|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:07 pm
Goldenlici Science can prove science because science is one set of principles, but for some reason theology can not prove theology even though it is similarly one set of principles. How come science does not have to be proven by theology, while theology has to be proven by science? This is a strawman. As I have already explained, science does not make any claims about religion. The only time science cares what religion says is when religion says things about science. If religious groups stopped hassling science, science would never say a thing about religion. Goldenlici I would just like to point out that there is nothing that says science has to oppose Christianity. Tell this to scientists, and they will say, "Duh." Tell this to supporters of Intelligent Design, who thrive by saying science is wrong, and they will throw you out. Also Priestly, while science requires "less" faith, on an absolute level, requiring any amount of faith is sufficient. Science has no inherent superiority to religion. Science is simply more appealing for its various benefits, one of which is maturity. Edit: I was not supposed to continue responding to Goldenlici, and I apologize. I just wanted to respond to her that time because the false claims she was making were new, and I did not want to leave them unanswered.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:28 pm
zz1000zz Also Priestley, while science requires "less" faith, on an absolute level, requiring any amount of faith is sufficient. Science has no inherent superiority to religion. Science is simply more appealing for its various benefits, one of which is maturity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:15 pm
zz100zz Tell this to scientists, and they will say, "Duh." Tell this to supporters of Intelligent Design, who thrive by saying science is wrong, and they will throw you out. Believe me there are a lot of people from both groups who disagree with what I said and have told me to my face. I just make the statement for anyone who believes that, though unfortunately it is true that most of the time those people are Christian. Priestly What I said wasn't meant to show bias towards one or the other; just the differences. Faith is vital to religion as evidence is vital to science. In some ways, a religion is a set of beliefs based largely on the absence of the evidence that science has yet to discover. However, it is difficult to ignore evidence when the results of experimentation can be proven repeatedly. Religious truths can't always be tested in the same manner. You overestimate science. Science has plenty of flaws, but these flaws are overlooked because of a widespread belief in the principles of science. The idea is called argumentum ad populum, which just basically means that whatever a majority believes to be true is true. I just recently researched an extinct scientific practice which stated that blacks were inferior to whites because it was scientifically proven that their brains were more similar to that of an ape: craniometery. The process used exact measurements and precise calculations which could be repeated in a lab by anyone. That didn't make it true. The scientists were working within a society where the majority of people believed blacks were inferior to whites, and so the idea was accepted without question. Even when questions did arise and it was found that there were flaws in the data and the conclusions drawn form it, the practice continued for many years because no one wanted to believe it. To tie all of this back to evolution, I want to say that evolution in general requires a belief in a lot of things that can not be tested and proven. We can not put a lizard in a cage and watch it transform into a bird. We can not create another big bang explosion and watch what happens. All we can see is small traces of things left behind that could prove something bigger. That something bigger could easily be something we never even thought of because we are so focused on evolution or, to the other extreme, on intelligent design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:26 pm
Okay, I am finished with Goldenlici in this topic. I can tolerate some types of bunk well enough, but not this sort. The "scientific practice" referred to is a offshoot of eugenics, which was never "scientifically proven." Eugenics has always been controversial, and it has never been accepted on large. Eugenics has always been a social issue, even though it often masquerades as a scientific one.
In a sick way, this is somewhat humorous. The topic raised by Goldenlici is largely similar to Intelligent Design. It was a social issue which used bad (and fake) science to manipulate people's opinions. Both are scientifically dishonest.
If science were an individual rather than a system, this sort of thing would be slander.
Edit: Okay, it would not be slander. This is not spoken words, so it would be libel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:09 am
zz1000zz Lethkhar Quote: Light travels in a straight line according to physics. Black holes can bend light. So, the laws of physics only work under certain conditions. That does not seem so much like a law anymore. If there is one set of laws for one condition and another set of laws for another condition, how do we know that there are only those two conditions. From what you are saying, I could easily say that when God created the universe, there was a different set of conditions for physics, which allowed for all the "problems" perceived in Creationism. Show me the physical law which states that light does not bend. Hint: You won't find it. Light bends all the time. An example would be when it enters water. Bending the course of things requires acceleration (positive or negative). Light cannot be accelerated, so it cannot be bent. Light can be reflected or refracted (as happens when it enters water), but it cannot be bent. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, space itself can bend, giving the impression of bent light. Here we disagree on the definition of "bend". I could make the argument that refraction is bending. I assumed that that was what she meant because the only "bending" I'm aware of as a result of a black hole is refraction through distorted space due to gravity. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:24 am
Goldenlici The first part of this is more philosophical and explanatory (please bear with me, I just have one or two more points there and then I am done), but I promise the bottom is very heavy in the science (thanks to my dad) and will lead to some new line of questioning, which will hopefully break us away from our current circle of arguments. Lethkar You said you know the basic principle behind it. You clearly do not even know where this man began with his calculations. I know how you can calculate the probability of chemicals coming together, which was what he was doing, so I know the basic idea behind his experiment. Let's just agree that from now on if we cite something we make sure that we've read at least the abstract, okay? Quote: Lehtkar Believe me; if evidence contrary to evolution was found that completely overturned everything that's been found, biology would go through a huge upheaval. Then no; I know that science can be wrong. This kind of "huge upheaval" is not uncommon in science. In fact, it happens all the time, which is why I find it hard to believe how dedicated people are to it. I am dedicated to it because it's by far the best explanation for a lot of things that we have right now, and I will not tolerate a future in which my children will learn pseudo-science, manipulation of evidence, and mythology in science class. I think there's already more than enough of that in world. Quote: Lethkar You talk about science like it's a set of religious convictions. Lethkar I work under the assumption that what I observe is true. I know it's not necessarily true, so I subconsciously doubt everything. Lethkar Science revised itself because of what it observed. Care to comment, or did you just leave these here for kicks? wink My Dad I would guess that someone is quoting Olbert's paradox, aka, the dark sky paradox to prove the big bang theory. This is incorrect, it only proves that the luminous lifetime of a star is less than the fill-up time of the universe. This however does prove that stars have finite lifetimes. Olber's (I don't think there's a "t"...) paradox isn't what I was referring to...In fact, Olber's paradox directly contradicts my own beliefs concerning an infinite universe. However, as your father said it's actually easily explainable and I therefore have no qualm with it. Quote: No the biggest big-bang proof is the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The existence of a nearly uniform 3 K nosie temperature background radiation is consistent in detail with what is called the "Standard Model of Cosmology," including observed extremely small anisotropies. The big-bang theory predicted (by Dicke in1945) such a thing should exist, and it was discovered sometime later (1964). No other theory can explain at this time the existence of the CMB, includingall the alternates currently proposed by the current batch of Intelligence Design people who believe in the young earth theory, and no other theory predicted its existence before hand. It is this measurement in particular that removed all other existing theories at the time from serious contention. I should add the existence of the big bang does not in any way rule out a creator. The big bang was originally accepted by Christians with delight, because it proves there was a creation instant, and atheistic scientists did not like it for the same reason. It is only the relatively recent group of Christians who don't accept it because it is inconsistent with their naive belief in a 6000 year old earth, which I don't believe comes from a proper understanding of what is said in the Bible. This is wha I've been saying. We atheists don't actually understand what the big deal is. It's not as if we're all going to become Christians if the Big Bang Theory turns out to be false. Quote: An argument for the existence of a disparity between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in most apologetics on creation order is that ancient Hebrew poetry is not precise in time, but if one accepts that, then to accept the timeline given in Genesis 1 as precise is incorrect. Even if it was precise, with relativity theory, one can prove the age of the universe different for different reference frames. For the CMB photons almost no time has passed since the big bang, while for the earth 11 billion years or so has passed. One can construct a reference frame in which the creation took seven days, one could I suppose call this the "God Frame" from which God observes creation even though from the earths perspective 11 billion years have passed. The problem I think is framing the argument as creationism "vs" evolution, as if there was a hard dichotomy. In reality one can have creationism "and" evolution, and also neither creationism nor evolution. They are not logical opposites. If one is true, it is not necessarily the case that the other is false. You're dad's an intelligent man. I agree with him completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:29 am
zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar The difference between your example and Evolution is that your example is a hypothesis and Evolution is a scientific theory. The evidence supports it. I won't believe your hypothesis because you have no evidence to show that it's true.
We do have evidence to support our theory that God created everything in six literal days. It just requires more faith to accept it.When Lethkhar says "evidence," I believe it is safe to assume he is thinking purely of "scientific evidence," or at least verifiable evidence. The "evidence" you mention would more generally be grouped into "faith." Science inherently dismisses it. Which is not to say faith is wrong. Science does not say faith is wrong; it simply has no method or purpose for dealing with faith, so it ignores it. Ultimately, science makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity. Science only gets dragged into these topics because people claim the science is wrong, which provokes responses in self-defense. As far as science is concerned, a supreme deity could have created the universe three minutes ago and just made us think we existed before. It has no way of testing that, or any other issue of faith. It just attempts to provide a process of looking at things that everyone can understand and accept. What she said. sweatdrop I always try to say things like this, but people always get so bogged down in arguing with me on things that I consider trivial that no one sees the real issue here. I'm not attacking your faith; I'm explaining why I don't believe it. I am totally cool with somebody believing that an invisible purple platypus stalks them all day and tampers with evidence to trick scientists into believing gravity, so long as that person doesn't harm anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:37 pm
Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar Quote: Light travels in a straight line according to physics. Black holes can bend light. So, the laws of physics only work under certain conditions. That does not seem so much like a law anymore. If there is one set of laws for one condition and another set of laws for another condition, how do we know that there are only those two conditions. From what you are saying, I could easily say that when God created the universe, there was a different set of conditions for physics, which allowed for all the "problems" perceived in Creationism. Show me the physical law which states that light does not bend. Hint: You won't find it. Light bends all the time. An example would be when it enters water. Bending the course of things requires acceleration (positive or negative). Light cannot be accelerated, so it cannot be bent. Light can be reflected or refracted (as happens when it enters water), but it cannot be bent. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, space itself can bend, giving the impression of bent light. Here we disagree on the definition of "bend". I could make the argument that refraction is bending. I assumed that that was what she meant because the only "bending" I'm aware of as a result of a black hole is refraction through distorted matter due to gravity. I stand corrected. I am afraid you are quite mistaken here. The bending of light near a black hole has nothing to do with refraction. To be clear, light bends all the time; it is just most noticeable near a black hole. Anywhere gravity exists, light bends. The more gravity, the more light bends. This can be observed around stars as well as black holes, but black holes make it easier to observe because there is no background light (also, the strength of the effect is dependent upon density, and black holes have greater density). Now then, to be clear, light itself does not bend. Light can only travel in a straight line. Instead, the space through which it travels bends. Space and time are both affected by gravity. Gravity from black holes bends space and time, causing the image of light bending. This further leads to the explanation of "before the Big Bang." Time is a part of the universe, not independent from it. The more gravity in a location, the slower time flows there. The Bing Bang theory states that initially all matter was located in a single spot, which would consequently have infinite density. Since there was infinite density, time would be slowed to the point of non-existence. Time is a part of the universe. Time only existed after the universe existed, so it is illogical to speak of time "before the Big Bang."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:16 am
Lethkhar zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar The difference between your example and Evolution is that your example is a hypothesis and Evolution is a scientific theory. The evidence supports it. I won't believe your hypothesis because you have no evidence to show that it's true.
We do have evidence to support our theory that God created everything in six literal days. It just requires more faith to accept it.When Lethkhar says "evidence," I believe it is safe to assume he is thinking purely of "scientific evidence," or at least verifiable evidence. The "evidence" you mention would more generally be grouped into "faith." Science inherently dismisses it. Which is not to say faith is wrong. Science does not say faith is wrong; it simply has no method or purpose for dealing with faith, so it ignores it. Ultimately, science makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity. Science only gets dragged into these topics because people claim the science is wrong, which provokes responses in self-defense. As far as science is concerned, a supreme deity could have created the universe three minutes ago and just made us think we existed before. It has no way of testing that, or any other issue of faith. It just attempts to provide a process of looking at things that everyone can understand and accept. What she said. sweatdrop I always try to say things like this, but people always get so bogged down in arguing with me on things that I consider trivial that no one sees the real issue here. I'm not attacking your faith; I'm explaining why I don't believe it. I am totally cool with somebody believing that an invisible purple platypus stalks them all day and tampers with evidence to trick scientists into believing gravity, so long as that person doesn't harm anyone else.
At any rate, my biggest pet peeve is when people confuse "proof" with "evidence." Proof proves something, undeniably. Evidence just backs up an idea, but it can still be disproved. What Christians have is evidence, though most of it isn't scientific, and even the scientific evidence can be easily disputed. But that's why we have faith. Not sure what my point is here (I'm going on like, three hours of sleep after three days of concerts here =o=). I like science. I consider myself a scientist (or at least an aspiring one). Science and faith get along just fine in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:52 pm
zz1000zz Lethkhar zz1000zz Lethkhar Quote: Light travels in a straight line according to physics. Black holes can bend light. So, the laws of physics only work under certain conditions. That does not seem so much like a law anymore. If there is one set of laws for one condition and another set of laws for another condition, how do we know that there are only those two conditions. From what you are saying, I could easily say that when God created the universe, there was a different set of conditions for physics, which allowed for all the "problems" perceived in Creationism. Show me the physical law which states that light does not bend. Hint: You won't find it. Light bends all the time. An example would be when it enters water. Bending the course of things requires acceleration (positive or negative). Light cannot be accelerated, so it cannot be bent. Light can be reflected or refracted (as happens when it enters water), but it cannot be bent. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, space itself can bend, giving the impression of bent light. Here we disagree on the definition of "bend". I could make the argument that refraction is bending. I assumed that that was what she meant because the only "bending" I'm aware of as a result of a black hole is refraction through distorted space due to gravity. I stand corrected. I am afraid you are quite mistaken here. The bending of light near a black hole has nothing to do with refraction. To be clear, light bends all the time; it is just most noticeable near a black hole. Anywhere gravity exists, light bends. The more gravity, the more light bends. This can be observed around stars as well as black holes, but black holes make it easier to observe because there is no background light (also, the strength of the effect is dependent upon density, and black holes have greater density). Now then, to be clear, light itself does not bend. Light can only travel in a straight line. Instead, the space through which it travels bends. Space and time are both affected by gravity. Gravity from black holes bends space and time, causing the image of light bending. This further leads to the explanation of "before the Big Bang." Time is a part of the universe, not independent from it. The more gravity in a location, the slower time flows there. The Bing Bang theory states that initially all matter was located in a single spot, which would consequently have infinite density. Since there was infinite density, time would be slowed to the point of non-existence. Time is a part of the universe. Time only existed after the universe existed, so it is illogical to speak of time "before the Big Bang." Ok, we're cool. wink Like I said: I'd always thought the bending of light was a result of the bending of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:54 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar The difference between your example and Evolution is that your example is a hypothesis and Evolution is a scientific theory. The evidence supports it. I won't believe your hypothesis because you have no evidence to show that it's true.
We do have evidence to support our theory that God created everything in six literal days. It just requires more faith to accept it.When Lethkhar says "evidence," I believe it is safe to assume he is thinking purely of "scientific evidence," or at least verifiable evidence. The "evidence" you mention would more generally be grouped into "faith." Science inherently dismisses it. Which is not to say faith is wrong. Science does not say faith is wrong; it simply has no method or purpose for dealing with faith, so it ignores it. Ultimately, science makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity. Science only gets dragged into these topics because people claim the science is wrong, which provokes responses in self-defense. As far as science is concerned, a supreme deity could have created the universe three minutes ago and just made us think we existed before. It has no way of testing that, or any other issue of faith. It just attempts to provide a process of looking at things that everyone can understand and accept. What she said. sweatdrop I always try to say things like this, but people always get so bogged down in arguing with me on things that I consider trivial that no one sees the real issue here. I'm not attacking your faith; I'm explaining why I don't believe it. I am totally cool with somebody believing that an invisible purple platypus stalks them all day and tampers with evidence to trick scientists into believing gravity, so long as that person doesn't harm anyone else.
At any rate, my biggest pet peeve is when people confuse "proof" with "evidence." Proof proves something, undeniably. Evidence just backs up an idea, but it can still be disproved. What Christians have is evidence, though most of it isn't scientific, and even the scientific evidence can be easily disputed. But that's why we have faith. Not sure what my point is here (I'm going on like, three hours of sleep after three days of concerts here =o=). I like science. I consider myself a scientist (or at least an aspiring one). Science and faith get along just fine in my opinion.I wasn't talking about you specifically, Fushigi... Who'd you see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:21 pm
Lethkhar Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar The difference between your example and Evolution is that your example is a hypothesis and Evolution is a scientific theory. The evidence supports it. I won't believe your hypothesis because you have no evidence to show that it's true.
We do have evidence to support our theory that God created everything in six literal days. It just requires more faith to accept it.When Lethkhar says "evidence," I believe it is safe to assume he is thinking purely of "scientific evidence," or at least verifiable evidence. The "evidence" you mention would more generally be grouped into "faith." Science inherently dismisses it. Which is not to say faith is wrong. Science does not say faith is wrong; it simply has no method or purpose for dealing with faith, so it ignores it. Ultimately, science makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity. Science only gets dragged into these topics because people claim the science is wrong, which provokes responses in self-defense. As far as science is concerned, a supreme deity could have created the universe three minutes ago and just made us think we existed before. It has no way of testing that, or any other issue of faith. It just attempts to provide a process of looking at things that everyone can understand and accept. What she said. sweatdrop I always try to say things like this, but people always get so bogged down in arguing with me on things that I consider trivial that no one sees the real issue here. I'm not attacking your faith; I'm explaining why I don't believe it. I am totally cool with somebody believing that an invisible purple platypus stalks them all day and tampers with evidence to trick scientists into believing gravity, so long as that person doesn't harm anyone else.
At any rate, my biggest pet peeve is when people confuse "proof" with "evidence." Proof proves something, undeniably. Evidence just backs up an idea, but it can still be disproved. What Christians have is evidence, though most of it isn't scientific, and even the scientific evidence can be easily disputed. But that's why we have faith. Not sure what my point is here (I'm going on like, three hours of sleep after three days of concerts here =o=). I like science. I consider myself a scientist (or at least an aspiring one). Science and faith get along just fine in my opinion.I wasn't talking about you specifically, Fushigi... Who'd you see?
Let's see, I saw Barlow Girl, Skillet (who rocked my freakin' face off man- I had whiplash for TWO DAYS), Casting Crowns, tobyMac, Kutless, Newsboys, and Family Force 5 (they also rocked my face off, and I listened to their new audio blog on their MySpace and they mentioned the totally awesome dance pit they got started on the lawn that they couldn't even do for Warped Tour and I was like "OMGIWASINTHATDANCEPIT!!!" yeah ... I'm a little obsessive, so what confused ). Videos and pictures on my Facebook if you care. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
