|
|
|
|
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:02:17 PM | You are comparing something which may be observed on any given sidewalk to something which has never been observed and cannot be replicated.
Actually, I was explaining probability, since several people on this thread do not seem to understand what it is.
Show me that life can form spontaneously, then explain how all the laws of science (both known and unknown) came into play and you really have yourself a great argument. I’ve asked myself this question though.
I'm working on an abiogenesis theory, and it's not as complicated as you might think. I was doing something rather uncomplicated and unrelated when the idea popped into my head like the missing link in a chain link fence. I don't want to say what, because if I do, undoubtedly, someone else will publish it first.
Though there are missing variables at this time as known to all, that is the same with ID/creation, and at least with chemical creation, all of the materials are present and accounted for. The variables are environmental. In ID/creation, everything about it is non-explainable, including the so-called logic behind it.
Why do I support ID? To me it seems the most logical answer. I’ve heard arguments against it by some very smart people posting here. Admittedly I had to resort to a dictionary or google to be sure I always understood them, but so far I haven’t heard another explanation which makes more sense.
How is it logical? If the idea behind ID/creation is that the universe is too amazing not to have a creator, then that creator/designer must also have a creator because it would be too amazing not to have a creator... do you get it? Your own logic isn't logical at all. It is a misnomer because it isn't an answer. I grew up in the church, and when I was 7 years old, I started to realize the serious issues with the Bible. I still believed in God, until I was 9, and got into astronomy and science. I never chose to not believe, it no longer made sense. Elementary particles are fascinating in how they work together. I don't need to connect to some creator to feel like I'm special. Nature is damn amazing, and I am amazed at how much I learn every single day in my field about it and its possibilities. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1102 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:05:40 PM | When I look at a BMW I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that it was designed by the best team of engineers Bavarian Motor Werks could find and assembled at one of the plants in Germany, South Carolina, or South Africa (even though I’ve never actually seen one being assembled).
So what, I accept that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame exists in Cleveland because even though I've never seen Cleveland, there is independently verifiable evidence that the Hall of Fame and Cleveland exist.
What's your point?
To me it seems the most logical answer.
By what means of critical thinking, logic and reason are you negotiating your way around the law of parsimony here?
And this bears repeating:
? Why should we teach:
1) a theological based facet of causality in a science class when science does not have the supernatural in its purview
2) there are no proofs for this bronze-age idea of a sentient "creator" that meet the frame of reference of critical thinking, let alone science.
3) there have been no scientific proofs evidenced via byproducts derived from this avenue of theological study.
| |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:12:44 PM |
can’t completely accept everything coming from a book written by man
True, however many religious people accept that the bible is a complete truth, and that if any part is wrong, than it is all wrong.
Oddly though the timeline for the great flood which is described in the story of Noah coincides with a probable tsunami originating from an island in Greece. Also odd, is that the great flooding also made mention in the Koran. The Koran, Bible, and Torah all coinside with eachother, they are all all based on the abrahamic concept of god. A sort of religious evoloution.
That being said one must also consider the Bible for what it is. It is a book written by man. Yes, it is. It is a book written by man, just like all of the other mythologies. So with that being said, how are you sure that god is not just a creation of man? Maybe the mayian gods are real, but the extinction of that race was just part of their plan, or maybe the chinese had it right, they seem to be doing alright. There are mythologies that predate the bible, how do you know they aren't right?
Certainly no one believes that God wrote the book himself or that would make the whole “free will to follow” idea kind of pointless (being it would prove beyond a doubt God existed and following would be the only logical path).
If god exists, the we would not have free will regardless. If a being created a universe and world full of people with the intent of punishing the people from the start and has the foresight to everyone's fate, and a "plan for everyone", then you do not have free will. Your path is pre-determined. If god is all knowing, then he already knows which people will choose to follow and which ones won't. That kind of defeats the purpose.
would also point out the paraphrased segment that you produced from St Augustine would hold true for evolution as well How so? The point i was putting out was not augustine's ignorance to the migration of humans to the west, but the fact that he still considered the possibility of that event and declared that they would not be decendants of adam, making them sub humans. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:13:06 PM |
How is it logical? If the idea behind ID/creation is that the universe is too amazing not to have a creator, then that creator/designer must also have a creator because it would be too amazing not to have a creator... do you get it? Your own logic isn't logical at all. It is a misnomer because it isn't an answer. I grew up in the church, and when I was 7 years old, I started to realize the serious issues with the Bible. I still believed in God, until I was 9, and got into astronomy and science. I never chose to not believe, it no longer made sense. Elementary particles are fascinating in how they work together. I don't need to connect to some creator to feel like I'm special. Nature is damn amazing, and I am amazed at how much I learn every single day in my field about it and its possibilities.
God does not require a creator because he is infinite, existing before all else. Sounds like you probably already heard this, but God isn’t something that can be compared to a particle, energy, or matter, as I imagine is the comparison you are making. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:15:40 PM |
it took an estimated 1.4 BILLION years for the right conditions and the right molecules to start to form life here on our planet. That's an estimated 4.5e^7 seconds, so any probability of chemical events leading to the first nucleic acids to form prokaryotes becomes highly probable.
Added to this is the fact that atoms move or vibrate, at a rate in the order of 1 times 10 to the 13 per second. They bump into and sometimes react and bond. Multiplied by the time 4.5 e^7 this becomes 4.5 e^42 chances for something to happen- for ONE atom.
The improbable becomes very probably under these circumstances.
Hey I see the Flying Spaghetti monster has gotten into this too-(See thread title) does that mean another 50 pages trying prove / disprove him too?
Groan. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:17:36 PM | The Koran, Bible, and Torah all coinside with eachother, they are all all based on the abrahamic concept of god. A sort of religious evoloution.
They are all also based on philosophies that preceded them in their cultures. Christianity branched off from stoicism adopting a beginning/end, heaven/hell as places and shedding pantheism for theism. The original bible uses many of the words and phrases from ancient stoic teachings and principles.
Religion can definitely be explained with evolution, and more importantly, if you study them, you can find parallels in all of them that most people do not seem to be willing to see. They see God - I see an attempt to get people to act morally, responsibly and with reason and logic, that was taken over by greed and politics (as every attempt seems to go the way of.) | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:22:16 PM | God does not require a creator because he is infinite, existing before all else. Sounds like you probably already heard this, but God isn’t something that can be compared to a particle, energy, or matter, as I imagine is the comparison you are making.
I am not comparing this unknown being to matter - I'm telling you that your logic isn't logical by definition. God does not require a creator because you NEED God. You are making up rules to make it fit. This is why I despise religion. It goes beyond abstract thinking to lying and changing rules to prove that it must be right.
If you take your emotional connection to this idea of God off of the table, you would see that it is fairly ridiculous to argue that it is more likely that an entire sentient being capable of manipulating matter consciously infinitely and being made up of unobservable and undiscoverable "somethings" than particles that we KNOW create life DID create life.
your brain is sexy. Oh, hi! | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1108 | |
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:25:42 PM | God does not require a creator because he is infinite, existing before all else. Sounds like you probably already heard this, but God isn’t something that can be compared to a particle, energy, or matter, as I imagine is the comparison you are making.
Again, if you are going to base this in logic, how do you do this without violating the law of parsimony. You are hypothesizing qualities to a being that you have yet to establish the existence for in order to serve as proof?
See: petitio principi
In order to come to a logical conclusion, one is supposed to avoid thinking via fallacious logic.
Hey I see the Flying Spaghetti monster has gotten into this too-(See thread title) does that mean another 50 pages trying prove / disprove him too?
No need to "disprove" something for which there is no proof to begin with.
Again (Trying to find any response that supports the antithesis of the OP):
? Why should we teach:
1) a theological based facet of causality in a science class when science does not have the supernatural in its purview
2) there are no proofs for this bronze-age idea of a sentient "creator" that meet the frame of reference of critical thinking, let alone science.
3) there have been no scientific proofs evidenced via byproducts derived from this avenue of theological study. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:27:35 PM | Thank you for proving my point.
Your point is that I despise religion (and any other conjecture that makes up rules and bases itself on nonsensical ideas and lies about evidence and manipulates its own documents)? I should be flattered, but honestly, I'm just annoyed and frustrated at your refusal to let go of your emotional connection to God to see what actual logic is, even if only for a moment. | |
|
| |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 10:35:12 PM | You site my emotional connection.... But I haven't used words such as despise. Have I?
I cite your emotional connection because you have one.
I despise liars for emotional reasons, yes. My mother is a pathological liar. The lying isn't the only part that annoys me. I listed my reasons. Also, I have a tendency to use emotive words when discussing these things to elicit a response, since I am often ignored.
I have no negative personal connection to any religion. It's the frustration I have gained in trying to have a conversation about science with anyone who is religious or believes in God or a creator or a designer. It is very obvious in this thread that people who believe in creation/ID either cannot function without their God connection or are unwilling to do so.
Believing that there is a designer isn't logical by the reasons given so far. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1112 | |
| |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:04:12 PM |
because my conviction is pure logic , that there just had to be a much smarter 'principle'
"that there just had to be a much smarter principle" does, in no way, constitute "pure logic".
What you are still describing is faith. Nothing more.
greg | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1114 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:13:50 PM | .. we're all getting scared of saying GOD ...
Then say, "NATURE", when you are describing things apparent in the natural world.
This isn't a debate about the existence of any particular brand/flavor of theological deity, it's about including the concept of such speculations, and the stories about them in a SCIENCE CLASSROOM.
Why?
What are the tangible byproducts of promoting such a a hijacking of the scientific method?
As there are schools that do in fact support this, can you point to any benefits that this has affected on science, understanding the natural world, and the further proof-of-concept evidence of tangible byproducts?
As science is inclusive of the concept of falsifiability, prove your point instead of the continual futility of trying to prove a negative by violating the law of parsiomy in favor of the fallacy of petitio principi.
(very illogical)
I meant and you know it that we can not create life ourselves
My ex-wife and I made a daughter, ...I can prove this. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:34:40 PM |  I'm on my 13th box of popcorn. You know....if you skim the posts you'll find out that everything that needs to be said has been said. Its like watching re-runs of the same episode of family guy. No I'm wrong. Its like a marathon of sunset beach  .
Simple logic for the religious. If God is above and beyond any human thought then no logic applied to him will make logical sense. arguing about the existence of God is futile.
Simple logic for the religious. Many of your opponents are not arguing his existence explicitly. They are stating that his existence is less likely. Therefore if you apply any logic to him the most likely outcome is that He does not exist. To further the logic if He exists then there would be a need for Him. What need do we have when every observable phenomenon happens irrespective of anything we would call God? The paradox persits with who does God need? It can't make any logical sense. It is not illogical just allogical.
To the religious. If you are a good person and the thought of God makes you happy then yay! But its not wise to subject your belief systems to this type of punishment where there is no result but perpetual doubt. God is not subject to logic.
Lastly, imagine yourself in a concrete room with a door and no knowledge of the outside world. Would it be wise to argue whats behind the door even if a generation of people before they departed left notes to what they think is behind the door? The heading of this forum is science and philophosy. It is using what we already know and what seems to be likely to make predictions. This is wise for the person trapped in the room wanting to know whats behind the door before he/she went through. Unfortunately there is a limit to logic. The limit here is that it is impossible to know. It could be an infinite number of things or nothing at all behind the door. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:48:59 PM | Lastly its not God that is taught in the classrooms. Its the many ideologies pretaining to him that are taught. Islamic religions have a certain ideology, Christianity has a certain ideology, Judaism has a certain ideology, Hinduism has a certain ideology...
Every religion has a method of belief and a method of salvation. A method of betterment. God is simply the end goal when death comes. What is taught are the many different beliefs like the many socialism, capitalism, and all other -isms. But we all should know that. The OP's question has been covered to death.
What I will say in defense to the religious is that the overwhelming belief in God should be an indication of "something". That something could be as mundane as nature and her processes, or legitimately God. But like the concrete box scenario. We just don't know. | |
|
| |
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1118 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/1/2009 11:59:16 PM | we really don't know much.
Some more/less than others, collectively the amount of human knowledge continues to be aptly described as unprecedented = more than before, it is also a greater amount of collective knowledge than any other we have seen (none).
so what's a fact?
That all depends on context and idiom, what context, what idiom? | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:16:23 AM | it always going to be unprecedented, but still could be pretty meager. [knowledge]
don't teach kids closed minded, perceived facts, as much as thinking for themselves. | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:26:06 AM |
It's the frustration I have gained in trying to have a conversation about science with anyone who is religious or believes in God or a creator or a designer. Then you have been unfortunate in our encounters. There have been many worthy scientists who accepted God in their lives.... Just a few we may all like to have met....
Galileo Galilei
Francis Bacon
Rene Descartes
Robert Boyle
Gregor Mendel
Charles Darwin, in his autobiography, claimed that he was "a Theist" when he wrote Origin of the Species. He described his later position as Agnostic. In a letter dated 1873, he wrote The impossibility of conceiving that the universe arose through chance is the chief argument for the existence of God, but CD has never been able to decide whether this is an argument of real value. Safest to believe that the subject is beyond man's intellect, "but man can do his duty".
Louis Pasteur
Albert Einstein
Georges Edouard Lemaitre (Developed the Big Bang theory)
Werner Heisenberg
A very recent paper suggests that more than half of the scientific population considers themselves religious, and of those who don't, Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life." -
Elaine Howard Ecklund & Christopher P. Scheitle . Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems May 2007, Vol. 54, No. 2, Pages 289–307 .
Unfortunately, I couldn't access the paper at http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 but there was a summary at http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
I have read piles of shit on evolution Well, there's plenty of it out there, but you may find the good stuff if you look hard enough. You can tell when you find it - it doesn't stink.
we really don't know much. So, does the OP have a valid concern that we should stop teaching even that? | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1121 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:30:48 AM | it always going to be unprecedented, but still could be pretty meager. [knowledge]
Compared to what?
don't teach kids closed minded, perceived facts, as much as thinking for themselves.
Science is open minded by design, as it's falsifiable - faith in theological deities is not, hence it is the latter that is "close-minded" in the frame and terms of reference of logic, dialectic reasoning, critical thinking, epistemology and most importantly, the well founded methodology of science.
But that's besides the point, you are advocating for science to be structured in a way that confirmation bias trumps well supported and researched ideas?
This describes the "Dark Ages". | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:36:05 AM | we really don't know much, quietjohn, you took it out of context.
my point is to not teach kids stuff as facts that they have to only unlearn, which is extremly hard to do, as you might know.
teach them how to learn, and obvious facts, of course.
MY POINT, NO RELIGION AND NO EVOLUTION. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1123 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:43:34 AM | my point is to not teach kids stuff as facts that they have to only unlearn
What kind of "facts" have to be "unlearned"?
Seriously, ...ask yourself this.
which is extremly hard to do, as you might know.
Actually, persistently persuing dead-ended avenues of discovery is something I think should be "unlearned" as soon as it's spotted, at any cost. Avenues of discovery that lead to positive results, lead to further positive results, especially the tangible byproducts they yield THIS should be the basis of all "learning", I cringe when people advocate for the opposite, it's child abuse.
If you really think about this, it's a catastrophic proposition in regards to "personal growth" and "thriving", as you are advocating ignoring that things change; to further an agenda of wilful ignorance.
To what end?
It's actually a frightening idea, see: "Dark Ages". | |
|
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:48:52 AM |
my point is to not teach kids stuff as facts that they have to only unlearn, which is extremly hard to do, as you might know.
teach them how to learn, and obvious facts, of course.
I agree 110%!!! I was taught in a very devout christian school and I had to self study "HARD" just to unlearn. It wasn't easy on my belief system either. But that's just me. Personally I suffered because the school told me what to think. I just had to memorize and recite. Math was my savior when I found myself working through a pre-calculus textbook at the library in my early teens. I couldn't do the critical thinking section. It took me a long time before I gained that skill. The greatest thing I learned was how to use proofs, axioms, theorems, and postulates. That alone taught me everything I wanted to know. Now I can at least be a little critical with any idea presented before me.
That said being taught religion exclusively was a big help. Actually a major help. I don't regret it. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1125 | |
| Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted: 9/2/2009 1:13:36 AM | false "facts", whatever they are
If an idea is false, it's falsifiable - isn't it?
All science is falsifiable by design
You are suggesting abandoning the avenue of discovery that led to you being able to read this text. In favor of the "Dark Ages"
If we don't teach the falsifiable method of learning called science, what do you propose we replace it with?
teach them HOW to think
Indeed.
Which "HOW", and why?
except for the obvious.
Speciation has been observed, this should be obvious to any who try to refute it using the well know methods of learning how to think known as: logic, dialectic reasoning, critical thinking, epistemology and most importantly, the well founded methodology of science.
What method of learning refutes it? | |
|
|
| Page 45 of 50
|
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 |
|
Home
login 
