Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   International opinions: USA on science!
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 121 of 132 (331972)
07-15-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 11:11 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
But again, this fails to address the fact that for anything at all to exist, whether it be subatomic particles, a compound chemical "soup," or energy, was still required of something, at some point, to be eternal.
If the assumption that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed is true, what is your conclusion?
If you think matter and energy can be created or destroyed please give an example.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 122 of 132 (331976)
07-15-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 12:28 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Accomplish the task of what? Again, this is what I don't understand. You seem to think that God created the ability for evolution, but what was miracle event that precipitated it?
I'll speak for myself on this. If by "miracle event" you mean something that unaccountably breaks known laws of physics then I don't know what the miracle event would be. But as living things don't break known laws of physics what would be the point of breaking the laws of physics?
If you mean by miracle event the occurance of low probability like winning the lottery or a human body with extensive cancer mobilizing it's immunce system and clearing the cancer then we are looking for the conditions in which that could occur.
What I notice about the universe is that is incredibly rich. A few forces and fundamental particles can combine to make atoms, those atoms can combine to make a huge array of molecules. These molecules can combine to make a wide spectrum of living organisms.
Yet the same laws function in all these forms. There is not some unknown substance in living things that we don't find in precursors. Living things can be reduced to precursor substances. Living things seem to fit comfortable in this universe. If the universe can result in atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, planets, organic molecules, and living things then these all seem to be potentials of the fundamental "stuff" of this universe.
I don't know where consciousness fits in all this though. I certainly couldn't be writing this and contemplating these things if I weren't conscious so in that sense it's fundamental to our understanding but is it fundamental to the universe? Is it an unknown aspect of energy/matter? Or is is an emergent property of hightly complex living systems? Some folks ala Descartes hold that consciousness is something separtate that was somehow hooked up with matter. That is looking more and more improbable but I don't think it has yet been definitively falsified though I do think it's untenable.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 12:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 132 (331981)
07-15-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by nwr
07-14-2006 11:22 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
You are presupposing that there has to a first cause.
No, I'm not supposing a First Cause. If I am, then you would have to inhernetly believe that the universe itself it eternal, in which case you'd have to abandone the Big Bang theory. If you don't believe the universe is eternal, to include space, time, and matter, then you have to have a First Cause. This is a simple philosophical concept. I'm not sure why anyone is stumbled over this.
I have never brought up the FSM.
Alot of people say that there is compelling reason to believe in YHWH when its just as easy to assume that the First Cause was propagated by teh FSM. And I wouldn't argue that point just for face value. All I want at this point is for someone to come to the inevitable conclusion that something has to be eternal for space-time and matter to exist. Otherwise you believe in the fairytale that everything spawns from nothing. Being that no one has offered an alternative solution beyond, "Nuh uh," I'd say that I'm on the right track.
For a list of related bogus claims that creationists make, see talkorigins.org.
Is this your way of saying that Pasteur was bogus?
That would take us even further off topic. But you could start a suitable thread defending the argument, and I am sure you will quickly see it demolished.
Alright, fair enough. I just go to Proposed Topics and the Mods, perhaps you, will parcel the post in the appropriate subtopic?

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 07-14-2006 11:22 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 2:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 124 of 132 (331986)
07-15-2006 2:21 PM


Getting WAY off topic
It seems to me that this thread is getting a little tattered. If it doesn't focus soon I'll close it for a break.
Thanks to NJ for attempting to split one of the side issues off. Once it is clarified I will promote that.
How about one or two more?

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 132 (331988)
07-15-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by lfen
07-15-2006 3:05 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Does consciousness have a fundamental role in the universe in the same way that space/time mass/energy do? Or is it just one of many phenomena that emerge like wetness or self replication?
An interesting question. Thank you for clarifying for me. I would say that a consciousness exists and that it displays itself within nature itself. This is the very foundation of Intelligent Design. Its an inference based on odds and statistics that dispell any notions of some capricious disorder constantly "getting it right." Its all about looking at the intent we see around us. Life works so well that it is difficult to come to the conclusion that all of it comes to us by way of mere happenstance.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by lfen, posted 07-15-2006 3:05 AM lfen has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 132 (331989)
07-15-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
07-15-2006 11:18 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
If you want to support Craig's Kalam argument start a thread on it. I'll have fun showing the serious problems in it.
Okay. I'll start another topic.
Pasteur's experiment is irrelevant to abiogenesis (and supports evolution). Whatever Pasteur's personal opinions were doesn't change the facts.
Please explain how abiogenesis suports evolution, when evolution cannot even get off and running without it.
Ad your "allaboutphilosophy.org" site, it is badly misnamed. THe fact that it uses a creationist MD as it's main source ofr this section should tell you something !
So, a website about philosophy has to pander to your particular brand of philosophy in order to be legitimate? BTW, philosophy is an objective study where it seeks to express ones' view about this or that. That's pretty much what philosophy is all about. So I'm not sure where objection to it lies.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2006 11:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2006 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 127 of 132 (331992)
07-15-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 2:10 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
No, I'm not supposing a First Cause.
Sure, you are. You don't recognize your own assumptions, but that's a common problem.
If I am, then you would have to inhernetly believe that the universe itself it eternal, in which case you'd have to abandone the Big Bang theory.
I don't have to abandon anything. I am still agnostic about Big Bang cosmology, and also about whether the universe is eternal.
If you don't believe the universe is eternal, to include space, time, and matter, then you have to have a First Cause.
That's where you are assuming a first cause. I can tell it is an assumption, for you make no attempt to justify it.
This is a simple philosophical concept. I'm not sure why anyone is stumbled over this.
Clearly you are stumbling over it.
Consider the continuum of positive real numbers. There is no first such number. Given any positive real number x, then x/2 is a smaller real number. Similarly, assuming that time is a continuum, there is no obvious reason for a first event. Every event could be preceded by an earlier event, and could be caused by some of the earlier events. There is no obvious reason why there needs to be a first cause.
All I want at this point is for someone to come to the inevitable conclusion that something has to be eternal for space-time and matter to exist.
I can't find any basis for that conclusion, so I do not find it inevitable.
For a list of related bogus claims that creationists make, see talkorigins.org.
Is this your way of saying that Pasteur was bogus?
No. It is my way of saying that either the creationists are mistaken in their understanding of what Pasteur showed, or the creationists are dishonest and are deliberately misrepresenting it. Personally, I lean toward the "dishonest" conclusion, since I'm sure that at least some of the creationists are smart enough to know better.
By the way, we are still a long way from the topic on this thread. I guess there is a vague relation, in that you are in the USA and are demonstrating your own confusion about science.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 2:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 128 of 132 (332000)
07-15-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 10:23 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
NJ writes:
Everybody worships something.
lol
Are you still hoping it becomes true if you repeat it often enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 10:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 129 of 132 (332006)
07-15-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 2:27 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Pasteur's experiment disproved the old idea that lfie was continually coming into existence. Since evolution requires fewer instances of life coming into existence than creationism then Pasteru's experiment is evidence for evolution.
And you're completely wrong to say that evolution requires abiogenesis. Evolution only needs life - probably less than that, although that requires getting into the question of defining "life". So unless you are denying the existence of life abiogenesis really isn't an issue.
quote:
So, a website about philosophy has to pander to your particular brand of philosophy in order to be legitimate? BTW, philosophy is an objective study where it seeks to express ones' view about this or that. That's pretty much what philosophy is all about. So I'm not sure where objection to it lies.
That's not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that there is clear evidence that the site is far from objective - in fact highly biased. It's not a good resource for information on philosphy or science because it can't be trusted. The author can't even do good research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 2:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 132 (332060)
07-15-2006 7:58 PM


Those engaged in this convo
Alright, the Admins aren't too pleased that the thread is deteriorating into a topic separate from the OP.
I'd like to continue the argument but I'm conflicted on whether we should discuss the origin of the universe or the origin of life, as they apply to science; or the philosophical argument concerning the origin of life.
Because I'm feeling a bit conflicted as to which one we should discuss, anyone that wold like to continue this topic, let me see a show of hands for one of the three.
Should we discuss:
1. The origin of the universe: scientific thread
2. The origin of life: scientific thread
3. The origin of life: philosophical/theological thread
Please place your votes for 1, 2, or 3.
Disclaimer: [i]*votes may be tabulated in Florida. vote at your discretion*

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AdminNosy, posted 07-15-2006 10:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 131 of 132 (332088)
07-15-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 7:58 PM


Off topic not in this thread.
Ok, I'm closing this till tomorrow.
When people figure out what the topic is we can continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 7:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 132 (368718)
12-09-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 12:28 PM


getting back to this.
I've held off replying to this for a number of reasons.
I'm interested in knowing what prompted you to come to a decision of a Creator, or even a need for one to exist, when you at every turn you give no reason to even believe in one. If God is "unknowable," then how do you know Him? How could you have come to the decision that a Creator exists if there is no compelling reason to do so? You've effectively erased any possibility of a personal relationship, so we know that you haven't come to your conclusion down that avenue. And we know that you champion naturalistic explanations for everything, including spontaneous generation. So, your god didn't create the possibility of life according to your testimony. Where in the world does God fit in the picture for you to have ever come to your decision? This is what I don't understand about Deists. To me, it just sounds like a vague explanation.
Again, your lack of ability to understand is not my problem, but I find this attitude of yours somewhat insulting and offensive. There is no need whatever for my faith to fit your personal opinion of what faith entails.
I understand that you are somewhat bewildered, and do not intend insult, but it is something you will have to deal with on your own.
So, your god didn't create the possibility of life according to your testimony.
False. He\she\it\they created the environment that made it possible. No fix and repair needed later, ... as compared to, say, a creation that is full of fixes, including the first - was it day 8? - because he forgot Eve?
Or it could just be a difference between believing in a deity that is a egotistical control freak and one who has confidence that what he\she\it\they have done will be "good" (and not self declared).
Or they are willing to wait to see what we (life) become, having given (life) maximum possibility for greatest diversity.
So, your faith is that Truth, in its totality, will be revealed?
No, just that we will be able to understand more by studying it more: that reality is the book that was written in atomic particles and natural laws. We will always be limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand. We can only build knowledge on top of knowledge.
On one hand I think we can safely assume that education is an important aspect in our development. At the same time, I think we are under a false illusion that education is going to be some bastian of hope or that people with high level of education are some how going to be more intelligent than someone without it.
(Good) Education gives you the best opportunity to make the best use of the knowledge and experience you have. Not more intelligent, better prepared, and anyone can become better prepared. Personally I think creativity is as important as raw intelligence, and that the best scientists are creative.
Let me ask you this: Do you honestly, truly, wholeheartedly believe that AiG and ICR is just complete and total nonsense? Or do you believe that they have, however miniscule,some level of understanding that exceeds the "general public?"
I think some of the people are honest, and some others are definitely not -- not much different from any other corporate entity. I also think there are many deluded people ... using the least biased\discriminatory definition, #2 "the state of being deluded."
quote:
delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
Education can help keep delusions from getting in the way of rational thought.
Science in particular (to veer suddenly and dangerously towards the topic of the thread ), because science has been able to uncover so many delusions that people have had in the past ... whether you include a flat earth or a geocentric earth ... or a young earth.
But see, I think that's silly because I think you could recognize that creationists are just as much fascinated with science as the average evolutionist. For them, its a way to explore the individual thought of God and have them revealed.
What I see as disingenuous from creationists is an almost pathological inability to deal with contradictory evidence, the denial and the hand waving. That is not fascination with science, it is delusion. It is clinging to delusion in spite of evidence to the contrary ... it falls to level 4 in the definitions -- paranoid delusion. Look at randman as a case in point: it seems everything in science is a conspiracy to him of one kind or another.
Again, most creationists have some sort of theological belief. That isn't unfounded. And most evolutionists seem to fancy or favor a purely naturalistic explanation for everything. Neither cancels the other out, and neither is the absolute rule, but recognizing that most evolutionists exhibit atheistic tendencies isn't unfounded either.
Science does not live with delusion. Evidence cancels delusions whether you believe the evolutionist or the creationist explanations or not.
I didn't grow up believing about God. It wasn't taught to me to believe in it. I came to that conclusion only a few years ago. Contrastly, I was indoctrinated by evolution from the beginning, just like eveeryone else on this forum.
I'm sorry but I just cannot take that as being entirely true. Your understanding of evolution, as demonstrated by so many posts, does not indicate a good education in evolution, but in some general mis-representations of it, from bad class material to many media sources and other places. Certainly it was not the same as my education in basic biology sciences, even though I am not a biology major.
You cannot claim equal education to people you just don't know as an {excuse\cover\straw man} that you somehow overcame in a moment of enlightenment. You cannot measure the amount of information you do not have. No-one can.
And it was not an "indoctrination" in evolution ... that kind of comment sounds a lot more like paranoia than a rational evaluation of the facts unhindered by delusions.
Indoctrination is when you are given misinformation, false information, and deluded into believing it. Things like a young earth.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 12:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024