| Evolution.
Posted: 9/16/2009 1:45:51 PM | aremeself -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QrGAJJ2sSc&feature=PlayList&p=F5366FCC4E334086&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10 | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/16/2009 11:43:13 PM |
Oh, is there a consensus that SOMETHING had to have been here forever?
other wise we are getting into magic, which is not real. [NO MAGIC PLEASE!]
How did you come to this conclusion? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/17/2009 1:56:24 AM | cool,
is there a consensus that something had to have been here forever?
and
magic is not real.
do I have to explain that? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:36:38 AM | | I watched a very nice bbc special on dimensions. the end of which quantum physicians were actually making universes. Attempting rather. So, in theory according to them, they would be able to create such a thing in a lab with enough time. Mini universes. So, why is it not safe to assume the same thing happened to ours. Science and religion go hand and hand. Religon is merely a much more elegant way of explaining science. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:44:35 AM |
Religon is merely a much more elegant way of explaining science.
It is a mistake to refer to religion as "merely" anything, in my opinion, at least whee human affairs are concerned. However, science and religion have completely different social contracts so comparisons between them miss the mark, too.
The problem comes when religion tries to cross the boundary to science which it does much more than the other direction. That's because religion is based on a belief in a greater deity (deities). Science has phenomena.
Religion attributes everything to the deity. Science can't. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:34:28 AM |
Religon is merely a much more elegant way of explaining science.
Religion is a way for those in power to control the masses; let the rabble think things will be ok after they die and they may not riot. And I haven't heard of any schools or science foundations burning people at the stake for having opposing views. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 10:21:29 AM | Why do you suppose that the volumes of facts and data in support of evolution have been repressed in public schools.
Every state in the USA has laws that require high school students to learn the basics of biological evolution. Even in the very conservative county of Indiana that I live in, evolution is clearly taught in high school biology classes. (I currently have two sons in high school so I know what they're being taught.)
What "volumes of facts and data" are being suppressed?
| |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:04:47 AM |
So, why is it not safe to assume the same thing happened to ours.
An interesting point indeed, but it does rather beg the question. The problem here is that you have an infinite regress (who created the creator, etc.). You eventually end up at, "well, it just is", in which case we simply apply Occam's Razor and decide there's no need for a creator at all.
In any case, this point is nothing to do with Evolution, unless we suppose that only "fit" Universes survive. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:26:00 AM | Science is limited to hypotheses that make specific, distinguishing, and falsifible predictions.
Questions about ultimate origins are not within the purview of science.
| |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:34:27 AM |
Questions about ultimate origins are not within the purview of science.
I couldn't disagree more. That's the ultimate point of science. If a physical process exists that can create entire universes, then science is the means to that end. Religion is designed to fulfill a different need. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:40:06 AM |
I couldn't disagree more. That's the ultimate point of science. If a physical process exists that can create entire universes, then science is the means to that end.
Go ahead and create a theory about ultimate origins that makes specific and distinguishing predictions that are subject to falsification, and my ears are wide open. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:46:20 AM |
Go ahead and create a theory about ultimate origins that makes specific and distinguishing predictions that are subject to falsification, and my ears are wide open.
Don't I wish I could...but that wasn't my point.
To simply say that science isn't able to come up with some kind of "ultimate origin" of the universe is to say that things are "unknowable." Which is rather antithetical of science, non? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:56:55 AM | To simply say that science isn't able to come up with some kind of "ultimate origin" of the universe is to say that things are "unknowable." Which is rather antithetical of science, non?
The scientific method is a pragmatic hypothetical-deductive tool that is involved in producing hypotheses that make specific and distinguishing predictions, that are subject to falsification. How could you falsify any theory of ultimate origins, even in principle?
It's not about being "anti-science." It's about understanding the limitations of science. You might Google "philosophy of science" for further edification. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:26:51 PM |
How could you falsify any theory of ultimate origins, even in principle?
By proving any of its prerequisites or predicted outcomes wrong. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:30:54 PM |
By proving any of its prerequisites or predicted outcomes wrong.
1/2 right. If the ontology had any prerequisites it would not be ultimate, by definition. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:37:54 PM | to emphatically say that there is nothing other then what meets our pathetic few senses and understanding at the moment, is a little limiting, no?
don't read anything else into that, thats all I am saying for now. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:43:20 PM | | If it can't meet our senses or understanding, then it is beyond detection or measurable influence, and not worth considering. Anything which has an influence should also be measurable, even if indirectly. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:45:26 PM |
1/2 right. If the ontology had any prerequisites it would not be ultimate, by definition.
My statement holds, regardless, since disproof of either aspect alone is sufficient. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:49:24 PM |
Religion is a way for those in power to control the masses; let the rabble think things will be ok after they die and they may not riot. And I haven't heard of any schools or science foundations burning people at the stake for having opposing views.
So says you, and most of the pseudo intellectual ^^Gothy^^ archetypes. In order for you to make such a bold statement, it would have to apply to every religion and it does not. It would have to apply to every member of said sect, and it does not. It seems as if every human near the internet, has seen the film Zeitgeist an ran with it.
If God were a biological supercomputer that designed the universe, and all of the fundamental elements and forces as a test, would the statement GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE be any less true?
If physicists are creating mini universes themselves, then it is ipso facto, arrogant as hell to assume the same could not have been done for us. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:14:17 PM |
If God were a biological supercomputer that designed the universe, and all of the fundamental elements and forces as a test, would the statement GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE be any less true?
Irrelevant. God lacks a definition of any kind and is unobservable and untestable.
If physicists are creating mini universes themselves, then it is ipso facto, arrogant as hell to assume the same could not have been done for us
Fallacious reasoning, and the arrogance lies in anthropomorphizing where no evidence exists. We assume this was not done because there is no evidence that it was. Additionally, if physicists are doing [or attempting to] this, they are doing it with natural processes. That means it could happen with no intelligent assistance whatsoever. That would render your argument a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: just because intelligence CAN cause it, does not mean that intelligence DOES cause it. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:49:01 PM |
Just because intelligence CAN cause it, does not mean that intelligence DOES cause it....
Right, and you are assuming that I am saying that it did.
What I am saying, is you can not equally prove that did not.
But feel free to make more assumptions. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:03:31 PM | cool,
is there a consensus that something had to have been here forever?
and
magic is not real.
do I have to explain that?
You can cut it out with the passive aggressive crap, it hinders the entire discussion.
Oh, is there a consensus that SOMETHING had to have been here forever?
other wise we are getting into magic, which is not real. [NO MAGIC PLEASE!]
What I'm trying to point out here is that these two statements are not actually related to one another. So how did you make that jump? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:03:33 PM |
My statement holds, regardless, since disproof of either aspect alone is sufficient.
I acknowledge that, which is why I said "1/2 right." But a theory of the ontological origin, by definition, can posit no prerequisites, so such considerations irrelevant. Which is another way of saying a hypothesis about the ontological origin cannot posit dependencies. An ontological origin can have no dependencies, by definition.
Any putative theory is going to end up being a mathematical description. No matter what anyone comes up with, there's always going to be a "how?" or "why?" that cannot be answered, given Godel's theorum. How do you get around that in principle using the hypothetico-deductive methology of science? Can science trump mathematics?
But, as always, if anyone has a real proposal about a testable descriptive of the origin of all things, I'm all ears. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:40:17 PM | just opinions, frogo.
you have them too I see.
thats ok.
but there are things going on that we don't have a clue about, detectable by humans or not, but that still have an effect on us, past, present or future.
or is there nothing going on that we can't detect, that could effect us in some way?
ok man, thats a new one for me. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:48:11 PM | cool,
forget it, just want to know what the consensus in the scientific world was on if there was always something here, or not, eg. energy.
because if not, than we are here by magic, no?
but if something was here for ever, then it makes sense, to me, anyway. | |
|
Home
login 
