Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 151 of 216 (140342)
09-06-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by nator
09-06-2004 11:29 AM


Oh, so one of those phrases means something specific to scientific methodology?
No to yourself.
Well, true.
However, if something is subjective, it cannot be scientific.
I never claimed different.
Nope.
Those effects can be, and are, tested by non-subjective methods, such as MRI's, blood tests, urine tests, blood pressure tests, etc.
Please explain placebo then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 11:29 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 1:27 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 152 of 216 (140347)
09-06-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by happy_atheist
09-06-2004 12:01 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
I don't know, I just see black, as in nothingness. I don't know what it represents. Almost like the vacum of space, to your left.
I guess don't make a left turn in your life, lol.
Also, the way you are getting off the highway, which is a major interstate, and heading north on rt 300 could mean something. Rt 300 at that point is a major road that goes down to a single lane highway.
I don't have anything else right now, but I could pray and ask. If you don't mind I'll tell you what I come up with.
I wish I would have mention the interchange before, that would have made sense. I was scared to start doing this over the internet, so I simplified it, my mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 12:01 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 1:35 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 162 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 2:13 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 153 of 216 (140350)
09-06-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by happy_atheist
09-06-2004 12:04 PM


I love your way of thinking. I feel the exact same way.
But that doesn't stop scientists from trying figure out how the brain works when we are happy. They will use objective tests, to describe subjective feelings.
But if there is enough common descripitions amoung several people, it may still be subjective, but it holds validity.
Your green might be my blue, I always wondered that lol. The way our brain translates color might be different(or eyes could transpose the wavelength), and we all actually like the same interpretation, so we all have the same favorite color, lol.
Imagine if we looked at the world through someone elses eyes, and it was completely different, I would freak out!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by happy_atheist, posted 09-06-2004 12:04 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 154 of 216 (140352)
09-06-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:03 PM


Nope.
Those effects can be, and are, tested by non-subjective methods, such as MRI's, blood tests, urine tests, blood pressure tests, etc.
Please explain placebo then.
Placebo can be tested by non-subjective methods. A placebo response is an actual bodily response affecting many of the variables measured in tests. The subjective factor in the placebo is that a patient's expectations effect their bodily response, rather than the substance in the pill, injection, medallion, or prayer.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:03 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 155 of 216 (140353)
09-06-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by sidelined
09-06-2004 12:11 PM


Then we get into true Christianity, and reasoning of other religions.
But that gets complex, and I have theories on that. I believe that everything is for the glory of God. But nothing is proven, so I'll just go by what happens to me personally. It's all for the good.
If you go by mans example of God, and religion, you would have a hard time beliving in him. But when the promises of Jesus are fullfilled to you, and you meet other people who also had those promises fullfilled, there are great similarities, that cannot be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 12:11 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 156 of 216 (140359)
09-06-2004 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:15 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
riVerRat
Perhaps you should check sources since I believe there is no rt.300 in the U.S.
From this website,
Page not found – US Highways
we get this table
[b](295)
(US 301) [I] (Fredericksburg, VA) (Lee Hall, VA) (120)
US 301 [II] (Farnhurst, DE) Glasgow, DE Sarasota, FL 1099 (1111)
US 302 Portland, ME Montpelier, VT 171
(US 309) (Waverly, NY) (Philadelphia, PA) (214)
Route Start End Length
US 310 Laurel, MT Greybull, WY 108 (114)
US 311 (Roanoke, VA) Eden, NC Randleman, NC (Aberdeen, NC) 78 (211)
(US 312) (Broadus, MT) (Yellowstone National Park, MT) (234)
(US 313) (Galena, MD) (Mardela Springs, MD) (76)
US 319 Wadley, GA Apalachicola, FL 318
(US 320) (Shoshoni, WY) (Riverton, WY) (26)
US 321 Eaton Crossroad, TN + Hardeeville, SC 526
US 322 Atlantic City, NJ Cleveland, OH 494
(US 330) (Lynwood, IL) (Galt, IL) (161)
(US 331) [I] (Flomaton, AL) (Pensacola, FL) (45)
US 331 [II] Montgomery, AL Santa Rosa Beach, FL + 151 (156)
US 340 Frederick, MD Greenville, VA 156
US 341 (Atlanta, GA) Barnesville, GA Brunswick, GA 226 (257)
US 350 La Junta, CO Trinidad, CO 80 (84)
US 360 Reedville, VA Danville, VA 223 (238)
Route Start End Length
(US 366) [I] (Amarillo, TX) (El Paso, TX *) (437)
(US 366) [II] (Williard, NM) (Albuquerque, NM) (73)
(US 370) (Bowie, TX) (Amarillo, TX) (289)
(US 371) [I] (Bemidji, MN) (Little Falls, MN) (131)
US 371 [II] De Queen, AR Evelyn, LA 214
US 377 Stroud, OK Del Rio, TX * 478
US 378 Conway, SC Washington, GA 234
US 380 Greenville, TX San Antonio, NM 673
(US 383) (Elm Creek, NE) (Oakley, KS) (175)
(US 385) [I] (Raton, NM) (Boerne, TX) (773)
US 385 [II] Pluma, SD Big Bend National Park, TX 1206
US 395 Laurier, WA * Cajon Jct., CA + (San Diego, CA) 1305 (1490)
(US 399) (Bakersfield, CA) (Ventura, CA) (136)
US 400 Joplin, MO + Granada, CO 488
Route Start End[/b]
I do not see a route 300 do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:15 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:59 PM sidelined has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 157 of 216 (140364)
09-06-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by lfen
09-06-2004 12:12 PM


I get very impatient with the stupid rhetorical tricks used in apologetics. But scoring meaningless points by being sarcastic about something that you falsely attribute to your opponent is one of the most common contemporary tricks of creationists and evangelists. I of course can't stop you from doing it but you lose credibility everytime you do it.
You speak beatifully.
Funny thats exactly how I feel about what she said. I never said I accept any scientific theory as being true, only that when conditions exist, gravity will pull you down to the ground. She tried to turn this around and say that I accept gravity as a whole, theory and fact, and thats why I should accept evolution. You need to go back and see how this conversation started.
There have been several analogys presented to me, to make me accept evolution, all of them are sarcastic rhetoric. The only thing that will make me accept evolution, is the actual evidences, and I need to go study it more.
I understand it's much easier to read creationist web sites and repeat pseudo science than it is to read books on science and try to understand the ongoing work. Read the sites you want,enjoy your faith, but if you want your arguments to be taken seriously here then you need to use logic and information, not cheap silly apologetic rhetoric especially using deceptive excerpting to create a false impression to showcase childish sarcasm.
Evolution is something I read about and was taught for over 25 years. Creation science is very new to me.
Thats exactly why I do not accept evolution, or creation. I only believe in creation because I believe that God created the universe, and we are here. This is new for me also. How this happened is a mystery to me.
I came to this decision, because of what happened to me. All the things that Jesus promised came true, and then the truth was known to me, and the truth set me free.
However, I am a realist, and the jury is still out. Right now I believe it with all my heart and soul, and it gets proven to me on a daily basis. But I retain the right to change my mind however doubtful.
I have not given any apologetic rhetoric, or deceptive excerpting, I am a realist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 12:12 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 09-06-2004 2:24 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 158 of 216 (140372)
09-06-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by nator
09-06-2004 12:53 PM


1) You don't know anything about it.
2) You have a lot of misconceptions about it.
3) Your religious beliefs require that you reject evolution but not other scientific theories.
No, maybe, and no.
That evolution happens is a fact.
The Theory of Evolution is not a fact, but an explanation of the facts (evidence), just like it is a fact that matter is made up of atoms, but the Atomic Theory of Matter is not a fact, but an explanation of the facts (evidence).
How is it fact?
Are you talking about bacteria in a petri dish?
Or the fruit fly?
The thing is, that is their personal, religious/philosophical choice if they do that or not.
AHHHHHHHH, I'm so glad you said that.
I hope you agree they have no right to push that belief on others.
...but did you notice anything regarding God or religious-type faith in the papers?
I am trying to get a documented miracle, but I have been busy lately.
But how does some people starting to believe in gravitational theory as a religion change the theory of gravity?
The theory is the same, regardless of how some people view it, right?
Are you saying that if some people start believing in the Theory of Gravity as a religion, pencils will start falling up and planetary orbits will begin to change?
Its a bad comparison, biology and pyhsics are very different, so I doubt that would happen. Lets keep them separate.
If you don't understand the ToE, then why do you reject it?
If you don't understand the various Theories of Gravity, why do you accept them?
Because I don't fully understand I guess.
Plus the fact that some scientists reject it, leads me to question it.
Plus the I feel the truth was made known to me through God, and it set me free. I just cannot explain it objectivly.
Which parts do you still have issues with?
We are like a broken record now.
WE went over that.
How about answering the question I asked right after the bit you quoted above but you failed to include:
My concerns with the germ theory and ToE are completely different, so it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
This, in fact, completely contradicts your claim that it is the scientists often committing fraud, and colluding with each other to maintain falsehoods.
So its the medias fault again?
Do all people who get cancer die of it?
No, some actually get rid of it on their own, but scientist do not consider it a miracle.
You are confusing antibiotics and vaccines.
No I'm not. I know the difference. If we devolop resistance to a desease on our own, or if it is introduced to use through a vaccine, isn't there a difference? Couldn't we be forcing evolution to work against us, by taking away the ability to create resistance on our own? I understand how slight this chance might be, but remeber how I feel about odds.
...and eclipses? Are astronomers mostly wrong about when eclipses happen?
Not sure, but they could be slightly off, no matter how small.
It's pretty irrelevant I know.
But you haven't supported your claim that science is "wrong most of the time" at all.
I don't have to, just read history.
You must Love talking to me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 12:53 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:31 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 159 of 216 (140377)
09-06-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by sidelined
09-06-2004 1:35 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
Lmao. So that makes what I said invalid?
What a joke.
Why would you search the entire nation, when I gave you the exact town it is located in? Is that your personal scientific method?
Here:
Official MapQuest - Maps, Driving Directions, Live Traffic XA2R6GHaUdaivz35PGaAM2N4vdPtdCJrPRL%252fzqrhkiWnzOmx%252fXJ7tyBNiZTsM4cHRhLLnpB7QrvUhStF32uhFZ%252b1QYrYORRPe84WPKkiwFaf3o7gtXD%252fWx5%252fIhzvL575yYaY6tfKBAv15uGruXhf%252flC7upYu xJwjtFzJFGpDk3ZS2lDDtwKszVjBXN8oJtfnpCCnhzKVbyOpFPb9UywvWAVI7DgvI3C8EgOnGGh0blskIr9nzKq883rCgNxS9CMA%253d%253d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 1:35 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by sidelined, posted 09-06-2004 2:24 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 160 of 216 (140379)
09-06-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 10:57 AM


The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
quote:
Wow, it took a great mind to figure out that we fall, thats a good one. Amazing, tell me more Mrs.Wizard.
Didn't you even read what I wrote, Riverrat?
People fell for millions of years before anyone ever thought of the concept of "gravity".
If you think that Gravity is such a simple concept, why don't you explain the various Gravitational Theories here, including their role in planetaty orbits and stellar formation. Throw in some stuff explaining the gravitation of black holes for bonus points.
Please indicate which version you think is most accurate, and why.
quote:
It took great minds to see that the planets actually do not revolve around the earth.
No, and did I say that gravity explains that? No, I didn't.
I said that gravitational forces are involved in how planetary orbits present themselves.
Perhaps you might want to take some more time to make sure you read my posts carefully before you reply.
I am having to correct you almost every time you respond to something I've written, because you are not correctly grasping or comprehending what I write.
quote:
Absolutly not. I stand by 100% and it makes perfect sense, and it gets proven over and over all the time.
Its obvious that we will not agree on this. It would seem the odds are your guide in life, and you rely on them for many things, but they aren't for me.
Do las Vegas casinos lose money because the odds are irrelevant? Or, do they make money precisely because they can calculate the odds very accurately?
That is what evolution proposes. The false cartoon of Evolutionary Biology you draw is much like a bad sequel to "The Fly".
quote:
Thats funny, or is it?
What I'm saying is if evolution is true, then anything should eventually be able to become anything, given enough time, and circumstances. Isn't this true?
Populations, not individuals, would be able to change as much or as little as the environment dictates, given enough time, yes.
That is not what you were proposing, however.
You were telling me that you rejected evolution because an individual, me, could not instantaneously change into a very different species.
These are very different claims.
No, the fact that I think it's not is because I understand how evolution works and you don't.
quote:
So what mechanism would stop you from becoming a whale, if we knew how?
Because my genome is fixed. Evolution does not happen to individuals, but to populations.
quote:
What if we kept throwing you and your succeeding generations in the water, and kept them from learning speech, or anything else for that matter. What would stop them from becoming a whale, or some kind of sea creature? I mean the whales became whales. Maybe not from humans, but evolution can go in reverse (figure of speech).
If the evolutionary pressures favored an aquatic lifestyle for humans such that the offspring born in and living in the water were able to survive just as well as or better than land dwellers, then an aquatic species or sub species could emerge over a long time.
[qs]Or what if we kept throwing you off a cliff for the next 2 million years, you think you would grow feathers and fly? Whats that magical thing that makes feathers appear?[/quote]
If you threw me off of a cliff, I would die and then I would not be able to pass on my genes.
Of course, feathers are used for insulation and sexual display, so their being used for flight is only one of their uses. Also, feathers are not needed for all flight; witness flying squirrels, bats, and insects.
Now, I have a question for you.
Since we know that whales are mammals, what features would we expect to find in their ancestors if they evolved from land-dwelling mammals?
No, individuals DO NOT EVOLVE, populations do.
quote:
The same pressure that would make a population evolve could also make an individual evolve, your saying he can't? What sense does that make?
Evolution is, BY DEFINITION the change in alelle frequencies in POPULATIONS over time.
POPULATIONS. POPULATINS. POPULATIONS.
Do you know what DNA is?
Do you know how you got your genetic information?
If you love science as much as you say you do, don't you think that you should study and understand at least the basics of the science of evolutionary Biology?
quote:
Yes, I will. I have learned a lot since coming to this forum. I have followed links and studyed when I have the time. Unfortunatly I will not become Mr.Scientist over night. I am a very busy individual with 5 kids and my own business. That is why I keep telling you I am not qualified to argue about evolution, but I can discuss some of the issues surrounding it. I do have a basic understanding of what evolution is. But I have many questions about it, that I need to answer.
That's good that you have questions and want to learn more, but judging from what you have shown me in our discussions, you are far, far from having a basic understanding of evolution.
quote:
I have watched many debate videos about creation vs evolution, and from what I see there is enough missing evidence for me to not believe in evolution.
Let me guess. Those "debate videos" are all from religious and Creationist sources, right?
Those debates are only convincing to the uneducated, which you are.
Read the links I gave you, then open a thread in the Evolution forum and we will discuss your specific issues with the facts.
quote:
However, there is hardly enough evidence for me to believe in creation. I only believe that God made us, I just don't know how.
Have you considered that God used evolution?
quote:
I am unsure if we evolved to our current state, or he flat out created us, and God filled in the gaps, or there is another mystery that we just haven't figured out yet.
Go to TalkOrigins and read about the scientific evidence for human evolution.
quote:
I don't think this is an unrealistic view based on our current knowledge.
No, it is an unrealistic view bassed on our current knowledge.
Since you admittedly don't know much about the ToE, how can you tout your view as based upon current knowledge when you don't know what the "current knowledge" is?
You haven't seen asteroids. You have taken other people's word for it that those are rocks flying around. All you see are little points of light. Do you now reject the idea that asteroids exist?
quote:
I have first hand observed asteroids, and tracked them.
No, you have seen points of light that some scientist told you were asteroids.
You, personally, have not identified them as asteroids.
You have taken a scientists word for it that they are asteroids.
No, it is NOT a theory.
It is mathematics. It is axiomatic.
quote:
Also for purposes of our discussion, we must keep mathematical odds separate from biological odds, as they are very different.
What, pray tell, are "biological odds", and what makes the math used in the statistical analysis of Biology data fundamentally different from any other math.
quote:
I do not have to much trouble with mathematical odds, but they still do not explain if I would win or not.
True. It's random if you will win or not, or if anybody wins.
It is fallatious to say, AFTER YOU WON, that your odds of winning were 1:1.
You odds of winning are the same as anybody else's who bought the same number of tickets as you did.
[quote]I know how you like to lump all these things together for the benifit of your argument.[quote] Math is math.
The use of the statistical analysis/odds is so that the people who run the lottery and casinos can accurately predict how much money they will make from their games of chance.
quote:
Right but how do they know whos going to choose which # ?
THEY DON'T, which is what I explained to you previously.
Who wins is random.
Where is faith involved?
[qs]Thats why the odds are inaccurate in determining if I would actually win or not.[/quote]
The odds are not inaccurate in determining if you would win.
That's not what odds do.
Where is faith involved?
[qs]To me the odds only explain how many combinations there are.[/quote]
No, they also predict the distribution of number of winning tickets from random chance.
Where is faith involved?
quote:
They do not explain which combination will be drawn, or which combination I would pick. True or false?
No to the first sentence, because it's random, which is dealing with statistics, and no to the second sentence, because that has nothing to do with statistics.
Where is there faith involved?
Man, please get a basics statistics book and learn some of this stuff.
My friend used to say that the lottery was a tax on people who are bad at math.
[qs]Because my level of thinking about odds, are a step above your, does not mean I have to back and learn about odds.[/quote]
Yeah, right.
You who thinks that Murpey's Law is used by insurance companies understands statistics better than me.
The behavior of the lottery is exactly and precisely predicted. We know exactly how often, based upon numbers of tickets sold, the chances that nobody will win, exactly how often one person will win, exactly how often two people will win, etc. This will not predict, however, which specific days those wins will happen
quote:
That is an inaccurate description of lotto odds. The odds only explain the possible combinations that can be achieved, not how often someone could win. There is no way of figuring out the odds until all the numbers are picked, and all the lotto tickets are in.
Well, sure, it depends upon how many people play.
But the rest is completely accurate.
Where is faith involved?
quote:
Nice horse by the way.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 10:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:23 PM nator has not replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 161 of 216 (140382)
09-06-2004 2:12 PM


riVeRat writes:
Not sure, but they could be slightly off, no matter how small.
If the observed event is within the confidence intervals of the prediction then the prediction is accurate, if not it's not accurate. A scientific prediction never ever gives an absolute number, it gives a range covered by a confidence interval.

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 162 of 216 (140383)
09-06-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:15 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
Feel free to tell me anything that you think it means. None of it seems relevant to anything at all in my life though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:15 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:25 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 163 of 216 (140387)
09-06-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:59 PM


Re: Are there things outside those that can be tested?
riVerRat
I apologize however your link did not work either but I did find a simple map confirming that.I get a lot of those dead links on these forums lately,does the link work for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:28 PM sidelined has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 164 of 216 (140388)
09-06-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:41 PM


There have been several analogys presented to me, to make me accept evolution, all of them are sarcastic rhetoric. The only thing that will make me accept evolution, is the actual evidences, and I need to go study it more.
You are not, of course, required to accept the theory of evolution. I do suggest that at first it's more important to read a well written book on genetics and on cells. Understanding the role of genes in a cell, and then how reproduction, especially sexual reproduction varies the genes and how that affects populations will give you a background to understand (not necessarily accept) the arguments put forth in support of evolution.
The other thing might be a good book that has an overview of science done on the history of the earth, geology and paleontology.
I want to point out that there is a large amount of data in these fields, and there is a cross discipline support between them. The scientific appeal of the ToE is thus that it pulls together and explains a lot of findings. It is such a useful tool that at present it is indispensible for science. If and when it begins to fail to account for data sooner or later a new theory will emerge. That is how science functions. Theories are being tested with every advance. Newton's brilliant theories about motion broke down when scientist began examing velocities near the speed of light and eventually a new theory came out. It turns out that at the speeds we experience on earth the difference between Einstein's or Newton's theories are negligible and for most calculations Newton's formulas work fine. But science is self correcting. It doesn't claim an revealed truth that is true for all time, nor a final or complete truth.
Those holding philosophical or religious positions can use science in their arguments but that is a philosophical activity not scientific, although since there is a philosophy of science this can get fuzzy.
The other matters you addressed I'll just let drop, simply noting that a logical defense is most often preferable to sarcasm because it is more informative to those who read your post and less subject to misinterpretation.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:40 PM lfen has replied
 Message 174 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:30 PM lfen has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 165 of 216 (140391)
09-06-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:56 PM


riverrat, you have made it abundantly obvious that you are not, never have been, and are unlikely to be interested in engaging in honest debate.
You distort what I say, you do your best to weasel out of answering very direct questions, you flat out refuse to admit when you make a mistake, and you show no interest in trying to understand what I am telling you.
If being a Christian makes people as intellectually dishonest as you have shown yourself to be, then I am sure I never want to be one again.
I'll let somebody else bang their head against the wall for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:56 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:33 PM nator has replied
 Message 175 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:35 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024