|
December 21st 2012... (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Dizzy |
| i don't even know how i came across this post in the Australia section, i think i was originally trying to search to find out why the tranceaddict.net webmail didn't work anymore and someone i made my way over here. go figure |
|
|
| Light The Fuse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Teflon_Teapot
they have found god and its called the higgs boson;) |
well there you go - ya learn something new every day |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by gumble
oh and i might add I think prominent atheist figures such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers are BAD for science in that they polarise peoples views of science as an "alternative" to religion.
they are both brilliant scientists though. |
nice one: gumble, you are reasonable :D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
formation of 'meanings of life' are not scientific. how is a metaphysical question about leading a good life, or how to be happy, a scientific question?? |
im not sure you're understanding the nature of this discussion.
i'm not talking about metaphysical questions. they are irrelevant to the topic. science has never, and will never, attempt to answer those questions. they are questions for philosophers, and they'll never be definitively answered.
who and where are these scientists that predict science could answer these questions?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
science USES rational thought to make it's empirical evidence make sense. |
so? how does that negate me using "science" and "rationality" (or reason) kind've synonymously?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
i meant that the concept of an external being could well be a kind of mental disposition: i didn't say it was proof of God's existence, i just said that it's an interesting phenomena. |
that pre-disposition has absolutely nothing to do with using one's rational mind to pretend god doesn't exist for the point of answering a simple question. which you STILL haven't answered by the way.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
that is simply not true at all: 1: those things all still exist, |
really? could you name the slavery act that regulates slavery in australia? or is it something our king decides for us?
of course these things still exist somewhere - and you know what? the countries that still have these problems often have harsh religious rules and regulations, or are so stunted by religious nonsense that they are afraid to vote for fear of the computer watching them, or are burnt or slaughtered for being witches.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
2: the MEMORY of them alters our actions today. history is told so that we don't make the same mistakes that we've made in the past. we know about beheadings because they've been societally valued (as negative in this case), and we're told about them so that we never get to a place where they will happen again. |
everyone aboard the irrelevant train!! toot toot.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
if you knew history, or had common sense, |
right, we're going to play it that way are we?
its not my fault you have a sincere lack of understanding concerning the argument and the points that i am making. it is getting really quite difficult to argue with you because you seem unable to grasp the nature of the debate.
it is your poor logic that leads you to err that religion created "morality" (whatever the that means) not my lack of historical knowledge or common sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
you would know that many of the laws that were carried thru history (murder being a crime etc) were created during times of state-religions. the church used to have massive impact over government, especially in European countries. |
yes, religion has had a wonderful experience influencing laws and the way it can subjugate the citizenry. besides that fact, are you really telling me that you think human societies had no concept of right and wrong before established state religion?
religion has influenced the "morality" debate because it evolved (and i use that term ing loosely) alongside concepts of right and wrong.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
you would also be able to recognise that many of the laws that exist now, or that at least used to exist are very similar to biblical laws, and it's not too much of a stretch to assume that this is no coincidence. |
surely you're not saying that something like murder was not considered wrong, or against the law before the bible was written?
where are our laws that govern coveting thy neighbour's donkey? our society is ing driven by consumer greed.
where are the laws making it illegal to disobey my parents?
where is the law forbidding the worship of false idols?
against adultery?
and this is just from the 10 big rules, let alone the other standards and measures that are pure nonsense outlined in the bible
the fact is, human beings have decided by reason and rationality what laws to pick and choose from the bible, even if we are to assume that laws came from the bible. the romans seemed to cope ok with social infrastructure without the bible.
indeed, the laws that HAVE been influenced strongly by religious doctine are probably the very worst laws man has ever forced upon itself.
how do you like those apples? how do you argue that religion has been a benefit to law when its almost always the opposite?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
not that it has anything to do with the point i was making, but it's still interesting. |
at least you got something right :p
this guy is hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1czXvHSjDac |
|
|
| sunrise3500 |
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. If you read all this, well you'll find you must be extremely bored, and I have just copied/pasted and randomly highlighted crap. I just wanted to join in with the long posts that no one reads. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994 |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| I like big words :wtf: |
|
|
| DJ_Ballistic |
whenever you talk about religion you just go off on rants that show your opinion on the topic rather than anything objective
the biggest problem with ur argument here is that u seem to base your concept of religion purely on christianity and the bible
religion and law have existed in various forms way before jesus came along and have no doubt helped shaped each other and peoples moral compass thru the ages
you pick 4 of the commandments which would be hardest to police, therefore making a law against them pointless as you couldnt police those things
also im pretty sure i read somewhere that it was illegal to commit adultery and to worship false idols at some point in time, the laws we have now haven't all been around since the beginning of the concept. Law just seems to have evolved with society where as religion has remained steeped in tradition.
and if u wanna go off at how crap the rules in the bibles are im pretty sure you would appreciate thou shalt not kill and steal, which are pretty much included in most religions, as 2 fairly good rules which are also law. You could say people knew better than to kill each other before religion came along but i think you'd find it hard to prove that.
tbh i dont get why your so against religion, it's man-made, and its stupid only becoz people are stupid, if religion didnt exist everyone would be finding other reasons for acting like retards.
everything else looks ok :D
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not sure you're understanding the nature of this discussion.
i'm not talking about metaphysical questions. they are irrelevant to the topic. science has never, and will never, attempt to answer those questions. they are questions for philosophers, and they'll never be definitively answered.
who and where are these scientists that predict science could answer these questions?
so? how does that negate me using "science" and "rationality" (or reason) kind've synonymously?
that pre-disposition has absolutely nothing to do with using one's rational mind to pretend god doesn't exist for the point of answering a simple question. which you STILL haven't answered by the way.
really? could you name the slavery act that regulates slavery in australia? or is it something our king decides for us?
of course these things still exist somewhere - and you know what? the countries that still have these problems often have harsh religious rules and regulations, or are so stunted by religious nonsense that they are afraid to vote for fear of the computer watching them, or are burnt or slaughtered for being witches.
everyone aboard the irrelevant train!! toot toot.
right, we're going to play it that way are we?
its not my fault you have a sincere lack of understanding concerning the argument and the points that i am making. it is getting really quite difficult to argue with you because you seem unable to grasp the nature of the debate.
it is your poor logic that leads you to err that religion created "morality" (whatever the that means) not my lack of historical knowledge or common sense.
yes, religion has had a wonderful experience influencing laws and the way it can subjugate the citizenry. besides that fact, are you really telling me that you think human societies had no concept of right and wrong before established state religion?
religion has influenced the "morality" debate because it evolved (and i use that term ing loosely) alongside concepts of right and wrong.
surely you're not saying that something like murder was not considered wrong, or against the law before the bible was written?
where are our laws that govern coveting thy neighbour's donkey? our society is ing driven by consumer greed.
where are the laws making it illegal to disobey my parents?
where is the law forbidding the worship of false idols?
against adultery?
and this is just from the 10 big rules, let alone the other standards and measures that are pure nonsense outlined in the bible
the fact is, human beings have decided by reason and rationality what laws to pick and choose from the bible, even if we are to assume that laws came from the bible. the romans seemed to cope ok with social infrastructure without the bible.
indeed, the laws that HAVE been influenced strongly by religious doctine are probably the very worst laws man has ever forced upon itself.
how do you like those apples? how do you argue that religion has been a benefit to law when its almost always the opposite?
at least you got something right :p
this guy is hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1czXvHSjDac |
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
whenever you talk about religion you just go off on rants that show your opinion on the topic rather than anything objective |
i have never claimed to be objective.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
the biggest problem with ur argument here is that u seem to base your concept of religion purely on christianity and the bible |
well, to be fair that particular response was in relation to egos' biblical reference, so it seems only natural to respond in a christian context. the other reason is that it the religion i am most familiar with, as i have read far more of the bible than i have the koran or torah.
i could list the wonderful effects religious doctrine has had on law in the middle east, but that just seems too easy.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
religion and law have existed in various forms way before jesus came along and have no doubt helped shaped each other and peoples moral compass thru the ages |
no, i think concepts of right and wrong predated organised religion, and that most obviously religious-inspired laws are a disgrace and hardly something worth paying homage to or referencing as "religion created morality". in the tribal context, understood norms were appreciated and obeyed because of their utility to the group, NOT because god gave them rules to obey.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
you pick 4 of the commandments which would be hardest to police, therefore making a law against them pointless as you couldnt police those things |
not true. many of those laws exist today in muslim societies, and i dont think that say, fidelity laws are that much harder to enforce than laws concerning stealing. there are still many sexuality-based laws in the US that have no chance of being policed.
the influence on "morality" by religion has been almost entirely negative, and it certainly didn't create standards for good behaviour.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
also im pretty sure i read somewhere that it was illegal to commit adultery and to worship false idols at some point in time, the laws we have now haven't all been around since the beginning of the concept. Law just seems to have evolved with society where as religion has remained steeped in tradition. |
very true, but that still isn't the same thing as religion serving as an effective moral compass.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
You could say people knew better than to kill each other before religion came along but i think you'd find it hard to prove that. |
well im not an archaeologist or anthropologist so i might struggle to prove it, but i'll nevertheless argue exactly that. how do you think early societies survived without norms of common decency?
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
tbh i dont get why your so against religion, |
because of its special treatment and its power to divide, and its influence on things it shouldn't be influencing.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic
if religion didnt exist everyone would be finding other reasons for acting like retards. |
true, but religion is very peculiar and particular when it comes to helping people act like retards. it is very difficult to reason with people that feel their behaviour is sanctioned by god himself.
how do you explain to someone that deep house is house infused with jazz which gives it a more complex melodic component, if god tells them that deep house is the devil?
, its too early on a sunday for this e. |
|
|
| Philby |
has anyone watched the new indiana jones movie? it seems to solve all our problems regarding the mayans lol
| quote: | Originally posted by MiSSyM
Firstly, I cannot imagine a world without God.
Amen.
|
why not? that is where the problems start.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
i agree with bateman: think there's a lot not answered, and what's not answered is pretty open: i don't think science can answer everything, but i think it says it can.
|
i think you've mentioned this a few times. and each time i have to come back and say you are wrong. so until next time... ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
Seriously tho dude - i don't buy in to any of the conspiracy theories around and you know im pretty right winged with most things.
I (wrongly) supported the war in iraq, I vote liberal and love big corporations for the most part. I am to a large extent (tho not entirely) pro US so not the 'type' to go screaming 'Its a conspriacy!'. But i also think that there is a lot of good evidence presented by many of these people that is quickly shut down by the conspiracy denialists using much of what was written above.
I dont think conspiracy theorists put their case forward better than those that deny them in any way at all but from what i have seen those that deny them do not do so in a manner different to the way i edited what you had posted.
does that make any sense? I guess what i am saying is that i agree with what you posted but think that the points you posted apply equally to the other side of the argument. |
i can make a 2 foot tall tower out of chicken wire. then put some newspaper in it. then set it on fire. then film it for youtube. OH MY GOD IT BURNS AND FALLS!!! THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT PLANTED EXPLOSIVES AND DESTROYED THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE!!
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Err....as far as I've gathered from this thread, there's only 2 actual scientists here. Myself and Gumble. Anyone else?
|
hey! i even have a lab coat and safety glasses that i pinched from csiro somewhere. not to mention published journal article :D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
not to mention published journal article :D |
hahahahahaaha. you have more peer reviewed papers than the entire "truth" movement.
that's great philbs, good from you :) |
|
|
| EgosXII |
was gonna just leave this thread on the tip where it belongs, but i'm pretty bored, so hey, why not come back in here, and say things i've probly said 1 million times previously, but u don't get..
to re-itterate: i don't believe in religion, i think the concepts outlined in the bible are fine, if that's a persons choice: i think science isn't all there is, and there are other truths out there that science can't explain- that's all i was saying.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not sure you're understanding the nature of this discussion.
i'm not talking about metaphysical questions. they are irrelevant to the topic. science has never, and will never, attempt to answer those questions. they are questions for philosophers, and they'll never be definitively answered.
who and where are these scientists that predict science could answer these questions? |
are you kidding me!? that's the point! the point is that science can't answer everything! that's an example of something it can't! i think YOU are misunderstanding the discussion.
| quote: | that pre-disposition has absolutely nothing to do with using one's rational mind to pretend god doesn't exist for the point of answering a simple question. which you STILL haven't answered by the way.
everyone aboard the irrelevant train!! toot toot.
its not my fault you have a sincere lack of understanding concerning the argument and the points that i am making. it is getting really quite difficult to argue with you because you seem unable to grasp the nature of the debate.
it is your poor logic that leads you to err that religion created "morality" (whatever the that means) not my lack of historical knowledge or common sense. |
i think we must be speaking cross-purposes. you're getting pretty upset about this religious information: i was merely using it as an example of a relevant opposition to science. that's why i've changed it to being a rational-based truth, rather than empirical. i was merely saying there can be a truth that doesn't involve the tangible world.
note the first and last points you made in the quote above. i think people made 'morality', it's NOT a disposition: it's something that's put into us by society, laws, and parents. when all 3 of those are steeped in religious dogma (as our culture has and still is, though far more subtley these days) then it seems pretty obvious that our 'morality' comes from religion. by morality i mean simply a concept of right and wrong. if you knew the history of the christian church in and around europe, then i think you wouldn't be able to deny that there is a connection between christianity (catholic/protestant &c.) and our current morality.
i don't mean legal rules alone, i mean social laws. all of those you listed are STILL social negatives! things have deffinitely changed since they were overtly taught to us, but they deffinitly still exist.
you also might note the point i made ages ago that biblical laws are most likely just ways that people DID choose, and made them religious dogma just because it makes people's lives easier (i.e: you don't want people killing each other, so u make it a 'sin' in the days when religion was all that held people with no state-structures in existence (like the jews in the roman empire, and during the dark-and middle-ages...)
so i guess i'm agreeing with you, but for different reasons: i think the religious laws were made by man, but the laws that exist now (legal, or social) do come from the bible, and are KEPT because they're rational. the fact is, the bible has survived a long time: the laws have always been there: the less popular/rational (for us) ones have been left behind but it'd be hard to prove that it has had NO effect on the creation or continuation of laws.
| quote: |
yes, religion has had a wonderful experience influencing laws and the way it can subjugate the citizenry. besides that fact, are you really telling me that you think human societies had no concept of right and wrong before established state religion? |
no. i think that right & wrong/ morality, are creations of the people's beliefs. people make the government and it's laws: if people believe religion, as they have for the past 2000-odd years, in most european states, then it makes sense. i'm not saying i like it, but it's true, if you connect the dots.
[/QUOTE] surely you're not saying that something like murder was not considered wrong, or against the law before the bible was written? [/QUOTE]
how can you explain murder? chaos? if we considered it naturally wrong it would NEVER happen, the truth is violence is natural, and is altered by our social & developmental upbringing & training.
| quote: | | how do you like those apples? how do you argue that religion has been a benefit to law when its almost always the opposite? |
not sure that's true mate. i think historically, the fact that most laws don't conflict with the bible's laws are far more than coincidence:
don't think i said it was a benefit either: i think you're being quite un-scientific, adding values to a statement that i claimed was true, not good or bad.
hehe, that is good: i can imagine how much he must get-- ing hahahahaa |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
hey! i even have a lab coat and safety glasses that i pinched from csiro somewhere. not to mention published journal article :D |
Really? Link me!
Oh and there, you just failed the test. None of us wear safety goggles. That's just what we put in the lab manuals to scare first years ;) |
|
|
|
|
