"Real" ringworlds

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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.

seen is not the same as percieved. if you hear an object, you percieve an object, even if you don't see it. i believe there are ways of percieving that involve spiritual senses rather than physical ones.

This is because most of the world would say that lighting is a transfere of electrons created by static electricity.

just becuase lightning is a transfer of electrons doesn't rule out god creating the lightning. if i throw a rock with a quantum cannon and you discover newtons laws, it doesn't rule out the quantum cannon. not to sure that quantum physics is right, though. just stating, don't want to start anothere debate.

Hmmm. Step out for ~24 hours, and there's a ton to respond to. [Smile] I guess I'll just have to excerpt quotes from the Last three pages:

2 pages for me

Don't make Fyron straighten you out on evolution versus origins. Unless, as 99.9% of people, you use evolution to mean how everything came to be here, from the beginning to the present. Again, no origins theory can be proved, as there would have been no observation.

no mortal observation. so, origin theory can be proven.

Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

yup.

[ May 20, 2003, 23:52: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Narf:

seen is not the same as percieved. if you hear an object, you percieve an object, even if you don't see it. i believe there are ways of percieving that involve spiritual senses rather than physical ones.

That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.

Krsqk:

Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work.

So you're asking for what, exactly? An explanation of speciation under creationism? It is not possible under most forms of creationism to separate origins from our present-day state.

I am asking for something more than just trying to pick out every minor perceived flaw (most of them are based on incorrect assumptions or a lack of knowledge about the specifics of the reasoning behind the theory). It was not directed at you specifically, but at everyone that has been doing things like this.

And you are right, such things are not possible under ignore-all-the-evidence-around-us forms of Creationism. But there are other forms of Creationism.

[Primogenitor]

Blimey! I go away for a weekend and theres several pages to catch up on! Good work all!

One of the problems that i think a lot of people have with science stems is because there is so much of it. If you truly wanted, you coud go right back to basics and repeat everyhing. However, since that is very impractical, you have to trust ("have faith") that other peoples work is reliable and true. Scientists have been caught out before, and will be again.

What Darwin did was not evolution. It was a mechanism by which evolution worked. He was so afraid of ridicule for it that he spent most of his life ammasing evidence to prove it and only published when another guy (Russel or Alfred Wallace is think) had a similar idea while in a malarial coma!

You could say that both Evolution Theory (ies) and Creationist Theory (ies) are the products of evolution themselves. All that is needed for evolution is inheritance, variation, and natural selection. Most ideas/knowledge/concepts have these.
Inheritance is teaching others (verbally, writings, or forun threads!)
Variation is different interpretations (look at the types of christianity)
Natural selection is differential inheritance (norse relegion against christianity)

Science and relegion are not mutually exclusive. Several hundred years ago, humans believed that lighting was the work of god (Zeus et al). 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.

And finaly...

Quote from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
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).

*LOL*

[Krsqk]

That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work.

Actually, I was trying to demonstrate that a theory can be valid without being provable. Assuming creation to be true, if God did give divine revelation about creation to someone to be written down, that doesn't mean He sent copies of the interview to everyone with a press credential. There would be no objective proof of the creation, but it would nonetheless have happened. That is just the way a supernatural event would be--it's nothing against logic; it just isn't subject to logical proof or disproof.

[Fyron]

Sigh. I think you need to take some new philosophy classes.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived

That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.

ok, now that i have that down:
he was saying that there are thing's that perhaps cannot be perceived, i missed the perhaps, and i was saying that everything can be percieved, although not with our physical senses. they require faith. like i said, faith is a working bootstrap, which also is why scientists have problems with it.

[Fyron]

Narf, please go read my post on "faith"...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

my original reply, which you replied to, was not to you. it was to that first qoute in my Last post

[ May 21, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

It does not matter who it was directed at. You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.