|
the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are. (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
to me is seems that randomness filtered by natural selections is still randomness all the same. But when I see such complex lifeforms [QUOTE]Originally posted by Zombie0915
to me is seems that randomness filtered by natural selections is still randomness all the same. But when I see such complex lifeforms I just can't fool myself into thinking that entropy(however filtered it may be) is the root cause of it all.
I agree that faith does not belong in science, but that doesn't mean that it does not belong in life at all. We dont need religion to figure out the truth but more to guide people in making better heuristics for themselves. Guiding principles like "do unto others..." seem to be the more important point of religion rather than how we came into being. Things like that don't make a person stupid, using faith to oppose evidence however does seem like a stupid idea.
What empirical data is there that tells us why zebras grew stripes or how giraffes got really tall, except that some zebras happened to have stripes and some giraffes happened to have long necks, and those animals had more babies than the others. Actually I guess that isnt quite randomness, but moreso a selective breeding process. So then that would make it a sexual thing, whoever has the traits that gets them the most ass puts them in the next generation, I guess selective breeding would be the answer instead of randomness, but still, survival value and selective breeding remain mere filters of randomness. How did the machanisims for selecting a mate evolve during the time before organisms had the ability to select? Are we really supposed to beleive that in those times our ancestors just ed whatever they could reach until some of them randomly started having the ability to choose a mate?
Those random chances, the entropy, they are places where science is incomplete or not yet understood. It just CAN'T be that random occurances are the root cause of all living things. But evolution seems to make people want to believe that for the time being until somebody firugres something out. I think evolution is the right direction towards finding the truth but this root dependency on random chance is where the flaw is. I guess I am saying mutations have to have causes in order for evolution to make sense to me, there seem to be a few proven causes but not enough to explain all life.
Please forgive me if I didn't understand you. |
No, I don't think you misunderstood me, so I'll try not to misunderstand you in my reply. It seems that you are essentially asking the metaphysical "nature" of natural selection. For that I honestly don't know, and to be honest I'm not sure it's terribly important in studying evolution. But to examine this at another angle, if we eliminate the value of natural selection itself, or to take it a step further - make natural selection a truly random event, then there would truly be no survival whatsoever. Or at the very least, the probability of a population's survival plummets drastically. For example:
take Pop. A and have it undergo random mutation over the long, long years. Now over time a part of that population inhabits an environment that, for some reason or another, puts a different kind of stress on that branch of the population - say a geographical isolaiton event for example. Well over time, this separate population we'll call Population B has some very different environmental factors to deal with, and as a consequence the mere randomness of mutation events just don't cut it for this new isolated population to survive. For argument's sake, let's say the food is higher in the trees for this species to reach, but before when it wasn't isolated it had food readily available on a lower level. A few mere random mutations over hundreds of thousands of years are not going to cut it for this population - what they need to happen instead is a filter for the population B to survive.
That filter is natural selection (NS). So with NS you start seeing a mutation event of say, longer necks, take place over more than just one generation - it occurs over and over again over thousands of years because this group is able to reach those higher-up fruits in the tree. However, the remaining members of the population B that have not undergone this randomly mutated event will not survive, because they were not naturally selected.
Follow? So think of the random event itself in terms of the mutated event only. Natural selection, however, occurs as a consequence to the ever changing environment itself - therefore this event is not a random occurrence.
Now if you're asking the metaphysical "whys" of it all, don't ask me, and don't ask any evolutionary researcher because they don't care. They leave the "whys" up to someone else. If you wanna say "Godidit", have at it. But don't bring that unsupported assertion into the same realm of science, where supported assertions must be utilized in scientific methodology.
And this last comment:
| quote: | | Are we really supposed to beleive that in those times our ancestors just ed whatever they could reach until some of them randomly started having the ability to choose a mate? |
Not exactly sure what you mean. Could you clarify a bit here? If you're referring to the beginning of critter development - well more than just evolution is theorized - symbiotic relationships is a common and fairly widely accepted theory for example. But if you're referring to man's ancestors, I'm not sure how to answer your question - do you want to know about monogomous relationships vs. polygamy amongst early ancestors? If so, what confuses you? |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
crikey you type fast, I think I was writing some stuff and editing some stuff as you were rebutting me, you might want to check the sorta self-corections I might have been writing while you were wriging your reply. :)
There are just a few missing details that aren't immediately obvious(like my whole embarrasing "ability to select a mate" thing), and that a school will not teach because of the controversy. I think alot more people would understand if some more of those details were given rather then leaving people to fill in the gaps with their imaginations.
But yeah, the question no longer stands ;) |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| How dare you all have a religious discussion without me? :p |
|
|
| Michael19 |
| back to youring drinking binge you hussy. |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
If you read say, Kuhn, or Popper, or some others, science sounds alot more like a power struggle to publish each person's opinion more than it sounds like an efficient method to reveal truths about the universe. |
It can be, as many academics tend to become egomanics. It is "true" as you say that this is an unfortunate event, but this is no basis to dismiss all or even some of science's findings.
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
There are alot of judgement calls made in science without any real empirical reason, those judgement calls that nobody seems to acknowledge are things that dont allow me to beleive that science is unfettered truth. |
I've had this discussion with many a postmodernist philosopher.
So, examples, please.
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
Beleiving in solely creation requires one to beleive that we are all under the influence of some greater being that has seemingly unlimited abilities, and that everything that exists was designed by this being, making one dismiss the very noticable patterns in how living things have changed over time. One almost has to falsify the past in order to beleive that a higher being created everything the way we know it today. |
But understand how neat and tidy such belief is for many people, since it absolves them of having to educate themselves, form a responsible, intellectual opinion and come to grips with the potential that this life is all there is.
Some people just don't possess the ability to, or the psychological tools to cope with, that possibility at the stage of life they're in.
-N |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
I'm quite willing to hear your arguments, please humour me by repeating them (please consider yours within the context of the documents I already posted).
And feel free to use the bible at length in its original language.
So you're saying you absorbed the close-to-a-dozen documents I referenced last week?
To some extent, yes indeed.
Of course I have. I have several colleagues that will teach a class in how the bible can't be used for anything resembling an historical source (or as anything other than a religious document) and then right afterward go to the shul.
Faith doesn't = stupidty. But in some cases it raises fundamental questions about someone's competences.
-N |
finally, someone who is on my side.
oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.
i suggest a look at this thread.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen
thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
finally, someone who is on my side.
oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.
i suggest a look at this thread.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen
thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break. |
You might want to re-read his post.
And why link a post in which you had no valid argument pertaining to 02 levels to begin with?
A bit confusing. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You might want to re-read his post.
And why link a post in which you had no valid argument pertaining to 02 levels to begin with?
A bit confusing. |
invalid according to your view on things? because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
invalid according to your view on things? because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue. |
It's invalid because you have no scientific validity behind your arguments ... not even any empirical evidence to refute Drug_Tito's rebuttal. If what you had to say was backed by any legitimate studies people might take you more seriously. Instead you attempt to use science as far as it takes you, and then you abandon it when it starts to stray from your alternative hypothesis ... if it can even be considered one.
Or do you have a scientific case for oxygen not being as toxic at higher pressures? As a diver, I can tell you that that's really quite silly. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
invalid according to your view on things? |
No, invalid according to a scientific standpoint to have valid evidence to support assertions. I just happen to merely share that view. I have used scientific reasoning to refute your points an endless number of times in the past, along with others.
Problem with validity?
| quote: | | because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? |
Logic and scientific rationale says you're quite invalid. Drug_Tito's statement is quite correct and you have posed no possible natural answer to his reply. As Occ stated, you only use science up to a point when it agrees with your statements, then discard or blatantly abuse it when it doesn't.
It's tedious and tiresome. If you want to discuss scientific reasoning, then do so. But stop abusing it now. It's not merely just an insult to me, but to every scientist who's devoted their lives to understanding the natural world around them.
If you're still not understanding me, think of it this way. Let's take an engineering company that's really good at building bridges. All of their bridges are structurally sound and very strong. They last for years on end. You come along and tell them that not only are their bridges made of Nerf, but that they've done it all wrong for years. You then try to tell them that they don't know what the hell they're doing, never thought of doing it differently, and are ignorant of looking at other possibilities of building a bridge.
So they ask you politely how else they could do it. But since you yourself have never built a bridge before, you show them some blueprints. They examine your blueprints and notice numbers and equations that do not add up in any manner - the structural integrity would fall instantly the moment a car drives over it. They build a model on a smaller scale in accordance to your numbers and show you just how unstable and invalid your calculations were, and show you just how easily the bridge collapses.
But you merely tell them it's bull, they're wrong and you're right. You run off telling them they are so ignorant of your views.
Now who the do you think the logically-thinking man would believe here? This is your problem, along with every other creationist I have ever debated with. You search so desperately for answers that are congruent with your pre-conceived beliefs that have no scientific validity in the first place. How the would you ever expect to have a scientifically valid notion hold water to a spiritual notion that can never have scientific validity in the first place?
I don't give a what you believe in, Trance, nor do I want you to give a what I believe in when it comes to scientific reasoning. This is not the place for belief. If you have no evidence to support your notions, it's invalid and cannot be science. Please try to understand this.
| quote: | | you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. |
My pre-conceived notion took many years with a wealth of evidence to support my conclusions. I would have no notion of any sort without valid evidence. You really should try and do the same some time in your life.
| quote: | | because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue. |
Argue all you want. The fact that you still argue does not entail any of your points prior to were scientifically rationale. Indeed, I think we've made a pretty obvious case otherwise over the years.
And whoever said God was a myth? I'm not an atheist. More of a deist, really. But whatever beliefs I have of the supernatural are unsupported and scientifically invalid, and I freely admit that at every given chance when someone asks me about my spirituality. To hold such beliefs in spirituality in methodological naturalistic philosophy would be erroneous indeed.
But by all means, keep trying to argue. I cannot help your shortsightedness. You still fail to grasp the simple fact that a supernatural deity of any sort cannot be tested, retested, observed, and falsified and can therefore not be held in a scientific view in any way. Until you understand this most obvious, basic point, you're still going to rant in utter silliness. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
finally, someone who is on my side. |
Eheh, that doesn't really sound like he's on your side.
| quote: | oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.
i suggest a look at this thread.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen
thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break. |
Yes, I suggest everybody looks at the thread and sees how you've conjured up more nonsense than an average Macguyver episode and haven't responded to any objections raised regarding those nonsenses. Now that I read it your logic looks like a Monthy Python episode.
| quote: | BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh... |
|
|
|
| Subey |
Tito,
Which do you think is the most inefectual? The War on Drugs or the War on Creationism?
I stopped keeping track a long time ago, but isn't this sortie number 43 against TvD? Good luck on your next drug interdiction flight, and don't forget to say hello to your wingmen for me. |
|
|
|
|
