Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
34 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,268 Year: 22,304/19,786 Month: 867/1,834 Week: 367/500 Day: 0/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6896
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 466 of 485 (572445)
08-05-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: The search for meaning
How about American History peer review? Assertions about “separation of church and state” being central to US foundings would hit the trash can faster than a scientific peer review of a Michael Behe research paper.

Oh please provide evidence for this. Do you realize who were the biggest supporters of separation of church and state in the formation of this country?
I thought not.

The religious that is who. They had seen through the experience of europe what happens to minority churches when one belief becomes one with the government. Do you have any evidence that the prevailing view was that a church and the government should be one entity? Any?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 467 of 485 (572458)
08-05-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by GDR
08-05-2010 10:52 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
... as things stand the calculations point to something outside the natural.

No, they point to something that isn't true. As he points out:

Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity.

Now he doesn't just say that the combination of QM and GR only yield infinity when applied to things that we can't observe and that you'd like to think are supernatural; he says that "they almost always yield one answer: infinity". Contrary to what we actually measure.


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 469 by GDR, posted 08-06-2010 2:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 468 of 485 (572462)
08-06-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Percy
08-05-2010 8:36 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Percy writes:

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.

Tell me where we encounter an infinite dimension to anything in the natural world? If it ever was proven, (and I can't begin to imagine how it could be), that the final answer to the problem was infinity it seems to me that it we would have to consider it as something outside of what we consider natural.

Percy writes:

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?

No, and I doubt they ever well.

Percy writes:

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?

I have never said that I thought it would "pan out this time". I have no idea how or if it will pan out. I just found the statement interesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 08-05-2010 8:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Percy, posted 08-06-2010 5:29 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 469 of 485 (572463)
08-06-2010 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2010 11:32 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Dr Adequate writes:

No, they point to something that isn't true.

Where is the proof of that? Isn't that just your opinion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2010 11:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 4:46 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 470 of 485 (572468)
08-06-2010 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by GDR
08-06-2010 2:40 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Where is the proof of that? Isn't that just your opinion?

No, it's the "opinion" of the dials and meters to which Greene referred. The calculations say one thing, the observations say another.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by GDR, posted 08-06-2010 2:40 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 471 of 485 (572475)
08-06-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by GDR
08-06-2010 2:38 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Hi GDR,

Okay, I guess I give up prodding you for answers. If you can't support your contention that an answer of infinity indicates the possibility of the supernatural then could you at least stop repeating the claim?

Since infinity as an answer seems to be driving your sense of something beyond the natural, consider something even more unnatural, imaginary numbers. If anything would point to the supernatural then imaginary numbers should be it, and yet the field where I began my education, electrical engineering, is filled with imaginary numbers, and infinities, too. For example, the analysis of AC circuits (that's the electricity that comes out of your walls) requires both imaginary numbers and infinities in spades.

Infinity and imaginary numbers are helpful mathematical concepts that enable us to build accurate mathematical models of reality. They're not indicators of the supernatural.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by GDR, posted 08-06-2010 2:38 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 472 of 485 (572574)
08-06-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by GDR
08-05-2010 8:11 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
GDR writes:

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.


Agreed. Science may not be able to find all natural solutions as well, though. It's quite possible (although the romantic in me doesn't like to think about it) that some aspect of the natural, physical world is simply beyond any and all human comprehension.

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.

Fair enough. However, this "given" is not the reason why a natural solution is expected. That would be a fallacy. The reason why the natural solution is expected is because of the pattern of finding natural solutions to problems that initially seem confusing.

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?

If you're looking for "scientific consensus" on the issue... I wish I could give you an answer, but you have asked a question that is above my head in such matters.
If you're looking for my own personal response, I would say yes. Something in an additional dimension would be "beyond our normal 4 dimensional world"... almost trivially true by definition. However, I would think that once knowledge is gained of such an extra dimension, it would then be a part of our "normal x dimensional world".

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?

Yes, a very objective pattern.
A very objective pattern that matches many other objective patterns which leads us to believe that some confusion exists between our current models of the physical world (GR and QM) and the reality of the physical world.

It certainly does constitute a pattern.
It just doesn't constitute a pattern that points towards anything being "beyond our natural world" or "non-physical". Since such things have as-of-yet never been discovered, there exists no pattern to point towards them. This doesn't mean they can't exist, only that according to the information available to us... they are unlikely to exist and there is no rational or reasonable reason to pursue their existance.

There still exists an infinite number of irrational and unreasonable reasons to pursue the existance of something that is "beyond our natural world".
Irrational and unreasonable pursuits do sometimes produce "real knowledge" of things that exist. It is just extremely rare, and almost always a waste of time and money.

There are stories of "crazy old kooks" who irrationally and unreasonably believe certain species are alive and well when all evidence points towards their extinction. Sometimes (rarely) these kooks turn out to be right... and the knowledge is then re-assimilated into the scientific consensus.
But of the 1 or 2 success stories... the millions and millions of "crazy old kooks" who never do find what they're looking for are never heard about. It's not really news when no one expects a kook to find anything and the kook ends up... not finding anything

As I said before, I am only discussing "where the evidence is pointing"... where the rational and reasonable patterns are objectively leading. But reality doesn't care what information we have at our disposal. Reality just is. "It is what it is". It's up to us to figure it all out.

(I really do hope some people keep irrationally and unreasonably searching for things "beyond the natural"... that way they can (possibly) waste their lives and I'll still reap the benefits if they actually find anything... )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 8:11 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by GDR, posted 08-06-2010 6:43 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 473 of 485 (572607)
08-06-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Stile
08-06-2010 4:00 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Hi Stile

I think that we have actually come together on this. There is no part of your post that I don't agree with.

I know Percy keeps looking for me to support my argument but frankly the concept of infinity being something that doesn't exist in our natural world is all I got, at least from a scientific point of view and I don't see us going into a philosophical or theological discussion on the issue. (Been down that road on this forum just a few times before. )

Thanks for the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 4:00 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1294 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 474 of 485 (572779)
08-07-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by GDR
08-05-2010 10:52 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
I may be very late to this discussion but I just wanted to correct your use of cetain words.

As Greene says we don't encounter inifinity in the natural world.

But Greene doesn't say that, the word "natural world" does not appear in the quote.

Where we don't encounter infinite is in the macro world, not "the natural world." General Relativity explains the macro world, no infinite there. However, quantum mechanics (the micro world) does have infinite.

What Greene means by the quote you gave is that, when merging the macro world with the micro world, equations yield infinite. It has nothing to do with natural or supernatural - it's micro -vs- macro that he's refering to.

Hope this helped...

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 475 of 485 (572949)
08-08-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:18 PM


Re: The search for meaning
And the first steps in that process are when Christianity is compromised with Darwinism.

Only because you construe a Christianity that embraces science as weaker than one that denies it, but those Christians who embrace science say that your faith is the weaker one. And in my experience more atheists come from fundamentalism and creationism than from science-embracing theism; the incredible tension between the fundamentalist, Biblical literalist dogma and what can be plainly seen with ones own eyes is responsible for a lot of deconversions.

But, frankly, you're right that clear-eyed observation of the natural world is substantial tension with adherence to religion, because religion is fundamentally an exercise in denying what is obviously true.

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

Why? I'm not familiar with Jesus taking any position on the age of the Earth. And even if he did they wouldn't be the first or last Christians to disregard some piece of dogma you see as central.

They really should get caught up in those things if they’d like to have an informed opinion on just how much all evidence actually supports their atheistic worldview.

I don't see why, given that atheism is based neither on Christianity nor on US history. Those subjects would seem to be completely irrelevant to the practice and support for atheism.

On the other hand, evolution is a scientific theory of biology, and to assess its degree of truth or falsity means inspecting and researching biological and chemical evidence, something you don't seem to possess the education to do.

I'm sorry you've been made fun of by people who know less history than you - although it seems like you know a great deal of fictitious history, frankly - but I can't understand how that's an argument against learning biology. Can you elaborate?

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?

The books you listed aren't science books, they're not even about evolution. Did you think Daniel Dennett was a biologist? He's not. Sam Harris has a degree in neuroscience, which is close, but he's not an active researcher in that field.

Dawkins is a biologist, but "The God Delusion" isn't his case for evolution, it's his case for atheism.

But it can be difficult to learn when one, or a dozen, questionees get angry.

I'm not angry, but if you find your posts anger others, maybe it's because you make ludicrous and unsupported imprecations against the characters of others. Maybe you could stop doing that? Just a thought.

Why do you reject expertise in Christianity and American History?

I don't. Are you claiming expertise in those fields? I've seen you make things up about both American history and Christianity, things everyone knows are false, so can you understand why I would be dubious about your claimed expertise in those subjects?


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 476 of 485 (573044)
08-09-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by GDR
08-05-2010 8:20 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
It seems to me that most cosmological discoveries have been made because mathematical calculations pointed toward a specific solution.

What about Newton's Laws of Gravity and the precession of Mercury's orbit? The orbit demonstrated that Newton's laws were wrong, but it didn't point towards Relativity. Mercury's orbit simply showed that Newton is wrong in the same way that current calculations demonstrate that QM and GR are wrong or incomplete on some level (which every physicist has known for quite some time).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 8:20 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:30 PM Taq has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 477 of 485 (573054)
08-09-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Taq
08-09-2010 3:17 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
When Newton was around the evidence indicated that this was a deterministic world. Later new evidence came to light which showed that Newton's views were wrong. The point is though that at the time of Newton the evidence pointed towards a deterministic existence.

It is very possible that in the future there will be advances in science that will find naturalistic answers. I'm just saying that the current science seems to indicate an answer that lies outside our 4 dimensional world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:17 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:41 PM GDR has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 478 of 485 (573060)
08-09-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by GDR
08-09-2010 3:30 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
When Newton was around the evidence indicated that this was a deterministic world. Later new evidence came to light which showed that Newton's views were wrong. The point is though that at the time of Newton the evidence pointed towards a deterministic existence.

If memory serves, Einstein was firmly in the Deterministic school of thought. Remember the quip "God does not play dice"?

It is very possible that in the future there will be advances in science that will find naturalistic answers. I'm just saying that the current science seems to indicate an answer that lies outside our 4 dimensional world.

Or rather, that our world is made up of more than the 4 dimensions that we are familiar with right now. The extra dimensions hinted at in String Theory do not lie outside of our world but are a part of it. A good analogy is Reimman's bookworm. In this analogy the 3D curvature of the crumpled page is detected as a force by the bookworm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:30 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:52 PM Taq has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5052
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 479 of 485 (573067)
08-09-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Taq
08-09-2010 3:41 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Taq writes:

Or rather, that our world is made up of more than the 4 dimensions that we are familiar with right now. The extra dimensions hinted at in String Theory do not lie outside of our world but are a part of it. A good analogy is Reimman's bookworm. In this analogy the 3D curvature of the crumpled page is detected as a force by the bookworm.

I agree although it seems to me that our world is made up of what we can pereceive and all we can perceive are 4 dimensions. I don't imagine that string theory advocates dimensions that we can perceive so wouldn't that make them metaphysical?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 3:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Taq, posted 08-09-2010 4:11 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 480 of 485 (573072)
08-09-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by GDR
08-09-2010 3:52 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
I agree although it seems to me that our world is made up of what we can pereceive and all we can perceive are 4 dimensions. I don't imagine that string theory advocates dimensions that we can perceive so wouldn't that make them metaphysical?

The extra dimensions are potentially detectable through instruments such as the LHC. They would be no more metaphysical than radio waves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:52 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Bikerman, posted 08-09-2010 8:55 PM Taq 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 © 2019