Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Applying Science to Past Events
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 211 of 354 (144037)
09-23-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
09-23-2004 12:51 AM


No, the scientific method means we come to conclusions, but they're tentative. They're all predicated by "it's this way to the best of our knowledge, but we might change our minds in the face of future discoveries."
Thats what I said in different words. I just choose to not believe in things so deeply, that are not fully understood.
Its amazing to me how everyday I listen to the news, and according a new study done by science, that what we used to think has now changed. This happens daily.
So believing in these things requires an element of faith. I do pocess some of this faith, but at least I am honest and admit it. I will look at stars through my telescope, take long timed exposures, then run the colors through a spectrograph, then determine what gases make up that star. Once I know the gases, I can figure out how big the star is, because in order for a star to be a star made up of those gases, it needs to be a certain size so that nuclear fusion can take place.
IMO this is way harder to fully accept as being 100% true than studying the bible, then comparing it to real life, and seeing first hand how it all makes sense. This is my own scientific method of course, but anyone else can duplicate it themselves. But if the bible is taught to you in the wrong way, you might miss Gods word, or not even find it all, because you immediatly dismiss the whole bible because a few things do not match scientific findings, yet. I personally break the bible down into sections, with the things that Jesus taught us as being the most important. Then it trickles down from there.
As far as medicine and the human body, I will be starting a new thread, so that we can discuss what all this science is doing to our own natural selection, and how we are changing the course of evolution. Do not take this as me being against it, I would just like to talk about it. Medicine has saved me many times. But the thing it has saved me from was possibly caused by man in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 09-23-2004 12:51 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by contracycle, posted 09-23-2004 9:22 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 213 by Mammuthus, posted 09-23-2004 9:44 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 09-23-2004 10:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 354 (144039)
09-23-2004 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 9:02 AM


quote:
So believing in these things requires an element of faith. I do pocess some of this faith, but at least I am honest and admit it.
No, you are not honest; because you use the term "faith" to encompass both the expectation that the sun will rise again tomorrow and the completely invisible magical fairy you call god.
These two things are not alike, and to describe them with the same term is just to manipulate words.
You have REASON to expect the sun will come up tomorrow. You do NOT have reason to believe in god. Yo say that these are the same is dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 9:02 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:11 AM contracycle has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 213 of 354 (144043)
09-23-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 9:02 AM


quote:
IMO this is way harder to fully accept as being 100% true than studying the bible, then comparing it to real life, and seeing first hand how it all makes sense.
However, it is not the same. If someone making the observations using the spectorgraph encounters an anamoly, they can then proceed to figure out what causes the anomoly and find out if a specific hypothesis needs to be revised or thrown out. At the very least, the current hypothesis can be shown to not explain the phenomenon even if it is currently the best explanation available based on the evidence. In addition, anybody can re-do the spectorgraphic analysis regardless of their belief system. It does not hinge on their personal beliefs. In the case of the bible, if somebody reads it and sees that it is completely inconsistent with reality then you "subjectively" say that the person is looking at it wrong...thus, not anyone can duplicate your "experiment". In science a religious person of any faith or an athiest can evaluate the same evidence and it does not hinge on their faith or lack thereof...in your "scientific method" it a priori requires that you accept the premise. Thus it is not scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 9:02 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 214 of 354 (144044)
09-23-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Mammuthus
09-23-2004 4:18 AM


The thing is, once we figure out quantum mechanics, we will probably find out something even deeper than that.
To me the amazing things about the life that was created for us, and the study of it(science) is how the further we look, the more we see, and the more we figure out, the more that needs figuring out.
If we ever figure everything out, which would be many years from now, life would be whole lot different. we would then know all the limits of our universe, i.e. the speed of light theorized as the speed limit of the universe. Whats amazing to me, is that there are limits. Our demension we live in is a limit. All these are signs of God to me, and that we were created to live witihin these limits. Its like performing a test, but you cannot go beyond the limits. Kind of matches what the bible teaches us.
I don't know if you ever do this. Sit and ponder about where everything came from, and why we are here. I mean deeply meditate about it. I get so deep in thought about it, I almost pass-out. I mean does it all mean? It's most likely these same thoughts that drives science. So thats why I appreciate it.
What I can't figure out though is scientists who don't believe in God, or an afterlife. Why would you spend the little time you have here on this beatiful blue ball trying to figure it out, when you know you won't? Why wouldn't you just enjoy life? I mean there is nothing after this right? Why dedicate yourself to something that will continue after your gone? It won't matter, you will be gone. I find that fact that we can ask ourselves these questions is proof that we will live on. Otherwise what sense does it make?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Mammuthus, posted 09-23-2004 4:18 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Mammuthus, posted 09-23-2004 10:07 AM riVeRraT has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 215 of 354 (144046)
09-23-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 9:02 AM


riVeRraT writes:
Its amazing to me how everyday I listen to the news, and according a new study done by science, that what we used to think has now changed. This happens daily.
I think everyone on both sides is frustrated by this, but for different reasons. Those within science know that new scientific results from just the past year are unlikely to be reliable, but they're frustrated at the way the news media portrays them as if they were the final word. And those outside the sciences are frustrated because they feel whipsawed as studies with opposite conclusions come fast on the heels of one another. Eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat the whites but not the yolks, oh wait a minute, there's a condition on that - MAKE UP YOUR MINDS ALREADY.
It's no big deal if you personally find the evidence for some parts of science insufficient. That's your privilege. But it's still science. And to attempt to bring this thread back on topic, there is no evidence that the natural physical laws vary over time or space, and so disregarding scientific findings on that basis is definitely not science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 9:02 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:35 AM Percy has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 216 of 354 (144047)
09-23-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 9:52 AM


quote:
If we ever figure everything out, which would be many years from now, life would be whole lot different. we would then know all the limits of our universe, i.e. the speed of light theorized as the speed limit of the universe. Whats amazing to me, is that there are limits. Our demension we live in is a limit. All these are signs of God to me, and that we were created to live witihin these limits. Its like performing a test, but you cannot go beyond the limits. Kind of matches what the bible teaches us.
I am not sure I agree that there are such limits. We simply do not know enough at this point about the universe to say there are such limits. As you noted, the more we figure out the more we realize there is to learn. Thus, I do not accept that we have found physical limits regarding the universe since what the universe is is not even partially understood.
quote:
What I can't figure out though is scientists who don't believe in God, or an afterlife. Why would you spend the little time you have here on this beatiful blue ball trying to figure it out, when you know you won't? Why wouldn't you just enjoy life? I mean there is nothing after this right? Why dedicate yourself to something that will continue after your gone? It won't matter, you will be gone. I find that fact that we can ask ourselves these questions is proof that we will live on. Otherwise what sense does it make?
Fair enough. First off, what makes you think I do not enjoy life by trying to figure out how things work? Why would I not dedicate myself to something that continues beyond me? I think it makes perfect sense to contribute to something that outlasts you since you yourself have an expiration date. From your argument it makes no sense to have children since you are likely not to see their entire lives. Besides, every molecule in your body will survive to be incorporated into something else. I think you put too much emphasis on the individual self as being central to the universe as opposed to the universe itself..and then assume therefore that there is something beyond it.
I could turn the question around to...why bother wishing for an afterlife for which there is no evidence when you could spend your time enjoying your life? If you are wrong, you wasted your one shot as you pining for something you assume is better but non-existant. To me that makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 9:52 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:22 AM Mammuthus has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 217 of 354 (144048)
09-23-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by contracycle
09-23-2004 9:22 AM


You have REASON to expect the sun will come up tomorrow. You do NOT have reason to believe in god. Yo say that these are the same is dishonest.
This is where you are wrong. Really really wrong.
Faith comes in different levels. Some things require more faith than others. It all depends how much you know about it. Thousands of years ago, humans used to pray to the sun god, and have faith that he would rise in the morning. This took a lot of faith on the part of the human. Now things are different, we understand more about it, so we need less faith that it will rise tomorrow. But if the sundecides to do seomthing wierd like burp, or blow-up due to something we couldn't see coming, this can happen too. Its unlikely, but it can happen. So for us life would be over, and the sun would not rise anymore for each of us. So we believe by faith that this won't happen to us. We don't even give it a second thought. Some of us don't even care if it happens or not.
But believing in God for everyone is different. I say for myself that I found God through studying the bible, and asking Jesus into my life. I believed he was there by faith for many years. But then one day I recieved a baptism of the Holy spirit. Now it is no longer by faith that I believe in him. It is by faith however that he will do the things he promises, if I hold up my end of the deal. This experience happened 8 months ago. Everyday he proves himself to me in a big way. If I do not hold up my end of the deal, he lets me know right away. It is something so beatiful, that I would wish it to everyone, even my enemies. Its almost like I do not even need the bible anymore, because I have a direct line to him. I do not know the complete bible, but now when I read things that I haven't read before, or forgot, they make perfect sense, because I already think that way.
I know exactly what you would say next. Your going to compare what many a bad persons interpretation of what the bible was, and how destructive it was, or is. But that is irrelevant to your own presonal relationship with him. You can cleary see the difference between what is right and wrong. God gave us this gift of desernment. He wrote his laws on our hearts and minds, and it is the smart people of this forum that know the differences between right wrong, yet somehow they let what man has done with it to keep them from their God.
So you see, I have many reasons for believing in God. They may be subjestive to you, but they aren't to me. They objectively prove themselves daily. They are subjective to others, because it relies on me telling the truth. This is why it is personal. Only you and God know what is on your heart. I could never know or judge it, or test it. I would just Love you because you are one of God's creations. Whatever way you choose to live your life is between you and God, and I would respect it. That won't stop me from sharing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by contracycle, posted 09-23-2004 9:22 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Loudmouth, posted 09-23-2004 3:04 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 245 by contracycle, posted 09-24-2004 9:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 218 of 354 (144055)
09-23-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Mammuthus
09-23-2004 10:07 AM


First off, what makes you think I do not enjoy life by trying to figure out how things work?
Yes I enjoy that too, so I agree with you. But if you are trying to prove something by doing it, thats a little different.
As far as wishing for an afterlife, I do not feel that way. If God showed himself to you in a way that you knew for sure he was there, then it is not wasted. I enjoy my life in the Lord very much. It is very gratifying. I try to do everything for his glory, and the benifits are wonderful. If I was a scientist, I would do it for his glory too.
I really don't ponder on the after life being better or not. I just worry about what I'm doing here and now. We will see what happens later. My after life in heaven is not what drives me here on earth really. I concentrate more on my direct relations with people here and now, and what good I can do for the world, by helping others, and sharing what God gave me. This is not a bad way to live whether you believe in God or not. I get enjoyment from being good, and now that I found God, its that much better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Mammuthus, posted 09-23-2004 10:07 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Mammuthus, posted 09-23-2004 10:39 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 221 by agnostic, posted 09-23-2004 10:50 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 219 of 354 (144058)
09-23-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
09-23-2004 10:04 AM


Eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat the whites but not the yolks, oh wait a minute, there's a condition on that - MAKE UP YOUR MINDS ALREADY.
LMAO, thats what I'm talking about. I love it, thats the chuckle of the day.
there is no evidence that the natural physical laws vary over time or space, and so disregarding scientific findings on that basis is definitely not science.
I agree.
Bare with me now, I am not a scientist, but was wondering your opinion on this. They have these "creation science" shows on TV. So I saw one that was interesting. It talked about a radioisotope in granite that should not be there if the earth took a long time to cool. So it was evidence of a rapid cooling of the earth, which kind of goes against the natural laws of physics.
I think this page talks about it, I do not have time to read it this morning, got to go to work, but check it out anyway.
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
I will read it later, and try to understand it. I want to know the other side of the story. If that doesn't descbie what I'm talking about, I will try to find it later.
{As noted by AdminNosy in his response to this message, much of this message is very off-topic. Others should not here respond to the off-topic material - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-23-2004 10:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 09-23-2004 10:04 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by AdminNosy, posted 09-23-2004 11:18 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 223 by coffee_addict, posted 09-23-2004 11:30 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 224 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 1:17 PM riVeRraT has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 220 of 354 (144063)
09-23-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 10:22 AM


quote:
Yes I enjoy that too, so I agree with you. But if you are trying to prove something by doing it, thats a little different.
I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean "prove", I do try to scientifically establish that my hypotheses are the best explanation for the phenomenon I observe. I do so by observation, experimentation and attempting to falsify my hypothesis through gathering of data. Somehow I think you meant something else?
And to be slightly on topic...such a methodology i.e. methodological naturalism is easily applied to past events
quote:
As far as wishing for an afterlife, I do not feel that way. If God showed himself to you in a way that you knew for sure he was there, then it is not wasted. I enjoy my life in the Lord very much. It is very gratifying. I try to do everything for his glory, and the benifits are wonderful. If I was a scientist, I would do it for his glory too.
Actually, my point was more to clarify that one can enjoy life, be interested in how things work, and live a full life without belief in an afterlife which in your previous post you mentioned was difficult for you to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:22 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 4:26 PM Mammuthus has replied

agnostic
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 354 (144067)
09-23-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 10:22 AM


Please clarify
------------------------------------------------------------
If God showed himself to you in a way that you knew for sure he was there, then it is not wasted.
------------------------------------------------------------
I am curious - how did God show himself to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:22 AM riVeRraT has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 222 of 354 (144077)
09-23-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 10:35 AM


Not on topic!
That is not on topic (even though this topic is moderately wide). Take it to Dates and Dateing if you are interested. You might also do your own research and find out just what is wrong with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by agnostic, posted 09-24-2004 7:12 AM AdminNosy has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 223 of 354 (144080)
09-23-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 10:35 AM


Could you please give some time to my common sense thread here?

The Laminator
B ULLS HIT
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 224 of 354 (144107)
09-23-2004 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 10:35 AM


... of course, to be fair, the "eat eggs/don't eat eggs" wasn't an issue of scientists getting the data or framework wrong. It was a benefit/risk analysis issue. Each time a new piece of data came in, it shifted the balance toward either the benefit side or the risk side. That is why you kept getting the back and forth. It's not really applicable to a discussion of evolution in which you are challenging the framework. The framework for the egg studies was consistant and reliable.
A good comparison for evolution would be, say, "Are megachiroptera and microchiroptera two separate evolutionary lines that branched before flight was achieved, or are they evolved from the same early bat species?". In this case, the framework is that of common descent with modification. Each piece of evidence that comes in can hint to one or the other, but unless the evidence contradicts the other evidence, the framework stands.
For example, when a genetic study comes in that says that megachiroptera are evolved from early bats and do not represent a separate route to flight, this doesn't contradict a morphological study that points out the fact that the membranes of their wings don't extend down to their feet, since this could happen as well under a scenario where they branched after already being flying mammals. Now, if the genetic study had indicated that megachiroptera was more closely related to lizards than to microchiroptera (or even contained a *single* lizard gene that is not found in mammals and was unlikely to just be randomly created), this *would* be a big blow to the framework (descent with modification).
Back to the eggs. If an early study comes in and determines "Eggs have lots of vitamins, minerals, and protein", and a later study comes in and says "Eggs have lots of cholesterol", the second study doesn't change the fact that eggs *do* have lots of vitamins, minerals, and protein. Now, if a study came in and said that eggs *don't* have lots of protein, then there would be a conflict, and people would have to reanalyze the accuracy of their protein tests.
I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Debates over the implications of new evidence means only challenge a framework if the new evidence doesn't fit into that framework. The simple fact that there is a debate caused by new evidence does not, in the slightest, challenge the framework.
This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 12:18 PM

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:35 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 6:28 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 233 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 6:29 PM Rei has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 354 (144122)
09-23-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by riVeRraT
09-23-2004 10:11 AM


quote:
Faith comes in different levels. Some things require more faith than others. It all depends how much you know about it. Thousands of years ago, humans used to pray to the sun god, and have faith that he would rise in the morning. This took a lot of faith on the part of the human.
Yes, it took religious faith. It took faith in the existence of an unseen god and the assumption that the unseen god controlled the sun.
Contrast this with a scientific explanation. The evidence for natural mechanisms that govern the sun rising are observable and testable by our five senses. The evidence is not invisible but plainly visible. This does not require religious faith. However, it does take trust that our theories are accurate, and this trust is gained through observable evidence.
Let's use an analogy. Pretend that someone has been indicted on a first degree murder case where the murder was not witnessed by anyone by the victim and the person who committed the crime. Now, what type of evidence do we use? Do we bring in a shaman who claims to speak to gods that reveal the truth or do we rely on forensic science to peer into the past through emperical data such as DNA and fingerprints? According to you, they both require faith and therefore are on equal ground. I claim that a technique using emperical data is much more reliable and is trustworthy. Do you understand the difference between trustworthy and blind faith? There is quite a difference.
quote:
But then one day I recieved a baptism of the Holy spirit. Now it is no longer by faith that I believe in him.
How do you know that the feelings you have are even tied to a supernatural deity? You can't, and therefore it is still faith. I am not saying that it is wrong to believe in God, only that it is not on the same level as the evidence used for science. I can not experience your feelings, and therefore it can not be confirmed in an objective matter. Things that can not be confirmed between separate observers is not trustworthy in a scientific sense.
quote:
So you see, I have many reasons for believing in God. They may be subjestive to you, but they aren't to me.
Surely you can see the contradiction in these two sentences (and the one that follows). For something to be objective it has to be confirmed by more than one person.
quote:
Whatever way you choose to live your life is between you and God, and I would respect it. That won't stop me from sharing.
I respect your religious life as well, and I hope that comes through in my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 10:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by riVeRraT, posted 09-23-2004 11:30 PM Loudmouth 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