ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


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.
Closed Thread
Old 7th May 2012, 06:58 AM   #121
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
i was actually referring to the universe, but since you answered in regard of the earth, does this theory seem plausible to you ?

Truth being told, that is a very UNlikely scenario
You're citing a Creationist screed at a paleontologist. How well do you think this is going to go for you?

Quote:
‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly’1 [emphasis mine].
This is what's known in the trade as "a lie". We actually have experimental evidence from the ISS for how dust starts to form planets--in zero-g, particulates clump. There is video evidence of this using both salt and sugar. So while we're still trying to figure out precisely why this is the case, we DO know that it IS the case.

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.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 07:05 AM   #122
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,387
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.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 07:12 AM   #123
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,098
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:
If someone asks who committed a robbery and the police investigators state that they don't presently know because they don't have enough evidence to name a suspect, it doesn't mean that the question is open for you to assert that the robbery was committed by an invisible leprechaun. Noting that the investigators can't currently provide an answer does not legitimize your explanation simply because you make a positive claim of knowledge. In short, saying, "My magical explanation must be correct because you haven't offered a naturalistic answer of your own" couldn't be more wrong. It is better to admit our ignorance and hope for further evidence than to simply make stuff up.
__________________
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.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:12 AM   #124
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
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:
naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist. Please present good reasons, why you believe this world view to be the best explanation for our existence.
God is supernatural by definition. The Supernatural does not exist by definition. Therefore God does not exist. If you don't agree with this then you will have to redefine 'supernatural', 'exists', and/or 'God' to mean something other than what the rest of us have agreed on.

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:
how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?
I got here by car. How did you get to where you are?

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:
naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyond our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?
See above. Anything that isn't part of the natural world doesn't exist, by definition. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the people who defined those words.

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:
Its a fundamental question. Either the universe exists since eternity ( in one way or form, or the other ), or it had a beginning. That are the two possibilities that are possible.
Where is the start of a circle? If I can't find the start, does that mean it goes on forever?

Quote:
do you not want to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?
Sometimes it's better to just admit you don't know, rather trying to create some imaginary thing to believe.

What do you do when you don't know the answer?

Quote:
Truth being told, that is a very UNlikely scenario
Argument from incredulity?

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.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:18 AM   #125
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 14,699
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!!!!

Last edited by Wowbagger; 7th May 2012 at 08:19 AM.
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:34 AM   #126
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,976
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its a fundamental question. Either the universe exists since eternity ( in one way or form, or the other ), or it had a beginning. That are the two possibilities that are possible.
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.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:44 AM   #127
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets
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.
Very true. The nebular theory of planetary formation was hypothesized by Kant, but it was also supported by a huge array of evidence, including evidence from on Earth, evidence from Moon rocks, evidence from other planetary bodies in the form of pieces that have hit Earth and in the form of data from probes, and evidence from astronomy in the form of actually observing early planetary formation in nebulas. There's a huge amount of data supporting the idea that the Earth formed as part of the Sun's nebula by the accretion of smaller particles.

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).
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 09:09 AM   #128
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
/bow Dinwar

I suspect the OP will ignore or handwave it away, but your posts always make me want to look deeper into paleontology. Now if only I could find the time
.
Watch out for them volcanoes! You been warned!
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 11:33 AM   #129
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,837
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?
'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."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 11:46 AM   #130
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser
I suspect the OP will ignore or handwave it away, but your posts always make me want to look deeper into paleontology. Now if only I could find the time
Thank you! Paleontology is my life, it's all I ever wanted. I'm glad I can inspire others to look into it.

Originally Posted by Shalamar
It is the religious, those who lack intellectual curiosity who turn 'We don't know' into 'Therefore it must be god'.
The standard joke is that the most exciting thing a scientist can say is not "Eureka!", because that means they're done. The most exciting thing they can say is "Wait, what? How did THAT happen?"
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:03 PM   #131
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
How do you know those are the only two options?
any suggestion for other alternatives ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:04 PM   #132
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So what if it is a very "UNlikely (sp) scenario" if it is correct? If you come across a dead body in the middle of a field it is very unlikely that the person has been killed by a bolt of lightening, yet that could be the answer. Something being unlikely or not does not effect the actual truth value of that something.
in this case, any evidence that the proposed scenario reflects the truth ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:10 PM   #133
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
GIBHOR, I don't think people are going to feel that this is a fulfilling debate unless you acknowledge what they've already said to you; Can you give a summary of the debate so far so that we may see if your perception of it matches with ours?
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.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:11 PM   #134
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
How does making up an untestable explanation help?
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:13 PM   #135
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,606
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
in this case, any evidence that the proposed scenario reflects the truth ?
How about the evidence which has already been presented to you in this thread? Pretending that there isn't any evidence doesn't mean that that evidence doesn't actually exist.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:14 PM   #136
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post

This is what's known in the trade as "a lie". We actually have experimental evidence from the ISS for how dust starts to form planets--in zero-g, particulates clump. There is video evidence of this using both salt and sugar. So while we're still trying to figure out precisely why this is the case, we DO know that it IS the case.
please present the peer reviewed article that proves your assertion is true.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:15 PM   #137
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
in this case, any evidence that the proposed scenario reflects the truth ?
The "proposed scenario" is, if I'm following the conversation correct, the Nebular Theory of Planetary Formation and the Big Bang Theory. Several of us have pointed you towards evidence, including video evidence of what you consider unlikely. Hawking's books are a good general-public reference for the evidence for the Big Bang Theory (and many other oddities). Any introductory geology textbook (Earth: Portrait of a Planet is a good one) will list evidence for the nebular theory of planetary formation. You can also google pictures of actual nebula forming into planets. It's quite an exciting time for research into planetary formation, actually--there's more evidence now than ever before, and with the massive number of exoplanets discovered we're able to really test our concepts of planets in a way previously impossible to us.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:17 PM   #138
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,139
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
please present the peer reviewed article that proves your assertion is true.

Here you go!

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1119.pdf

Let me guess, you didn't even try to find it.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:17 PM   #139
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,606
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
lets resume it : the most i hear is : " we don't know".
That's because we don't know.

Quote:
Ignorance at its fullest.
Congratulations. You have successfully defined the word "ignorance".

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:
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 know" is not a conclusion. It's the start of a question. At least, if you take a scientific approach it is.

Quote:
I don't think this answer is honest.
Saying that we do know would be a lie. It seems that you know the meaning of the word "ignorance" but not the meaning of the word "honest".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:19 PM   #140
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,969
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Thank you! Paleontology is my life, it's all I ever wanted. ...
I have some hadrosaur toe bones and part of a jaw I bought at a garage sale. The family was selling off their elderly dad's rock collection and didn't know what they had.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 7th May 2012 at 12:21 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:25 PM   #141
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,837
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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.
'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."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:27 PM   #142
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
please present the peer reviewed article that proves your assertion is true.
I cited the video documentation. Thus, this is a dodge.

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:
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.
You're wrong. It really is as simple as that. If you disagree, provide the proof of your favorite conclusion. Until someone does, the best we can say is "We don't know". Believe it or not, scientists like me don't like that answer either--but our response is fundamentally different. Instead of making stuff up and pretending to know more than we do, scientists firmly establish the limits of our ignorance and then devise methods by which we can expand our knowledge into those areas. We haven't been 100% successfull yet. We've made a LOT of headway, and m understanding is that now it's a matter of limiting the choices, but we're not there yet. That doesn't justify dismissing the entire endeavor, or pretending that we know more than we do.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:29 PM   #143
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,136
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
in this case, any evidence that the proposed scenario reflects the truth ?
No, truth is a word. Naturalism just goes with what appears to be. You can have any gods you want, the burden is on your to demonstrate them.

Truth doesn't exist.
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:34 PM   #144
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,521
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
---
Doron Shadmi's errors (9feb14): http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=3584
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:34 PM   #145
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,136
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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.
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:36 PM   #146
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,136
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
Ah, but it can, you also can't make a star go supernova, you can test theory against observations.
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:37 PM   #147
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,136
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
please present the peer reviewed article that proves your assertion is true.
Hypothesis, theory and obsevation.

Sometimes the best you can do is see if a theory matches observations, shock, gasp.

I wonder what causes antibiotic resistence?
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:46 PM   #148
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,953
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
But it can be, and frequently has been.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 12:53 PM   #149
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,484
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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.
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."
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 01:03 PM   #150
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
Missed this one.

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.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:12 PM   #151
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,098
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
lets resume it : the most i hear is : " we don't know".
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:
Ignorance at its fullest.
You seem to think that admitting ignorance is some sort of weakness. It is not. It is only by identifying our areas of ignorance that we can focus the scientific method on them in the hope of replacing our ignorance with knowledge.

Quote:
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.
It is the only honest answer. To expect that we should be able to proclaim conclusions about something for which we have insufficient or no evidence simply because we already know a bunch of other stuff regarding that field of knowledge is, at best, naive. If unanswered questions are unsatisfying to you, it's no wonder that you have such difficulty with science and have chosen to accept baseless assertions that only pretend to provide answers.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Foster Zygote; 7th May 2012 at 02:13 PM.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:18 PM   #152
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, in some form all that makes up the universe as we know it has always existed.
Well GIBHOR?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:19 PM   #153
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
what we really want to know is 'how can we make our lives more interesting and enjoyable'?
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:
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.
Then you do certainly not care about historical sciences, which you cannot prove certain facts happened, like the theory of evolution ?

Quote:
See above. Anything that isn't part of the natural world doesn't exist, by definition. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the people who defined those words.
I personally dont think there is a need to make division between natural, and supernatural. The quest is just about if a Creator of the universe exists, or not.

Quote:
Sometimes it's better to just admit you don't know, rather trying to create some imaginary thing to believe.
When you see a archaeology site, artifacts of gold etc. , do you conclude, human beings made these things, or do you just say : we don't know how these things got there ?

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'.
Most scientists agree on the Big Bang theory. So most do deduce also, most probably the universe had a beginning. Therefore a cause. What was it ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:21 PM   #154
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Missed this one.

The theory of evolution CAN be tested, and HAS BEEN tested, numerous times, over the last two centuries. .
adaptation to the environment has been tested, ok, agree on that. Macro evolution however has not been tested, and never been observed.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:24 PM   #155
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,484
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
adaptation to the environment has been tested, ok, agree on that. Macro evolution however has not been tested, and never been observed.
Fossil record.

Fossil record.

Fossil record.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:24 PM   #156
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,139
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
When you see a archaeology site, artifacts of gold etc. , do you conclude, human beings made these things, or do you just say : we don't know how these things got there ?

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
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:25 PM   #157
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,484
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Most scientists agree on the Big Bang theory. So most do deduce also, most probably the universe had a beginning. Therefore a cause. What was it ?
Why must there be a cause?
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:27 PM   #158
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,022
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
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?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:29 PM   #159
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,674
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Then you do certainly not care about historical sciences, which you cannot prove certain facts happened, like the theory of evolution ?
Why do you keep saying this? Why do you insist on not seeing the evidence for evolution? That's what it is--willful ignorance. The evidence is there, for anyone to see (some of the books cost a bit, and you've got to travel to some pretty rough places, but no one said it was easy).

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:
When you see a archaeology site, artifacts of gold etc. , do you conclude, human beings made these things, or do you just say : we don't know how these things got there ?
I actually have some experience here--I've done paleo transects and stumbled upon archaeological remains. The most difficult remains are flakes--the leftovers from working flint into tools. The key is to look for the bulb of precussion, as it's something that necessarily must be on man-made flakes and which is generally absent from natural flakes. But the best way to tell what's man-made vs. natural (here "natural" means "anything not man-made") is to make some yourself. I've tried flint napping, but busted my hand up pretty good doing it; one of my coleagues makes his own bows, arrows, and spears using ancient techniques. You can also make pretty good arrow heads from the bottoms of thick whiskey bottles, a somewhat popular archaeologist passtime.

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:
Most scientists agree on the Big Bang theory. So most do deduce also, most probably the universe had a beginning. Therefore a cause. What was it ?
And most would answer "I don't know what the cause was--but they're working on it".
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:31 PM   #160
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,039
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
It's the only thing that's ever successfully explained anything else.
__________________
"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
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.