RE: Evolution vs. Religion

RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 4:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk The scientific method does at least attempt - through rigorous study, peer review and continual reevaluation - to reduce fallability. That's why I prefer this to going with what feels right. The scientific method has its uses, but in essence it is what animals do to learn something about the universe. It is extremely limited in its scope. If science had to rely on the scientific method only, there would be no calculus, no Newtonian theory of gravity, no evolution theory and the Earth would still be the center of the universe, to name just a few things. On the other hand, it does is possible for some animals to be spiritually aware. So when next you lose your keys, do have faith that you will find them again. Or even better: do have faith that you will become spiritually aware; the result might surprise you.

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 4:25:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I declare Kirata to be intellectually superior to lickenforyou. Well I could have told you that even before the "indian huckster" crack. Of course. (Though I do not remember that.) I thought that the contest was between l and t. It surprised me refreshingly that Kirata entered. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I declare Kirata to be intellectually superior to lickenforyou. Now while I think that was a really low blow even for lickin As I said: I do not remember that, but I do not doubt that you are right. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I declare Kirata to be intellectually superior to lickenforyou. I have to say it's good to see someone show us how they really think. Thank you. In my model of the mind it is a matter of having different intelligences. I am sure that l's is excellent, but in many ways not knowable to l it also is extremely limited. I dunno about t.

Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 5:12:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word of some Indian self help huckster. Especially one who wrote a book titled "Freedom From Thought" You'll have to excuse me if I view someone who would make such a statement as having little worthwhile to say, and no evident capacity for correcting that shortcoming. It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss the content of an article by ridiculing its author. And your confidence in the depth and breadth of your knowledge far exceeds the facts: freedom from thought is the goal of practices that have been scientifically studied and proven to produce myriad beneficial results. K.

xssve -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 6:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk The scientific method does at least attempt - through rigorous study, peer review and continual reevaluation - to reduce fallability. That's why I prefer this to going with what feels right. The scientific method has its uses, but in essence it is what animals do to learn something about the universe. It is extremely limited in its scope. If science had to rely on the scientific method only, there would be no calculus, no Newtonian theory of gravity, no evolution theory and the Earth would still be the center of the universe, to name just a few things. On the other hand, it does is possible for some animals to be spiritually aware. So when next you lose your keys, do have faith that you will find them again. Or even better: do have faith that you will become spiritually aware; the result might surprise you. How exactly do you figure that, given that all the things you mention are the result of the application of the scientific method? Limited as it may be, it's the only way to know anything, everything else is just guesswork and making shit up.

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 7:46:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve How exactly do you figure that, given that all the things you mention are the result of the application of the scientific method? You are wrong in your supposition. If such discoveries could have been made by the scientific method, then thousands of scientists would have made them before Newton, Darwin and Galileo. quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Limited as it may be, it's the only way to know anything, everything else is just guesswork and making shit up. You are wrong again. Observation is one of the means to establish facts. It can never establish meaning.

paulmcuk -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 9:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk The fact that Santa Claus (or Father Christmas, to add to your list) has a long history in folklore does not mean that he exists... You can get metaphysical about it and say that history and belief and imagery combine to give him a kind of pseudo-existence but in the sense of a bearded guy delivering presents to children every year....no. Oh jeez, this again? Map::Territory. Santa Claus represents the spirit of giving. You might just as legitimately argue that there aren't any streets on a street map, that they're just lines on a piece of paper. Fine. You're right. Now go away. K. Would have let it ride but for the last three words. I don't care to be dismissed in that manner, especially by someone who is wrong. I allowed for the fact that Santa Clause might be argued to have a kind of psuedo-existance but I specifically (and clearly) defined existance as existing in the physical sense. He don't hand out no presents so he don't exist. To borrow your map analogy, if map says there's a street in a certain place and I go to that place and find no street, there's no street. There may once have been a street that the map represents, but the street does not exist.

paulmcuk -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 9:23:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: xssve How exactly do you figure that, given that all the things you mention are the result of the application of the scientific method? You are wrong in your supposition. If such discoveries could have been made by the scientific method, then thousands of scientists would have made them before Newton, Darwin and Galileo. I know I said I was bowing out but I just can't let that one go. Just what do you think the scientific method is? It's not a means by which anyone can work out anything they choose to do. It's a means of testing and validating a hypothosis. You still require the moment of inspiration (or genius in the case of the people you mention) to come up with the hypothesis to test. It is possible that other people had similar ideas but lacked the ability to do the experiments and calculations necessary to a) test the hypothosis and b) explain their thinking (and therefore, why the hypoythosis may be correct) to others.

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 9:48:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk Just what do you think the scientific method is? It's not a means by which anyone can work out anything they choose to do. It's a means of testing and validating a hypothosis. I gather that it is making up a mathematical description of a process and seeing whether it is correct. Frankly, I have never understood the scientific method. quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk You still require the moment of inspiration (or genius in the case of the people you mention) to come up with the hypothesis to test. What is scientific about that? quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk It is possible that other people had similar ideas but lacked the ability to do the experiments and calculations necessary to a) test the hypothesis and b) explain their thinking (and therefore, why the hypothesis may be correct) to others. Umm, you do not know what you are talking about. People with similar ideas? In five thousand years of history I have identified only a handful of people with an abundance of original ideas. Do you truly think that guys like Newton, Galilei and Darwin needed to do any experiments and calculations previous to concluding that they were right? [8\|]

Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 9:55:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk I don't care to be dismissed in that manner... Fair enough, I apologize. quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk I specifically (and clearly) defined existance as existing in the physical sense. He don't hand out no presents so he don't exist. Yes you did, and that's exactly the kind of concretistic thinking I'm objecting to. It is specious to argue that a symbol "doesn't exist" when what it represents clearly does. I'm sure we all grant that Santa Claus is not a real person who lives at the North Pole, but that's not what Santa Claus is; that is merely how something else is being represented. quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk To borrow your map analogy, if map says there's a street in a certain place and I go to that place and find no street, there's no street. Unh... to borrow the map analogy, if Santa Claus represents the spirit of giving and you verify that the world is a uniformly selfish place in which there is no such thing, then Santa Claus (i.e., what Santa Claus stands for) doesn't exist. K.

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 9:59:20 AM)
Uh, yeah. Matter of fact, reams of them. And even then others did adjunct or direct work on those hypothesis, and even then, once in a while, like the theory of gravitation, someone comes along alot laterwith better tools and tweaks on it, like Einstein. Then we have Fermat's last theorem, proven only about 10 years ago, because the tools to prove it did not exist until that time. And Galileo wasn't just staring at the next door neighbors wife's tits and pounding his pud on the telescope, and he performed the velocity experiment many many many times. And so on.

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 10:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail once in a while, like the theory of gravitation, someone comes along alot laterwith better tools and tweaks on it, like Einstein. Pff. The hypothesis of general relativity sucks. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Then we have Fermat's last theorem, proven only about 10 years ago, because the tools to prove it did not exist until that time. Fermat said that he could prove it, but not in the margin. If I recall correctly that was more than ten years ago. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And Galileo wasn't just staring at the next door neighbors wife's tits and pounding his pud on the telescope, and he performed the velocity experiment many many many times. What has that got to do with realizing that the Earth is not the center of the universe?

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 10:10:40 AM)
As a matter of fact, there's been stuff on the internet lately demonstrating that Einstein was in the right about gravity all along: Gravity, bitches... As for Gallileo's pud: Einstein was not a handsome fellow...

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 10:12:17 AM)
General relativity is unassailable in most respects, it first of all contains science and secondly does not deal in foreskins. I can prove that the sun rises in the west, but this posting area is not large enough to contain that proof. Same issue, those that can do, those that can't don't. If you don't know what it has to do with center of universe issues, then we have an abundant proof of your lack of anything dealing in reality or truth. Your extremely untutored assertions to the contrary.

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 10:12:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Fermat said that he could prove it, but not in the margin. If I recall correctly that was more than ten years ago. Actually, Fermat said that an unusually big margin would be required, but you've never been overly concerned with getting your facts straight, have you?

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 10:22:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail General relativity is unassailable in most respects, it first of all contains science and secondly does not deal in foreskins. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=abducted.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I can prove that the sun rises in the west, but this posting area is not large enough to contain that proof. Same issue, those that can do, those that can't don't. Well, I too can argue that the sun used to rise in the west - and I could do it in the margin. Admittedly it will not be entirely convincing, but it most certainly does give me pause. (The argument and some of the evidence was provided to me by a former friend.) quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail If you don't know what it has to do with center of universe issues, then we have an abundant proof of your lack of anything dealing in reality or truth. Your extremely untutored assertions to the contrary. That is simple: In the context of Galileo Galilei measuring velocities has got nothing to do with his realization that the Earth is not the center of the universe. All it took was one look at the moons of Jupiter.

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 10:28:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail General relativity is unassailable in most respects, it first of all contains science and secondly does not deal in foreskins. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=abducted.gif] No plans to even pretend that you can answer that one, rather than acting like you've already won an argument you've brought nothing to, then?

thishereboi -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 11:39:58 AM)
quote: He don't hand out no presents so he don't exist. Let me see if I understand what you're saying here. He do not hand out no presents (so he does hand out some) so he do not exist. How does he hand out some if he do not exist? And you expect me to take your word on this do you? [8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 12:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule That is simple: In the context of Galileo Galilei measuring velocities has got nothing to do with his realization that the Earth is not the center of the universe. All it took was one look at the moons of Jupiter. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/galileo.html Thru a telescope, not peeping at the neighbors wife's tits. Therefore your untutored and wholly inaccurate assertion: Do you truly think that guys like Newton, Galilei and Darwin needed to do any experiments and calculations previous to concluding that they were right? [8\|] Like most all others you make, is dismissed trivially out of hand. But thanks for pointing out how wrong you are, it gives others a chance to learn.

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 12:22:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Thru a telescope, not peeping at the neighbors wife's tits. Therefore your untutored and wholly inaccurate assertion: Do you truly think that guys like Newton, Galilei and Darwin needed to do any experiments and calculations previous to concluding that they were right? [8\|] Like most all others you make, is dismissed trivially out of hand. For your information: the scientific method is about testing a mathematical model, not about making an earlier observation that inspires the discovery of a truth.

paulmcuk -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/9/2011 12:26:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: paulmcuk You still require the moment of inspiration (or genius in the case of the people you mention) to come up with the hypothesis to test. What is scientific about that? Depends on what triggered the inspiration. It may come after a long period of study on a subject - the result of endless calculations and experiements that lead to a certain conclusion. I am also allowing for a flash of brilliance that may seem to come out of nowhere but, in my admittedly incomplete knowledge of scientific discovery, such flashes rarely come from people who have not studied the field quite extensively beforehand. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule People with similar ideas? In five thousand years of history I have identified only a handful of people with an abundance of original ideas. That's exactly my point. People may have had the ideas, but the only ones you or I will know about are those who applied the scientific method and proved it to both themselves and others. Peter the Miller may have looked up in the sky in 1242 and thought, "Yeah, that's how celestial motion must work", but we've never heard of him because an idea is just an idea until proven. In the case of Darwin, someone else famously DID come up with the same idea. Alfred Russel Wallace's theories were very close to Darwin's but Darwin put the work in to really back it up with evidence. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Do you truly think that guys like Newton, Galilei and Darwin needed to do any experiments and calculations previous to concluding that they were right? [8\|] Of course they did. Study any of those men and you'll see a life filled with study, experiment and calculation to PROVE the ideas they had. Even if they were confident they were right, they knew that they had to prove it.

Page: << < prev 30 31 [32] 33 34 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625