|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
no, i'm saying that a more complex piece of tin won't become intelligent. it just doesn't compute for me. so, if you take my belief that evolution didn't make me, then evelution couldn't have made me, therefore there's big hole in evelution. which states that our development is random.
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
"no, i'm saying that a more complex piece of tin won't become intelligent. it just doesn't compute for me. so, if you take my belief that evolution didn't make me, then evelution couldn't have made me, therefore there's big hole in evelution. which states that our development is random."
I'll work backwards here. Evolution isn't always random. Mutations and to a certain extent genetic drift can be; natural selection is definitely not. To a certain extent it is- who happens to be in the path of the firestorm when it starts, who walks under the tree limb when it falls- but in most cases it isn't. Did evolution make you? Nope. Wrong level again. Your parents made you. I would aruge that the human species is halfway out of the evolutionary process by now, because of modern medicine. A more complex piece of tin will not become intelligent- intelligence is something limited to living systems, which a piece of tin is not. But a piece of tin CAN be made into something more complex that an uneducated person might not expect. It works the same way with intelligence. Once you've got a brain- which is required to get above a certain level of complexity- it becomes a test. Does adding brain power increase survival or reproduction? If yes, the species's intelligence will probably increase. If not, it won't. I agree with Dogscoff that intelligence is not a on/off switch, nor is there one type. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
And besides, evolution didn't make you. It is not some factory pumping people out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
If we understand the ways the human brain works we will propably be able to emulate it by using other technology. Emulating here doesn't mean that that machine will be less intelligent than a human, in the beginning it surely will but eventuall we will beable to improve it. When this will happen is impossible to say but that it will happen is most likely. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
i'm not saying that through evelution a brain could not sit here and type this i'm saying that there would be nothing behind the eyes!
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Again, you are completely wrong in your thinking of what evolution is. Please go do some research on evolution to learn what it really is.
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
I think narf is trying to say that humans have a "soul" and that such a "soul" cannot be the product of evolution.
LOL You believe what you want, but i dont think so. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
oh, when I say God, its a figure of speech, not a comment on evolution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
yes, primogenitor, that's what i'm saying. now, if i could figure out why fyron wants me to look up the definition of evolution...oh well, doing it anyway...ok, it still doesn't explain conciousness and there's nothing there, really, that i didn't know. so it couldn't have come up with it.
[ May 15, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Evolution DOES NOT make any claims as to how life began. That is a class of theories labeled as origin theories. Evolution only talks about how life is now and in the distant past. So, it does not need to explain how consciousness could develop from chemicals and electricity. However, there are many, many origin theories that explain such things.
I have told you to learn what evolution is because you are confusing it with origin theory, which it is not. Also, you have categorically ignored at least 5 Posts that directly talked about how intelligence developed. You did not even acknowledge their existence. If you wish to hold a discussion, you must provide counter arguments to the arguments made against your point, not simply ignore them. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
i did ackknowledge them, but only to say that evolution would only produce a computer. am i to brief? probably. i apologize. i think our confusion comes from the fact that your talking about evolution the definition, i'm talking about evolution the process, as it, according to the theory as i understand it, would happen.
[ May 16, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
The definition outlines the process, so any and all arguments about that are the same.
The source of confusion is that you are confusing evolution with origin theories. Also, you did indeed ignore the Posts. All you did was restate your original statement 3-4 times. You did not address the points they had raised of how you were wrong. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
i read the Last two pages, and didn't see anything in regards to my assertation that couldn't be answered by my assertation that all that would produce would be a computer.
now, if i theorize that a certain process will give rise to a certain better, stronger and more flexible steel, how does it affect my theory if i find an example of that steel in nature and that steel is intelligent? [ May 16, 2003, 05:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Narf, you have obviously misunderstood the responses to your Posts then. Several Posts have indeed adressed the issue quite clearly.
Go google for origins theories to get some good answers to your question. [ May 16, 2003, 05:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
"i read the Last two pages, and didn't see anything in regards to my assertation that couldn't be answered by my assertation that all that would produce would be a computer."
Err..you didn't say that at all. You said evolution couldn't produce intelligence; now you claim you meant it couldn't produce a soul. Two different things. Intelligence can be shown to exist, even if it is hard to measure. A soul..can't. Its a belief that it exists, or doesn't, and falls outside the realm of science (and therefore evolution) "now, if i theorize that a certain process will give rise to a certain better, stronger and more flexible steel, how does it affect my theory if i find an example of that steel in nature and that steel is intelligent?" It affects it not at all, unless the steel was produced by that process you theorized. Knowing -one- way something can happen doesn't mean that is the only way, even if a lot of the time it is. (it doesn't -support- your theory at all though) |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
One of the great things about theories is that they are not set in stone tablets, they can change in the light of new information and interpretation. Thoeries are not proved. When an idea is first proposed, it is a hypothosis. When it has some evidence it is a theory. When it is proven, it is fact. When evolution was first proposed, no one knew anything of DNA, genes, or much of what would now be considered important information. Indeed, for a time it was though that proteins were the material of inheritance and not DNA. The original ideas of inheritance were that offspring were a blend of both parents, tall dads + short mums = medium height kids. Of course this is rubbish, you can easily see that over time everyone would become the same, and in the world today there is a lot of variety, but at the time no one had any better ideas.
If you did find an amazing new metal, then your theory could be modified to include an explanation for how it came to be. Or it could be replaced with something completely different. Over the years many peices of evidence have been suggested to contradice evolution, but all can be fitted in to the model. One of the first was the evolution of the eye. A: The eye is so complex that it cannot have suddenly apeared fully formed overnight by a single mutation. Therefore evolution is wrong! B: Ahh, but it changed bit by bit, each better than the Last. A: But part of an eye cannot see. If you dont have a lens, you cannot focus, without a pupil ou cannot adjust to light and dark. What use is an eye that doesnt work? If you cannot see then you cannot avoid predators/catch prey/see mates/etc. B: It doesnt have to work to the same standard as ours. It only has to be better than the eyes of the competition at the time. The first eyes may only have seen black and white at very low resolution. But any mutant that could see in grey would do better than just the black and white ones. They dont have to compete with modern eyes, because they dont exist yet. Your eyes do not see as well as a hawks, but they still work. There are hundred more examples, things that didnt fit to start with, but then the theory was changed or someone thought of an explanation. Go on, try some! Ill do the best i can http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
A heart is useless without bloodand blood vessels Blood vessels are useless without blood and a heart Blood is useless without a heart and blood vessels In order for any of them to happen, all three would have to happen simultaneously, or be nothing but a liability. E.G. the heart has to be a functional pump in order to move the blood through the veins, the blood needs to be able to carry nutrients at that same time, and the blood vessels need to already extend to everywhere they need to go. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
An easy one to start with then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Note: plants do have a circulatory system, its just different to animals, esp mammals. They draw water into the roots and this goes into long tubes all the way up to the leaves where it evaporates. As water evaporates it draws more up the tube by surface tension and capillary action, kind of like drinking a straw. As the water moves, nutients such as minerals are brought with it from the soil up to the leaves. Theres another system which goes the other way, but im not sure how that works. The reason you need a cirulatory system is because of surface area/volume ratio. Above a certain distince from the outside the cells of the organsim cannot get to oxygen/food at a fast enough rate. This is the reason you dont have worms above about 1/2 cm wide, they get longer because that keeps the distance the same. You could have a worm 10 miles long, as long as it is no more than the critical width. One way to get around this is to put air tubes reaching from the outside inwards. Then as long as no cell is too far from a tube, its OK. But they can ony be a certain length before diffusion doesnt work. So the bottom of the tubes is filled with a liquid, many chemicals will disolve in water better than in air. Something that can carry oxygen/co2 in it (heamoglobin like). The ends could seal over with cells that can move the required stuff from the air into the liquid in the tubes. The tubes could join up within the organism so that they can exchange liquid. However, its still moving by diffusion. It could be pumped by the walls of the tubes contracting, like your throat when you swallow. The same liquid could also carry nutrients, waste, hormone, anything that need to get to all of the cells. Some of the cells in the middle of the tube network become better at pumping, so that those at the outside can become specialised into transfereing nutrients/gases into the liquid. Voila, you have a proto-heart, a proto-blood, and proto-blood vessels. Remember, at all stages it only has to compete with the previous stage. This is also not orthodox theory, this is just off the top of my head. It probably has several holes in it, but im sure they can be fixed. Evidence: Insects have air tubes going into their bodies. I dont think fish have a heart (cos i know the gills evolved into it). Plants dont need a pump to move water. Many small organisms are just filled with water(n stuff). In an embryo, the heart doesnt start beating for some time. Gets nutrients from amniotic fluid) There are many liquid containing orifices, the mouth for example. Arteries are partially contractile and muscle lined. Next! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
My mistake. Ive just looked it up to confirm.
Fish have a two chambered heart and a single circulation (Heart->Gills->Body->Heart). Mammals and birds have a 4 chanbered heart and a double circulation (Heart->Lungs->Heart->Body->Heart) I got confused. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif It is more basic than a mammal heart however, so it still shows that you dont need a complete mammalian heart to have a working circulatory system. [ May 16, 2003, 19:18: Message edited by: Primogenitor ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
The argument of the eye, and the approach that Jack used with the circulation system, has a name. It is Irreducible Complexity, and it would disprove evolution if a case of it could ever be proven to exist.
There are a number of candidates for Irreducible Complexity status, and the eye is actually one of them. The problem with the eye is not so much that is competing with other eyes, but that even the simplest vertebrate eye, and a few invertebrate eye, is filled with a clear fluid. It is the formation of this fluid that has the potential to be a case of Irreducible Complexity. Without this clear, and non-living, fluid, the vertebrate-type eye is not possible. Currently, however, we do not even understand how this fluid forms during the embryonic stages. One moment the entire eye-sack is filled with odd blood vessels, the next is filled with the 'human jelly'. The metamorphosis is not understood at all, Last I heard. It is easily foreseeable that once we understand how this process occurs during the development of every vertebrate life form on this planet we will better understand how it could have happened the first time. Another example is the cilia. These organelles are constructs that require complex and perfectly configured elements to function at all. Without any one of these elements these rudimentary limbs would simply not function at all. To view matters in evolutionary terms, the whole construct would have had to spontaneously generate in a complete, if relatively simple, form, as there are no 'more primitive' Versions possible. To take away even a single molecule, or even a single atom from one of the constituent molecules, would render the whole apparatus not less efficient but totally nonfunctional Almost all cilia are made of the same clever molecule, though sometimes (as on the humane sperm) the same structure is repeated on top of itself numerous times to increase the strength of the whip. But this matter has only been studied for a few decades, and you can't hold it against science if the scientists don't figure out everything right away. There are a couple other contenders for Irreducible Complexity status, but just because they might be irreducible does not mean they are. Give it time, science will pin it all down, even the things it has gotten wrong so far. But when you start questioning scientific theories, you need to use science to challenge them. build a hypothesis, test it, publish it for your peers, respond to their criticism. Or, of course, you could always just engage in energetic discussions, like this one. They're Grrrreat! |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Edit: Point of fact, I seem to have even specified that I wasn't just talking about mammals: Quote:
[ May 16, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Creation theory can readily explain such irreducibly complexities right now while, at present, evolution doesn't seem to be able to. Yet you seem to believe that evolutionary theory is a better explanation of such things. This is a very curious leap of faith on your part. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
I think the problem with most of these debates was alluded to further down in this thread and discussed quite a bit in the Plato's Pub thread a few months back. Any data (not evidence--see below) we can present can be fit into almost any hypothesis with a minimum of difficulty. Because no one is offering their theory as the "We-have-all-the-details-worked-out" theory (ok, no one who can be taken seriously), it's fairly simple to reinterpret the data to fit your pet ideas.
Probably the biggest hurdle to obtaining true "evidence" is our very limited scientific understanding. Some have estimated that the invention of the computer has allowed us to understand 22,000 years' worth of research in this century (in pre-computer years)--an improvement of 220 times--but all it has done has demonstrate our lack of understanding. Each new advance opens up a new level of complexity which must be studied, and it takes decades before we can be said to have a grasp on a new field of study. We will have no real "evidence" until we reach the informational limits of the complex world in which we live. Obviously, we need to build a Central Computer Complex III to speed things up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My other peeve with this issue is not one with the real reasoned debaters, but the psuedosciencemongers (did I just invent a new word?). At least in popular media, evolution is portrayed as a scientific hypothesis against alternate supernatural hypotheses. Evolution is not scientific, but naturalistic. The issue is usually one of competing worldviews, not one of science and myth. [edit]The distinction between scientific and naturalistic is important because most people think evolution is scientifically provable while recognizing that creation is outside the realm of science. The only "scientific" means of proving macroevolution is to observe it (requiring long periods of time), which still would not prove it as the means of species origination. Also, I don't buy into the currently popular "Evolution has nothing to do with origins" mantra. Micro-evolution has nothing to do with origins, nor is it much disputed(although I think the terminology is unfortunate--adaptation worked quite nicely, thank you). However, when one says "Microevolution, ergo macroevolution," one is dealing with origins and hypothesis. Unless, of course, one wants to Fyronize the word origin to mean "the origin of the first life form" instead of "the origin of all life forms." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's always helpful to know exactly what we're saying here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ May 16, 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Krsqk, there is no "mantra" as you put it. Evolution does not deal with how life began. It deals with how life changes. The arguments of how evolution must be wrong because we can't use it to show how life began are irrelevant at best because evolution makes no claims as to how life came from unlife. That topic of discussion is in no way about an evolutionary process. There is no "fyronizing" going on; only explanation of the huge distinction between theories and hypotheses of evolution and those of the origins of life. Several people have already shown that they believe evolution explains the origins of life, when it in fact does not. It is impossible to soundly argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because it does not explain how life began because it does not address that issue in any way. The theory of gravity does not address atomic spin, but noone would say it is wrong because of this. Gravitational force and atomic spin are not related (with current understandings of the physical world) in the same way that evolution and the origin of life are not related.
Most scientific origin hypothesis use evolution in them, yes. But, evolution is still not false if the origin hypothesis is false. This is not to say that evolution is true either, it is to say that no possible connection can be drawn between the two. In fact, it is entirely possible that the form of Creationism in which God created life and then let it go free and the theory of evolution are both true. Evolution does not depend on how life began. [ May 16, 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
ok, i figured something out yesterday while falling asleep, note, don't get into that habit. it will keep you up nights. keep your deep thoughts to sensible places, like the toilet.
but, like somebody said, i don't think you can really seperate evolution from beginnings and endings. and, by saying things like soul, i was trying to describe thinking and knowing your thinking. and, my understanding of the theory of evolutuion is that it does try to deal with how T.A.K.Y.T. came about, but if fyron's definition is right, so's he and then i'm not right in saying my theory rules it out. [ May 17, 2003, 01:36: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
thinking and knowing your thinking
and that steel and tin stuff was a metaphor. someone didn't understand that. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
It was not a metaphor as you wrote it. Maybe you intended it to be one, but it wasn't. An analogy, maybe. But, the basis of comparison is poor. For an analogy to work, the items have to be similar already. Intelligence and "better tin" have no similarities. Tin does not "evolve" or anything like that. Tin is tin is tin. It is never worse than tin nor better than tin. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Quote:
[ May 17, 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
The problem lies in how the word "evolution" is used. One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species. As such, it is closely related to hypotheses of spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, and the origin of life itself. You can restrict the term "evolution" to strictly mean microevolution, but the vast majority of those discussing and debating it on both sides use it to mean any and/or all aspects of the theory/hypotheses, often switching freely between definitions (sometimes even mid-sentence).
[edit]Fyron, this post isn't necessarily directed at you. You, at least, are usually fairly consistent in how you use a word (sometimes annoyingly so). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif However, evolution has come to mean much more in popular parlance than the limited scope which you place on it. [ May 17, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."
But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Micro-Evolution: T(n+1)=T(n)+1
Origin of life: T(0)=0 Macro evolution: T(n)=n ? |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
So what were getting at is this:
Evolution (of any sort) can only apply once you have an (living?) organism that can copy itself almost perfectly (doesnt have to be a cell or anything we recognise today) Micro evolution is short term, such as differences between wild and tame farm animals. It is evolution within the same "species" Macro evolution is evolution over long term, such as differences between birds and mammals, plants and animals. Evolution between "species" NB: I dont like the word "species", its not very accurate over evolutionary time. But i cant think of a better term. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Heres a poser then:
Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution? |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
[EDIT] Amd even more important, by who would the shrike have been created? [ May 17, 2003, 08:37: Message edited by: StarBaseSweeper ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
troops. evolution also means manuvers with troops.
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Gah! It's the evolution debate again!
*dogscoff runs screaming from the thread... |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Yes, biology is a demonic branch of science, geology is blasphemous, and astronomy is an attempt to corrupt young minds and open them to the evils of astrology. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I don't reject macroevolution and abiogenesis because they are the same; there are enough other reasons to toss them. I was griping about the tendency of debaters and pseudoscientists to "prove" macroevolution via microevolution, and then take abiogenesis as a given--after all, they just proved macroevolution, so that proves the entire theory. In other words, evolution is presented for public consumption as a seamless theory starting with a big bang and ending with us. It's almost as if the public couldn't handle the knowledge that scientists don't have everything worked out. If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.
*joins dogscoff in running and screaming--six miles later, stops and wonders exactly why and where we're running* [ May 19, 2003, 14:06: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
And it's not even the fault of the educators. They don't make the decisions, they don't write the textbooks anymore, they don't even get to choose them. And it's not the fault of the administrators. They don't have time to learn the theories, let alone time to make the right decisions. They're doing the best they can with what they've got. And it's not the fault of the fifth estate. The members of the media aren't getting paid to educate the public. They aren't even getting paid to delivery correct or verifiable information. Face it, they are getting paid to entertain us: 'educational' programming is just a different sort of entertainment. It is the fault of the public, as much as you might be able to use the word 'fault'. We (they, if you'd rather) don't really care to take the time, to invest our minds, to think enough to actually understand any of this stuff. At best we (or they again, of you want) just do a poor job of memorizing poorly delivered 'facts'. Humans don't want enlightenment, we (they if you must, you elietist) want dogma, want unquestionable rules handed down from those higher on the priestly hierarchy than we are, want to assail and exclude those who don't know those rule or, worse yet, challenge them. So many people don't understand the one thing that makes Science better than any other Dogma: it is wrong, it is fallible, it is questionable and it's okay with that. It should be all these things; anything that isn't provable and improvable like "The Will of God" for example, anything that requires faith belongs in a different field. At this point I would like to remind a few of you what faith is, to paraphrase a certain philosopher: "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, I would have to know Greek to understand the implications of the tense. Since we can prove scientific theories, one would be slandering 'faith' by using it to defend ones beliefs against assaults supported by proof. Such a defense has to be mustered in similar form: hypothesis, tests, evidence, rational arguments, and peer review. I have faith that humanity will continue to improve; on the other hand I have evidence that it has improved. I have faith that Science will solve all the problems humanity will ever find or make for itself, while I have evidence that it has solved many, many problems and answered many curiosities in the past. I have faith that I will offend someone today. I have proof that many people are easily offended. Quote:
Any one of these can easily, quickly, and confidently come up with 'answers'. But many of these 'answers' will either fail to stand up to Science, or will call upon forces outside the jurisdiction of Science. Things like God and Aliens and whatnot. Again, they can all bring something to Science. They need only follow the rules the scientists follow. It strongly reminds me of all the Southern U.S. Bible Belters who think they want God in Government but forget how uncomfortable they'd be with the God that would end up (or already is) in the government of Utah. They don't really care about God in Government, if they did they wouldn't want a Mormon God in such a nearby government. They just want power, and this is a cheap way to get it. Just another caucus. [edit: removed some generalizations, after their nature was made clear by a later poster] [ May 19, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Beautifully put Loser, all of it.
Quote:
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Hey, anyone and everyone, if you like what I'm saying, how I'm saying it, or the sound of my name, show your love and feed my rating. If you dislike what I've got to say, how I'm saying it, or are having a bad day don't be shy: step up and give it a wack. Go on, you know you want to. Quote:
I feel quite foolish. I knew there was another fairly well-known creation mythos I ought to have mentioned... I completely neglected Europe's other well defined religious traditions. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
|
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
Go Loser, that was one of the best Posts this year! |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Is it just me, or is there a gross mischaracterization of creationists and evolutionists going on here? At least in my circle, I don't know of any "we have all the answers" creationists. And you're also lumping all creationists in with your dislike of "Bible-belt" Christians, which I'm sure any Buddhist or Muslim (or Viking, for that matter) would take great issue with.
While we're tossing ad hominem attacks around, why not discuss the evolutionist who says (or at least behaves), "We may not have all the answers, but at least we don't believe in some religious superstition"? Isn't that as bigoted and closed-minded as the people about whom you take issue? In all the times I have discussed creation/evolution with evolutionists, I have not been accused of being closed-minded about science; but I have been accused of being closed-minded because I would not accept macroevolution and origins theory as more scientific than creation. That reflects a mindset of superiority and a refusal to distinguish between belief and science. [edit] Maybe the thread title should be edited to more accurately reflect its contents. Primogenitor? [ May 19, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
I appreciate your reply, Krsqk, and I may go back and edit my previous post to tone down a couple generalities in those Last two paragraphs.
But I must object that we have right here, and I quoted, an 'all the answers' Creationist. Involving a 'higher power' is a catch-all that can be abused, so easily, to answer any rational challenge. I know Creation Science has moved past such things as 'Gap Theory', so this example is a little dated, but let me just show you what I mean. Quote:
The Christian Creationists I know, and have questioned, and with whom I have debated, all have the same reason for wanting to believe in Creation Science: they do not want to question the Bible. It is of great importance to them. It makes them happy and secure (the good ones) or at least makes them who they are. (If this is not the case for you, then I would love to carry on a discussion of the matter with you, perhaps through private Messages or e-mail, if you'd allow it. Or in person if you happen this way.) This is placing the Bible itself above challenge, above improvement, and above question. Does not Paul himself say "Test everything. Keep that which is good."? What is right will be proven, what is weak will break, and the human race may be left with something worth clutching, worth studying, worth devoting to memory, and worth devoting our lives to. Lord knows we could use something like that, because psychology, sociology, and pharmacology aren't doing any better than the dead-end Dogma with which we formerly oppressed each other. Just for the record, I don't dislike Bible Belt Christians. I dislike power-plays in the guise of piety. I will not call you close-minded at your first confession of faith. I will only call you closed minded if you fail to respond to questioning. I will not call anyone close minded who can entertain an idea without believing it, really. Isn't that someone's (Aristotle's?) definition of an intellectual? There is faith, and it is a good thing. And there are matters provable by Science, and it is a good thing. |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
By "evolutionist," I do not refer just to the scientists, but their promoters, the textbook authors, the professors, etc.--in general, those who believe in evolution (as "creationist" usually means "one who believes in creation"). The public could do a better job of looking past the surface--they could also look deeper into politics, but few will do that. It is because of this that political deception is widely effective. I place the major blame in two places--textbook authors, who should have a grasp of the difference between science and theory; and teachers/professors who do know the difference, but often blur over the distinctions, especially in lower level science classes. I realize that a 100-level course isn't going to delve into molecular biology; but it's not too much to ask to say, "This is how we think it happened, but there's room for disagreement." The professors who are out to destroy their freshmen students' faith are pushing an agenda, not teaching science. [edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ May 19, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
Quote:
[ May 19, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: "Real" ringworlds
In order to stay mostly on topic, I will respond to your faith/Bible/etc. points via PM/email.
Some creationists, just like some evolutionists (and if there are any other competing families of theories, some of those people, too) will concoct an ad hoc pseudo-knowledgeable reply to temporarily silence any question for which they do not have a better answer. It is difficult, without tone of voice, to distinguish between such a response and a purely theoretical, "This-might-be-the-answer" response. (I would also note that "sinner" isn't a derogatory term in Biblical Christianity, so that isn't a good indicator of the tone.) I agree that "Well, maybe God did it" doesn't fit well into logical argument. Evolution theory has an equivalent--"Given enough time, it's possible." This is not based on observation, but is merely conjecture. The problem with attempting to fit origins debate into logical structure is that neither one can be logically proved. Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process. As one creationist put it (not referring to you and me), "I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'" Sure, it's a cutesy saying meant to make evolution sound silly and isn't meant to prove anything; but the heart of it is correct--it's a debate between the natural and the supernatural. Mopping up a few loose ends:</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, I wasn't referring to your comments on Bible-belt Christians, but to Ruatha's. I agree that many people don't think through the consequences of their political desires, instead focusing on short-term convenience. </font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual debate without believing the ideas being debated is fine and good, as far as that goes. Emotional detachment is not a requirement of cognitive engagement, though. Vehement argument against an idea is not a sign of close-mindedness, but of passion. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.