|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 01, 2008 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The assumption thing with science really made me think about certain aspects and I've come to a conclusion:
What are the chances of science (or evolutionism) being wrong with the hundreds of sequenced genomes,millions and millions of fossils,millions of geological samples collected from all over the planet,the anatomical and biogeographical data,thousands of evolution expermients,scores of macroevolution examples observed in nature,physics and chemistry expermients conducted in the last century and so on and so forth ? All of these lead scientists to conclusions that are FAR from guess work.
You don't need to see what happened, with enough empirical evience it's easy to figure out what happened. All the branches of science "agree" that the Earth is at least hundreds of millions years old. What about atavisms..what about the banobos..what about mitocondrial NA..what about our chromosomes..what about embyology ? Are these just set up by a god ? You just need a bit of common sense.
Scientists have to work hard and to come up with a valid theory about the creation of the Universe (and about other things)..while things are much easier for religion. The Universe was made by a(some) god(s). You might ask : "But wait..who made the god ?". The answer will be..he just was and just is. Why does religion get away with it ?
LE: TheDeath I just saw your link. I'll look into it later 
The trouble is, that science just doesn't help. Viewing things from the perspective of a human with a life span of, well, say 75 years now, it just doesn't help, if science says, well, the universe is between 14 and 18 billion years old. We don't know what it is, where it comes from what was before that and what will be, but, yes, it's so old. Earth is about 4 billion years old, life nearly 3. Humans a couple hundred thousands. The time spans involved just defy imagination, obviously. The 6000 years of KNOWN human civilized history (the history we have artifacts from) is a vast time. The eknowledge about evolution doesn't help either.
In fact, when science "explains" the "creation", there is no explanation because all that is left after it is a feeling of utter insignificance in an utterly vast, incomprehensible and stunning universe that is only the 3-dimensional surface of a much vaster, much more incomprehensible and much more stunning more-dimensional "reality", whatever "reality" may mean.
Religion simplifies things, pulling them down to a much more comprehensible level. Right or wrong, what does it matter? It's an open question whether there even is an absolute truth (an absolute right or wrong).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What are the chances of science (or evolutionism) being wrong with the hundreds of sequenced genomes,millions and millions of fossils,millions of geological samples collected from all over the planet,the anatomical and biogeographical data,thousands of evolution expermients,scores of macroevolution examples observed in nature,physics and chemistry expermients conducted in the last century and so on and so forth ? All of these lead scientists to conclusions that are FAR from guess work.
To point this to two things:
1) "thousands", "hundreds"?? where do you get this from, I assume you didn't digged them all by yourself so you rely on the media  (sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, it depends)
2) Such conclusions are not knowledge, however, because all of them lead to some kind of extrapolation -- i.e since those scientists didn't live 3 billion years, it's kinda impossible for them to KNOW that. As an example, just to take it simply (there are other methods I know but same principle applies), let's take Carbon Dating (I heard it has like 60 thousand years max 'efficiency' but anyway). We draw assumptions from certain properties that we measured (or so the media claims ) and, since we didn't measure it 60 thousand years, we extrapolate and think that it is distributed uniformly and that it follows the same pattern/function/whatever (see more below about interpolation/extrapolation). It is not knowledge! It is an assumption.
Notice how all such assumptions always rely on the "natural course" of things -- since obviously, for example, if we were to see dino bones, we draw like everything happened naturally without any kind of interference or something like that (like from aliens) since that's our assumption for this extrapolation. For example, one can say that the dinos were put here by aliens -- maybe they were their 'pets' for example and wanted a zoo for the whole planet. Point is, they maybe put humans too, for example.
That is of course, maybe unlikely for you or for me, but it's just an EXAMPLE to prove that this is not knowledge. It's extrapolation of information -- it's not even direct data (information) since it's extrapolated!
For example, if we were to know the temperature at morning and the temperature at evening, but not the one at afternoon (for example), then we would have to interpolate the data. Say, maybe the average between the two which we know. But this is not knowledge, what if we actually find out (i.e measure it) that it is a bit above the average of the two?
Extrapolation is the same only that, for example, we have two data and find out the one that is "outside" not "between" the two (or more than two). If we knew the temperature at morning, and at afternoon, then we could extrapolate that to the evening. If the morning temperature raised to the temperature at afternoon, a simple linear extrapolation would make us assume that it will also increase at the same rate 'till evening, which could be false (of course smart people know that it usually decrease in the night, but this was a simple example, you don't have to take it literally with 'temperature' it works in ALL data).
Of course in evolution's case we can't find out unless we have a time machine
Quote:
You don't need to see what happened, with enough empirical evience it's easy to figure out what happened. All the branches of science "agree" that the Earth is at least hundreds of millions years old. What about atavisms..what about the banobos..what about mitocondrial NA..what about our chromosomes..what about embyology ? Are these just set up by a god ? You just need a bit of common sense.
Dunno if they are set up by a god, but even Dawkins admits that they could be set by aliens. Which of course, if we lived in the Matrix, then God = The Machines. Of course just because we might have been created doesn't mean the Christian God but heck, I'm not even trying to argument with religion here, just arguing with the beliefs in science 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mitzah
Promising
Supreme Hero
of the Horadrim
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 08:55 PM |
|
Edited by mitzah at 20:58, 01 Dec 2008.
|
But why wuld you need knowledge to determine something ? No, but how come physics,chemistry,biology,geology,geography etc. verify each other, cocerning the age of the earth ? Yes, that's true about carbon dating BUT there are many other isotopes which are used for dating. For example, potassium-40 has a half-life of about 1.3 billion years. Are you trying to say that radiocarbon dating results may be inconclusive ? Well, There are methods of cross-checking, of course. For example, it is well known that the rins of a tree also determine it's lifeline. This can be cross-checked with carbon dating. You can also cross-check by using two different isotopes of course. Here's another example: you can use carbon dating on a human corpse whose year of death is known..and so on.
I get what you mean by extrapolation and knowledge. The difference is, in my opinion, that by extrapolating we get an estimate, and by knowledge we get the exact information.
But still, if I'm going to tell you that there is irrefutable proff for evolution (atavisms,mtDNA,embryology etc.) , you're going to tell me that "Well, someone might have put the genes for growing tails in humans, or the genes for growing teeth in chicken, or the genes for growing legs in whales just for fun/to test our faith/to experiment.". Practicaly, you're never going to give science a chance just because it oes not rely on knowledge, altough you use it everyday.
____________
| The HoMM Channel |
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 01, 2008 09:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:10, 01 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
For example, potassium-40 has a half-life of about 1.3 billion years. Are you trying to say that radiocarbon dating results may be inconclusive ?
No, rather extrapolated. That is, we've never seen it "in action" that long, and EVEN if so, we ASSUME/EXPECT natural causes/workings. Example: if we see a bright explosion in the Universe, we first think of "natural" explanations, like a Star exploding -- this isn't knowledge. What if, in reality, actually some aliens blown up a huge anti-matter bomb?
That's another flaw in assumptions
Quote:
Here's another example: you can use carbon dating on a human corpse whose year of death is known..and so on.
Did he live 60 thousand years? 
Quote:
I get what you mean by extrapolation and knowledge. The difference is, in my opinion, that by extrapolating we get an estimate, and by knowledge we get the exact information.
Knowledge =/= information. In fact, even if we get exact information, it might not be knowledge of "how" it was, that's our minds putting something plausible from the information (i.e at a crime scene, etc)... it's not knowledge, just facts (aka information).
But am not surprised really since in the last few decades it seems people & media are much more concerned with information rather than knowledge and much less people know how to "think" but rather know where to find information. Pity.
Quote:
But still, if I'm going to tell you that there is irrefutable proff for evolution (atavisms,mtDNA,embryology etc.) , you're going to tell me that "Well, someone might have put the genes for growing tails in humans, or the genes for growing teeth in chicken, or the genes for growing legs in whales just for fun/to test our faith/to experiment.". Practicaly, you're never going to give science a chance just because it oes not rely on knowledge, altough you use it everyday.
I'm not saying that I don't give it a chance, I have beliefs in it too, and I admit it, contrary to most atheists (especially on YouTube). They don't admit they have beliefs or assumptions. I use it everyday, but still such is an argument by 'intimidation' (not literally). Logically, if A and B are branches of C and A is true it doesn't mean B is true. But psychologically, you can persuade someone though with it, not saying it's been done to me but I know some stuff regarding it.
I'm skilled at programming and most computer software stuff -- but I do know that I have certain beliefs around it that makes me 'skilled' in it, so to speak. It's not like it would be hard for me, given that I also have beliefs in God -- on the other hand, I would find it pretty hard for someone who claims that beliefs are bad. (some atheists do).
Then again, all such estimates are also not 100% precise but "they allow errors" anyway, unlike the Bible which many scientists want it to be 99% correct on point.
(also note: I'm not advocating the Bible's truth, in fact I'm not even a Bible-learned-by-rote myself -- I'm more on the philosophical side. Of course I also admit that the Bible can be twisted especially in translations, which is also true, or so Geny said it's different in Hebrew for example, than in English, and English is different than Romanian, in SOME points; so yeah it got twisted).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 04, 2008 07:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) "thousands", "hundreds"?? where do you get this from, I assume you didn't digged them all by yourself so you rely on the media (sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, it depends)
It's not really the media that you rely on.
You can view this data and evidence first hand if you wish.
Either way it's better than relying on an old book.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 04, 2008 02:27 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:34, 04 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
It's not really the media that you rely on.
You can view this data and evidence first hand if you wish.
Cool, can I go to the Moon myself? I really wanna
ok now for less extreme examples, I think you heard about "Peer reviewing" right? Even if someone makes a perfectly valid experiment but the ones don't want to publish that then he's screwed. Isn't that media?
Quote:
It has not always been like this: in the old days of the "gentleman scientist" funding (and to a lesser extent publication) were far weaker constraints.
Both of these constraints indirectly bring in the scientific method -- work that too obviously violates the constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to get funded. Journals do not require submitted papers to conform to anything more specific than "good scientific practice" and this is mostly enforced by peer review. Originality, importance and interest are more important - see for example the author guidelines for Nature.
Criticisms (see Critical theory) of these restraints are that they are so nebulous in definition (e.g. "good scientific practice") and open to ideological, or even political, manipulation apart from a rigorous practice of the scientific method, that they often serve to censor rather than promote scientific discovery. Apparent censorship through refusal to publish ideas unpopular with mainstream scientists (unpopular because of ideological reasons and/or because they seem to contradict long held scientific theories) has soured the popular perception of scientists as being neutral or seekers of truth and often denigrated popular perception of science as a whole.
And sure, you don't expect if Einstein were to peer review it to actually even publish the "quantum mechanics nonsense" for example? Even more stuff about God that they don't "like" how it "sounds"
The 'ideal' science is just that, a theory. Reality is different.
Also usually people favor an idea that allows us "control" -- after all isn't that the criterion for reproducibility? They want to have control over things and they don't like when it's out of hand, like God (i.e you don't tell God what to do, for example). Many theories in science are usually "not accepted" or "rejected" or simply "not favored" because of this (especially quantum mechanics theories).
Quote:
Neils Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is perhaps the most comforting theory put forth. By explaining that particles exist in all states at once -- in coherent superposition -- our understanding of the universe is put slightly askew, but still remains somewhat comprehensible. Bohr's theory is additionally comforting because it makes us humans the cause for an object to take a determined shape. Although scientists find a particle's ability to exist in more than one state frustrating, our observations affect the particle. At least it doesn't continue to exist in all states while we're looking at it.
Much less comforting is Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation. This theory takes out of our hands any power over the quantum universe. Instead, we are merely passengers of the splits that take place with each possible outcome. In essence, under the Many-Worlds theory, our idea of cause and effect goes out the window.
This makes the Many-Worlds interpretation somewhat disturbing. If it's true, then in some universe parallel to the one we currently inhabit, Adolph Hitler was successful in his campaign to conquer the world. But in the same token, in another universe, the United States never dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes and of course we don't like/want it to be true since it is "disturbing". Hardly science as in the 'ideal' theory of it...
So I think in the real world, science is more based on authority (peer review, general 'acceptance' in the scientific community, just like general acceptance in the religious communities, etc) and "how it sounds" to someone who has authority -- or to the majority, which is again a dull logic, since that is what religion had hundreds of years ago too, yet you find that a moot point.
And don't start with Occam Razor. That doesn't prove anything, not to mention that it is subjective. As someone said:Quote:
It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.
There are, however, some -- skeptics and scientists alike -- who wield the razor like a broadsword. To these people it proves one theory and disproves another. There are two problems with using Occam's razor as a tool to prove or disprove an explanation. One, determining whether or not something is simple (say, empirical evidence) is subjective -- meaning it's up to the individual to interpret its simplicity. Two, there's no evidence that supports the notion that simplicity equals truth.
It's important to remember that the idea attributed to Aristotle says that perfection is found in simplicity is a man-made idea. It's not supported by math or physics or chemistry. And yet, it's taken by some as factual.
Here is an example:
There are some creationists who say that Occam's razor proves their ideology is correct. After all, isn't it a more simple explanation to say that God created life, the universe and everything than to say it was created by a Big Bang, followed by an astounding series of interrelated coincidences?
Nice try, say evolutionists. That explanation supposes that God exists, and we have no empirical evidence that he does. This is also the case for atheists -- those who don't believe in God. Atheists use Occam's razor in conjunction with Aristotle's idea of simplicity equaling perfection to prove that there is no God. If there were, say atheists, then the universe would be a whole lot simpler right?
The problem with all of these arguments is that what constitutes simplicity is subjective.
But of course in science, it is not subjective per individual, but rather for the authorities, or "general acceptance" in the scientific community -- much like organized religion.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 04, 2008 03:58 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
Quote:
I think you heard about "Peer reviewing" right? Even if someone makes a perfectly valid experiment but the ones don't want to publish that then he's screwed.
Well, it's true that's a valid criticism of the peer review process. However, it's also an extremely myopic characterization. Peer review is absolutely crucial for successful scientific inquiry, and does far more good than harm.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2008 04:09 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Let's just make a difference between scientifically observed facts and their INTERPRETATION or their position, relevance and impact for the "big picture".
The problem is the LATTER, not the former.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 05, 2008 12:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Cool, can I go to the Moon myself? I really wanna
Weren't we talking about fossils and genome sequencing?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 05, 2008 01:29 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 01:37, 05 Dec 2008.
|
who says fossils arent part of god anyways (part)
But who says they are? *the unknown*
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 03:10 AM |
|
|
Sometimes I go to in an off landish sequence of explanations.
My next outlandish belief on god is there could be a hope that there is a god who is rewarding but no knowledge, like its drained from reality before our eyes with a truth syrinige
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2009 03:37 AM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 13, 2009 04:58 AM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2009 10:08 AM |
|
|
pretty funny, but the person who wrote this must have been EXTREMELY bored. Lol.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 13, 2009 04:59 PM |
|
|
lol that was good, although I think probably multiple guys did it?
Anyway, even though funny, it fails at deductive logic:Quote:
# ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
That's what makes it even funnier  
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted January 13, 2009 05:21 PM |
|
|
Oh, there are so many of them!
Quote:
ARGUMENT FROM TINKERBELL
(1) I really want God to be real.
(2) If you wish for something really hard, it'll come true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:00 PM |
|
|
IMO, some kind of creative force exists. However, due to the limited nature of the human observatory faculties, there is not much we can say about it - or, indeed, about anything beyond the material world. At best, it's guesswork. At worst, it's a deluded, intolerant, and oppressive religion.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 04:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Scientists have to work hard and to come up with a valid theory about the creation of the Universe (and about other things)..while things are much easier for religion. The Universe was made by a(some) god(s). You might ask : "But wait..who made the god ?". The answer will be..he just was and just is. Why does religion get away with it ?
As opposed to a mysterious explosion coming from absolute nothing with absolutely no cause.
An eternal God makes sense to me. An explosion coming from absolute nothing and with no cause does not. Not to mention inanimate matter beginning to live and change into different creatures for no reason. Science does not have so many answers as some people pretend it does and prevailing scientific theories of the past have been proven wrong.
So why does "science" get away with saying "it just happened?"
|
|
kainc
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 05:35 PM |
|
Edited by kainc at 17:36, 11 Feb 2009.
|
What if God made the explosion to happen 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 05:40 PM |
|
|
I don't even consider that "science", but more like "math-think", since it seems a theory is more 'plausible' in fake-science if it is more mathematical than another, for some obscure reasons.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
