Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 76 of 132 (513454)
06-28-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
06-28-2009 9:00 PM


Re: Origin of the species vs. origin of life (pretty damn off-topic)
quote:
Even those who dont believe in God/gods, they do believe in something that caused our being, ie evolution
In the context of "the nature of Peg", this is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps she is saying "evolution" and meaning "life origins". But in literally reading that statement, I don't find any problem with it.
In all, I thought that message 4 was pretty good. Not a great masterpiece, but the non-admin mode did go so far as to give it a POTM nomination.
Bottom line: I personally don't think that considerations of abiogenesis and/or evolution are really significant to the "moderate Christian." Actually, I sometimes wonder if the old testament in general is that significant to the "moderate Christian".
Please, no responses to the moderation portion of this message. Members, however, may wish to pursue my statements of the previous paragraph. Even that, however, is rather off-topic. But I guess I can tolerate such in messages, if it does connect up to the faith origins of "moderate Christians." But maybe such may make for a good new topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 06-28-2009 9:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 132 (513458)
06-28-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peg
06-28-2009 7:39 AM


Re:
No, my beliefs are not evidence, im merely stating a fact
No, you are telling a lie. You pretended that evolution today is not "based on the scientific method". Every time you say this, you are spewing falsehood out of your mouth,
the fact is that the idea of evolution began with greek philosophers who did not use science as a basis for the belief
Which has now been proved by science, whatever a bunch of ancient Greeks thought.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 06-28-2009 7:39 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 6:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 78 of 132 (513486)
06-29-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2009 10:14 PM


Re:
DrAdequate writes:
No, you are telling a lie. You pretended that evolution today is not "based on the scientific method". Every time you say this, you are spewing falsehood out of your mouth,
my understanding is that the scientific method is to observe what happens and based on those observations form a theory as why it happens then test the theory by experiments to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled ie observe, theorize, test, conclude
Is that the scientific method?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2009 10:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 6:36 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2009 11:34 AM Peg has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 79 of 132 (513487)
06-29-2009 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peg
06-29-2009 6:23 AM


Re:
I'll have to quote Einstein on all this:
... The theory determines what you can observe
It's not on the internet, but it is from a conversation with Heisenberg and I'll EDIT and transcript the complete quote when I get back home. (I don't have my book here)
PS If I'm not mistaken, Karl Popper advances the same thing in his book 'The logic of scientific discovery'
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 6:23 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2009 10:40 AM slevesque has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 80 of 132 (513508)
06-29-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by slevesque
06-29-2009 6:36 AM


Re:
I think maybe you misunderstand Popper.
Here is some of what he has to say. In context.
Source
quote:
He also noted that theism presented as explaining adaptation "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."He later said
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
Oh even better. Read this.
quote:
Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable.
Do you think you can use Popper to support your claims now?
I'd love to see the reference for the Einstein quote.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 6:36 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 4:02 PM Theodoric has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 132 (513511)
06-29-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peg
06-29-2009 6:23 AM


Re:
my understanding is that the scientific method is to observe what happens and based on those observations form a theory as why it happens then test the theory by experiments to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled ie observe, theorize, test, conclude
Is that the scientific method?
No, but you're close.
Remember that an experiment is only an observation made under artificial circumstances.
You do not test a theory by experiments, necessarily, but by observations, of which experiments are merely a subset.
For example, it is easy to test by observation the proposition that Saturn has rings. But how would one do an experiment to establish this fact?
Hence, we test a theory against observations, of which predictions as to the results of experiments form only a subset.
Apart from that one error, you have nearly understood how we know that evolution is true.
I notice that we are wandering away from the topic of this thread. If you are still confused as to the scientific method, maybe we should start another thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peg, posted 06-29-2009 6:23 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 07-01-2009 6:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 82 of 132 (513534)
06-29-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Theodoric
06-29-2009 10:40 AM


Re:
I was not talking the fact that evolution is falsifiable or not.
But that in science, in reality, the theory very often comes before the observation. Just as Einstein said: 'The theory determines what we can observe'.
Here is the complete quote:
Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that is may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe.
Werner Heisenberg, Physics and beyond, trans. Arnold J. Pomerans (New York Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971), 63
In regards to Popper, he says that scientist do not work according to the scientific method, because to say you can start with observations but without a theory is absurd.
Maybe we could start a thread about this in ''Is it science''

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 06-29-2009 10:40 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-29-2009 7:49 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2009 7:06 AM slevesque has replied

Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 83 of 132 (513550)
06-29-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by slevesque
06-29-2009 4:02 PM


Re:
But that in science, in reality, the theory very often comes before the observation. Just as Einstein said: 'The theory determines what we can observe'.
In some cases, slevesque, you are right. However, in many cases, you are mistaken. I notice that you said in most cases, not all, which is why I am not addressing that. However, in most prominent cases, such as the BBT (worked out w/ equations) or ToE (formed from observations while on a cruise).
In regards to Popper, he says that scientist do not work according to the scientific method, because to say you can start with observations but without a theory is absurd.
I hope that you by "theory" you mean "hypothesis," as hypotheses are are formed through observation and should not attempt to misinterpret the facts, rather they should follow the scientific method. Theories are formed after many observations, experiments, and the combination of many conforming hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 4:02 PM slevesque has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 84 of 132 (513582)
06-30-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
06-24-2009 8:42 PM


Simple
Indoctrination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-24-2009 8:42 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 132 (513588)
06-30-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by slevesque
06-29-2009 4:02 PM


The Scientific Method
Einstein and Heisenberg are actually two different people. This is why they have different names.
I can make nothing of the rest of your post: what on earth are you trying to suggest? Perhaps you should indeed start a new thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 4:02 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by slevesque, posted 06-30-2009 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 86 of 132 (513620)
06-30-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2009 7:06 AM


Re: The Scientific Method
Yeah, maybe start a thread in the 'Is it science' section

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2009 7:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 87 of 132 (513697)
07-01-2009 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2009 11:34 AM


Re:
DrAdequate writes:
Remember that an experiment is only an observation made under artificial circumstances.
You do not test a theory by experiments
it seems that you are saying the scientific method does not use or require experimentation as a means of establishing a fact
is that correct???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2009 11:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2009 6:48 AM Peg has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 132 (513701)
07-01-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Peg
07-01-2009 6:01 AM


Re:
No, you have misunderstood me.
The scientific method involves testing hypotheses by comparing their predictions to relevant observations. Hence, when an experiment is relevant, the scientific method suggests that you should perform it.
In some cases, however, there are no relevant experiments: consider propositions such as: "Saturn has rings" or "Elephants are bigger than mice" or "The climate of Arizona is dry" or "Porcupines do not breathe fire" or "The ancient Egyptians did not have bicycles" ... or ... well, you get the picture. There are innumerable truths which rest solely on observation, and on which no artificial set of circumstances produced by a scientist can possibly have any bearing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 07-01-2009 6:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Peg, posted 07-01-2009 6:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 89 of 132 (513706)
07-01-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
07-01-2009 6:48 AM


Re:
DrAdequate writes:
There are innumerable truths which rest solely on observation, and on which no artificial set of circumstances produced by a scientist can possibly have any bearing.
do you believe this to be the same principle where evolution is concerned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2009 6:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2009 7:02 AM Peg has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 132 (513708)
07-01-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Peg
07-01-2009 6:55 AM


Re:
While there are some relevant experiments in evolutionary biology, the establishing of historical facts can rarely if ever depend on them. If we wish to know whether, for example, pterodactyls are extinct, what can we do except observe the world and notice that we can't find any living pterodactyls? There is nothing we can do in a test tube, or a Petri dish, or, if it comes to that, a particle accelerator, that could conceivably be relevant to the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Peg, posted 07-01-2009 6:55 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Peg, posted 07-01-2009 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 93 by jaywill, posted 07-01-2009 7:48 AM Dr Adequate 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