 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Well, 'LordVipper', I am a Christian, and I am sure that I am a hell of a lot more rational than you are. So I think your oxymoron collapses, and as usual you are just a simple moron.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordVipper
|
|
more rational? you can be rational or not so.how can you be MORE rational than someone? and how did my oximoron colapse? because you said so? please prove me wrong.Oh you can just keep calling me a moron i am sure your god wont mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordVipper
|
|
Spelling was fine, but try using the spacebar and shift key now and again.
Theexistenceofgodisyettobeprove,thereforehowcanthe
yprovethatthisnonexistencethingcreatedauniverse?
i didnt post that!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordVipper
|
|
religion is fine as long as it's kept in a personal level which never happens.there are exceptions to that but they are very very few.And its not like all religius persons are stupid or anything like that just the more vocal among them usualy are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
The problem with both approaches to the origins of existence is that they both attempt to prove or explain something which we do not understand and were not around to witness. Thus, they are both arbitrary standards. What makes the idea of evolution "better" is that it is more useful since this omniscient omnipotent being doesn't answer my calls. |
The above problem isn't such a problem for evolution. One does not have to be around to witness something to be able to scientifically show it to be valid. Regardless, we have witnessed evolution in action, so that's not even true. The "origins of existence" isn't part of evolution, anyway. That's abiogenesis.
Evolution is better because, unlike Creationism, it holds up to everything we observe in the biological world. To this date, there has not been any successful alternative explanation to how life got here that has stood up to science. Evolution is abundantly supported by evidence, as much as gravity and heliocentricity are. Do those have problems, too?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Do those have problems, too? |
Maybe, maybe not. Science is explination of observations. In that sense they are, and always will be, arbitrary, or should I say subjective to human interpretation...
As more factors are unveiled science is able to mutate to accomidate the new interpretation, this why science is so great... It can amend itself. While the idea of evolution is great, and gives a logical explination for how we interpret it, this may or may not be true... It is, after all, a theory. Yet, it is a functional theory, and one that will continue to work, IMO, for some time.
Yet, what if science learns to de-evolve organsims, and what if we take say an Elephant and begins to de-evolve it, and in the end we end up with a man, or a monkey, or a tree?
We believe in science more than we realize. Why? Because it is logical. Who is to say that absolute truth, or the truth of origins, is held within logic?
IMO, everything is arbitrary, open for debate, a theory (functional or not), relative... Of course I am only interested in what I can use, but that doesn't mean it will always be able to be used if I were to move out of my current system.
I once thought fire was made of magic, and I learned better. I once thought the moon was made of cheese, I learned better. So why is that we think that we now have truth?
Logic?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Maybe, maybe not. Science is explination of observations. In that sense they are, and always will be, arbitrary, or should I say subjective to human interpretation... |
That science is falsifiable is true, but that doesn't mean there is room for a wholesale rejection of something that is universally observed and supported by evidence. If you're willing to say that evolution is prone to this, then you must say all scientific observations are prone to this, to the limit of absurdity. You're engaging in solipsism.
quote:
It can amend itself. While the idea of evolution is great, and gives a logical explination for how we interpret it, this may or may not be true... It is, after all, a theory. Yet, it is a functional theory, and one that will continue to work, IMO, for some time. |
*Sigh* fundamental flaw of understanfing evolution: It is not merely a theory. It is both a fact and a theory. That evolution occurs is a scientific fact--it has been observed, all the natural evidence supports it, as does microbiology. The theory of evolution involves explaining the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. It doesn't denote any uncertainty as to whether or not it does occur.
Science does not use the word "theory" as synonymous with "guess." What you're describing is a hypothesis, not a theory.
quote:
Yet, what if science learns to de-evolve organsims, and what if we take say an Elephant and begins to de-evolve it, and in the end we end up with a man, or a monkey, or a tree? |
What does this have to do with whether or not evolution is true? What if purple monkeys come flying out of your left nostril? This is completely irrelevant.
Evolution doesn't remotely postulate that a man will evolve into an elephant, or a tree into an elephant, or anything of the kinds. Organisms do NOT evolve. Populations do.
quote:
We believe in science more than we realize. Why? Because it is logical. Who is to say that absolute truth, or the truth of origins, is held within logic?
IMO, everything is arbitrary, open for debate, a theory (functional or not), relative... Of course I am only interested in what I can use, but that doesn't mean it will always be able to be used if I were to move out of my current system. |
Yes, solipsism. It is possible that we're brains in a jar and this is all a fanatasy world. But even if that is the absolute truth, we have no use for such a truth--how would that help us in this existence? Our existence here is predicated on accepting that our senses are reasonably accurate, and that logical, rigorous method will (eventually) lead to the correct results. We must exist as if the laws of physics are absolutely true, even if there is a remote possibility it's all a fantasy. It's utterly pointless to postulate such contrivances.
quote:
I once thought fire was made of magic, and I learned better. I once thought the moon was made of cheese, I learned better. So why is that we think that we now have truth? |
How about...scientific method? The theory that fire is based on magic was put to science, and science proved that it isn't magic, simply chemistry. Science knew the moon not to be cheese long before we ever set foot on it.
This does, however, help highlight that the certainty some people feel towards the supernatural, in contradiction of science (magic fire, moon cheese, Creationsim) is childish and ignorant. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
We dont have the truth, but we admit it.
We search for truth, but realize that we very rarley find anything that is "absolute" truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
Scientific theories are one thing, scientific observations another. What theories say is alterable given new evidence, but it's very difficult to suggest that actual observation is wrong. Regardless, I challenge you to find a scientific truth that has arisen since scientific method became widespread that has as much evidence and support as evolution being overturned by something new. If there's a viable alternative to evolution, where is it?
And if you accept animals evolve, it is nonsensical to think humans didn't, since we have so many vestigial traits from other animals. The biological similarity we share with other animals is so great that such a belief appears untenable. Genetically, we are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimps are related to cats or dogs. Such would not be true if we had not all evolved from common ancestors. Why would we be made with a tailbone and other vestiges suited to quadropeds if we were completely separate, distinct creatures?
Microbiology and genetics have rather conclusively shown we are related to the rest of the living world, all part of a continuous biomass. Fossil evidence has also shown that human beings have evolved from earlier primates. Unless you're dismissing all the extinct humanoids (Cro-Magnon, Neandethals, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc.), saying we didn't evolve is unsupportable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
You shouldnt accept anything as truth when it comes to science-just the best explination known.
I think the big bang is bull-honkey-it leaves WAYYYYYYYY to many questions unexplained, but I accept that it is the best explination we know of because it has the most evidence for it. I accept it as the MOST LIKLEY truth known, but not as truth itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordVipper
|
|
As the "tools" improve the observation of phenomena becomes more accurate and more information becames available about any given topic that is added to a theory.theories completely falling apart and replaced by something new are not all that common. and scientific theories are only what we know so far, not the "truth"
there are gaping holes in some theories such as where did the first particle came from or that since the universe is finite what contains it but those are just questions to be answered,not a reason to burn our books and go back to worshiping graven idols or exorcizing mental illiness with holy water.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordVipper
|
|
supernatural....i dont like that word at all. a phenomenon is either natural (happens) or false (doesnt happen).If we accept that someone can fly we have to research it as something natural (he can fly.why? how? why cant everyone?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Evolution is abundantly supported by evidence, as much as gravity and heliocentricity are. Do those have problems, too?
|
You should be careful with your terminology. If you really mean 'evolution' in the above then I agree with your parallel - all three are observed phenomena, so they (in all but definition) do exist. But I supest that you mean 'evolution by natural selection', in which case they are not the same. Evolution by natural selection is a theory (despite what you said earlier) of how evolution comes about, in the same way that Newton's laws or general relativity are theories of gravity. So you would be better to compare to, for example, general relativity.
Do you believe that general relativity is correct?
quote:
To paraphrase Dawkins, scientists refuse to claim absolute certainty even with abundant proof. Creationists jump to claim absolute certainty without any proof.
|
The first half of this is one of the few sensible statements Dawkins has ever made - its a pity he spoils it with the second half. Science can never 'prove' anything absolutely because assumptions are made on route. Instead they set limits at which some model or theory becomes the accepted 'truth' but even then try to disporve it. This is their job. This is what science is supposed to do. (I may be biased here, but I think in physics the level at which a theory becomes truth seems an awful lot higher than it does in evolutionary studies. This is one of the reasons I am not 100% happy with evolution - I don't trust people like Dawkins. I find it interesting how so many untrained advocates of evolution accept Dawkins word as a matter of faith.  )
To suppose that faith and religion should operate the same way as science is just ludicrous. Faith by definition doesn't need proof.
quote:
What about the Big Bang is bull-honkey? I'm curious to know if you've actually read in depth about the Big Bang, or are just dismissive of it because it sounds inexplicable to you?
|
No respectable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is accepted truth. They would say it is the best model we have, but that is as far as it goes. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Since you seem to believe in the Big Bang, maybe you can answer them? Let me give you one example:
In the Big Bang itself (or more precisely immediately afterward), energy is converted into matter by pair production - particles and anti-particles are formed in pairs. But if this is true, where are is all the antimatter? There should be an equal amount of antimatter and matter in the universe, but we know that the universe we see around us is almost 100% composed of matter. This problem is known as the 'baryon asymmetry of the universe problem' (in case you want to google it).
Or what about dark matter? Why is the gravitational attraction of the universe stronger than it should be from the observed mass? The speculation is that the universe is filled by weakly coupled particles which add the extra mass (or alternatively, and less likely, very compact, very heavy astrophysical objects). But what is it? Is it a neutralino? Maybe, but then we need low energy supersymmetry and all its associated problems (the mu-problem anyone?). Is it an axion? Maybe, but the parameter space left for axions is getting tight, introducing fine-tuning problems. So what is it? If such a particle is not there the theory will fall apart.
quote:
Is there any other explanation for the observation that the universe is speeding away in all directions from a single point?
|
Yes - there are lots, they are only not so accepted as the big bang, and to be fair have even more extreme problems than the bb has. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, or for that matter the big bang right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Can I play the devil's advocate on God's behalf?
It does strike you as odd no, that some of the holy scriptures' passages about creation bare such a similarity with scientific finds?
For example: at first there was void and then he said light and there was light etc.
it somewhat resembles the big bang theory as would be recited and grasped from someone hundrends of centuries ago
and let's not get into the ancient greek myths the symbolisms there are breathtaking, what with the battle of the titans (teutonic movement early in the earth's history, creation of continents etc)
It is interesting to see the similarities even if they are done through symbolisms. some could say that this is just 21th century minds trying to accomodate modern scientific finds with ancient mythologies or christian holy scriptures but beyond that they do sound rather similar, with limitations of course.
however that doesnt necesairily put more weight on the existance of god. just that people back then had a vage idea of what was going down
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-09-2003 00:23
|