Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:59 PM
98 online now:
edge, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 92 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,590 Year: 3,627/19,786 Month: 622/1,087 Week: 212/212 Day: 27/27 Hour: 7/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
181920Next
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 300 (425371)
10-01-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jon
10-01-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
Does it, or does it merely place the mind into another [constricted] world view?

It is limited to that which can be demonstrated to be true, but I hardly find that "constricted." Indeed, the alternative of never being able to distinguish fact from fiction would appear to be paralyzing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:49 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 11:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 300 (425373)
10-01-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by crashfrog
10-01-2007 11:00 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
Indeed, the alternative of never being able to distinguish fact from fiction would appear to be paralyzing.

You've created a false dichotomy—either 'don't believe' or 'never be able to tell fact from fiction'. Certainly there's middle ground?

It is limited to that which can be demonstrated to be true...

That's not limitless. It's not free. It can't even account for things which are true, and are known to be true, but the truth of which cannot yet be demonstrated. It's limits not only fall within truth itself, but within demonstrable truth—quite limited indeed.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : negative


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 10-01-2007 11:00 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Woodsy, posted 10-02-2007 7:17 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 284 by bernerbits, posted 10-09-2007 7:51 PM Jon has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 243 of 300 (425396)
10-02-2007 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Force
10-01-2007 9:43 PM


dichotomy
You need to quote the entire context of my above paragraph. I was saying that atheists believe in Science and nothing else. ...
... but because of their reputation they are facts in the eyes of an atheist/scientist.
I know you are going to comment on my usage of "atheist/scientist" so I will add that im describing an atheist scientist above, not any other form/belief of scientists.

You are still making a false dichotomy that science is different for non-believers. You also accuse them of something you cannot know.

... Abiogeneis,BB,TOE, are all theories ...

And you haven't shown anyone saying otherwise. Especially "TOE" that stands for "Theory of Evolution" -- I think you are trying to tell yourself something that is not true.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 9:43 PM Force has not yet responded

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 1451 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 244 of 300 (425400)
10-02-2007 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Jon
10-01-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
That's not limitless. It's not free. It can't even account for things which are true, and are known to be true, but the truth of which cannot yet be demonstrated. It's limits not only fall within truth itself, but within demonstrable truth—quite limited indeed.

If the truth of a proposition cannot be demonstrated, how can one possibly know that it is true?

You are saying that one can know that something is true without having evidence for its truth. One might suspect or even hope it is true, but without evidence, one cannot know that it is so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 11:20 PM Jon has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 3947 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 245 of 300 (425416)
10-02-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Force
10-01-2007 7:04 PM


Lots of potentially heavy stuff
trossthree
I thank you for your post, it verified something that I was wondering deeply inside my mind. What exactly is your understanding of Abiogenesis and the word FACT? My understanding of Abiogenesis is that it simply means life created/developed from non life. To be honest, I don't believe GOD is a Biological being. So with my belief on GOD, there is no way to understand it via Science.

Abiogenesis is a story invented to circumvent the Law of Biogenesis and keep the concept of spontaneous generation alive.

The construction of the word is consistent with your understanding, but it has simply never been used to describe the historic creation events.

You'll note that we already had a term for spontaneous generation also, but it had been demonstrated to be a false concept, so a name change was implemented to make it appear more 'scientific'. How impressive!

As spontaneous generation failed time after time, the scales were reduced. Maggots were eliminated, then bacteria, all the way down to practically nothing. They got down to some extremely basic molecules before they had any success "creating life" in labs. Now they're trying to work up to a cell.

Naturally they've redefined 'life' at least a couple of times along the way to make it look like they're succeeding. They hit some barriers working with DNA, so a lot of focus shifted to RNA when they figured out it might be easier.

You may be wondering why anyone would bother redefining a term to include something it formerly excluded. In this case it's simply juvenile: they want to misportray any creationist who rejects the fowl, unscientific concept as ignorant and irrational. If you care, you can find just such an attempt earlier in this very thread.

It also gives them an out anytime the subject comes up for discussion. They just refuse to discuss actual abiogenesis and argue there definition 'til the cows come home. Never struck me as an intellectually profitable way to spend time.

I'd like to point out that most definitions aren't learned from dictionaries. As children we learn new words at a mind-boggling pace, and with a very high degree of accuracy. Use the force, tross (trust your instinct). We don't do our best learning by reading dictionaries. They are valuable tools, but our brains are better.

You speak English. You know what a fact is. Philosophers have tried to improve/confuse our understanding of reality for centuries. There is a reality, and we learn about it through our senses as well as by communicating.

Science enters the picture, and here comes the confusion. I could link you to posts proclaiming science as the ultimate form of knowledge, and I'm confident you've noticed the hype yourself. Science is simple. Small children practice it all the time, and even animals are guilty. Science is one of several methods of learning, and over time it has been formalized. This is good. Any analysis of learning that helps us understand the process is good. It also allows for consistency and helps us spot errors.

But the hype is unwarranted. History is at least the equal of science when it comes to providing information. One cannot even learn science without employing history. You can't very well repeat an experiment if you don't know it happened, can you? Even if it happened last week, it's part of the past, part of history. But there is no simple formula one can apply to evaluate history.

We also "know" people and animals. It's easy to dismiss the hype on science if one asks "Would I rather know my parents or know everything about botany?"

I've been accused of devaluing science because I don't worship it. I do value all forms of knowledge fairly highly, but I won't overestimate any class just because others want me to. It is a sin to reject truth, so how could I toss aside any valid scientific fact?

What I will readily toss aside is a flawed conclusion, scientific or otherwise.

As for God, I see no reason to restrict Him regarding biology. If He chooses to be biological or otherwise I see nothing to prevent Him.

In many ways, God is beyond scientific investigation. In the Bible, we're told to "prove all things" and "taste and see that the Lord is good." And there are some obvious lines of investigation. Fulfilled prophecies are a good starting point. They allow us to rule out all the other pretenders.

I can't distinguish if you're still referring to a God-based 'abiogenesis' here. I'll just mention that the greater bulk of even fairly recent history cannot be investigated with science alone. Science can at best only supplement other methods when investigating history - it can't replace them.

Science is only the study of nature or things that can be physically/biologically understood. So, really, Science has a possible GAP in understanding truth. If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, then there is some unrational behavior on their part. Thus is why I believe in Theistic Evolution. My mind is open to all possible truths. I think the most rational behavior is to keep an open mind in all topics.

Science has gaps when it comes to understanding many things. Use the right tool for the right job, and you'll get the best results.

I don't think they'd all admit it, but atheists all use the same toolset as everyone else for establishing truth. They have no choice in many circumstances. But when they do have even an illusory choice they tend to discount other tools in favor of 'science'. I've noticed a trend among them to really resent history.

It is good to keep an open mind, and it's always good to search out the truth. A person who can put aside their own wishes and accept unwelcome facts is open-minded, IMO.

So, I started to wonder if there is a possibility with the same or similiar issue and vision.

I wouldn't recommend any experiments until you're really sure you know what your doing. Vision is a precious gift.

You might want to look into optics a bit. I'm pretty sure the way the cones operate would not allow them to see extra frequencies.

Vision and hearing aren't analogous because the receptors in the eye don't vibrate. I really can't help you much with this.

My point is that if there is things human beings can't hear or see(not biological such as radio frequencies) simply because they are undetectable to our senses then that is within in reason/rational thinking that they do exist.

This is a most important thing to keep in mind. Just because something isn't observed does not mean it does not exist. But there's a flip side: when something isn't observed, and you know very well that it should be observable; the tentative conclusion must be that it does not exist. I'm sure you can think of your own examples for both sides of this coin.

Last but not least my perception on what a "FACT" is, is still that FACTS can't change, but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? A theory can have a high level of confidence so why call a good theory a FACT? Anyways. Peace.

You've got a good grip on the term 'fact'. Don't let go of it just to suit someone else or to deceive yourself about reality. You only harm yourself, and you really don't need friends who would teach you such habits.

I bid you peace, and a fruitful search.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Force, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-02-2007 9:12 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 248 by bluegenes, posted 10-02-2007 10:12 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 249 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2007 1:22 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 253 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:38 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2007 5:33 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 246 of 300 (425422)
10-02-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by CTD
10-02-2007 8:51 AM


You realise, don't you, that if trossthree hangs around these forums long enough, he'll encounter some actual evolutionists? Indeed, he has done so already.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 8:51 AM CTD has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 247 of 300 (425428)
10-02-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jon
10-01-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
bluegenes writes:

Being an atheist frees the mind to consider endless possibilities.

Jon writes:

Does it, or does it merely place the mind into another [constricted] world view?

In my case, yes it does. Think of a possibility that I'm not free to consider if you can, and tell me what it is. I can easily consider the possibility of a creator entity with out believing in one, remember.

How is it possible that only after limiting your mind to 'not have a blind faith...' can you suddenly say that your mind is then unlimited?

Blindness is a limit. The sighted can see all that's in possible range, and even choose to close their eyes for a few seconds to see what blindness is like.

If you think both positions are equal, you can prove it by gouging your eyes out.

Is having to put your mind into the state of 'faithless' in order to achieve limitlessness itself a limit?

No. And like you, I was born without faith.

Is making 'faithlessness' a requirement for an unlimited mind not a limit itself?

No. It is the eradication of limits.

Want a game of chess, Jon?;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:49 PM Jon has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 248 of 300 (425431)
10-02-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by CTD
10-02-2007 8:51 AM


Stop repeating your mistakes
CTD writes:

Abiogenesis is a story invented to circumvent the Law of Biogenesis and keep the concept of spontaneous generation alive.

I've explained to you elsewhere that Pasteur's law has to do with already existing life forms not coming from non-life, not with the origins of life. There are plenty of school kids who know this.

You, of course, avoided replying.

Stop repeating your mistakes, child. Are you trying to make Christians appear ignorant?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 8:51 AM CTD has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 249 of 300 (425491)
10-02-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by CTD
10-02-2007 8:51 AM


Re: Lots of potentially heavy stuff
You may be wondering why anyone would bother redefining a term to include something it formerly excluded.

You seem to bring up "redefinition of words" a lot in your posts. Have you considered that perhaps the problem is actually poor reading skills and lack of logical ability on your part?


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 8:51 AM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:20 PM Chiroptera has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 300 (425515)
10-02-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Chiroptera
10-02-2007 1:22 PM


Re: Lots of potentially heavy stuff
Chiroptera,

I think CTD makes a good point. Words do develope over time and I think Scientist take advantage of it. However, I have thought of a new word that has existed for a long time that may make my point better. All forms of Science are not proven absolute. So, you are welcome to use the word FACT to try and substantiate any theory in Science because it does not strengthen your points in anyway. Sure the big bang, abiogenesis, and the toe are facts, so what.

Edited by trossthree, : err


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2007 1:22 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2007 4:28 PM Force has not yet responded
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 4:35 PM Force has responded
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2007 2:48 AM Force has responded

Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 251 of 300 (425516)
10-02-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Force
10-02-2007 4:20 PM


Re: Lots of potentially heavy stuff
Words do develope over time and I think Scientist take advantage of it.

Well, I admit I haven't been following the conversation here in this thread all that closely. However, CTD has been making similar claims of moving goalposts, obfuscation, and equivocation in the racism thread, so I assumed that just making these knee-jerk accusation is part if his schtick. In fact, if his behavior in this thread is similar, I doubt that he's even been reading Scientist's posts -- if he's right about scientist, then it's the case of a broken clock being right twice a day.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:20 PM Force has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16237
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 252 of 300 (425518)
10-02-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Force
10-02-2007 4:20 PM


trossthree writes:

All forms of Science are not proven absolute.

That's the beauty of science. Everything is open to improvement and correction. It isn't mired in "absolutes" or "proof". (You'd do well to forget those two words.)


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:20 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:45 PM ringo has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 300 (425520)
10-02-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by CTD
10-02-2007 8:51 AM


Re: Lots of potentially heavy stuff
CTD,

Thank you for your valuable insight. I agree with you completely. So, why is it that nonbelievers "know" that this reality is the absolute reality? I wonder, if any of them were on their death bed, would they claim that Science is absolute? Or would they pray to every God they know of for some sort of grace. So, irrational =). LOL.


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by CTD, posted 10-02-2007 8:51 AM CTD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 4:42 PM Force has not yet responded
 Message 255 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2007 4:45 PM Force has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16237
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 254 of 300 (425523)
10-02-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Force
10-02-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Lots of potentially heavy stuff
trossthree writes:

So, why is it that nonbelievers "know" that this reality is the absolute reality?

They don't. "Absolutes" are the realm of the confused.

I wonder, if any of them were on their death bed, would they claim that Science is absolute?

Nobody who knows anything about science claims it's absolute.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:38 PM Force has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 255 of 300 (425525)
10-02-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Force
10-02-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Lots of potentially heavy stuff
Or would they [unbelievers] pray to every God they know of for some sort of grace.

Why would an "unbeliever" pray to a god in which they don't believe? I think you might be confused here. Since this is off-topic, why don't you suggest another thread to discuss what "unbelievers" think and believe?


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:38 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:49 PM Chiroptera has responded

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
181920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019