| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2007 11:08:50 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As such, it is not unreasonable ( to my mind ) to ask for the proof to be provided. |
Of course not. And it has, time and again, in the form of empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:29:39 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
As such, it is not unreasonable ( to my mind ) to ask for the proof to be provided. |
Of course not. And it has, time and again, in the form of empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people. |
With all due respect, the wave theory of light was an empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. So why is it not still the universally accepted theory?????? |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:51:55 AM · #378 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
As such, it is not unreasonable ( to my mind ) to ask for the proof to be provided. |
Of course not. And it has, time and again, in the form of empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people. |
With all due respect, the wave theory of light was an empirically tested, peer-reviewed, universally accepted theory based on controlled, repeatable experiments. So why is it not still the universally accepted theory?????? |
Wow.. you STILL don't understand how theoretical models and the scientific method work. The wave theory was insufficient in explaining certain discrepancies that existed when those repeatable experiments were made, and so had to be reexamined. Just like all true scientific theories, it was offered for peer review, as you have seen, and was modified. I don't see how the successful life-cycle of any particular theory you care to point to has anything to do with refuting the veracity of any other theory in a completely different discipline. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 03:57:28 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people. |
Know what baffles me? The fact that you're willing to keep arguing a point that you cannot win or lose.
The majority of the time you aren't going to force a believer to stop believing...and on the extremely rare occasion that you might succeed you really haven't accomplished anything. Creationism is as ridiculous to you as life beginning from a cosmic explosion several billion years ago is to me.
What made "God"? I dunno. Don't care. Seem silly? Almost as silly as believing the universe was once the size of an atom and expanded into what we have today? If your theory is correct, and I'm not saying that it isn't because it would be unfair to attack your common sense, what made that super tiny cosmos? Nothingness made something? Nothingness made an atom that made electrons and quarks that in turn made protons and neutrons? ALL WITHIN A SECOND OF TIME? And people who put their faith in this theory think it's ridiculous that some people might believe the world was made by a creator in 6 days.
If someone takes joy and solace in believing they have someone upstairs to lean on is it really this big of a deal to you? Sure, there are many wrongs done in the name of God, Allah or doctrine, but not all believers do such things or even support them. In fact, a large number of believers think those people are as crazy as you do. Many of them would think I'm crazy because I believe the two (creationism and evolution) actually go together. I believe things can physically evolve or adapt when needed (or even unneeded). Look at domestication and selective breeding. I have no problems or arguments against the FACT of evolution but I simply don't go along with the theory of evolution....... plus it helps my poor little weak mind to believe that there is someone out there and when I die it just doesn't stop there - it's only the beginning.
Believing is seeing. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 04:03:49 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people. |
Know what baffles me? The fact that you're willing to keep arguing a point that you cannot win or lose. |
If you've been following, you'll understand this argument now has little to do with Ron's belief in God, but more to do with his apparent steadfast refusal to accept reliable and proven scientific method and standard theoretical models (unless it relates to those theories not generally considered sound). Personally, I couldn't care less if he thought his cat created the known universe. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 04:33:45 PM · #381 |
Basically it's easy for me. I believe in God because I choose to believe in Him. There's comfort in that belief. I accept science for what it is, and marvel in it, in how it gives us ever-deeper understanding of the mysteries of God's creation. I see no conflict in any of this. And I'm far from alone in that.
There's a tendency in this thread for the non-believers to think all Believers are "creationist freaks", and that simply isn't true. For generation upon generation, science and religion have coexisted reasonably well. They have had their spats, their feuds, but both have endured.
The Bible, as we know it, is a translation into English (or whatever language you read) of translations into Greek from original languages. If you read it for the core values instead of for the purpose of picking apart the details, you can't go far wrong.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 04:39:25 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
The fact that you accept neither proven science nor common sense is what is baffling to most people. |
Know what baffles me? The fact that you're willing to keep arguing a point that you cannot win or lose. |
If you've been following, you'll understand this argument now has little to do with Ron's belief in God, but more to do with his apparent steadfast refusal to accept reliable and proven scientific method and standard theoretical models (unless it relates to those theories not generally considered sound). Personally, I couldn't care less if he thought his cat created the known universe. |
But what about all the past topics on God and no God that the same people always participate in? I think I should be allowed to use them to base my thoughts as to what I believe the real argument is here - not to mention what every other argument is about when topics like this are discussed.
And I firmly believe you when you say you couldn't care less if he believed his cat created the known universe; however, you certainly do care that many people believe that an actual God did. To be honest, it almost seems like your mission at times to discredit anything has to do with God. I don't get it. Of course things could've happened to you in school or the church to change your views (they certainly did mine for a LONG while) but I became a much more fulfilled person once I realized that only one thing truly matters. Not saying that you aren't fulfilled, just telling you my story. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 04:48:36 PM · #383 |
Just to go off at a tangent a bit, here is something that I have been musing over a bit. IF god existence was proved, what would happen? it seems faith is the most important thing to many religions, faith that not matter how ridiculous or contrary to common sense it may be - 'believe unquestionly' and it'll all be ok. If we KNEW he (or she!) was real what would happen? Would it be the end of religion? as the saying goes "if there is biscuits in the tin, where's the fun in biscuits". Would he be p****d about all the crap thats done in his name or people looking for meaning in events (such as wars/disasters) where there is none? etc.
In a way it seems to me that that the religious community would have more to loose.
On a earlier note (a few pages back) I did not mean to say I was more qualified to answer evolution Vs Creatism... that is the battle, the WAR is rational thinking Vs superstition. If science as a whole is attacked (as it was), I feel duty bound to respond. I wasn't trying to blow my own trumpet! |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 04:51:46 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you read it for the core values instead of for the purpose of picking apart the details, you can't go far wrong.
R. |
It would be interesting to have a bible & morality discussion. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 05:14:31 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you read it for the core values instead of for the purpose of picking apart the details, you can't go far wrong.
R. |
Yep.
One thing that I always thought was amusing in general was the Jesus conundrum. Christians believe that he was/is the son of God, Jews don't.
Personally, I don't think it matters one whit either way, because in my mind, Jesus would be flabbergasted that he's deified instead of us getting what we were supposed to from him.....the message.
We're just supposed to be good and decent to each other in thought, word, and deed, and not get wrapped up in our own selfish agendas.
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
It would be interesting to have a bible & morality discussion. |
Prolly not.
We'd most likely not be able to agree to much there either......8>)
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 17:18:43.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 05:18:52 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a tendency in this thread for the non-believers to think all Believers are "creationist freaks", and that simply isn't true. |
No. Speaking personally, anyway. Until 18, I was a staunch and devout Catholic. I went to Catholic school my entire life. Catholics are most certainly not creationists. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 05:20:09 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you read it for the core values instead of for the purpose of picking apart the details, you can't go far wrong. |
The same is true for humanists. Or anyone who cares about other people. Goodness is not the pervue of god-believers. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 05:23:34 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
...the WAR is rational thinking Vs superstition. If science as a whole is attacked (as it was), I feel duty bound to respond. |
Precisely.
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
It would be interesting to have a bible & morality discussion. |
It wouldn't go anywhere. We may as well have a mayonnaise vs. Miracle Whip discussion. (Actually that might not be a bad idea.) |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 05:31:33 PM · #389 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Personally, I couldn't care less if he thought his cat created the known universe. |
Hopefully his isn't a calico. They can be mean.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:54:35 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Personally, I couldn't care less if he thought his cat created the known universe. |
Originally posted by yanko:
Hopefully his isn't a calico. They can be mean. |
Tremendously spoiled and self-indulgent, too.
At least ours is......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 04:25:50 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you read it for the core values instead of for the purpose of picking apart the details, you can't go far wrong. |
The same is true for humanists. Or anyone who cares about other people. Goodness is not the pervue of god-believers. |
EXACTLY!!! |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:01:20 AM · #392 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Direct observations of stars well in excess of 60 million light years' distance (which corresponds to a real-time views of nuclear events that happened more than 60 million years ago) confirms the physics.
|
I turn off the light in a room. you are outside, across the yard, and all you see is the light go off. you can only postulate why or what happened, as you were not there when it happened - all you have is the ending of the light to draw your conclusions. Add 60 million light years in there and it gets murkier yet.
Originally posted by RonB:
I couldn't find anywhere in that article that evidence is given to prove that the decay rate hasn't varied. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You certainly didn't look too hard. About a quarter of the article is devoted to the subject. :-/
|
I did not read the article, but the earth has been impacted by meteors to teh point of extincting (is that a word?) most all life. There have certainly been direct impact of solar flares and radiation, but in the measurable past (theory states such a hit now will pretty much destroy our technological civilization), the earth's magnetic field has reversed many times in history, none in recorded history AFAIK. So there are quite a few variables in there.
I was always taught that if someone set off an atomic bomb, due to the half life of the radiation, the area would be uninhabitable for humans for some 10,000 years. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not vacant lots. Are Mazda cars radioactive? They are built in Hiroshima afterall.
So I tend to question the half life bit myself.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:09:12 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you read it for the core values instead of for the purpose of picking apart the details, you can't go far wrong.
R. |
This is exactly what I was telling  ryand in the other religion vs. science debate.
It's not about whether or not Noah actually had an arc. It's about lessons you get out of the story. Not even necessarily about pleasing God, but being kind to one another. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:25:29 AM · #394 |
| But from that people look too much, and start taking things literally. 'Sodom and Gomorrah' for example or Moses, he wasn't that open to other religions... If you choose to pick and choose, and ignore bits, doesn̢۪t it beg the question as to whether its relevant at all? |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:40:02 AM · #395 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Direct observations of stars well in excess of 60 million light years' distance (which corresponds to a real-time views of nuclear events that happened more than 60 million years ago) confirms the physics. |
I turn off the light in a room. you are outside, across the yard, and all you see is the light go off. you can only postulate why or what happened, as you were not there when it happened - all you have is the ending of the light to draw your conclusions... |
An astronomer could tell you that light's exact temperature, chemical composition, distance, and more. If the light were a natural process as well understood as most stellar structures, the astronomer could offer very good predictions for when the light first went on, how long it should last, and what will happen when it goes off.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I did not read the article, but the earth has been impacted by meteors to teh point of extincting (is that a word?) most all life. There have certainly been direct impact of solar flares and radiation, but in the measurable past (theory states such a hit now will pretty much destroy our technological civilization), the earth's magnetic field has reversed many times in history, none in recorded history AFAIK. So there are quite a few variables in there.
I was always taught that if someone set off an atomic bomb, due to the half life of the radiation, the area would be uninhabitable for humans for some 10,000 years. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not vacant lots. Are Mazda cars radioactive? They are built in Hiroshima afterall. |
You were misled. "Fallout radiation decays exponentially relatively quickly with time. Most areas become fairly safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks." Most of the radioactive fallout from an atomic bomb is not the plutonium or uranium itself, but other short-lived isotopes created in the explosion. Those isotopes decay very rapidly, and the original plutonium is so dispersed that it no longer poses a risk.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:41:46 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Goodness is not the pervue of god-believers. |
Sometimes it's not even a characteristic. :-( |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:56:30 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
An astronomer could tell you that light's exact temperature, chemical composition, distance, and more. If the light were a natural process as well understood as most stellar structures, the astronomer could offer very good predictions for when the light first went on, how long it should last, and what will happen when it goes off. |
How do they have a clue about 'stellar structures'? We've never been to one. The nearest besides our sun is light-years away. There are still places in space that cannot be explained. IMO, it's all a work in progress.
I can know a lot about my neighbor by watching him from my yard. Give me binoculars, then a telescope, radio gear to listen in, satellite photos, tap his phone line - I'll know a lot. But there will still be a lot I have to guess at. He drives a ford. I know not why - he likes it, it's affordable, it was free, he likes blue...what will he buy next? I cannot say. What was his last car? I don't know that either.
It is the same with stars or dinosaurs or even Mayans - a few facts (that we currently believe to be true) and a whole lot of guesswork.
It reminds me of a poem
John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,
It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
MORAL,
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Gotta love Google, don't ya? LOL
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 12:00:05.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:22:58 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
How do they have a clue about 'stellar structures'? We've never been to one. The nearest is light-years away. There are still places in space that cannot be explained. IMO, it's all a work in progress. |
Actually, the nearest one is a little over 8 light-minutes away and, yeah, we've been there... with all sorts of probes and instruments. Yes, there are still processes in space that haven't been explained, and it will always be a work in progress, but then there are probably a couple of freckles on the back of my hand that I haven't seen before, too.
A comparison to your neighbor's house is no more relevant to understanding a natural process than comparing a home renovation to the metamorphosis of a butterfly. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:29:02 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A comparison to your neighbor's house is no more relevant to understanding a natural process than comparing a home renovation to the metamorphosis of a butterfly. |
It is if the science is based on observation. And except for a few moon rocks that is all space science is. And most of what archeology and palientology is as well.
And religion isn't even that, although I suppose that's the premise of Intelligent Design. We observe life, the universe and everything and therefore some omnipotent force or being created it.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 12:29:43.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:33:41 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
And except for a few moon rocks that is all space science is. And most of what archeology and palientology is as well. |
Good grief! This is the same as saying that mathematics is nothing more than one plus one, and all it's ever given us is two, if you can trust that equation. |
|
