Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/01 21:52:03
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
If true does this also argue for the corollary, i.e. that you can educate people into disbelieving in evolution?
Obviously there are people in the world who disbelieve in evolution and believe in the literal true of the Bible story. They did not assume that position from genetic causes, presumably.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/01 22:55:08
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
In these conversations, he said, many evangelicals point to statements like that of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote in his 1967 book, The Meaning of Evolution, "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned." When this is echoed by outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.
Thanks for sharing this d-usa. It is interesting to see what motivates people on the other side of an issue. I have heard Richard Dawkins say in interviews that he believes evolution is incompatible with the idea of god. I haven't heard all his arguments for why he thinks that, but I can see how it certainly rocks some of the foundations. The concept of 'design' gets changed to 'guided evolution', which sounds fine at first "evolution is god's tool for designing life" right? But I think cracks start to appear in this idea. Evolution doesn't need guiding, it works fine on its own. In fact that's the whole idea. If god wanted to pilot, then why use a self guiding system -- and if he was 'guiding' evolution, then how much can we really say he has contributed? Surely not all the weird design mistakes. God just seems to end up being redundant in the whole process. He isn't needed to explain anything.
I can understand why this might not be what people wanted to hear, but to not be able to accept it at all seems quite messed up to me. For someone to basically say "I can only believe in a reality that was created for me, and which I am the centre of" seems sort of narcissistic. And it ends up as an argument from incredulity, which is of course no argument at all.
It is interesting to see what specifically the resistance is, but it still doesn't seem to be based on any kind of reason. It seems to just be an emotional response (which looks worryingly like denial if I'm honest).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 00:34:53
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Bishop F Gantry wrote:The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 00:52:23
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Hordini wrote:Bishop F Gantry wrote:The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, and yet here we are.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 00:58:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 01:10:51
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Hordini wrote:Bishop F Gantry wrote:The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Correct.
The bible has many historical facts in it.
Infact on face value it is just a history of the world. Just highly romanticized.
Science is no stranger to unreliable information.
Theories can be disproven, (laws can as well, because they are created by human logic, which will always be flawed)
God cannot. There is no proof and there is nothing to disprove. Science does not deal with philisophy or ideals. It deals with science, physics, logic. Not thinking of the why.
Science is concerned with how is this made, not for why the sky is blue. (Meaning why is it blue, the philisophical why, not the scientific why.)
When I ask why is it blue, I am asking why is it blue and not green, why is snow white? I am not asking how is it blue, and then you go into detail telling me because of solar rays or something along those lines.
She has a few. *By a few I mean limited amount are actually right.*
|
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 01:20:23
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Colonel
This Is Where the Fish Lives
|
easysauce wrote:Einstein is smarter then smacks, he believed whole heartedly in god and science, as did many of the great thinkers of our time.
True, Albert Einstein was not an atheist. However he was at best pantheistic, much in the same vein as Spinoza (who heavily influenced his religious views) but often preferred to call himself agnostic. He was skeptical of a personal and anthropomorphic god, and he dismissed belief in them as "childlike." He was also a humanist, and served on the board of First Humanist Society of New York. He wasn't religious at all, yet the religious have tried to paint him as such for years, probably because he wasn't an atheist and often wrote about "god." Those writings are taken out of context, and when combined with a general lack of understanding about the man, are easy to use as "proof" that the devout can count Einstein as one of their own.
His views were complex, though he was by his own admission a religious nonbeliever. I think one of my favorite quotes by him sums that up pretty well:
Albert Einstein wrote:“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
|
d-usa wrote:"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 02:27:20
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Smacks wrote:In these conversations, he said, many evangelicals point to statements like that of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote in his 1967 book, The Meaning of Evolution, "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned." When this is echoed by outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.
Thanks for sharing this d-usa. It is interesting to see what motivates people on the other side of an issue. I have heard Richard Dawkins say in interviews that he believes evolution is incompatible with the idea of god. I haven't heard all his arguments for why he thinks that, but I can see how it certainly rocks some of the foundations.
I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
Biology cares about how evolution happens, the process that species undergo, how they adapt and develop. Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being and as far as the science is concerned evolution doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the magical sky being and it's completely neutral on the subject.
So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 03:28:01
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
d-usa wrote:I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
That of course assumes that there is a 'why' (and I'm certainly not implying there isn't) ...
For myself though, I find "because god" quite unsatisfying. What is god? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make all this stuff? Why does he have human emotions such as 'wanting'? Has he made other universes? Why would he look like us? Why time and space? Why did he make maths? Why three dimensions and not four? Why can't we go faster than light? What's time dilation for? What's his plan for after the universe ends?
On the other hand, if there is no god and all this stuff exists for no reason, then I'm forced to wonder why there is any stuff at all? Why not just have nothing? This leads me to Lawrence Krausses idea that 'nothing' is essentially unstable. In many ways the universe is just an expression of nothing anyway (-1+1). Nothing is actually quite difficult to imagine, it always needs to be represented in my head by (at very least) some black, and would still be the philosophical counterpart to 'something'. Perhaps 'nothing' and everything are kind of the same. Like different sides of one chaotic coin. Not really able to truly exist or not exist. Perhaps we exist because everything that can exist must exist somewhere in the multiverse. Every mathematical possibility must be expressed. Creation doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.
Of course this doesn't rule out god, It might even make him inevitable too, and everything else that we can dream up, and everything that we can't. But that doesn't mean he is currently part of our universe. Our universe appears to be quite well ordered, which I could probably put down to the anthropic principle, or perhaps we just see it as ordered because we live here. A consciousness from another universe might find our universe mind bendingly crazy and chaotic.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 03:39:58
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being
Actually it does care, because biology works to provide a explanation that is complete without resorting to "divine guidance" as an explanation. In the ideal, complete, version of biology there is no room for that guidance, and talking about god's involvement is redundant in the same way that it doesn't make sense to say "1+1+X=2". Adding in a god requires claiming one of two things:
1) The theories and evidence of biology will never be adequate to explain what happened, since there is a guidance factor that works outside of genes/natural selection/etc. This might not be as blatantly anti-scientific as young-earth creationism, but it's still an attack on the fundamental concepts of how science works.
or
2) God had no involvement once life began, and evolution (or whatever other scientific theory replaces/supplements it) is sufficient to explain everything.
Now, it's certainly possible to believe in a "divine watchmaker" that created a universe with potential and then stepped back to watch what happened, but that's the exact opposite of proposing a god that provided guidance for evolution. And, in my experience, the "divine watchmaker" has very little to do with the gods that most people actually believe in and have in mind when they talk about god guiding the process of evolution.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 03:45:35
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being
Actually it does care, because biology works to provide a explanation that is complete without resorting to "divine guidance" as an explanation. In the ideal, complete, version of biology there is no room for that guidance, and talking about god's involvement is redundant in the same way that it doesn't make sense to say "1+1+X=2". Adding in a god requires claiming one of two things:
1) The theories and evidence of biology will never be adequate to explain what happened, since there is a guidance factor that works outside of genes/natural selection/etc. This might not be as blatantly anti-scientific as young-earth creationism, but it's still an attack on the fundamental concepts of how science works.
or
2) God had no involvement once life began, and evolution (or whatever other scientific theory replaces/supplements it) is sufficient to explain everything.
Now, it's certainly possible to believe in a "divine watchmaker" that created a universe with potential and then stepped back to watch what happened, but that's the exact opposite of proposing a god that provided guidance for evolution. And, in my experience, the "divine watchmaker" has very little to do with the gods that most people actually believe in and have in mind when they talk about god guiding the process of evolution.
Is evolution proof that there is a God?
Is evolution proof that there is no God?
Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Smacks wrote: d-usa wrote:I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
That of course assumes that there is a 'why' (and I'm certainly not implying there isn't) ...
For myself though, I find "because god" quite unsatisfying. What is god? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make all this stuff? Why does he have human emotions such as 'wanting'? Has he made other universes? Why would he look like us? Why time and space? Why did he make maths? Why three dimensions and not four? Why can't we go faster than light? What's time dilation for? What's his plan for after the universe ends?
On the other hand, if there is no god and all this stuff exists for no reason, then I'm forced to wonder why there is any stuff at all? Why not just have nothing? This leads me to Lawrence Krausses idea that 'nothing' is essentially unstable. In many ways the universe is just an expression of nothing anyway (-1+1). Nothing is actually quite difficult to imagine, it always needs to be represented in my head by (at very least) some black, and would still be the philosophical counterpart to 'something'. Perhaps 'nothing' and everything are kind of the same. Like different sides of one chaotic coin. Not really able to truly exist or not exist. Perhaps we exist because everything that can exist must exist somewhere in the multiverse. Every mathematical possibility must be expressed. Creation doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.
Of course this doesn't rule out god, It might even make him inevitable too, and everything else that we can dream up, and everything that we can't. But that doesn't mean he is currently part of our universe. Our universe appears to be quite well ordered, which I could probably put down to the anthropic principle, or perhaps we just see it as ordered because we live here. A consciousness from another universe might find our universe mind bendingly crazy and chaotic.
I think in the end there are a lot of philosophical questions that get mixed in with science questions and they muddy the water for both sides.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 03:47:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:06:40
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
No, but that's not what you were talking about. You specifically mentioned a god that guides evolution, not belief in god in general. If you believe in god but keep that belief entirely separate from science, without ever saying anything about how that god might have been involved in things evolution deals with, then our understanding of evolution isn't harmed at all. But when you start inserting that god into evolution, even in a background role, you hurt your understanding of evolution. Obviously it's not as bad as the blatant anti-scientific idiocy of young-earth creationism, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:10:07
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
No, but that's not what you were talking about. You specifically mentioned a god that guides evolution, not belief in god in general. If you believe in god but keep that belief entirely separate from science, without ever saying anything about how that god might have been involved in things evolution deals with, then our understanding of evolution isn't harmed at all. But when you start inserting that god into evolution, even in a background role, you hurt your understanding of evolution. Obviously it's not as bad as the blatant anti-scientific idiocy of young-earth creationism, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect.
When Dawkins says that evolution is proof that there is no God, does he hurt his understanding of evolution?
When someone says that evolution happens without any influence from a divine being, does that hurt their understanding of evolution?
Evolution does not prove the existance or absence of a God. We cannot prove that the existance of absence of a God has any influence on evolution. They are two completely separate issues.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 04:13:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:29:33
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:When Dawkins says that evolution is proof that there is no God, does he hurt his understanding of evolution?
When someone says that evolution happens without any influence from a divine being, does that hurt their understanding of evolution?
Again, these are two separate things. Dawkins is (incorrectly, IMO*) claiming that evolution disproves god. Your hypothetical second person is claiming that evolution doesn't include god. Dawkins rules out the possibility of a god that exists but has no involvement in evolution (the divine watchmaker, for example), the second person doesn't. Dawkins' attitude, ironically, hurts his understanding of evolution because it attributes greater explanatory power to the theory than it actually has. The second person's belief, on the other hand, reflects an accurate understanding of the theory. There is no "god" factor involved, and speculating about one is unjustified.
*Evolution certainly does a good job of eliminating a lot of previous arguments for god's existence, but it can't possibly address all of them.
We cannot prove that the existance of absence of a God has any influence on evolution. They are two completely separate issues.
They're only separate issues if you keep them that way. If you start talking about god guiding evolution (as you did in previous posts) then they are no longer separate.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 04:31:40
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:35:35
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: They're only separate issues if you keep them that way. If you start talking about god guiding evolution (as you did in previous posts) then they are no longer separate. They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how". It's not rocket science. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote: When someone says that evolution happens without any influence from a divine being, does that hurt their understanding of evolution?
The second person's belief, on the other hand, reflects an accurate understanding of the theory. Can you point me to scientific basis of evolutionary theory that specifically rules out any influence from a divine being? If you can't then your take on evolution is just as contaminated as mine. Which brings us back to the main point: Biology doesn't concern itself with philosphical questions about the existence of lack of divine beings that cannot be proven by the theories and which are not something that the theories are even trying to address.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/02 04:39:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:44:22
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
jasper76 wrote:For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, ...
Can't they?
Henry, son of Henry, reigned for 7 months.
Henry, son of Henry, reigned for 38 years.
Both true.
Edit- after a quick google, it appears the actual explanations for those are somewhat different to mine...  They do -have- explanations, though.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 04:56:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:46:22
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how".
But that interference is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that god guided the process, which implies that the scientific theory alone is insufficient to explain what happens. That's a "how" question, not a "why" question. You obviously aren't going to have the level of crippling problems that a young-earth creationist would, but you're still rejecting the fundamental premise of how science works.
Can you point me to scientific basis of evolutionary theory that specifically rules out any influence from a divine being?
It's simple: if X is a sufficient explanation of everything, then adding Y to the theory is redundant. By saying "the theory of evolution is sufficient" you're ruling out the redundant "god" factor, much like saying "1+1=2" rules out there being some (non-zero) X where 1+1+X=2.
Biology doesn't concern itself with philosphical questions about the existence of lack of divine beings that cannot be proven by the theories and which are not something that the theories are even trying to address.
Which is what I already said. The problem is that you're asking "how" questions by proposing that your god is involved in things which biology does concern itself with. Biology has no conflict with a "divine watchmaker" god that creates a universe with potential and then steps back to watch what happens without ever interfering. But that's not your god.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 04:52:04
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how".
But that interference is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that god guided the process, which implies that the scientific theory alone is insufficient to explain what happens.
It doesn't imply that at all. Science manages to understand that, but apperantly you can't.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 05:14:34
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:It doesn't imply that at all. Science manages to understand that, but apperantly you can't.
Yes, that's exactly what you're implying. You aren't just talking about how god gives meaning to life or similar philosophical issues, you're talking about god being actively involved in the process of evolution. If that doesn't imply that the scientific theory is insufficient then why is there any reason to talk about god? If the theory is enough to explain everything then god's involvement is nonexistent and it makes no sense to talk about it.
Also, I think you're just getting a bit confused by a political decision to say "ok, you can believe in god in the background" and get moderate religious people as an ally against the young-earth creationists and other anti-science extremists. There are a lot of scientists who try to minimize the importance of the conflict between religion and science, but it's for political reasons, not because the two are really compatible.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/02 05:17:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 05:18:16
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
this is a stupid argument that will just go on and o and on. '
unfortunately, no matter how man times you explain something, there will always be those who refuse un-deniable fact. so, this conversation is pointless.
|
*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here* |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 05:24:33
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:It doesn't imply that at all. Science manages to understand that, but apperantly you can't.
Yes, that's exactly what you're implying. You aren't just talking about how god gives meaning to life or similar philosophical issues, you're talking about god being actively involved in the process of evolution. If that doesn't imply that the scientific theory is insufficient then why is there any reason to talk about god? If the theory is enough to explain everything then god's involvement is nonexistent and it makes no sense to talk about it.
Again. Science manages to understand that even if you don't.
If the theory is enough to explain everything then god's involvement is nonexistent and it makes no sense to talk about it.
Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/02 05:29:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 05:28:58
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Smacks wrote: d-usa wrote:I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
T hat of course assumes that there is a 'why' (and I'm certainly not implying there isn't) ...
What and there isn't ever a why?
Why is the grass green, why do I perfer brown over green? Why do I think this way instead of that way? Why is God even a question?
For myself though, I find "because god" quite unsatisfying.
Okay. Thats fine, you can.
What is god?
If you could answer that I would think you would be insane to think it.
I have no idea what is god. Or who is god, or what the hell is even a god. God is a divine being, if It wanted to it could annihilate us in a snap of its fingers.
By why the hell would care about us is the real question.
We are only specks compared to A God. Or hell anything for that matter.
Where did he come from?
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
Who cares where he comes from, or It comes from. Its god. Why question God?
Why did he want to make all this stuff?
Thats Philisophical. Maybe he was lonely with nothingness.
Why does he have human emotions such as 'wanting'?
He invented life and emotions and the universe. Try being alone for a trillion years and see how you feel.
Has he made other universes?
There are other universes O.o
Why would he look like us?
let me clarify something nowhere in the bible does it imply that God looks like us. That is extremely egosticial. God is God, God is divine and beyond our comprehension, he made us from dust. According to the bible. He made us from his image. Did it say as exact copies or exactly the same? No it said image.
:a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.
Or the second meaning
A metaphor.
do we know which one it is. *shrug*
God doesn't play with dice, how the hell do I know I am not god.
Why time and space?
Why not? Time and Space is an idea, not an actual law in Science. There is no Law of Time, there is only time.
There is no Law of Space, there is only Space.
Why did he make maths?
Why did he? Because he likes angering idiots.
Why three dimensions and not four?
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
Why can't we go faster than light?
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
What's his plan for after the universe ends?
No Idea. We aren't God. God knows, and Only God cares, who the hell cares about what we think? We are human beings, our life spans are a blink of an eye to the universe.
On the other hand, if there is no god and all this stuff exists for no reason, then I'm forced to wonder why there is any stuff at all?
Why are my bagels not sliced? Why do I have to cut my bread?
Things exist because they simply are. Life is simply is. It is here.
Why not just have nothing?
Because that would be extremely dull and boring, Life is not hindered by nothing.
This leads me to Lawrence Krausses idea that 'nothing' is essentially unstable. In many ways the universe is just an expression of nothing anyway (-1+1). Nothing is actually quite difficult to imagine, it always needs to be represented in my head by (at very least) some black, and would still be the philosophical counterpart to 'something'. Perhaps 'nothing' and everything are kind of the same. Like different sides of one chaotic coin. Not really able to truly exist or not exist. Perhaps we exist because everything that can exist must exist somewhere in the multiverse. Every mathematical possibility must be expressed. Creation doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.
interesting. I simply believe that the universe Exists because it is simply an endless cycle repeating itself over and over again. But how is it created? I have no idea. Who the hell knows how many times I have written this same bloody sentence.
Just imagine, there is another universe just like us talking about this same debate, and then think of another group exactly like us talking about the same thing in a different language, where life is different and we are ruled by Tentacle creatures from outer space.
Of course this doesn't rule out god, It might even make him inevitable too, and everything else that we can dream up, and everything that we can't. But that doesn't mean he is currently part of our universe. Our universe appears to be quite well ordered, which I could probably put down to the anthropic principle, or perhaps we just see it as ordered because we live here. A consciousness from another universe might find our universe mind bendingly crazy and chaotic.
Well God for all we know is just humanities belief created in the warp. Or hell God is what he claims to be a creator of all things, But I can't say he isn't. Because I have no idea. He probably is. But does he exist? If god revealed himself I would lose my trust in him, if he doesn't I have no proof to prove his existence.
We have no idea, because we are human beings. We are so short sighted its hilarious.
|
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 06:46:18
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Colonel
This Is Where the Fish Lives
|
Grass is green because of the pigment chlorophyll, which is a biomolecule that is vital to photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs blue light (short wavelength, high energy) better than anything other light, which is the reason why most plant life is green. Of course, it isn't the only pigment found in plants which is the reason why plants come in a variety of colors, but it is by far the most common.
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
We are the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection and we're made primarily of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
There are other universes O.o
Probably, but chances are we'll never interact with them.
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
We live in a four dimensional universe, three spatial dimensions and one of time: spacetime.
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
There is nothing about that statement that is even close to being correct.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.
|
d-usa wrote:"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 06:48:00
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 06:53:20
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:Grass is green because of the pigment chlorophyll, which is a biomolecule that is vital to photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs blue light (short wavelength, high energy) better than anything other light, which is the reason why most plant life is green. Of course, it isn't the only pigment found in plants which is the reason why plants come in a variety of colors, but it is by far the most common.
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
We are the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection and we're made primarily of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
There are other universes O.o
Probably, but chances are we'll never interact with them.
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
We live in a four dimensional universe, three spatial dimensions and one of time: spacetime.
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
There is nothing about that statement that is even close to being correct.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.
K.O. scooty wins.
|
*Insert witty and/or interesting statement here* |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 06:53:23
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
jasper76 wrote: Hordini wrote:Bishop F Gantry wrote:The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, and yet here we are.
I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is historically accurate as we understand it. However, the claim that the Bible contains no reliable information and that everything in it is able to be dismissed is false.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 07:00:12
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.
Science disagrees with you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 07:04:14
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
No, politics disagrees with me. The fact that scientists refrain from saying "'god guided evolution' is not a reasonable belief" so they can keep moderate religious people as allies against the anti-science extremists does not make the belief reasonable.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 07:05:03
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Colonel
This Is Where the Fish Lives
|
d-usa wrote: Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.
Science disagrees with you.
Clarification please?
|
d-usa wrote:"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 07:34:11
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:
No, politics disagrees with me. The fact that scientists refrain from saying "'god guided evolution' is not a reasonable belief" so they can keep moderate religious people as allies against the anti-science extremists does not make the belief reasonable.
Maybe you should stop talking for science if you going to keep on getting this wrong.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/02 07:48:03
Subject: Re:Megan Fox "Rips Apart" a Science Exhibit -- Is this a Joke or Real?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:Maybe you should stop talking for science if you going to keep on getting this wrong.
So are you going to address any arguments anymore, or are you just going to keep saying "science lets me have my god I REALLY WANT MY GOD" over and over again?
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
|