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.

The thing about science is that it can only investigate and prove things that exist.

Since the nature of god has retreated from the provable universe as people looked behind the tree and found no spirit, climbed the mountain and found no home of the gods, sailed the seas and found no giant fish man with a beard and trident, it becomes impossible for science to investigate god, since it now resides in a special place which is essentially completely outside of the universe (Haha! Take that explorers who might accidentally disprove god by going to where we say it exists!).

Science can certainly investigate certain claims that religion has over the nature of reality, just as historians can look at the claims that religion makes over history. As historians and scientists, and indeed anyone advancing human knowledge, make progress in discovering more about the universe around us, religion constantly shifts the goalposts so as to try and maintain the ever shrinking vestiges of "truth" that they are left with.

In the current discussion, evolution, as it became more widely accepted, forced religion (as a whole - well, for the most part...) to change what it had been telling people in order to not blatantly contradict reality as revealed by science.

Science makes no comment on religion because it is fundamentally the antithesis of science - the absolute absence of evidence, investigation, experimentation and proof.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Have you made any actual arguments other than "how and why are never separate and you do bad science"?

 d-usa wrote:
Have you made any actual arguments other than "how and why are never separate and you do bad science"?

Sigh. I guess it's too hard to address my actual argument so you'd rather post a ridiculous straw man version of it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Have you made any actual arguments other than "how and why are never separate and you do bad science"?

Sigh. I guess it's too hard to address my actual argument so you'd rather post a ridiculous straw man version of it?

It's almost like we haven't had this argument more than once over the years here. But let's see:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 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. 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.

All statements that boil down to you repeating the same argument over and over again that the "why" is impossible to separate from the "how".

So to go back to the article I posted that started this:

In other words, the cliche of pitting science against religion is a category error, to a certain extent: Evolutionary biology provides certain insights into the mechanisms of how human life has formed and changed over time [aka: the how], but it can't provide insight into the meaning behind those changes [aka: the why]. Yet the meaning part is often what matters in vitriolic "debates" about the origins of life.

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?

Science is pursuit of knowledge and truth any true religion would be fully compatible with science.

 d-usa wrote:
All statements that boil down to you repeating the same argument over and over again that the "why" is impossible to separate from the "how".

It only "boils down to that" if you feel compelled to turn my argument into a bizarre straw man that's easier to deal with instead of addressing the real one. Let me make it nice and clear for you:

"Why" and "how" are separate questions, and science does not address "why". I don't know why you think I'm claiming otherwise.

You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions. God guiding the process of evolution is not just a philosophical discussion about the meaning of life, it's a factual claim about how the process of evolution works. The only reason to put it off in a separate "why" category is to shield religious beliefs from questioning, questioning that almost inevitably leads to "belief in this is about as reasonable as belief in mind control in the chemtrails". And that's what happens here: there isn't even the slightest bit of evidence for a god guiding the process of evolution, so the only reason to even propose that divine guidance is if you have already assumed that you really want to believe in god and need to find a place to put one.

In short: I don't reject the separation of "why" and "how" questions, I reject your attempts to disguise "how" questions as "why" questions to protect your religious beliefs.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:
Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?

Not much, but it does have some relevant information. For example, it's a good source of information about early Christian culture and beliefs. And it's potentially a source of historical information about the people and places in the background of the Jesus story, as long as you're careful to remember that some elements may have been edited to make a better story or because of translation issues. You only have to discard the bible entirely when you're talking about the supernatural aspects of the story, which are obviously absurd.

 Peregrine wrote:

You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions.

And here is where you are wrong. I'm sorry that you are simply not capable of separating the two, but plenty of people are.

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions.

And here is where you are wrong. I'm sorry that you are simply not capable of separating the two, but plenty of people are.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you here. If you state "god guides evolution" to "answer" the why of our existence, you also pose "how did god guide evolution", a how question which can be investigated by science.

I am not aware of anyone finding gods (the Christian god) fingerprints on any fossils or DNA yet. Or indeed the fingerprints of any other god, spirit, unicorn, or other mythical creature.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions.

And here is where you are wrong. I'm sorry that you are simply not capable of separating the two, but plenty of people are.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you here. If you state "god guides evolution" to "answer" the why of our existence, you also pose "how did god guide evolution", a how question which can be investigated by science.

It must be a good thing that I have not made that argument. The closest I have come to it was this:

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.

My personal belief as to the "why" is that God knew the final outcome when everything started out, and the "how" is everything we know about science. I'm not using God to try to understand how evolution works or to understand how we evolved the way we did. Thinking "God knew what would happen" has the same impact on the science as "this is all pure cosmic coincidence": none.

The only time that "God has something to do with it" is when you accept that as the final explanation and quit looking for further scientific answers.

 d-usa wrote:
It must be a good thing that I have not made that argument. The closest I have come to it was this:

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.

The how is implicit in the why. And you are correct, biology does not care if there is or is not a magic beard who kicked everything off in so far as biology is concerned about reality. If the reality is that some kind of magic was used to guide, shape or start life in the universe, that obviously has a massive impact on our understanding of not only biology, but the universe as a whole. This is mostly because it contradicts pretty much everything we have discovered about the universe.

Thinking "God knew what would happen" has the same impact on the science as "this is all pure cosmic coincidence": none.

Actually, assuming something without any evidence what so ever and claiming it as the truth runs against every principle of science.

The only time that "God has something to do with it" is when you accept that as the final explanation and quit looking for further scientific answers.

And the only time you accept "God has something to do with it" is when you completely disregard reality in favour of a comforting thought.

Wow, someone needs to drill it into this ladies head and make her realize she's dumb.

 d-usa wrote:

When Dawkins says that evolution is proof that there is no God, does he hurt his understanding of evolution?

As a side note, just so you know, I have read almost all of Dawkins books, and never once does he claim that evolution disproves God. Not once. His argument is that an intellgence behind the universe is highly improbable, because there is no good evidence for it, and also because positing a divine intelligence as the creator of the universe is introducing a theory that is much more complicated than the phenomenon it seeks to explain. He puts himself at a 6 on the following scale (as, indeed do most atheists).

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?

Science is pursuit of knowledge and truth any true religion would be fully compatible with science.

I could point you toward a few things if you really want, but I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I'm sure there are things I would miss. As I've mentioned before though, there is loads of legitimate scholarship out there on the subject that is easily accessible if you actually care about learning something on the subject.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

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.

I was not actually suggesting that time dilation did serve a purpose. I was just asking IF god did make the universe (and that's a big if), why did he make things the way they are? Given all the infinite possibilities of imagination, there seems to be lot missing from our universe. It's big, but it's really quite unambitious. The questions were somewhat rhetorical, though Asherian Command's responses that "god just is, why question it?" are quite telling, because you could just as easily say "the universe just is, why question it?". I guess I just like questions.

When answering these questions it's important not to mix up why and how. For example: plants are green (some plants) because of chlorophyll, that explains how, but the reason why is actually to do with the Sun's energy output. Green is the optimal colour for absorbing the Sun's energy that is needed for photosynthesis. So green is a survival adaptation. If the Sun was a bigger and brighter star, such as 'Sirius A' then plants would probably all be red to compensate (assuming they could develop there).

For more fundamental questions asking 'why' is more philosophical. I think it might actually be an argument against god, and not for him as is often suggested. It's comforting to think that god wanted us, and that is why he made us. But why did he want headlice? Why does he want planets to form into 3 dimensional circles and not 8 dimensional cubes? Why is Pi irrational? Why did he try so hard to make everything look like it happened by accident? To suppose that God gives us a reason 'why' is to suppose that god himself has a reason 'why'. "He just did it that way" isn't really a reason, that sounds like an accident. "He just wanted us" invites the question: "Why did he want us?". There is no meaning or explanation here, just another question.

 Hordini wrote:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?

Science is pursuit of knowledge and truth any true religion would be fully compatible with science.

I could point you toward a few things if you really want, but I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I'm sure there are things I would miss. As I've mentioned before though, there is loads of legitimate scholarship out there on the subject that is easily accessible if you actually care about learning something on the subject.

On these particular issues, I have read how scholars and apologists have tried to wash them away, and I'm not impressed by their gymnastics. If you find their arguments convincing, more power to you.

It's all trivia to me. On the subject of God, to convince me, one would have to first produce evidence that there is a divine intelligence behind the universe, which I find highly improbable and its nothing to do with the Bible at all, as a starting point. Then one would have all his work ahead of him to try and convince me that this divine intelligence was in any way related to any religion produced by mankind.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why is the grass green

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.

That is not what I was asking! That is how it was made, those are its subdivisions, not why is it green, that is not answering.

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.

Not what I was asking!

That is how we are made, Not the why

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.

Black Holes do indeed travel faster than light :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2853083/Scientists-lightning-sparking-supermassive-black-hole-appears-travel-faster-speed-light.html

Actually that is true about faster than light as well:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140635-the-downside-of-warp-drives-annihilating-whole-star-systems-when-you-arrive

NASA researchers recently revisited the Alcubierre warp drive and concluded that its power requirements were not as impossible as once thought. However, a new analysis from the University of Sydney claims that using a warp drive of this design comes with a drawback. Specifically, it could cause cataclysmic explosions at your destination.

They would cause an explosion that would destroy anything basically.

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.

It does serve a purpose, if you believe in god, If you don't then it doesn't.

The thing about science is that it can only investigate and prove things that exist.

Since the nature of god has retreated from the provable universe as people looked behind the tree and found no spirit, climbed the mountain and found no home of the gods, sailed the seas and found no giant fish man with a beard and trident, it becomes impossible for science to investigate god, since it now resides in a special place which is essentially completely outside of the universe (Haha! Take that explorers who might accidentally disprove god by going to where we say it exists!).

Science can certainly investigate certain claims that religion has over the nature of reality, just as historians can look at the claims that religion makes over history. As historians and scientists, and indeed anyone advancing human knowledge, make progress in discovering more about the universe around us, religion constantly shifts the goalposts so as to try and maintain the ever shrinking vestiges of "truth" that they are left with.

In the current discussion, evolution, as it became more widely accepted, forced religion (as a whole - well, for the most part...) to change what it had been telling people in order to not blatantly contradict reality as revealed by science.

Science makes no comment on religion because it is fundamentally the antithesis of science - the absolute absence of evidence, investigation, experimentation and proof.

Basically. Science cannot answer the why, Why is philosophical and idealistic. Science is not philosophical, it is concerned with hard facts and not idealistic plans of grandeur. Science is not the answer to all of lifes questions.

When I ask for why is the sky blue. I am not asking you about how it is made and the reason it is blue. I am asking why is the sky blue. Not because of scientific reasoning. I am asking you why is it blue. Then correct answer is. I have no idea. It just chooses to be blue.

Science types never get the difference, philosophers do.

I was not actually suggesting that time dilation did serve a purpose. I was just asking IF god did make the universe (and that's a big if), why did he make things the way they are? Given all the infinite possibilities of imagination, there seems to be lot missing from our universe. It's big, but it's really quite unambitious. The questions were somewhat rhetorical, though Asherian Command's responses that "god just is, why question it?" are quite telling, because you could just as easily say "the universe just is, why question it?". I guess I just like questions.

Mostly due to the fact I have no answer to most of them. Because I am not a god or God. It would be insane for me to try and answer the questions, as it would show my insanity.

For more fundamental questions asking 'why' is more philosophical. I think it might actually be an argument against god, and not for him as is often suggested. It's comforting to think that god wanted us, and that is why he made us. But why did he want headlice? Why does he want planets to form into 3 dimensional circles and not 8 dimensional cubes? Why is Pi irrational? Why did he try so hard to make everything look like it happened by accident? To suppose that God gives us a reason 'why' is to suppose that god himself has a reason 'why'. "He just did it that way" isn't really a reason, that sounds like an accident. "He just wanted us" invites the question: "Why did he want us?". There is no meaning or explanation here, just another question.

There are suggestions that all the bad things that happened in the world date back in the bible that is to When adam ate the apple, when he did in order to punish humanity, he gave all creatures the ability to harm humans.

There will always be more questions than answers when in regard to any debate on god.

Science answered why the sky is blue long ago. As to why the sky is blue instead of green, science answered that as well. You might not find the answers to be personally fulfilling, but they are there. Contrary to popular opinion, science does indeed broach the subject of both "how" and "why".

Of course, there are nonsensical questions that science can't answer, like "Why does Alpha Centauri make fruits smell itchy?" and "Why did giraffes choose to have a long neck?"

There are also questions that possibly may not have an answer at all. Like "What is the origin of existence?" and "What is the meaning of life?"

 jasper76 wrote:
Science answered why the sky is blue long ago. As to why the sky is blue instead of green, science answered that as well. You might not find the answers to be personally fulfilling, but they are there. Contrary to popular opinion, science does indeed broach the subject of both "how" and "why".

Of course, there are nonsensical questions that science can't answer, like "Why does Alpha Centauri make fruits smell itchy?" and "Why did giraffes choose to have a long neck?"

There are also questions that possibly may not have an answer at all. Like "What is the origin of existence?" and "What is the meaning of life?"

Alright humor me why is the sky blue? Why is it that choose to blue?

I am not asking you the how.

That is completely false and in many philosophical books they even detail that science still can't answer it correctly. Science does not concern itself with that type of questioning. It is always more concerned about the how, never the why. Why is philisophical. You just explained a common misconception and common idea that science does concern itself with the why. It doesn't and never will.

The sky is is not actually blue. The atmosphere reflects light in the "blue" section of the light spectrum or whatever its called. Your eyes pick up those lightwaves, send it via the optic nerve to your brain, which creates a model of it in your brain that looks "blue".

Its been a while, so some of this may be off.

If you're asking why does the brain do this, the answer is it has evolved to do this because at some period in time, a gene was introduced or modified that caused the brain to perceive "blue" that conferred a survival advantage (or perhaps no advantage or disadvantage whatsoever) over brains that could not do this.

 jasper76 wrote:
The sky is is not actually blue. The atmosphere reflects light in the "blue" section of the light spectrum or whatever its called. Your eyes pick up those lightwaves, send it via the optic nerve to your brain, which creates a model of it in your brain that looks "blue".

Its been a while, so some of this may be off.

If you're asking why does the brain do this, the answer is it has evolved to do this because at some period in time, a gene was introduced or modified that caused the brain to perceive "blue" that conferred a survival advantage (or perhaps no advantage or disadvantage whatsoever) over brains that could not do this.

You are still answering the how. Not the why. Shesh.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Alright humor me why is the sky blue? Why is it that choose to blue?

The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, there is no choice involved.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The sky is is not actually blue. The atmosphere reflects light in the "blue" section of the light spectrum or whatever its called. Your eyes pick up those lightwaves, send it via the optic nerve to your brain, which creates a model of it in your brain that looks "blue".

Its been a while, so some of this may be off.

If you're asking why does the brain do this, the answer is it has evolved to do this because at some period in time, a gene was introduced or modified that caused the brain to perceive "blue" that conferred a survival advantage (or perhaps no advantage or disadvantage whatsoever) over brains that could not do this.

You are still answering the how. Not the why. Shesh.

Yes, I and everyone else is answering the question why. Maybe all you want to hear is "because a divine creator made it this way".

Perhaps you can enlighten us with an example of what would pass as a possible answer (not necessarily correct, but possible) to your own question, if you don't like the answers you are being provided.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Alright humor me why is the sky blue? Why is it that choose to blue?

The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, there is no choice involved.

That doesn't answer he why.

You answered the how.

Why is it blue?

Yes, I and everyone else is answering the question why. Maybe all you want to hear is "because a divine creator made it this way".

No because that is not rational.

The Correct answer is I have no Idea.

OK...do all of your inquiries end with your own personal ignorance on the subject?

If the only answer you want is "I have no idea", than more power to you, but I wonder why you choose to ask the question in the first place.

Some of us prefer actual answers to self-imposed ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you seem to be using an unusual personal definition of the word "Why". Perhaps it would help to rephrase your question not usng he word "Why" at all, since it seems you have a different usage of the word than the rest of us.

 jasper76 wrote:
OK...do all of your inquiries end with your own personal ignorance on the subject?

If the only answer you want is "I have no idea", than more power to you, but I wonder why you choose to ask the question in the first place.

Some of us prefer actual answers to self-imposed ignorance.

Because there is no correct answer. There is no single entity answer to any of the questions I have asked pertaining to why.

You are using science as a crutch to answer the questions and not your own mind and beliefs.

I am not using ignorance, I am asking for your opinion and your answer. Using your mind and rationality. Not someone elses supposed facts.

Fact is relative, just like everything here. Science isn't based on absolutes, it can't because humans are not immortal beings who have seen this universes creation, we do not know everything, so we know nothing.

I and others have answered your question.

Please rephrase it not using the word "why".

 jasper76 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you seem to be using an unusual personal definition of the word "Why". Perhaps it would help to rephrase your question not usng he word "Why" at all, since it seems you have a different usage of the word than the rest of us.

I was going to ask if there was some kind of language barrier problem but then I saw that both of you are American...

 jasper76 wrote:
I and others have answered your question.

Please rephrase it not using the word "why".

No your confusing the word why with how.

So far that is all you have all done.

I was going to ask if there was some kind of language barrier problem but then I saw that both of you are American...

More of a philosopher vs a scientist debate.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I and others have answered your question.

Please rephrase it not using the word "why".

No your confusing the word why with how.

So far that is all you have all done.

Do we really have t go to the dictioary?

Why: for what cause, reason, or purpose (because your brain is built to create a model from optical input that includes the color blue, and your brain does this because at some point in our genetic ancestry, perceiving blue conferred a competitive survival advantage)
How: in what manner or way : by what means (look up "optic nerve")

What definition of "Why" are you using? Please rephrase the question without the word "Why".

 Asherian Command wrote:
Not what I was asking!

That is how we are made, Not the why

That's exactly what you were asking, you just don't like the answer.

Black Holes do indeed travel faster than light :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2853083/Scientists-lightning-sparking-supermassive-black-hole-appears-travel-faster-speed-light.html

Actually that is true about faster than light as well:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/140635-the-downside-of-warp-drives-annihilating-whole-star-systems-when-you-arrive

NASA researchers recently revisited the Alcubierre warp drive and concluded that its power requirements were not as impossible as once thought. However, a new analysis from the University of Sydney claims that using a warp drive of this design comes with a drawback. Specifically, it could cause cataclysmic explosions at your destination.

They would cause an explosion that would destroy anything basically.

Nope again. That article has nothing to do with black holes "moving," and instead is about an anomaly detected with gamma rays moving through an area of extremely high gravity. Here is the story with a less sensational headline and also the important addition where the research team says that their theory is weak due to insufficient evidence.

It does serve a purpose, if you believe in god, If you don't then it doesn't.

No, it still doesn't serve a "purpose," even in the context of believing in God.

Basically. Science cannot answer the why, Why is philosophical and idealistic. Science is not philosophical, it is concerned with hard facts and not idealistic plans of grandeur. Science is not the answer to all of lifes questions.

When I ask for why is the sky blue. I am not asking you about how it is made and the reason it is blue. I am asking why is the sky blue. Not because of scientific reasoning. I am asking you why is it blue. Then correct answer is. I have no idea. It just chooses to be blue.

Science types never get the difference, philosophers do.

I've already given you the why on just about every random question you've asked. You choose not to accept it and instead carry on with some pseudo-philosophical bull gak. Every time you refute an explanation with, "No, but why?" you aren't proving anything, you're just talking in circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
No because that is not rational.

Nothing you've typed as been rational.

The Correct answer is I have no Idea.

Correct answer: you don't understand.