04 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe same could be said of everything we know about science. Everything, from radioactive decay and the cell phone in your hand, to medicine, to the formulation of paint is based upon the evidence we currently have. The evidence for the Big Bang is pretty conclusive to anyone who is willing to take the facts as they stand.
Not good enough. Point: Kelly
You say "not good enough", well, pray tell, what WOULD be enough??
04 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzA lot of people were willing to "take the facts where they (stood)" regarding Piltdown Man, Ptolemy's Earth-centered universe, and a little something called a Steady-State theory. Einstein himself said "The important thing is to NEVER stop questioning." It seems to me that scientists often forget this, and it is people who introduce "radical" ideas like ID who are the true followers of Albert.
The same could be said of everything we know about science. Everything, from radioactive decay and the cell phone in your hand, to medicine, to the formulation of paint is based upon the evidence we currently have. The evidence for the Big Bang is pretty conclusive to anyone who is willing to take the facts as they stand.
You say "not good enough", well, pray tell, what WOULD be enough??
And, I don't use cell phones---ever. If this is the best you can do to credit the greatness of science, pick a better subject; they are proof that the world is devolving.
04 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydYes. A lot of people. But not all. I take most things that most other scientists find as essentially facts, because I'm not qualified in that area to develop those theories more than the people working in that area. I'm no physicist, for example.
A lot of people were willing to "take the facts where they (stood)" regarding Piltdown Man, Ptolemy's Earth-centered universe, and a little something called a Steady-State theory. Einstein himself said "The important thing is to NEVER stop questioning." It seems to me that scientists often forget this, and it is people who introduce "radical" ideas like greatness of science, pick a better subject; they are proof that the world is devolving.
In my own subject area, plant biology / biochemistry, I am qualified to further those ideas, which I do every day. I never stop questioning, and neither do most other scientists.
However, that said, the questions must be logical, relevent and sensible. Do I question that evolution occurs? No. The reason is that the balance of evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of evolution that I doubt it will ever be overturned. Does that make me complacent? Perhaps, but we cannot question everything, forever. We have to take the knowledge we glean at some point and use that to develop more science. For an example of this, think about weighing a leaf. Do I necessarily believe what the balance says is absolutely accurate and "real"? No. Actually, I know the balance has limitations, and inaccuracies. However, the balance is certainly indicative of reality. So, whilst balances can continue to evolve and improve, and those readings I make now can and will be improved in the future, I use my results to underlie my work on protein turnover, seed germination, plant photochemistry or whatever I'm studying.
The strength of science is that we find out and improve our mistakes through time. The best ideas, the enduring ideas, the ones that the evidence supports, do continue and become stronger.
In the case of my discussion with Kelly, all available evidence, from Red-shift to the Cosmic Background Radiation supports the Big Bang theory. I trust the evidence, and therefore find the Big Bang concept all but inescapable.
If you want me to discourse on the grandeur of science, and of the achievements of scientists, well, I can do that too, but it gets old really quickly.
[edit; ID is not a scientific endeavour. It rests upon an untestable assumption of some type of creator. If someone can devise a test for this creator, then it might become a scientific hypothesis.]
04 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou use examples that were later proven false. That is what science is all about. People make weird claims all the time, so what. The real issue is, if other people question the quacks it gets a ball rolling that can show them up for what they are, charletons. It's like now, there are idiots who are actually making a living trying to prove the moon landings were faked somehow with 50 year old technology, something we would be hard pressed to do TODAY but there they are with their spurious claims, finding converts like some byitches even here on RHP, not mentioning any names. It comes from the same frame of mind as the originators of piltdown and other frauds. The point is, you cannot use fraudsters who are listened to early on as proof that science is bogus. Let the scientists do what they do best: Question.
[b]A lot of people were willing to "take the facts where they (stood)" regarding Piltdown Man, Ptolemy's Earth-centered universe, and a little something called a Steady-State theory. Einstein himself said "The important thing is to NEVER stop questioning." It seems to me that scientists often forget this, and it is people who introduce "radical" ideas like ...[text shortened]... greatness of science, pick a better subject; they are proof that the world is devolving.[/b
04 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydWell, cell phones are a great tool and anyone who has had their car break down in less than 0 degree (farenheit) weather any significant distance from a land line can attest to that. Cell phones can be used in very annoying ways, but that doesn't invalidate the immense usefulness of them.
And, I don't use cell phones---ever. If this is the best you can do to credit the greatness of science, pick a better subject; they are proof that the world is devolving.
You think modern medicine isn't enough? Such as the fact that small pox was pretty much gotten rid of, vaccines, the increase of our life span.
The Haber process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
- The computer you're using now.
- High rise buildings.
- Cars, roads.
Most people don't go through a single day without seeing numerous examples of what science has given us.
Medical science has drastically improved the mortality rate at birth so if you are alive right now there's a chance that every breath you take is a benefit that science has brought you.
05 May 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawna chance, sure. I'll grant you that. A slim one, but a chance nevertheless.
Well, cell phones are a great tool and anyone who has had their car break down in less than 0 degree (farenheit) weather any significant distance from a land line can attest to that. Cell phones can be used in very annoying ways, but that doesn't invalidate the immense usefulness of them.
You think modern medicine isn't enough? Such as the fact that ...[text shortened]... now there's a chance that every breath you take is a benefit that science has brought you.
05 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzGood points, all. I accept the Big Bang right now, because AT THE MOMENT, I find the evidence tends toward it (tho I hardly find it incontrovertible evidence). You mentioned red-shift, and I've got a question about that--a serious one, it's not a "gotcha" or anything--I've wondered about it for many years. The Doppler effect is one of the things that won me over for to Big Bang (tho not evolution--the 2 are not related at all that I can see). My question is: I was taught that MOST galaxies are red shifted, in relation to ours. Now, if the universe IS truly racing away from a naked singularity in the distant past, shouldn't ALL galxies be red-shifted in relation to us? Why are SOME blue shifted?
Yes. A lot of people. But not all. I take most things that most other scientists find as essentially facts, because I'm not qualified in that area to develop those theories more than the people working in that area. I'm no physicist, for example.
In my own subject area, plant biology / biochemistry, I am qualified to further those ideas, which I ...[text shortened]... someone can devise a test for this creator, then it might become a scientific hypothesis.]
05 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydHere's what I found;
Good points, all. I accept the Big Bang right now, because AT THE MOMENT, I find the evidence tends toward it (tho I hardly find it incontrovertible evidence). You mentioned red-shift, and I've got a question about that--a serious one, it's not a "gotcha" or anything--I've wondered about it for many years. The Doppler effect is one of the things that w ...[text shortened]... past, shouldn't ALL galxies be red-shifted in relation to us? Why are SOME blue shifted?
"Almost all galaxies are redshifted because of the Hubble expansion of the universe. Only a handful of the most nearby galaxies are blue-shifted. You see, in addition to the apparent motion imparted to galaxies due to universal expnasion, individual galaxies also have their own intrinsic, what we call "peculiar" motions. This is not because they are peculiar, as in strange, but rather because each galaxy is in motion irrespective of the universe's expansion, and each galaxy has its own unique velocity."
"There are in all about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these blue-shifted galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit about each other. Most are also dwarf galaxies which you've probably never heard of, although the Andromeda Galaxy, M31, is in there."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75
Of course, you are right, the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection are seperate. You don't find the evidence incontrovertable. Neither do I. Neither should any honest scientist. We could be dealt new information tomorrow that shows that everything we know is wrong. Evidence, taken by itself, can never be incontrovertable, which is why we have statistics, to show how likely or unlikely it is to be the case.
However, the more information we gather that supports our current ideas, the smaller the probability of finding information which is otherwise becomes. Not because our ideas are any more right (although one would hope that scientists improve their hypotheses with subsequent information being uncovered), but because the weight of evidence is building up in favour, whch suggests we got it right (or wrong, if information builds up which shows we got it wrong) in the first place.
The same is true with evolution. The more investigations we do, the more and more sure we become that even if we don't yet understand all the fine details, we certainly can be quite sure of the overall patterns.
05 May 08
Why is it, that this is the only thread that gets replied too?
Interestingly, people only want to argue Atheism, but not the other religions I presented. Is that because people feel it is socially acceptable to attack the theism of Atheism, or is it because Atheism is the only defensible position?
I think the majority of people feel that Atheism can be attacked without prejudice because it is a sub-belief. I think that's wrong. Go out and attack some of the other theisms. Come on - I gave you Zoroasterism, Branch Davidianism, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. There is definitely a cat to kick in at least some of those.
05 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydConvenient that you ignored every other example. Can I take it you grant those as being legitimate benefits that science has brought us?
a chance, sure. I'll grant you that. A slim one, but a chance nevertheless.
I think the chance is less slim than you think. Maybe I'll look up the differences in mortality rates later on.
05 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydJust found them:
a chance, sure. I'll grant you that. A slim one, but a chance nevertheless.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779935.html
In 1950: 29.2/1000 or 2.92% of children died before 1 year.
In 2003: 6.9/1000 or 0.69% of children died before 1 year.
That's a better than 4x improvement. Granted it's a difference of just over 2%, but I wouldn't say it's insignificant.
And that's only from 1950.
05 May 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnthe other examples you gave i cannot relate to--I don't get caught in freezing weather with no access to shelter & have to resort to a phone that I can only hear every 3rd word on. I have no frame of reference for that.
Convenient that you ignored every other example. Can I take it you grant those as being legitimate benefits that science has brought us?
I think the chance is less slim than you think. Maybe I'll look up the differences in mortality rates later on.
I wasnt a preemee, and have never been on life support, so again--no reference point. Sorry.
05 May 08
Originally posted by GastelMaybe it's because Atheism has the most holes in its arguments?
Why is it, that this is the only thread that gets replied too?
Interestingly, people only want to argue Atheism, but not the other religions I presented. Is that because people feel it is socially acceptable to attack the theism of Atheism, or is it because Atheism is the only defensible position?
I think the majority of people feel that Atheism can be ...[text shortened]... ism, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. There is definitely a cat to kick in at least some of those.
05 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI didn't only mention cell phones.
the other examples you gave i cannot relate to--I don't get caught in freezing weather with no access to shelter & have to resort to a phone that I can only hear every 3rd word on. I have no frame of reference for that.
I wasnt a preemee, and have never been on life support, so again--no reference point. Sorry.
The infant mortality rate that I quoted does not only include premature babies, it includes ALL babies under 1 year old.
I find it amazing that you can't even bring yourself to admit that scientific discoveries have improved our lives. Even if you can't admit that it has improved yours, you can't even see how it has improved the lives of so many others?
Hell, even the land lines that we enjoy right now are based on scientific discoveries, not to mention the computer that you're using right now.