 |
| |
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
I saw repeated argument of: 'you don't know sh*t about the evolution theory so don't criticize it.'
Is that a valid argument? I mean, can we apply it to other topics: Have you studied the theory of communism? Do you fully understand how slavery works? You don't? Then until you do, communism is the correct system and slavery is superior than paying salaries to workers. |
Actually you just reinforced the original point. I've seen people bashing evolution who had no clue that it doesn't address abiogenesis, and somehow though it directly addressed the creation of the universe.
Communism is actually an area where a lack of knowledge does invalidate criticism. If all you know about about Communism is "its bad" you're really not equipped to criticize it. On the other hand, if you're well aquainted with Marxist theory and its modern variations as well as how Communism has worked when it has been attempted to be applied in practice to this point, you have a solid basis to criticize it.
Slavery may be obviously bad, but if literally know nothing about it other than its bad, you really couldn't criticize it with confidence. The real test if whether you can explain to others effectively why something is bad or flawed, if you can't do so effectively you can't really say if you're right about an issue until you learn more about it.
If you're going to argue a scientific theory is incorrect, you need to throughly understand if first. Otherwise what you might think is an obvious flaw in the theory may just be your own flawed understanding of it. There a very large number of creationist supporters out there who don't even understand correctly what the theory of evolution attempts to cover.
Last edited by Mordoch on 30-01-2005 at 13:19
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't need to know how something works before you use it. Do you know how your car works? What about your computer? The Internet? Your television? Nevertheless, such lack of knowledge do not prevent you from using them.
Do you know how your body digest food? Do you know how your body breaks down food to produce energy? Yet you eat and breathe nevertheless. |
Exactly, I hope you carry this thought to its complete conclusion.
quote:
1. An integer does not mean any number.
2. Define "complete entity." |
1.
Main Entry: in·te·ger
Pronunciation: 'in-ti-j&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, adjective, whole, entire —more at ENTIRE
Date: 1571
1 : any of the natural numbers, the negatives of these numbers, or zero
2 : a complete entity
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster
2.
complete - to make whole or perfect
entity - something that has being or existence
Whaleboy
quote:
I think you're retreating somewhere tha only those who have faith can follow, you need to establish these notions to proceed and thus far you haven't. |
I agree and you are of course right. It does take faith that my existence has meaning.
Just how much is really up to you.
quote:
You do know how singularities work right? Cogito ergo sum -> solisism only works when using solely deductive reasoning, you can induce the existence of others, hence the debate between rationalism and empiricism, but that one might choose empiricism does not render cogito ergo sum false. |
I am aware as you said with the word "solecism" that I am introducing an idea that is off the beaten track.
Or did you mean I am just rude LOL .
Yes I know that singularities exist ( I don`t know what you mean buy "work").
As much as you might want empirical science to have objective merit. It is always subjected to your subjective interpretation. Therefore it has the merit that you attribute to it.
Ergo singularity of consciousness is the final definition of all existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes. My body, for starters. |
Who and what is aware of your body?
quote:
I know Lao Tzu did not say anything like that. Gautama did not say that either. Where in the bible does it mention that Jesus said something like that? |
Just about every page in the New Testament, Book of Tao, and the Dharma.
Perhaps you could recomend a biography I have not read of this man.
I have to admit I have read only five.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
Further, there could be people dissatisfied with the current situation, and what would be more natural for them than to invent a religious story that expressed their belief in how society should be organized. They would certainly been full aware of the powers if they claimed that it was the words of a god, so it's absolutely reasonable that they build a scheme to promote their social beliefs upon this. |
If a religion has political aspirations - it should be treated as suspect. " Love thy neighbor as thyself" is inherently apolitical.
quote:
The bottom line is that despite many claims, nobody really knows what is the real words of god; noone knows which god is the real; and noone knows if god really exist. |
1- Words are a symbol of reality, like money is to true wealth. You cannot eat money.
2- The real God is the one that allows me to love myself. So that I am capable of loving my neighbor.
The real God will fill me with an overwhelming sense of belonging and wellbeing.
3- I exist and I am real and therefore God exists by his nature and definition.
God is talked about alot and rarely defined.
This is impossible to communicate with any semblance of possibility.
Any discussion must have a frame of reference. I find that conversations about God are meaningless unless there is a frame of reference or a (clear) definition of what is meant by "GOD".
After all, someones god may be a frog or a bearded old man in a red suite living at the North Pole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Back to the starting block with organized Christianity then. It seems to have been downhill all the way since the death of the first pagan and the first dissenting Christian at the hands of an organized church. |
Could not agree more Molly.
I forget who said it but - " Dear Lord, protect me from thy followers, amen".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
Could not agree more Molly.
I forget who said it but - " Dear Lord, protect me from thy followers, amen". |
Probably a gnostic Christian. Or an Arian, or a Pelagian, or a Monophysite, or a Nestorian, or a Mandaean....the list of possible victims is quite lengthy.
Last edited by molly bloom on 30-01-2005 at 19:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
If a religion has political aspirations - it should be treated as suspect. " Love thy neighbor as thyself" is inherently apolitical.
|
It's easy to take one sentence out and claim "you are mistaken", but isn't it a fact that christianity was strongly opposed to the general rule and thereby political ?
quote:
1- Words are a symbol of reality, like money is to true wealth. You cannot eat money.
|
Nope. Words MAY be symbols of reality - just because someone has written something and claims it's gods words, it's not nessecary reality.
quote:
2- The real God is the one that allows me to love myself. So that I am capable of loving my neighbor.
The real God will fill me with an overwhelming sense of belonging and wellbeing.
|
You don't need a god to have it this way - actually I feel sorry for you if you can't have this without a godfigure.
quote:
3- I exist and I am real and therefore God exists by his nature and definition.
|
How do you know that ? and no, just because someone has written a book sevaral years ago, that isn't a proof.
quote:
God is talked about alot and rarely defined.
This is impossible to communicate with any semblance of possibility.
Any discussion must have a frame of reference. I find that conversations about God are meaningless unless there is a frame of reference or a (clear) definition of what is meant by "GOD".
After all, someones god may be a frog or a bearded old man in a red suite living at the North Pole. |
So what if some people think a frog is a god or that some deity was the father of jesus ? Both are religion, and religion are certainly a manmade fiction either used to explain trees split by lightning or used as a political tool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?
I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++  , and so on, just like environment changes. When a new language is popular, anybody who works in the area needs to learn it in order to find a good job. Cochroaches use machine language so they are not effected by the advancement of languages. Human beings learn fast so they keep up with the development. Other species stop at certain point and eventually can only survive in limited area where old languages are still being used.
If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct. |
Xin, you are one incredibly smart dude, but it's obvious that you know next to nothing about the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you really are curious, you should find a good book and learn what the theory really says. It's very different from the picture in your head right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xin Yu
|
 |
Emeryville, CA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Thankyou...the molecular biology of it all is as good as indisputable nowadays. I would say trust me on that, but don't, read up on it and stop spouting off about things you don't have the vaguest notion about... |
Does modecular biology explain why only human beings do arts? I have yet to see a group of rats carving anyting on stones, nor have I heard cockroaches singing. These are just small examples of uniqueness of human beings.
There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies.
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.
BTW I'm just giving a general concept here, nothing to do with the evolution theory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
Does modecular biology explain why only human beings do arts? I have yet to see a group of rats carving anyting on stones, nor have I heard cockroaches singing. These are just small examples of uniqueness of human beings.
|
No, and it doesn't have to. I guess that if cockroaches one day get brains as complex as humans, then you will hear them sing if they think that that would be apropriate.
quote:
There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies.
|
Please tell about those things which there aren't a theory about regarding humans - I haven't heard of such except in warious religious fantasies.
No. Telling lies is always worse than telling "half truth". If you don't know the precise truth it is of course better to tell what can lead to it instead of some blatant lie. Just look at all the lies that religion over time has told ignoring half truths - a great ex is religions claim that the earth was flat.
quote:
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.
BTW I'm just giving a general concept here, nothing to do with the evolution theory. |
And the point is ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Exactly, I hope you carry this thought to its complete conclusion. |
That leads to the cosmological/causal argument which has long been shown absurd (a conclusion that contradicts one of it's premises.
quote:
I agree and you are of course right. It does take faith that my existence has meaning.
Just how much is really up to you.
|
But faith goes back as subjective/hypothetical as the individual consciousness himself therefore, and cannot be communicated, let alone in such a way as an objective god. Secondly, it takes an extra leap to go from faith to god.
quote:
I am aware as you said with the word "solecism" that I am introducing an idea that is off the beaten track.
|
No solipsism is just a possibly conclusion if you use deductive reasoning from Descarte's cogito ergo sum. A singularity in that sense is sloppy terminology.
quote:
As much as you might want empirical science to have objective merit. It is always subjected to your subjective interpretation. Therefore it has the merit that you attribute to it.
Ergo singularity of consciousness is the final definition of all existence.
|
No that goes back to the debate between rationalism and empiricalism. Say faith is based on rationalism which is subjective and empiricalism which relies on a presumption... i.e., that you trust the outside world exists etc. If you didn't you'd just live like Diogenes in his barrel. If you do accept that the outside world exists, then you place science on top of that, but in its own manner, "faith in science" is not a valid attack on scientific method. Solipsism is the most logically consistent yes but as with most cases of deductive reasoning you can't do a whole lot of useful stuff with it. That is if "useful" is to mean application to other people/outside world. Within that, it's possible to create a kind of transcendental "God", but is incommunicable, which therefore precludes religion, social worship or scripture.
Existence, well your best bet for that is existentialist "existence precludes essense", which lends itself to subjectivity, IOW Wittgensteins "What can be said is different to what can be shown" distinction, which is very useful here. It also allows for our presumption that others exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mercator
|
 |
Sorekara no Nanimo
Jan 1970
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies. |
And since everything can be seen as being a tiny part of the Grand Theory of Everything, everything's just a half truth. Let's just believe in God and skip all the "science"?
quote:
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails. |
What IW said...
Dictionary.com says about "theory":
quote:
A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. |
(emphasis is mine)
If you extend a theory outside of this specified set of phenomena, it's obviously going to fail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails.
|
No. You accept a theory on a provisional basis, but that says nothing about the theory itself which should be judged solely on its merits (i.e. evolution = whaleboy orgasm). In other words, we accept that my keyboard is made of plastic, that the Earth orbits the Sun, General Relativity, Evolution etc etc, as provisional theories, but that doesn't mean they are some c0ck and bull crap, and they can even be true in a quantifiable sense (which indeed they are).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
Does modecular biology explain why only human beings do arts? |
No, but it doesn't need to. That's not what molecular biology is supposed to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
I have yet to see a group of rats carving anyting on stones, nor have I heard cockroaches singing. These are just small examples of uniqueness of human beings. |
Birds sing, dolphins communicate by complex untrasound codes, and sharks have sensors for electromagnetic fields. Orangutans aware of the "self" and can grasp some elementary abstract concepts. Parrots can be as intelligent as the average 6-years old person.
The more you look at nature, the less unique we become. IOW, many other species have some of our abilities to a limited extent.
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
There are a lot of things about human which could not be explained by any existing theory. |
This sounds like a "God of the Gaps" argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
So any theory so far are either wrong, or just half truth. Telling half truth sometimes is even worse than simply telling lies. |
Again, what's wrong with saying "we don't know?"
quote:
Originally posted by Xin Yu
So, a theory, even correct to an extent, may not be complete. Which means, if you look at it at a wider scope, it fails. |
Scientific theories are inheritedly limited. They cover only their respective fields. More fundamentally, Scientific theories are models of nature, they are approximations. A prevailing theory are the best we have in explaining the subject of its own field, but it is always open to modifications and replacement.
Science is not religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
So are we to take that as a concession then or what? |
I do not mind if you disagree with me Whaleboy.
I am just saying before you disagree, make sure you understand what you disagree with.
I know this is used over and over by evolutionists but geez.
And to just pick out every single word and disagree because it is a post from me is just not using your head.
If I am right about something at least have the common sense to say " hmm- you could be right". I mean its not going to bite you or something.
BTW- I am not talking about you at all.
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."- Einstein
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2005 09:52
compare to everquest players who are sometimes way too nasty, almost like dogs biting .
I will wait for KH or BC to show up.
" 
|