Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Puke]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
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...

I was going to bring that up myself, but i have been trying not to get involved in this. A far better creation story if I ever heard one, and since most Norse myth is designed to teach morality and philosophy rather than to explain nature and enslave the minds of the feeble to a dictatorial institution, I would be much happier having it taught in schools. Especially the bit about insubstantial things being stronger than substantial things, and it is the insubstantial things that are able to chain back Fenris. Good stuff, thanks 'Scoff.

[Wanderer]

I picked these points as they're space-related

"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?

[Solar]

Good stuff, E. Albright. Language is so ambiguous and dependant on interpretation, it's a wonder we humans manage to communicate at all.

Originally posted by E. Albright:
I'm agnostic in terms of universal creation (i.e., I hold that certain truth in this regard is ultimately unknowable). And I know that in this sort of debate a declaration of any form of agnosticism is generally viewed right up there with declarations that "I'm rubber and you're glue...", but there you go.

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.
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.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution.

How is belief based on choice? Try as hard as you want to believe that the earth is flat, but you won't be able to truly believe if it contradicts your understanding of the universe. We believe what we believe because it makes the most sense to us based on our input, experience, and interpretation (or because we have an emotional need to believe, which is another can of worms entirely), but do we really KNOW? My input, experience, and interpretation tell me that certain things are unknowable.

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.

Solar

[ December 12, 2002, 19:53: Message edited by: Solar ]

[capnq]

(Krsqk To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy.

It is a logically fallacy, but it wasn't my point. I probably could have worded my point better.

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.

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[Fyron]

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.

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.

Take a look at a moneran, the simplest of organisms. They typically have all of those systems you are worried about, though in very simplified form. 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. As they became more complex, the systems themselves also became more complex. There is no "missing link". One is not necessary. There is no lion with no lungs, then a lion with half lungs, then a lion with full lungs. All lions (and lion-like creatures that came before lions) had full lungs (and other systems).

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 ]

[TerranC]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
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.

And I also want my children (If I have any children) to learn that Zeus slayed his father, Cronus by cutting off his sexual organs, and that Zeus violated his mother because of the birds and the bees.

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 *

[ December 12, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Fyron]

I was refering to the parts that don't have some semblence of reality and history to them.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
2. Why do you believe in God, and also in Creationism? On what is your belief based?

I can't and wouldn't deign to speak for Krsqk, but any belief in God is by definition an act of faith. If it were provable or disprovable by observable facts then it would obviously not be something we would be debating. Even a belief in creation is an act of faith as it assumes the exsistance of a creator that cannot be proven, except by the creator.

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

[Krsqk]

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. 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.

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.