Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 12:03 AM
22 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
282930
31
3233Next
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 451 of 485 (572238)
08-04-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Otto Tellick
08-03-2010 2:54 AM


Re: The search for meaning
When you say "another worldview", do you mean "any other worldview that is different from my own", or do you mean "some particular worldview(s) that I could name"? That is, given a fairly complete list of worldviews different from your own (i.e. the ones attested to exist in our pluralistic society), do they all pose equal risk of "destroying liberty", or is it rather that some are especially bad and others are merely benign in their differences from your own worldview?

I’ve never given classifications of worldviews much thought. I’m guessing the term “worldview” was a fairly recent attempt to erase the immediate stigma that’s associated with religion, and put all views of ‘how the world works’ on a level playing field for discussion. When I said “another worldview” I was really thinking of “THE other worldview”, as if there are only two. The US has Democrats and Republicans, constitutional originalists and non-originalists, all conflicts are generally of two opposing forces, other variations will usually conform with one or the other IMO, concerning a political decision. But a thread on worldviews, on catagories and sub catagories would be interesting.

Admittedly, the piece that I quoted above is something that I might be prone to say myself, despite the obvious dilemma that it poses ("pluralism is okay, but..."). For my part, I do draw distinctions among the various worldviews that differ from my own: Some seek to promote ignorance and promulgate dishonesty by denying observed facts and disallowing objective investigation, and these are a significant threat to liberty, because liberty cannot survive in an atmosphere of ignorance and dishonesty.

Ignorance and dishonesty in science? How about ignorance and dishonesty concerning American history and world history? Is one worse than the other? I’m sure we both think so, only in opposite ways.

marc9000 writes:

Humans are the only species on the planet that organize societies to the extent that certain humans main function is to focus only on that organization. From policemen to politicians, and so many others in between.

... including clergy. Especially clergy. In the U.S., at least, police and politicians are supposed to restrict their focus to purely secular issues. (Police in America normally succeed at this extremely well; many politicians tend to be less successful, and this is a problem.) But the clergy, and the active evangelical congregations, such as Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, have it as their main (if not sole) explicit duty to intrude physically on other people with regard to pushing particular worldviews and beliefs.

I’ve been going to Christian churches all my life, and I’ve never seen it. Every single pastor/minister/priest I’ve seen in person has never gotten near political issues, largely because they don’t want to alienate any of their members.

Of course I’ve seen the antics of the Jesse Jacksons and Jeremiah Wrights on the news, but “intruding physically” has laws against it, and doesn’t have the force associated with it that does government establishments of political organization. I’ve never seen an aggressive Mormon or Jehova’s witness. That you see political threats/conspiracy theories from organized religion is amazing to me. Don't you believe that the "separation of church and state" court ruling will always keep it under control?

And yet it appears you do not acknowledge that the great extent of liberty we have in the US exists by virtue of the secular foundations -- the "naturalistic reasoning" -- built into our Constitution. It is crucially the separation of church from state, of religious authority from political governance, that assures our liberty. But that's a topic for another thread (or a few).

It sure is. History does not evolve. There is both naturalism and religious virtue built into the US constitution. How much of each there is, and what the influence of each is, is something we're sure to disagree on. But the religious virtue is there.

It is exactly this paradox that makes religious schism an inescapable outcome of religious belief. It reveals the inherent lie that is being told every time some theist expounds on God's True Intent™. And every time some other theist expounds on some other incompatible version of God's True Intent™, it's just another lie, competing for the attention of gullible minds. If these are not lies, they are hallucinations or rationalizations or just bare assertions. Whatever they are, they have nothing substantial to back them up. They all have equal "authority", which is to say, as much authority as can be enforced by whatever group has adopted a given fantasy.

And you exempt humanism and atheism from all this?

Nice little sample of Tea Party diatribe there -- I knew I could count on you for that -- and like all Tea Party stuff, debunking it is child's play.

Just like I can count on you to give me samples of Democrat John –control-the-people- Dingle’s extreme left diatribe. Child's play? If we do a thread on the US Constitution, I'll put actual history together with current tea party stuff like you won't believe.

For example, you might assert the superiority of Christianity with regard to "family values" by pointing to the divorce rate among non-Christians,

That one always seems to be cherry picked, but there are other ways to measure the benefits of Christianity. Many non-Christians don’t bother to get married, so that skews what divorce rate statistics actually say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-03-2010 2:54 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by DC85, posted 08-04-2010 10:19 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 452 of 485 (572239)
08-04-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:18 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Hi marc,

And the first steps in that process are when Christianity is compromised with Darwinism.

If "Darwinsim" is so toxic to Christianity, that is the fault of Christians, for tying their faith to a false concept; creationism.

The evidence does not support creationism. It just doesn't. If you insist upon placing Christianity upon such flimsy foundations, you should not be surprised when some people's faith comes down like a house of cards.

They were primary to the consensus of an old earth, and to label them Christians is quite a stretch.

I think the point here is that the religious beliefs of Nineteenth century geologists is irrelevant. When he returned from his voyage, Darwin went to the geologists of his day simply because he had been doing geology. He had important geological information, new and important geological data... but he wasn't really a geologist, so he took it to those who were. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Most students and scientists on this board that make a sport of insulting me show incredible ignorance of those two subjects.

I am neither a student nor a scientist, but I hope I've never made you feel that way. I am always happy to answer any of your questions as best I can.

I may disagree with you about... well, almost everything, but at least I get the feeling that you are engaging in a genuine dialogue. That's not always the case with creationist posters.

One thing that you have to remember is that in my experience (and that of many other members no doubt) there are two kinds of creationist questions. There are genuine inquiries and there are questions that are only designed to try and poke holes in the ToE. The latter kind don't tend to engender sympathy from evolutionists. After one has been of the receiving end of a few of these annoyances, one becomes a little wary of creationist questions. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but there it is nonetheless.

A relevant question would probably be – was the evolutionists superior thought process that is the subject of this thread a prevalent thing in the writings of the books I listed in message 432?

I'm unsure what you're asking for here. Of the books you mention, the only one that is about evolution is Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which is really more about the social and philosophical implications of evolution. Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist. the rest are atheist books, that only touch upon evolution. None are serious attempts to explain evolution. If you are interested in a popular science book about evolution, I recommend Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.

If you do pick it up, you'll quickly notice that Coyne never appeals to TOOS as if it were the Bible. He makes no appeal to Darwin as if he were Christ. His approach differs greatly from that of the average religious apologist or evangelist. So yes, evolutionists do differ in approach to creationists, even outside of peer review.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : typos


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 453 of 485 (572240)
08-04-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:18 PM


Re: The search for meaning
marc9000 writes:

And the first steps in that process are when Christianity is compromised with Darwinism. Once it’s weakened, atheism is “come by”. As Bluejay has indicated, it’s happening to him, and we see it’s already happened to you. It confirms what is said about the dangers of Christian compromise with evolution.

I really have to take exception to that. The more I have been able to learn about God's creation, including evolution, the more convinced I have become about the truth of my Christian faith. Read Francis Collin's book The Language of God.

Let's face it, if Christianity represents an accurate picture of our world then it only holds to reason that it will be consistent with accurate science. I have found nothing about science that contradicts Christianity and as far as evolution is concerned it makes no difference whether God chose to create through an evolutionary process or by some other means. What is important to my Christian faith, (amongst other things of course), is that we are created beings and that the creator is God.

In essence, as one of the great Christian minds of the past said, (I can't remember which one right now), we have been given two books in which we can learn about God. One is the Bible and one is his creation. In the end they cannot be in contradiction. There is only one ultimate truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:18 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2270 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 454 of 485 (572244)
08-04-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:30 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Their attempt to force “pseudoscience creationism into the science curriculum” may have been only an attempt to counter an earlier forcing of pseudoscience (atheism) that’s already established into the science curriculum.

Atheism is not pseudoscience nor does it claim to be science as creationists claims of creation. There is no movement to implement atheism in science. Atheism isn't even an "ism," It is simply a belief in no gods nothing else. There is no Atheist dogma as there is in Fundie Creotardism. Show me an Atheist who wants Atheism included in science classes. The only thing that Atheism & Science have in common is common sense.

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : typo for both edits + added line


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 455 of 485 (572246)
08-04-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:48 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Ignorance and dishonesty in science? How about ignorance and dishonesty concerning American history and world history? .

Oh... Do you mean like how the Texas School board and numerous other truly uneducated keep pushing the falsehood that the founding fathers were all Christian and that the United States was founded on Christianity even though evidence shows it to be very Different?

Do you mean how American Schools teach about World War 2 without discussing what caused it and how the Nazi party took power and what they "stood for"?

nd you exempt humanism and atheism from all this?

Science and evolution have nothing to do with atheism. Please stop trying to make them the same thing. Science has no opinion on God because God cannot be observed. Science limits itself to what can be observed.

If you're talking about secularism in Society that also has NOTHING to do with atheism. If something has a neutral stance on religion it is not pushing any agenda or ideals at all.

I’ve been going to Christian churches all my life, and I’ve never seen it. Every single pastor/minister/priest I’ve seen in person has never gotten near political issues, largely because they don’t want to alienate any of their members.

No they just talk about "moral values" which push you a political way and networks like CBN talk about the absurdity called "moral" decline and how the "evil secular/ atheist/ gay agenda" are causing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:48 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 456 of 485 (572260)
08-05-2010 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by marc9000
08-02-2010 9:49 PM


Re: The search for meaning
Hi, Marc.

marc9000 writes:

Why do you think I was out of line by quoting Francis Crick?

I didn’t say that. But, since you ask, and since I do disagree with your Crick quote, here is why I think you were out of line:

The assertion that I objected to was this:

marc9000 writes:

An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.

In the cited page from Francis Crick, no mention of meaning or meaningless is made, so it doesn’t even relate to the assertion that I found objectionable.

I admit that my response in Message 272 was problematic, and probably led directly to your using Francis Crick as a counter-example. I think that was the result of some horrible editing on my part (I make that mistake a lot). I apologize for confusing the issue with a poorly worded response.

-----

marc9000 writes:

marc9000 writes:

Are Christians supposed to be above blunt assertions?

Bluejay writes:

Yes. Why shouldn’t they be?

Because evolutionists make no attempt to be above it. There is a logical fallacy called “argument by emotive language”...

There is also a logical fallacy called “tu quoque”: you just committed it.

Perhaps even more ironically, your tu quoque argument was “you commit the logical fallacy of argument by emotive language too.”

So, that means you just used a logical fallacy to justify your logical fallacy.

-----

marc9000 writes:

Do you deny that evolutionists use [blunt assertions] quite often on these forums?

No, I don’t. But, before you posted on this thread, I didn’t see any that seemed worth responding to. Now that I’ve gotten involved in this discussion with you, I haven’t put as much effort into reading other posters’ posts, and, unlike you, I’m not good at dealing with swarms of opponents (I take forever to compose a post), so I didn’t want to take on any more tasks on this thread.

It’s possible that I’m a bit biased toward empiricists. When I see an evolutionist posting something, I see the logical reasoning that I used as the impetus behind what they think.

-----

marc9000 writes:

Evolutionists certainly imply that science answers every question they have.

I think they’ve made it pretty clear that science doesn’t tell them what the meaning of life is. Let me know what you think they should do to make this clearer, and I’ll gladly tell them to clarify in the ways requested (within reason, of course).

-----

marc9000 writes:

Bluejay writes:

Why is testing bad, Marc?

http://www.bassfishing.org/...eaks/FalseTeachings/beware.htm

That link is about false teachings, not about testing ideas.

All those scriptures seem to be more about evil, stubborn people who don’t test their ideas than about people who do.

Why is it bad to test an idea before running with it?

-----

marc9000 writes:

So you think the starter of this thread, with his assertion that evolutionists possess a superior thought process to creationists wasn't typical of the evolutionists community's demeanor?

I think Tomato was being antagonistic in his OP, and that he overgeneralized in one or two cases.

But, judging by the nature of his posts, Tomato doesn’t seem to be the bad-tempered type, and maybe it was just his ironic sense of humor that made it sound that way to me.

At any rate, I view the OP as essentially Tomato presenting (in a far less tentative voice than I think he should have used) his explanations for some of the common creationist arguments that are made on this board. His voice indicated to me that he wanted his evolutionist buddies to discuss his new hypothesis with him, and his language in subsequent posts seems to confirm this to me.

Also, I don’t think he asserted that evolutionist thought processes were superior to creationist thought processes. I certainly implied it, but he spent his whole time focusing on the differences, and how those differences might explain why he can’t figure creationists out.

-----

Last thought. Remember when you said this:

marc9000 writes:

It’s like any physical conflict, when facing machine guns, smiling and making nice in opposition usually doesn’t win.

?

Well, I can’t help but notice that I seem to have gotten more attention than everybody else (you’ve made more responses to me than to anybody else), even though I’ve been pretty boring in my mildness so far.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2010 9:49 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 457 of 485 (572290)
08-05-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by GDR
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
GDR writes:

The current evidence points to something beyond the natural.

Given that no evidence of anything we at one time didn't understand has ever been found to "point to something beyond the natural," and that in fact it has always been found to point to something natural, how do you know what evidence that "points to something beyond the natural" looks like when you haven't got a single example?

Could you at least attempt to make your position make sense for us instead of just declaring that it "points to something beyond the natural?" The entire history of science is one of encountering perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seem almost magical and that in the end turned out to be entirely natural.

So putting this in the context of the specific example of the math we use to model the origin of the universe, what happened at T=0 is a perplexing and baffling phenomena that seems almost magical. Every prior perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seemed almost magical was eventually found to have natural explanations. Yet you think that in this case it points to something beyond the natural. Can you give some clue, some hint, some tiny shred of rational explanation, for why you think this?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM Percy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 458 of 485 (572336)
08-05-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by GDR
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Hi, GDR.

GDR writes:

The current evidence points to something beyond the natural.

If you define "natural" to mean "what we currently know about the way the universe works," then I'd say you're right: the current evidence clearly points beyond that.

But, if you define "natural" to mean "things that occur through the basic processes that define the universe," then I'd say you're wrong: the current evidence clearly points to something we don't understand and can't identify, and thus, can't assign to either the "natural" or "super-natural" categories.

Make sense?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 459 of 485 (572349)
08-05-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by GDR
08-04-2010 8:15 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
GDR writes:

There are two ways of looking at that. One way, as you point out, is that the application is incorrect and that may very well be the case. The other is that the application is correct and that it points to something other than a purely natural solution.

There are actually many ways to look at it. You could look at the way I point out, the way you point out, or possibly create a way to look at it using only imagination, or only things we know are false. Lots of ways and not all of them have evidence pointing in their direction.

In fact, there's only one way to look at it that fits the pattern of these situations. When these situations occur, the pattern shows us that the application is likely incorrect and we require a re-thinking of our physical world surrounding these observations (I showed the pattern with my previous examples). Your way has no pattern to show that it should be considered (unless you have something more to show here?). There has never, ever been a scenario where "something other than a purely natural solution" has been determined. Likewise, using only our imagination has no pattern to fall back on to produce a valid conclusion. Neither does looking at the situation using ideas we know are false.

GDR writes:

I am merely saying that as of now the evidence points beyond the natural, although I agree it may just be because at this point we don't have enough information. A final conclusion can't be made one way or the other.

Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" is.
In order for "the evidence to point" in any direction there needs to be a pattern to follow. That's what evidence is: factual information that is the same for everyone. The history of these patterns are the same for everyone. All those examples I explained in my previous message are the same for everyone, they are facts. This pattern that is known to exist in what we know so far of reality is what evidence is. The fact that you understand "Stile sees it this way" and "GDR sees it this way" is an indication that one (or possibly both) of us are not looking at the facts which are the same for everyone... not looking at the previous patterns that are the same for everyone who cares to research them... not looking at the evidence.

Your proposal of "beyond the natural" can be your idea, your thoughts or your desire. And, in which case, I would encourage you to follow your heart and try to show such a thing to be true. If you can, it will open up a brand new area of reality that no one has understood to exist before (and possibly begin some "patterns" of it's own that could be used as an evidential basis for any similar future issues). However, before that happens... it is dishonest and wrong for you to say that this is where the evidence is pointing when it isn't. There is no previous pattern (factual information that is the same for everyone) to follow that shows "beyond the natural" to be a likely outcome.

Also, no one is talking about a "final conclusion", I'm simply talking about where the evidence is pointing to... or, in other words... where the previous known patterns can be utilitzed to apply to the situation and give us a possible target to envision in order to test against reality to see if it may be a possible conclusion.

To summarize:

"Beyond the natural" has no previous known patterns to appeal to.
"Application is incorrect" has all the previous known patterns to appeal to.

This means that "beyond the natural" has no evidence pointing in it's direction.
This mean that "application is incorrect" has evidence pointing in it's direction.

This does not mean that "application is incorrect" is the final conclusion and "beyond the natural" is wrong. This will only be decided (as you say) once more information is discovered and we're able to move forward. This is where you can follow your idea and (if you are right....) one day add "more information" to the scenario. This is also where other people currently studying the situation are attempting to re-think the application to see if they too can add "more information" to the scenario.

However, with the information we have currently at our disposal, "beyond the natural" is simply an idea, there are no patterns that indicate this idea to be a productive source of information... there is no evidence (currently) pointing towards this idea at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by GDR, posted 08-04-2010 8:15 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 8:11 PM Stile has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 460 of 485 (572352)
08-05-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by Percy
08-05-2010 8:04 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Becausae I initially posted this so far back in the thread I will repost the quote that I used to start with. It is from Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos"
quote:
In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity. And that's a problem. It's nonsense. Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity. Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless. All it tells us is that the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when merged go haywire.

As Greene says we don't encounter inifinity in the natural world. In the natural world an answer of inifinty is meaningless. Greene obviously believes that there must be a physical or natural answer in the end as he calls the answer of the calculations as they stand nonsense. A non-physical or natural answer is meaningless according to Greene. Maybe he's right but it can't be proven, however as things stand the calculations point to something outside the natural.

Percy writes:

So putting this in the context of the specific example of the math we use to model the origin of the universe, what happened at T=0 is a perplexing and baffling phenomena that seems almost magical. Every prior perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seemed almost magical was eventually found to have natural explanations. Yet you think that in this case it points to something beyond the natural. Can you give some clue, some hint, some tiny shred of rational explanation, for why you think this?

All I am saying is that as thigs stand right now the answer in either the Greene quote, or if you like in the case of what happened at T=0, points to an answer of infinity. Inifinity isn't something that we encounter in our 4 dimensional world or natural world.

That is not to say that it won't be found that the calculations won't be found to be wrong and that a natural answer won't be found to be correct in the end. Just to say that a natural answer has always been found doesn't mean anything as those are the only answers that science, as we know it now, can find.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:04 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by jar, posted 08-05-2010 11:02 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 462 by Taq, posted 08-05-2010 12:20 PM GDR has responded
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:36 PM GDR has responded
 Message 467 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2010 11:32 PM GDR has responded
 Message 474 by onifre, posted 08-07-2010 3:27 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 461 of 485 (572357)
08-05-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by GDR
08-05-2010 10:52 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Imagine that you are riding on a beam of light while you look at the Basel clock tower.

Utter nonsense.

BUT...it was the beginning of the train of thought that eventually became the Theory of Relativity.

The fact that answers we get are nonsense, that they describe things not found in reality as we see it, does not point towards "super-natural", only towards what we do not yet understand.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 462 of 485 (572367)
08-05-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by GDR
08-05-2010 10:52 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
As Greene says we don't encounter inifinity in the natural world. In the natural world an answer of inifinty is meaningless. Greene obviously believes that there must be a physical or natural answer in the end as he calls the answer of the calculations as they stand nonsense. A non-physical or natural answer is meaningless according to Greene. Maybe he's right but it can't be proven, however as things stand the calculations point to something outside the natural.

How can calculations point to something outside of the natural? How does that work? 1/0=infinity, therefore leprechauns? Is that your argument?

The fact of the matter is that our current understanding of nature is incomplete, and probably always will be. GR and QM are great models, but they are just models. They are not reality. When you try to combine GR and QM and get infinities (aka wrong answers) it tells us that GR and QM are wrong in some way. It is very much like the fall of classical mechanics when the precession in Mercury's orbit was first observed. The failure of Newton's equations did not point to something outside of nature. It pointed to a problem in Newton's equations and our understanding of gravity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 8:20 PM Taq has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 463 of 485 (572435)
08-05-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by Stile
08-05-2010 10:44 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Stile writes:

In fact, there's only one way to look at it that fits the pattern of these situations. When these situations occur, the pattern shows us that the application is likely incorrect and we require a re-thinking of our physical world surrounding these observations (I showed the pattern with my previous examples). Your way has no pattern to show that it should be considered (unless you have something more to show here?). There has never, ever been a scenario where "something other than a purely natural solution" has been determined. Likewise, using only our imagination has no pattern to fall back on to produce a valid conclusion. Neither does looking at the situation using ideas we know are false.

If there is a natural solution to be found then science will presumably sort it out eventually, as it has done with many things in the past. If however there is no natural solution, then science which is only equipped to find natural solutions will never be able to come to a conclusive conclusion.

To say that science has always found natural solutions in the past is a given because they can't discover anything but natural solutions whether or not there is anything beyond the natural.

It does occur to me though that there are a number of scientific theories out there such as string theory which are open to additional dimensions or universes. Would that be considered something beyond our normal 4 dimensional world?

Stile writes:

Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" is.
In order for "the evidence to point" in any direction there needs to be a pattern to follow. That's what evidence is: factual information that is the same for everyone. The history of these patterns are the same for everyone. All those examples I explained in my previous message are the same for everyone, they are facts. This pattern that is known to exist in what we know so far of reality is what evidence is. The fact that you understand "Stile sees it this way" and "GDR sees it this way" is an indication that one (or possibly both) of us are not looking at the facts which are the same for everyone... not looking at the previous patterns that are the same for everyone who cares to research them... not looking at the evidence.

I don't pretend to be anything but the rankest amateur in anything scientific so I am reliant on what I read by those who know what they are talking about. You state that evidence needs a pattern. Greene says that the calculations involved when combining GR and QM nearly always come to infinity. Doesn't that constitute a pattern?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Stile, posted 08-05-2010 10:44 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 4:00 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 464 of 485 (572436)
08-05-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Taq
08-05-2010 12:20 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Taq writes:

How can calculations point to something outside of the natural? How does that work? 1/0=infinity, therefore leprechauns? Is that your argument?

It seems to me that most cosmological discoveries have been made because mathematical calculations pointed toward a specific solution. Aren't they currently looking for the Higgs boson, or gravitons because the current calculations point in that direction.

Right now according to Greene the calculations point to an answer of infinity. We don't experience infinity in this world except as a mathematical concept. I am also not saying that this proves the existence of any deity including leprechauns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Taq, posted 08-05-2010 12:20 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:17 PM GDR has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 465 of 485 (572437)
08-05-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by GDR
08-05-2010 10:52 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
GDR writes:

As Greene says we don't encounter inifinity in the natural world. In the natural world an answer of inifinty is meaningless. Greene obviously believes that there must be a physical or natural answer in the end as he calls the answer of the calculations as they stand nonsense. A non-physical or natural answer is meaningless according to Greene. Maybe he's right but it can't be proven, however as things stand the calculations point to something outside the natural.

I asked for some shred of rational explanation for why you believe this, but all you do is repeat your assertion. The prelude about what Greene thinks argues against you.

Look at it this way. Say I'm having lunch with my buddies and the conversation turns to my discussion board, and I mention that there's a guy who believes that some things we don't know point to non-natural explanations. They ask me why this guy thinks so. What am I supposed to answer? I don't know, because you haven't told me anything that makes sense.

Anyway, Greene can't *prove* there is a natural answer because in science nothing is ever proved. Science supports theories with evidence, it doesn't prove them, and the evidence is that everything successfully explained so far has had a natural explanation. So when you say this:

Just to say that a natural answer has always been found doesn't mean anything as those are the only answers that science, as we know it now, can find.

Then I just have to ask about the obvious implication: Have any of the non-scientific processes of inquiry ever established anything to have a non-natural explanation?

And of course the answer is that nothing, including science, has ever reliably established a non-natural cause for anything. If the history of our expanding knowledge has taught us anything it's that the superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense that most people have accepted throughout history and still accept today has never, ever, panned out. So the question remains: Why do you think it's going to pan out this time?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by GDR, posted 08-06-2010 2:38 AM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
282930
31
3233Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019