Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 6:43 PM
382 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,569 Year: 10,175/21,208 Month: 3,262/2,674 Week: 678/961 Day: 140/151 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Is creationism winning in Turkey & Korea?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 16 of 77 (306893)
04-26-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by simple
04-26-2006 3:06 AM


Can you connect

msg 12 writes:

I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.


and
Science increases certain knowledge, not all.

As it seems you have moved to a different {topic\question\issue} from where you started.

Normal beliefs come in many flavors. One of them is ...

Funny, I must have missed where you differentiated "anti beliefs" from normal beliefs. It seems you are changing the {topic\question\issue} again.

One of them is science. At least some parts of science.

Generalization type statements like this are meaningless without some {substantiation\exposition\explanation}. What parts of science are beliefs?

What is allowed and acceptable in some countries as "science" seems to be an anti God flavored concoction.

Can you tell me how science could be pro god flavored?

If Turkey or other places were less restrictive, all the better.

Be careful what you wish for.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 04-26-2006 3:06 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 04-27-2006 1:00 AM RAZD has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 17 of 77 (306927)
04-27-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
04-26-2006 8:30 PM


quote:
Can you connect
msg 12 writes:
I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.

and
Science increases certain knowledge, not all.



Well, science is a funny little thing. It does not apply to everything. Just our natural world. If we were to think there was nothing else, why, we might find connecting the dots was difficult. AS apparently you do.

quote:
Funny, I must have missed where you differentiated "anti beliefs" from normal beliefs. It seems you are changing the {topic\question\issue} again.
If one had an anti belief, it would be a belief that was opposed to another belief.
quote:
..What parts of science are beliefs?

What parts aren't?

quote:
Can you tell me how science could be pro god flavored?

Well, it would need a complete change of criteria acceptance for one thing. It would have to deal with more than just our natural world, for another. So many changes would be needed.

quote:
Be careful what you wish for.

I am.

This message has been edited by relative, 04-27-2006 01:02 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2006 8:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2006 7:47 AM simple has responded
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2006 10:27 PM simple has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 18 of 77 (306963)
04-27-2006 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
04-27-2006 1:00 AM


Well, science is a funny little thing.

Empty retoric that serves no purpose.

It does not apply to everything. Just our natural world.

Agreed. But the amount of knowledge that we can verify about "just our natural world" and the amount of knowledge we can verify from other sources would seem to make "just" and "little" a bit on the (defensive) dismissive side.

We have math, we have logic, and we have science. All these can be verified. What else?

If we were to think there was nothing else, why, we might find connecting the dots was difficult.

We are talking about knowledge, eh? Not science fiction, not fantasy, not "what if" stories right?

AS apparently you do.

Let's not start with the ad hominems yet, but save them for when you have no other argument left eh?

You still haven't answered the question about connecting those statements.

Science increases knowledge. How does agreeing to that expand or clarify your original thesis that "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."

If one had an anti belief, it would be a belief that was opposed to another belief.

So it would just be another belief? No different from any normal belief, and yet you seemed to make a clear distinction originally between a belief and an anti belief.

Are you recanting? (just connecting the dots here).

quote:
..What parts of science are beliefs?
What parts aren't?

The parts based on facts, observations and repeated experiments. The ones that have valid logical conclusions and that lead to productive predictions.

Your inability (for the second time) to list a single item rather than make another generalized statement gives me the impression that you don't really have an informed opinion here but a borrowed one. Care to flesh out your opinion with some substantiation of precisely what you consider a belief in science?

quote:
Can you tell me how science could be pro god flavored?
Well, it would need a complete change of criteria acceptance for one thing.

You mean change the criteria so it wouldn't be science but based on just any little old beliefs? Like alchemy or astrology for instance?

Acceptance in science is based on validated (repeated) results of predictions made by theory that is based on logical evaluation of the evidence. Acceptance is based on being the best-fit answers to the questions of how the natural world works.

Do you mean we should choose second best theories instead?

What is your criteria for determining what should be accepted?

It would have to deal with more than just our natural world, for another. So many changes would be needed.

Science is based on the testable. If it is testable then it is part of the natural world, so science in naturally stuck in the natural world.

If you are looking for knowledge outside the natural world then you are looking for philosophy, mysticism and the like, and not science.

Please be clear on what your distinctions are and what the terms really mean.

quote:
Be careful what you wish for.
I am.

You give no evidence of that. So far you have made a number of rather reckless statements and have provided no evidence to support any of your opinions, you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are, all apparently based on some ill-defined wish you seem to have.

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 04-27-2006 1:00 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by simple, posted 04-30-2006 12:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 19 of 77 (307224)
04-27-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
04-27-2006 1:00 AM


anti-beliefs make beliefs cry "uncle" ?
btw -- you missed it.

If one had an anti belief, it would be a belief that was opposed to another belief.

There is another category for something that qualifies as an anti-belief that is not a belief at all: evidence.

Example:

belief the sun orbits the flat earth.

anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth orbits the sun.

Result: the belief in a flat earth has diminished significantly due to the anti-belief (evidence), and those that still maintain such archaic beliefs are generally regarded as cranks and nutcases.

Can you think of some others?

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 04-27-2006 1:00 AM simple has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 20 of 77 (307834)
04-30-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
04-27-2006 7:47 AM


quote:
We are talking about knowledge, eh? Not science fiction, not fantasy, not "what if" stories right?

Sometimes these things are confused.

quote:
We have math, we have logic, and we have science. All these can be verified. What else?

Was there a point somewhere?

quote:
Let's not start with the ad hominems yet, but save them for when you have no other argument left eh?

It was not that. It was an observation.

quote:
Science increases knowledge. How does agreeing to that expand or clarify your original thesis that "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."

Some knowledge is better not increased.

quote:
So it would just be another belief? No different from any normal belief, and yet you seemed to make a clear distinction originally between a belief and an anti belief.

Depends on the context.

quote:
The parts based on facts, observations and repeated experiments. The ones that have valid logical conclusions and that lead to productive predictions.

Oh. I thought the teachings in question in Korea and places had something to do with orgins.

quote:
Do you mean we should choose second best theories instead?

Leave that up to the majority of the country. Your opinion of best, may be your own.

quote:
Care to flesh out your opinion with some substantiation of precisely what you consider a belief in science?

OK. That evolution did not start from creatures that were created.

quote:
If you are looking for knowledge outside the natural world then you are looking for philosophy, mysticism and the like, and not science.

I know.

quote:
you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are,

Thats what you think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2006 7:47 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 10:24 AM simple has responded
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:26 AM simple has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 21 of 77 (307892)
04-30-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by simple
04-30-2006 12:22 AM


You have yet to make a single point.
Perhaps you should stop dancing around the issues and actually make a point. Or two. Perhaps actually answer the questions?

Sometimes these things are confused.

You are not making it any clearer. Are we talking about knowledge, yes or no? It's a simple question.

quote:
We have math, we have logic, and we have science. All these can be verified. What else?
Was there a point somewhere?

The question is what other forms of knowledge can be verified (another rather simple question, imh(ysa)o, as someone who "has trouble connecting the dots"): it's in plain english isn't it?

What other forms of knowledge (other than that derived from math, logic and science) can be verified?

quote:
Let's not start with the ad hominems yet, but save them for when you have no other argument left eh?
It was not that. It was an observation.

Then clearly state the dots and then connect them and show me the errors of my ways. Answer the questions. Clarify and elucidate rather than make more vague unsubstantiated and generalized statements.

quote:
Science increases knowledge. How does agreeing to that expand or clarify your original thesis that "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."
Some knowledge is better not increased.

Another vague unsubstantiated generalized statement. What knowledge is better not increased? How do you know? What are the standards that you would set? How are those standards determined?

Are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are you avoiding the question again?

quote:
So it would just be another belief? No different from any normal belief, and yet you seemed to make a clear distinction originally between a belief and an anti belief.
Depends on the context.

Another vague unsubstantiated generalized statement. That still does not answer the question: you made the original distinction and you have failed to support the need for it in any way. Without a clear distinction there is no need for it, and it is just verbal masturbation. Please define your term and the conditions where it applies or withdraw it.

I also gave you a possible use of "anti-belief" ...

RAZD, msg 19 writes:

There is another category for something that qualifies as an anti-belief that is not a belief at all: evidence.

Example:

belief the sun orbits the flat earth.
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth orbits the sun.

Result: the belief in a flat earth has diminished significantly due to the anti-belief (evidence), and those that still maintain such archaic beliefs are generally regarded as cranks and nutcases.

Can you think of some others?


Such as:
belief the earth is ~10 thousand years old
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth is 4.5+ billions of years old.

Result: the belief that the earth is young is invalid and headed the way of the flat earth concept.

See The Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III thread for more information and to discuss this one further (it would be off topic here).

Would you agree that this usage would be useful? It certainly bears on the issue of increasing knowledge of "life, the universe, and everything" eh?

quote:
The parts based on facts, observations and repeated experiments. The ones that have valid logical conclusions and that lead to productive predictions.
Oh. I thought the teachings in question in Korea and places had something to do with orgins.

Stop equivocating. The question was what part of science are beliefs? You still have not answered that question with any valid specifics. If you want me to connect your dots you have to put some out there.

quote:
Care to flesh out your opinion with some substantiation of precisely what you consider a belief in science?
OK. That evolution did not start from creatures that were created.

The theory of evolution does not address how life started. This is not a "belief" in science.

Evolution is concerned with the change in species over time, and it doesn't matter to the science of evolution how the first life came to be on this (or any other) planet.

What the evidence shows is that as far back as we can determine there is a clear general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like. This is not a belief but an observation based on the evidence. This still starts with life evolving into life.

The science that deals with the origin of life by natural means is Abiogenesis. As yet we do not have concrete evidence that this is what actually occurred -- the jury is out, if you will, on whether life started by natural means or by some other process. What we know is that 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on this planet, but somewhere between then and 3.87 billion years ago life appeared.

We do have some evidence of how it might have occurred by wholly natural means, but it is not a "belief" that this actually occurred, it is an untested theory.

What the evidence shows is that the first life 3.87 + billion years ago was bacteria like, and did not include fish, reptiles and mammals.

By contrast there is no evidence anywhere of any spontaneous creation of life at any point in time (before or after 3.87 billion years ago). For this to be considered a fact in science (rather than a belief) it would have to have some substantiating evidence. Without that evidence such a belief has no place in science and is properly excluded.

It appears that you are also confusing invalidation of {concept A} as evidence of {concept B}. Just because the lack of evidence for spontaneous (or "special") creation appears to be invalidated by the evidence does not mean that this is evidence for natural origins -- it could be some other form of creation, or it could be some form of panspermia spread throughout the universe, taking root where it finds fertile soil.

quote:
Do you mean we should choose second best theories instead?
Leave that up to the majority of the country. Your opinion of best, may be your own.

Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. Would the popular vote have chosen Gallileo over geocentrism? Einstein over Newton? Can ignorant people make informed decisions on what is valid in science? Or do we limit the vote to those people educated enough in the sciences in question to make informed decisions? Where do you draw the line? How does that help determine the rational validity of the theories involved? Shall we vote on whether there will be more hurricanes this summer than last?

What is best is what gives the best results, my opinion has nothing to do with it. Take flu vaccine: the new vaccines are tested and the best ones are selected based on their results -- would you choose one of the others (say last years vaccine) because it was popular?

How does popularity relate to truth?

quote:
If you are looking for knowledge outside the natural world then you are looking for philosophy, mysticism and the like, and not science.
I know.

Do you? Then why say that science should "deal with more than just our natural world" when that is outside the realms of science? Or are you recanting again?

quote:
you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are,
Thats what you think.

No, it's an observation, based on what you have posted and what I have pointed out as the errors in your thinking of what science really is and what it's natural limits are.

Such as evolution being based on a belief that "evolution did not start from creatures that were created" -- it doesn't, you stated it does, you are in error. Such as science being subject to popular opinion for validity -- it isn't, you said it should be, you are in error. Such as saying that science "would have to deal with more than just our natural world" -- it can't, you stated that it should, you are in error.

Please notice the connected dots.

Enjoy.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*30*2006 10:32 AM


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by simple, posted 04-30-2006 12:22 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 2:18 AM RAZD has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 22 of 77 (308135)
05-01-2006 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
04-30-2006 10:24 AM


say what?
quote:
You are not making it any clearer. Are we talking about knowledge, yes or no? It's a simple question.

The stuff taught in foreign schools you don't like? I would think it has some knowledge, like the stuff taught in your country.

quote:
What other forms of knowledge (other than that derived from math, logic and science) can be verified?

Belief in God is verified by many, they feel. Simply doubting it doesn't make it go away. It is more certain than some other areas of knowledge.

quote:
Then clearly state the dots and then connect them and show me the errors of my ways. Answer the questions. Clarify and elucidate rather than make more vague unsubstantiated and generalized statements.

Take your own advice and actually say something clear you think needs answering.
quote:
Another vague unsubstantiated generalized statement. What knowledge is better not increased? How do you know? What are the standards that you would set? How are those standards determined?

Godless knowledge is better not increased. WOMD knowledge is better not increased. Standards? I am with those who allow Jesus and prayer in schools, and to hell with those that don't like it.

quote:
Are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are you avoiding the question again?

Knowledge we have covers the present. It does not cover God, or the future. I like knowledge of the present. I like knowledge of God. The pretended knowledge of the future men have is not science. Regardless of what you believe.

quote:
belief the earth is ~10 thousand years old
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth is 4.5+ billions of years old.

The past, as some are now starting to understand was nothing like the present, and no present laws apply there. For your dating to work, those laws would have to apply. You have no clue if the past was totally different, as the bible indicates, or not. All you might offer is belief to suggest otherwise.

quote:
The theory of evolution does not address how life started. This is not a "belief" in science.

The theory of evolution from a common lifeform, rather than from created creatures is absolute pure, uncut belief. An adapting, and evolving in itself is a belief I share. Try and tie it to the common lifeform, and you crash and burn.

quote:
See The Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III thread for more information and to discuss this one further (it would be off topic here).

No thanks. The forum there is a science forum, and the deck on this forum is stacked. Maybe if it was in the coffee house.

quote:
Stop equivocating. The question was what part of science are beliefs? You still have not answered that question with any valid specifics. If you want me to connect your dots you have to put some out there.

All parts of science that you try to apply to the future are beliefs.

quote:
What the evidence shows is that as far back as we can determine there is a clear general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like. This is not a belief but an observation based on the evidence. This still starts with life evolving into life.

Not true. All we have is a record of what died and fossilized. Not any indication all creatures evolved from 'lower' life forms. That is your interpretaion I in no way share, as do not millions of others.

quote:
What we know is that 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on this planet, but somewhere between then and 3.87 billion years ago life appeared.

We know nothing of the sort. The past was different, and all your assumptions are wrong on dates, sorry to break the news.

quote:
What the evidence shows is that the first life 3.87 + billion years ago was bacteria like, and did not include fish, reptiles and mammals.

The life was here at that time. It just was in Eden. That's why it isn't found worldwide. Just certain creatures and plants were made for the earth at large.
quote:
Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?

Yes. The majority should have sway in matters of belief. You believe the past was the same as now, but you can't call it science. The evidence works both ways. Beyond the present, lies just belief. Let the majority belief be in the schools.
quote:
No, it's an observation, based on what you have posted and what I have pointed out as the errors in your thinking of what science really is and what it's natural limits are.
You don't tell me what science really is. It really is this natural world. How long it was like it is, or will remain that way is guesses, and belief. That is all that is used to try to talk of things out of the fishbowl of the present. Absolutely.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 10:24 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:39 AM simple has responded
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2006 11:04 PM simple has responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 2537 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 23 of 77 (308207)
05-01-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by simple
04-30-2006 12:22 AM


relative writes:

Some knowledge is better not increased.

Don't you mean 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' ?

In your case, for example.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats what you think.


No, that's what you clearly stated below.
You seem to see science as an 'anti-belief' and favor definitions of science that include supernatural explanations.

But back to topic, was everyone aware that the teaching of evolution is completely outlawed in Pakistan ? And aren't they just a model society of scientific achievement worth emulating? Anyone want to go to Pakistan for medical treatment? Maybe start a modern agricultural enterprise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by simple, posted 04-30-2006 12:22 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 11:39 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 2537 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 24 of 77 (308209)
05-01-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by simple
05-01-2006 2:18 AM


Re: say what?
relative writes:

Belief in God is verified by many, they feel.

They can 'feel' all they want but they don't 'know' diddley.

relative writes:

Simply doubting it doesn't make it go away.

No, but ignoring it usually does.

relative writes:

It is more certain than some other areas of knowledge.

And your metric of certainty is?

relative writes:

Godless knowledge is better not increased.

So any verifiable knowledge that is without reference to God is not worth building on? And to which God should this knowledge refer to increase it's value and worthiness of increasing?

relative writes:

the deck on this forum is stacked

... with people very capable of rebutting the mindless jibberish spouted by those wearing fundamentalist blinders.

relative writes:

All parts of science that you try to apply to the future are beliefs.

No. They are testable hypotheses that vary in the degree to which they have supporting evidence from past observtions.

The way we use the term 'belief' here on the forum is to refer to something that is based solely on faith without scientific evidence.
There have been whole threads debunking the efforts of the 'spiritually inclined' to equate science to a 'belief system'.

This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-01-2006 11:18 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 2:18 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 11:56 PM EZscience has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 25 of 77 (308341)
05-01-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by simple
05-01-2006 2:18 AM


Let's try again to answer the questions ...
The stuff taught in foreign schools you don't like?

Please try to stick to the discussion. This is about your opinion not mine - I'm just trying to clarify your opinion here.

I would think it has some knowledge, like the stuff taught in your country.

I would think everything taught in schools has "some knowledge" so this doesn't really add information. You still didn't answer the question.

relative, msg 12 writes:

I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.

RAZD, msg 14 writes:

Unless one is worried about increasing knowledge.

relative, msg 15 writes:

Science increases certain knowledge, not all.

RAZD, msg 18 writes:

We are talking about knowledge, eh? Not science fiction, not fantasy, not "what if" stories right?

relative, msg 20 writes:

Sometimes these things are confused.

RAZD, msg 22 writes:

Are we talking about knowledge, yes or no? It's a simple question.

But I'll take this as a "yes" (please correct me if this is an error), just so we can move on.

quote:
Are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are you avoiding the question again?

Knowledge we have covers the present. It does not cover God, or the future. I like knowledge of the present. I like knowledge of God.

But not very far, it seems. I like yellow knowledge and raspberry knowledge. Again, are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are we back to "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."

The pretended knowledge of the future men have is not science. Regardless of what you believe.

I fully agree that the pretend knowledge of the future that people have is not science. This would of course include all the pretend prophesy and things people believe that have no foundation in the real world. People who base their vision of what the future holds on beliefs and ignorance rather than observations and the testing of theories is most certainly not science and most likely rather pointless if not counterproductive, or even dangerous.

quote:
What other forms of knowledge (other than that derived from math, logic and science) can be verified?

Belief in God is verified by many, they feel. Simply doubting it doesn't make it go away.

(1) I don't doubt that every single person that believes in god feels that it is verified, for every religion, sect, what have you. Otherwise they wouldn't believe eh?

The problem that I have with this being verified knowledge is that different religions contradict other religions - even ones from very close forms of belief. Feelings aren't enough to verify knowledge, or we would still feel that the sun orbits a flat young earth.

(2) Please demonstrate that your personal feeling regarding your belief in god is exactly matched by someone else's personal feeling regarding their belief in god. Perhaps you would care to participate in a double blind experiment to evaluate this aspect of religious belief?

If this feeling of verification was sufficient to validate a religion then there should only be one religion, yes? (or no?).

(3) It is possible to have a "religious experience" induced by purely electro-chemical stimulation of various parts of the brain (see The God Helmet"), so having such an experience does not necessarily mean that the experience was a reflection of reality.

(4) How is it verified? Can you verify that two religious experiences by the same person would involve the same god?

It is more certain than some other areas of knowledge.

{sigh} ... then there should only be one religion, yes? (or no?). Then there should be no need for religion in school, yes? (or no?). Or are we talking about "other areas of knowledge" that are inconsequential.

Also please notice the contradiction of this statement with

Knowledge we have covers the present. It does not cover God,

Knowledge does not cover god, but knowledge {of\about\involving} god is more certain than other areas of knowledge.

Godless knowledge is better not increased.

What is "godless knowledge" as opposed to general knowledge? Is 2+2=4 "godless" because it doesn't include god in the equation? Is {the sky appears blue to the human eye because (a) long wavelengths of light are absorbed in the atmosphere and re-radiated in random directions, and (b) the eye only sees three basic colors (why we think there are three "primary" colors), one of which receives blue light wavelengths better than others} "godless knowledge" because it does not include god in the explanation?

WOMD knowledge is better not increased.

Has knowledge of WOMD killed anyone? Has knowledge of how to make WOMD killed anyone?

I'll assume you are also for strict absolute gun control on the same grounds, just for logical consistency.

Can you differentiate between the knowledge of how to make a pathogenic virus and how to stop a pathogenic virus? Should we give up all the vaccines and medications because the knowledge of how to make them also involves the knowledge of how to make more deadly viruses and bacteria, etc.?

Can you differentiate between the knowledge of how to make a nuclear reactor from how to make a nuclear bomb? The knowledge of how to make a dirty bomb and how to prevent another Chernobyl disaster?.

Standards? I am with those who allow Jesus and prayer in schools, and to hell with those that don't like it.

So we should drop a nuclear bomb on anyone who doesn't like it? (Of course those "standards" would also involve condemning or chastising those who use profanity gratuitously eh?)

Now, I'm also "with" those who allow anyone to have their children go to religious schools if that is what they want. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell parents which religious school to send their kids to, as that is their decision.

quote:
belief - the earth is ~10 thousand years old
anti-belief - the observed evidence that the earth is 4.5+ billions of years old.

The past, as some are now starting to understand was nothing like the present, and no present laws apply there.

Denial of evidence does not make the evidence go away. There is no evidence of any significant changes in the operation of the natural behavior of planets, time, life, etc. There is evidence of continuity of behavior in correlations between different areas of science.

Perhaps you could show some evidence for where precisely in the geographic record things changed from {life as we know it} to {something completely different} (and NOT Monty Phython).

For your dating to work, those laws would have to apply. You have no clue if the past was totally different,

Actually you are wrong again. For the past to be substantially different there would be significant problems in a number of systems, such as the decay of radioactive elements, that would make the world uninhabitable (think of 4.5 billion years of decay happening in 10,000 years, and remember that decay is an expotential decay curve - every half life you compress doubles the radiation you have to "dispose" of) ... talk about WOMD.

...as the bible indicates, or not. All you might offer is belief to suggest otherwise.

And yet all you offer is belief and denial of evidence, rather than any kind of substantiation for your assertions. Don't you think it is a very weak argument to say "this is my belief so all you have against it is your belief" (while going "la la la" with your eyes and ears covered whenever evidence is presented)?

Please read Radiometric Dating -
A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens

quote:
See The Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III thread for more information and to discuss this one further (it would be off topic here).

No thanks. The forum there is a science forum, and the deck on this forum is stacked. Maybe if it was in the coffee house.

Oh please. After all the bold assertion of knowledge and how the past was "different" etc -- as soon as you are asked to actually substantiate it you go running away crying "mommy they don't play fair on that forum, they ask for evidence instead of just belief" ...?

Tell you what: try this -- {Age Correlations, step by step} -- a new thread in 'coffeehouse' just for you.

quote:
Stop equivocating. The question was what part of science are beliefs? You still have not answered that question with any valid specifics. If you want me to connect your dots you have to put some out there.

All parts of science that you try to apply to the future are beliefs.

Still equivocating. Now you are only talking about science that applies to the future? Sorry, that doesn't cut it either, and here's why: Science involves several elements, observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, revisions = new cycle of observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing ... it is a never ending cycle, and part of that cycle is predictions about what future results will involve.

This is not belief, it is logic -- IF {A} is true THEN {B} will happen and {C} will NOT happen.

Science is willing and able to wait for the results to see if theory {A} is invalidated by future observations, but until then it operates on the observation and accumulated evidence that such invalidation has not occurred yet so {A} is tentatively accepted as valid as long as {B} keeps happening and {C} does not happen -- because the evidence points that way.

I suppose that the science that develops vaccines for various flus based on predictions of which strains will become more virulent this year are only beliefs and will have absolutely no effect on the flu when it does spread.

quote:
What the evidence shows is that as far back as we can determine there is a clear general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like. This is not a belief but an observation based on the evidence. This still starts with life evolving into life.

Not true. All we have is a record of what died and fossilized. Not any indication all creatures evolved from 'lower' life forms. That is your interpretaion I in no way share, as do not millions of others.

Another appeal to popularity logical fallacy (or are you saying that millions of others do not share your interpretation?). How many people believe the sun orbits around the earth has no bearing on the actual physical orbits of the solar system.

We have a record of "what died and fossilized" and also of when and where it fossilized. Assembling the record of "what died and fossilized" in the chronology and geography of when and where shows a general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like.

Denial does not make the evidence go away.

quote:
What we know is that 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on this planet, but somewhere between then and 3.87 billion years ago life appeared.

We know nothing of the sort. The past was different, and all your assumptions are wrong on dates, sorry to break the news.

What news? All you have presented is the assertion that there was some magical difference that makes your mythology all better, but not one iota of evidence, not one hypothesis of how or when this magical transformation occurred.

If you are going to make this assertion with any kind of validity you will have to tackle the age dating correlations.

quote:
What the evidence shows is that the first life 3.87 + billion years ago was bacteria like, and did not include fish, reptiles and mammals.

The life was here at that time. It just was in Eden. That's why it isn't found worldwide. Just certain creatures and plants were made for the earth at large.

The pattern of life evolving in gradual steps is world wide. From The Evolution of Mammals as just one example:

The first mammal may never be known, but the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm (1 inch) long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India , North America, South Africa and Western Europe is a possible contender. It is believed to be between 200 MYA and 210 MYA. However Gondwanadon tapani reported from India on the basis of a single tooth in 1994 may be an earlier contender for the title, with a claimed date of 225 MYA.

This is, of course, long after the first animal crawled out of the sea on stumpy jointed fins.

Man is only 3-5 million years old, if you include the early hominidae. If you only accept modern man (Homo sapiens) then you are stuck with only 200,000 years old.

quote:
Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?

Yes. The majority should have sway in matters of belief.

Why? Not that I care what you vote on in your church about your beliefs -- of course you do vote on what your beliefs should be in church right? -- but on what do you base this assertion? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?

You believe the past was the same as now, but you can't call it science.

No, the evidence shows the same kinds of {physical\geological\chemical} behaviors, biological and chronological trends, in the past as we see today. There is no evidence that it was different rates, behaviors or trends at any time in the past.

The evidence works both ways.

Then demonstrate how the evidence points to what you say instead of just repeating your unsubstantiated assertions as if they had validity rather than just being puffed air. You can claim that the evidence shows that the sun orbits around the earth, but unless you demonstrate how the evidence shows that, your claim is nothing but (transparent) hot air.

Beyond the present, lies just belief.

So yesterday is a belief?

Let the majority belief be in the schools.

Let truth be in the schools. The best truth we can ascertain with all the abilities that we have at our disposal.

But once again you didn't answer the rest of the question -- "Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?" -- so:

"How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?"

How does that ensure that it is the truth?

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 2:18 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by simple, posted 05-02-2006 12:14 AM RAZD has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 26 of 77 (308348)
05-01-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by EZscience
05-01-2006 11:26 AM


quote:
No, that's what you clearly stated below.
You seem to see science as an 'anti-belief' and favor definitions of science that include supernatural explanations.

Below what? I think you may be clearly confused. As for beliefs that are connected with science, some of them are anti God. That qualifies them as anti. Such as claims the earth is old. Or that God did not create us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:26 AM EZscience has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 27 of 77 (308352)
05-01-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by EZscience
05-01-2006 11:39 AM


Re: say what?
quote:
They can 'feel' all they want but they don't 'know' diddley.

More than you know. as little as that may be.

quote:
No, but ignoring it usually does.

I wouldn't know, but since you seem well versed in the concept, I'll take your word for it!

quote:
And your metric of certainty is? .

Different than yours.

quote:
So any verifiable knowledge that is without reference to God is not worth building on? And to which God should this knowledge refer to increase it's value and worthiness of increasing?.

No, I didn't say that. But silly speculations on the future you might want to call science is not verifiable. Neither is your claims of the past. Science lives in the here and now.

quote:
... with people very capable of rebutting the mindless jibberish spouted by those wearing fundamentalist blinders.

If you call "capable" being able to silence opposing voices perhaps. That is the only hope they have here.

quote:
No. They are testable hypotheses that vary in the degree to which they have supporting evidence from past observtions.

Oh goody. Then you can do what you claim on this question I will pose. The bible says that this universe will pass away one day. It is temporary. Can you say that is wrong, or correct? Hopefully you were not just lying. Fill us in.

quote:
The way we use the term 'belief' here on the forum is to refer to something that is based solely on faith without scientific evidence.

Great. Can you provide evidence that the sun will burn out, rather than last forever, in the new heavens as the bible states? Let's see you strut your stuff here.

There have been whole threads debunking the efforts of the 'spiritually inclined' to equate science to a 'belief system'. [/quote]
I don't do that. I equate the false beliefs of the past and future you might call science as the belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by EZscience, posted 05-01-2006 11:39 AM EZscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by EZscience, posted 05-02-2006 6:45 AM simple has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Parasomnium, posted 05-02-2006 8:28 AM simple has not yet responded
 Message 31 by AdminOmni, posted 05-02-2006 9:01 AM simple has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 28 of 77 (308355)
05-02-2006 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
05-01-2006 11:04 PM


Re: Let's try again to answer the questions ...
quote:
Please try to stick to the discussion. This is about your opinion not mine - I'm just trying to clarify your opinion here.

Says who? This is about what it is about, not what you dictate.

quote:
But I'll take this as a "yes" (please correct me if this is an error), just so we can move on.

Take it as chop suey if you want. I'll take it that the question if there ever was one was vague.

quote:
I fully agree that the pretend knowledge of the future that people have is not science. This would of course include all the pretend prophesy and things people believe that have no foundation in the real world. People who base their vision of what the future holds on beliefs and ignorance rather than observations and the testing of theories is most certainly not science and most likely rather pointless if not counterproductive, or even dangerous.

Great, so next time they say our galaxy will crash into another, or the sun burn out one day, I'll keep it in mind. I like real prophesy, like in the bible. It is so much better than ignorance and beliefs. It is so right on, and 100 % true so far, that there isn't hardly any belief required. More like history.

quote:
(1) I don't doubt that every single person that believes in god feels that it is verified, for every religion, sect, what have you. Otherwise they wouldn't believe eh?

Great, eh?

quote:
The problem that I have with this being verified knowledge is that different religions contradict other religions - even ones from very close forms of belief.

I don't know much about religion, so you'll have to work through your own problems.

quote:
2) Please demonstrate that your personal feeling regarding your belief in god is exactly matched by someone else's personal feeling regarding their belief in god. Perhaps you would care to participate in a double blind experiment to evaluate this aspect of religious belief?

My personal feelings have nothing to do with it. It is the word of God, and the huge limits of science that give me authority.

quote:
(3) It is possible to have a "religious experience" induced by purely electro-chemical stimulation of various parts of the brain (see The God Helmet"), so having such an experience does not necessarily mean that the experience was a reflection of reality.

So what? Are you insinuating most men are mad?

quote:
... then there should only be one religion, yes? (or no?). Then there should be no need for religion in school, yes? (or no?). Or are we talking about "other areas of knowledge" that are inconsequential.
Belief is religion. Projecting present science in the past or future is belief. It is taught in schools. There are many beliefs. The majority one should be taught.

quote:
Actually you are wrong again. For the past to be substantially different there would be significant problems in a number of systems, such as the decay of radioactive elements, that would make the world uninhabitable (think of 4.5 billion years of decay happening in 10,000 years, and remember that decay is an expotential decay curve - every half life you compress doubles the radiation you have to "dispose" of) ... talk about WOMD.

This post is too long, I'll cut it off here.
There was no radioactive decay in the past. There will be none in the fiuture. The daughter material you see you think decayed was already there, as the decay process began thousands of years ago. It never got there by decay, and of course we know it now does. But the process itself changed, it never used to be a decay process at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2006 11:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2006 12:55 PM simple has responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 2537 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 29 of 77 (308398)
05-02-2006 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by simple
05-01-2006 11:56 PM


Belief is not equal to knowledge
However much you would like to equivocate them.
You have a belief in the myths of biblical origins that you want to equate with the objective validation of knowledge through the scientific method. Whenever scientific understanding conflicts with your predetermined beliefs, you assume the science is wrong and is just another 'belief' - just not the right one.

relative writes:

Can you provide evidence that the sun will burn out, rather than last forever, in the new heavens as the bible states?

It follows logically from what we know about how all stars works.
Its called nuclear fusion.
There is only so much hydrogen in the sun's core.
Once it has all been fused to helium, there will ne no more energy produced and its 'main phase' will be over. Based on the estimated mass of the sun, this will take about 5 billion years.

Now you might say I don't have evidence to support this, but this is the scenario consistent with what we have observed in other stars and everything that is known about the laws of physics. ('known' - not 'believed'). What is not consistent with the laws of physics is the idea that a star can burn forever. Impossible. It has to run out of fuel eventually.

relative writes:

The bible says that this universe will pass away one day. It is temporary. Can you say that is wrong, or correct?

There is no currently agreed upon scenario for the end of the universe, but there are about 5 different possiblities. The 'big rip', which would put an end to most ordered mass, is one, so it can't be said that your statement is wrong. We honestly don't know. But tell me this. How is the damn sun supposed to last forever if the whole universe is only temporary? They can't both be true. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but it has the power in many cases to rule out inconsistent explanations and tell us what CAN'T be true.

relative writes:

But silly speculations on the future you might want to call science is not verifiable.

Science has a lot of observation and power behind it to back it up so it is not without verificiation.
Biblical prophesies are the 'silly speculations' of people who lived 2000 years ago and didn't even realize the earth was round.

relative writes:

I equate the false beliefs of the past and future you might call science as the belief.

But science has a lot of proof about what happened in the past and what can be expected to happen in the future. You just don't want to accept it because you want to believe the bible so you have to deny anything that conflicts with it.
That's fine, but when we are talking about EDUCATION (as this thread is supposed to be about) than we have to distinguish between what is science and what is myth. Teaching people myths doesn't do anything to advance their knowledge or understanding. That's why we can never allow any form of religion to be equated with actual 'education'.

Creationism is a myth that doesn't have any explanatory power and is inconsistent with everything that science tells us has to be true. And as RazD has tried to point out to you, there are many different religions with their own creation myths.

They can't ALL be right and we can't teach any of them as if they were some sort of truth without disenfranchizing people who believe in others.
You have the right to pray to your God and espouse deluded mythologies, but you don't have a right to make everyone else do it in a PUBLIC school.
And when you try and contradict scientific knowledge with your mythology you just end up looking foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 11:56 PM simple has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 30 of 77 (308429)
05-02-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by simple
05-01-2006 11:56 PM


Science & The Future
relative writes:

silly speculations on the future you might want to call science is not verifiable.

Oh, but they are. When you drop a heavy object from a building of known height, the laws of physics (Newtonian mechanics, specifically) tell you rather exactly how long it takes for your object to hit the pavement. You may call it a silly speculation on the future, I call it science.

Now, I anticipate that you may object that the object hitting the pavement in that thought experiment isn't far enough ahead in time to be called 'future' properly. (It would be a strange objection, but I'll grant it, especially because I'm sort of putting words into your mouth.)

So, consider the following example. If space scientists launch a probe to another planet, they calculate the precise moment for the launch in order for the probe to follow a certain precalculated path through our solar system, perhaps with a sling-shot built-in here and there, to arrive at the planet at the designated time. They use Newton's laws of gravity again to predict the path and the time of arrival. Only this time their prediction spans a longer time, in the order of magnitude of months, or even years. Given such a timespan, their calculations must be very accurate if their prediction is to be borne out.

Here is a real world example of what I'm talking about:

quote:
Deep Impact, with the impactor attached to the flyby spacecraft, was launched Jan.12 for an Independence Day rendezvous with Tempel 1, about 83 million miles away and hurtling through space at 66,000 mph.

[...]

Grammier said both the impactor and the flyby spacecraft were only a little more than a half-mile from their preferred tracks, "phenomenal" accuracy after nearly six months in space.


Half a mile off on a total of 83 million miles is an error of about 0.0000006 %. I'd say that's a pretty accurate prediction. That's science for you. It made a prediction about a future event that was not only verifiable, but in fact verified.

Having read the above, do you still maintain that science cannot say anything about the future?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 11:56 PM simple has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017