28 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf ideas don't change lives and eventually civilization then they probably don't have any value, positive or negative. I believe there is plenty of evidence that religion has changed lives and civilization.
What does changing lives and civilization have to do with anything?
And if that's a criterion, then the Origin of Species must be right.
Anyway, who says the Bible changed lives or civilization as you're implying? You're taking a lot of things on faith; how do you know what happened in the past? All you know is what happened in the here and now. Your memories might be false, after all. You only have faith that they are not.
When did I say that Origin of Species, Descent of Man, Voyage of the Beagle or anyhing else by DSarwin was wrong? I personally believe that Darwin, Marx and Freud were the most important men of the 19th Century. All three changed lives and civilization.
You seem to know what happened in the past, why shouldn't I?
I take many things on faith, like the fact that you are actually out there somewhere in the woods.
And it troubles me not at all if the things I take on faith contradict each other.
28 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttYou are a person of faith.
What I am saying is, that it is the SAME scientific principles that makes your computer works, that supports evidence of an old Universe. Rejecting them one place and not the other doesn't make sense. If you accept that the Earth is young, then you reject radiometric dating methods which clearly states that the Earth is billions of years old. The science ...[text shortened]... ls, and a lot of other places. You can't just denounce science one place and accept it another.
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by DelmerDelmer, we could be here for the rest of our natural lives with questions like this. If a make a hypothesis about these questions then you'll have 5 more. These are not deficiencies with the TOE any more than asking how wave-particle duality works on Mercury is a deficiency with QM. If you're interested in questions related to evolutionary theory, then get educated on the subject and discover it for yourself. Or AskJeeves.
I applaud your faith and the fact that it provides an answer for every question I can ask. Just two more questions: 1. how did altruism evolve? 2. how did the god concept evolve?
Most TOE supporters give me the impression that they believe that the god concept is a negative and is interfering with the progress of the species. If so, why then would it have evolved and grown to such major status within the species?
28 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou've said that over and over. It's like a mantra with you. Again and again we point out that your view is not conditioned upon empirical observation. Anything you discover can be distorted to fit a continually changing definition of God.
I'm not pushing (Bible) creation into the public school, but I am
pointing out to you there isn't much a difference between the faith
of someone reading the Bible and the faith of someone who thinks
they figured out what happened bill ...[text shortened]... o different, it is just another belief ssystem among
many.
Kelly
Evolution on the hand is testable. I have in previous posts listed many different ways in which empirical observation could have severely undermined the TOE. Unfortunately, for you, it hasn't.
You have no more support than does a Muffin or a Maya Quiche.
I can make up a myriad creation stories that have the same validity as your myth. It is your passion to eviscerate our means of gaining knowledge so that you can introduce uncertainty and then your lie.
KJ, your willful ignorance is not worth addressing. You have no interest in the subject. I have studied Creationism and ID garbage. I was taught the same propaganda you were. I know both sides to some degree. You know nothing about science. Get an education. Then criticize. Like Nietzsche, first the camel, then the lion, then the child. It's pathetic that you feel not the least bit of shame snubbing the work of thousands of scientists when you have not the slightest bit of education in their field. You should feel ashamed.
28 May 05
Originally posted by DelmerGo Zeus! The god of Western Civilization!
It is all just faith, PE. Each man creates his own internal universe. When you write your blue unicorn book we'll patiently wait and see if it changes lives. We'll wait and see if it changes civilization.
Where would we all be without the Greeks?
28 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe decay times were different in that location just a few weeks prior. You can't know that it wasn't. You take it on faith.
When it comes to billions of years ago, yes it is faith. Unless you can
produce someone who has recorded through a billion years the affects
of aging has on various things, it is faith.
Forensic scientists can verify their conclusion in the here and now, they
can test the decay through time now and record what is going on so
that they can get a clear ...[text shortened]... mean we are in an area when we cannot know
for sure, once there it is faith, correct.
Kelly
Surely you are not supporting uniformitarianism are you! Not you!
28 May 05
Originally posted by telerionI'm sorry, I didn't mean to waste your time.
Delmer, we could be here for the rest of our natural lives with questions like this. If a make a hypothesis about these questions then you'll have 5 more. These are not deficiencies with the TOE any more than asking how wave-particle duality works on Mercury is a deficiency with QM. If you're interested in questions related to evolutionary theory, then get educated on the subject and discover it for yourself. Or AskJeeves.
29 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWith computers design there cannot be such wild assumptions as are being presented when you say you know what must have occurred
With computers design there cannot be such wild assumptions as are
being presented when you say you know what must have occurred
billions of years ago, because you see a rate of decay taking place
today, it doesn't mean it has always been that way when our samples
we are testing were out of our control.
The math must be precise when you’re dealing w ...[text shortened]... in the here and now, which is quite beyond man
when it comes to billions of years ago.
Kelly
billions of years ago, because you see a rate of decay taking place
today
Yes there are. People who design computers assume that electricity will act a certain way because they read books that say it will and because the instruments they use give certain readings. There are a tremendous number of assumptions taking place when someone works on a computer's design.
When assumptions are taken in the design of
the processor they must be confirmed through testing.
And isn't it an assumption that the testing in any way confirms anything?
29 May 05
Originally posted by telerionI'm supporting we don't know, and we have no way to know. You have
Maybe decay times were different in that location just a few weeks prior. You can't know that it wasn't. You take it on faith.
Surely you are not supporting uniformitarianism are you! Not you!
data that says something else?
Kelly
29 May 05
Originally posted by telerionHey, we all have to learn this lesson at some point. There is simply no point in debating the TOE with folk who don't understand the basics of scientific theory confirmation and who think that their own incredulity suffices to show that the TOE is mistaken. You should treat creationists like you would treat a pack of jackals: with distance and respect for their ability to destroy that which is valuable (e.g., the education of children).
Fair enough, I'm obviously wasting it here in the forums, right? It isn't like I really don't have better things that I should be doing.
I'm just a sucker.
29 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm very aware of what people who work on the design of computers
[b]With computers design there cannot be such wild assumptions as are being presented when you say you know what must have occurred
billions of years ago, because you see a rate of decay taking place
today
Yes there are. People who design computers assume that electricity will act a certain way because they read books that say it will ...[text shortened]... rough testing.[/b]
And isn't it an assumption that the testing in any way confirms anything?[/b]
components do and how. I again have not said we cannot know things,
but with the computer design everything from Ohms law and so on
are all testable in the here and now. There isn't something being
presented that claims takes millions or billions of years to happen. I
can test a voltage drop across a resistor to find the current as soon as
I test it, there isn’t a hope that what I’m seeing is something that
really takes billions of years to transpire.
My point remains, is if must be taken on faith it is not a fact but a
belief and much of what is accepted by some as facts are matters of
belief.
According to what you just said, everything is faith, do you believe that?
Kelly
29 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionAnything you discover can be distorted to fit a continually changing
You've said that over and over. It's like a mantra with you. Again and again we point out that your view is not conditioned upon empirical observation. Anything you discover can be distorted to fit a continually changing definition of ...[text shortened]... ightest bit of education in their field. You should feel ashamed.
definition of God.
I'm sorry, where have I talked about God that you bring Him up in this
conversation?
which empirical observation
You have seen a cell transform from a single cell into a human, a
rose, a crab, a whale, a spider, or something else? I guess I missed
your observation, where did you publish it?
I'm still waiting on someone to bring a science paper on just blood
clotting or the formation on the eye. I'm hoping you have some
observation within your papers too, I'd hate to see another statement
of faith being passed off as science.
As far as evolution being testable, define evolution, bring a test that
proves it occurs the way you define it and maybe we can start a
conversation on your work.
As far as my being willfully ignorant, let’s see what you can bring to
the table and I'll bow to your knowledge if you can offer something
other than matters of faith. I want to see something where we start
with one creature and end up with another, I do not want to start
with dogs and end with dogs and have you claim you proved
something. If you have true science, it shouldn't be to hard, so
step up to the plate or run off as it appears you have a desire to
do.
Kelly
29 May 05
"When it comes to billions of years ago, yes it is faith."
Why? If materials have survived 1 billion years, don't you think those materials can be used to determine at least something, however insignificant, that was going on 1 billion years ago?
"Forensic scientists can verify their conclusion in the here and now"
So can geologists. There is no difference between the two sciences other than one is trying to determine past geology and the other is trying to determine a past crime. Out of interest do you think forensic science is flawed if it doesn't consider supernatural explainations?
"Once we cannot take our samples and verify our claims through recorded processes we are back into assumptions again. This isn't saying that assumptions are going to be wrong, but it does mean we are in an area when we cannot know for sure, once there it is faith, correct."
But geological "claims" are verified through recorded processes. In both forensic science and geology there are scientists trying to determine a past event from the evidence. Noone saw the event so all that can be done is try and figure aspects of it out using the evidence. How is this process faith? Surely faith would be coming to a conclusion without any evidence.
29 May 05
Originally posted by PotatoErrorYou have recorded the change of something over a billion years?
"When it comes to billions of years ago, yes it is faith."
Why? If materials have survived 1 billion years, don't you think those materials can be used to determine at least something, however insignificant, that was going on 1 billion years ago?
"Forensic scientists can verify their conclusion in the here and now"
So can geologists. There ...[text shortened]... How is this process faith? Surely faith would be coming to a conclusion without any evidence.
Pray tell, what was it and who started the recording and how was
it passdown from generation to generation?
Kelly