|
|
|
|
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 3:51:20 PM | RE Msg: 25 by stargazer1000:
Or...you should actually say something that makes sense. Ever hear of "pretzel logic?" Here's a fine example... No, the term is convoluted. Anyway, if you cannot follow the process, then that's bound to confuse you.
Do you have the slightest clue on what scientists do for a living? Yes. They were ten-a-penny growing up.
Do you grasp the basic concepts of verification and falsifiable? Yes.
Actually, a lot of us have already argued about the falsifiability of scientific theory, including evolution, in that science must by its very process, never be assumed to be the ultimate in "true." That's even before you get to the issues of verification. That's a given in science.
In essence, that something is accepted does not make it right. But that does not mean that it's wrong, either. Of course not.
You say you refuse to offer an "alternative" to evolution. No. I said that I'm not going to discuss it with biased people.
That, in essence, is the antithesis of falsifiability since it offers nothing that can be either considered plausible or implausible. Nope. It just means it's not got any support to prove it right, or prove it wrong. But then, I don't want to convince you of an alternative. I'm not responsible for your opinions. I'm only responsible for mine.
Actually, ID and creationism does at least offer something that can be considered either. One could say it has the strength of its convictions, even if they are IMO inherently flawed models for how life has developed on this planet. Then stop criticising it as deluded. Make your mind up. Either you respect it or you don't.
So here we have thousands and thousands of bones from thousands of thousands of species that have walked, crawled or slithered over the surface of Earth. They are known to have been found in a range of deposition levels suggesting a timeline for their existence. Now, to verify, the scientist will conduct various test, and compare the development of the bones to conclude they represent a progressive development for species. Yes, we could talk "transitional" here but let's not muddy the waters. His conclusions can be true, in which case we go to confirmation and examination by other scientists. Some of whom may not actually agree with the scientist's theories or work. It is "peer reviewed," we could say. They may also find his work incorrect. It is, in essence, false. Yes, and that represents a possible theory. As you posted, its not the ultimate in "true". But there is no relative "true". Something is either "true" or "false". So, when we are considering it, we have to abandon thinking of it as true or false. We can say it has a degree of probability within a confidence interval, based on how the research was carried out, and based on certain assumptions about how those conclusions were reached. When they have been verified to be based on assumptions that have already been proved, then we can say that they are "probably true". But really, we still need to work out what those assumptions are, discuss them all, and verify them, before we can do that. That bit, is one of the bits that tend to not be discussed, and tend to result in 2 or more opposing views, based on different sets of assumptions that aren't being stated.
Either that, or the conclusions can be such that they render anything before it completely wrong or, at the very least, woefully inadequate, i.e. Newton vs. Einstein gravity. That's one way to look at it. But it's usually wrong. Newton's theory was extremely adequate. Einstein's theory simply added to that, by considering assumptions and questioning them, and finding that with the removal of those assumptions, then the new theory becomes far more accurate than before.
Now, the creationist can say "No, I contend (Insert "creative" force here) created these creatures." Okay, now that is a definitive statement and it can be tackled from that basis. It can be examined and it can be either shown to be true or false, based on current levels of scientific understanding. Now, keep in mind, we have not said anything about the "truth" of God, His existence, non-existence, etc. We are only talking about whether or not we can prove through reasoned, scientific methodology whether or not God has had a hand in our development. We're still running on some assumptions here, though, and they are liable to be a problem, because at some point, some will assume differently, and we really cannot prove them false, not without stating our assumptions, and then proving them. That bit tends to be a big problem, especially if you've never questioned them,
Welcome to the ID debate, in a nutshell. We can talk about the methodology (essentially, 'this is wrong with evolution so it proves ID' or "God of the Gaps" which is intellectually laughable), but I'm already going much longer than I like. So let's not. Actually, you're introducing me to the debate of ID relative to someone who is taking the synthetic philosophical viewpoint, which we already know denies the possibility of ID, by its very prior assumptions of the universe. So, there is no debate. There are just people trying to prove ID wrong, who adopt the synthetic philosophical view, and use arguments on that basis, and people who don't take the synthetic philosophical view, and use arguments on the basis of their philosophy. So, both sides argue ad infinitum, and both sides seem to be amazed that the other side doesn't agree with them, because they are fundamentally arguing about philosophy, but trying to back it up with things that aren't really part of it, and cannot really prove much about it.
Now, YOU on the other hand, offer nothing definitive. That's because I'm smarter than that. I know that it's just 2 groups arguing over philosophy. So I analyse their assumptions, the philosophies that underpin them. The synthetic philosophy isn't valid in my viewpoint, and neither is Biblical literalism.
Just simply that "we don't have enough information." Well, okay. More information is always a good thing in trying to prove or disprove a theory. However, that is also a is simply a "safety" position. Essentially, it offers nothing to the discussion. To try and critique the problems with science and evolutionary theory from that standpoint is intellectually dishonest at best and cowardly at worst. A lot of people get annoyed when I tell them they haven't enough facts. Then, when they do have enough facts, they agree on the possible answers to the problems they are wrestling with. If you like, I am of the opinion that no opinion is better than a one based on false security. There is less chance of you screwing up, if you hedge your bets.
And they'll have that, when they stop trying to force their visions of how they want to re-invent the world to suit their own desires, down impressionable young people. All they have to do is to universally declare evolution has no conflict with all religions, and that religions in general are perfectly reasonable views and something that must be respected by all sane human beings. Do that, and act like it, and you won't have a problem. Um, first of all, you're words indicate I have some say over how others act and think?
How does evolution or any scientific effort "reinvent" the world to suit anyone's desires. Science can have consequences, yes. But that speaks to the human condition. Yes, and as long as science is carried out only by robots and people regularly tested for high moral values, that isn't a problem. But science isn't. It's carried out by humans, with no expectation or requirement that they be moral in any way. So the human condition affects scientists as much as bankers, and so the possible consequences of science are just as potentially harmful as the possible consequences of banking. We've seen very small examples of how banking can cause problems for humans in the last year, and in the 1930s. The same is true of science. As humans are the ones to carry out science, and they are bound to the human condition, the problem is not a matter of if. It's just a matter of when.
The underlying principles of nature are science's purview. That's a misconception of science. Science doesn't tell us WHY gravity is there (underlying principle). Science tells us HOW gravity works (rule of thumb). We know that for most cases, F=GMm/r^2 is a good approximation, and that is the HOW, how much, which direction, etc. But outside of the realm of pattern observation and induction of pattern prediction in unexamined cases, we cannot say.
Some people are as ardent in their atheism as you are in your theism. I'm not ardent at all in my views of G-d. I've just been working on the subject of theism for over 30 years. After as long as that, anyone is bound to have some expertise and some confidence in their opinions, even me.
Me, I'm largely agnostic. I don't know how to define God. Without a proper definition, hard to characterize what God is and how to go about proving or falsifying God. Then just bear that in mind. You can't really argue that anyone else's view of G-d is wrong, if you're not even sure what is right or wrong, and you don't have the beginnings of a proof. But if you have that little self-assurance in theistic views, then whether or not G-d chooses to act within the universe, and whether or not G-d chose to create any one species, is equally not arguable, either for or against. You've still got the right to believe in evolution, if you personally feel the evidence warrants it. But, outside of that, you really don't, and since evolution at best describes an incredibly vague how, that leaves plenty of room for all sorts of views about G-d, even an interactive G-d, if you believe in evolution. Which means that there really isn't any point arguing about it at all, except with people who claim that evolution proves something about G-d, when it doesn't, and arguing with people that claim that evolution isn't even a valid scientific hypothesis. That's really all one can argue with, when it comes down to it.
First of all, who's deifying him? We had pages of that on the other thread. If we start that can of worms here, we're just going to turn this thread into 30 pages of nothing but flame wars as well.
To take Darwin's word as gospel would be deifying him. If you mean to say that taking Darwin's words as true, without actually thinking about what those words mean, and if they are true, then of course that would be raising him to be a lot more than a man. But, if you consider Darwin's words, then realise that since he was the inventor of the theory popularly called evolution, then if anyone would know about it best, it would be him, at least as far as stuff that was just as available to him then as now. As far as the theory goes, it has progressed. But it's not reached a point where we would have different views about theism and Darwinian evolution, than we would about the modern synthesis. So, what goes for one, goes for the other. He invented it. He knew it best. What he says about it with regards to theism is almost certainly right, or a lot more accurate than we would be, because we didn't work it our for ourselves, but heard it from others. What's come after is not significant enough to change that, not in terms of things like theism.
I'll try to summarise my post, here:
Most of the arguments are based on lots of assumptions, just like any train of thought. But unlike other trains of thought, the assumptions of each group are different. There are 2 sets of assumptions, one for each group, and the arguments of each group flow from those. But, those assumptions are never questioned, and never stated. So, each group argues that the other group is wrong, using arguments that are really strong from their position, but unbelievably weak from the opposing position. So they just keep arguing and arguing, each convinced the other side is ignorant, obtuse, and generally just being stubborn.
I think that's a game, because the assumptions are not proved, and not even stated to argue about. IMHO, it's better to move on, and skip both sides of the argument. That way, I can get to the actual things that are reliable. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:38:38 PM |
Then just bear that in mind. You can't really argue that anyone else's view of G-d is wrong, if you're not even sure what is right or wrong,
Um...so because I identify myself as agnostic, I am no longer allowed to discuss concepts of God and how it relates to evolution? Wrong and arrogantly presumptuous of you.
So, each group argues that the other group is wrong, using arguments that are really strong from their position, but unbelievably weak from the opposing position. So they just keep arguing and arguing, each convinced the other side is ignorant, obtuse, and generally just being stubborn.
Well, that is generally true and clearly evident even in this exchange. However, as it relates to the general discussion, my point is simply this, and I have said it before...when it comes to science, God is not a factor in the equation. You yourself are a professed mathematician. Is there a "God factor" in mathematics I'm not aware of? Just because Darwin himself says that evolution leads to a belief in theism, the very statement is opinion, not fact, and should be taken as such. Editorializing, we call it in the journalism business.
While scientists may or may not hold to religious beliefs, the practice and discipline of science cannot rely on "God" because then you are forced to ask "Why would God do that?" Of course, God's not available to answer the question at which point, you can get to "Well, He does move in mysterious ways, then." A dead end.
The underlying principles of nature are science's purview. That's a misconception of science. Science doesn't tell us WHY gravity is there (underlying principle). Science tells us HOW gravity works (rule of thumb). We know that for most cases, F=GMm/r^2 is a good approximation, and that is the HOW, how much, which direction, etc. But outside of the realm of pattern observation and induction of pattern prediction in unexamined cases, we cannot say.
Yes and no...if you wish to ascribe some sort of conscious intent to the universe, then "why" is a legitimate question from that standpoint. However, as I've pointed out, conscious intent gets us back round again to God. Woozle bird goes round and around til it flies up it's own ass, as my dad says. However, if you simply wonder how one phenomenon relates to another, then "why" is a logical question in order to get there.
First of all, who's deifying him? We had pages of that on the other thread. If we start that can of worms here, we're just going to turn this thread into 30 pages of nothing but flame wars as well.
An accusation of something doesn't make it true. I certainly don't consider him a "god," nor do I think his is the last word on evolution. Please feel free to cite examples if you have evidence to the contrary.
Again, there are those who are ardently atheistic. If you have a problem with 'em, take it up with 'em.
My point is simply this. Evolution was a revolutionary discovery that has lead to a brand new understanding of human beings and our place as a part of the animal kingdom. However, that doesn't place Darwin anymore in Divine status then Relativity places Einstein there. They were steps along the way. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/3/2009 1:03:21 PM | RE Msg: 27 by stargazer1000:
Um...so because I identify myself as agnostic, I am no longer allowed to discuss concepts of God and how it relates to evolution? Wrong and arrogantly presumptuous of you. I said that if you're not sure of something, you cannot say someone is definitely wrong, as you have no proof that he's wrong. You can discuss the matter, open-mindedly, and comment on what makes sense logically, and what doesn't, and what seems to fit what we see in the real world, and what doesn't. That's because you've been open enough to admit what we all know, that none of us really have true evidence of if G-d exists or not, and what G-d is or isn't, if G-d were to exist.
Everyone who is prejudiced to claim to definitely know the exclusive truth, can argue that others are wrong, but only in as far as their prejudice has been proved to be true, which it isn't. But they don't really care, because they will argue that it is true, even though they really cannot prove it.
If you like, you've shown that you have the capacity for unprejudiced thought, which puts you far ahead of the curve. Now it's just a question of whether or not you choose to put it into practice.
So, each group argues that the other group is wrong, using arguments that are really strong from their position, but unbelievably weak from the opposing position. So they just keep arguing and arguing, each convinced the other side is ignorant, obtuse, and generally just being stubborn. Well, that is generally true and clearly evident even in this exchange.
However, as it relates to the general discussion, my point is simply this, and I have said it before...when it comes to science, God is not a factor in the equation. G-d is a potential factor. It's just not one that is ever considered. It's part and parcel of the way modern science approaches a subject, to simply not even consider the possibility.
You yourself are a professed mathematician. Is there a "God factor" in mathematics I'm not aware of? Yes. G-d is a concept. Any concept can be described using mathematical terms, at least in terms of the matter under discussion, even though all concepts cannot be totally described within mathematics. There is even a mathematical theorem which includes a G-d factor, that of Kurt Gödel's ontological proof. But apart from that, the rest of mathematics is treated in exactly the same as science, to not include the "G-d factor", even as a possibility. As Karl Popper pointed out, without considering the possibility of G-d, you cannot prove G-d doesn't exist, not even that G-d might not exist.
Just because Darwin himself says that evolution leads to a belief in theism, the very statement is opinion, not fact, and should be taken as such. Yes. But if Einstein said something clear about relativity, such as that it leads to the possibility of time dilation around bodies with a huge gravitational pull such as a black hole, we do not consider it his opinion, but a part of the theory that he came up with. If we disagreed with it, we'd say that we disagree with his theory, and that we believe the theory is wrong. Similarly, if Darwin says something that about his own theory, we would consider it not just his opinion, but part of the theory. To disagree with it, would mean we disagree with the theory. We could come up with an alternative theory, that is very similar, but does not include this part of the theory. But that is a different theory, and it needs to be examined independently for consistency.
Editorializing, we call it in the journalism business. Darwin was not expressing this in a public newspaper, but in a private correspondence. So it's not editorialising.
While scientists may or may not hold to religious beliefs, the practice and discipline of science cannot rely on "God" because then you are forced to ask "Why would God do that?" Of course, God's not available to answer the question at which point, you can get to "Well, He does move in mysterious ways, then." A dead end. When we're scientifically examining the universe, we're not really interested in why G-d makes gravity and other such things. We can postulate why. But we don't really care. We're just interested in HOW gravity works, and not much else. Our objectives are entirely focussed on knowing how something may work, so that we can use that knowledge to aid us. It's very much like driving a car. We don't care why the car moves the way it does. We don't care why Ford selected a 4-cylinder engine to put in our car. We don't even care if it uses a 4-cylinder engine, or a V8. We don't care about what's under the bonnet. We just want to know HOW it works, so we can use it to get from A to B. Even when we're learning mechanics, we don't really care why Ford didn't use a V8. We just care how a 4-cylinder car works, to know how to repair it.
The underlying principles of nature are science's purview. That's a misconception of science. Science doesn't tell us WHY gravity is there (underlying principle). Science tells us HOW gravity works (rule of thumb). We know that for most cases, F=GMm/r^2 is a good approximation, and that is the HOW, how much, which direction, etc. But outside of the realm of pattern observation and induction of pattern prediction in unexamined cases, we cannot say. Yes and no...if you wish to ascribe some sort of conscious intent to the universe, then "why" is a legitimate question from that standpoint.
However, as I've pointed out, conscious intent gets us back round again to God. Woozle bird goes round and around til it flies up it's own ass, as my dad says. However, if you simply wonder how one phenomenon relates to another, then "why" is a logical question in order to get there. If why is valid, then it's valid. Questions such as "why are so many people so fat?" becomes equally valid. But that question has lots of different answers, each valid, such as genetics, personal responsibility, attitudes to leisure activity, the effects of greater technology on the level of exercise, the decline of amateur sports, body image, junk food, advertising, even the legal precedent for non-human legal entities to hold unlimited assets, to name a few. One can find an equal amount of different answers for "why was there a credit crunch?" We're not really gaining much idea of what's going on, or what we can do about it, but asking a vague question that has a dozen answers. That's why scientific experiments focus on showing a relationship between 2 factors, when all the other factors are constant. Using lots of factors just makes the issue so clouded we don't really learn much from it, apart from "it's confusing, and we cannot expect to achieve anything". So we don't do that. THAT's why asking "why" is just not a productive question in science.
But, I agree that it is tempting to ask "why". The closest I've come to an etymological source of "why" is in Hebrew, where it is called "Lamah", short for "Le-Mah", for what, as in, "for what reason". It's tempting to want ascribe a specific reason for something. However, "reason" is something that involves thought, and therefore is something that inanimate things don't do. Asking "why" of something, like "why" was that person run over, is really implicitly accepting that a conscious being set out to do that action for a specific reason, and asking what that being's reasoning was to do that action. We wish to understand. We know that action was enacted by a conscious being. We want to know what that reason was, as without that reasoning, that action would not happen, and that will aid us to avoid or encourage those actions in the future.
But, when we examining only the inanimate considerations of processes, we just cannot ask "why", as we are trying to ask questions about conscious decisions, and trying to answer them with inanimate results. We'll never really answer the question, not even a little bit, and the answers we do try to use, will just confuse the issue.
It's like asking "why did you run that person over" and answering "I took the car in for an MOT last week, and the mechanic said the brakes weren't working". The brakes weren't working, and that prevented the car from stopping when the driver pressed the brake pedal. But it doesn't really answer the question, and it certainly doesn't answer why the guy didn't get the brakes fixed. Even if it's an inanimate process, like "why are so many people obese", answering that "a lot of obese people have the same genes", doesn't really help either, as not all people who are obese have those genes, or not all people with those genes are obese. So answering "it's because obesity is genetic and the genes that cause obesity are becoming more prevalent in the population", isn't an either either.
If you want to gain knowledge in science, you need clear answers. If you want clear answers, you have to ask clear questions. Asking "why" is only a clear question when you are asking it of a conscious being.
First of all, who's deifying him? We had pages of that on the other thread. If we start that can of worms here, we're just going to turn this thread into 30 pages of nothing but flame wars as well. An accusation of something doesn't make it true. I certainly don't consider him a "god,"
nor do I think his is the last word on evolution. Jesus wasn't the last word on Xianity either. There are plenty of Xians who are considered quite authoritative on the subject, such as the twelve apostles, and St Augustine, who came after him. Does that mean that Xians don't consider Jesus as part of the Holy Trinity?
Please feel free to cite examples if you have evidence to the contrary. We've done this on the other thread. Does every single point have to be repeated a dozen times to non-religious people? Are non-religious people somehow lacking the ability to remember? Please.
Again, there are those who are ardently atheistic. If you have a problem with 'em, take it up with 'em. Yes, there are. But they keep justifying their views with science. I don't blame the concept called science. But I DO have to acknowledge that means that a heck of a lot of people are using science as a weapon and a platform for their own agendas, and that a huge amount of those people seem to be non-religious and using science as a platform for their own beliefs. When that happens, we have to be extremely careful using science for objective arguments in discussions that involve any aspect of anything that touches on religion.
My point is simply this. Evolution was a revolutionary discovery that has lead to a brand new understanding of human beings and our place as a part of the animal kingdom. Hmmm....let's look at this "revolutionary discovery":
1) Humans are related to apes.
Humans have 4 limbs. So do apes. Humans have faces. So do apes. Humans have red blood. So do apes. Do we have something in common? Oh, no, not unless we're related. OK, so if we're related, then we have a LOT more in common than if we weren't? So, strangers can't donate transplants automatically to people but their relatives can? Well, no, that's not true either, not unless they're monozygotic twins. But, they DO have more likelihood of being acceptable donors. Like that's something I couldn't figure out? OK, are APES more related to humans. Like if we would use animal hearts for transplants, would we use ape hearts, because they're closer? Well, no. We'd use pig hearts. So, we can really say that they are related, as much as you are to Ivan the Terrible? Well, yes. Grrreat! What exactly ARE you telling me, that I couldn't figure out by myself?
2) Well, animals will mutate, if we push them to.
Duh. Artificial selection is thousands of years old, and it was very accurate. Sure, there aren't many people who know about it anymore. But ask anyone today for an example of crop-rotation. They don't even know that, and that was a given necessity to know 100 years ago for anyone growing anything on land. So, what exaclty does evolution tell us that we didn't know before?
3) Well, animals and plants and people had similar descendants, and that's nice to know about the past. So what? Napoleon was 5'6". How exactly is that useful?
"Revolutionary"? Well, yes, to anyone who thinks that if we're not related, that even though you and I have 2 arms, 2 legs, a face, almost every organ identical, and the same red blood, that means that all cures for any disease that work on you, will definitely have absolutely no effect on me.
But if I needed to be told that we're RELATED to think that we might have something in common, I should just leave science alone, and go back to playing with toys. Really, if I can't work that out, it's all I could expect to handle.
However, that doesn't place Darwin anymore in Divine status then Relativity places Einstein there. They were steps along the way. And as long as people treat Darwin about the same way that they treat Einstein, and treat their discoveries in exactly the same ways, with the huge scepticism that has been heaped on relativity since its first publication, then they'd not be deifying anything. But considering that relativity is trillions of times more reliable and accurate than ALL of evolutionary theory, we'd pretty much have to start describing relativity as being about a trillion times more important than all of evolution. When that happens, people won't really be saying that you're delusional for not believing in evolution. They'll be asking if you believe in relativity, and if you don't, THEN you're delusional, and evolution will take a back seat. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:36:24 PM | "But, if you consider Darwin's words, then realise that since he was the inventor of the theory popularly called evolution, then if anyone would know about it best, it would be him"
..this would have to sum up my position with regard to God.. He Created The Universe, if anyone would know about it best it would be Him... blessings | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/3/2009 7:20:12 PM | Mona - that quote that you quoted is.. well.. wrong.. Evolution isn't an idea or philosophy.. It's a science and as such, it's subject to change. Darwin didnt even know about heredity or DNA. Scientists today know more about Evolution than Darwin did.
Second
In order to say that God created the universe, you must first prove that he exists. After that, you must then prove he wrote the bible and that the universe was created by him.
We have evidence that evolution happens.
There has yet to be evidence for a supreme creator. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:36:26 PM |
Referring to Darwinism...is it only a PR ploy by the Creationist/ID side to "demonize" evolution by giving it a face? Or has science education focused too much on Darwin as the "father" of a science that is evolving, much as any other science has?
I'm not sure, but here's an observation. People who wish to put down evolution think backward. That is, all the great stuff is in the past and, rather than progress, the message has become corrupted over time. So, just as they look back to Jesus or Moses or Mohammed or Abraham, they would look back to Darwin. In religion, things aren't generally admitted to have progressed, although, of course, they do. Instead, there is a story of some perfect truth revealed by a prophet or something, usually conveniently in ancient times. There is an essential conservatism that is the antithesis of progress.
I like your "Crick and Watsonism" coinage. I think I'll use that.
Quite frankly, though, much of this Creationist/ID stuff is rather strange. Globally, the majority of Christians have no difficulty with evolution. In the middle ages, Christians generally believed that every time a flower opened, it did so because God was pushing directly on the petals at the time. Now we know a bit more about plant hormones and photosensitivity and all that jazz, so there is no need to have God walking around doing this stuff. This hasn't challenged religious belief but rather strengthened it: who could not think that the natural mechanism was more wonderful than the idea of God walking around like a night watchman?
For some strange reason, Christians who live in America seem to have a problem with the idea that evolution happens. Rather than see how beautiful and wonderful evolution is and declare it a impressive tool of God, they insist upon either banal and unrealistic stories of creationism or, even worse, evolution with intervention, which implies that God was too stupid to have created the universe right in the first place and kept having to tweak it. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:01:30 AM | Re: monalee1
"But, if you consider Darwin's words, then realise that since he was the inventor of the theory popularly called evolution, then if anyone would know about it best, it would be him"
..this would have to sum up my position with regard to God.. He Created The Universe, if anyone would know about it best it would be Him... blessings
Referring to evolution as "Darwinism"
Would be like me referring to your 'Word of God' as "Mosesism"... after all, it was the Teachings of Moses that resulted in the 'first' 7 books of the bible, and every aspect of the Jewish and Christian religion that followed in his footsteps. Makes sense to me.
Re: Verzen
In order to say that God created the universe, you must first prove that he exists. After that, you must then prove he wrote the bible and that the universe was created by him.... We have evidence that evolution happens... There has yet to be evidence for a supreme creator.
There is proof of existence as you are living it now, To say something bigger than our reality doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, means nothing would exist. God may not be the same as the interpretations of Moses but possibly something more in line with something Science could understand... like the 4th dimension it's self... like a programming code running in the background we will never understand as we are the compiled running program of it's code. We may in fact all be bit's of information that make up that same entity or existence, making us all fragments of God himself. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/4/2009 10:20:38 AM | | Light - I do not deny the existence of a god-like entity. I deny the claims currently made by the religious individuals of a wrathful, omnipotent God who controls whether or not we end up in hell. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/4/2009 4:38:22 PM |
Light - I do not deny the existence of a god-like entity. I deny the claims currently made by the religious individuals of a wrathful, omnipotent God who controls whether or not we end up in hell.
Ah, me to :) | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:00:02 PM | "after all, it was the Teachings of Moses that resulted in the 'first' 7 books of the bible, and every aspect of the Jewish and Christian religion that followed in his footsteps. Makes sense to me."
God Created His Word and Moses therefore it was The Teaching of God ~through~ Moses... blessings | |
|
| |
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/5/2009 8:03:08 AM | Re: Monalee1
after all, it was the Teachings of Moses that resulted in the 'first' 7 books of the bible, and every aspect of the Jewish and Christian religion that followed in his footsteps. Makes sense to me. God Created His Word and Moses therefore it was The Teaching of God ~through~ Moses... blessings
I would argue that Moses created God in HIS image
He would break every one of his own commandments in order to defend that lie over his people. You really think he put people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day and claim that he was doing the work of God?? It was just an excuse to execute those that had their own political agenda. I'm certainly not getting smited down for working on the one day of the week 'Moses said' God rested. Genesis was not a story written by God... it was a lie Moses used to reinforce political confidence over his people.
When Moses was happy with his people, so was God. When Moses was mad at his people, God would strike down anger upon them. Moses created the ultimate alter Ego and possibly uttered the biggest lies of human existence.. lies that started out to benefit himself grew into Wars and the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of lives. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/5/2009 6:27:32 PM | | I'm still wondering why there's a thread stating Darwin was a "regular scientist" and not, by extension, infallible. Was there really someone who had doubts? | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/5/2009 7:37:36 PM | "I would argue that Moses created God in HIS image
He would break every one of his own commandments in order to defend that lie over his people. You really think he put people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day and claim that he was doing the work of God?? It was just an excuse to execute those that had their own political agenda. I'm certainly not getting smited down for working on the one day of the week 'Moses said' God rested. Genesis was not a story written by God... it was a lie Moses used to reinforce political confidence over his people.
When Moses was happy with his people, so was God. When Moses was mad at his people, God would strike down anger upon them. Moses created the ultimate alter Ego and possibly uttered the biggest lies of human existence.. lies that started out to benefit himself grew into Wars and the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of lives. "
....^^^^^in my 27 yrs of studying Gods Word I can say with conviction that nothing of what you have written here resonates with Gods Spirit in me, nothing....
"Moses had been instructed in regard to the final reward to be given to the humble and obedient servants of God, and worldly gain sank to its proper insignificance in comparison. The magnificent palace of Pharaoh and the monarch's throne were held out as an inducement to Moses; but he knew that the sinful pleasures that make men forget God were in its lordly courts. He looked beyond the gorgeous palace, beyond a monarch's crown, to the high honors that will be bestowed on the saints of the Most High in a kingdom untainted by sin. He saw by faith an imperishable crown that the King of heaven would place on the brow of the overcomer. This faith led him to turn away from the lordly ones of earth and join the humble, poor, despised nation that had chosen to obey God rather than to serve sin"... Patriarchs and Prophets by Ellen G White | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:28:48 AM |
I'm still wondering why there's a thread stating Darwin was a "regular scientist" and not, by extension, infallible. Was there really someone who had doubts?
Quite the contrary. It was previously observed in another post that Darwin was somehow "deified" by those who adhere to the theory of evolution. Indeed, the point of the article is that no other theory is so closely related to its author than evolution and Darwin which is inappropriate given the "evolution" of evolution since.
Clearly, Darwin could get things wrong. But that's science. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 7:53:58 AM | RE Msg: 30 by Verzen:
In order to say that God created the universe, you must first prove that he exists. By the same argument, in order to say that the universe runs according to the complex number system required by quantum mechanics, you must first prove that complex numbers exist. There has yet to be anyone who has found a complex numbe in our reality.
After that, you must then prove he wrote the bible. That is not necessary to say that G-d created the universe. That is only necessary if you want to say that the same G-d created the universe, AND wrote the Bible. But if you only want to prove one of those, you don't need to prove the other.
We have evidence that evolution happens.
There has yet to be evidence for a supreme creator. That philosophy is called British Empiricism, because it comes from Britain. We Brits invented it, and we Brits proved it wrong, almost 100 years ago. Science learns. It learned that empiricism was wrong. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:09:18 AM |
By the same argument, in order to say that the universe runs according to the complex number system required by quantum mechanics, you must first prove that complex numbers exist. There has yet to be anyone who has found a complex numbe in our reality.
False analogy - Fallacious argument
We KNOW that complex numbers exist through laws in physics. They are mathematical equations.
That philosophy is called British Empiricism, because it comes from Britain. We Brits invented it, and we Brits proved it wrong, almost 100 years ago. Science learns. It learned that empiricism was wrong.
Red herring. This isn't about british empiricism. If anything, it proves that science is SELF CORRECTING. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:17:54 AM | RE Msg: 42 by Verzen:
False analogy - Fallacious argument
We KNOW that complex numbers exist through laws in physics. They are mathematical equations. Speaking authoritatively, as someone trained in mathematics, we know that complex numbers do NOT exist. Complex numbers are numbers that contain an IMAGINARY part, a part that is truly imagined, and has no representation in the real world, not in any dimension.
We have evidence that evolution happens.
There has yet to be evidence for a supreme creator. That philosophy is called British Empiricism, because it comes from Britain. We Brits invented it, and we Brits proved it wrong, almost 100 years ago. Science learns. It learned that empiricism was wrong. Red herring. This isn't about british empiricism.
If anything, it proves that science is SELF CORRECTING. Taking one example to be a generalised truth for all situations is a logical fallacy. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:22:27 AM | Speaking authoritatively, as someone trained in mathematics, we know that complex numbers do NOT exist. Complex numbers are numbers that contain an IMAGINARY part, a part that is truly imagined, and has no representation in the real world, not in any dimension.
Hmm.. I'm not a math or physics major, but I thought you were talking about the entire universe being made up and ruled simply by complex equations.. which, what I say is true. We are all ruled by complex equations.
Of course 'imaginary' numbers do not exist... A retard could figure that out. =\
The theory that we should only consider those things that we have found evidence for, is called empiricism, often called British empricism, because that is where most of the concepts were developed. It was conclusively proved false in the late 19th and early 20th century.
We shouldn't simply consider those for which we only have evidence for. We should simply speculate and play with things we do not have evidence for in an attempt to find evidence. But we should also not fully believe something to be true that has no evidence for it.
Taking one example to be a generalised truth for all situations is a logical fallacy.
I do not have just 'one' example. I have thousands and thousands of examples. All of science through history is self correcting. Scientist A provides theory A. Scientist B disproves most of theory A but further proves the other part of theory A and expands on it. He creates a new updated theory A that is to be used.
This is called SELF CORRECTING. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:34:34 AM | However, the problem comes from the insistence of referring to evolution as "darwinism"
From what I can tell, people (usually detractors) use "darwinism" to underscore evolution via unguided random variation acted up by natural selection, and universal common descent. These ideas were essentially Darwin's contribution. However, one can accept the validity of evolution and reject part of that formula. For example, some ID proponents accept natural selection and common descent but reject the "unguided" part in certain instances, such as origin of life and certain intra-cellular structures. Thus, one can be an evolutionist and not be a "darwinist."
Referring to Darwinism...is it only a PR ploy by the Creationist/ID side to "demonize" evolution by giving it a face? Or has science education focused too much on Darwin as the "father" of a science that is evolving, much as any other science has?
Some of both it seems. Google "Darwin Day" and see if some people don't take it a bit far. Check out some of the images. Parties, cakes and candles? Nobody does that for Werner Heisenberg or Niels Bohr do they? I've never heard of an Einstein party either. No, Darwin has a special iconic place in the hearts and minds of certain people that go far beyond the actual science. Atheists sometimes put "darwin fish" on their cars contra the Christian fish. Etc. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:36:36 AM | RE Msg: 44 by Verzen:
Speaking authoritatively, as someone trained in mathematics, we know that complex numbers do NOT exist. Complex numbers are numbers that contain an IMAGINARY part, a part that is truly imagined, and has no representation in the real world, not in any dimension. Hmm.. I'm not a math or physics major,
but I thought you were talking about the entire universe being made up and ruled simply by complex equations.. which, what I say is true. We are all ruled by complex equations. Well, it's more accurate to say that many of the fundamental equations of modern physics are based in the complex plane, and require an imaginary part.
Of course 'imaginary' numbers do not exist... A retard could figure that out. =\ Yes. But what many retards, and many educated people, don't realise, is that our world is "ruled" by these non-existent numbers, and by their corresponding non-existent quantities.
The theory that we should only consider those things that we have found evidence for, is called empiricism, often called British empricism, because that is where most of the concepts were developed. It was conclusively proved false in the late 19th and early 20th century. Name ONE example.
The theory that we should only consider those things that we have found evidence for, is called empiricism, often called British empricism, because that is where most of the concepts were developed. It was conclusively proved false in the late 19th and early 20th century. We shouldn't simply consider those for which we only have evidence for. We should simply speculate and play with things we do not have evidence for in an attempt to find evidence. But we should also not fully believe something to be true that has no evidence for it.
Taking one example to be a generalised truth for all situations is a logical fallacy. I do not have just 'one' example. I have thousands and thousands of examples. All of science through history is self correcting.
Scientist A provides theory A. Scientist B disproves most of theory A but further proves the other part of theory A and expands on it. He creates a new updated theory A that is to be used.
This is called SELF CORRECTING. That is called an example of self-correction. Self-correcting mechanisms are mechanisms in which the system was designed to be correcting in its principle design, such as the design of error-correction of DNA in gamete cell replication, and in the design of guided missiles. Systems which are assumed to be self-correcting, are not self-correcting. They are systems in which error corrections sometimes happen, and then the rest of the time, are corrected by the larger system of the universe in the fullness of time, but often not without terrible harm being wreaked, such as with thalidomide.
| |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:43:45 AM | Of course 'imaginary' numbers do not exist... A retard could figure that out.
It depends on what you mean by "exist." They don't exist in the same way as integers or real numbers, but they most certainly do exist, and not merely as a trick. The universe appears to be constructed in a way that requires them in its description. Without imaginary numbers there would be no Quantum Mechanics, the most accurate set of scientific equations known to man thus far. Don't be confused by the "imaginary" adjective. That was merely a pejorative label that was applied long before their essential nature was understood. In the context of their actual application, they are far from imaginary in the actually sense of that word.
| |
|
| |
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:55:25 AM | RE Msg: 47 by central_scrutinizer:
Of course 'imaginary' numbers do not exist... A retard could figure that out. It depends on what you mean by "exist." They don't exist in the same way as integers or real numbers, but they most certainly do exist, and not merely as a trick. The universe appears to be constructed in a way that requires them in its description. Without imaginary numbers there would be no Quantum Mechanics, the most accurate set of scientific equations known to man thus far. Don't be confused by the "imaginary" adjective. That was merely a pejorative label that was applied long before their essential nature was understood. In the context of their actual application, they are far from imaginary in the actually sense of that word.
RE Msg: 48 by Verzen:
Quantum Mechanics I don't believe in random variables that quantum mechanics proposes.. And neither did Einstein. | |
|
| Proof of Darwin as a regular scientist
Posted: 11/6/2009 9:08:11 AM | I don't believe in random variables that quantum mechanics proposes.. And neither did Einstein.
You're speaking of the Copenhagan interpretation of QM, not QM, per se. Other equally valid interpretations exist, such as Many Worlds, and Bohm's interpretation, both of which are fully deterministic. Aside from the stochastic descriptions of the Copenhagen interpretations, imaginary numbers are required in the deterministic parts of QM (as well as many other hard sciences.)
The equations of QM are the best and most accurately predictive science that man has come up with so far and require imaginary numbers. So, maybe QM is not "true" but it sure is useful! Therefore imaginary numbers are useful. They have to be "real" in some sense to be useful. Without them you wouldn't be using a computer right now, since computers wouldn't exist.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
