|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th May 2012, 06:58 AM | #121 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Quote:
Between the lying frauds of Creationism's higher ranks and the well-tested and well-studied findings of my peers, I'm gonna go ahead and side with my peers, thanks. If you want to discuss the geologic evidence, we can. However, I'm going to insist that you stop referencing Creationist websites. There are ample sites debunking them, and I have little interest in pointing out the lies. |
7th May 2012, 07:05 AM | #122 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
And if the claim that we don't yet know how planetary formation occurs in the early stages was true, which as pointed out it isn't, that would still not be reason to simply slap the all purpose thought Spackle of "God" on it and call it a day.
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
7th May 2012, 07:12 AM | #123 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
I've just posted the following in response to Yrreg in another thread, and I think that it is relevant to this discussion as well.
Quote:
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
7th May 2012, 08:12 AM | #124 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,111
|
Supernatural explanations either don't fit the facts or are unprovable. Since naturalism deals with what exists, it is the obvious candidate for explaining the fact of our existence.
Quote:
If we ever find concrete scientific evidence for God, then we may be in a position to declare that He exists. He will then cease to be supernatural.
Quote:
We will never have a complete explanation for how 'we' got 'here', because there will always be more to know and more to find out. But it doesn't matter. What matters is what we can do with the knowledge that we gain. People get hung up on questions like 'what created the universe' or 'how did life begin' or 'what causes consciousness' when what we really want to know is 'how can we make our lives more interesting and enjoyable'? Science leads to technology, and that gives us what we want. It's fun to speculate, but we don't need to replace facts with fantasy. There's plenty of real and useful stuff out there waiting to be discovered...
Quote:
You can believe that there is something beyond the natural world, but if you say that something exists then you are asserting that it is part of the natural world.
Quote:
Quote:
What do you do when you don't know the answer?
Quote:
Scientists don't just dream up theories from their imagination. Data is collected, and theories are developed to explain that data within the context of known science. We are trying to find the relationships between such phenomena as the cosmic microwave background, redshift, formation of galaxies etc. and other physical laws which we have discovered. So far the best explanation seems to be that the universe started with a 'big bang'. It is the best explanation only because it fits with what we already know and the math works out. I don't like that particular theory, but facts trump emotions. In the future we will develop better and more detailed explanations of how the universe evolved. Until then we can speculate, but we must not jump to conclusions which don't fit the facts. IOW, we won't just dream up something and then believe it because we like it. You can believe in things which don't exist if you want, but don't be surprised if others aren't interested in taking your fantasies as fact. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
7th May 2012, 08:18 AM | #125 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
Naturalistic thinking is good for getting things done.
If YOU want to get reliable answers about diseases, or accomplish various engineering feats, or protect against disasters.. AND you're not satified with placing such responsabilities on mysterious entities you really don't know anything about.... then Naturalism is the way to go! Faith in a God or gods might all well and good, if you like to have such things. But, faith doesn't add anything to our knowledge, innovations, or productivity in general. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
7th May 2012, 08:34 AM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
It is a fundamental question. Like other questions, we have a choice in how we can try to answer it. We can think about reasonable answers (or unreasonable) and can read what other (long dead) men had to say about it. We can sit and conjecture and try out our logical and philosophical skills -- that's all fun.
But we might try something else. We might try to go out and see what we can find out. That's what a naturalism does. It goes and looks. Those observations then are fed back into the logic and philosophical machine as input to shape new ideas and abandon old ones. Why? Because any idea that doesn't fit what we observe has to go. And that's what naturalism does for you. It gives you a way to check to see if your ideas, no matter how compelling, are clever imaginings or can exist in the universe as we find it. I don't think we solve much if we say God did it. That just makes me want to ask more questions: How did he do it? Can we do it too? What procedure did he follow? What tools did he use and how did he apply them? When you want a recipe for a universe, identifying the cook doesn't get you the answer you want. |
7th May 2012, 08:44 AM | #127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets
To believe in pretty much any other mode of planetary formation is to reject a very large amount of data, which directly calls one's credibility into question (as if citing a Creationist source didn't do enough of that). |
7th May 2012, 09:09 AM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
|
7th May 2012, 11:33 AM | #129 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
'We don't know' is a wonderful, incredible, and glorious answer. Why is that? Because it creates the strive to find a new answer. Experiments are done. evidence is collected, and 'We don't know' eventually becomes 'This is what we know, now.. ,but that might change!'
It is the religious, those who lack intellectual curiosity who turn 'We don't know' into 'Therefore it must be god'. And what is true, or rather, what the evidence points us towards is not necessarily what makes the most 'sense'. In fact, having a supernatural, unknowable invisible being who punishes people for eternal torment if they don't believe in him/her/it/them makes no sense at all. Unfortunately, people still seem to believe, even though there is a lack of evidence. |
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
7th May 2012, 11:46 AM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser
Originally Posted by Shalamar
|
7th May 2012, 12:03 PM | #131 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 12:04 PM | #132 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 12:10 PM | #133 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
lets resume it : the most i hear is : " we don't know".
Ignorance at its fullest. based on the scientific ,philosophic, and theologic knowledge we do have in regard of many aspects of life, to come to such a conclusion, is truly not satisfying ( at least to me ). I don't think this answer is honest. |
7th May 2012, 12:11 PM | #134 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 12:13 PM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
7th May 2012, 12:14 PM | #136 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 12:15 PM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
|
7th May 2012, 12:17 PM | #138 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Here you go! http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1119.pdf Let me guess, you didn't even try to find it. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
7th May 2012, 12:17 PM | #139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
That's because we don't know.
Quote:
The question is, of course, what do you do about this ignorance? Scientists are looking to reduce it by doing research which may, one day, provide an answer to the question. Others say "God did it" because that's easier and quicker and then look no further. Of these two approaches, science has revealed many empirical truths about the universe. Saying "God did it" has revealed none.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
7th May 2012, 12:19 PM | #140 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
7th May 2012, 12:25 PM | #141 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
'I don't know' is NOT ignorance. It simply means 'We don't know, yet. But we're looking into it!'
There are a lot of things that science, and humanity is not aware of yet. The answer is 'We don't know'. That does not mean that the answer is really a supernatural invisible being! History is full of 'I don't knows', that we now know the answer to! Science is watching the lightning in the sky, and wondering 'What is that? Why does that happen?' Religion is the shaman cowering at the back of the cave screaming that the lightning means the gods are angry at us. So tell me GIBHOR, does lightning and thunder mean the gods are angry? Is there a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon? Why would the origins of life, the planet, the universe be any different? |
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
7th May 2012, 12:27 PM | #142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Thanks, Hokulele, for the paper! There's no reason to not accept it at this point--you can see it yourself, and read about it in peer-reviewed form.
Quote:
|
7th May 2012, 12:29 PM | #143 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
7th May 2012, 12:34 PM | #144 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
|
GIBHOR, the reason you hear so often 'we don't know' is because the 'yet' is silent.
First there needs to be established that it is necessary to have a 'first cause'. Just as the people 200 years ago had no clue how to build an atom bomb, we do not have a clue if something is really needed to 'cause' existence. As we have factually witnessed in the course of documented history, nature actually is quite different from how we just perceive it. So our 'need' for a first cause may just as well be analogous for our 'need' to feel that time is constant and the speed of light *should* be different for different observers. The answer 'I don't know' does not in any way invalidate any other knowledge. This is analogous to your car breaking down and your son asking you 'daddy, what is wrong?'. You answering 'I don't know' does not suddenly mean nothing is wrong. It just means you do not know the 'cause' *yet* |
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin --- |
|
7th May 2012, 12:34 PM | #145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
I suggest that this is amazing hubris, how do you presume to know who say what with honesty on an internet forum?
The fact that you think it is a not an honset answer says more about your character than ours. I literally do not know what the BBE came from or if the universe is eternal, but you presume to tell me I am lying? Shame on you. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
7th May 2012, 12:36 PM | #146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
7th May 2012, 12:37 PM | #147 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
7th May 2012, 12:46 PM | #148 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
|
Does the answer show ignorance? Why yes, of course it does. We are ignorant of the answer.
The answer is not satisfying to you? Well, so what? Is the objective to have an answer you find satisfying? If so, then simply choose to believe whatever satisfies you the most and believe that. But I - and most others in the conversation, I suspect - are contemplating what answer is true, not which one satisfies them. You think it's not honest? I don't see how you can possibly believe that it is dishonest to admit that we do not know something that we do not know. Surely the dishonest approach would be to pretend that we did know when in fact, we don't. But it can be, and frequently has been. |
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul |
|
7th May 2012, 12:53 PM | #149 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
I don't consider that to be an adequate summary.
How do you perceive the following: "The naturalistic approach to understanding reality is based on making the smallest possible number of assumptions needed to provide a model of the universe that supports constructive reasoning." |
7th May 2012, 01:03 PM | #150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
The theory of evolution CAN be tested, and HAS BEEN tested, numerous times, over the last two centuries. Specific mechanisms have been proposed, tested, rejected, accepted, modified, and re-tested numerous times, in laboratory conditions and in the wild. Used to work with a guy who spent his time testing evolutionary principles on fruit flies. Then there's Nylonase, proof of evolution in the same way that a video of your birth is proof you were born. There's also my area of study, the fossil record. Archaeopteryx was discovered prior to Darwin's death, and was known to exhibit both avian and reptilian traits; thus, a transitional form which Darwin himself predicted was found, while he was still around. The fossil record is far, FAR richer than people suspect. If you look at something like foramenifera or bivalves you'll see that we have an amazing record of their evolution across hundreds of millions of years. Human evolution is even more well-constrained; our record is vastly superior to anything any of us could have hoped for, given the relative rarity of terrestrial macrofauna in the fossil record. Anyone who says that the number of homanid remains we've found could fit on a pool table doesn't know what they're talking about--it'd take a whole blood POOL at this point, with guys holding boxes for the leftovers. The reason people assume evolution can't be tested is that historical sciences such as paleontology don't allow for testing in a lab, not easily anyway. What we do is propose hypotheses, then go out to areas which can test those hypotheses and collect samples from nature. It's perfectly in line with the scientific method, it's just different enough that many people don't see it. Geologic mapping is experimentation, and doing it once or twice is sufficient to demonstrate that fact to yourself. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that the theory of evolution can be tested you simply don't know enough about the current state of the theory to have an informed opinion on it. That's not a bad thing--there are many areas I don't hold informed opinions on. But you should recognize that fact. |
7th May 2012, 02:12 PM | #151 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
That is because we don't know. Everything we do know was once something we didn't know. Prior to the advent of spectroscopy it was impossible to determine the chemical makeup of stars. Many people thought that it would forever be impossible to know what stars are made of. This was an area of ignorance just as the origin (if there even is such a thing) of the universe is an area of ignorance.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
7th May 2012, 02:18 PM | #152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,895
|
|
7th May 2012, 02:19 PM | #153 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
that is held by the vision that " we " is the center of all things, and the just " we " matter. The quest goes however deeper, and the question goes about what is the reason for our existence, where do we come from, where do we go, why are we here, what is the value of life, and so on. If a God creator does exist, then the question goes to : why did he create us ? what was his purpose with creation ?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th May 2012, 02:21 PM | #154 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 02:24 PM | #155 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
7th May 2012, 02:24 PM | #156 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
Sometimes you can conclude non-human, sentient beings made them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousterian_culture Or sometimes you can conclude they are the result of natural forces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Road |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
7th May 2012, 02:25 PM | #157 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
7th May 2012, 02:27 PM | #158 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
People don't believe in the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is used to predict and test. As with all natural forces believe is not required for the force to exist. Dinwar can (and has) given extensive posts on how the theory of evolution has been used to predict paleontological results and how the theory has been updated as we find more information. I have worked in genetics for nearly a decade before switching careers and have used the theory of evolution to correctly predict the function of unknown genes, find areas of importance in stretches of RNA and engineer various hybrid proteins, none of which would have been possible without that underlying theory. As has been mentioned, there are untold amounts of experiments that show not only that the theory of evolution as currently used can explain things that have happened, but can also predict things that CAN happen. Maybe things need tweaking, but the underlying theory is solid. Tell me, do you disbelieve gravity? Electromagnetism? AS for your remark that accepting that we do not know things is a nihilistic world view, you could not be more wrong. Accepting that we do not know is the way to figuring out how we could know. I do not totally exclude the possibility of a god existing, but the more we look for its handiwork, the less we find and the more we can explain things without the need for a supernatural intervention. Of course anyone intelectually honest would have to admit that believing in a god just shifts the do not know a step further back. Sure, in that world view god was the cause of everything, but what was the cause of god? And if you go the 'god was the cause of god' route, why do you have a problem with the universe being its own cause? |
7th May 2012, 02:29 PM | #159 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
I've personally found a transitional species. It's published, in a peer-reviewed journal. So I've proven evolution via a historical science (paleontology). I'm sorry, but you're simply ignorant of the historical sciences.
Quote:
My point is there are specific, demonstrable features that we look for in the field to determine man-made objects from the rest. The reason those exist is the nature of humanity and the mterials they were working with. We simply don't have that in regards to a Creator; thus the analogy fails. No one provides any definition of a Creator that can be tested, or a method the Creator used that we can examine. Thus, this hypothesis doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong.
Quote:
|
7th May 2012, 02:31 PM | #160 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|