"Real" ringworlds

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers

Not really. (link)

---

So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!

[Fyron]

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.

The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world. Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point. Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach. This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!

Perhaps I should have elaborated more. It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).

[Loser]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below.

Actually, it was my third in this thread. I encourage everyone who can to go back a few pages and give my other Posts, one of which was very essay-like, a read. While you all are back there, catch up on the thread as a whole. This is the sort of thread that can revisit issues.

Perhaps you should say "essay before Last"...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).

Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.

Crack-science serves only to line the pocketbooks of crack-scientists. If I found out that my tax dollars were paying the bills for some clipboard jockey filing reports on something that Science has proven (really, really proven) will not work I would not be pleased. I might write a letter. I might just vote.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
"I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'"

I like 'In the beginning, dirt.'! That pretty much sums up a health secular outlook.

The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...

I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.

[edited for lag]

[ May 19, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Fyron]

Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process.

So I see I failed to get through to you on the explaination of the term "faith" in the Last debates on these issues... should I go dig up those Posts again? You are using the wrong connotations of faith in the wrong place here...

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world.

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

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point.

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

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach.

Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.

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

[Aloofi]

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

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

Of course, the High Priests of the new religion wants you to abandon the ways of the old religion.

Just like every time before.

That's why I embrace technology, but not that cult called Science

[ May 19, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

[Ruatha]

Well, sometimes one just have to laugh

(Please continue the discussion, I find it very interesting but I can't make such good quality Posts as you guys have been producing, from both sides.
Some are also quite humurous (No disrespect).

[ May 19, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Loser:
Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.

If you will read back a few Posts, I was responding to a remark that could be paraphrased as "the creationist community is dogmatic while the evolutionist community isn't"

Originally posted by Loser:

The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...

No, it isn't. Strictly speaking, nothing about the past can be proven. At best, evidence is either "consistent with" or "inconsistent with" a particular tale of events; further, evidence can be (in)consistent with multiple tails. This is why juries are instructed to rule based on reasonable doubt rather than just doubt.

Originally posted by Loser:

I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.

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

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

[Loser]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.
...

Aloofi, if you would go back, in this thread, and read my first massive post, I would look forward to reading your reply to my description of the differences between Science and Religion.