"Real" ringworlds

[Grandpa Kim]

The universe was created 5 minutes ago! Complete with your "memories" and "evidence" that the universe is billions of years old.

This Creationist Theory is as good as any other creationist theory; all it requires is faith.

Science deals not with faith, but with what we can see and touch and measure. The key word being "we". Other, more omnipotent beings may have other means. Meanwhile we muddle along with what the human brain and mind can deal with. Evidence is there and we have the capacity to learn much of it. Was it put there to test our "faith"? Sorry, I don't buy that; my god holds himself to a higher moral standard. He is not a trickster out for a good bellylaugh watching the aimless searchings of lesser beings to see if they will keep the faith with absolutely no evidence. No, he has given us an immense mystery and the tools to solve it. Don't ask me why (yet), I'm just glad to be here.

[ May 19, 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

[Jack Simth]

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

On what basis do you make this claim? There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment. Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence Edit: that is, when attempting to disprove something - I sometimes words in longer Posts, sorry) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration. You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here.

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

No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit.

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

The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past.

It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven.

Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent )...

[ May 20, 2003, 00:29: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Jack Simth]

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

As I recall, ~ 99% of all known fossils are microbes; of the remaining ~1%, ~99% are hard shelled mollusks; of the remaining ~.01%, ~99% are bony fish. The remaining ~.0001% encompasses all land vertabrates and many others. Besides, if the fossil record is that far from complete, then it ought not to be used in support of evolution, either.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

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

Neither has the evolutionist side. Besides, the better of competing hypothesis/theories are normally/ideally chosen on the basis of which one better predicts or accounts for observable evidence where they differ; these minor inconsistencies that get pointed out are quite valid in that context.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

The reason I ask this is that you are not arguing from a valid foundation. If you are going to declare a theory wrong, you have to present a valid counter-theory

Not necessarily - you just have to demonstrate a case it can't account for. A valid counter-theory is only necessary if you want to throw the entire thing out. Besides, you haven't specified the details of the Version of Evolution you hold, why should we specify the details of Creation we hold to? That would be a double standard, Fyron.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Loser:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

...

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

You right in that something not found yet doesn't proove it isn't there - but your statement that they will be found when they haven't been yet is a statement of faith as you yourself defined it. You seem to predict that we will find transitional structures; I predict that we won't. As none have been found yet, mine holds better at the moment.

[Fyron]

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

.

Yes, it can be proven.

Calculating the age of a rock (or any old object) requires careful calculations involving the rates of isotopic decays and the average rates of increase of the levels of those isotopes. Those that try to dismiss isotopic dating are often ignorant of how it is actually used, and are not aware that all factors are taken into consideration. Yes, there are errors in the calculations. But, they are relatively small errors. The calculations are never meant to give 100% accurate results, but estimates.

The age of stars can be calculated fairly easily and very accurately, actually. I am not an astrophysicist, so I can not give you the formulae used. But I do know that they are fairly accurate. Saying that the age of something can not be proven is technically true. But, scientists never try to prove the exact age. They try to get the best estimation possible, and are rather good at it.

[Ragnarok]

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

The age of stars can be calculated fairly easily and very accurately, actually. I am not an astrophysicist, so I can not give you the formulae used. But I do know that they are fairly accurate. Saying that the age of something can not be proven is technically true. But, scientists never try to prove the exact age. They try to get the best estimation possible, and are rather good at it.

Something just popped into my head about this subject. How do you, or I, know that they are accurate in their calculations on how old a star is? They could easily say that this star is 1 Million years old and no one would really know the difference, because no one is going to question it; besides other scientist who are studying the same star. But still, how do the scientists themselves know if they are correct in their calculations? They don't know if their formulae is correct in figuring the age.
Just a thought.

I now return you to your topic and me lurking in this thread.

[Fyron]

Rags:

Something just popped into my head about this subject. How do you, or I, know that they are accurate in their calculations on how old a star is? They could easily say that this star is 1 Million years old and no one would really know the difference, because no one is going to question it; besides other scientist who are studying the same star. But still, how do the scientists themselves know if they are correct in their calculations? They don't know if their formulae is correct in figuring the age.

I am not sure what exactly goes into calculating the age of a star, but I could easily find it. The age of a star is not accepted until a relatively large number of independant Groups study the star and calculate its age. So, it isn't just one guy doing all the math, it is a lot of people continually doubting each other and triple-checking all the work of others as well as their own work.

Jack:
I notice you have a tendency to not post counter-arguments, just to throw out various latin terms for things you perceive to be fallacies that may in fact not be fallacal (in fact, none of them actually approach being a fallacy, only your misconceptions about what was posted do). If you want to argue against points, you need to start posting more sound counter-arguments.

On what basis do you make this claim?

It isn't a "claim", it is a fact.

There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment.

That just isn't true.

Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration.

And what is this "basic Creationist postulate"? You need to define things like that when you reference them...

You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here.

Nice argument technique, throwing around fancy latin terms in the hopes that you look smarter than me and so are automatcially correct. You should stop that.

No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit.

As you used the terms incorrectly, you are obviously confused as to their meanings.

The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing.

It is a good thing I didn't do that then. Creationism is not based off of rational argument, but off of divine revelation. This is what I said before. You just misinterpreted my meaning due to the wording of the post.

Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall.

Yes it was! It was attacked from many sides by the scientific community.

It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past.

Yes, the near past, which is closer to the present than the past you are attempting to attack it from, which is the origin of life. His theory most clearly did not address the origin of life.

Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated.

Yes, they can be properly calibrated. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but with enough accuracy that the relative date is as good as it can get. I guess if you take a literal definition of "properly" to mean 100%, then your statement holds. But if you take a realistic approach to the problem, it does not. All of the calculations take the sources of error into account and minimize their effects quite well. Just because you are not a mathematician and don't understand how they work does not mean that they do not work.

As I recall, ~ 99% of all known fossils are microbes; of the remaining ~1%, ~99% are hard shelled mollusks; of the remaining ~.01%, ~99% are bony fish. The remaining ~.0001% encompasses all land vertabrates and many others. Besides, if the fossil record is that far from complete, then it ought not to be used in support of evolution, either.

The fossil record provides some meagre support for evolution, and it throws out most forms of Creationism completely. Namely, those forms where a deity created all life on the planet as it should be. Extinction does not fit in with Creationism in general. Many Creationists try to compensate for this by saying that their deity created all of the fossils and such, but that is getting into extremely circular logic. Other forms of Creationism that allow for lifeforms to become extinct suffer the problem that eventually all lifeforms will die off, and nothing will be left alive. There is no evolution, after all. So, new species can't come to replace them. It is only when you allow for both a Creation and evolution that you can have a valid use of Creationism. Evolution certainly does not rule out the possibility of divine Creation because it NEVER addresses the origins of life, just how it changes now and in the distant past. I hope people will begin seeing these sentences I keep posting and realize that they are wrong when they try to say evolution is wrong because it doesn't fit in with Creation...

Neither has the evolutionist side. Besides, the better of competing hypothesis/theories are normally/ideally chosen on the basis of which one better predicts or accounts for observable evidence where they differ; these minor inconsistencies that get pointed out are quite valid in that context.

You have not proposed a competing theory, which is the problem. Only pure, literal Creationism is a valid competition with evolution because evolution does not address the origins of life in any way shape or form. That is a whole other branch of biology. Creationism that only says "God created the universe and life" does not rule out the possibility of evolution at all. See above paragraph. So, pointing out some perceived flaws in evolution (some perceptions have been true, others false) does not make it wrong in this context, as you have not proposed any competing theory or hypothesis.

Not necessarily - you just have to demonstrate a case it can't account for.

You just contradicted yourself.

Besides, you haven't specified the details of the Version of Evolution you hold,

There is only one Version of evolution, and it does not address the origins of life at all. There are different implementations of it, different competing theories of what evolved from what, but they all use the same theory of evolution. I have not stated what origin theory I support because I am not going to get into that sort of argument with a Creationist. Arguing about that with a Creationist is like arguing with a wall; the Creationist can't be wrong, so no amount of argument and evidence would possibly have an effect. And, the origin of life is irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways.

That would be a double standard, Fyron.

No, it wouldn't. There is one Version of evolution, and many Versions of Creationism.

I am no longer going to directly respond to arguments that clearly confuse evolution with origin theories. It is very tiring, and very unproductive. If you want to argue against evolution, stop mixing origin theories in with it.

[Fyron]

Narf:

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

No, I said they were making guesses about the nature of reality based off of a distinct lack of information. They knew nothing of the actual mechanics of reality, and so their hypotheses were inherently flawed.

and, fyron, if moses was shown all of god's works, he knew about things that make quantum physics small.

That is about as circular as reasoning can get. You can not use something to prove itself.

not seen is not the same as not percieved.

What was the point of saying that? It is irrelevant to the preceding quote. The meaning of the quote and the post following it is exactly the same. The semantics do not invalidate his point.

[ May 20, 2003, 00:34: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Fyron]

Ah, here is my "lecture" on faith (as someone put it ). It came about when someone accused me of being religious because I accepted that radio-carbon dating was relatively accurate enough to give accurate estimates. I am not trying to start up any old arguments, I am just posting this to help some people better understand how scientific and religious "faith" are wholely different concepts.

Actually, there is little more to say after what Andres said. No legitimate science has ever claimed that radio-isotope dating is an exact science. It is an estimation, based off of thorough experimentation and calculation as to the half-lives of the relevant isotopes. This is why using radio-isotope dating is not a matter of faith; it is based off of verifiable data. It is not a matter of: the Bible says so, so it is true. That is accepting something on religious faith. You are trying to use the connotations of the word faith to equate "believing in" science to believing in religion. This does not work, because there is no ground of comparison between science and religion. Scientific belief is always open to being wrong. If you find evidence contradicting religious beliefs, the evidence has to be wrong. The religious beliefs don't change to reflect accurate new evidence; scientific beliefs do. I do indeed have faith in science, but it is not at all like faith in religion. I can easily look at the data collected by scientists to see if their conclusions make sense. What religion does is to say, "this is how it is, accept it." I do not simply accept scientific suppositions as fact. In order to believe them, you have to accept religions suppositions as fact, as there is no possible evidence or experimentation to prove them. Religious "faith" is accepting something because that is what they say it is like. Scientific "faith" is accepting suppositions that have been based off of careful experimentation. It is accepting that there are people out there with more scientific knowledge than myself, and trusting them to know how to run experiments. It is being able to examine their data, and also to be able to run their experiments myself to see if I get the same results. All of this is lacking in religious "faith", so your argument that by me believing scientific principles equates to me being religious is baseless.

[Aloofi]

Science and relegion are not mutually exclusive. Several hundred years ago, humans believed that lighting was the work of god. Since then significant evidence has accumulated that lighting is a trasnfer of electrons created by static electricity (I think, im open to correction). Most significant modern religions (I.e. most of the world population follow) would not say that lightning is an act of god (I think) (Though insurance companies might). This is because most of the world would say that lighting is a transfere of electrons created by static electricity.

I don't get it. Why would a lightning not be an act of God? Yeah, its a transfer of electrons or something, so what?
You know, I think the problem here is the type of education recieved. I received a Jewish education, that says that every act that happens is an act of God, while it seems that in Christian/Western countries the concept of an act of God is diferent, like it have to be something unexplainable.