quote:

Originally posted by Krypton MisterOpus: 1. I'de like to stick the subject of what the Pope had to say. We can debate the tenets of Darwinism at another time.

What the Pope is saying is directly debating the tenets of evolution, or as you call it, "Darwinism." For example, the Pope stated:

quote:

"But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

is flat out wrong. It is "scientifically proven" via methodological naturalism every single day in the lab and in the field. It is one of, if not the most scientifically sound theories out there. Furthermore, it has a known mechanism of action. Specifically:

1. Mutation
2. Natural selection

We see this mechanism in play and is testable, retestable, verifiable, and falsifiable, and is therefore completely valid to this day. Furthermore it leaves room for any corrections and modifications with any new evidence that we come across. This is how science works, and evolutionary theory is no different.

There is no debate on this issue. The pope, whom last I checked knows pretty much next to nothing in regards to science and research pertaining to the field of science, is talking a bit too far out of his ass on this.

quote:

2. If you disagree the statement "Science cannot explain what's outside of space-time." Why? I would think physics could not be used to describe extra-universal planes. ------------------------------ THE BOUNDARIES OF PHYSICS.......

I didn't disagree with the statement. Remember what I said?:

quote:

And that's a bad thing?

That's not disagreeing - that's asking what exactly is wrong with not knowing everything regarding existence at present? I submit that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but what our dear Pope and a great many fundie Christians tend to do instead is insert the phrase, "Godidit", wherever they feel they have no answers to difficult questions.

Scientists tend to have a different answer, and I think it's a real good one: "We don't know yet." We might know in the future. What we know now are giant steps to what we knew 30 years ago, lightyears from 50 years ago, and completely unforseen 100 years ago. Progress tends to give us answers as we dive further into our questions (which of course more questions arise, hence the process of science in a nutshell). Then again, we might not know these answers.

But what I will not do is insert something that is an unverified, untested, and unfalsifiable "belief" into the holes of knowledge on natural phenomena where they most certainly do not belong, much as our Pope is doing and what you are seemingly complicit with doing as well. Those plugs of faith do not belong in natural phenomena, lest they be judged by the exact same standards that natural phenomena are scrutinized by (i.e. scientific methodology).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-12-2007 at 04:44

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. Scientists themselves say physics breaks down at the instant of the Big Bang. We can't get past this issue can we?

At present we can't. Does that mean we stop trying to ask, probe, and see the possibilities of trying as our body of knowledge and technology continues to advance?

It's a funny thing called "progress." My favorite IDers and creationists tend to scurry away from that thought with science, but again that's how the world turns.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i concur, its a stellar answer. nothing like a bit of brutal honesty to admit our limitations and in so doing- further our reach some time in the future. indeed, "we don't know" is normally the first statement a scientist admits before setting off on a long journey of attempted discovery. somehow that seems more genuine than "god works in mysterious ways"

Amen brotha!

I always find it amusing when people question the theory of speciation over billions of generations - as supported by all available biological, genetic, phylogenetic, paleontological and geological evidence - on the basis of lack of proof, while concurrently believing that a ghost impregnated some Palestinian virgin 2000 years ago with the seed of the creator of all existence. Talk about selective skepticism.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What's outside of space-time cannot be explained by science.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Photons exist outside of time in the conventional sense (objects travelling at the speed of light do not experience time at all) yet we can still measure and explain their properties. Black holes could quite easily be said to exist beyond space-time (within them, time stops and all "space" is compressed into a singularity) yet we can still observe their effects on other objects and could predict their existence theoretically decades before any were observed. In quantum theory, the connection between particles and space-time is a tenuous one indeed (they can be said to exist both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously!) but that doesn't mean we can't predict and observe their behaviour with impressive precision.

The "entity outside space-time" argument is a lame one. It adds nothing new to our understanding of the universe while at the same time posing a number of questions that need to be answered before we can even begin to take it seriously.

For instance:

1) What is the nature of this entity? Of what substance is it comprised?
2) How can this entity interact with space-time if it exists intractably beyond its boundaries?
3) On what basis can we assume this entity to be supernatural (capable of acting without obeying any given set of natural "laws") rather than natural?
4) On what basis do you suppose this entity to be conscious, in contrast with all other universal forces that are not (gravity, electromagnetism etc.)?
5) In what sense can an entity that exists beyond space-time be said to exist at all?

This argument ultimately becomes self-defeating. Unless you can convincingly answer these questions, then you are left with a "God":

1) Who cannot be said to have a nature of any sort.
2) Who cannot be said to be able to interact with any observable part of the universe in any way.
3) Who cannot be said to be said to exist beyond the constrictive gratuity of "natural" existence.
4) Who cannot be said to be conscious in any way.
5) Who cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense of the word.

In other words, we are left with a God that serves absolutely no function at all. It may be said to "exist" in some unconventional sense of the word, beyond the realm of space-time - and that may bring you comfort for some reason - but it is a theory that doesn't differ in practical application from the theory which states the exact opposite: that there isn't a God. If you have two theories that reach the same conclusion and fit the facts equally well, why wouldn't we go for the parsimonious one that doesn't necessitate the inclusion of super-spatiotemporal beings for reasons that have never been properly explained to me?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Opus:

How can we quantify the supernatural?

Just because one believes in the notion that this existence is the result of divine intelligence does not mean one does not believe in science. Physicists, even you guys accept that our natural laws have a limit. Light does not travel outside of the universe. Therefore, no information can be exchanged, meaning we could never have contact with anything outside of our universe. Unless something (which would have to be divine/infinately-intellgent) on the other side had the ability to communicate with us.

Now I'm stepping into the realm of religion and philosophy, but there is no choice. We exist in a container. To question religiously what is outside of it is not madness.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Opus: How can we quantify the supernatural? Just because one believes in the notion that this existence is the result of divine intelligence does not mean one does not believe in science. Physicists, even you guys accept that our natural laws have a limit. Light does not travel outside of the universe. Therefore, no information can be exchanged, meaning we could never have contact with anything outside of our universe. Unless something (which would have to be divine/infinately-intellgent) on the other side had the ability to communicate with us. Now I'm stepping into the realm of religion and philosophy, but there is no choice. We exist in a container. To question religiously what is outside of it is not madness.

The universe encompasses everything. Light does not travel "outside" the universe because there is no outside. Just like there is no beginning or end of space there is no edge of the universe. Space is finite yet boundless because we're dealing with 4 spatial dimensions.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Apr-12-2007 at 18:18

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The universe encompasses everything. Light does not travel "outside" the universe because there is no outside. Just like there is no beginning or end of space there is no edge of the universe. Space is finite yet boundless because we're dealing with 4 spatial dimensions.

There could be an outside.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Opus: How can we quantify the supernatural? Just because one believes in the notion that this existence is the result of divine intelligence does not mean one does not believe in science. Physicists, even you guys accept that our natural laws have a limit. Light does not travel outside of the universe. Therefore, no information can be exchanged, meaning we could never have contact with anything outside of our universe. Unless something (which would have to be divine/infinately-intellgent) on the other side had the ability to communicate with us. Now I'm stepping into the realm of religion and philosophy, but there is no choice. We exist in a container. To question religiously what is outside of it is not madness.

But basically aren't you just arguing that we should answer with religion when science has yet to find an answer? I mean, I'm sure our ancestor did just that. Fire? Must be some god. Rain, thunder, lightning? Our crops growing, not growing? God must've been a good answer. I do believe that in this day and age we can understand that not having an answer at the moment does not imply that the question is unanswerable.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers There could be an outside.

I could also win the powerball lottery, but what are the chances?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

To deny science is to accept one's own ignorance.

___________________
Music for your Mind

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers There could be an outside.

Ok how? If you travel in any given direction for an infinite amount of time you will never reach an edge.

___________________
Retro ...