02 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn science we have to present the raw data to anyone who asks. If someone thinks he got his interpretation wrong they can redo the work, or look at the source data.
Come on, Scott. Are you saying that the scientific community was operating on their individual astronomical measurements prior to Baade's doubling of the age of the universe? Absolutely not. They were assuming (practically any definition of that word fits the bill) that Hubble was right.
And further, before Sandage secured more precise images of HII ...[text shortened]... t remains that we are resting on people's findings of the facts, not facts themselves.
03 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat does a savd dune do that you find so complex it couldn't appear
If I see a watch I suspect a human maker. But only because I know that watches are made by humans, not because of its apparent complexity. This is a misleading arguement for God.
If I show you sand dunes in the desert, so beautifull and perfectly formed, do you declare there must be a maker? If not, why not?
on its own? With a watch you believe you could only know a human
made it because you know in advance humans make watches? If you
were driving toward a town and you saw along side the road a bunch
of rocks in no pattern you are aware of would you think they just got
there through natural causes much like your sand dune?
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, the sorting of sediments in a river. Complex and done by no-one.
What does a savd dune do that you find so complex it couldn't appear
on its own? With a watch you believe you could only know a human
made it because you know in advance humans make watches? If you
were driving toward a town and you saw along side the road a bunch
of rocks in no pattern you are aware of would you think they just got
there through natural causes much like your sand dune?
Kelly
Oh, and watches evolved, you know Kelly. From pocketwatches, and before that granfather clocks, and before that sundials.
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am glad you asked. The point is that as in the difference between special and general theories of relativity, attempting to define faith based upon your modern interpretations, will not support your arguement. Faith as defined by the oringinal author, should be sufficient for the discussion. Faith has never been blind and is always evidentiary through observation and extrapolation of known facts. It doesn't need to be redifined just because hou don"t understand the equation. Stay out of the arguement! 😲
and your point is?
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn fact I agree with this arguement in part. Any religion that worships and embraces statements that cannot be corroborated is really suspect. Accordingly any scientist that refuses to see the handy work of a creator is equally fanatical. It is because of religious beliefs that, are based in ignorance, practice fanatisim and enforce thier postion through tyranny. I have become irreligious, but not unfaithful. I can see based upon the empiracal evidence that, that is a story of recreation and the only way a world 4.53 billion years and a 6,000 year history of man can converge. Cycles are scientific!
When a religious person says "I believe in God", they are saying "without empirical evidence I have a gut feeling that God exists". When a scientist says "we believe the world is 4.53 billion years old" it's quite different to a Die-Hard-Christian (DHC) saying they believe it to be 6,000 years old or a random nutter in the street who believes it was la ...[text shortened]... about, and least well defined words in this thread. The other one is "theory".
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nessCycles may be scientific but you are a prize nut-job. What are you going on about scientists that refuse to see blah blah blah? THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. Heck, the universe could have been created by the Giant Celestial Chicken, Muffy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or just about anything else. It could (gasp) have simply came into being. It could have existed forever. There is no way of knowing. One thing I do know, however is that this in no way points to any sort of creator.
In fact I agree with this arguement in part. Any religion that worships and embraces statements that cannot be corroborated is really suspect. Accordingly any scientist that refuses to see the handy work of a creator is equally fanatical. It is because of religious beliefs that, are based in ignorance, practice fanatisim and enforce thier postion th ...[text shortened]... a world 4.53 billion years and a 6,000 year history of man can converge. Cycles are scientific!
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJaySand dunes are very complex and beautifull as well. If you didnt know about them, the first time you saw them you would probably believe they were made by something intelligent.
What does a savd dune do that you find so complex it couldn't appear
on its own? With a watch you believe you could only know a human
made it because you know in advance humans make watches? If you
were driving toward a town and you saw along side the road a bunch
of rocks in no pattern you are aware of would you think they just got
there through natural causes much like your sand dune?
Kelly
I have very often seen patterns in rocks which appear to be man made and some which are too complex or beautifull to be man made. Many crytal formations are simply amazing. But I dont immediately suspect aliens.
What is it about a watch that indicates an intelligent maker with a purpose? What is it about sand dunes that indicates natural forces? What is it about life that in your opinion indicates an intelligent maker.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jul 06
ok at this point in the discussion I would like to suggest that everyone who would like to have a seriouse debate about science vs religion particularly with respect to evolution goes out and buys 'The Science of Discworld III : Darwins Watch', it is written by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen. the latter of which are a 'proffesor of mathematics' and a 'biologist and science writer' respectively. this book discusses and answers most of the arguments/ideas/questions you are having/lobbing at each other and would provide a good point to kick off from. the format is in alternating chapters osscilating between Terry Pratchetts disc world and a chapter written about the real world written by one of Mr Pratchets co authers. both compliment each other but can also be read in isolation (for those who don't get the discworld references having not read the rest of the series reading only the non discworld chapters would not be a waste of time, although I would say that you are missing a lot af humor if you havent read the discworld series).
In the mean time if we could throttle back the insults and have a bit more disscussion rather than argument it would be much apreciated.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nesssorry I am confused, what has the difference bettween special and general relativity got to do with anything?
I am glad you asked. The point is that as in the difference between special and general theories of relativity, attempting to define faith based upon your modern interpretations, will not support your arguement. Faith as defined by the oringinal author, should be sufficient for the discussion. Faith has never been blind and is always evidentiary thr ...[text shortened]... o be redifined just because hou don"t understand the equation. Stay out of the arguement! 😲
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNow, Now, Scott; hope I am not being too forward. Listen; the design is too intelligent for your chickens, Muffies and Spaghetti Monsters. I may even be a nut-job, however one thing that I am clear about is this, I would prefer to use the term Creator rather than God. Here is a simple one for you and I hope that you don't find this statement as inane as the rest of my post. However, science has been attempting vigourosly for many years now to create (genetically engineer)a man. Science has not achieved this yet. I say that they cannot. Man is the Living Stone. He is the Creation of a Creator or if your not comfortable with that; God. If man is the spearhead of evolution, then history may point out that these feeble attempts may have been made before in this 4.5 Billion years that science purports. It's a verifiable fact that Nuclear War has happend upon this planet before. This event according to scientist happened an estimated 10,000 years ago in India. It is a fact that a spark plug was found in the Mohave Desert fossilized and estimated at over 500,000 years old. A creation story cannot support this type of history, with only 6,000 years. But again re-creation can. Intelligent Design Scott, Intelligent Design. Oh and by the way things just don't come into being, the laws of natural selection won't support that premise. If that were sound reasoning, we would be finding men popping up on beaches everywhere along with many more new spcecies coming into existence as you say!
Cycles may be scientific but you are a prize nut-job. What are you going on about scientists that refuse to see blah blah blah? THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. Heck, the universe could have been created by the Giant Celestial Chicken, Muffy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or just about anything else. It could (gasp) have simpl ...[text shortened]... of knowing. One thing I do know, however is that this in no way points to any sort of creator.