|
Author
|
Topic: Peanut Gallery
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3933 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
Message 211 of 1725 (538203)
12-04-2009 1:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 210 by cavediver
12-04-2009 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: Arphy in the Debate Thread
part of the frustrating thing about this format in general is some kind of unsaid rule that you need to find ways to disagree with as much of your opponents argument as you can. I think rather than try to convince Arphy of the philosophical correctness that correlating evidence is powerful, perhaps Ned should just drive the few bullet points necessary to destroy the only pseudo-evidence for creationism that was raised which is the RATE project. Its not just wrong from a scientific philosophy perspective, it is actually and factually wrong. Even if you get past the fact that they chose samples of zircons from a place in NM where they harvest excess helium commercially, talk about their rediculously small sample sizes and other scientific operational dysfunctions, notice that such a massivly groundbreaking conclusion has not been replicated even by the people who believe it is correct, you still have the problem that accelerated decay introduces an unfathomable amount of more problems than it solves. I find that sticking to the facts leaves creationism in a wholly compromising position. Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 210 by cavediver, posted 12-04-2009 12:46 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 212 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2009 1:26 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 212 of 1725 (538205)
12-04-2009 1:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by Jazzns
12-04-2009 1:19 PM
|
|
Re: Arphy in the Debate Thread
Two good reviews of the RATE project: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE Project Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe Those RATE boys found that science is correct, but refused to believe their own data, falling back to dogma and scripture instead. So much for creation "science"!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 12-04-2009 1:19 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
|
Message 213 of 1725 (538591)
12-08-2009 5:14 AM
|
|
|
Viv Pope and the Speed of Light Thread
Concerning Viv Pope and the Speed of Light thread, Viv appears to have three goals:
- Avoid describing his views in any comprehensible, consistent way. There's more than a bit of similarity to the creationist style of argument, because he has much to say about what's wrong with current views within physics and very little about his own ideas about what would replace them.
- Name drop to his heart's content.
- Describe the abuse he's endured at the hands of those unable to free their thinking from the herd mentality, and chastise other participants while praising himself at every opportunity.
I was moderating in the thread for a short while, but his paranoia doesn't exhibit itself too ostentatiously and he seems harmless. Our collective inability to penetrate his evasions has caused me to lose interest in active discussion, but he's a fun read and I continue to monitor the thread. --Percy
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2009 2:25 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 214 of 1725 (538832)
12-10-2009 2:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 213 by Percy
12-08-2009 5:14 AM
|
|
Re: Viv Pope and the Speed of Light Thread
His shameless self promoting makes me think he is doing some kind of spamming. Rather than explain anything he just says go to this website and search for my paper. He doesn't even link to the paper, itself, so it seems like he might be getting something out of it. But I dunno.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by Percy, posted 12-08-2009 5:14 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 215 by penstemo, posted 12-12-2009 1:23 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
penstemo
Junior Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 13 From: Indiana, USA Joined: 11-24-2009
|
Re: Viv Pope and the Speed of Light Thread
He describes himself as a heretic which leads me to believe that his ideas haven't gotten very far in the scientific community. It seems to me that he is discarding a lot of physics to make room for his theory but I'm not an expert. New theories are usually met with skepticism, especially if they go against the status quo. The following quote is from Viv Pope's web site:
Humanitarian implications. Something else worth mentioning is what has been emphasised by several readers of the POAMS literature. This is that the switch from a mechanics-based to an information-based science removes the traditional barrier between material science and the humanities. No longer can communication be regarded as just a no-account ’spiritual’ spin-off from fundamental mechanisms. Instead, communication becomes the very essence of reality in all its forms, especially in observation-based, or relativistic, physics. Moreover, if the universe were a Machine, then since there can be no morality in a machine, and if we and our society were no more than parts of that Machine, there could be no morality in our society — or at least, any appearance of morality and responsibility for our actions would have to be an illusion. Whatever we did or decided to do would be determined by our atoms. And insofar as religion of some sort is always a part of human society — a very important part in some instances — that would have to be an illusion also, since it would make no sense to worship a Machine, far less make supplication to it in prayer. So POAMS, as these commentators perceive it, cures the underlying schizophrenia, or split-mindedness, of our Western society, manifest as it now is on all hands, between its twin foundations, Materialist Science and Christianity. This, they judge, should restore to our society some measure, at least, of the commonsense morality and humanity that a total preoccupation with the purely material benefits of classical science and technology has now all but excluded. Has POAMS, then, succeeded in exposing the truth which Socrates sought to uncover beneath all the accumulated and ingrained speculative beliefs (of theoretical physics and cosmology in our case)? Well, if this purely logical, minimalist interpretation of the actual phenomena is not the truth that Socrates sought, then please, show us what is? I would be very wary of any theory that tries to unify science and religon. Edited by penstemo, : Added quote
|
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 173 days) Posts: 673 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 216 of 1725 (539068)
12-12-2009 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by penstemo
12-12-2009 1:23 AM
|
|
Shedding light on non-existant light:
As reported by penstemo, Viv Pope writes:
...if the universe were a Machine, then since there can be no morality in a machine, and if we and our society were no more than parts of that Machine, there could be no morality in our society... But if that machine, amongst its outputs, can produce sentient beings (which obviously it can) with the neural apparatus for emotions - including the sense of fear, the sense of awe, the sense of wonder, and the sense of empathy - then it is equally capable of producing such beings with an innate sense of justice and morality, or even a compulsion for such behaviors. Viv Pope is simply just plain wrong in limiting mechanisms to pulleys and wheels.
....since it would make no sense to worship a Machine, far less make supplication to it in prayer. And so the six billion people who do exactly that do not do so because it makes sense. They do it because that is what their neural "cogs and gears" compel them to do. And this is independent of whether any god actually exists.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by penstemo, posted 12-12-2009 1:23 AM | | penstemo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 217 by Percy, posted 12-12-2009 7:49 PM | | AnswersInGenitals has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Viv begins with a story about physics taking a wrong turn and ends with the same delusions as creationists, that the chemical driven feelings imparted to us by our brains have actual tangible reality in the universe. Looking for ethics and morals in stars and galaxies only leads to fantasies and delusions. --Percy
|
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: 11-14-2009
|
|
|
Message 218 of 1725 (539089)
12-13-2009 1:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
12-12-2009 7:49 PM
|
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Is it possible that your extreme aversion to anything resembling spirituality irrationally clouds all thoughts and conclusions you draw? I am just not sure how anyone can be so sure that there is no spiritual force in the world. To not be convinced, ok that seems reasonable enough, but to be sure that it couldn't be? That is about as closed minded and in denial as one could get I would think. Its not possible that all the cosmos and consciousness, and symmetry of the universe all have a divine underpinning, just by the fact of their existence? What evidence do you have to convince you that there could NOT be a God? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 217 by Percy, posted 12-12-2009 7:49 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
It's funny you'd say that to Percy, seeing as he is a deist.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4040 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.1
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Actually, Percy is a Deist - he does believe in God. That simply doesn't stop him from recognizing logically fallacious arguments.
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Hi Bolder-dash, What I actually believe is that any spiritual force or presence is not to be found in the natural laws of the universe. Viv's delusional views on physics have apparently grown out of the opposite belief. Cavediver said it right. True scientists say things like, "We're not sure," "We don't know," "This is all the evidence allows us to say at the current time." Charlatans say, "I have all the answers" and then don't provide any. If you think Viv has provided answers, just try explaining his "answers" to someone else. You'll suddenly find you have remarkably little to say. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3652 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: 11-14-2009
|
|
|
Message 222 of 1725 (539108)
12-13-2009 5:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by Percy
12-13-2009 4:40 AM
|
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Well, I stand corrected, but it leads me to an even more perplexing question. Why do you believe in a God when you don't think the laws of nature reveal evidence of a God, you don't think the chemically driven feelings in our brains have a tangible reality in our universe, and you think creationists are delusional? What possible reason do you have for believing in a God then?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 4:40 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 223 by Percy, posted 12-13-2009 6:30 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
My belief in God is an expression of my inner faith and is not based upon evidence from the natural world. I don't know if there is a connection at some level of reality between the spiritual and the natural, but the evidence available today gives no indication that one exists. The western religion most closely allied to my beliefs is Unitarianism, and I am a Unitarian, but the religion ceased to exist as recognizably Unitarian after the merger with the Universalists, who can be more accurately characterized as new age spiritualists. --Percy
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Its not possible that all the cosmos and consciousness, and symmetry of the universe all have a divine underpinning, just by the fact of their existence? I, an agnostic atheist (and I would venture to guess most atheists), believe this (a reality outside the reality we experience aka the supernatural) to be possible the problem lies in the fact that we don't see conclusive evidence confirming this to be true. The question lies with the support of emperical evidence.
What evidence do you have to convince you that there could NOT be a God? This is a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio litteraly 'argument from silence'). The burden of proof lies with the one attempting to prove the existence of something (whether it be God or anything else) not the other way around. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4738 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: 02-28-2008
|
Choosing Your Words
but to be sure that it couldn't be? that there could NOT be a God? Atheism is not the belief that there could not be gods. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Your brand of atheism has the atheist walking around actively denying something. Where some may have an "extreme aversion to anything resembling spirituality", it doesn't stem out of atheism, though that may lead to it once the "extreme aversion to anything resembling spirituality" resolves into "What should I have for lunch?"
The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.
Ernest Hemingway
|
™ Version 4.2