|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 31, 2013 03:57 AM |
|
|
What does "know there is no God" mean? Are you agnostic about the fairies at the bottom of the pond? Maybe they're invisible fairies that can't be detected through any of our tools and senses. Or, alternatively, how do you know that a billion dollars haven't been added to your bank account right now? You could check, of course, but until you'd check, would you be "agnostic" about whether you're a billionaire?
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not proof of absence, but it is evidence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 04:29 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not proof of absence, but it is evidence.
Not in the world of science.
And in any case, there are those who would contend that god is not the kind of thing for which evidence is even possible, and therefore knowledge is impossible. Unlike money in your bank account. Because, as you point out, it's possible to check your bank account. It's not possible to check for god. That's called, in case you didn't know, the scientific method.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 05:50 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:00, 31 Oct 2013.
|
|
There are many things and concepts that fall outside the perimeter of scientific method's falsifiability principle. The important question here would be, does the "hypothesis" of god deserve any special treatment, I'm fine with the idea that some questions do deserve a special treatment because of their philosophical or intellectual depth. I think, in our age and with our level of knowledge about the universe and human history, it's quite safe to say that the idea of god and especially a theistic god with personal interest in the destiny of humanity can not be considered an intellectually deep or interesting question. For the last few hundred centuries, there are no more revolutionary ideas or any intellectual outcome that involves theism but only apologists trying to modify the old cosmology to a new world. If it wasn't for the cultural heritage and sheer number of the masses, we wouldn't even be debating about it anymore.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 06:54 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
mvassilev said:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not proof of absence, but it is evidence.
Not in the world of science.
Suppose there are two phenomena, X and Y. Phenomenon Y is more likely if Phenomenon X happens. You start with some expectation of X and Y happening, not knowing whether either actually occurred. Then you observe that Phenomenon Y did not occur. You then revise your estimate of whether Phenomenon X happened, decreasing it. Thus, nothing happening (Phenomenon Y did not occur) was evidence for Phenomenon X not happening. It didn't necessarily prove that Phenomenon X didn't happen, but it caused you to revise your expectation of Phenomenon X happening. If Y had happened, it would have been evidence for X happening. Y not happening is evidence for X not happening. Then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.Corribus said:
And in any case, there are those who would contend that god is not the kind of thing for which evidence is even possible, and therefore knowledge is impossible.
If evidence for God is impossible, then God doesn't influence our world in any way that is distinguishable from natural events. No test can be devised to tell divine intervention from natural occurrence. While it's possible for a religious person to make this claim, I don't think any of them really believe it. A theist's god (deists aside) is one that is active in the world - someone with a belief like, say, Elodin's would never make the claim that a world with God is indistinguishable from a world without God.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 09:53 AM |
|
|
There is a difference between assuming Green Fairies and "God".
It seems obvious that religion(s) started out as "cosmologies" in a very broad and naïve sense; people wanted to KNOW what the hell things are all about, and they felt better with the idea of "knowledge" (which hasn't changed a bit, mind you). Strangely enough, believing in things we don't experience or can personally ascertain, is not a problem at all, because it happens all the time. It's part of our life to assume things to be true - and live accordingly.
You can "condense" all these pre-scientific-age "cosmologies" to the simple question of "where or how does it all come from". "God" or even "Gods" is basically an idea behind this - one or more immaterial forces, sentient or not.
Physics - and especially cosmology - is not following the principle of falsifiability, because there is no way to falsify or experimentally PROVE how everything came to pass. There is not even HARD evidence - there is only so much DATA, that is collected, and TAKEN FOR evidence under certain assumptions.
It seems fairly obvious to me that the current methods of data gathering won't allow satisfactory conclusions - we still need ABSTRACTIONS of the data to form a coherent picture. To use mathematical phrases, if data gathering is a sum of elements 1 to n, then we still need to find the limes.
We have to find those Pis and Es - which obviously are so important in real life somehow.
So if we strip "religion" of its decorum, the basic assumption is still relevant. Philosophically/physically spoken. Of course, the ado about it, are leftovers from a more primitive time, but the main ideas behind it are not that far away.
We know that there are a lot of things going on in physics, that are difficult to explain, and I SERIOUSLY doubt that the so-called material world is all there is, because that would leave us pretty short of any valid explanation for its existence, since we KNOW that MATTER doesn't come from nothing. Whether matter is "real" or simply an effect of underlying processes - there is more than that at work.
The only question is, how to gather data about that.
I mean, take the issue of Dark Matter. Isn't that an assumption based on the absence of evidence?
In earlier times the ABSENCE of something we would have expected based on a theory would have sunk the theory. That's how the idea of the light ether was sunk, for example. All the more so since gravitation is something we have no idea about - but still we would assume that the observed phenomenon of galaxies accelerating away from each other would be used to postulate the existence of something
a) material but
b) unobservable
And there we go - RELIGION, all over again: postulating the existence of something there is NO EVIDENCE for, instead giving something that can't be explained with what we know a name - and material existence.
So on the cosmology level we are still firmly rooted in story-telling, scientific method or not.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 10:49 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:56, 31 Oct 2013.
|
Quote:
Physics - and especially cosmology - is not following the principle of falsifiability, because there is no way to falsify or experimentally PROVE how everything came to pass. There is not even HARD evidence - there is only so much DATA, that is collected, and TAKEN FOR evidence under certain assumptions.
Falsifiability is, first of all, a hypothetical principle. That means, even if you don't have the technology or time or conditions to observe and falsify a theory, it can still be falsifiable. The universe being a multiverse consisting of many universes is falsifiable in theory even if we are not able to do that at the moment. God on the other hand, is not falsifiable by category: Even if we discover every possible law of the universe, even if we come up with that grand theory that unifies everything, somebody may still come up and say "that's the way god did it." So a scientific hypothesis, no matter how far fetched and a mythological one are different types of "story-telling" as you call them. Existence of dark matter was CALCULATED by the slowness of universe's expansion, even as a hypothesis, it was falsifiable, it could have been falsified even in Cern, but it didn't. The roundness of Earth, water boiling at 100 C, sun giving us heat are STILL all falsifiable. Falsifiability is about the epistemological nature of your statement, not about whether it's true or not.
For argument's sake, even if we assume matter can't come from nothing, God (not necessarily a God of the existing religions) is too anthropomorphic to be an alternative explanation.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 11:54 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 11:56, 31 Oct 2013.
|
Weehheewww! A topic about religion gone wrong! Scientism in every page! Explaining methaphysical things with "science"!
Quote:
"Scientism is not the same thing as science. Science is a blessing, but scientism is a curse. Science, I mean what practicing scientists actually do, is acutely and admirably aware of its limits, and humbly admits to the provisional character of its conclusions; but scientism is dogmatic, and peddles certainties. It is always at the ready with the solution to every problem, because it believes that the solution to every problem is a scientific one, and so it gives scientific answers to non-scientific questions. Owing to its preference for totalistic explanation, scientism transforms science into an ideology, which is of course a betrayal of the experimental and empirical spirit."
Leon Wieseltier
Quote:
"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)."
Shallis M.
Oh, and Artu..
Artu said:
Existence of dark matter was CALCULATED by the slowness of universe's expansion
You'd wish.. It's actually very different from that. Dark matter was Ad-Hoc introduced into the calculation. It's is not a calculation that proved the existence of dark matter, it is dark matter that is being added to the equation to make it work.
Red shifts prove the universe is expanding. That stands in the face of the gravitational pull. How do you explain that? Simple, add "dark matter" into the mix and problem solved! Great science!
Quote:
Dark matter, in astronomy, is any hypothetical matter that is not directly detectable but which astronomers infer when the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect. It is one of two concepts (the other is dark energy) that evolutionistic astronomers invoke to account for observations that old-universe cosmologies, including the big bang, cannot explain. Recently, creationist John Hartnett has suggested a new cosmology, and a new physics, that render this concept unnecessary.
Alas, there actually is evidence that points to a Creator. And ID proponents made that extremely clear. Their research is not based on unfalsifiable assumptions, but rather on hard facts, observable and testable, information science.
Before I leave, I think I should remind you Artu that nothing can be deemed as "scientific" if it fails the "scientific method", in which falsifiability as well as observation and repetability are a must! By this reasoning your beloved evolution cannot be deemed as "scientific" because it fails this test miserably!
Experimental science is one thing! Historical science is another. Evolutionism as well as Creationism are theories of the past. You cannot prove or disprove them, but you can however get a decent look at which explains the evidence best.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 12:36 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:56, 31 Oct 2013.
|
Quote:
You'd wish.. It's actually very different from that. Dark matter was Ad-Hoc introduced into the calculation. It's is not a calculation that proved the existence of dark matter, it is dark matter that is being added to the equation to make it work.
Dark matter itself was not observed, I didn't say that. The conclusion of dark matter's existence had it's reasoning in calculations of the speed of universe's expansion. They didn't just make it up out of the blue.
Quote:
Alas, there actually is evidence that points to a Creator. And ID proponents made that extremely clear. Their research is not based on unfalsifiable assumptions, but rather on hard facts, observable and testable, information science.
That is pseudo-science at its worst. I checked your John Hartnett, he even opposes the Big Bang and with no valid reason. Creationism is not considered a valid theory by the vast (and I mean really vast) majority and should not indeed, since it's not falsifiable.
Quote:
A topic about religion gone wrong! Scientism in every page! Explaining methaphysical things with "science"
Not really,it was only made clear why atheism and agnosticism can intersect, what is knowable is an epistemological question and what is scientifically knowable is a very related question. It's quite natural it came up. Also,a claim being outside the perimeter of scientific research does not automatically become convincing and beyond expectations of rationality, logic. Your "metaphysical" explanation is simply the God of Gaps. Not so impressive. Saying metaphysical things can't be explained by science and then contradicting with yourself a few sentences later by saying evidence points to a creator also doesn't help.
Quote:
Before I leave, I think I should remind you Artu that nothing can be deemed as "scientific" if it fails the "scientific method", in which falsifiability as well as observation and repetability are a must! By this reasoning your beloved evolution cannot be deemed as "scientific" because it fails this test miserably!
I already answered to that in another thread where you expected dogs to evolve into zebras within 3 generations. You are absolutely ignorant about what evolution is and how it works. Let me repeat, anything that takes up such great scales of time can not be repeated in the sense you use the word. You can repeat vaporization in a lab but you can not repeat the oceans' coming into existence, filling earth's surface. That does not mean oceans can not be explained by science. Evolution IS tested in microorganisms that evolve much faster than, say, mammals or birds. It is backed-up by immense genetic, paleontological, geological, bio-geological, embryological data. It has no scientific alternative, creationism isn't one by even the lowest standards. Denying evolution today is no different than being a member of the flat-earth community. It is really as ignorant and anachronical as it gets. So no matter what you believe in, better make your peace with it, it's not going anywhere.
Edit to Edit:
Quote:
Experimental science is one thing! Historical science is another. Evolutionism as well as Creationism are theories of the past. You cannot prove or disprove them, but you can however get a decent look at which explains the evidence best.
This is wrong on many levels. Evolution did not stop, it's an on-going process, not a thing of the past. Creationism is a belief, not a theory. It does not qualify as a theory because it is not backed up by evidence, it is not falsifiable and it uses wishful thinking as a method instead of reasoning. Saying "I can't explain this so someone must have done it" is not building a theory. And it's very clear that we CAN explain the diversity and variety of living organisms.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:17 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 13:20, 31 Oct 2013.
|
Quote:
Dark matter itself was not observed, I didn't say that. The conclusion of dark matter's existence had it's reasoning in calculations of the speed of universe's expansion. They didn't just make it up out of the blue.
Exactly. 0 testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable data. Just a number in an equation with a fancy name for the public. This is not science! Even Corribus tells us that if it doesn't fit the Scientific Method it's not science!
Quote:
That is pseudo-science at its worst. I checked your John Hartnett, he even opposes the Big Bang and with no valid reason. Creationism is not considered a valid theory by the vast (and I mean really vast) majority and should not indeed, since it's not falsifiable.
It's not Creation. It's Intelligent Design.
And again, you checked a name rather than an idea. You reek of appeal to authority and of Wikipedia, which is quite sad if you ask me 
And about the Big Bang.. I'd rather believe that something came out of something than something came out of nothing.
By the way.. did you know that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a creationist? 
Quote:
Your "metaphysical" explanation is simply the God of Gaps. Not so impressive.
Really? God of Gaps? I've heard this so many times it makes me yawn.
You can reason that a code/language is the product of intelligence, yet when you see that bazillions of times more complex in the DNA you say it came up by chance? Where's the Gap here? It's the same reasoning as when someone finds ancient writings in the desert. No one can debate that they have an intelligent source. But when it comes to the language the cell uses this argument is discarded, because the evidence (not lack of evidence, not gaps!) points to a creator. It's exactly the same reasoning.
Quote:
I already answered to that in another thread where you expected dogs to evolve into zebras within 3 generations.
What about the experiments on fruit flies? Hundreds of thousands of altered generations producing either dead flies or crippled flies. Yet still flies!
Quote:
Let me repeat, anything that takes up such great scales of time can not be repeated in the sense you use the word.
Then it's not science! It fails the scientific method! It's as simple as that!
Quote:
That does not mean oceans can not be explained by science.
It means exactly that! Experimental science (scientific method) cannot prove that. Don't equivocate these terms : Experimental science - Historical science.
Quote:
Evolution IS tested in microorganisms that evolve much faster than, say, mammals or birds.
Yea I know that, still they remain microorganisms. And their engineering by intelligent agents only disproves your beloved evolution.
Quote:
It is backed-up by immense genetic, paleontological, geological, bio-geological, embryological data.
Elephant hurling.
Quote:
Denying evolution today is no different than being a member of the flat-earth community.
Ahahahaha =)) It's funny because the leader of the Flat Earth Community today is actually an evolutionist.   This made my day.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:29 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
So on the cosmology level we are still firmly rooted in story-telling, scientific method or not.
Well worded JJ. I don't get too bunged-up about things because the stuff I'm interested in, is not known, I'll be dead soon and there will be nothing new before I head out or not. The thing that bugs me about science today, is that too many are not too concerned with the scientific method (not referring to anyone here)and act more like they are working inside a religion.
Even Historians are starting to pass off pure speculation as fact. I'm sure you know what I mean, "This is the chair Elizabeth the 1st was sitting in when she heard the Armada had sailed; we know this by the brown stains on the seat."
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:37 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
Physics - and especially cosmology - is not following the principle of falsifiability, because there is no way to falsify or experimentally PROVE how everything came to pass. There is not even HARD evidence - there is only so much DATA, that is collected, and TAKEN FOR evidence under certain assumptions.
Falsifiability is, first of all, a hypothetical principle. That means, even if you don't have the technology or time or conditions to observe and falsify a theory, it can still be falsifiable. The universe being a multiverse consisting of many universes is falsifiable in theory even if we are not able to do that at the moment. God on the other hand, is not falsifiable by category: Even if we discover every possible law of the universe, even if we come up with that grand theory that unifies everything, somebody may still come up and say "that's the way god did it." So a scientific hypothesis, no matter how far fetched and a mythological one are different types of "story-telling" as you call them. Existence of dark matter was CALCULATED by the slowness of universe's expansion, even as a hypothesis, it was falsifiable, it could have been falsified even in Cern, but it didn't. The roundness of Earth, water boiling at 100 C, sun giving us heat are STILL all falsifiable. Falsifiability is about the epistemological nature of your statement, not about whether it's true or not.
For argument's sake, even if we assume matter can't come from nothing, God (not necessarily a God of the existing religions) is too anthropomorphic to be an alternative explanation.
Completely beside any point. "God/Gods" as an explanatory gap term is EXACTLY as falsifiable and EXACTLY as scientific as the Big Bang or Dark Matter, once you start assigning properties to the term.
"God did everything" is just as unreasonable as "The Big Bang did it", because it doesn't explain anything.
Because this:
Quote:
Even if we discover every possible law of the universe, even if we come up with that grand theory that unifies everything, somebody may still come up and say "that's the way god did it."
is WRONG. If we CAN come up with such a grand theory that does NOT need ANY assumption of some outside black box force, for all purposes the idea of A God will be falsified (the idea of a SPECIFIC God like the Christian would be falsified by falsifying any of the claims made).
For the issue of Dark Matter/Energy - the whole issue is bogus, because gravitation as such is not fully (in fact in satisfactory detail) explained. It would seem that there is a problem to get a couple things in line, but to fill the gap by assuming something that can't be reproduced is somewhat arbitrary, considering that there are different explanations, like, for example:
Click
However, the main thing here is that the Dark Matter/Energy model wouldn't explain anything. The models would predict 73% DE, 23% DM and only 4% normal, visible matter. You'd think that DE and DM would have an impact on more than just gravitational effects on clusters of visible matter - you would, for example expect them to have an effect on light.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing that bugs me about science today, is that too many are not too concerned with the scientific method (not referring to anyone here)and act more like they are working inside a religion.
That's 100% true. What is deemed as "science" today is actually scientism. Secularism is the greates plague that real science has ever seen. I want my science back, real experimental science that closely abides to the scientific method. No storytelling, no twisted interpretations, just facts, what I can see with my own eyes and reason with my own brain. Everything besides that is religious indoctrination.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:44 PM |
|
|
1- Scientific method is not as shallow as you imagine it. You take the word observe way too literally, as in see it with my own two naked eyes.
2- Intelligent design is just another name for creationism. When they failed to put it in science classes, they tried to wrap it up under another name. So, ironically, it is you who skips the idea and gets fixed on a name. What I did was to check credentials of a quoted person to see if he's a charlatan or not, which is quite a reasonable thing to do, especially when he says things so out of proportion.
3- Yes, you just defined god of gaps: I can't explain it so it must be god. And mutations are by chance not the whole process of evolution. You are again clueless.
4- A specie wont evolve into another specie overnight. Species transform over time and if the amount of time is long enough there wont be much resemblence between the earlier generations and the latter. By time the gene pool will differ so greatly, they wont be able to breed among each other. Hence a new specie is born. I don't understand what you expect the fruit fly to turn into? I also don't understand how you can not comprehend such a simple concept.
5- You can't just make up terms to fit your agenda, biology is NOT "historical science", it is as positive as positive sciences get. And biology is founded on evolution.
6- So the bacteria don't suddenly become a gorilla? Looks like evolution is in trouble. All praise the Lord!
7- So what? A flat-earth community member can also say 2+2=4. Does not change the fact the level of denial required to object to evolution and to earth's roundness are practically same considering the huge amount of empirical data we have on them. And calling it evolutionism is not different than calling gravity gravitism.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:59 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Completely beside any point. "God/Gods" as an explanatory gap term is EXACTLY as falsifiable and EXACTLY as scientific as the Big Bang or Dark Matter, once you start assigning properties to the term.
"God did everything" is just as unreasonable as "The Big Bang did it", because it doesn't explain anything.
Because this:
Quote:
Even if we discover every possible law of the universe, even if we come up with that grand theory that unifies everything, somebody may still come up and say "that's the way god did it."
is WRONG. If we CAN come up with such a grand theory that does NOT need ANY assumption of some outside black box force, for all purposes the idea of A God will be falsified (the idea of a SPECIFIC God like the Christian would be falsified by falsifying any of the claims made)
But they don't say the Big Bang DID IT. They say, there was a Big Bang. Simply because there are traces of it and simply because the empirical data indicates it. Not the case when it comes to God, it indeed can be thought as mythological as a green fairy. Yes, it sounds cooler but it's still a magical force with super natural powers, and since we are not using a term such as "unknown cause" etc etc, a persona.
And no, God is not necessarily (in fact, in modern times not usually) an explanation of things because people wonder how, it is a solution people make up to the question why. So even if we can come up with the grand theory of all hows, people who believe because they want to believe will say that's God's way of doing things. While, when there is something unexplained, the reasonable thing would be to say, we don't know how, at least yet. (As we do about before the Big bang) That's definitely a more rational stance than bringing in a super hero.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 02:34 PM |
|
|
1 - "Scientific method is not as shallow as you imagine it." - o.O?
"You take the word observe way too literally" - Shoot me! Next time I'll think of it as a metaphor.
"as in see it with my own two naked eyes." - That's exactly what it is, professor.
2 - "Intelligent design is just another name for creationism. When they failed to put it in science classes, they tried to wrap it up under another name. So, ironically, it is you who skips the idea and gets fixed on a name." - That's exactly why, because it's not Creationism. They do not say "God created everything", they say "By what we observe, by what we test and have as evidence, we reason that Design is proof of a Designer". They do not appeal to "arguments from gaps" in any way, and they don't make statements about this Designers identity. So you can tell that it's God or an alien or any other intelligent being, but that's completely besides the point of the ID movement.
3 - "Yes, you just defined god of gaps: I can't explain it so it must be god." - I can reason the evidence back to a Creator. In the same way I can reason a line of code to a Code Maker. A car to a car maker. That's entirely logical, it's supported by "cause and effect" logic. You see an effect which can only be explained in one single way. Information -> Intelligence/Information Sender. It's both necessary and sufficient. It's the single explenation to the information theory.
Also, information is immaterial. So the materialist foundation on which evolution is built (that only matter and energy exist) is a falsified assumption.
4 - "A specie wont evolve into another specie overnight. Species transform over time and if the amount of time is long enough there wont be much resemblence between the earlier generations and the latter." - Stop treating me like I have no clue what evolution says. I know that it's all about that. And I'm telling you, again, again and again: IT'S NOT TESTABLE, IT'S NOT OBSERVABLE, IT'S NOT REPEATABLE -> IT'S NOT SCIENCE!
"By time the gene pool will differ so greatly, they wont be able to breed among each other." - So if they can't breed anymore that makes them different species... Do you know that there are variations of rabbits that cannot interbreed? BUT STILL RABBITS! This argument doesn't stand to scrutiny
"I don't understand what you expect the fruit fly to turn into?" - A non-fruit fly like evolution says it would. Like invertebrates turning into non-invertebrates that are mostly know as vertebrates, like fish turning into non-fish like amphibians and then into non-amphibians like reptiles, and then to non-reptiles like birds, and then into non-birds, etc.
"I also don't understand how you can not comprehend such a simple concept." - Actually it's because I comprehend it that I find it stupid. Darwinian fiction hailed to the rank of science.
5 - "You can't just make up terms to fit your agenda, biology is NOT "historical science"" - Listen kids, long ago and far away, some bazillions years ago, it rained on a rock 'till you got a soup, and that soup after bazillions of years turned into Man. How is this not Historical science?
"And biology is founded on evolution." - Reheheheaaally? Poor you, you actually believe that don't cha? Evolution for biology is redundant at it's best.
6 - "So the bacteria don't suddenly become a gorilla? Looks like evolution is in trouble. All praise the Lord!" - No, rather: Bacteria don't become gorilla not even given bazillions of years, natural selection, mutations and everything. Now you can all praise the Lord!
7 - "So what? A flat-earth community member can also say 2+2=4. Does not change the fact the level of denial required to object to evolution and to earth's roundness are practically same considering the huge amount of empirical data we have on them. And calling it evolutionism is not different than calling gravity gravitism." - Are you jellybeans that I turned your argument against you? I hit it right out of the park with that one eh? /pat Artu
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 03:00 PM |
|
|
To explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, dark energy, not dark matter, was introduced.
Dark matter was introduced because galaxies were lacking gravitational pull to explain how the outer most stars of the galaxy were not pulling away from their host galaxy despite their speed.
I think it's funny to consider had Newton known about the observations which lead to the creation of Dark Matter, then we might not have a term for Dark Matter, but rather a whole different set of equations describing gravity.
I think the only reason dark matter was added, in stead of saying the theory has been falsified, is because the theory works under much smaller conditions (not too small either though), and therefore it seems simpler to add some invisible substance. However had it been discovered during Newton's time, my guess is in stead the theory would simply not have been as widely accepted as it has, and there'd be no such thing as dark matter.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 03:03 PM |
|
|
1- So since we haven't been to the center of the Earth, every scientific research we read about the nucleus are just wild guesses. Yes, you got it all right.
2- Are you seriously trying to suggest replacing the word creator with designer makes it a different idea? Read for yourself. It's even limited to Christian creationism.
3- Unfortunately for you, all of that can be explained within chemistry and it is done so. Information is immaterial because it is an abstraction of our mind, it is not a metaphysical entity. The source of information is matter though. Maybe you should reconsider learning "logic 101" before throwing around fallacies.
4- You do realize that life on earth dates back to 3.7 -3.5 billion years and transformations such as one-cell organism to multi-cell organism took millions of years, and the change was gradual. Anyway, this is the third time, you obviously don't get but somehow think you do. EVERY ORGANISM IS THE SAME SPECIE WITH ITS PARENTS, the transformation occurs in thousands of generations not individuals. And unless your God created different kind of animals every 10 million years and spread them around as if they have a gradual kinship that is degreed by location and time, this is not a matter of debate.
5- Biologists seem to disagree with you.
6- The fossil records also seem to disagree.
7- This is just... You attempted a logical fallacy and now that it's shown to you, you're even defending it to get ahead? Troll.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 04:33 PM |
|
|
Is Stevie the replacement for Elodin? If so, I want Elodin back because he appeared like he understood common sense and did not sound like an obvious troll...
Btw, Allah has a special place reserved in hell for people like Stevie, Artu and the rest of you guys! 
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 04:42 PM |
|
|
artu said:
And no, God is not necessarily (in fact, in modern times not usually) an explanation of things because people wonder how, it is a solution people make up to the question why. So even if we can come up with the grand theory of all hows, people who believe because they want to believe will say that's God's way of doing things. While, when there is something unexplained, the reasonable thing would be to say, we don't know how, at least yet. (As we do about before the Big bang) That's definitely a more rational stance than bringing in a super hero.
Science doesn't do that with Dark Matter/Energy either - they don't say "we don't know" - instead they come up with a completely silly "matter-that-isn't-matter-but-something-else".
Big Bang theory has a lot of holes in it as well - BIG holes, actually -, and we are back to where I started: when it comes to cosmology there is not much difference to postulating a "God" with defined properties as something everything is based on and any of the models, because the models leave the safe harbour of theories, since there is no model that caters for EVERYTHING (every data we have, that is).
But THAT is, what is the interesting thing - it's what Goethe al ready wrote in his Faust: we wanted to know
was die Welt
im innersten zusammenhält
what it is that makes the world going round.
And while science IS agnostic and pragmatic, the theories and models are more than that and in a way just a more complex version of the old "models".
There is NO WAY, that we are right NOW with all these "models".
That said, just remember, we are not talking about any specific religious god - I said that in my first post already. So any pointing to what religious people may say or not doesn't matter here.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 04:55 PM |
|
|
From an Occam's Razor point of view on the concept of God as a model, I wonder what parameters can be removed from this model without changing the strength of the models predictions. E.g. does it add anything that God has free will?
Also where does the predictive power of an almighty being ruling the cosmos lie at exactly? With models for the Big Bang, one can still make observations of stuff like the cosmic background radiation and use it to alter parameters of the Big Bang theory to make it fit those observations, and therefore also go the other way and from current theory predict stuff about future observations.
But from the model of the universe being ruled by God, what can we predict? What can we observe to change our beliefs? Is it in any way rooted in reality? Well it is in our minds, but apart from that (i.e. religion can be used as a way to influence masses), I don't see how this is a good model.
GunFred said:
IBtw, Allah has a special place reserved in hell for people like Stevie, Artu and the rest of you guys!
??
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
