Theism Analogy: Living Rocks of Death Valley

[boatsnguitars]

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]

My argument is really to say that supposed "supernatural" claims (claims assumed to be true for the sake of argument) need not derive from a supposed "supernature" source if natural answers can explain the same claims.

This is semantic dickering.

No. It is necessary since one can assume the truth of a hearsay event without having to resort to unnatural answers.
There is no scientific precedence for us having to include the notion of a creator outside of a created thing.

Bigfoot would be perfectly natural - Ghosts would be perfectly natural - if proven, researched and published.

Exactly my point. As unproven notions which potentially could be explained scientifically, these need not be regarded as "supernatural" or something science is always going to be incapable of examining.

Until then 'Supernatural' covers things like alternative science and alternative history, since they are outside the validation of science at present.

That may be a convenient position for materialist philosophy to hold, but not all philosophies agree with the idea that there is only either one or the other option available. That is an age old issue between those warring factions, not a rule of the universe in general - as in - the only options the universe makes available for the thinking mind to ponder on.

[1213]

The worst part about this is that a Christian thinks they've gained the upper hand by bringing up smoking. They think they've made a great argument. This is the intellectual gap that exists between Religionists and Scientists. They simply can't even formulate decent arguments to make their case. They think a simple "gotcha" is enough to refute facts.

The point is, calling person who confirms your opinion an expert, doesn't really confirm your point. If your expert says what you want, it is irrelevant. In this case only thing that really matters is, can something be proven. And I can accept that you don't believe whales are harmed. My point is not to prove what is happening to whales, only to show that there are "experts" who disagree and that people should not believe "experts" blindly. I think it should be investigated well what is the reason for whales dying, if they really die in some odd way.

[boatsnguitars]

The worst part about this is that a Christian thinks they've gained the upper hand by bringing up smoking. They think they've made a great argument. This is the intellectual gap that exists between Religionists and Scientists. They simply can't even formulate decent arguments to make their case. They think a simple "gotcha" is enough to refute facts.

The point is, calling person who confirms your opinion an expert, doesn't really confirm your point. If your expert says what you want, it is irrelevant. In this case only thing that really matters is, can something be proven. And I can accept that you don't believe whales are harmed. My point is not to prove what is happening to whales, only to show that there are "experts" who disagree and that people should not believe "experts" blindly. I think it should be investigated well what is the reason for whales dying, if they really die in some odd way.

I agree that calling someone an expert isn't enough. It's why I focus on the metrics used to determine if someone is an expert - and rely on expert consensus, not individual opinion. This is a debate you cannot win. You're only way to disagree with me is to say, "No, we shouldn't listen to the consensus of experts, or try to find relevant experts - we should listen to experts we agree with, or non-experts."

I'm sure you don' want to argue that, so I'm helping you out. Just agree that it is best to follow the consensus among relevant experts, then to follow (provisionally) the bulk of relevant experts, then... etc. as we work our way down the list of credible people. Scientists working for cigarette companies would not be the appropriate people to listen to - unless they were asked what the cigarette companies paid them to do. (Which we know through extensive data and letters, that it was to find a way to lie that cigarettes are healthy.)

I must note that when you put a word in quotes, it means the opposite, or implies "So called". That is, if you say, '"Experts" determined the cause of the failure." You are saying, "Non-experts determined..."
So, your post highlights that the "experts" in question are not experts.
I would never tell anyone to listen to only non-experts. (or "experts" as you call them).

Again, this is a failure of logic on the part of Religionists who are trained to think poorly because they don't have any method to determine who is an expert on God, or the supernatural. One can't be an expert on something that doesn't exist. Therefore, Religionists are trained to diminish (or even demonize) true experts - because, for example, experts have determined that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. Not "experts", but actual experts.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Theist apologists cannot get this. Just because some nut designed the Christmas Bullet, does not discredit aero design, nor paid shills with a science degree, whether employed by a product company or a religious foundation, does not discredit the scientific method method.

And even if people with certificates willing to sell their integrity did discredit science, that does not do a thing to make the supernatural, gods or religion the default theory, let alone a particular one.

The problem is the Faithbased mindset tells them that Their god and religion is right and true and must be regarded as the go -to hypothesis until debunked, which can never happen as evidence that isn't welcome is just dismissed. This manifests in the inverted burden of proof.

The bottom line is that Theist apologist can never argue logically because of the Faithbased mindset, and they can never see it.

[1213]

...Just agree that it is best to follow the consensus among relevant experts, ...

Sorry, I rather look, what is reasonable, logical, truthful and choose that what is the most reasonable idea.

[boatsnguitars]

...Just agree that it is best to follow the consensus among relevant experts, ...

Sorry, I rather look, what is reasonable, logical, truthful and choose that what is the most reasonable idea.

Oh, trust me, this is patently obvious that you do this!
Even though you aren't a relevant expert, have no training, haven't been able to demonstrate you know how to perform reasonable, logical, truthful analyses. you are simply defending "your truth" and not the truth. And this was never in question.

Again, I think you've reduced this to such a simplistic sound bite - as religionists do - and think you've won the point, yet, it must be said that you believe stories of a man walking on water, rising from the dead, performing miracles, etc.

So, let's get your thoughts:
1. How would you cure cancer?
2. How would you reduce the National Debt, or argue that it's not necessary?
3. What companies do you feel will net the most return for their investors over the next 10 years?
4. What are the specific physics involved in sending a rocket to Mars?
5. What is the difference between a Fender Jaguar and Stratocaster?
6. How would you defend against a team using the Erhardt-Perkins offense?
7. What laws should we get rid of, and which should we adopt?
8. What are the leading impediments to global supply chains and how would you fix them?
9. How did God create Matter from non-matter?
10. What CPARS vehicle would you use to assess an A-E Firm?
11. Which medication would you suggest to your son who is exhibiting an illness? How would you assess their malady?


Face it, your simplistic quip is asinine. You can't know everything, and I dare say you can't know most things. But, apparently, you feel your opinion - your uneducated, ignorant opinion - rivals experts.

Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

Maybe you will see why the Church is complicit in teaching people to believe they know much more than they think they do.

[1213]

...You can't know everything...

Where did I say I know everything?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Just agree that it is best to follow the consensus among relevant experts, ...

Sorry, I rather look, what is reasonable, logical, truthful and choose that what is the most reasonable idea.

That could mean you look at the presented information and pick what you like. You know as well as I that 'bias' is something tossed at both sides, so none can really present their side as beyond question. Their preferred conclusion is open to challenge on discussion forums like this, and if even Experts are open to question, individual opinions certainly are.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You can't know everything...

Where did I say I know everything?

That won't do you any good. Not even as a cheap irrelevant point. Nobody said that you claimed to know everything, though I suspect that you believe that Faith gives you True Knowledge even if all the evidence contradicts it.

No, the point was surely that not even experts are experts on everything. Which is why appeal to authority is open to challenge, but the opinion of experts in the field carries weight.

Unfortunately the religious apologetic side do not do this coherently - any 'expert' even if an Engineer or professor of bovine psychology IF they make some pronouncement the believer agrees with (1), they are wagged about as opinion that should be accepted. However any experts on Geology, biology or cosmology, if they say something the believer doesn't like, that is dismissed as human opinion. We know why. Believers think that knowledge comes in a Faith - connection to God and so anything they say is true, even if it plainly is wrong.

It's fascinating to see how the Faithful deal with padding this fragile glass bubble of God -given truth from the hammer - blows of reality. Obvious wrongs were slavery in the Bible and the daylight appearing before the sun was made. The solution is initially ad hoc excuse.
Slavery really isn't (that may be one they heard) and the daylight wasn't - it was some kind of cosmic light. But when it was shown that slavery of foreigners is lifetime chattel slavery and no getting away from it, and I knew the Bible better than my opponent as i know the daylight is light and dark, morning and evening, what do they do?

Some put their hands up and give in: 'Ok, that is a legend and probably deep time geology and evolution is right. That's how God did it'. We welcome cafeteria Christians to the atheist slippery slope to deconversion.

Others will simply drop out of the discussion and act like it didn't happen. The ability of the Believers to simply ignore anything they can't credibly explain away is .... ....and I'm glad I don't have to do it, which is why I can approach the Shroud reasonably objectively, while some skeptics get Antsy about it and I can watch with interest as Cosmology bins the book and starts again. There is no Atheist Shibboleth Big Bang to cling to and even if a god turns out to have Diddit, it doesn't say which one; and as in the old Muslim apologetic, "If Allah himself came down atheists would not believe!!"

"Atheists might, but the other religions probably wouldn't".

(1) even if untrue. e.g the notorious claim that Einstein believed in God,when by 'God' he meant the physical working of the universe.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Transponder nominated this thread as best debate topic, so although I saw this thread earlier and did not comment, perhaps I should...

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

Without looking at any of the links, I would assume it is a natural phenomenon.

(Seems to me that the theist from your quote may have been suggesting something similar because he says the stones move by the laws God implemented, and that would include natural laws.)


This thread reminded me of a question I was asked on this forum shortly after I joined. I don't remember the thread or who asked it, but someone's house (next to a cemetery) kept getting a swarm of flies (I think in just one particular room). Someone asked me what I thought that was... assuming I would go for a supernatural explanation. That didn't even occur to me; I assumed and suggested that the person had a dead animal in their walls or under their floor boards that was attracting flies, then maggots, then flies. I suggested the owner should have called an exterminator to search for the carcass of an animal that probably crawled into the walls of that room and died. The poster who asked me the question was surprised at my response. He said all the other 'believers' he had asked (in person or elsewhere) had suggested something supernatural. That surprised me and I had to wonder where in the world he lives that the people would go for 'haunting or evil spirit' over animal carcass attracting a cycle of flies and maggots!


**

I assume you also know that an atheist might think 'aliens did it'. Maybe not with those stones on the beach, but I do recall people believing the Easter Island statues were there from aliens. Now, I didn't know how they got from one side of the island to the other, but I also assumed something natural, probably something very simple and innovative. There are a few theories; I liked the 'walk across the island' theory (with ropes) because it matches the legend.

https://www.easterisland.travel/easter- ... i-statues/


**

In any case, my faith is not based upon shrouds of turin or moving rocks or relics. I try to stay off those particular threads because I don't know what others need and I don't want to unintentionally hurt someone's faith over those things. If I saw something false being said about God and His Son, then I might participate on those threads, but I tend to stay away.

My faith is based upon Christ Himself, upon truth... and it (faith) was a gift, given to me. I serve Him and follow Him out of love.


(also, living stones crying out are people; such as people being placed into the Living Temple that is the Body of Christ)


Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy