Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
120 online now:
(120 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,494 Year: 7,242/23,288 Month: 1,148/1,214 Week: 160/303 Day: 36/44 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relevance of origins to modern science
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 124 (707193)
09-24-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 12:05 PM


haha, wow that is distasteful Scientific language. I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one. You are already well on your way

Er ... but did you not notice that you're responding to someone who calls himself "Catholic Scientist"?

He believes that he is answerable to his God. Lots of the pro-evolution posters on this forum believe that they are answerable to God. The guy (Percy) who set up this forum believes in God. But because Catholic Scientist used the word "fuck" you combine the strawman fallacy with the genetic fallacy, and write: "I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one." Because one person who actually believes in God used the word "fuck", you feel entitled to write that stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:05 PM Ra3MaN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 32 of 124 (707198)
09-24-2013 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 12:38 PM


Who can know what is outside of matter, time and space?

So are you suggesting that since no one can know we can correctly infer it must be supernatural?

Sounds like Russell's teapot to me.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:38 PM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19791
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 33 of 124 (707211)
09-24-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 11:46 AM


Ra3MaN writes:

I guess we are free to research whatever... we get funding for .

It's more simple than that. We are free to research anything. If you wanted to censor scientific investigation then how would you know beforehand which proposed research might end up contradicting your religious beliefs?

...we can never see how, in the latter statement that level of divergence is possible. plausible perhaps...

Not possible yet plausible? Your religious beliefs are confounding your English.

The non religous person, could say since the 18s segment is present in ribosomes of all eukaryotes, therefore all eukaryotes diverged from a single organism.

Interesting how the religious person accepts the laws of descent for the human and animal passengers of an ancient boat in whose existence they fervently believe despite the lack of evidence, but rejects those same laws when applied for fact-based scientific analysis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:46 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32510
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 124 (707214)
09-24-2013 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 11:46 AM


the religious person would say ...
The non religous person, could say since the 18s segment is present in ribosomes of all eukaryotes, therefore all eukaryotes diverged from a single organism.

The honest religious person would say the same thing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:46 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Ra3MaN
Member (Idle past 2334 days)
Posts: 31
From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: 09-23-2013


Message 35 of 124 (707234)
09-25-2013 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
09-24-2013 12:22 PM


I made a joke, I apologize, I thought you didn't care about other people.

No, its not a cop-out. That's just the way science is performed

...And yet "gap" questions can be ignored until someone cares to study them. A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like. Also, concepts, such as Abioigenises is a pivotal point in chemical history and yet it is seemingly impossible to assess without guessing variables to a large degree, even using inference upon inference is tricky. wouldn't you say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-24-2013 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 09-25-2013 8:59 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 09-25-2013 9:25 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2013 11:11 AM Ra3MaN has responded
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2013 11:28 AM Ra3MaN has responded
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 09-25-2013 12:17 PM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19791
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(4)
Message 36 of 124 (707246)
09-25-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


Ra3MaN writes:

A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like.

My, my, what a conundrum! How could we ever figure out what happened when no one was there? What a mystery! What a staggeringly difficult problem! It's not like things that happen ever leave any evidence behind. No wonder you can't get your head around it.

In reality almost everything that happens leaves behind evidence, and if that evidence can be examined then oftentimes we have a fair shot at figuring things out. Across the Bible Belt there must be many criminal investigators who are also creationists, and I'm sure they could explain to you in great detail how they are able to decipher past events without ever being in situ.

Also, concepts, such as Abioigenises is a pivotal point in chemical history and yet it is seemingly impossible to assess without guessing variables to a large degree, even using inference upon inference is tricky. wouldn't you say?

Of course, sometimes the evidence isn't available for examination. After 4 billions years very little evidence is left and we may never untangle the mystery of the origin of life. But not knowing how it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. The geologic evidence tells us that in very early times there was no life on Earth, and later on there was, so obviously abiogenesis happened.

So I guess you're going to argue this both ways? You're going to argue that there are some things we shouldn't research because they might contradict someone's religious beliefs (your religious beliefs, no doubt), and you're also going to argue that there are some things we can never know because we weren't there to see it happen? Does that about sum up your approach?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 124 (707249)
09-25-2013 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


perform in situ studies

in situ has many uses but I do not think this is a correct use of the term.

It is used more to describe a physical setting not a temporal one. I have never heard of it used in a temporal sense. I could be wrong.

Source


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

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 38 of 124 (707256)
09-25-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


And yet "gap" questions can be ignored until someone cares to study them.

So what's your point? People have chosen to study those questions, and now they cannot be ignored. Exactly what are you advocating here. Are you saying that scientists are a bunch of trouble makers, or in league with Satan?

A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like

So you believe the only way to study stellar formation is to build one in a lab? Not being able to do so scares you? Just what do you mean to say here?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:38 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 39 of 124 (707258)
09-25-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like.

And yet it is possible to find out about the past.

For example, I feel as certain as certain can be (don't you?) that ceratopsians such as Triceratops once lived and walked the Earth. To disbelieve it would verge on paranoia --- it would be to suspect that the fossil record is a lie.

Without any "in situ studies" I feel more certain of that than I do of some propositions that can be tested in the present, such as that the latest heart-disease drug has fewer side effects than the last one, or that the Higgs boson really exists.

If we want to know how certain a thing is, we have to look at the evidence on which it's founded, it would be crude and misleading just to suppose that our knowledge of present things must necessarily be more certain than our knowledge of past things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5610
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 40 of 124 (707265)
09-25-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like.

Yes, I have that problem with the trees in my back yard.

No matter how closely I watch, I never see them grow. So it just must be that some invisible pink unicorns are magically poofing to be a bigger size when I am not watching. What other explanation could there be?

[/sarcasm]


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Ra3MaN
Member (Idle past 2334 days)
Posts: 31
From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: 09-23-2013


Message 41 of 124 (707294)
09-26-2013 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2013 1:52 PM


wow, I really wish that I had more time to read all these posts. I will just have to get through what I can as fast as possible...

haha, wow that is distasteful Scientific language. I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one. You are already well on your way
Er ... but did you not notice that you're responding to someone who calls himself "Catholic Scientist"?

He believes that he is answerable to his God. Lots of the pro-evolution posters on this forum believe that they are answerable to God. The guy (Percy) who set up this forum believes in God. But because Catholic Scientist used the word "fuck" you combine the strawman fallacy with the genetic fallacy, and write: "I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one." Because one person who actually believes in God used the word "fuck", you feel entitled to write that stuff.

I was wrong to Judge. I was more referring to his disregard for other people regarding their beliefs. This could include anyone, even his superiors even a Catholic god. Technically he is disregarding anyone how has opposing beliefs. profanity is a simple substitute for a well thought out challenge/insult in my opinion.

I guess this is a separate topic, but in terms of evolution, who does man answer to? private message me....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2013 1:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-26-2013 11:06 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2013 11:41 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Ra3MaN
Member (Idle past 2334 days)
Posts: 31
From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: 09-23-2013


Message 42 of 124 (707296)
09-26-2013 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
09-25-2013 11:11 AM


So what's your point? People have chosen to study those questions, and now they cannot be ignored. Exactly what are you advocating here. Are you saying that scientists are a bunch of trouble makers, or in league with Satan?

I am saying that until Scientists can answer ''gap'' questions, they can feel free to avoid it.
- How do chemicals become DNA? - "we are working on it...."
- What caused the big bang? - "we are working on it...."
- How does time cause matter and energy to become life? - "we are working on it...."
- Why are all galaxies not spinning in the same direction (conserved momentum)? - "we are working on it..."
- How can distance be measured in light years when the speed of light is subject to gravity... etc.?

how much of my questions can really be answered?

Do you get my point?

So you believe the only way to study stellar formation is to build one in a lab? Not being able to do so scares you? Just what do you mean to say here?

We have tried to cause a big bang in a lab, why not stellar formation... Scientist have never observed the formation of a star, and to my knowledge how to make one is pure speculation. If a star can't form under natural conditions, then how is the sun even in existence? one of our primary resources couldn't have just been magically formed by the hands of a higher power could it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 09-25-2013 11:11 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-26-2013 8:11 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 09-26-2013 10:18 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 09-26-2013 12:15 PM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Ra3MaN
Member (Idle past 2334 days)
Posts: 31
From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: 09-23-2013


Message 43 of 124 (707297)
09-26-2013 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
09-25-2013 11:28 AM


And yet it is possible to find out about the past.

Yes, you are definitely correct, but how far back can we really know? How many people were falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on evidence. I have to say, since better forensics that number is less but these cases are weeks or years old as opposed to millions and billions, with high error margins.

that ceratopsians such as Triceratops once lived and walked the Earth. To disbelieve it would verge on paranoia

I can believe that. The fact: found a skeleton in layers of sediment. When it walked the earth is an inference, how it died is an inference, how it lived is an inference. what is more, all these are based on other inference, such as varve inference, ice layer inference, radioactive isotope degradation inference, etc...

Is inference upon inference really empirical science, or just making jigsaw puzzle pieces fit?

I will try to get to your other posts, you are really wise.... I am learning a lot from you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2013 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 09-26-2013 8:22 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 09-26-2013 10:26 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2013 11:08 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19791
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 44 of 124 (707306)
09-26-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Ra3MaN
09-26-2013 4:38 AM


Ra3MaN writes:

I am saying that until Scientists can answer ''gap'' questions, they can feel free to avoid it.
- How do chemicals become DNA? - "we are working on it...."
- What caused the big bang? - "we are working on it...."
- How does time cause matter and energy to become life? - "we are working on it...."
- Why are all galaxies not spinning in the same direction (conserved momentum)? - "we are working on it..."
- How can distance be measured in light years when the speed of light is subject to gravity... etc.?

The last two are nonsense, but the first three are active areas of scientific inquiry. By what stretch of logic can you say that scientists are avoiding questions currently receiving a great deal of attention.

We have tried to cause a big bang in a lab,...

No, we have not. Maybe you're thinking of fusion experiments.

...why not stellar formation...

You mean actually create a star in the lab? Where you'd need enough gravity to create pressures that result in fusion? Where that much gravity requires at least 2x1029 kg, or about 30,000 times the mass of the entire earth? Really?

Scientist have never observed the formation of a star,...

What's this:

...and to my knowledge how to make one is pure speculation.

I believe you. The part about "to my knowledge," that is. Have you ever even heard of Fred Hoyle?

one of our primary resources couldn't have just been magically formed by the hands of a higher power could it?

This is a science thread. In science threads we follow the evidence. How much evidence do you have of any kind of higher power anywhere doing anything?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:38 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19791
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 45 of 124 (707308)
09-26-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN
09-26-2013 4:57 AM


Ra3MaN writes:

Yes, you are definitely correct, but how far back can we really know?

How old do you personally think evidence should be before you can start ignoring it?

How many people were falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on evidence.

Were scientists convicting these people, or judges, lawyers and juries? From what I observe, the more we bring actual science into the courtroom, the more accurate the convictions become.

Helpful hint: One very effective way to avoid jury duty here in the States is to identify your profession as "scientist" when questioned by lawyers during jury selection.

When it walked the earth is an inference, how it died is an inference, how it lived is an inference. what is more, all these are based on other inference, such as varve inference, ice layer inference, radioactive isotope degradation inference, etc...

Is inference upon inference really empirical science, or just making jigsaw puzzle pieces fit?

I'm almost afraid to ask - what's wrong with using inference to see how the "jigsaw puzzle pieces" of evidence fit together? What other method is available? Or is it your position, "That which we did not see we cannot know."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020