|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted June 02, 2008 07:06 AM |
|
|
But why only believe what is written in only scientific books. As they are written by humans also. Which has pretty much been my point all along (though thanks to my chaotic mind I do jump around a lot). Before I go farther, let me stress (again) that yes I believe in such things as gravity, creatures adapting, DNA, etc. However, that is what it is ... belief. Another word for faith.
It is taken for granted that the 'proven' theories are just that ... proven. We don't question there is such things as gravity, as DNA, etc. Because the tests have already been done. We are so confident that our limited understanding and knowledge is correct, we stop questioning. It is illogical and wrong to think anything but what 'scientific' books have as 'facts'.
Let us take how coming up with how old the earth is for instance. I don't know the dating techniques that came first, but eventually there was carbon dating. It was 100% accurate, infallible, and had to be correct. Except it wasn't. Seemed each time they said how old the earth was with it, it changed by huge ammounts. For the longest time, however, people took it as 'absolute truth'.
Now of course here is where the scientists come in and say "It was only a theory, when we learned something different we came up with a new test". Which is fine, and it is what we should do. Yet then those who want to disprove religion come along, they can not accept that religion can adapt also. "Oh no, that's set in stone. We arn't but they have to be!" hmmm yet another double standard in this sad world.
If you don't want to believe there is anything greater then yourself out there, more power to you. I hope it works out for you. I really do.
Myself, I know I don't know everything. Heck I know I don't know 1/1000000000000000000000 of everything. I've encountered things that have no scientific explination. First hand. So I don't believe because I am afraid, or misinformed, or delusional. I believe because of my experiences. That logically, I am just a small speck in a rather large universe.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 07:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The stars would've been created before that, but we wouldn't see them from Earth's perspective. If Sirius (one of the brightest and closest stars) would explode, we would notice 24 years later. Imagine how long it would take for all the other stars to be seen by us.
24 years? This guy is talking in terms of many billions of years.
Besides, it's not meant to be in terms of an ignorant human's perspective, rather that of an all knowing god.
Stars forged the heavy elements. They must have existed before planets, let alone the seas of earth.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:05 AM |
|
|
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry in this thread anymore ...
____________
The empty set
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:17 AM |
|
|
You are a very emotional forum reader 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 09:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The law of conservation of matter says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
Is that something like a commandment in a Bible? What makes you think that applies even before the Big Bang, or before time? I mean, that can only be drawn from experience and I doubt you experienced what happened before the Big Bang.
Asking what was before the Big Bang is a difficult question. Or rather, asking what was before time. 'before' 'after' have no meanings in a world without time, do they?
What happened before time=0? 
Quote:
24 years? This guy is talking in terms of many billions of years.
Besides, it's not meant to be in terms of an ignorant human's perspective, rather that of an all knowing god.
We don't know God's perspective, apart from what's written in the Bible. What we discover ourselves is from OUR perspective -- that's why results can easily not match but still be true.
Quote:
Stars forged the heavy elements. They must have existed before planets, let alone the seas of earth.
Are you so sure of that? I mean, people were sure relativity was a passing joke back then too. Maybe a new theory will blow up our current views (I mean, maybe our observations allow us to see the starts forming the heavy elements, but from other perspectives maybe it's not the case! maybe aliens did ). You say science adapts so it is ok to adapt to the new theory. That's ok, but the problem is that science wants to imply absolute truth in every stage. I mean, if you later say "ok we were wrong, we adapt to the new theory", how could you possibly say that what you said before was 'true'? You may now know that it was wrong, but remember that back then you implied it was correct, and anything else unscientific opinions. (scientists said Earth was flat was true; if people said that it's not, it would not be 'scientifical' back then; however nowadays it is; in the future, what will be?)
I mean, it's like a baby that 'grows' up. Only that the baby claims he knows the truth. When he later grows up, he says so again... he changes his views, however he always implies at each view that he is right. I don't think I need to comment on that apart from the fact that truth does not change, or does it?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 09:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Is that something like a commandment in a Bible? What makes you think that applies even before the Big Bang, or before time? I mean, that can only be drawn from experience and I doubt you experienced what happened before the Big Bang.
Asking what was before the Big Bang is a difficult question. Or rather, asking what was before time. 'before' 'after' have no meanings in a world without time, do they?
What happened before time=0?
Not really.
If you define time as increasing entropy, then if entropy = 0 (ie. a singluarity) then t=0, the big bang.
Quote:
We don't know God's perspective, apart from what's written in the Bible. What we discover ourselves is from OUR perspective -- that's why results can easily not match but still be true.
The guy is trying to match modern science with the story of Genesis, or how god created the earth.
Dagoth linked it to human observation of the stars, explaining light years. Yet stars were created much more than 24 years before the earth and that's besides the point. Either he is trying to match it up to explain God, (which I can understand), in which case he is wrong as I said, or he is trying to match up to the human perspective which is a waste of time as this has nothing to do with god at all.
And when Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, it was accepted a long time before it was proved. Because it fits, it was so... graceful
There was plans to try and extract evidence to confirm it but it was interrupted by the war, and while we now have evidence it was in the textbooks along time before then. Because people liked it
And I don't really see where you are going with this current "we don't know anything" argument. I see interesting parallels to your "living inside a computer" argument...
It's a fact we have to accept, but in order to achieve anything we need to assume that we do know some things and not everything is lies and trickery
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 09:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not really.
If you define time as increasing entropy, then if entropy = 0 (ie. a singluarity) then t=0, the big bang.
So what about negative entropy?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 01:41 PM |
|
|
Entropy? Man, it ain't what it used to be.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 01:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not really.
If you define time as increasing entropy, then if entropy = 0 (ie. a singluarity) then t=0, the big bang.
So what about negative entropy?
That means that time in reality moves backwards on earth. Waiting for Jesusīs comeback
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 03:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But why only believe what is written in only scientific books.
Science is based on our observations and experiments, and theories we use to explain them. Faith is based purely on the imagination.
Quote:
What makes you think that applies even before the Big Bang, or before time?
Because we have never observed that law being violated, so we have no basis for which to say that it can be.
Quote:
Or rather, asking what was before time. 'before' 'after' have no meanings in a world without time, do they?
Well, they do, if you pick some arbitrary point in the cycle.
Quote:
science wants to imply absolute truth in every stage
No, it doesn't. It seeks to disprove its own theories, but they are assumed to be true until they are disproven.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 04:27 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:06, 02 Jun 2008.
|
@MYtical
Quote:
But why only believe what is written in only scientific books.
Most people don't.
Quote:
However, that is what it is ... belief. Another word for faith.
The point being?
Quote:
It is taken for granted that the 'proven' theories are just that ... proven.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who would use the word "proven" to refer to a scientific theory. I know it seems like a broken record by now, but this is yet another instance where you demonstrate that you don't really get what a theory is. Don't worry, you are not alone.
Quote:
We don't question there is such things as gravity, as DNA, etc. Because the tests have already been done.
You don't question them because they affect your life every day. They are observations. Unless you have a reason to disbelieve your own senses, why would you question them?
Quote:
We are so confident that our limited understanding and knowledge is correct, we stop questioning.
Right. That's why there are tens of thousands of scientists around the world doing experiments at this very moment: because they've stopped questioning. [/sarcasm]
Quote:
It is illogical and wrong to think anything but what 'scientific' books have as 'facts'.
Facts are observations. Gravity is a word we use to describe the observation that apples fall from trees. The THEORY of gravity is a proposed mechanism to describe this observation. You are confusing facts and theories. The reason we think "facts" are correct is because we observe them directly. There is no logical deduction to be made, except for the simple one: I see it, therefore it is. You can contest this deduction, if you want, but of course 99.999999% of people believe what they see. What they don't believe necessarily is the commonly accepted (by scientists) mechanistic explanation for the observation.
And also you are implying that "illogical" and "wrong" are synonyms, even though not one page ago I explicitly said (twice!) that they are not!
Quote:
Let us take how coming up with how old the earth is for instance. I don't know the dating techniques that came first, but eventually there was carbon dating. It was 100% accurate, infallible, and had to be correct. Except it wasn't. Seemed each time they said how old the earth was with it, it changed by huge ammounts. For the longest time, however, people took it as 'absolute truth'.
Mytical, I suggest if you are going to go on and rant about the arrogance of scientists, you at least take some time to get your information correct.
Carbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth. It is highly impractical to even try. The half-life of carbon 13 is on the order of 5000 years, way too short (by many orders of magnitude) to estimate the age of the earth. Using carbon dating to measure the age of the earth is like using a ruler to measure the circumference of the earth. There are much better dating techniques available. So it appears that you don't know ANY dating techniques, which makes me wonder if you pulled this story out of thin air, and in any case there were many who hypothesized an "old" earth long before any rigorous method to accurately quantify it were available.
As for the rest of your narrative... what's your point, that scientists should be criticized because they refine their knowledge when better tools become available? I mean, if you are trying to cut up a pork chop with a spoon, and someone hands you a knife, do you not accept it, because you know it is better suited for the job? Your comparison is beyond flawed - scientists are continually inventing new tools to re-evaluate the accuracy of their theoretical models. Religion invents no new tools. Re-evaluation of religious beliefs is random and sporatic and moves in no absolute direction.
I mean, let's be honest - if it weren't for scientists asking questions, would we have any concept of the earth being older than a few thousand years? It is RELIGION - not SCIENCE - that is stagnant. It is RELIGION - not SCIENCE - that takes beliefs at face value and does not question their validity. It is RELIGION - not SCIENCE - that assumes it understands completely every facet of reality and balks at any attempt at changing preconceived ideas, even when contradictory facts are begging for a re-evaluation of understanding. Conversely, it is SCIENCE - not RELIGION - that questions beliefs and is ready and willing to change perspectives in light of new evidence. It is SCIENCE - not RELIGION - that operates on tough questioning and rigorous thought. It is SCIENCE - not RELIGION - that has a well-defined methodology for answering questions and it is SCIENCE - not RELIGION - that continually invents new tools to improve understanding. I find it amusing outrageous that despite this, you would accuse SCIENCE of being blind, of not asking questions, of grasping stubbornly at preconceived notions of truth, at taking pre-existing beliefs as axiomatic. If there were no scientists (natural and other) asking questions - imagine how the world would be different. Imagine all the knowledge we would NOT have. For one thing, you wouldn't be on a computer, but it goes way beyond that. I'm sure, for instance, you can think about social changes that resulted from a general progress in scientific knowledge. Just think about that for a moment before you throw your stones.
Quote:
If you don't want to believe there is anything greater then yourself out there, more power to you. I hope it works out for you. I really do.
I'm not sure where you get the nerve to generalize scientists in this way. Many scientists are religious. Many at the very least are agnostic or deist. And if they ARE atheists, I'm not sure what kind of hypocrisy you think you are trying to expose.
Quote:
I've encountered things that have no scientific explination. First hand.
Let's be real here. I don't know what you think you "encountered" and it doesn't really matter. Whatever it is:
(1) You made an observation.
(2) You made an assumption that there IS NO and CAN BE NO scientific explanation. That is, you made an interpretation of your observation.
Option 2 (the latter half - making an interpretation) is fundamentally the same thing that a scientist does when he observes something new. The difference is that the scientist uses a defined method of inquiry to understand the observation, or, to test whether his interpretation is correct. This involves asking a lot of questions and then rigorously trying to answer them in a controlled fashion. You do not do this - you make an interpretation and leave it at that.
So... who is the one not asking questions?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 05:18 PM |
|
|
[offtopic]I really like Corribus posts [/offtopic]
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is RELIGION - not SCIENCE - that is stagnant.
That's just mean
Neither science or religion are the answer... This is not a satisfying answer, I know...
Let's be honest that humans involve in more ways than one. The mental plane of the mind is bigger than mere science or facts or "fairytales" as you would address the parabels in the bible. Spiritual evolution? Anyone? I don't mean wiccan /hippie /mother earth is supreme kinda things. I mean social evolution as well. I mean your points on how to treat other people, your morals etc. (I'm just giving these examples to be practical)
Yes, religion has been stagnant, but not in the way you think.
Religion has been abolished. People who believe are more of an outcast nowadays... (It's not a good idea, in Belgium, to say that you believe. In my experience, People tend to ridicule you.) The roles are reversing. New saints and idols have arisen and we haven't noticed. Let's make a small reflection to Ancient times:
google= the (modern) oracle of Delphi
wikipedia= the library of Alexander/athena
youtube= coliseum/ Opera/ God of fun (more or less Dionysus)
We all ask them things and I think you rarely ever questioned them... So don't start saying that religion is that different from the sources from which we get science.
These things and opinions like "religion is stagnant" have not allowed religion to evolve. The council of Trente was one of the last changes the church had undergone some 400 years ago. After that there were some guys who said: "wait, the plan with which you surpressed us a 1000 years doesn't fit... the earth goes around the sun and the orbits are elliptical... It's payback time..."
So certain events started and state and religion were separated just like religion and science. Religion was stagnant, then and nowadays it can only resort to one thing, since most people are either stupid, close-minded or uninterested, they have to create fanatics and keep their religion, just like 400 years ago, since one small change may even cause the churches to be even emptier.
People still have a chemical reaction in their brain that causes fear when they hear the word Khan(very, very slightly). Is it possible that people who are "more logical" than others might still have this surpressed feeling when they compare religion or science?
maybe ignore the last two alinea's... A bit of verbal diarrhea...
Anyways, back to that, since the bible's story has been counterproven on one actual fact, people tend not to believe. Why? 'cuz they want certainty and noone will blame them.
And so, every now and then, science was attacked by church fanatics, since the church wasn't allowed to evolve in a certain time, the regular people who believe in the pope and the bible completely are stupid...
Find a hidden meaning. Believing in a higher force isn't stupid. It's trust and a point where ppl can cling on to whenever they are uncertain. There's still a lot of good wisdom in the people that most people can learn something from.
I'm not saying that you can heal through faith, but that you must use faith as a tool to say it bluntly...
Damn it, I keep trailing of... People with sharp wit should ignore the last alinea.
And so, if we state something about religion, we sometimes draw the parallel between the idiotic "I belive 'cuz god wants me to and evryone goes to hell and everyone shouldn't question us" kinda guy and the given subject.
In the last 400-500 years, science has thrived and religion hasn't. Damnit! Where am I going with this? 
ow and about the light year thing: The brightest star takes 24 years to reach us. Think about all those smaller and dimmer lights in the sky... how long for them to reach us?
That might even just take a longer time, but not exceed like million years so my point remains invalid.
By the way. Do we all believe that a human is the author of the bible? (I would like to post a sense-making argument about it)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 06:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Neither science or religion are the answer
The answer? The answer to what? What is the question?
Quote:
The mental plane of the mind
What's the "mental plane of the mind"?
Quote:
Religion has been abolished.
Among the educated of Western Europe, maybe. But a trip to the Middle East or to America will tell you otherwise.
Quote:
google= the (modern) oracle of Delphi
wikipedia= the library of Alexander/athena
youtube= coliseum/ Opera/ God of fun (more or less Dionysus)
Except that, you know, Google only directs us to where we may find something, and makes no premise of actually telling us anything of substance. Wikipedia emphasises that it is user-generated, and not 100% reliable. And youtube is merely a source of fun. Nothing religious about that.
Quote:
We all ask them things and I think you rarely ever questioned them...
I think that we know well that these sources are not 100% reliable.
Quote:
These things and opinions like "religion is stagnant" have not allowed religion to evolve.
No, it is the traditional essence of religion that has not allowed it to evolve.
Scenario 1: Religion adapts to new scientific findings:
Priest: The Sun revolves around the flat Earth! I speak with God's authority!
Scientist: Actually, no. The spherical Earth revolves around the Sun.
Priest: OK, it doesn't. God says that the spherical Earth revolves around the Sun.
People: But you just said that the Sun revolves around the Earth! There's no truth to be found here! *leave*
Scenario 2: Religion refuses to adopt to new scientific findings:
Priest: The Earth was created 6000 years ago.
Scientist: Actually, it wasn't.
Priest: Don't listen to the evil scientists that are trying to lead you away from God!
Some people: Whatever, this is stupid. *leave*
Other people: No! Save us from the Great Satan of Science! *worship*
Priest: At least I got to keep some of them.
Quote:
Do we all believe that a human is the author of the bible?
I think that it was more than one human, and it wasn't written all at once.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 06:59 PM |
|
|
It's like a reverse inquistion era. Instead of religion being intolerant of science, it is science that is now intolerant of religion.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 07:23 PM |
|
|
Uhmmm... ROFL, mental plane of the mind... Forgive me for that... Answer to... Damn it! There is no one true philosophy so that's also a small noose around my neck lol.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
|
Btw, the greatest minds once thought that there was only one kind of atom from which everything was built (before that elements and before that... I dunno), I think u can cut religious ppl some slack.
Are religious ppl really like: "God says this. God says that. Worship this. Crucify that."? If it is, then either I am extremely naive (spare me, mvass) or you all have a very sad look at religion...
By the way, the late pope, John Paul the second, signed a small paper, indicating that the roman catholic church agrees with the theory of evolution... I don't know about Benedict... And Mvass... When I said that religion is abolished, it doesn't matter whether it's active in non-western countries. I was talking about the western world... About America... Yeah, right... One religious candidate for presidency was almost immediately ruled out (I admit, he was mormon)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's like a reverse inquistion era. Instead of religion being intolerant of science, it is science that is now intolerant of religion.
How do you figure that?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Instead of religion being intolerant of science, it is science that is now intolerant of religion.
It's nothing like that. It is, however, sometimes annoying to see otherwise reasonable people thinking that muttering into the air will do anything more than be a placebo.
Quote:
Btw, the greatest minds once thought that there was only one kind of atom from which everything was built (before that elements and before that... I dunno)
When the facts (or our knowledge of them) change, science's views change. How about religion's?
Quote:
Are religious ppl really like: "God says this. God says that. Worship this. Crucify that."?
Not all of them, not even most of them. But even though they may not act that way, it's what the church teaches them. They may ignore it or not follow their religion to the letter, and thus be decent people. But anyone who follows any (Abrahamic) religion 100% would be locked up in jail these days, as that person would be a murderer.
Quote:
John Paul the second, signed a small paper, indicating that the roman catholic church agrees with the theory of evolution...
Well, after fighting science for 500 years, they've finally begun to give up. But many Protestant groups (mainly Evangelical ones) are not accepting anything beyond Flying Spaghetti Monster-style Young Earth Creationism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:03 PM |
|
|
What? Interesting, the very basics of Lutheranism and Calvinism (two basic protestant religions) are that you must interpret the bible yourself... But I suppose others know better...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
