.com.unity Forums - "Real" ringworlds

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - "Real" ringworlds (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=9384)

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Jack:

Quote:

Arbitrary vs. Arbitrary - equivalent; of course, the arbitrary person you refer for the creationist side isn't (in most cases) still around to have their evidence questioned - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there for him/her to view, which you seem to assume.

No, I don't assume that. Their evidence was based off of complete ignorance of the universe. They knew nothing of geology, astronomy (real astronomy, not just things like postions of stars and such), physics, biology, quantum mechanics, etc. While we do not know everything about these subjects today, we know enough to be able to see that the hypotheses about the origins of the unvierse that people came up with 5000 years ago (basis of Christianity) are inherently flawed and can't be relied upon. Even those of 2000 years ago are suspect.

Quote:

Why not? Many of the great advancements in science have come about from someone assuming something with no empirical reason, checking it against observed evidence, and finding a better fit than previous theories.

You have confused hypotheses and theories. Hypotheses are unproven guesses. Theories are ex-hypotheses that have been backed up by lots of evidence and experimentation. Those hypotheses that ended up being right are the exception, not the rule.

Quote:

Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies

No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.

Quote:

Doesn't apply to theories about the past, as they cannot be properly tested. Besides, there is historical precedent for theories to become widely accepted by the scientific community without being subject to this bombardment, as was the early Version of evolution as Darwin wrote it.

Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi:

Quote:

Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.

Umm... no. I think I will have to enlighten some of you with the actual meanings of faith from older debates here... but I must get to class, so I will do so later.

Quote:

There is no way anyone can prove how old is a rock. That is a fact.

The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven. You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )...

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Jack:

Quote:

Well, there would be a decided lack of transitional structures (e.g., you could find scales, quills, and feathers, but you wouldn't find scathers, scquiles, or quithers (stuff halfway in between) - everything would either be functional or decay from something that was functional) in both the fossil record and modern critters.

Not another one of these arguments from ignorance... fossils are extremely rare. Only a very very small number of organisms ever get fossilized. The chances of a member of all species to have ever existed being fossilized are negligible. We are extremely lucky to have the fossils that we do.

All:
I have not yet seen anyone post a rational argument for Creationism (or something else that defies evolution and scientific origins theories). All you have done is post (often wrong) minor details/inconsistences and such with evolution and origin theories. This is no way to hold a rational debate. You need to present your side of the argument. So are you up to it? Can you post a good argument?

The reason I ask this is that you are not arguing from a valid foundation. If you are going to declare a theory wrong, you have to present a valid counter-theory (simply spurting out Creationism is not a theory, but a hypothesis).

[ May 19, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: "Real" ringworlds

you want proof, try faith. it can't work any other way.

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Fyron:

Quote:

The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven. You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so

Yeah, I know that I'm an ignorant, but I think I have an idea of how that works. They claim that some type of rocks from some kind of stratus have certain age, but is purely especulative, based in that the deeper the oldest, or something like that. It gives me headache in my ignorant head, so I'm not really interested in knowing all the details, other than to critize it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So yeah, I'm guilty, I made my mind years ago.
Science is a cult.
Scientists are the new priests.
And I'm a very proud ignorant.
Will they burn me in the stake for heresy?

Re: "Real" ringworlds

and the bible intructs us to try what it says. so obviously that guy, at least, was confident he had proof.

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Arrg.... post lag.

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
you want proof, try faith. it can't work any other way.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is not about believing in things that you could find. Faith is about believing in things that cannot be proven. Faith is about those things that are out of Science's league: the value of a man, life after death, the existence of a supreme being. Faith is not proof. Faith is what you use when proof is not possible, not when it simply is not available.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Some of the Creation-related Biblical stories would leave footprints - the Flood, for example, has a few things it would leave behind, such as Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (there are witnesses to it, and satelite photos of an anomily that would fit the description) and evidence of a large water cataclysm (a Biblical explanation of the fossil record, also a good explanation for the smoothness of modern coal, trans-strata petrified trees, and a few other things).

You are not telling me about footprints to look for. You are pointing at things we already know about and tying them into your theory.
Tell me about something we will find. When we find it, it will be proof (not perfect proof, but proof). If we don't find it, you will not be penalized. If we find that it is not possible, your theory will require revision.

I tell you we will find transitional specimens. 'We haven't found them yet' does not disprove evolution, but finding them is the test of it, always has been. Please read, again, my first unreasonably large post.

And dependence on eyewitness reports is unacceptable. If it is real, bring in consistent evidence. Those satellite photos over Turkey have not been reproduced. Yes, it looks like there's something there. It also looked like there was a face on Mars. We checked closer. It's a hill.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Strictly speaking, nothing about the past can be proven.

Oh my. In response to this I must speak the most terrible thing I could ever say to another speaking creature.

Bah.

This is the path of desperation. Strictly speaking you can never prove anything. Try proving the existence of time. We have all this evidence, but we have to start with a belief in the past in order to test and prove that time exists. That one hurts me in special places.

Yes, historical theories are difficult to prove, but we not actually sure about gravity either. It's possible that we are completely misunderstanding the mechanics of it. But it is darn good enough to accept as fact. And evolution can get 'good enough' as well. Eventually we'll see it happen anyway.

And with that unnecessarily personal comment, I am offically stepping out of this thread for the day.

Stay turned to this channel for Fyron's lecture on Faith. I know I will.

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
and the bible intructs us to try what it says. so obviously that guy, at least, was confident he had proof.

Narf.... I just don't know what to say. I have no idea what's going on in there, and I've had that same problem with your previous Posts.

Not that I'm complaining, they've led us to a very interesting place. But you've got to be the highest Creationist I know.

Now, it's also possible that I've been missing something very simple, something that would make complete sense of everything you've said. If this is the case, I apologise.

Re: "Real" ringworlds

My problem with Science is that they have stolen the technology from us, they have mixed their especulations with proven technology to give credit to their nonsense.
Some people have come as far as to tell me that I can't be a technology buff while renegating of science, like if the two of them were the same thing.
I have no problem with calculating the distance to an star, but why in the world we have to especulate about the AGE of that star when that can't be proven and that is irrelevant?

.

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Quote:

Originally posted by Loser:

This is the path of desperation. Strictly speaking you can never prove anything. Try proving the existence of time. We have all this evidence, but we have to start with a belief in the past in order to test and prove that time exists. That one hurts me in special places.

.

Who says time exists?
Time is nothing more than the succesion of events.
You can't go back, you can't go forward.
It doesn't exist.
But it impress us, so we think it exists.

Re: "Real" ringworlds

Quote:

You are not telling me about footprints to look for. You are pointing at things we already know about and tying them into your theory.

and what's wrong with that? if you find an apple on the ground and a bunch in a tree above, even if you don't know about gravity you can still make it up and say the apple fell.

and fyron said that ancient religious figures where making statements that couldn't be proven. that guy seemed sure they could.

and things found in faith can be tried to see if they work in life. i've done it. and, fyron, if moses was shown all of god's works, he knew about things that make quantum physics small. of course, it requires faith to believe that moses was shown that, but if you exercise faith enough.
faith is a working bootstrap. i've seen it work.

time, like space and many other things, can only really be observed by it's affects. why you have to have faith that your not crazy. even if you take a little chance, your either having faith or desperation.

Quote:

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived

not seen is not the same as not percieved.

[ May 19, 2003, 21:36: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]