Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relevance of origins to modern science
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 124 (707159)
09-24-2013 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 5:34 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that knowing the tree of life would have absolutely no practical value whatsoever, that it would be of purely academic interest. Why shouldn't we study it anyway?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 5:34 AM Ra3MaN has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 33 of 124 (707211)
09-24-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 11:46 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
I guess we are free to research whatever... we get funding for .
It's more simple than that. We are free to research anything. If you wanted to censor scientific investigation then how would you know beforehand which proposed research might end up contradicting your religious beliefs?
...we can never see how, in the latter statement that level of divergence is possible. plausible perhaps...
Not possible yet plausible? Your religious beliefs are confounding your English.
The non religous person, could say since the 18s segment is present in ribosomes of all eukaryotes, therefore all eukaryotes diverged from a single organism.
Interesting how the religious person accepts the laws of descent for the human and animal passengers of an ancient boat in whose existence they fervently believe despite the lack of evidence, but rejects those same laws when applied for fact-based scientific analysis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:46 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 36 of 124 (707246)
09-25-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like.
My, my, what a conundrum! How could we ever figure out what happened when no one was there? What a mystery! What a staggeringly difficult problem! It's not like things that happen ever leave any evidence behind. No wonder you can't get your head around it.
In reality almost everything that happens leaves behind evidence, and if that evidence can be examined then oftentimes we have a fair shot at figuring things out. Across the Bible Belt there must be many criminal investigators who are also creationists, and I'm sure they could explain to you in great detail how they are able to decipher past events without ever being in situ.
Also, concepts, such as Abioigenises is a pivotal point in chemical history and yet it is seemingly impossible to assess without guessing variables to a large degree, even using inference upon inference is tricky. wouldn't you say?
Of course, sometimes the evidence isn't available for examination. After 4 billions years very little evidence is left and we may never untangle the mystery of the origin of life. But not knowing how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. The geologic evidence tells us that in very early times there was no life on Earth, and later on there was, so obviously abiogenesis happened.
So I guess you're going to argue this both ways? You're going to argue that there are some things we shouldn't research because they might contradict someone's religious beliefs (your religious beliefs, no doubt), and you're also going to argue that there are some things we can never know because we weren't there to see it happen? Does that about sum up your approach?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 44 of 124 (707306)
09-26-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Ra3MaN
09-26-2013 4:38 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
I am saying that until Scientists can answer ''gap'' questions, they can feel free to avoid it.
- How do chemicals become DNA? - "we are working on it...."
- What caused the big bang? - "we are working on it...."
- How does time cause matter and energy to become life? - "we are working on it...."
- Why are all galaxies not spinning in the same direction (conserved momentum)? - "we are working on it..."
- How can distance be measured in light years when the speed of light is subject to gravity... etc.?
The last two are nonsense, but the first three are active areas of scientific inquiry. By what stretch of logic can you say that scientists are avoiding questions currently receiving a great deal of attention.
We have tried to cause a big bang in a lab,...
No, we have not. Maybe you're thinking of fusion experiments.
...why not stellar formation...
You mean actually create a star in the lab? Where you'd need enough gravity to create pressures that result in fusion? Where that much gravity requires at least 2x1029 kg, or about 30,000 times the mass of the entire earth? Really?
Scientist have never observed the formation of a star,...
What's this:
...and to my knowledge how to make one is pure speculation.
I believe you. The part about "to my knowledge," that is. Have you ever even heard of Fred Hoyle?
one of our primary resources couldn't have just been magically formed by the hands of a higher power could it?
This is a science thread. In science threads we follow the evidence. How much evidence do you have of any kind of higher power anywhere doing anything?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:38 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 45 of 124 (707308)
09-26-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN
09-26-2013 4:57 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
Yes, you are definitely correct, but how far back can we really know?
How old do you personally think evidence should be before you can start ignoring it?
How many people were falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on evidence.
Were scientists convicting these people, or judges, lawyers and juries? From what I observe, the more we bring actual science into the courtroom, the more accurate the convictions become.
Helpful hint: One very effective way to avoid jury duty here in the States is to identify your profession as "scientist" when questioned by lawyers during jury selection.
When it walked the earth is an inference, how it died is an inference, how it lived is an inference. what is more, all these are based on other inference, such as varve inference, ice layer inference, radioactive isotope degradation inference, etc...
Is inference upon inference really empirical science, or just making jigsaw puzzle pieces fit?
I'm almost afraid to ask - what's wrong with using inference to see how the "jigsaw puzzle pieces" of evidence fit together? What other method is available? Or is it your position, "That which we did not see we cannot know."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 124 (707418)
09-27-2013 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Ra3MaN
09-27-2013 3:18 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
I can't say that I will give up on my beliefs just yet.
You mean religious beliefs? No one expects you to give up your religious beliefs. But the origin of life and the age of the Earth have nothing to do with your relationship with God. You can understand the story the evidence tells us without changing your spirituality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 3:18 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 11:12 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 124 (707420)
09-27-2013 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN
09-27-2013 5:04 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
What you believe will be reflected by how you live.
How would accepting that, for example, the Earth is ancient affect the way you live your life? However in the world could scientific theories based only upon cold, hard facts affect your morality? Are you afraid that if the Earth is ancient then the Bible is wrong and so is its morality?
If there were truly a connection between religious belief and morality then atheists would be the worst criminals on the planet, but atheists commit fewer crimes than almost any other group.
I am in science,...
You're in science and you're arguing the "If no one was there how could you ever know" point of view? Seriously?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 124 (707491)
09-27-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
09-27-2013 11:12 AM


NoNukes writes:
Apparently he holds a belief that such things do affect his relationship with God.
Right, but that's just another of his mistaken beliefs and not a religious belief.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 11:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 4:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 124 (707516)
09-27-2013 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
09-27-2013 4:46 PM


I agree that he has much company when he confounds spirituality with belief in things having nothing to do with spirituality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 4:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 9:51 PM Percy has replied
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 9:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 67 of 124 (707532)
09-28-2013 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by NoNukes
09-27-2013 9:51 PM


What defines a legitimate religious belief? Is a universe created in six days (not seven) a religious belief? Is not eating meat on Fridays? If someone out there has what they claim is a religious belief to not step on cracks in the sidewalk, is it truly a religious belief that the rest us must accept as legitimate? I'm not addressing such questions.
But clearly none of those beliefs I mentioned have anything to do with one's personal relationship with God, with spirituality. I know there are many people who disagree, but that doesn't make it any less true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 9:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by sfs, posted 09-28-2013 8:27 AM Percy has replied
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2013 5:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 124 (707542)
09-28-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by sfs
09-28-2013 8:27 AM


sfs writes:
Which is to say, you've defined your religious beliefs as the only legitimate ones.
I didn't raise the issue of how to define religious beliefs, and it's not a question I'm interested in addressing. I did note the problem of classifying as a religious belief anything that someone somewhere happens to claim as a religious belief.
My comment was about the bearing any particular belief (and it doesn't have to be religious) has on spirituality and one's relationship with God. I acknowledge that there are many out there who believe one can't have a personal relationship with God while also believing in, for example, an ancient Earth, but that's just another mistaken belief.
Modifying that slightly to make the silliness aspect of it a bit more clear, there might be someone who believes that one can't have a personal relationship with God while believing that Fords are better than Chevys, and this might be their deeply held religious belief, but this is just another mistaken belief. They and you and NoNukes can call it a religious belief if you like and conclude that therefore I'm telling them their religious beliefs are wrong, but I'm not interested in ceding all territory claimed by the religious to the religious, including simple rationality in this case, and it's still mistaken.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by sfs, posted 09-28-2013 8:27 AM sfs has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 71 of 124 (707603)
09-29-2013 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
09-28-2013 5:25 PM


NoNukes writes:
A legitimate belief? I'm sure I don't want to go there.
Yes, that's exactly the point. If someone believes God would be angry at them for believing that the Earth is ancient, is that a religious belief? Most would say yes. But if someone believes God would be angry at them for stepping on cracks in sidewalks, is that a religious belief? Or is it pathological? Well, now you have to ask what is a legitimate religious belief so that you can know when you're telling someone their religious beliefs are wrong (which is what I've been accused of) and when you're correcting mistaken beliefs.
So we shouldn't go there. If someone holds a mistaken belief, then we should explain why their belief is mistaken. The religious claim is just extraneous baggage. That doesn't mean people don't suffer and struggle with their religious beliefs, and in many cases those beliefs are part of their makeup and can't change, but that doesn't mean they're not mistaken or that they shouldn't be challenged (particularly given fundamentalist efforts to influence science education) or that challenging them is equivalent to committing the social faux pas of telling someone their religious beliefs are wrong.
The important message for Ra3MaN is that he's gotten away from what's important.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2013 5:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2013 9:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 73 of 124 (707606)
09-29-2013 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by NoNukes
09-29-2013 9:31 AM


NoNukes writes:
If someone believes God would be angry at them for believing that the Earth is ancient, is that a religious belief? Most would say yes.
But you wouldn't, I assume.
I think I've said several times now that I'm not making such judgments, and you yourself said you wouldn't go there. My whole email was an explanation of why I feel this way, I don't understand why you're not getting it, as here:
NoNoNukes writes:
In practice, nobody actually says that God does not want them to step on sidewalk cracks.
That isn't the point, is it. It's a rhetorical point about how one judges which religious beliefs should be respected. Religious beliefs run the full gamut and such judgments aren't possible. But isn't believing that such judgments *are* possible the reason I'm being accused of telling Ra3MaN that his religious beliefs are wrong? Or was it merely being noted so that I would understand why Ra3MaN might be very resistant to my approach because *he* believes I'm telling him his religious beliefs are wrong.
Telling Ra3MaN that his concerns about science have nothing to with spirituality is not telling him his religious beliefs are wrong. It's only telling him he has some mistaken notions and that his attention is not focused on what's important.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2013 9:31 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2013 3:41 PM Percy has replied
 Message 77 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-30-2013 2:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 75 of 124 (707640)
09-29-2013 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
09-29-2013 3:41 PM


Since explaining what I really think doesn't seem to be helping, there's little point continuing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2013 3:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 79 of 124 (707670)
09-30-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ra3MaN
09-30-2013 2:39 AM


Ra3MaN writes:
If spiritual beliefs and religious beliefs is truly different, can science prove the existence of a spirit?
If you wanted to prove the existence of black swans, you'd figure out how to observe one. If you wanted to prove the existence of spirits, you'd figure out how to observe one.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-30-2013 2:39 AM Ra3MaN has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 2:29 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024