mass of the sun that produces gravity. The orbits of the planets occur because of this balance between a planets tendency to continue in a straight line{hence Newton's first law of motion}. The balance is simply the outcome in the interaction of the forces present the net force resulting in the orbit of bodies around their parent star {or planet}.
if these balanced energies did not behave inside there conditions perfectly complimenting the others, our life would not be able to be on this planet.
like the G force that holds atoms together, being a big one, because without that, no shape of anything would be possible.
The forces haveto achieve some kind of balance simply by interacting. Life need not be only capable of existence upon our planet though. Other chemistry may exist in which life forms just not our kind of life.
Now I need to point out a huge misunderstanding on your part here.
If by the G force you mean gravity{I believe you do} then you are dead wrong since gravity does not hold atoms together but rather the balance between the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus and the the electromagnetic force that controls the movement and actions of the electrons around the nucleus.
Gravity is the weakest force of all. It takes a planet the size of earth to produce a gravitational force great enough to break theelectromagnetic bonds holding an apple to its tree only after that bond has weakened significantly when the stem dries out.
do you understand these? and how very delicate the balances are?
i hope so, but that is the problem with pointing out the obvious as this man is attempting to do..we have all seen it from birth, and take for granted this is just the way it is, and record it in science what we understand. but its perfection is taken for granted.
I hate to say it but you seriously need to go back to the obvious drawing board and take another whack at things.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (450283)
01-21-2008 1:45 PM


Thread copied to the The Tesla Challenge thread in the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024