Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Transitional evolutionary forms


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#16    kikuchiyo

kikuchiyo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2004
  • Location:montreal

  • I have an answer to everything

Posted 22 November 2004 - 04:54 AM

flint to the stone tool to the wheel to the lever to the inclined plane  
  
QUOTE
Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty?
  
  
Well it is the best way to comprehend the world, to understand the world we live in we must seek information form any source available (well that's my point of view). I studied theology for a semester in college because it's my quest for knowlegde that drove me to it. If you are simply interested in your own little world then so be it, but i would tell you this an opened mind is like having  opens eyes, they are better to see the beauty of the complexity of ones' universe.  
  
QUOTE
The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.
  
  
Yet it was used many times againts Copernic and Galilée, curious indeed.  
  
QUOTE
First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)
  
  
Do you know the law of Lavoisier? (nothing Disappears, nothing is Created there is only transformation)  

QUOTE
Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.


Well what's even more tricky is to prove if god exist at all. ( If not gods)

QUOTE
Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.


That would be called the placebo effect, in my antropology study group we studied that effect, which is quite interesting indeed. Some use Shamans others Crystals and some use gods, but it all have the same effect a form of healing, basically ease the pain and removes stress. That effect can also be seen in players when they "pump up" before a match with team songs and cheers.

QUOTE
Upon my decisions to follow Him, I began to see things that were impossible become possible. But it was only after these decisions to follow him. Would God reveal his concrete actions to a person who would indefinately regect them? No, because it would be a waste of time. Like peeing into the wind for him I suppose. I have even heard reports from bretheren about powerful movements, in which 3 people were raised from the dead (Unfortunately I was not able to withness this myself, so it of course will be subject to more speculation that things I have seen with my own eyes.).


Tell me can a child born prematurely think for him self;"there's no god, i'll let those doctors cure me". My family and I spend days praying to a god to help this small child, but he wouldn't live to even be able to open his eyes, yet live long enough to feel the pain of broken legs and several operations. Can Moises reject god, could he? was he even able to understand what was happening around him?

Carpe Diem People!
***
want a mighty supa fly avatar ask for Universal "Mad skills" Absurdity
***
http://www.unexplain...pe=post&id=9407
Uber Foolish Funk Shaolin Monk "tonk" of the Skeptical Non Believers of Uppity Annoyance

#17    Mr. 420

Mr. 420

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2004
  • Location:The Thermo-Stat

  • In a little toolshed he made us suffer, sad satan

Posted 22 November 2004 - 05:17 AM

Hey Insight, you, me, and Lodge should start a cult.
"The zealous religious non-conformists of confoundedly correct collected consciousness conspiracies"
We should get a banner.

Posted Image
You wore out your welcome with random precision, rode on the steel breeze...

#18    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,674 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 November 2004 - 02:56 PM

QUOTE
This caused you fear?


Asides from being a fairly common non-literal expression, yes, it did indeed.  Cre vs. Evo threads tend to be long and require much patience, and can get tiring at times.  Unfortunately, I can never seem to back down from them.

QUOTE
Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty? Would I myself consider your arguments to display a knowledge of creationist biology?


Yes, most definitely.  I have studied creationist argument with the same zeal and throughness that I used against evolutionary arguments.  I can and have on many occasion pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions that many rely on, and I will do so for you as well.  I am indeed an experienced pupil of creationism, though not a follower.   There is nothing wrong with learning about what the other side of a debate teaches; in fact, it is often the simplest manner with which to demonstrate both a respect for their knowledge and obtain the credibility any person requires prior to passing on their own teachings.

QUOTE
Define "understanding".


Understanding is having a thorough or technical acquaintance with the practice of a given field.  For instance, in the field of evolution, or science in general, you have made several statements that do not reflect what the field teaches, such as your examples of evolutionary descent, and your request to prove something wrong.  This indicates a lack of both knowledge and experience, as these questions are generally answer throughout not just one experiment, but through the practice of the entire field.

QUOTE
Define "formal logical structure".


Formal Logic is a method used by science to verify the correctness of an argument.  It has specific rules and warning flags that point out if the argument is structured in a faulty manner.  It is not, a method for gleaning facts or evidence, but rather one for logical deduction.  As an example, you have committed the Fallacy of Composition with your thermodynamics example, and I will explain that further on.

QUOTE
Nor would I consider any lacking of knowledge by you in regards to creationist theory a bad thing. Unknown ignorence is innocence. Knowful ignorance is is almost a crime of sorts.


I couldn't agree more.  This is why it is so important for you to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory prior to deciding that it is false.

QUOTE
Layman?? I do not believe that term would apply to a friend of my mother's who is a creationist quantum physicist, at such a level he has very high clearing military codes given to him.


Yes, but we are talking about you, not your mother's friend.  He too should be able to explain the Fallacy of Composition in the thermodynamics problem, and I would be interested in knowing, should he do so, how he reconciles certain problems.  Incidentally, I had top secret clearances in my military job as well, and it is a far more grandious title than the actual job warrants.  It is certainly no indicator of skill and knowledge.

QUOTE
Objective? But I though you believed Truth was subjective, not objective?


Truth is subjective.  Facts, on the other hand, are not.  Truth varies from culture to culture and person to person.  Science does not concern itself with truth.  It concerns itself with imperical evidence and logical deduction.  Truth is left to philosophers.

QUOTE
As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.


All theories do pose the threat of deceit, which is why there are so many complex and intricate systems put into place to detect it.  Prior to being published, all theories must go through a peer review.  All theories must have references, sources, and full accounting of data.  Failure casts immediate doubt.  Incidentally, the bible does not say the Earth was round; it states the Earth is a circle, and it does so as a metaphor at that (Isaiah 40:22--He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers)

QUOTE
Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.


Yet it is true that in details lie the facts.  As a student of science, I have personally verified and tested the foundations of the theories I expound.  If there is an error, it is my fault for not being able to detect it by following the rules of science.  As for deceit, I am afraid that I have caught creationists in knowingly passing off faulty information as factual, and I am afraid repeated experience has left me jaded.

QUOTE
You seem the first to think so. Also, what leads you believe I have not studied past first year biology? Perhaps my school teaches different truths that do not coincide with yours?


I guarantee you that I am not the first.  The statements and claims that you made in your very first post make it very clear that you do not understand or have experience with biology.  As for truth, it has no place in a science class.  Either the evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn't.

QUOTE
Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.


You do not need to type a thesis, but I do expect you to be able to recognize and avoid such basic errors.  These have nothing to do with creationism nor deduction.  They do, whoever, reflect on your credibility, no matter how innocently you use them, and they will affect the standing of your arguments.

QUOTE
As had the creationist theory of my subscription.


Yes, it stood unchallenged for several thousand years.  And yet, when a challenger rose up less than 150 years ago, we find today that literal creationists have dropped from a global monopoly to a mere handful.  How could such a longstanding notion be so dramatically overcome?  Simply because Truth had to give way to fact.

QUOTE
First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)
Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.
Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.


I will explain the first in a later post, as this one has already become too unweildy, and I must get to work.

The second betrays your lack of knowledge about science.  Science does not prove that things do not exist.  The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.  There is not such thing as a theory that explains why something doesn't work.

As for the miraculous healing, those are far more common than you would expect.  Through sheer coincidence, miracles (events beyond the statistical probability of them occuring) occur about 315 time a day.  Even given that, your question is a loaded one.  It presumes several things, chief among them that the cure was indeed miraculous and that implication that the Judeo-Christian god was responsible for them.

I cannot, for obvious reasons, explain each and every event you claim to be proof for your God, nor am I interested in doing so.  As I stated quite clearly, my purpose is to show you how evolutionary theory is scientifically valid.  Should you choose to apply the same rigorous standards that science applies to theories to your God, that is your choice.  It is not, however necessary.  Anybody can believe anything they wish, for belief has no rules concerning support, and sense and nonsense is waived.  Belief in the theory of gravity and in the ability of a pair of unwashed gym socks to guarantee you victory are both equal.  In science, however, faith is replaced by credibility.  It is not simply a question of belief, but rather of support and logical deduction.

Have you read the Evo vs. Cre Debate in the debate board?


#19    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 22 November 2004 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE
Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.


Why? Why does that have anything to do with evolution? Evolution does not disprove god...

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#20    Andy_R

Andy_R

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2004
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 22 November 2004 - 07:57 PM

The evolution vs. creationism debate is a touchy subject.

I do agree that the most damaging evidence against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils.  
If species A evolved into species K, we would expect to find fossilized remains of that species in its B through J form, yet there are none.  What happened to them?


#21    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 22 November 2004 - 08:51 PM


Do you know the law of Lavoisier? (nothing Disappears, nothing is Created there is only transformation)  

I think that this law does infact coincide with thermodynamics, in the sense that nopthing NEW is created, and that matter does not end. But what does this law mean in regards to transformation? Thermodynamics would state that the transformation you speak of only occurs from High to Low. Unless Lavoisier states otehr wise, I believe these laws are one in the same, buty using different wording.



Well what's even more tricky is to prove if god exist at all. ( If not gods)

Perhaps that is only so because the christian community does not fund massive scientiffic projects regarding such, because they feel they do not have to prove their beliefs to anyone. I think the time has come where such undertakings should, neigh must become a reality.


That would be called the placebo effect, in my antropology study group we studied that effect, which is quite interesting indeed. Some use Shamans others Crystals and some use gods, but it all have the same effect a form of healing, basically ease the pain and removes stress. That effect can also be seen in players when they "pump up" before a match with team songs and cheers.

The placebo effect is a very real thing, and alot stronger than many believe it to be. But I do not believe it can nessesarily account for miraculous healings (Such as reports of movements in which people with tooth pain have been prayed for and later found diamonds in the holes of their teeth, all of these people being of a desperately poor culture, and not being able to buy their way into such a thing. These reports were confirmed to me by what I consider the most reputable of sources. Obviously they are up for debate in your community)





Tell me can a child born prematurely think for him self;"there's no god, i'll let those doctors cure me". My family and I spend days praying to a god to help this small child, but he wouldn't live to even be able to open his eyes, yet live long enough to feel the pain of broken legs and several operations.

A common question I have been asked many times. A premature child is born with no understanding, and there for essentialy spiritually perfect. Without sin. Sin being his seperation from God. If he dies without sin, he is innocent, and not condemned. Some would say this is almost a grace factor of God, in allowing a human being to pass into heaven without trials. Before the fall of man, man was not meant to die. Death did not exist, and at the time, death was only a result of being seperated from God. After the first sin, man created death for himself (man being a creative being, which was made in the image of god), and condemned every one of his offspring to it. God however still did not condemn all men to die, but rather he wanted to give them every chance for eternal life, and instructed man on how to achieve it, even if their was sin in their lives (Repentence, and in the old testament, animal blood sacrifices.)

Can Moises reject god, could he? was he even able to understand what was happening around him?

No, and therefore, if the child dies, he is without sin, and without knowledge of sin (Just like adam and eve were before eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) the child is allowed to live forever in heaven, in whatever incomprehensible form that may be.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#22    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 22 November 2004 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE(Is It 4:20 Yet? @ Nov 21 2004, 09:17 PM)
Hey Insight, you, me, and Lodge should start a cult.
"The zealous religious non-conformists of confoundedly correct collected consciousness conspiracies"
We should get a banner.

View Post




Sounds like a plan.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#23    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 22 November 2004 - 09:53 PM



Asides from being a fairly common non-literal expression, yes, it did indeed.  Cre vs. Evo threads tend to be long and require much patience, and can get tiring at times.  Unfortunately, I can never seem to back down from them.

Ah, I see what you mean.


Yes, most definitely.  I have studied creationist argument with the same zeal and throughness that I used against evolutionary arguments.  I can and have on many occasion pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions that many rely on, and I will do so for you as well.  I am indeed an experienced pupil of creationism, though not a follower.   There is nothing wrong with learning about what the other side of a debate teaches; in fact, it is often the simplest manner with which to demonstrate both a respect for their knowledge and obtain the credibility any person requires prior to passing on their own teachings.

I agree with what you say, and believe it may become nessesary for me to study evolution in depth for me to more deeply defend my beliefs in the future.

Understanding is having a thorough or technical acquaintance with the practice of a given field.  For instance, in the field of evolution, or science in general, you have made several statements that do not reflect what the field teaches, such as your examples of evolutionary descent, and your request to prove something wrong.  This indicates a lack of both knowledge and experience, as these questions are generally answer throughout not just one experiment, but through the practice of the entire field.

Conflicting feilds can yeild different results, and therefore different truths. Look at what Einstein was trying to accomplish with the unified feild theory. Both feilds worked mathematically seperately from one another, but they didn't line up when joined together. He failed to form a unified feild. As many have failed to prove both creationism and evolutionism together. A few have theories, just as with Einstein's feilds (Superstring anyone?) but so far nothing has yeileded revolution.


I couldn't agree more.  This is why it is so important for you to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory prior to deciding that it is false.

Agreed.


Yes, but we are talking about you, not your mother's friend.  He too should be able to explain the Fallacy of Composition in the thermodynamics problem, and I would be interested in knowing, should he do so, how he reconciles certain problems.  Incidentally, I had top secret clearances in my military job as well, and it is a far more grandious title than the actual job warrants.  It is certainly no indicator of skill and knowledge.

But it is an indicator of repect from peers. Such repect surely means something. And yes, I too would love for him to start posting on this board. I have many MANY questions for him now, and hopefully I will get to meet him again soon.

Truth is subjective.  Facts, on the other hand, are not.  Truth varies from culture to culture and person to person.  Science does not concern itself with truth.  It concerns itself with imperical evidence and logical deduction.  Truth is left to philosophers.

Two completely different schools of through come from the beliefs that either truth is something to be persued, or truth is something to be invented. Infact, I think that might be the defining factor in the Creo/evo debate, and possibly that of the entire world. Believing true is subjective places the ultimate power in the hands of man himself, which is corruptable and fallable. If man defines truth for himself ,conflict inevitably arises from another man with different definitions. A main question for you now is, who is right? are they both right? If they are, then that means my definition of truth, and yours, are equally as valid, and both true. But they cannot be BOTH true if they do not prove each other.


Believing truth is objective places the ultimate power in the hands of a being that is literally made up of truth, and who is perfect and incorruptable, and able to define truth for a corruptable being. If truth is something that is perfect, and un wavering, it could not fully manifest it's self in an imperfect world. It would have to be manifest in a world of perfection, and imparted into a fallable world in any way shape or form it could. Man is not meant to achiev perfection in his life time in order to be accepted into the perfection of heaven, he is merely meant to seek truth with all his heart, and admit when he has shortcomings. After his death, he is then judged by God, who looks at his heart and decides if he was truely seeking this perfection in selflessness. It states in scripture, that when we repent of our shortcomings, God wipes our slate clean. No body can die with a perfect slate, for we will inevitably forget at least one shortcoming, because we are fallable, but God looks at this too. It goes back to the thing about the newborn child and innocence. If we innocently forget to repent a certain shortcoming, but account for as many as we possibly can, God will judge us in his favor.


QUOTE
As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.


All theories do pose the threat of deceit, which is why there are so many complex and intricate systems put into place to detect it.  Prior to being published, all theories must go through a peer review.  All theories must have references, sources, and full accounting of data.  Failure casts immediate doubt.

Peers which are capable of innocent fallability.

Incidentally, the bible does not say the Earth was round; it states the Earth is a circle, and it does so as a metaphor at that (Isaiah 40:22--He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers)

Is a circle not round? He could have easily said, "The plains of the earth." But He didn't. He says everything for a reason. Also, that's a simile, not a metaphor. A metaphor is symbolic of something, a simile draws direct comparisan. A small technicality perhaps, but perhaps an important one as well.

QUOTE
Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.


As for deceit, I am afraid that I have caught creationists in knowingly passing off faulty information as factual, and I am afraid repeated experience has left me jaded.

As I have experienced from my side.


Too true though, too true, and thus they look like fools for doing so, ecspecially if they do not renounce it! As I have stated, I believe facts are truths. And perfect truth cannot manifest fully in a fallable human brain. For it to do so would be man becoming God. We are not meant to become god, which is why we were not meant to understand everything, which is the ESSENSE of why were are taught to recieve the rest in faith. No christian, no matter how intellegent, will understand all truth. But he is to take on faith that the rest of the truths exist. God never says we have to understand everything about truth to enter into eternity with him.


As for truth, it has no place in a science class.  Either the evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn't.

I don't think I've ever heard evidence speak. It always seems that people have to interpret it, and decide to believe it or not.

QUOTE
Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.


You do not need to type a thesis, but I do expect you to be able to recognize and avoid such basic errors.  These have nothing to do with creationism nor deduction.  They do, whoever, reflect on your credibility, no matter how innocently you use them, and they will affect the standing of your arguments.

Agreed.


Yes, it stood unchallenged for several thousand years.  And yet, when a challenger rose up less than 150 years ago, we find today that literal creationists have dropped from a global monopoly to a mere handful.  How could such a longstanding notion be so dramatically overcome?  Simply because Truth had to give way to fact.

I think this will be our main disagreement, because I think truth and fact are one in the same. What I percieve then, in what you have stated above, is that truth had to give way to lies. "fact" had to giveway to "misfact" The world has advanced more in the last 150 years then it has advanced in the thousands and thousands of years humans have been alive for. Since technology is power, and power corrupts, it makes sense that truth was corrupted as quickly as technology expandd quickly. I believe that we are all being controlled extensively, and that is not of God. God gave us freewill, and does not try to control us. Lucifer, on the other hand, wants power for himself, and to grieve his enemy, which is God. Lucifer would seek to control man in any way he could inorder to feel power, and to condemn souls into the torture which was created for him. (Hell being the seperation from god. A place created when lucifer fell, and a place never intended for man to dwell in the beginning.) It's not unreasonable to think that the governments has contact with aliens, and receives their highest technology from them. It is not unreasonable to think these alines are demons, or demonic, and are giving our leaders technology to be controls by Lucifer, in order to control the rest of humanity.



QUOTE
First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)
Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.
Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.


I will explain the first in a later post, as this one has already become too unweildy, and I must get to work.

Science does not prove that things do not exist.    

Attempt to explain. Attempt. But I disagree with this as well. Science can explain how something does not exist. Science can explain how lighting cannot exist when there is no electrical charge in the air. Science explains how frozen water cannot exist at a temperature of 100 degrees. These are obviosly elemetry observations.

The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.

Does science not allow for theory on how something doesn't work? Or is that something that is assumed when the above quote has already been placed?

But a very interesting point you have made here. The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.
Very interesting. What if the situation were revesed? What if the purpose of theory was to prove how something didn't work? Surely it would be much more tedious in it's advanced, for it is much easier to say why something is, than why something is not. Perhaps this is a fatal flaw?


There is not such thing as a theory that explains why something doesn't work.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Is it impossible for me formulate theory on why evolution doesn't work? I think I missed something here.

As for the miraculous healing, those are far more common than you would expect.  Through sheer coincidence, miracles (events beyond the statistical probability of them occuring) occur about 315 time a day.  Even given that, your question is a loaded one.  It presumes several things, chief among them that the cure was indeed miraculous and that implication that the Judeo-Christian god was responsible for them.

Not every miracle is of God. Some are of Lucifer. He imitates God. What better way to attack the enemy then to immitate him?


As I stated quite clearly, my purpose is to show you how evolutionary theory is scientifically valid.  

I don't doubt you believe in it's validity. I'd be more inclined to believe it's validity if my God told me it was true. If he told me he created the universe, then allowed it to evolve, I would believe in evolution. But he told me not so.


Should you choose to apply the same rigorous standards that science applies to theories to your God, that is your choice.

It is my choice. And I have made it. The Bible fortells a time when no man can deny the existance of God. And I would like to be part of that process. (Even though that time is during the apocolypse and such. *laughs*)

It is not, however necessary.  Anybody can believe anything they wish, for belief has no rules concerning support, and sense and nonsense is waived.  



Belief in the theory of gravity and in the ability of a pair of unwashed gym socks to guarantee you victory are both equal.  In science, however, faith is replaced by credibility.  It is not simply a question of belief, but rather of support and logical deduction.


Nothing can ever be 100% credeble though. Not in a fallable world. That's why faith even exists I suppose.


Have you read the Evo vs. Cre Debate in the debate board?

I will now.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#24    kikuchiyo

kikuchiyo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2004
  • Location:montreal

  • I have an answer to everything

Posted 22 November 2004 - 11:24 PM

Forever in heaven

Nice concept, which would rest my soul, but the fact is my brother is not alive while others live a wicked life.
****

The concept of Lavoisier is that things never really disappear they just change: As Oxygen turns into carbondioxyde after being consumed or as electron will move from atom A to atom B to "blend" them together.
---

In the glory days of religion, the vatican tried to shut the experimentations of scientist because they were asking question the bible couldn't answer. But since science became more accessible to the people the vatican simply turns away only to strike when the scientific community is able to do something that would help humanity, but to the Church it would be "playing god".

"miraculous healings"

so god would care for a tooth and not for a life? ( he was babptised only days after he was born, in order to let him reach "heaven" and not linger in the limbo with other poor souls, for more information about "where does the soul go?" check out "the 9 levels of hell")


Carpe Diem People!
***
want a mighty supa fly avatar ask for Universal "Mad skills" Absurdity
***
http://www.unexplain...pe=post&id=9407
Uber Foolish Funk Shaolin Monk "tonk" of the Skeptical Non Believers of Uppity Annoyance

#25    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,674 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 November 2004 - 01:13 AM

QUOTE
Conflicting feilds can yeild different results, and therefore different truths. Look at what Einstein was trying to accomplish with the unified feild theory. Both feilds worked mathematically seperately from one another, but they didn't line up when joined together. He failed to form a unified feild. As many have failed to prove both creationism and evolutionism together. A few have theories, just as with Einstein's feilds (Superstring anyone?) but so far nothing has yeileded revolution.


You asked me for a definition of "understanding" and why I do not believe you have it in regards to science, and this is another example of it.  Do not use the word "truth" in reference to scientific work.  Truth is not scientific terminology, and has implications beyond what any theory proposes.

(In regards to security clearance)
QUOTE
But it is an indicator of repect from peers. Such repect surely means something.


NO!  No, no, no, no.  A security clearance is not an honorary title of any sort and does not carry any manner of special academic privilege or dispensation.  All a security clearance means is that that person has access to data that is pertinent to the project they are working on, and ONLY the project they are working on.  Security clearances are not bestowed by peers and they are not given for respect.  They are granted by security personnel and only out of necessity.

QUOTE
Two completely different schools of through come from the beliefs that either truth is something to be persued, or truth is something to be invented. Infact, I think that might be the defining factor in the Creo/evo debate, and possibly that of the entire world. Believing true is subjective places the ultimate power in the hands of man himself, which is corruptable and fallable. If man defines truth for himself ,conflict inevitably arises from another man with different definitions. A main question for you now is, who is right? are they both right? If they are, then that means my definition of truth, and yours, are equally as valid, and both true. But they cannot be BOTH true if they do not prove each other.


Whichever is right is irrelevent.  Whether truth exists as a concept is irrelevant.  Creationism can trot out truth as much as it likes, but it will not make it any more scientific than it is now.  Science does not rely on truth because there is no evidence that truth exists.  Science relies ONLY on imperical evidence and logical deduction, not on truth.

QUOTE
Peers which are capable of innocent fallability.


When there are a dozen learned men seperately evaluating your work, and when your work is published in a scientific journal for the world to see and comment on, the chances of deceit grow smaller and smaller.  Invariably, frauds and hoaxes are brought to the front, if they even manage to get past the peer review process to begin with.  Please note that many of the examples creationists gleefully use to demostrate the times science went astray were frauds uncovered by scientists, not by creationists.  For that matter, many of the frauds uncovered in creationism were also uncovered by scientists, not creationists.  What guards the faithful from deception by their fellow man?  What system is put into place to prevent the faithful from being taught incorrectly, innocently or otherwise?

QUOTE
Is a circle not round? He could have easily said, "The plains of the earth." But He didn't. He says everything for a reason. Also, that's a simile, not a metaphor. A metaphor is symbolic of something, a simile draws direct comparisan. A small technicality perhaps, but perhaps an important one as well.


Let's not be coy.  A circle is not a sphere, much less an oblate spheroid.  If you look at the artistic conceptions of the earth and heavens from this time period, you will find a flat, circular Earth, above and below which are several levels containing stars, moons, angels, and demons.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth--metaphor: He isn't literally on a throne up in the air.  It simply symbolizes the kingly power he wields over it.

"and its people are like grasshoppers."--Simile:  Two unlike things often introduced by 'like' or 'as'.

QUOTE
As I have stated, I believe facts are truths. And perfect truth cannot manifest fully in a fallable human brain.


And I re-state that you understanding of science is lacking.  Truth is not a scientific term.  It is not precise enough, which is why it is often used in creationist topics.  Truth can mean a variety of different things depending on context, but by and large, its definition of "scientific fact" is overshadowed by its deeper meaning of spiritual law.

QUOTE
I don't think I've ever heard evidence speak. It always seems that people have to interpret it, and decide to believe it or not.


This goes back to the "fairly common non-literal expression" thing.  Everything is interpreted.  Everything.  Wether it be scientific facts or religious text, absolutely everything has to pass through the filter of the human mind.  The difference with evidence is that any person, regardless of background or personal belief, can run an experiment independantly and have the same result.  In other world, they can use the evidence to verify the interpretation themselves.  This cannot be done with religious text.

QUOTE
I think this will be our main disagreement, because I think truth and fact are one in the same. What I percieve then, in what you have stated above, is that truth had to give way to lies. "fact" had to giveway to "misfact"


I am afraid that this isn't a disagreement at all.  You cannot re-define scientific terminology at will.  Asides from being rude, it is also libelious.  You are changing what one person said to something else, and in the process change the entire meaning and intent of their message, just as you changed my claim that philosophical truth had to give way to objective evidence into truth had to give way to lies.  Personally, I find the implication of the latter to be somewhat insulting.

QUOTE
Since technology is power, and power corrupts, it makes sense that truth was corrupted as quickly as technology expandd quickly.


This is an example of what I claimed to be your deficit in creating a logical argument:

If: A equals B,
If: B equals C,
Then: A equals C

A: Technology, B: Power,  C: Corruption

Technology equals Power
Power equals Corruption
Technology equals Corruption.

Unless you believe that Technology is the same as Truth, then you have committed a logical error in argument.

QUOTE
Science can explain how something does not exist. Science can explain how lighting cannot exist when there is no electrical charge in the air. Science explains how frozen water cannot exist at a temperature of 100 degrees. These are obviosly elemetry observations.


There is no theory of lighting.  There is a theory of electricity which explains how electricity will react in a given environment.  Lighting is a logical deduction from that theory.  Theories exist to explain a phenomena.  There is no theory about how lightning doesn't exist because the the theory of how electricity does exist already covers it.  In other words, science explains how something can exist; if the requirements for that existence are not present, then neither is the phenomena.  If somebody wishes to supplant a scientific theory, they cannot do so by proving it wrong; they have to do it by showing what is right.

QUOTE
It is my choice. And I have made it.


No.  You have not.  You have not applied the standards of science to your god because you do not know what the standards of science are.  Perhaps, if you have read the Evo Vs. Cre, you have learned them.

QUOTE
Nothing can ever be 100% credeble though. Not in a fallable world. That's why faith even exists I suppose.


And scientists understand that perfectly.  In science, fallacy rules.  If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.

Incidentally, your statement that nothing can be 100% credible would negate the existance of Truth, wouldn't it?

In all cases, these posts are way too long.  Pick one topic, we'll resolve that one, and then we'll move on to another, or we will never get anywhere.  Take your pick of whichever one you wish.


#26    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 23 November 2004 - 01:22 AM


---

In the glory days of religion, the vatican tried to shut the experimentations of scientist because they were asking question the bible couldn't answer. But since science became more accessible to the people the vatican simply turns away only to strike when the scientific community is able to do something that would help humanity, but to the Church it would be "playing god".

Uh, the Vatican does not represent christians or God anymore in my opinion. It is a corrupt control device.



"miraculous healings"

so god would care for a tooth and not for a life? ( he was babptised only days after he was born, in order to let him reach "heaven" and not linger in the limbo with other poor souls, for more information about "where does the soul go?" check out "the 9 levels of hell")

These are catholic beliefs and do not directly represent the bible.
Also, do not count out Satan's influence over the earth. Too many people blame God instead of Lucifer. It is us, not god, who allows lucifer's meddlings. We allow inroads due to our seperation from God.


When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#27    The Gryphon

The Gryphon

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:05 May 2004
  • Location:The Great Pacific Northwest

  • There are no such things as accidents, only plans that others have made and failed to tell you about!!

Posted 23 November 2004 - 01:42 AM

Geez did this topic take an illegal left turn or what (that would be an illegal right in Britan)

As for transitional evidence I think you need to turn to paleontology and ask them. Any bone find is a miracle in itself, a fragile item that through chance and happenstance became mineralized and was 'cast in stone' as were. When we look at these site they are only mere glimpses into the past, like shining a penlight into a cavern. I don't doubt that there are many transitional skeletons, we just haven't found many. In a lot of your cases were talking millions and millions of years ago. An interesting note is that even though we have a dozen skeletons on T-Rex few of them are the same, some are smaller, taller, wider, not oly in stature height but in various bone lengths. So maybe theses are indications of transitional creatures.

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-- Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four

#28    Insight

Insight

    Soldier of the New World Re-order

  • Member
  • 2,844 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2004
  • Location:Right here!

  • When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
    When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.

Posted 23 November 2004 - 02:15 AM



Whichever is right is irrelevent.

Not according to what I believe.


Whether truth exists as a concept is irrelevant.  

I can't think of anything more relavent.

Science does not rely on truth because there is no evidence that truth exists.  Science relies ONLY on imperical evidence and logical deduction, not on truth.

Fact: The earth is round.

Question: I heard the earth isn't round. Is that true?
Answer: No, that isn't true. The earth is infact round.

Conclusion: It is true that the earth is round.


QUOTE
Peers which are capable of innocent fallability.


When there are a dozen learned men seperately evaluating your work, and when your work is published in a scientific journal for the world to see and comment on, the chances of deceit grow smaller and smaller.

Of HUMAN deceit. Not supernatural deceit.


QUOTE
Is a circle not round? He could have easily said, "The plains of the earth." But He didn't. He says everything for a reason. Also, that's a simile, not a metaphor. A metaphor is symbolic of something, a simile draws direct comparisan. A small technicality perhaps, but perhaps an important one as well.


Let's not be coy.  A circle is not a sphere, much less an oblate spheroid.
Did the Hebrews have a word for sphere? Perhaps in the hebrew text, it did infact say sphere.


If you look at the artistic conceptions of the earth and heavens from this time period, you will find a flat, circular Earth, above and below which are several levels containing stars, moons, angels, and demons.

Men drew these. These were not words of "God", as were the words of the bible.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth--metaphor: He isn't literally on a throne up in the air.

Not in the physical air, no. But on a spiritual plain, where he can observe earth, yes.


QUOTE
As I have stated, I believe facts are truths. And perfect truth cannot manifest fully in a fallable human brain.


And I re-state that you understanding of science is lacking.  Truth is not a scientific term.  It is not precise enough, which is why it is often used in creationist topics.

Probably because God idetifies himself to us as the source of all truths. We are not meant to define truths be ourselves, because we are fallable. But if God truely did invent our concept of and ability to pratice science, then what is scientiffically "true" before God, is also fact before God. Truth could be define as a fact that is not up for dispute.


Example: It is fact that all humans evetually die. This is not up for dispute.

Me: "God, is it true that all humans die?"

God: "Yes."

The fact that all humans die is a truth. It is not up for dispute.


Truth can mean a variety of different things depending on context.

Quite right. "Truth" can be a lie at times. Therefore, the only TRUE context OF TRUTH, is that which is unwavering. That which is undisputable. And to take a non-disputable fact and dispute it shadowing truth. It's making the truth harder to see. Over these thousands of years the bible has been torn apart and polluted by man's language. Thus many people believe parts of it are up for debate. Gods says that to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must become like a little child. Children believe anything they are told. This is how God wants us to be. He knows that we cannot wrap our human minds around his entire truth, and because of that we will speculate it and shadow it further. He knows the only way to fully accept it all is to believe everyword regardless of whether or not we understand it. This sounds nieve, and in any other context it would be. But God clearly states that he is the source of truth, and a solid foundation. That all other foundations will crumble for they are of man.


but by and large, its definition of "scientific fact" is overshadowed by its deeper meaning of spiritual law.

This cannot be done with religious text.

explain further.



You cannot re-define scientific terminology at will.

Asides from being rude, it is also libelious.  You are changing what one person said to something else, and in the process change the entire meaning and intent of their message, just as you changed my claim that philosophical truth had to give way to objective evidence into truth had to give way to lies.  Personally, I find the implication of the latter to be somewhat insulting.

Apologies.

QUOTE
Since technology is power, and power corrupts, it makes sense that truth was corrupted as quickly as technology expandd quickly.


This is an example of what I claimed to be your deficit in creating a logical argument:

If: A equals B,
If: B equals C,
Then: A equals C

A: Technology, B: Power,  C: Corruption

Technology equals Power
Power equals Corruption
Technology equals Corruption.

Unless you believe that Technology is the same as Truth, then you have committed a logical error in argument.

Aha, something I left out. The sources of power. Power used to ones own end is evil. Power used exclusively for other's good is pure. To gain power, and not be corrupted by it, one must use it selflessly. This is why God says that the greatest person in his kingdom is the servent. Because the servent remains uncorrupted in his power.

Human beings tends towards a state of disorder. Humans are inherently evil. Therefore the innocent use of power for one's self soon becomes evil, stepping on the heads of others. You gain by the loss of multiple others is not justice, or goodness.


Two sources of power: God, and lucifer.

The power we humans gain from God is that which glorifies God, the uncorruptable, the perfection. The power we gain from Lucifer is that which glorifies Lucifer above god, that which glorifies man above God. God's power cannot be used for evil. However Lucifer can immitate God's power for evil purposes. Hell, just look at the modern church and tell me it isn't of Satan himself.



There is no theory of lighting.


A Terrible typo on my part! I MEANT to say LIGHTNING, not lighting.

There is a theory of electricity which explains how electricity will react in a given

QUOTE
It is my choice. And I have made it.


No.  You have not.  You have not applied the standards of science to your god because you do not know what the standards of science are.

I see what you are saying here.

But I believe my God created my mind, and my concept of science, and my ability to persue it. I believe he lives inside me spiritually and will guide me towards correct scientiffic thinking and lead me away from incorrect thinkings.


And scientists understand that perfectly.  In science, fallacy rules.  If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.


There is no way to prove that God is not perfect. There are ways to prove that man is inperfect. To understand much of my responses, you must have a complete concept of what is possible in perfection. What is possible to come from perfection.

Can science prove that there is nothing beyond our human perceptions?
Can a man's ways prove anything beyond what is in his world? Can any knowledge we can muster account for things which exist in a completely seperate and different plain?





QUOTE
Nothing can ever be 100% credeble though. Not in a fallable world. That's why faith even exists I suppose.


And scientists understand that perfectly.  In science, fallacy rules.  If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.

Incidentally, your statement that nothing can be 100% credible would negate the existance of Truth, wouldn't it?

No.

Nothing that man says is 100% credible. truth does not come from Man. it comes from God. He and he alone can dictate truth. Man can attempt to interpret them, but is never perfect in this.

In all cases, these posts are way too long.  Pick one topic, we'll resolve that one, and then we'll move on to another, or we will never get anywhere.  Take your pick of whichever one you wish.

Agreed. My eyes are sore. But I fear that any topic I can choose will lead back to these types of posts.

How about we discuss the various possibilities of what might exist outside our universe, but which is still connected to it. Such as where conciousness actively comes from. If this is too bleak, I'll leave the topic up to you.

When the people fight against the elite, it's an act of terror.
When the elite terrorizes the people, it's called justice.


Evil wears many masks, but none so dangerous as the mask of virtue.

#29    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 23 November 2004 - 03:04 AM

QUOTE
Did the Hebrews have a word for sphere? Perhaps in the hebrew text, it did infact say sphere.


Nope. The hebrew word for circle was used.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#30    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,674 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 November 2004 - 04:08 AM

QUOTE
Agreed. My eyes are sore. But I fear that any topic I can choose will lead back to these types of posts.
How about we discuss the various possibilities of what might exist outside our universe, but which is still connected to it. Such as where conciousness actively comes from. If this is too bleak, I'll leave the topic up to you.


No, this thread is about transitional evolutionary forms, so let's stay in that general area.  First and foremost, here is my question to you:  Do you understand the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users