|
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, 02:35 PM | #161 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
I've made my credentials in this conversation known. Please present yours. I don't need a full CV; just a brief list of the fields you've been paid to work in, or have gone through formal training in, will suffice. If you don't have any I'm not going to reject your statements; I'd just like to know the level at which I should address your concerns. If you're a geologist, cool, I can get into case studies on sedimentology and taphonomy and the like; if you can't tell a wackie from a packstone, I'm going to have to take a different direction. |
7th May 2012, 02:43 PM | #162 |
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, 02:45 PM | #163 |
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, 03:33 PM | #164 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,470
|
1. When scientists say "we don't know" it means "Yay! We get to work on this awesome problem! This is what we like best in the world!" (Or, if the question is outside their feild, "Yay! Someone else gets to work on this awesome problem, and I get to read about what they find as they go! Aside from working on my own awesome problems, that's what I like best in the world!")
There's nothing unsatisfying about having awesome problems to think about and work on. So the answer is honest. Even from me, and I'm not even a scientist, just someone who loves it that other people are working on these problems using their brains and cumulative knowledge/experience. 2. How does the alternative explanation end up at anything other than "we don't know?" If you say "The universe and the world and man were created by god," then how do you answer ANY further question? How? How did god create the universe? Did he use tools? Where did he get the materials? Can you answer any further question about the universe, once you posit that god made it? If not, why is YOUR version of "I don't know" satisfying to you, but you find a scientist's version of "I don't know" so unsatisfying? 3. Ignorance at its FULLEST? I don't agree. Which do you think is the more ignorant statement: "I think this circle of mushrooms with a bare patch in the middle is caused by fairies having a dance here--they plant the mushrooms in order to make themselves invisible." or "I think this circle of mushrooms with a bare patch in the middle is caused by mushrooms in the center dying out, but I can't be sure yet, because I haven't been able to see it happen. I'm going to take pictures of the circle and see if it grows and how." The first answer is arguably a "more complete" answer, in that the speaker thinks he has the whole answer, but the second, I would argue, is far less ignorant, even as it acknowledges that it does not have the whole answer. |
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue |
|
7th May 2012, 03:35 PM | #165 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
7th May 2012, 03:37 PM | #166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
7th May 2012, 03:37 PM | #167 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
Speciation is not macro evolution. Under macro evolution i understand change above species. That has not been observed, and the evidence points clearly out that this is not possible.
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th May 2012, 03:42 PM | #168 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
7th May 2012, 03:46 PM | #169 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
In a 2005 BBC radio interview famed naturalist (no pun intended) and wild life film maker David Attenborough talked about a response he gave to criticisms he had received that he never acknowledged God in his nature documentaries:
"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy" |
__________________
"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, 03:51 PM | #170 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
At the risk of going somewhat off-topic the history of the nebular model is one of my favourite examples of self-correction in science; eighty odd years ago the nebular hypothesis fell out of favour with cosmologists as there appeared to be serious problems with the model. Hence a new model, that better fitted known facts, the catastrophic model was developed; in which another star passed close to the Sun, tidal forces deforming the Sun's atmosphere so much that streams of gas escaped its gravity, condensed as dense clouds of matter and eventually formed the planets. This took a few thousand years rather than the billion or so predicted by early versions of the nebular hypothesis.
Better models caused the re-introduction of the nebular model and later developments, e.g. elemental distribution, pretty much ruled the catastrophic model out. As an aside this is why the catastrophic model appears in a lot of 'Golden Age' sci-fi, such as that of Smith [it's a major plot point in the Lensman series] and Weinbaum. Yes. Several. In 200 years time we may be creating new universes. Well there are, IIRC, some ideas about how to induce a supernova but they're not possible yet. Big gamma-ray lasers were suggested. It has. Many, many, many times. God botherers just ignore this inconvenient fact. Are you channelling the Daily Mail? |
7th May 2012, 03:55 PM | #171 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th May 2012, 04:05 PM | #172 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 04:08 PM | #173 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 04:15 PM | #174 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
7th May 2012, 04:16 PM | #175 |
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,181
|
Ugh ... Creationism.
|
7th May 2012, 04:18 PM | #176 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 04:19 PM | #177 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
7th May 2012, 04:34 PM | #178 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Basically God gets an "out" because he's defined that way. You define something absent of evidence as something outside the realm of evidence and then use that completely arbitrary and made up definition to argue for its existence. It's rather silly.
All "Supernatural" copout concepts work that way. Like a said before it's semantics at best, and since I consider arguing semantics to be one step above swallowing a fully opened Swiss Army Knife, that should tell you how I feel about something where semantics is the best reason for it. |
__________________
"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, 04:39 PM | #179 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
|
|
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul |
|
7th May 2012, 04:44 PM | #180 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,895
|
1. The rise of new species has indeed been noted both in the wild and in a lab. If you are referring of the changing of species a la "cat into dog" then you won't find it because that would be totally contrary to what the Theory of Evolution actually says.
2. I was kind enough to answer your loaded question. Please respond to my post. |
7th May 2012, 04:55 PM | #181 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,470
|
What question is it for which a natural explanation isn't plausible? You went from asking about whether we were satisfied with the answer "I don't know", which is a general question, about how we, as individuals, feel about uncertainty, to something very different: accusing scientists of hiding behind "I don't know." You have to defend this accusation. You can't just say it and have it be true.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's just the opposite of what scientists mean when they say "I don't know." Oh, and maybe the rest of us get "meaning and value" out of life by learning more, asking questions, contributing to society, etc. We create our own meaning, instead of needing a supernatural entity to create it for us. |
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue |
|
7th May 2012, 04:59 PM | #182 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,470
|
|
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue |
|
7th May 2012, 04:59 PM | #183 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
|
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
7th May 2012, 05:00 PM | #184 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
|
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
7th May 2012, 05:09 PM | #185 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,470
|
As far as I can tell, this is just a modified "god of the gaps" kind of argument, which relies on time being long and human life being short.
Tell me if I'm wrong: the argument USED to be that micro evolution was real, but no one had ever seen one species evolve into a new species. (Forget that there's lots of evidence besides watching something happen in front of one's eyes.) Then those dang scientists had to go and create experiments so that they could watch short-lived life forms evolve in new directions and form new species. Darn them! So the new argument is that, well, okay, one species can evolve in a way that creates a new species, but it CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T evolve so much that a descendent could be a new genus! This argument is totally solid, they think, because the amount of time that would take is too long and besides, by the time scientists have observed evolution that far, they'll have brand new arguments that ignore all the evidence that doesn't happen in front of their eyes. Did I miss anything? |
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue |
|
7th May 2012, 05:09 PM | #186 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Why? Naturalism as you use it is merely a definition and one which you have not in your OP been extremely clear as to what specific definition you attribute to it.
Without relying on unclear/poptentialy flawed terms, I will say this re: the OP. Within the limits of our ability to attain correctness through the use of scientific methods and the results of those methods to know, science has explained nicely the existence of things necessary for our existence and the path through which we came to exist given those things - all without any necessity for positing a creator/creating unit actively or passively aiming at that existence as it's goal. Hoping this finds you well, Yr. not-so-obedient servant, Fuelair (his mark) |
7th May 2012, 05:21 PM | #187 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
7th May 2012, 05:30 PM | #188 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Excellent.
Seeing as you tacitly admit that a supernatural explanation is beyond testing, this would imply that a natural or a supernatural world would be indistinguishable from each other. In this way, why should I believe in a more complex theory when a simpler one suffices? |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
7th May 2012, 05:30 PM | #189 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
If it's not a natural explanation it's not an explanation.
Supernatural means its beyond understanding, so how can attributing a supernatural cause to something in any possible way lead to us understanding the universe better? Saying something has a supernatural cause is just a ponderous, pretentious, intellectually dishonest way of saying "I don't know." |
__________________
"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, 05:43 PM | #190 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Quote:
I am curious how I might investigate the God hypothesis. Here are some things I have already tried: 1) Reading religious texts. They do not seem to reflect any world I am familiar with. They are full of fanciful stories. Some religious texts, of recent origin have pretty good documentation that points to fraud (Mormons, Scientology). I can't tell the truth value of a story in one text and the story in someone else's text. 2) Prayer. This seems to me to be pretty much like talking to myself. I've never been able to get any real result, nor have I been able to get others, purportedly more faithful and expert than myself, to demonstrate any observable result worth mentioning. 3) Forums. I've heard a great many arguments but they all boil down to believing in a story that doesn't hold up under examination. The idea of God + "what I already accept" doesn't get me any more than "what I already accept." I'm perfectly willing to explore the idea, but it ought to be a worthwhile idea, shouldn't it? What does God add? |
7th May 2012, 05:48 PM | #191 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
7th May 2012, 05:52 PM | #192 |
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,310
|
Here are what I find to be the two most telling posts in this thread:
This strongly suggests that your true motive is not honest intellectual curiosity at all, but rather personal comfort. Whether or not anyone is "happy" with any given answer has no bearing on whether that answer is true. |
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that. |
|
7th May 2012, 05:59 PM | #193 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
7th May 2012, 06:41 PM | #194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th May 2012, 08:22 PM | #195 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 08:24 PM | #196 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 08:29 PM | #197 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 08:30 PM | #198 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
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, 08:31 PM | #199 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
7th May 2012, 08:33 PM | #200 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|