Science marches on

[kathylove]

Don't worry!

I had some to give, lol!

 

[tsst]

Your belief is wrong. Scientific theories require that accumlated evidence supports the theory, and that no piece of evidence disproves it. Faith has nothing to do with it.

The "leap of faith" tag line was a play on words not intended literally. My point was that neither a scientific theory nor a religious belief are proven facts. Both are believed by one group or another without being proven facts. The definitions are almost interchangeable. The first is a definition for theory and the second is faith/belief.

- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena, a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural

- something believed; an opinion or conviction, confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Not debating your statement Dean just trying to better explain what I meant.

...no true scientist would claim that Ida is unquestionably a human ancestor. Don't confuse "USA Today" type headlines with scientific concensus.

I was even lazier than USA Today. I watched the Sky News video (first 45 seconds). In particular the part where he states things like "one of our ancestors" "she is according to scientists a direct relative Ida and her descendants evolved into humans". Still the media though I guess so take it for what its worth. They also give the impression that the old guy talking is a scientist and he states "the link is no longer missing" :shrugs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52eidHJyDec&NR=1

There are no absolutes in science,...

We will have to disagree. There are many absolutes in science. Below for example ... I assume you meant no absolutes in scientific theory.

 

[RobbiesCornField]

Ah, but tsst, that table is not absolute. New "elements" are being discovered/created and are leading to changes in that table. Just something to ponder.
I'll go back to my lurking hole now.

 

[tsst]

Ah, but tsst, that table is not absolute. New "elements" are being discovered/created and are leading to changes in that table. Just something to ponder.
I'll go back to my lurking hole now.

Duly noted. To be more specific the ones that are there now are. Oxygen is oxygen, it is testable, provable and factual.

 

[RobbiesCornField]

Duly noted. To be more specific the ones that are there now are. Oxygen is oxygen, it is testable, provable and factual.

Specificity is a wonderful thing.
I just couldn't help myself.

 

[tsst]

Specificity is a wonderful thing.
I just couldn't help myself.

Off topic but how is the monitor doing? :-offtopic

 

[RobbiesCornField]

Off topic but how is the monitor doing? :-offtopic

The monitor didn't make it... He died last Saturday (the 16th), for no known reason.

 

[tsst]

The monitor didn't make it... He died last Saturday (the 16th), for no known reason.

Sorry to hear that Robbie. I always liked the look of those. Sorry folks back to the regularly scheduled program.

 

[vetusvates]

Y'all, I previously hijacked this, my own thread, so tangents to and fro "topic" are welcomed and encouraged, by me, original poster.
Incidentally,...and this will tell you how odd I am,...I have two periodic table wallpapers in my file of wallpapers for my computer. One is a parody of the internet. Google "Periodic Table of the Internet". And one is of the true periodic table, including theoretical atoms/elements, yet undiscovered or created yet, that fill in the gaps.

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-06-23--periodic-table-of-the-internet.html

And this one is for Dale :

http://idea-sandbox.com/blog_images/periodic_table_of_visualization_methods.jpg

 

[Chip]

I had some to give, lol!

Man, I wanna rep Roy again, but he's at 11,111. I'm too OCD to mess with a number like that.

 

[snakewispera snr]

I see that the big bang theory and God creating the universe as one and the same....
Have you ever thought that God lit the firework for the big bang...

 

[Michael823]

Man, I wanna rep Roy again, but he's at 11,111. I'm too OCD to mess with a number like that.

Dean (Roy Munson). You, my good man, have 10 fold times 10, and 10 again over, earned my esteem as scientist, logician, and moderator. If I am ever accused of anything...rightfully or wrongfully...I would only pray that you were my judge. And if I were ever convicted of anything...to my sentence I'd gladly go, if only you were my judge.
If I could rep freely, I'd gladly give you all of mine. And bask in having none, but having given away all of it to you honestly and deservedly.

So we've gone from debating creationism and evolution, to appointing the new messiah... I'm lost? I didn't realize moderating held such holy power, I guess this site was created in mods image!

 

[wade]

The "leap of faith" tag line was a play on words not intended literally. My point was that neither a scientific theory nor a religious belief are proven facts. Both are believed by one group or another without being proven facts. The definitions are almost interchangeable. The first is a definition for theory and the second is faith/belief.

- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena, a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural

- something believed; an opinion or conviction, confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Not debating your statement Dean just trying to better explain what I meant.

The fundamental difference between faith and theory is not in the definition of the words. Any scientist will tell you that a theory is an idea that is yet to be proven. A theory will remain as such until more facts can be collected. Any religious person will tell you that their beliefs are fact in the absence of facts. Not only that but they will go to war to defend their “facts”.

The “religious facts” that were written in the Bible over the last 2000 years will remain as they are for all of eternity. No new information will change them no matter how glaring their inaccuracy. The age of the earth is a fine example. Bible scholars will say we just don’t understand it yet and ignore all the evidence against it.

Scientific facts are only considered facts until they are disproved and then they are immediately discarded. Science does not insist we except the writings of Isaac Newton word for word. He was a great man. A leader in his day. But we will modify his thoughts, as new information becomes available.

Man, I wanna rep Roy again, but he's at 11,111. I'm too OCD to mess with a number like that.

Sorry Red, I repped him before I saw the wonder of his score.

So we've gone from debating creationism and evolution, to appointing the new messiah... I'm lost? I didn't realize moderating held such holy power, I guess this site was created in mods image!

I hope there is a lot of sarcasm in those words. I had intended to rebut your words but have decided to assume you spoke in jest.

I like the idea of running Dean for messiah.

 

[vetusvates]

So we've gone from debating creationism and evolution, to appointing the new messiah... I'm lost? I didn't realize moderating held such holy power, I guess this site was created in mods image!

Aaahhhhh......you sucked me right in for the sucker punch right at the end. I love it. Touche'.

But I will clear the air : I don't usually state my beliefs, because that is more or less beside the point.
But for the record, I am a christian, believe in evolution, and do not find creationism and evolution mutually exclusive. These are my personal beliefs. My degree in zoology and minor in philosophy fit perfectly together with christianity, integrated inside my head.

What I do find annoying,...are talking heads that are largely empty of the knowledge and thought of the ages. This includes complete and detailed study of the Bible. That is my personal belief, opinion, and pet peeve.

I have read many of the great philosophers (including Ludwig Wittgenstein, which was rather depressing), Plato, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, not Nietzsche yet, Sartre,...to name a few. And enjoyed them all. Some of whom believe in God and christianity. Some of whom do not. But I find the more I read, the bigger my world, and the broader my outlook in Life and this great universe.
And the more beauty I find everyday in my spirituality and my God. These are my personal beliefs, that I feel perfectly comfortable and secure sharing.

I suspect Dean's 'beliefs' and mine differ significantly. That is not the point. But he questions, challenges, thinks, and I suspect his beliefs are the product of many ingredients. That is the point. Which I can do nothing but respect.

This should explain, more precisely, my 'gushing' in post # 200.

 

[wade]

Eric, I hate it when you gush.

 

[snakewispera snr]

Aaahhhhh......you sucked me right in for the sucker punch right at the end. I love it. Touche'.

But I will clear the air : I don't usually state my beliefs, because that is more or less beside the point.
But for the record, I am a christian, believe in evolution, and do not find creationism and evolution mutually exclusive. These are my personal beliefs. My degree in zoology and minor in philosophy fit perfectly together with christianity, integrated inside my head.

What I do find annoying,...are talking heads that are largely empty of the knowledge of the ages. This includes complete and detailed study of the Bible. That is my personal belief, opinion, and pet peeve.

I have read many of the great philosophers (including Ludwig Wittgenstein, which was rather depressing), Plato, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, not Nietzsche yet, Sartre,...to name a few. And enjoyed them all. Some of whom believe in God and christianity. Some of whom do not. But I find the more I read, the bigger my world, and the broader my outlook in Life and this great universe.
And the more beauty I find everyday in my spirituality and my God. These are my personal beliefs, that I feel perfectly comfortable and secure sharing.

I suspect Dean's 'beliefs' and mine differ significantly. That is not the point. But he questions, challenges, thinks, and I suspect his beliefs are the product of many ingredients. That is the point. Which I can do nothing but respect.

This should explain, more precisely, my 'gushing' in post # 200.

Eric, if you have read the great philosophers, you'll probably like this

 

[vetusvates]

Eric, if you have read the great philosophers, you'll probably like this

LOL. Duly favorited.

 

[tom e]

Research the scientific method. Scientists and biblical creationists are not doing anything similar. Scientists are willing to dispense with theories after they are falsified (e.g. Lamarckism).



This question shouldn't "stump" anyone (LOL). I guess I'd like to see the evidence that supports the idea that these trees span alleged millions of years of strata. I'd also like to see a definition of "intact". Trees are long. They grow upright. If one is turned to stone and lies vertically in deposits of gradually layered, solidified sandstone (etc.), I don't see why it would be baffling for them to extend between multiple strata. :shrugs:

Find me someone who believes this, or more importantly, someone who has been convinved of this based on evidence. Strawmen are easy to tear down.

How could a stomach-brooding frog evolve? Selective pressure. Natural selection provides a means for the craziest imaginable lifeforms and processes to exist. Now granted, if enough time isn't allowed for these forms and processes to evolve, then I can see how it would be difficult to believe that they developed natually (over 6,000-10,000 years). But there is next to zero evidence supporting the creationists' idea of a young earth, so I don't have a problem dismissing that time-line.

There are no absolutes in science, and no true scientist would claim that Ida is unquestionably a human ancestor. Don't confuse "USA Today" type headlines with scientific concensus.



Your belief is wrong. Scientific theories require that accumlated evidence supports the theory, and that no piece of evidence disproves it. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Then I guess you can't understand how an accumulation of meters can be measured as kilometers...

I'm glad I read this post before I went on the "attack". You're right. The media is WELL aware of the controversy surrounding these subjects, and they are certainly not above exploiting it to increase printed or online circulation. We all need to employ critical thinking skills when we interpret ANY "fact" presented to us from the media...

Hot dang Dean, I love it when you come out of retirement!

 

[tom e]

Aaahhhhh......you sucked me right in for the sucker punch right at the end. I love it. Touche'.

But I will clear the air : I don't usually state my beliefs, because that is more or less beside the point.
But for the record, I am a christian, believe in evolution, and do not find creationism and evolution mutually exclusive. These are my personal beliefs. My degree in zoology and minor in philosophy fit perfectly together with christianity, integrated inside my head.

What I do find annoying,...are talking heads that are largely empty of the knowledge and thought of the ages. This includes complete and detailed study of the Bible. That is my personal belief, opinion, and pet peeve.

I have read many of the great philosophers (including Ludwig Wittgenstein, which was rather depressing), Plato, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, not Nietzsche yet, Sartre,...to name a few. And enjoyed them all. Some of whom believe in God and christianity. Some of whom do not. But I find the more I read, the bigger my world, and the broader my outlook in Life and this great universe.
And the more beauty I find everyday in my spirituality and my God. These are my personal beliefs, that I feel perfectly comfortable and secure sharing.

I suspect Dean's 'beliefs' and mine differ significantly. That is not the point. But he questions, challenges, thinks, and I suspect his beliefs are the product of many ingredients. That is the point. Which I can do nothing but respect.

This should explain, more precisely, my 'gushing' in post # 200.

Really dig this post as well Eric. I can't think of a way to say this without sounding like a dummy, lol, but this really is inspiring to me. I can't wait to get back into school and learn about 'this philosophy stuff'. I'm certainly weak on that, and it's not easy for me to read these guys without the guidance of a class structure.
I do have a feeling of spirituality that I just don't have the words for, and I do so want the words..:cheers:

 

[Michael823]

Aaahhhhh......you sucked me right in for the sucker punch right at the end. I love it. Touche'.

I wasn't trying to be condescending, it was a joke, I just never added the emoticons to make it clear. I agree with your philosophies, and really like that someone can separate religion and spirituality. There are many philosophies that inspire people to live a more positive life, and that's really what religion should be about. It should make people feel humble, and not entitled, like somehow their religion gives them more importance.