Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
130 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 128 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,208 Year: 2,956/23,288 Month: 1,147/1,809 Week: 266/313 Day: 7/71 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 12 of 262 (695138)
04-03-2013 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:57 AM


My brain is a stand alone version of the most complex thing in the known universe.

Brains aren't "stand alone", they require bodies.

And the Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex:

So the brain isn't the most complex thing.

My question is why isn't the human belief in God classed as scientific? When the most powerful computer network in the known universe comes to the answer 'God'?

Because the conclusion of God didn't arrise from following the scientific method.

To me it seems that science is flawed, scientists more or less discount there own existence, proffering only to have eyes and a calculator with which to make answers and not using the full power of thought.

Be that as it may, science works. Its gets shit done.

So what's the problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:57 AM divermike1974 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 25 of 262 (695163)
04-03-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:06 PM


and please don't give a simpletons answer like ' the Mandelbrot set'.

Excuse me? Simpleton? How so?

The Mandelbrot set IS, in fact, more complex that the human brain.

But if you'd prefer another example, our circulatory system is more complex than our brain. So there; the brain still isn't the most complex thing.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:06 PM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 262 (695170)
04-03-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:31 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
How can you say it is so untrust worthy?

That picture isn't moving...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:31 PM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 8:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 262 (695176)
04-03-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:45 PM


Now you are sounding simple.

Well, you've been wrong about almost everything else you've posted in this thread too. So being wrong about this is no surprise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:45 PM divermike1974 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 262 (695177)
04-03-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:48 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
I know it isn't my eyes are.

And you call me simple. The illusion is produced in your brain. Its a good reason for why we can't trust them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:48 PM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 40 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 48 by petrophysics1, posted 04-03-2013 4:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 42 of 262 (695182)
04-03-2013 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:01 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
'Science' funny word ain't it.

Yes, Ug, science funny wurd.

Out of the whole known universe only the human mind can use it,

There might be other intelligence out there in the known universe.

i certainly trust my brain more than anything else on this planet.

You should trust science more. It works better.

How many mistakes have you made to have such a low opinion of yourself?

Well, I did try discussing something with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:01 PM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 262 (695187)
04-03-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:18 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
If it cant be observed it isn't known, therefore not in the known universe.

We have no reason to suppose that other intelligent life in the known universe wouldn't be able to be observed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:18 PM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 262 (695193)
04-03-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by petrophysics1
04-03-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
Since I see no movement in the optical illusion you posted,

Then there's something wrong with you.

Hell, even cats can see it:

the only thing I can conclude is that your and divermike1974's obeservations of reality cannot be relied upon, whereas mine can be.

Non sequitur.

In fact, your inability to see the optical illusion suggests something is wrong with your brain.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by petrophysics1, posted 04-03-2013 4:26 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ooh-child, posted 04-03-2013 5:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 262 (695197)
04-03-2013 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:27 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
Supposing somthing doesn't sound very scientific.

Something has an 'e' in it. And you don't know what "scientific" means so whatever.

But you're right, and that's partly why I said that we shouldn't suppose what you did suppose.

And when you say we, who else is doing this supposing with you?

The proverbial "we"... but I said we don't have a reason to suppose what you did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:27 PM divermike1974 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 76 of 262 (695220)
04-03-2013 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ooh-child
04-03-2013 5:37 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
I think petro was posting tongue in cheek, CS.

I don't. Its not the first time he's claimed that for an argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ooh-child, posted 04-03-2013 5:37 PM ooh-child has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 98 of 262 (695273)
04-04-2013 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ossat
04-04-2013 8:48 AM


I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance.

What would "evidence of chance" look like?

Do you ever see scientists talking about "chance"? Why is it always creationists saying it? Could it be a misunderstanding?

lol - I just did a Google Scholar search for the word 'chance'... all I got was a bunch of papers written by people that were named Chance

I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God

You know how babies are made. New animals come from existing animals. How do you get variety from that process?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ossat, posted 04-04-2013 8:48 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 5:21 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 262 (695314)
04-04-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 1:32 PM


I am not saying there is secular-science evidence for God, as that is not possible, as you have made it that way.

Is your god not omnipotent?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 114 of 262 (695319)
04-04-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by mike the wiz
04-04-2013 2:20 PM



It IS a fact that species change over time. Species are not immutable. That is, they evolve.

It is also a fact that the ToE provides a model for how it works.

It is also a fact that another model doesn't explain it better.

It doesn't matter who accepts those facts or not, but they are, in fact, true statements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2013 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 139 of 262 (695447)
04-05-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Ossat
04-05-2013 5:21 AM


I mean unplanned changes.

Okay, what would evidence of unplanned changes look like?

In my opinion, a change could be considered unplanned if it happen spontaneously (note that doesn't mean "instantly").

Would you agree?

Would it sound more like evolutionist language if I refer to it as "random mutations". Isn't that the way evolution is suppose to happen?

That's only half of it... the other half is the selection process.

Let me use the dice example. Here's a dice rolling mechanism:

1. Re-roll all the dice that you have not set aside.
2. Set aside all rolled dice that have the number 6
3. If there are any dice that have not been set aside, go to step 1.

Okay, now imagine I've just handed you 100 dice and you're going to follow the steps. You roll them all, set the 6's aside, and keep rolling the rest. Eventually, all of the dice will be sitting there rolled as 6's.

Now I walk in and proclaim that because it was impossible for that to happen by chance (100 rolls of 6's), then you must have intentionally place all those dices with the 6 facing up.

Realize that all of the dice were rolled and randomly ended up on their 6's by chance. It was the selective process, not the random rolling, that produced the effect that looked like it was planned.

So no, evolution is not supposed to happen by random mutation, it is that plus the selective process that makes evolution happen. Because the fittest survive, in hindsight it can look like it was planned so that they would, but really those fitnesses did arise through random chance, its just that they were selected for.

Because just a small part of your genetic information (genotype) is expressed physically in your body (Phenotype). You look slightly different respective to your parents but still the genetic information is the same. I know there are mutations in the process and they contribute to the variation but that doesn't really mean there is "evolution" in process

So how do you get the variety?

Let's break that down regardless...

I don't have the same genotype as my parents, I got some of my genes from each of them. And the process that replicates DNA is imperfect, so the copies that are made are not going to be exact, so my DNA couldn't be the same anyway. The phenotypic variety that we see comes from changes to the genotypes. The changes to the genotype that come from replication errors are spontaneous. And that means they are unplanned.

So some of the variety we see is certainly not planned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Ossat, posted 04-05-2013 5:21 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:03 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 247 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 252 of 262 (696128)
04-12-2013 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Ossat
04-12-2013 5:03 AM


I would agree in the extent that unplanned changes can cause variation between species, which doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the Bible

I'm not talking about supporting evolution or refuting the Bible... (though its telling that those two criteria determine what you're willing to accept).

You said that:

quote:
the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance.

And by "chance" you meant "unplannd changes". But I'm still at a loss for what you mean by "evidence of unplanned changes"?

Say there's a coin sitting on a table, its heads; how do you determine if it landed on heads by chance or not?

I say we'd have to see how it got there. We can't just look at it after the fact and determine that.

Does each dice in that example represents an individual? Every time you roll the dice one generation goes? If so, how can you have natural selection without affecting the population? Wouldn’t does dices that aren’t number six, the less fit ones, perish in the process, leaving you with, say, 18 survivors (number sixes) after many times rolling the dices? Doesn’t natural selection takes its toll on the less fit?

No, the dice analogy does not adequately represent how animals evolve, that's not what it was meant to show. The point of it was to show you how a selective process can make chance look designed. If you saw 100 dice that were all rolled as 6's, then you would say that someone put them there like that on purpose, and that there wasn't any chance involved. But if the process I outlined was used, it would still include that chance element even though it would look like it was designed, and that's because of the selective process. That's how it relates to evolution: natural selection makes it look like the results didn't include any randomness even though it did.

So when you look at an animal that is well fit to a particular niche, I can understand how it would look to you like it was designed to be that way. Where you go wrong is assuming that there wasn't any chance involved.

How could in the beginning natural selection favor the individual that has got some dices with the number six (step two in your example) setting aside those dices with number six? Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?

If you want to get into the particulars of the way that things evolve, we should do it in another thread.

From Message 247:

You do have the same genetic information that your parents in which they and you have all necessary information required to make a human. If was so in the past and will be in the future, regardless of that variety you mention. any variation will never account to make something different than a human

Why not? And how do you know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:03 AM Ossat 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