Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-18-2018 9:19 PM
254 online now:
Meddle (1 member, 253 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 838,657 Year: 13,480/29,783 Month: 926/1,576 Week: 138/303 Day: 29/53 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   The wonder of science vs. the banality of creation
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 31 of 64 (503860)
03-22-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
03-22-2009 8:00 PM


Re: Did You Say That With a Straight Face?
Actually there is such a case. Years ago, one of the country's best flintknappers, Don Crabtree, had to have surgery and he made his surgeon a series of obsidian blades. They are significantly sharper than surgical instruments.
Agreed, that's why I put the sharpness of obsidian blades on the table. For sky to extrapolate knapped obsidian being much sharper then hone steel as the generalized, and silly, "Stone tools of the past worked better that steel tools of the present." is absurd. It's unlikely Homo heidelbergensis could do a
"better" job debriding nerve endings or somesuch with obsidian blades then modern neurosurgeons could do with a popsicle stick sharpened on a sidewalk. When he can do something a little less specialized to find his "better", like cutting down trees or getting marrow out of a bone, he'll have an argument instead of a dodge.

Edited by lyx2no, : Lost the end of a sentence somewhere.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 03-22-2009 8:00 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 9:31 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2009 9:37 PM lyx2no has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3044 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 32 of 64 (503861)
03-22-2009 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by shalamabobbi
03-22-2009 8:51 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
E=mc2 does not involve the variable t.
But the presence of mass involves the slowing of clocks which make radiological clocks 'off' in the wrong direction for YECs.
YECs need to speed the passage of time, not slow it down.

Mybad - I was thinking the speed of light had a time component.

Anyway, if mass slows time then the -space- before mass is created, or -where- mass is created, would be a timeless place. Or very fast.

I'm not saying that life appeared over millions of sped up years. But it seems likely that the rest of the cosmos did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 8:51 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 10:05 PM Sky-Writing has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3044 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 33 of 64 (503865)
03-22-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by lyx2no
03-22-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Did You Say That With a Straight Face?
"Stone tools of the past worked better than steel tools of the present." It's unlikely Homo heidelbergensis could do a "better" job debriding nerve endings or somesuch with obsidian blades then modern neurosurgeons could do with a popsicle stick sharpened on a sidewalk.

Maybe I will. And likely there are. But I was thinking about comments from Parthenon researchers about how current steel tooling is inferior.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2009 9:12 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1699
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 34 of 64 (503866)
03-22-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
03-22-2009 9:04 PM


Re: Law of Nature
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:

Pulling "facts" out of your ass is no substitute for an argument. In fact, it typifies the kind of woolly thinking that leads directly to the stunted world-view that Mr Jack criticises in his OP.

So far, everything Sky has said was pulled out of his ass and is meaningless drivel that show a surprising lack of knowledge about anything. Coupled with his dismissive lack of interest or curiosity makes him a scary perfect example of Mr. Jack's OP. A stunted world view indeed.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2009 9:04 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 7:46 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 35 of 64 (503867)
03-22-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by lyx2no
03-22-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Did You Say That With a Straight Face?
Be careful of what you wish for

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obsidian+surgical+tools&aq=0&oq=obsidian+sur

http://www.finescience.com/commerce/ccc1065-obsidian-scalpels.htm

quote:
For applications where an extremely fine cutting action is required or for studies where trace metals from ordinary scalpel blades cannot be tolerated, these very special obsidian scalpels may provide the answer. They are so fine that they are used in human surgical procedures where objectionable scar tissue might result from the use of a coarser scalpel. The blade is made from obsidian a type of volcanic glass which allows a much finer blade than is possible with the conventional steel blade. In some cases this makes the relatively inexpensive obsidian scalpel a suitable substitute for an expensive diamond knife. Patterned after "stone-age" knives which first made their appearance about 18,000 years ago, these modern versions utilize hard maple wood dowelling for handles and a special epoxy coating. This seals the joint between the blade and the handle, and enables the knife to be autoclaved.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2009 9:12 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2009 9:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 36 of 64 (503868)
03-22-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
03-22-2009 9:37 PM


Re: Did You Say That With a Straight Face?
Be careful of what you wish for
If knowledge is what I get I'll be sure to be less cautious in the future.

Now fell a tree with it:).


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2009 9:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 741 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 37 of 64 (503870)
03-22-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 9:16 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
Anyway, if mass slows time then the -space- before mass is created, or -where- mass is created, would be a timeless place. Or very fast.
I'm not saying that life appeared over millions of sped up years. But it seems likely that the rest of the cosmos did.

If we're discussing the rest of the cosmos only, then this doesn't resolve the YEC problem for radiological dating on earth.

One example is the lack of short term radioactive elements in the earth which is explained by an old enough earth that they have all decayed away.

Another example doesn't involve radioactivity at all. Fossil corral beds reveal a faster spinning earth in the distant past. This does not tie in with YEC very well since we know how fast the spin rate is slowing and why, the tidal interaction with the moon.

Another is the use of polystrate fossil trees by YECs. If the flood were the cause of this, polystrate fossil forests the world over would be the norm, not the exception to the rule.

Also incised meandering rivers such as in Utah's Gooseneck state park. It is known that the river must be slow to cause a meandering pattern. Yet 10,000 years is not a sufficient amount of time for the depth of erosion caused by the river.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : grammer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 9:16 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 8:52 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 38 of 64 (503874)
03-23-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 6:03 PM


quote:
The founders of modern science were believers in God.
Muslim or Christian, it didn't cause them any harm
or interfere with their accomplishments.

Only because their search for truth didn't end with the back cover of whatever sacred text they followed. This, of course, is what distinguishes them from cdesign proponentsists of various flavors.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 6:03 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 11:38 AM subbie has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10199
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 64 (503881)
03-23-2009 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 9:01 PM


Re: Law of Nature
Then it seems that we have an answer to the OP.

Sky writes:

And If I get the opportunity, I'll let you know what the rest of the cosmos was put there for.
I'm sure it has a purpose.
I get to find out the "why."

Creationists are effectively willing to forego the majesty of nature as discovered (i.e. the "how") such that they can revel in the perceived majesty of the "why" at some later date.

Personally I think even the notion of the "why" is a misconceived folly.

But even ignoring that possibility it has to be said that basing ones notion of "why" on something that requires you to deny reality as discovered is just plain stupid.

There are many notions of "why" that are wholly compatible with the "how" as revealed by nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 9:01 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 03-23-2009 7:34 AM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 10:52 AM Straggler has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 40 of 64 (503886)
03-23-2009 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Sky-Writing
03-22-2009 6:03 PM


The founders of modern science were believers in God.
Muslim or Christian, it didn't cause them any harm
or interfere with their accomplishments.

How many of them shrugged their shoulders when faced with understanding the world, and said 'god did it'? Did Newton offer up a theory of gravity or leave it as intelligent falling?

There's nothing about being religious that stops people being excellent scientists; the problem is the acceptance of the banal, non-explaination that Creationism offers - especially when contrasted with the majesty of real biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-22-2009 6:03 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 8:23 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 03-23-2009 10:12 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5344
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 41 of 64 (503889)
03-23-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
03-23-2009 4:00 AM


Re: Law of Nature
But even ignoring that possibility it has to be said that basing ones notion of "why" on something that requires you to deny reality as discovered is just plain stupid.

Not to even start with the silliness of the notion that you only find out this great Why after you're dead!


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 4:00 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3044 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 42 of 64 (503891)
03-23-2009 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tanypteryx
03-22-2009 9:35 PM


Re: Law of Nature
Re: Law of Nature
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
------------------
Pulling "facts" out of your ass is no substitute for an argument. In fact, it typifies the kind of woolly thinking that leads directly to the stunted world-view that Mr Jack criticises in his OP.
------------------
So far, everything Sky has said was pulled out of his ass and is meaningless drivel that show a surprising lack of knowledge about anything. Coupled with his dismissive lack of interest or curiosity makes him a scary perfect example of Mr. Jack's OP. A stunted world view indeed.

yawn...I admire your insights....ZZZzzz

Edited by -Sky-, : Got bored when I read it the second time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-22-2009 9:35 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 03-23-2009 9:59 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3044 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 43 of 64 (503893)
03-23-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Jack
03-23-2009 6:04 AM


How many of them shrugged their shoulders when faced with understanding the world, and said 'god did it'? Did Newton offer up a theory of gravity or leave it as intelligent falling?

There's nothing about being religious that stops people being excellent scientists; the problem is the acceptance of the banal, non-explanation that Creationism offers.

Yet that is the background they came from. So to suggest there is anything banal about it, is ignoring the reality that that exact foundation is what made them what they were and CAUSED them to explore the world further. You would have to show that they rejected the creation story to have a solid point.
Rather than just assume they did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2009 6:04 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 3044 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 44 of 64 (503894)
03-23-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by shalamabobbi
03-22-2009 10:05 PM


Re: no law of nature evolves
If we're discussing the rest of the cosmos only, then this doesn't resolve the YEC problem for radiological dating on earth.

I can't argue YEC points because I'm not a YEC. The Week of Creation may have taken place some 10,000 years ago. But it didn't start out with an earth, effectively at age 0. Nor was anything else created at age 0. So I think it's pointless for YEC's to argue proof for an age 0 if it wasn't at that age when created. What would a rock look like at age 0?. What would plants and animals look like at age 0? What would earth's land masses look like at age 0?

But if it helps them feel good about life, let them play. Just like Evos. Everybody feels they have to know where they came from.

Some can accept it, and some need to prove it.
(There is nothing wrong with NOT being a scientist, by the way.)

Look at the amount of money spent on SETI. JUST to prove that there is more life than what the scriptures reveal. Scientifically speaking, the task is over, but the project refuses to die.

Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-22-2009 10:05 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2009 10:51 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 45 of 64 (503899)
03-23-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Sky-Writing
03-23-2009 7:46 AM


Re: Law of Nature
quote:
yawn...I admire your insights....ZZZzzz

Is that all you have to say in response to the fallacious reasoning at the heart of your argument being laid bare for you? Are you not bothered that you are basing your case upon fallacious rubbish? Wouldn't you rather avoid fallacies?

Since you have not attempted to refute my point, concentrating instead on childish nonsense, I must assume that you are happy to concede that you were wrong.


Ooh look, here comes another one;

quote:
Yet that is the background they came from. So to suggest there is anything banal about it, is ignoring the reality that that exact foundation is what made them what they were and CAUSED them to explore the world further.

How do you know that religion was what caused these scientists to study nature? How do you know that it wasn't simple intellectual curiosity? Why are not concerned that you are basing another argument upon an obvious fallacy, namely post hoc reasoning?

Scientist A had a religious upbringing --> Scientist A became a great scientist --> Therefore religious upbringing causes great science.

Do you not see the flaw in the above? If so why use that argument? If not, you must be blind.

I had breakfast this morning --> This afternoon I fell off my bike --> Therefore eating breakfast causes bike accidents.

Do you see the problem?


Added by Edit; I almost missed this piece of nonsense;

quote:
Look at the amount of money spent on SETI. JUST to prove that there is more life than what the scriptures reveal. Scientifically speaking, the task is over, but the project refuses to die.

I see that you are content to repeat the same rubbish over again. You have no evidence that the search for extra-terrestrial life is destined to be fruitless and you have had it clearly demonstrated to you that such statements are illogical. But why let that stop you? Why stop repeating a refuted argument? Much more fun to just mindlessly parrot the same old crap.

SETI is not about disproving your precious scriptures. It's not even about proving that there is alien life. It is about finding out whether there is alien life. Your silly myths and fables have nothing to do with it. They are your obsession, not SETI's. You are projecting.

Not everybody shares your interest in the Bible, and, thankfully, not everybody shares your eagerness to decide how the universe ticks without bothering to study it.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : As noted.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-23-2009 7:46 AM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018