[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Faith is accepting something without proof.
All human beings do this. Even scientists when practicing science. [/quote]
No they (scientists) don’t! What a load of cock and bull!
Even if people do it, it doesn’t make the truth of what you believe in any more reliable.
I’m not bagging people for believing, but I will think people are silly for believing what other humans write about religion(i.e. the Bible) without questioning it.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Faith is accepting something without proof.
All human beings do this. Even scientists when practicing science.
No they (scientists) don’t! What a load of cock and bull!
Even if people do it, it doesn’t make the truth of what you believe in any more reliable.
I’m not bagging people for believing, but I will think people are silly for believing what other humans write about religion(i.e. the Bible) without questioning it.[/quote]
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Yep.
Yep.
Right. So?
So when a scientist relies upon assertions for which he has no evidence (your “unproven” above), he still in fact has “more evidence” than a devote person who also has no evidence? LOL!
[quote]
Anyway, your statement was just an effort to make yourself look smart but doesn’t really mean anything.[/quote]
No. My statement was an effort to respond to stereotyped views of both science and religion.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Yep.
Yep.
Right. So?
There is also usually more evidence for any assertion that a scientist makes than there is for god.
So when a scientist relies upon assertions for which he has no evidence (your “unproven” above), he still in fact has “more evidence” than a devote person who also has no evidence? LOL!
Anyway, your statement was just an effort to make yourself look smart but doesn’t really mean anything.
No. My statement was an effort to respond to stereotyped views of both science and religion.
[/quote]
What’s this LOL business? An unproven assertion does not mean there is no evidence for it. There must be evidence for it otherwise no-one would assert it. Scientists don’t pull ideas out of thin air. So yes, some scientific ideas are unproven but there is still more evidence in favour of their existence than religion.
Your last two lines were a wankish statement along the lines of the one I mention earlier. Here’s how that statement is vacuous:
you said that scientists are epistemologically circumscribed. Apart from the wankish choice of words you said humans are limited by the nature and limits of human thought. What! Humans can only think like humans! What the fuck! How profound! And these ‘true’ scientists aren’t just aware of this they are aware to an extraordinary degree! What degrees of awareness are there in this area? You are either aware of this or ylou aren’t.
Scientist’s aren’t dependent on unproven ideas. The whole idea of science is you start with something axiomatic then build on that. You have managed to state the opposite of what science tries to acheive.
I can’t see how you debunked any stereotypes either. You did offer a rather silly view but unfortunately for you the stereotypes(whatever they are, you didn’t refer to or imply any in your post) are more accurate.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Yep.
Yep.
Right. So?
There is also usually more evidence for any assertion that a scientist makes than there is for god.
So when a scientist relies upon assertions for which he has no evidence (your “unproven” above), he still in fact has “more evidence” than a devote person who also has no evidence? LOL!
Anyway, your statement was just an effort to make yourself look smart but doesn’t really mean anything.
No. My statement was an effort to respond to stereotyped views of both science and religion.
What’s this LOL business? An unproven assertion does not mean there is no evidence for it. There must be evidence for it otherwise no-one would assert it. Scientists don’t pull ideas out of thin air. So yes, some scientific ideas are unproven but there is still more evidence in favour of their existence than religion.
Your last two lines were a wankish statement along the lines of the one I mention earlier. Here’s how that statement is vacuous:
you said that scientists are epistemologically circumscribed. Apart from the wankish choice of words you said humans are limited by the nature and limits of human thought. What! Humans can only think like humans! What the fuck! How profound! And these ‘true’ scientists aren’t just aware of this they are aware to an extraordinary degree! What degrees of awareness are there in this area? You are either aware of this or ylou aren’t.
Scientist’s aren’t dependent on unproven ideas. The whole idea of science is you start with something axiomatic then build on that. You have managed to state the opposite of what science tries to acheive.
I can’t see how you debunked any stereotypes either. You did offer a rather silly view but unfortunately for you the stereotypes(whatever they are, you didn’t refer to or imply any in your post) are more accurate.
[/quote]
When lawyers are representing a client in the wrong, they often assemble a morass misrepresentations about what opposing counsel asserted, and then offer a tangle of half truths in response, hoping that the opposing counsel will get lost in trying to negotiate a morass of nonsense. Sorry, I’m not going to oblige you there.
Whether you like it or not, all scientific inquiry is dependent upon axiomatic statements.
Never said I debunked anything.
Yep, you gave up and tried to discredit what I said without actually showing what was wrong.
You even said “all scientific inquiry is dependent upon axiomatic statements” and pretended I don’t agree with that. I’m the one who fucking said that to start with.
The only stereotype you have affected is the one that religous people are stupid. I feel sorry for all the smart religous people you have tainted.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Yep, you gave up and tried to discredit what I said without actually showing what was wrong.[/quote]
Nope again. It’s simply that I’m not responsible for responding to your drivel above.
Try reading a thread before contributing to it. You might realize how sillly you sound.
You might even try reading your very own posts in this very thread from about an hour ago. I know that’s a long time, so let me refresh your memory:
AndyG wrote:
Faith is accepting something without proof.
Katzenjammer responded:
All human beings do this. Even scientists when practicing science.
AndG responded:
No they (scientists) don’t! What a load of cock and bull!
Yep, all the above is true.
If you don’t want to respond don’t.
If you do respond, come up with something better than “you sound silly”.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And the celtic cross predates Christianity’s arrival in Ireland.
I doubt this very much. Evidence?[/quote]
Ha ha, we’ll take the ‘katzenjammer scientific approach’ and accept it without any evidence at all!
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Yep, all the above is true.
[/quote]
If you believe that “all scientific inquiry is dependent upon axiomatic statements,” then you are contradicting yourself above. Sorry.
Axioms can’t be scientifically proven but they are considered so basic they are self evident.
Are you trying to post enough crap to get to the next page to limit the number of people who read your crap?
Darwinian theory is aka macroevolution in modern times. Please reference his book entitled, “the origin of species BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION or THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE”.
Look especially at chapter 9, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” Andy G, with all due respect, Darwin looked at some finch beaks and then wildly extrapolated that to concoct some sort of creation manifesto encompassing the whole planet. Building upon that shaky framework of 19th century science (where it was truly believed that a cell was just a solid mass of protoplasm), others applied their faith and dreamed up the theory of spontaneous matter and energy existence to encompass the universe, in inexplicable (to this day) contradiction to Isaac Newton’s demonstration of conservation. That’s literally pulling things out of thin air.
Once again, show me the evidence and I’ll be quiet and concede your point! Show me the evidence (that as a scientist I can reasonably accept) that one of the hundreds of thousands of fossils dug up over the past 150 years is an intermediate species; which by Darwin’s own account must be the vast majority or his whole theory is a wash; and I’ll return to evolution.
Or show me one example of how DNA mutation (and subsequent deletion of information) resulted in a new species and not just a variation in phenotype, and I’ll convert. And refusing to respond by pointing to the Bible will confirm that here is NO EVIDENCE, only blind faith in evolution. I’m not saying this with any malice, BTW…just simple matters of fact. Not ridiculing anyone here, but I am shooting big cannon holes in the HMS Beagle.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Every belief (or conviction, or conclusion, or what have you) is founded upon a kind of faith. Scientists call them axioms.
How does science fall into the realm of faith?
Axiom is not faith. It is a precise analytic statement of truth.
An axiom is an assumption; it is provisionally accepted without any genuine evidence. [/quote]
Axioms do not require evidence because they are untestable. Can you think of one axiom that is not true by definition.
[quote]
If what you mean by “real knowledge” is piercing the heart of the cosmos and elucidating the heart and matter of the whole thing for all of time - then, yeah, we probably cannot have any real knowledge. We are epistemologically circumscribed. (Perhaps, by the way, God is that which is not epistemologically circumscribed?)
We can, however, discover and elucidate truths that are useful and provisionally true. Whether any “truth claim” can be fully proven, however, is a very complex one, as you know. [/quote]
If we cannot have any real knowledge then how can we have technology?
What is this physicists name, perhaps I know him.
Just because there is mystery to the physical universe – I agree with that – does not mean we are incapable of knowing stuff. Even the physicist you spoke with needs to agree with the concept of probable knowledge otherwise he would never be able to make predictions – and he serves no purpose as a physicist.
[quote]Jpmpac1 wrote:
Darwinian theory is aka macroevolution in modern times. Please reference his book entitled, “the origin of species BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION or THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE”. Look especially at chapter 9, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” Andy G, with all due respect, Darwin looked at some finch beaks and then wildly extrapolated that to concoct some sort of creation manifesto encompassing the whole planet. Building upon that shaky framework of 19th century science (where it was truly believed that a cell was just a solid mass of protoplasm), others applied their faith and dreamed up the theory of spontaneous matter and energy existence to encompass the universe, in inexplicable (to this day) contradiction to Isaac Newton’s demonstration of conservation. That’s literally pulling things out of thin air. Once again, show me the evidence and I’ll be quiet and concede your point! Show me the evidence (that as a scientist I can reasonably accept) that one of the hundreds of thousands of fossils dug up over the past 150 years is an intermediate species; which by Darwin’s own account must be the vast majority or his whole theory is a wash; and I’ll return to evolution. Or show me one example of how DNA mutation (and subsequent deletion of information) resulted in a new species and not just a variation in phenotype, and I’ll convert. And refusing to respond by pointing to the Bible will confirm that here is NO EVIDENCE, only blind faith in evolution. I’m not saying this with any malice, BTW…just simple matters of fact. Not ridiculing anyone here, but I am shooting big cannon holes in the HMS Beagle.[/quote]
Thanks for actually posting an arguement, unlike that other bloke.
I’m sorry I don’t know enough about biology or evolution. My posts weren’t directed at that topic, just Christianity in general.
What I do know(or guess is very likely) is that there would be more recent exponents of evolutionary theory than Darwin. It might be harder to put cannon holes in their more modern ships.
You have done almost the opposite to the subsequent poster. You have said a theory isn’t correct because an ancient scientist got it wrong. He has said a modern theory must be wrong because an ancient scientist was right. We know Newtonian physics doesn’t apply to objects of large mass and at high velocities anyway so his point is incorrect anyway.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Axioms can’t be scientifically proven but they are considered so basic they are self evident. [/quote]
Sort of. Axioms are non-testable assertions. Scientists refer to this as an axiom; Catholics refer to this as a leap of faith.
[quote]
Are you trying to post enough crap to get to the next page to limit the number of people who read your crap?[/quote]
Hah! Actually never occurred to me. Trying to stay the tide of bullshit your letting loose. Man, you’d need a petty mind to think of something like that. LOL!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Every belief (or conviction, or conclusion, or what have you) is founded upon a kind of faith. Scientists call them axioms.
How does science fall into the realm of faith?
Axiom is not faith. It is a precise analytic statement of truth.
An axiom is an assumption; it is provisionally accepted without any genuine evidence.
Axioms do not require evidence because they are untestable. Can you think of one axiom that is not true by definition.
[/quote]
Being untestable they have zero truth value from a scientific point of view.
There is a great deal we don’t understand about gravity. This does not mean we cannot make useful things that interact with gravity.
[quote]
I just spent the weekend in the White Mountains with a very prominent theoretical physicist from Harvard…
In other words, I responded, "so mystery is an irreducible aspect of the universe? "
His answer, “that’s a pretty safe bet.”
What is this physicists name, perhaps I know him.
Just because there is mystery to the physical universe – I agree with that – does not mean we are incapable of knowing stuff. Even the physicist you spoke with needs to agree with the concept of probable knowledge otherwise he would never be able to make predictions – and he serves no purpose as a physicist.[/quote]
Actually, Lifty, you might know his name. One of the prominent string theory guys. Now I really got your ire up, eh? hee hee
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Every belief (or conviction, or conclusion, or what have you) is founded upon a kind of faith. Scientists call them axioms.
How does science fall into the realm of faith?
Axiom is not faith. It is a precise analytic statement of truth.
An axiom is an assumption; it is provisionally accepted without any genuine evidence.
Axioms do not require evidence because they are untestable. Can you think of one axiom that is not true by definition.
If what you mean by “real knowledge” is piercing the heart of the cosmos and elucidating the heart and matter of the whole thing for all of time - then, yeah, we probably cannot have any real knowledge. We are epistemologically circumscribed. (Perhaps, by the way, God is that which is not epistemologically circumscribed?)
We can, however, discover and elucidate truths that are useful and provisionally true. Whether any “truth claim” can be fully proven, however, is a very complex one, as you know.
If we cannot have any real knowledge then how can we have technology?
I just spent the weekend in the White Mountains with a very prominent theoretical physicist from Harvard…
In other words, I responded, "so mystery is an irreducible aspect of the universe? "
His answer, “that’s a pretty safe bet.”
What is this physicists name, perhaps I know him.
Just because there is mystery to the physical universe – I agree with that – does not mean we are incapable of knowing stuff. Even the physicist you spoke with needs to agree with the concept of probable knowledge otherwise he would never be able to make predictions – and he serves no purpose as a physicist.[/quote]
I don’t think science’s point is necessarily to “know” things. I see it more as a way of labeling, and predicting than understanding.
You would probably say that you understand gravity, but I don’t think anyone really does. You can use classical physics equations to closely predict things in normal life, but nowhere does science ever even attempt to offer an explanation of why. when you drop a ball from a given height I could figure out approximately how long it will take to hit the ground. But as for why the ball and earth are attracted to each other, who the heck knows? Gravity is just a label science applied to an unexplainable phenomenon.
If you ever really look into all of science is this way, classical physics, to electricity, to string theory. They put labels on things and figure out ways of predicting behavior, but never does it truely even attempt to understand the roots natural phenomenon for which we are left to accept on faith.
Why do I think 2 bodies of mass are attracted to each other? As a mechanical engineer I’m left to think, God probably thought it would be hard to walk around otherwise. Seems the most reasonable reason to me.
Andy, to clarify, what I meant is that Darwinists old and new are unable to defend the theory adequately. Perhaps surprisingly, in the last decade there has been an astounding volume of evidence pointing toward the intelligent design model, while simultaneously starkly contradicting macroevolutionary theory. It’s the evidence that convinced me - I used to be an evolutionist until I looked at the facts objectively.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Actually, Lifty, you might know his name. One of the prominent string theory guys. Now I really got your ire up, eh? hee hee [/quote]
Not the Pseudo-pop-scientist himself?
Concerning your remark about gravity: No, we will never know for certain everything there is to know about gravity because I don’t think it will ever be observable – but that does not mean we don’t have any understanding of how it works enough to build technology that interacts with it.
The fact that we know to launch a rocket at 11.2 km/sec to escape Earth’s gravity is proof that we are capable of knowing stuff. And we required unobservable knowledge to get to that point too.