|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Maybe, and I know this borders on heresy, but maybe Adams was wrong. Maybe the answer isn't 42.
Maybe the question is 42. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
If I said, "Such and such happened at such a time, and it happened thus and so," I'd expect you to take what I said at face value. If I said, "Let me tell you a story with a moral; here it is," I'd expect you to understand what I meant. That's the literal interpretation of the Bible. If you don't take the Bible literally, you get to decide what you want to take or not take. It puts man as the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word. What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says? To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy. In syllogism form: Some Bible is allegory. No allegory is literal. Therefore, no Bible is literal. [ December 11, 2002, 23:38: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Here are a couple of links with easy-to-understand arguments. The point is not to disprove evolution once-and-for-all, but to prove that it's not science.
This one and this other one This one lists ten objections against the geologic column/geologic time scale. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
Empty space comes from a lack of matter to fill it. It was not "created" by anything. Any time all of the matter in a given volume is moved out of that volume, you get empty space. 2. Where did matter come from? No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course. 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence. 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? Matter is in no way perfectly organized. In fact, almost all of the space occupied by matter is completely empty (even of solid objects). 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? It is hardly organized. The energy has always been there. Energy and matter can not be created nor destroyed. They can be turned into each other though. In fact, particles (matter) exhibit wave-like propeties, and waves (energy) exhibit particle-like properties. Energy and matter are likely the same thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments. 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled. 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves. 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) Plants do not want antyhing. That is a logical fallacy. You are assigning human characteristics to things that are not human. They don't think, they just continue living. That involves reproduction. Animals function in nearly the same way. The only difference is that they generally have the ability to move about to fulfill their needs. But, they still do not have desires. They do not "want" anything. They simply fulfill basic instincts. 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Arguments by analogy are inherently flawed and hardly ever work. For an analogy to work, the things being compared have to be nearly identical. The more different they are, the less accurate the analogy become. Letters and DNA are not even in the same domain. That analogy fails. Mutations create either improved varieties, worse varieties, or varieties that have no effects. 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? In theory, anything is possible. In theory though. You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right? 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? Sometimes, the code gets mutated to have a few extra base pairs. Sometimes it is mutated to have fewer base pairs. Often, this does not cause the organism to fail at living, and so goes unnoticed. If that organism reproduces, it's offspring could inherit the extra base pairs, or the fewer ones. Given many generations in which more extra base pairs are added than lost, you get a steadily increasing DNA code. And remember, somewhere over 90% of the DNA is junk, and is NEVER used in replication. So, a few extra base pairs here and there won't hurt much, especially if they are added at the end. When, where, why, and how did: 1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) There is no such thing as a single celled plant. All plants are very, very multi-cellular. You are thinking of Protista. Some of them are similar to plants, but they are not plants. 2. Single-celled animals evolve? See above. 3. Fish change to amphibians? Build me a time machine, and I will tell you when and where. A small number of them evolved into amphibians very gradually over millions of years. Very slight mutations occured in some fish that allowed them to come onto the land for brief periods of time. Why? Because they randomly mutated. That is also how. 4. Amphibians change to reptiles? See above. 5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) Actually, no. Bones are the same, just different thicknesses and such. Scales are hard skin cells. Feathers arre thin, elongated scales. 6. How did the intermediate forms live? You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't. The intermediate forms were only slightly different form what came before them. They lived the same as their parents did. Evolution does not occur over night. When, where, why, how, and from what did: 1. Whales evolve? 2. Sea horses evolve? 3. Bats evolve? I am no biologist, and I have not cared to study the evolution of such creatures. Google them, and you will learn. 4. Eyes evolve? As Dogscoff explained, from photo-receptive membranes. Many protista and monerans have such membranes. 5. Ears evolve? From sound-receptive membranes in protista and monerans, which evolved randomly. 6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? Skin evolved form the cell walls of simple organisms. The same concept applies. It is essentially a layer of non-living stuff protecting the cell from the outside. Skin is merely a layer of dead cells. Scales are skin cells that harden. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)? Other than feathers, they all evolved simultaneously. Some monerans and protista developed soft cell walls, some developed hard cell walls. All thanks to random mutations. This translated to soft coverings or hard coverings of small multi-cellular organims, and continued on. These traits were carried on when some cells failed to split completely during mitosis, and remained joined. The combined cells either died off, or gained a slight advantage over single-celled organisms around them. This is how I would think multi-cellular organisms evolved, anyways. But anyways, there was no magical jump between them, it was a slow process. One child had very slightly harder skin cells. The next may or may not have had harder ones. After a long while, the got harder in general. Feathers evolved from scales that very slowly got thinner and longer. 3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before. 4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do. 5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? 6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? Random evolution. 9. The immune system or the need for it? Things do not evolve because of need. That is Lamarckism, and is flat out wrong. All life forms have an immune system. Simple organisms have simple ones, but they do have a system to fight off harmul stuff that gets in them. 10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. How so? The only reason why they are symbiotic is becuase the symbiote randomly got inside the host and found it easier to live inside it than in the outside world. So, they stayed inside and reproduced in there. Because it is a different environment, different random mutations allow for survival or death than outside. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? Religion is not a logical explanation. Religion is based entirely upon revelation, and not upon logical reason. It is completely unverifiable and unprovable. Science can be verified, and if not proven, then demonstrated to be close enough to the nature of reality that it can be assumed to be true. Evolotion is a part of science, not religion. How would evolution explain mimicry? Evolution can't explain anything. Can I call evolution up and ask it a question? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Sorry, just felt the need for a small joke in the midst of this post, even if it is a tactless one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Only a very small number of species practice mimicry. It is a relatively uncommon occurence. Due to random mutations, some organisms became colored differently. By random chance, some of them happened to look similar to other more dangerous organisms. Their predators, which had learned by instinct to avoid the predator, avoided the mimicers. Of these organisms that had mutated, some would be more apt to flee, and some would be more apt to stay in place. Because they look more dangerous, staying in place doesn't get them killed. Fleeing might cause the predator to attack anyways. So, those that had had mutations that caused the chemical balance in their neurons to create behavoir to flee die more often, and the ones that stay put reproduce and pass on their traits. Or, it might be the other way around, and the ones that flee survive and those that stay die. Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? They weren't designed, and Lamarck was wrong. They did not choose to change their colors to look like some other creature. What plant mimicry are you talking about here? When, where, why, and how did Again, give me a time machine, and I will be able to tell you when and where. 1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. Actually, the theory of evolution incorporates such things into it. They are all based off of chemical balances (and imbalances) in the body and brain of the human. Chemical balances and imbalances exist in all organisms. As the brain randomly evolved to be larger, the chemical system stayed with the primates. 2. How did photosynthesis evolve? Photo-sensitive membranes evolved that could harness the solar radiation instead of simply emit it back as light radiation. This happened by random mutations. 5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? Pardon moi? 7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true? Yes. 8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human? What? 9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing? No, everything came from primordial matter and energy that was always there. I do not know if the universe has periodic big bangs or if there will only ever be 1. Do you honestly believe that everything came from God? If so, where did God come from? Did God just simply always exist? If so, why can't the universe have always existed? 1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?) Unless otherwise stated, yes. 2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"? They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning. 3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did? Anything is possible in theory. But, the design arguement for the existence of God is a flawed argument. If you want, I could explain how to you. 4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact? Yes. 6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors? -It is all they have been taught. No one has only been taught evolution. Unless, of course, they live in a cave and don't ever communicate with anyone else. -They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.). The theory of evolution does not ever once say that there is no God. -They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average. That is simply hog-wash. -They are too proud to admit they are wrong. Other than the fact that they are not wrong, are creationists to proud to admit that they are wrong? In general, yes, they are. This is because a change in their views would change everything about their life. But, science is continually updated and modified to fit new findings and theories that prove that old ones were inadequate or wrong. Religon does not. 8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)? No. 9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening." If there is a God, he wouldn't be so petty as to punish you for not believing what some people wrote in a work of fiction several millennia ago. He is perfect, right? Well, sending you to hell for not believing him is a sign of an inferiority complex. He would have to do that to make himself seem all big and mighty. But if he is perfect, he wouldn't have any insecurities or feelings of insecurity. 10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview. Evolution is science. Creation is religion. Religion has no place in schools, except in classes of history. Science does. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I think the main problem is that scientific theories are battle-hardened even before creationist attacks happen.
Scientists poke at the holes in each other's theories, and only the solidest theories survive. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
1. Religions don't concern themselves with the brain; it concern themselves with the heart, and emotions of the person. A heavily battered person could find solace in a religion, but could follow that religion to it's strictest letter, not outgrowing the emotional support it gives. 2. There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Shintoism, Daoism, Zoroastrinism, Paganism, Judaism, and others. Then you have sects/churches. Catholics and Protestants, Shiia and Sunni, Confusicians and buddhists, to name a few. Which one are you going to choose to teach? You can't teach all of them. If you teach one, you might offend the other. 3. Examples of the effects: Al Queda, Hazballah, Fatah, The Children's Crusade, Et cetera. 4. Similar case: Japan's education ministry publishing a textbook that were written by nationalists that has almost no mention of Japan's atrocities during WW2. These are my 2 cents. Edit: Post number 110. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [ December 12, 2002, 02:58: Message edited by: TerranC ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Lots more to reply to...
Terran C: Let's not get into the results of religion or evolution. I think you'd say Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler weren't true followers of evolution, just as I'd say your examples aren't true followers of their religion. Unless you want to go there, too. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[edit for clarity] [ December 12, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
The decay and production of C-14 should reach an equilibrium after ~30,000 years. However, recent research indicates that it hasn't yet reached that point yet. Why?
Because of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, objects thrown off from a spinning mass will retain the direction of their parent in orbit and revolution (i.e., clockwise objects result in clockwise spinning and orbiting objects). Why then do several moons in our solar system alone rotate "backwards" and one moon orbit its planet backwards, if the Big Bang threw off all the matter originally? Why are the oldest living organisms (trees) found in the world only ~5,000 years old? Why isn't the ocean saltier? At the current rate of "salting," it would have been fresh water only a few thousand years ago. Why isn't the earth's magnetic field weaker? It's steadily decreasing in strength. Or on the other hand, how did life survive when it was so much stronger? Too strong, and it would prohibit life. Why do many moons in our solar system still have magnetic fields? They should have cooled off inside after several billion years, and the molten core is necessary for a magnetic field? How accurate can interstellar measurements be? The base of our triangle used for parallax is 16 light-minutes, and we're somehow accurate out to millions or billions of light-years? The angle at the tip of the triangle for a star 1 light-year away is .017. For 100 light-years away, it's .00017, and so on. 100 light-years is like two people 16 inches apart trying to measure ~800 miles away--the room for error is immense. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I really shouldn't read threads I said I'm not going to participate in.
"Because of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, objects thrown off from a spinning mass will retain the direction of their parent in orbit and revolution (i.e., clockwise objects result in clockwise spinning and orbiting objects). Why then do several moons in our solar system alone rotate "backwards" and one moon orbit its planet backwards, if the Big Bang threw off all the matter originally?" Because the monentum and angle didn't come from that explosion. It came from a -later- event. If the moon in question is a captured one, that is simply the orbit it stablized in. "Why are the oldest living organisms (trees) found in the world only ~5,000 years old?" Because surviving for that long is extremely difficult. Why do humans live less than that? Because before that they get killed by something. "Why isn't the earth's magnetic field weaker? It's steadily decreasing in strength. Or on the other hand, how did life survive when it was so much stronger? Too strong, and it would prohibit life." IIRC exactly how the field is generated isn't understood. However when rocks solidify they take on properties of any field they are exposed to (it's strength and direction). Rocks have been found with a weaker magnetic field and a stronger one, as well as a completely reversed one. The field apparently weakens gradually, then flips directions and strengthens again. Phoenix-D |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Now forces sound more like the Force. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.
No, they sound nothing like the Force. The Force sounds more like religious mumbo-jumbo than any natural laws. Again, give me a time machine, and then we can go back in time until we see if there was a beginning, or if it is continuous. That is really the only way to prove beyond a doubt what happened that long ago in the past. I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...) The "simplest cell" is made of organic molecules. But, the first organism-like things were not full cells. There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction. Not that much of one. Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something. A number of your arguments sure sound like the Design Argument to me. Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance. You said it continuously. Not explicitly, but implicitly. All 4 of those systems exist in ALL LIFEFORMS. Single-celled organisms have all of them. They are not as complex as in animals and such, but they are there. As organisms started becoming multicellular, the cells started to become more specialized. Then, you eventually got macroscopic organisms that have what you would call "1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems". There was never such a thing as a lion with no circulatory system. That is just absurd. All of those became more complex as the organisms became more complex. Not all carp evolve into other creatures. Only some do. Each step up is not necessarily absolutely better, it is different. Sometimes it is better, sometimes equal, sometimes worse. First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out. THEY DIDNT! All parts evolved simultaneously. How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance? The first organisms did not have as complex DNA as exists in the modern day. Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)? I have already explained how life comes from "unlife", as you put it. Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it. Sigh... |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Just a comment...
Quote:
As for the whole evolution/randomness thing... I have come to believe that the reason so many people cannot accept it is because humans in general have a hard time grasping the concept of how large the universe is, and how long the time is it's actually been in existance. Probably doesn't help that, from what we understand of the mind, subconsiously, we don't recognize anything larger than 4 (I was suprised when I heard about this, but I did some quick testing on myself. If you flash cards with varying numbers of items on it, very quickly, you can tell if there are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more than 4 items on it with accuracy. Pinpointing in the more than 4 catagory is very inaccurate.). So, consiously, the numbers we understand are lots of Groups of 4 added together, and at some point, this breaks down. Think of one million dollars. "Wow, that's a lot of money." But, if you have one million dollars right in front of you, in one dollar bills, the reaction would be more like "WOW! That's a LOT of money!" And back to the actual point: it is hard for humans to believe the randomness behind evolution and other theories (BTW, another digression... for scientists, a theory is something that has been continually substantiated by facts, while a hypothesis more acurately describes what "lay" people term a theory. The "Theory of Evolution" is more accurately the "Theory of Microevolution", as this has been substantiated several times. Macroevolution is infered from this, but as it is difficult to prove this within a human lifespan, it would still be classified a hypothesis). Hmmm... back to the point again... it is hard to believe the randomness behind these theories because in order for that randomness to give the results, it would require the processes going on in a very, very large number of places, over a very, very large amount of time. Since we can't really fundamentally understand numbers greater than 4, we must rely on abstractions to understand what is happening. For religious people, the abstraction is god(s) of some sort(s). For scientific people, the abstraction is a universe that is amazingly, mind-bogglingly huge, we can't even begin to grasp it, and if we actually did, it would probably kill the graspee (read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, chapter 10... The Total Perspective Vortex). So, just accept that the Universe is "one heck of a big place" and work on that assumption http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Hopefully all of that made some sort of sense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Made perfect sense to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
When my kids go to school I want them to learn all about how the Frost Giant Ymir was formed in the great void Ginnugagap, and that Odin (son of Bor, son of Buri who was formed in a block of ice and freed by the mystical cow Audhumla) slew him and made from his body the Earth (Midgard)...
The Norse creation myth. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Maybe we should take the morning/afternoon to settle down a little. I think we're all getting a little antsy. I'll check back around 7 or 8 EST.
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
Quote:
Comprehension of language (written or otherwise) is interpretation. It is not "comprehension" in the pure sense in which the word is commonly used. I will admit that there is a strong tendency, particularly in the US, to view language as precise, but hélas, it just is not so. Language is an approximation based on current socially accepted norms. Which are neither universal nor static. If I order a hot dog, I expect to get a hot dog. But there's no reason I couldn't recieve a kraut dog, if in this community everyone knows that when you ask for a hot dog, you mean a hot dog with kraut. 500 years ago (or so), "meat" in English meant "foodstuff", not "the flesh of an animal". So tell me, how can you avoid interpreting language? The answer is, you can't; you can at best strive for consistent interpretation. This sort of reasoning is the basis for W. V. O. Quine's "On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation" (Journal of Philosophy 1970; unfortunately, I couldn't find an Online Version of it). Extracting meaning from language is approximation and assumption; it is not and cannot be viewed as a matter of certainty or precision. Thus, anyone who speaks of "literally" interpreting a book is doomed to speak wrongly. What the above is to say is that your above statement, "What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says?", is in fact a misleading rhetorical question, because it implys that one can't possibly ask "What did God mean if He does mean what He says?", and one unfortunately can (and must). As reading any book, even the Bible, is ultimately an act of interpretive guesswork, man is necessarily the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word... Quote:
I.F., you're absolutely wrong. Your answers show as much or more faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it". I.F., you're either right or wrong depending on how I choose to interpret "faith". (Okay, that Last bit was really more addressed to Krsqk, but still...) E. Albright [Edit: Yow. Sorry about the length on this...] [ December 12, 2002, 17:51: Message edited by: E. Albright ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I picked these points as they're space-related http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
"Why do many moons in our solar system still have magnetic fields? They should have cooled off inside after several billion years, and the molten core is necessary for a magnetic field?" The major moons of Jupiter are very hot at their cores because they are constantly being squeezed and expanded as they go round the planet (imperfect orbits and the huge mass of Jupiter cause these effects). This is why Io is more volcanic than Earth. I don't have a list of all the moons of the solar system and how strong their magnetic fields are (and for some reason I can't access Google!) so that's my suggestion for now. "How accurate can interstellar measurements be? The base of our triangle used for parallax is 16 light-minutes, and we're somehow accurate out to millions or billions of light-years? The angle at the tip of the triangle for a star 1 light-year away is .017. For 100 light-years away, it's .00017, and so on. 100 light-years is like two people 16 inches apart trying to measure ~800 miles away--the room for error is immense." Actually, a lot of distance measuring is done by classifying stars. If a star is a certain shade of blue that tells you roughly how hot its surface is and by comparing how intense the light from it is to the amount of light we'd expect to be radiated off the surface (look up black body radiation) an estimate of the distance is possible. For huge distances (i.e. to other galaxies), astronomers look for supergiants, variable stars etc. to use as a yardstick. Parallax is only used for very close stars. Don't forget we're not using our eyesight to judge distances, but augmenting our vision with powerful telescopes, many of which are automated and don't even bother looking in the tiny visual part of the EM spectrum. Oh, and if several people tried measuring the 800 mile distance standing 16" apart every night for a month and the average of the sensible (you'll always get the odd freak result, which is why you take measurements more than once) results came out as pretty close to 800 miles, would you credit it or simply assume they'd cheated? |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Good stuff, E. Albright. Language is so ambiguous and dependant on interpretation, it's a wonder we humans manage to communicate at all.
Quote:
Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit. As human beings, what does our "reality" consist of? The input received by our senses, our brain's interpretation of that input, and memories of past input and interpretation (experience). Based on observation, we make assumptions about the nature of the universe. We have to, otherwise we couldn't function. Every morning I step out of bed without looking, because I believe there will be a floor there. This belief is based on my experience (my senses told me there was a floor there Last night), my faith in the reliability of my senses, and my understanding of the laws of the universe, based on a lifetime of sensory input (floors don't just move during the night). Do I KNOW the floor is still going to be there? No, but I have a pretty good idea. So until I jump out of bed and fall into the downstairs bathroom, I believe in the static-ness of my bedroom floor. This example may seem silly, but I think the same goes for belief in creationism, evolution, Norse myth, or anything else. Quote:
Science is great, but it's based on the assumption that what we perceive is real and unmovable. If we are really brains in vats hooked up to the matrix (and how can we prove that we aren't), then everything we “know” is invalid. Science and religion both boil down to somebody‘s "best guess". And now you can see how a steady diet of philosophy and science fiction over the course of 25 years can really mess with your mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Solar [ December 12, 2002, 19:53: Message edited by: Solar ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
I was trying to say that I don't believe it is necessary to interpret the Bible literally, in order for it to be credible. People who dismiss the Bible as not credible often read it as literally as the Biblical Literists do. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
"Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it."
"Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit" You hit at the answer to the first with the second. I've found that many people, myself included a lot of the time, have a serious dislike for saying or hearing the words "I don't know." Agnosticism *requries* that, it is that. Because of that dislike it's viewed a lack of curiosity or a cop-out..when IMO it's actually the opposite. Phoenix-D |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
The Bible is a nice work of fiction, but nothing more. I certainly don't interpret it as literal. I don't interpret The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars as literal. Those are also nice works of fiction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Quote:
Krsqk, I have a few questions for you. These are not meant as any sort of attack upon your beliefs, but as a continuation of this philosophical discussion. 1. What, in your words, is the Design Argument? 2. Why do you believe in God, and also in Creationism? On what is your belief based? 3. Why do you believe in Christianity and not another religion? Why is Christianity "more right" than any of the alternatives? [ December 12, 2002, 21:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
Edit: Fyron, the Bible is a Folklore/Myth that has some real life events in it, such as the babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and other fictional stuff. It is not wholesome fiction. *although I do not believe it to be fiction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif * [ December 12, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: TerranC ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I was refering to the parts that don't have some semblence of reality and history to them.
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
I haven't got the impression from Krsqk's comments here that he is attempting to convince anyone of the certainty of his beliefs. He seems to be merely making the point that the commonly accepted scientific theories are based on many assumptions that may or may not be correct. He doesn't appear to be saying that his beliefs aren't based on faith, but merely pointing out that yours, whether you accept it or not, may be too. Geoschmo |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I don't want religion taught in public schools. I also don't want hypotheses taught as fact. I'd much rather have students be told, "Here's the universe, and either it was made, or it made itself."
As for the theory/hypothesis labels, I would greatly prefer that. It hasn't happened often in the past, and isn't happening now, and probably isn't likely to change much in the future, though. Creationists would feel happy if every evolutionist would use the word "hypothesis" in public. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No one will argue with the Theory of Microevolution, and the Hypotheses of Cosmic/Stellar/Elemental/Planetary/Biological/Macro-Evolution still leave room for disagreement, by definition. That might reduce the frequency with which this type of discussion ends in shouting matches. It's not a religious disagreement with a scientific theory; it's a supernatural hypothesis disagreeing with a materialistic hypothesis. Fyron, it should still sound like the design argument. Hume mischaracterized the design argument--a nice straw man. Again, man's creation and the universe are infinitely different in magnitude. It's not a question of like results, like effects. The part about maybe we will make something that complex given enough time was late-night mild (and apparently not obvious) sarcasm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The problem I'm having with the "systems evolved all at once" guess is 1) all systems would have to evolve at the same time--a pretty major accomplishment, even for a simple organism/living organic macromolecule/whatever; 2) we have no evidence of anything like that existing. In fact, we still have no evidence of any transitional forms existing (yes, the old no-missing-link thing). You'd think that, with the untold trillions or quadrillions of creatures that must have died here, that we'd find some of an in between species. We should find endless examples of them in at least one or two places on earth. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Geo, that's an excellent representation of my position. Thanks for speaking for me. Now, don't go edit your post to make it say I favor throwing onions at hapless passers-by. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
RE: Language as interpretation E. Albright, you are exactly right. However, if something is written down, it must be interpreted in the context in which it was written. For example, if I write a book about someone who plays with acid, it makes a major difference if I'm writing it during the 1860s or the 1960s. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif All language is subject to that change, although not usually in that magnitude. RE: Design argument in my own words. Here goes (I don't claim to speak for other creationists, but this is the design argument as I understand it)... Intelligent design requires intelligent designer. Man creates (or more properly, organizes what is already created), based on his intelligence. It's like a child playing with Tinkertoys--he's not truly creating, but rearranging what's already been given him. Given the fact that we see design and order around us, it is logical to assume there is an intelligent Designer behind it. So far, we're okay with Hume's representation, but here we must part ways. Hume uses the wording "like results, like effects" to say that the process of creating nature is identical to man's creative process, only several orders of magnitude higher in ability. Thus, God's creative process, like man's, must be imperfect and subject to limitation. This renders God no longer infinite, and few Christians will accept that. The problem lies in Hume's extension of the principle. To continue our analogy, he extrapolates the child building with Tinkertoys to the factory making the Tinkertoys from other materials (still an imperfect process, but much less limited than the child's ability). The correct analogy from creation would be the child building with Tinkertoys and the factory creating the Tinkertoys out of nothing (an infinite order of magnitude higher). Hume, as a materialist, is operating from the assumption that something had to exist for God to use in creation; otherwise, his analogy falls apart. It's just a fancy straw man. RE: Why do I believe in God? It all boils down to faith. Belief in no God requires faith, too. If you knew half of everything there was to know, you still couldn't prove that in the other half, there was a God. There is evidence that convinces me of God's existence, but the evidence is totally unnecessary. Welcome, but unnecessary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif RE: Why Christianity? Of course, this comes down to faith as well. One could go to several things in the Bible that have proven true, even after being ridiculed (i.e., the existence of the Hittites), or the historical accuracy, etc.; but no proof for one religion or another exists. Any worldview is totally based on faith. That is the overall point I've striven for here. There is more than one worldview, but they do tend to boil down into two main types: 1) God made the world and makes the rules, or 2) The world made itself and we make the rules (or power makes rules, or money makes rules, etc.--that varies with interpretation). Several flavors of each exist, and some attempts have been made to marry the two, but they are unwilling partners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If an evolutionist accepts that his worldview is a faith, he's already halfway to becoming a creationist. No one would naturally look at the complexity found in nature and say, "Wow! That happened by chance!" any more than they think the space shuttle happened by chance. We have to be taught to think that way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [edit: i like to out words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ] [ December 13, 2002, 03:17: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
If I was not getting ready for my Last final I would love to put in my two cents worth.
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Well, well, well… like we don’t waste enough time playing (and modding) SEIV, we have to go and open up this can of Creationist-Evolutionist worms http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I may as well jump in. I’ve just read the Last 4 pages of this thread, and I gotta tell you, it’s really Evolved (snicker) beyond Twinkies as the absolute perfection in FTL power supply. As a practicing biologist, here are my thoughts. I picked out some of the more interesting bits of the Krsqk/IF discussion (from about 2 pages back) and just added my thoughts. As to my biases, I’m not really that interested in Creationism as it pertains to the Young Earth Version, and I’ve got a great regard for micro-evolution, but have strongly questioned the state of science as it attempts to address speciation. Someone (really sorry, can’t remember who) made the analogy that [paraphrase] we don’t know how gravity works, but we still observe it everyday. However the same is not true of evolution. Though this may seem pedantic, it’s important to see that it is a question not of evolution, but the observation of Speciation. So, more correctly we should be saying that we don’t know how species have arisen, but we still observe them everyday. As such, evolution is not an observation, but a theory of explanation for speciation. With that introduction, I know this post will be long, so if you’re really not interested in my thoughts on the state of evolution, I’d suggest you just save yourself some effort. I don’t discuss Twinkies, FTL or Swiss-Chocolate beyond this point. 6. When, where, why, and how did life come from [Jim: a-biotic] dead matter? IF: The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments. Jim: Yes, it has been proven that more complex molecules can be created from our best guesses at a primordial goo (i). The problem is that despite enormous amounts of work, it has yet to be shown that anything beyond “complex molecules” could be formed. That is to say short peptides (proteins in this case of less than 20 amino acid length) could be formed, but nothing even approaching a useful/functional peptide has ever been produced (ii). That said, nothing vaguely resembling any sort of reproducing entity has ever been observed in these experiments. If I’m wrong, please do inform me!! Seeing as I’ll be teaching this stuff, I absolutely need to know if I’m missing something. My personal side notes: (i) I think it’s important to note that the in vitro primordial goo experiments typically use much higher concentrations of the putative goo than would be found in nature. This is expected to aid the experiment in terms of time frame (in their defence, it’s awfully difficult to get a 50 year grant from any federal or independent agency). (ii) typically useful modern proteins begin to weigh in at around 80 – 100 amino acids. IF: You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right? Jim: Really? I’d love a reference for this because I’ve seen a lot of arguments regarding Paley’s (sp) watch, but only by contemporary authors. IMHO, Paley (again, sp.) had a good argument from what I can see, but then went off into hypothetical land on the applications… and his “hypotheticals” got him in trouble. 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? IF: Sometimes, the code gets mutated to have a few extra base pairs. Sometimes it is mutated to have fewer base pairs. Often, this does not cause the organism to fail at living, and so goes unnoticed. If that organism reproduces, it's offspring could inherit the extra base pairs, or the fewer ones. Given many generations in which more extra base pairs are added than lost, you get a steadily increasing DNA code. And remember, somewhere over 90% of the DNA is junk, and is NEVER used in replication. So, a few extra base pairs here and there won't hurt much, especially if they are added at the end. Jim: Yes, it is true that we very often observe point mutations, small lesions, wholesale inVersions, etc. in the genetic code of organisms (i). And yes, often these changes do not cause the organism any harm, or no discernable harm anyway (ii). However, the question is not “can an organism survive genetical damage/degeneration”, but is “can genetical damage result in the production of new species/entire de novotrait.” Junk DNA or no, the burden on evolutionary theory is not to show that organisms can sustain damages, it is to show that this damage can cause the formation of new species. (i) it has been estimated that huge tracts of the human genome are made up of dead retroviruses and insertion sequences. The human cell response has been to push together large tracts of these “extra genomic parasites” in “grave yards” that are then wrapped up in chromatin, never to be transcribed again!! I love this stuff!! (ii) an organism that has more junk DNA is going to be more energetically burdened than a counterpart without this energy burden. In lower complexity organisms such as bacteria, especially the gut organisms such as E. coli, this can mean the difference between reproductive success and reproductive failure in a competitive environment. For higher complexity organisms, such as humans, I have never seen any equivalent reports. My guess is that it won’t affect us significantly. When, where, why, and how did: 1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) IF: There is no such thing as a single celled plant. All plants are very, very multi-cellular. You are thinking of Protista. Some of them are similar to plants, but they are not plants. Jim: I’d suggest there is potentially a semantic misunderstanding at one level. If we go back far enough on a phylogenetic tree we will find that plants had an ancestor that was still single celled, and so we could in fact refer to it anachronistically as a single celled plant. The real quandary is this: how does an organism/when did an organism first become multi-celled? The vastly more important implied question is how does a competitive and selfish organism come to cooperate with others of it’s own kind (or non-kind if you Subscribe to the theory that chloropLasts and mitochondria are captured/symbiotic bacteria) 3. Fish change to amphibians? IF: Build me a time machine, and I will tell you when and where. Gollum: Fish?! fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish fish Jim: We can do it cheaper than that. We can see exactly when amphibious species appear in the fossil record. If you believe that they evolved from fish, you’ve got your answer! I’m still big on the time machine though, cause I’m wantin’ me some of that primordial soup! Yummm… Krsqk, I’m not actually sure why the time frame is really important though… 6. How did the intermediate forms live? IF: You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't. The intermediate forms were only slightly different form what came before them. They lived the same as their parents did. Evolution does not occur over night. Jim: And this is the problem… the fossil record clearly shows that there are indeed “magical jumps” between species (your words, not mine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Unfortunately this IS the state of affairs. This is so obviously true that Gould and Sflkghfv (I can’t remember his name, for shame http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) invoked Punctuated Equilibrium to account for these leaps, without abandoning the concept of evolution altogether. There are some that charge that Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a non-Supernatural Version of Saltation (ii). (ii) Yeah, I could use a little Saltation with my primordial soup too. I’m more of a salty snack kinda guy than the sweet/twinky kinda guy. Oh! there it is, I couldn’t resist bringing up twinkies. IF: You are still assuming a magical jump between a lion with no lungs to a lion with lungs. Well, that never happened. ALL multi-cellular organisms have always had the bulk of the systems you mentioned. Jim: Err… well that’s a little extreme, but I see your point. Unfortunately that is dealing with entire systems of advanced organs. If we step down to a molecular level, that is to say we look at just a few gene products working in concert, there still is this nagging sense of irreducible-ness (i). I’m currently working on a single protein product (RpoS) that is regulated by no less than 28 other gene products, and itself… and that’s just what we know so far! Knocking out just one of these players has extreme effects on the cell responses (capacity to survive starvation, cause disease, etc.), so it is difficult to imagine an organism with mutations in any of these other genes being stable/functional within their environment. Or more to the point as we look at evolution, the converse is hard to believe - that there would be a mutation of another gene such that it’s product now regulates my protein without whacking out the entire system (ii). Irreproducibility is a sticking point, especially when living creatures are more complex than Formula 1 cars – and I’m just talking about bacteria here! (i) sorry, it’s getting late, and I’m beginning to make words up. (ii) my protein is not the best example of the irreproducibility problem though. There are some real doozies out there. My take home from all this is that biology is by far the most fascinating subject, and that there are some significant problems with evolution as it currently stands. Punctuated equilibrium is a good first start in explaining the fossil story. Unfortunately the real game is in the genes (though being a geneticist I’m perhaps a little biased here). I really wish that some of the bigger problems such as the problems/failures of a-biotic evolution research and irreproducible systems would be addressed by the scientific community with more research/thought, rather than cries of ‘heresy!’ though. IF and Krsqk, thanks for opening up a very fun thread. I hope that there are no hard feelings about any of this. Coming from a mixed faith family, I can appreciate the frustration that can come when trying to communicate very different world views. Cheers,(Skol!) jimbob [ December 13, 2002, 04:46: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
The space shuttle analogy is flawed. I know how it was created, off the top of my head, it was during the 1970s, designed by engineers at Boeing, built by Boeing on a NASA contract. I don't recall any details, really, and don't feel like googling it right now. But I know about its recent creation, by humans, from my junior high history courses. It is very probable that some of the people who designed and built it are still living. The same cannot be said for the Universe or the Earth. Nobody was around for that, and even if the inconsistant and contradictory information that the various "prophets" dictated actually were from a divine source, it has gone through the interpretations of far too many people over far too long of a time. Most elementary school students play a game, where one person makes up a message, and whispers it to someone else. That person whispers what he/she heard to another person, who whispers what he/she heard to another... etc. The Last person tells everyone what he/she heard, and the first person tells everyone what he/she originally said. I have not yet experienced a perfect transmission, or even one that was reasonably close. I see religious teachings in much the same way. Most of the substantiation for religious claims come from the claims themselves (I have stopped counting the number of times I've encountered a person who uses circular reasoning to justify the Bible... "The Bible is Truth because God says so." "How do you know that God said so?" "It says it right here in the Bible." "Well, how do you know the Bible is Truth?" "Because God says so."... etc.). The prophecies contained in religions, to me, reads a lot like daily horoscopes; very ambiguous, and anyone who wants to believe them will find a way to distort the facts of their existance to fit what is said. As for this worldview being what I was taught... hardly. I grew up in an area that is approximately 40% Catholic, 30% Presbyterian, 30% Methodist, and largely hostile. I know of only three Jewish families. My school had an angry (extremist Christian) parents group that tried to block a field trip by a small group of students to the Andy Warhol Museum because the students would surely be corrupted and return as Satan-worshiping homosexuals. I am sure that many congregations still periodically pray for my soul. The threats made to me that said that the God-fearing Christian who wrote about his/her wish to speed me on my way to my false god, Satan, in Hell... those slacked off after the first few months. I think it's more because the writers found other things to be self-righteous about, rather than me endlessly explaining that athiests (as I later discovered the term to be) don't believe in Satan, either. No, atheism was not something I was taught. I came to the conclusion that I didn't believe all that "God" nonsense on my own, thank you. Despite the many and varied attempts to teach me something that was not atheism, both before and after I actually knew what the word meant. The first atheist I met face to face (that I knew was an athiest, at least) I met about four months ago. In Los Angeles, not Pennsylvania (where I grew up, and formulated my worldview). Hmm... I think I need to go to the Cantina for a while... |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
That is twice now that Occam's Razor has been mentioned in this thread. And I have heard it many times before as an explanation by people who don't believe in God. And to be honest with you it has always struck me as a little odd that people would use it as such.
If you assume, as most scientific types do I suppose, that everything (and by everything I mean everything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) is ultimatly understandable to us given enough time to study and test our hypotheses, then I suppose once we (us as a speices) reach the point of complete understanding (a long time from now of course) then an eternal divine creator is a "more complex" option, and thus would be logically discarded. However if your assumption is a belief in a creator, and that there are things in life which are the domain of the creator that we as a species are incapable of understanding without revalation of some sort, then your two options are just as clear. And the divine creator is much less complex one than the incredible string of random circumstances that would be required to produce life as we know it. So to use Occam's Razor in defense of either argument, you basically have to decide which side you are on first. It is useless as tool in determining the truth of the matter. (EDIT: Don't you love it when you come up with something totally off the cuff and then find something afterwards that appears to support it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Of course you have to accept my assumptions to agree, but here's an intersting link for what it's worth. http://skepdic.com/occam.html) Geoschmo [ December 13, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
"So where did the first atheist come from?"
If you're a creationist, he was created on either the 4th, 5th, or 6th day of creation. If you're an evolutionist, he evolved from his distant ancestor Eoatheist. Eoatheist is either a member of the animal or vegetable family, again depending if you're an evolutionist or a creationist. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Or maybe he/she/it came from disgust at watching two religions squabble. In all seriousness, my statement was not meant as a logical argument. Common sense, though, requires a designer for each design, a creator for each creation. It takes involved thought and argument to move away from that. I would submit that it is the reason why we have so many creation legends and so few evolution legends--creation is the natural starting point for the human mind. Whether that's by accident or design depends on your worldview. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
RE: Design argument in my own words. Here goes (I don't claim to speak for other creationists, but this is the design argument as I understand it)...
Intelligent design requires intelligent designer. Man creates (or more properly, organizes what is already created), based on his intelligence. It's like a child playing with Tinkertoys--he's not truly creating, but rearranging what's already been given him. Given the fact that we see design and order around us, it is logical to assume there is an intelligent Designer behind it. So far, we're okay with Hume's representation, but here we must part ways. Hume uses the wording "like results, like effects" to say that the process of creating nature is identical to man's creative process, only several orders of magnitude higher in ability. Thus, God's creative process, like man's, must be imperfect and subject to limitation. This renders God no longer infinite, and few Christians will accept that. The problem lies in Hume's extension of the principle. To continue our analogy, he extrapolates the child building with Tinkertoys to the factory making the Tinkertoys from other materials (still an imperfect process, but much less limited than the child's ability). The correct analogy from creation would be the child building with Tinkertoys and the factory creating the Tinkertoys out of nothing (an infinite order of magnitude higher). Hume, as a materialist, is operating from the assumption that something had to exist for God to use in creation; otherwise, his analogy falls apart. It's just a fancy straw man. Thank you for answering more than I asked. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But anyways, no, that is not really the design argument. I have never heard anyone use a tinkertoy before, and that just makes the analogy even worse than it has to be. Instead, I will use a house, as houses aren't built wholesale in factories (the tinkertoy technically works too, but not quite as you used it). A house does not just appear naturally, someone had to have designed and built it. A house is relatively ordered. Looking around the world, it appears ordered and so appears designed. So, an analogy is used to infer that since the house had a designer, the world (universe) must have had a designer. It has nothing to do with "creative processes" or anythign like that. The first problem with this is that it is an analogical argument. For analogies to work, the things being compared must be nearly identical to each other. The universe and a house (or a clock, tinkertoy, ship, whatever) are absolutely nothing alike. They arent even in the same domain. eg: You could use an analogy comparing a dog to a cat, as they are both mammals. It wouldn't be very good, because cats and dogs are very differen't animals. But, the analogy works on a basic level because they are both mammals (and animals). You could say, a cat has a heart, so a dog, which is kind of like a cat, must also have a heart. But, you could not compare a cat to a tree or a rock, as there is no basis of similarity. There is no basis of similarity between the universe and a house/tinkertoy. So, the argument by analogy does not work here. Secondly, the design argument can not say anything about the perfection, infiniteness or unity of God, assuming you still want to say that it proves some sort of intelligent designer exists. Architects (or those that design tinkertoys) do not only design 1 house. They do not work alone. So, you can not use the design argument to say that there is only one universe, or that there is only 1 god. Also, architects design some bad houses before they become good. So, is this universe a bad universe that God made while still learning to make a universe? You have no way to tell. You would have to have another universe to compare it to. Of course, it is assumed that God is perfect and made no mistakes when designing the universe, and so he did not have to make any "test" universes. But, this can not be infered from the design argument. Continuing to expand upon the flawed analogical argument, the architect (or designer of a tinkertoy) does not stick around to care for the house (or tinkertoy). So, you can not infer that there is a benevolent God from the design argument. At best, the design argument shows that there could be many gods, they/it are not necessarily perfect, they/it are not necessarily benevolent, and not necessarily infinite. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I realize any analogy will be flawed, given the vast difference between human creation and the universe. This flaw is inherent to Hume's criticism as well, though. He argues that God and man must be similar since their results are similar (house~universe). The design argument (ok, at least my understanding of it) infers the infinity of God from the infinite magnitude of the difference.
|
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
No, Hume does not argue that God and Man are similar. He said that the creations are entirely different, so you cannot assume anything about the creator of the universe based on the design argument, if there was one.
The "infiniteness" of God does not come from the design argument. That is taking the belief you already hold an using it as evidence to support itself. You cannot do that. |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Three items
1) how far can analogy go 2) how far can the 'design argument' go 3) one twinkie at a time 1) As to analogy, I *personally* see no reason why the universe cannot be compared to any other complex object, for example a car, a house, or even a twinkie for that matter. Depending on how you compare two objects (ie. the frame work of discussion) it could be invalid to compare the proverbial cat to the proverbial tree (they are both alive, they should both have hearts), or it could be valid to compare the cat to a tree (they are both alive, they must both have circulatory systems). Analogy is a sticky thing, but it is one of our most powerful tools of communication, so I'm not naturally inclined to discard it. So my thought (apologies to Hume) is that the scale of relatednes in the case of universe vs. house is very distant, but what we demand of the objects in terms of similarity is only the characteristic of extreme complexity - not function. As such, I personally find the complexity issue to be compelling, requiring an "answer" of some sort. 2) IF said: Quote:
3) For the sake of keeping all the lines of discussion clear however, I think it may be useful to take on just one line of thought/thread at a time - lots of us think that the Christian God sucks eggs, but that's not a good argument for evolution! Lots of us think He's a hip dude, but that's not a good argument for design! Lots of us are agnostic (should that be capitalized?) but that's not a good argument for them both being true simultaneously! And so I'd tend to think that the question of the robustness of evolutionary theory, the question of design and the question of the putative designers identity/characteristics are actually three separate questions, that should probably be discussed separately... more for clairity's sake than the entertainment value http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif night y'all, hope you take no offense, as none has been intended. jimbob [ December 14, 2002, 08:04: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Re: Occam's Razor
The way I understand to use this principle is to not introduce extra complexity into an explanation when there is no evidence to support it. Most theists who will actually think about why they believe in god(s) (as opposed to blindly accepting it), will say that it would be impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existance of said god(s). I also think that it would be quite impossible to prove either way. So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid. On a side note, I had (and in fact, still have) a few days before I have to take finals... to pass the time, I picked up a few books that I've been meaning to read for a while. The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul by Douglas Adams, has some nice commentary on gods http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And Candide by Francois-Marie Arouet (A.K.A. Voltaire). The final message of the text I find I agree with... basically, "We'll all be much better off if we stop spending so much time on metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology". Pretty much, quit argueing so much about philosophy and just work, and you'll be happy. Sure, it's nice once in a while, but don't let it consume your life. Good books http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
"So, I use Occam's Razor. It's just adding an extra layer of complexity to what we know, and there is no real evidence to support it. Therefore, it's invalid."
Therefore it's -more likely- to be invalid. Occam's Razor is useful, but it is not foolproof. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Phoenix-D |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And the issue of this thread has not been been whether or not God exsists, a point which we both agree cannot be proven or disproven here. It has been mainly "Do you really know what you think you know?". If some of the accepted assumptions that seem to support the origin of species by natural selection are incorrect it by no means proves the exsistance of a creator. But adhering to the belief in evolution regardless demonstrates the same level of faith ascribed to those that believe in the origin of species by act of creation. Geoschmo [ December 14, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(Wish I knew who originally said that.) Especially when you can't even get an agreement on what constitutes "evidence". |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Will said:
Quote:
i) The arguement for a non-chance (most commonly a design argument) derived universe states that the universe is far (ie 10^40 or more) too complex to have come about by chance, so the easiest (Occam's razor) explanation is that it did not arise by chance. Therefore I believe that given current understanding of the complexity of the universe, Occam comes down on the side of "probability has to jump through too many hoops to be likely". i.a) I'm not a astrophysicist however, so really, my opinion is only valid within the realm of molecular biology. It is my opinion that Occam's razor would dis-favor probability there as well. However Occams is NOT fool-proof as noted in an earlier posting... it simply tells the politicians were they should place their science funding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ii) The arguments to date for the existance of a deity or equivalent (and here I mean independantly of the above discussion of chance and the universe or the separate one on life) suggests that most if not all evidence(s) can be used for either side of the argument. That is to say, there is no complelling evidence for a diety, and so Occam's razor would suggest that all things being equal, don't introduce a diety because that's another level of complexity. iii) where can one get some Occam's aftershave? I think I've got a little Occam's burn here on my pre-frontal cortex... Quote:
Quote:
And now to prove that I'm one of those typical north american hypocrites, I'm going out with friends to drop $13 (+popcorn) on a Star Trek Movie http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif , night all. -jimbob [ December 14, 2002, 23:32: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Fyron: I think some of the miscommunication comes from what I read of Hume's arguments. Of course, I just picked the first link I found. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I accept that any analogy is an imperfect representation; but since there is no perfect analogy, we have to use what there is. Otherwise, we have to throw out any philosophy built on analogy. I also agree that the design argument doesn't prove the identity, number, or purpose of the designer. Hume's argument that nature naturally produces order supports both sides. If you already believe in a designer, then design happening in nature is further proof of that design. If you don't believe in one, it's further proof that one is not needed. Further arguments about evil in the world do not contradict the design argument. They fit into the "Since there's design, who designed it?" debates. I'm sure I had more to say, but I can't remember without checking the thread again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
[ December 14, 2002, 23:55: Message edited by: Krsqk ] |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
Quote:
I read "naturally" to be "without outside help". |
Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
I think it comes down to whether scientific laws are evidence of design or evidence that of an ordered world. Obviously both sides can be argued, since those laws by definition mean we have an ordered world; the question is, do they point to anything more.
That's my interpretation of "natural order." |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.