Hello

[aileron]

I think you’d better go research how radio waves are detected.

Can you “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear” radio waves? I’m using *your *words not mine. You did not say “detected” – you said “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear”. It’s not my fault if you can’t properly word your challenge.

They are detected with our ears with the use of technology that amplifies (sound already there, only made louder) sound.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Radio waves are not sound. The energy must be converted from radio waves into sound waves by the baby monitor.

Just because we cannot see it with the naked eye does not mean it isn’t physical in form.

Is that what your challenge asked, or did you ask me to provide a product you can’t “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear”?

You lose your challenge.

 

[Annabea]

I “think” what Theresa meant by God being “present” in your friends is not a matter of His control, but of His sharing his spirituality with them. We all, believers in God, or not, are both spiritual and physical. Spirituality is more than religion. It is looking at a sunset and believing there is nothing more beautiful to see. It is hearing a melody, or symphony and believing there is nothing more beautiful to hear. It is reading a line of poetry, or a paragraph in a book and being shaken so spiritually, you will carry that thought and feeling with you the rest of your life.

Another of my questions to you, if you acknowledge we are spirtual beings in a physical body, would be: Why are we created as both spiritual and physical beings if the spiritual is not to play a great part in what we are, in what we strive to be? Where did this spirituality come from? Can a physical being create spirituality? Or would it take a spiritual being who knows and understands what it is to be spiritual, to create it?

Many of my friends are not Christians, my best friends are agnostics and one is an atheist. I don’t see how spirituality is looking at the sunset and thinking there is nothing more beautiful. That is you looking at the sun and going thats really beautiful, thats not…a spirit? saying that for you? If i understand that correctly.
I do not acknowledge that we are spiritual beings.

 

[Annabea]

Annabea,
I suppose one can say that animals like monkeys express an emotion that one could classify as “love,” though I don’t do that since I think love expresses devotion and making choices that elevate someone else and are selfless.

I would say that your life will be “fine” without finding God, but if you want more than “fine” (which is going to be your choice always) then there are spiritual truths that will not meet objective criteria but that make life so much more than “fine”. They make life (if chosen without coercion) richly abundant regardless of status or wealth, and spiritually joyful regardless of life’s trials and disappointments.

I see that we do not agree on that. I have showed my hand, and you have showed yours.
Thanks for the comment, but sorry, no.

 

[aileron]

If you’re going to admit man-made objects, you have to include all man-made objects.

Why is that – mid-game rules change?

Also, as you should know radio waves are also produced by objects that are not man made.

Radio waves can be detected.

Detected is not the same thing as “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear” - the wording of the challenge. Nowhere in the challenge does it say “detect”. You’re just moving the goal post.

 

[josie_L]

No, you don’t know. You won’t admit it because you believe your god is love, if so why can’t animals love? Wouldn’t all animals follow god because they new nothing else? Please explain.

Who said animals can’t love (albeit they have a limited understanding of love)? Do you understand the meaning of “greater capacity”?

Yes, God is love, and we humans are created in the image of God (we were endowed with an intellect and a morality inscribed into our hearts) and given a soul. No other creature was given such a privilege apart from humans. Furthermore, when Jesus died on the cross and resurrected, he did so for humans not animals. Once we believe in Jesus (through the grace of God) and are baptised we are imparted with His righteousness, i.e., we receive the Holy Spirit. This Spirit move us towards holiness (complete obedience to God who is love) Hence, the reason I state that humans love in a greater capacity than animals. We have what they do not have.

 

[josie_L]

Scientists in no way imagine the first life came about purely by chance. What they are claiming is that an evolutionary process was at work on non-living matter.

It’s really not so much of a stretch. We see non-living things today that replicate. If they mutate, there is a mechanism for evolution to select one variant over another.

What is behind this evolutionary process if it is not chance?

 

[happilycatholic]

Can you “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear” radio waves? I’m using *your *words not mine. You did not say “detected” – you said “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear”. It’s not my fault if you can’t properly word your challenge.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Radio waves are not sound. The energy must be converted from radio waves into sound waves by the baby monitor.

Is that what your challenge asked, or did you ask me to provide a product you can’t “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear”?

You lose your challenge.

You are really getting rediculous. Here’s my rebuttal:

The range of wavelengths for electromagnetic waves–from the very long to the very short–is called the Electromagnetic Spectrum:

• Radio and TV waves are the longest usable waves, having a wavelength of 1 mile (1.5 kilometer) or more.
• Microwaves are used in telecommunication as well as for cooking food.
• Infrared waves are barely visible. They are the deep red rays you get from a heat lamp.
• Visible light waves are the radiation you can see with your eyes. Their wavelengths are in the range of 1/1000 centimeter.
• Ultraviolet rays are what give you sunburn and are used in “black lights” that make object glow.
• X-rays go through the body and are used for medical purposes.
• Gamma rays are dangerous rays coming from nuclear reactors and atomic bombs. They have the shortest wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum of about 1/10,000,000 centimeter.

I’m sorry but if it is measurable THEN IT IS DETECTABLE. And if it is detectable, THEN IT IS DETECTABLE WITH HUMAN SENSES with the use of technology or not.

Here is how they are created and detected:

When electrons move, they create a magnetic field. When electrons move back and forth or oscillate, their electric and magnetic fields change together, forming an electromagnetic wave. This oscillation can come from atoms being heated (PHYSICAL ATOMS BEING HEATED) and thus moving about rapidly or from alternating current (AC) electricity.
The opposite effect occurs when an electromagnetic wave hits matter. In such a case, it could cause atoms to vibrate (ALSO A PHYSICAL ACTION, VIBRATION) , creating heat, or it can cause electrons to oscillate, depending on the wavelength of the radiation.

This describes the results of PHYSICAL FORMS OF MATTER (**Edit for clarity: bumping into each other to create a DETECTABLE FORM OF ENERGY) detectable by the human senses with the aid of technology. Do you get that???

Let me know when you learn how to create and detect love (oh, and you can use technology any way you like), k thanks.

 

[kalt]

Why is that – mid-game rules change?

Also, as you should know radio waves are also produced by objects that are not man made.

Detected is not the same thing as “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear” - the wording of the challenge. Nowhere in the challenge does it say “detect”. You’re just moving the goal post.

Mid-game? You didn’t answer the question asked. The OP asked about things in nature, which is generally taken to mean things that occure naturally, and you mentioned a man-made object.

I’m not taking sides in this. What’s with the angry-sounding responses? What do you feel is at stake here?

 

[Annabea]

Who said animals can’t love (albeit they have a limited understanding of love)? Do you understand the meaning of “greater capacity”?

Yes, God is love, and we humans are created in the image of God (we were endowed with an intellect and a morality inscribed into our hearts) and given a soul. No other creature was given such a privilege apart from humans. Furthermore, when Jesus died on the cross and resurrected, he did so for humans not animals. Once we believe in Jesus (through the grace of God) and are baptised we are imparted with His righteousness, i.e., we receive the Holy Spirit. This Spirit move us towards holiness (complete obedience to God who is love) Hence, the reason I state that humans love in a greater capacity than animals. We have what they do not have.

I found this, perfect example.
"It depends on the species. I think it’s fairly obvious that animals such as insects do not feel love - they don’t have a complex enough brain to deal with such emotions. Many ‘higher’ animals, however, form deep attachments, including exclusive pair bonds. In group-living species, such bonds can be vital to their survival. Grey wolves are a good example - they frequently show affection towards each other, and have been observed to mourn when a member of the pack dies (they cease play for around 6 weeks, and howl often as though calling to the missing individual). They mate for life, and if one of the pair dies, occasionally the other may be so distressed that it stops eating until it too dies. This behaviour can also be seen in their descendants, domestic dogs - I’m sure everyone’s heard of cases where a dog whose owner has died has pined away itself. Indeed, anyone who’s ever had a pet dog or cat will know that these animals love their human family members.

Anyone who claims that no animals have emotions of any kind has obviously never spent much time around them, or even observed them closely. Emotions are important for survival. When a zebra runs from a lion, that’s fear - fear is an emotion. Without it, the zebra would simply stand there and get eaten. A mother animal defending her young clearly has feelings for those young. There is an obvious hatred between certain animals, such as lions and hyenas - they often attack each other on sight, or seek out and kill each other’s young, which is clearly not a simple case of fighting over food. It is both ridiculous and incredibly arrogant to suggest that human beings are the only species of all the millions on this planet in which emotions, including love, have evolved."~ Some dude answering a question on yahoo.

I do understand “greater capacity” I think they have just as much “capacity” as you use it, as us.

 

[kalt]

First off: Thank you! You worded it correctly! Most people say “Can you prove that god doesn’t exist?” I thank that you mention all gods, such as Zeus and Odin, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I cannot prove that their isn’t a god, other than show all the evidence that you have heard again and again that is already stacked against. My first question is: Can you prove that there is a god, a higher power?
How do I explain the universe? We do not have the technology to do much with space yet. So I simply say that it is unknown. We are but humble humans on a humble planet in the middle of an (there isn’t a word for how big it is) immeasurable universe. We are most likely not the only planet that can sustain life (out of our solar system). Though it is probably uncommon. But we do not know.

Didn’t we already disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Annabea]

Didn’t we already disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I didn’t see it, would you please show me the evidence, disprove the invisible pink unicorn also.

 

[aileron]

What is behind this evolutionary process if it is not chance?

I’ll not delve into the loose wording “chance” here, but suffice it to say I don’t accept the word. With that provision, I’ll use it here.

The chance the staw man argument in the book is making is not going to happen. The changes are just too low.

The chance in the scientific hypothesis is that the chance is much, much better, so it could reasonably happen by naturalistic means.

 

[kalt]

Can you “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear” radio waves? I’m using *your *words not mine. You did not say “detected” – you said “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear”. It’s not my fault if you can’t properly word your challenge.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Radio waves are not sound. The energy must be converted from radio waves into sound waves by the baby monitor.

Is that what your challenge asked, or did you ask me to provide a product you can’t “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear”?

You lose your challenge.

You seem to have a problem with the word “detect”.

I detect light. I detect sound.

Of course if my ears don’t convert the waves correctly, there may be no sound detected. If my eyes don’t do the conversion, there may no light detected.

My eyes and ears convert information so it’s useable (detectable) by our brains. Someone’s brain may be perfectly functioning, but if the eyes and ears don’t work properly, the brain can’t detect the light and sound. The eyes may be perfectly healthy, but if the part of the brain that controls sight is damaged, it can’t process (detect) images (light).

Shining light directly on the brain doesn’t produce detectable light. Talking to a brain doesn’t produce detectable sound.

What’s your problem with “detect”, anyway? And why do you think it means you’ve met the challenge?

 

[happilycatholic]

Again here is the challenge:

Name one thing that I can see, feel, taste, smell, or hear that produces something I cannot see, feel, taste, smell or hear.

Electromagnetic waves can be detected. They are not “matter” but they are detectable with human senses. We can measure them and define them extensively in fact. We know where they come from and even how to create them.

We cannot create love because we’ve yet to find its source or just how to detect it. When we “love” it cannot be measured or detected.

I’m sorry but electromagnetic waves of any kind do not come close.

 

[josie_L]

I’ll not delve into the loose wording “chance” here, but suffice it to say I don’t accept the word. With that provision, I’ll use it here.

The chance the staw man argument in the book is making is not going to happen. The changes are just too low.

The chance in the scientific hypothesis is that the chance is much, much better, so it could reasonably happen by naturalistic means.

Sorry, but it’s the same chance they are refering to. Have you read the book? And the probability of it being God is just as reasonable. Something intelligent is behind the evolutionary process.

 

[happilycatholic]

Why is that – mid-game rules change?

Also, as you should know radio waves are also produced by objects that are not man made.

Detected is not the same thing as “see, feel, taste, smell, or hear” - the wording of the challenge. Nowhere in the challenge does it say “detect”. You’re just moving the goal post.

This is he definition of detect:

“discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of”

Please, please tell me how to do this without using human senses. Even if I use some device to measure it, it’s there TO measure. All I am doing is using a device to allow me to discover or determine the existence, presence or fact of the thing I am measuring.

It doesn’t matter whether is nature or man-made. You cannot produce something I cannot “detect” with my senses. Period.

If it is measurable, it is detectable because first we have to detect it to measure it. If it’s detectable, it exists with proof. Love is the opposite of that.

You cannot detect love. It is not measurable. You cannot create it or destroy it the way you can electromagnetic waves, such as your example with radio waves.

You haven’t come close. You example is detectable with human senses, if it weren’t we wouldn’t be talking about it would we???

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t see it, would you please show me the evidence, disprove the invisible pink unicorn also.

I saw a pink unicorn yesterday.

 

[mrhenrik]

What is behind this evolutionary process if it is not chance?

Evolution is not about chance. There is a very little chance, perhaps, that we would end up as we are now, but evolution is not chance, it’s simply survival of the fittest.

I suspect though that you’re mixing up evolution with abiogenesis.

 

[Annabea]

I saw a pink unicorn yesterday.

you are surely the chosen one!

 

[mrhenrik]

This is he definition of detect:

“discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of”

Please, please tell me how to do this without using human senses. Even if I use some device to measure it, it’s there TO measure. All I am doing is using a device to allow me to discover or determine the existence, presence or fact of the thing I am measuring.

It doesn’t matter whether is nature or man-made. You cannot produce something I cannot “detect” with my senses. Period.

If it is measurable, it is detectable because first we have to detect it to measure it. If it’s detectable, it exists with proof. Love is the opposite of that.

You cannot detect love. It is not measurable. You cannot create it or destroy it the way you can electromagnetic waves, such as your example with radio waves.

You haven’t come close. You example is detectable with human senses, if it weren’t we wouldn’t be talking about it would we???

It would appear you’re contradicting yourself here. You say that “you cannot produe something I cannot ‘detect’ with my senses”, but you also state that you would’ve used a device to detect radio waves, not your senses.

Centuries ago, radio waves wouldn’t be detectable since we didn’t have that device, but that doesn’t mean that radio waves did not exist back then. Likewise, love might be something we don’t currently have the devices to detect, but at a later point we probably will have.