Topic: Christian BS - page 5. (Read 12748 times)

Wow! I couldn't have said the reason for the idea of Evolution being wrong any better than this. Especially, "It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena."

Thanks.

The 'dogma' you're talking about is called Positivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

It's an idea that aligns with Cartesian dualism.  It asserts there is an absolute separation between mental and physical reality, and so thus it allows one to conjecture about hypothetical states of the Universe (e.g. what the Universe might be like in the total absence of observation).

The problem is that it's wrong.  Positivism has been known to be a logical impossibility for thousands of years.  It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena.  Accordingly, the scientific method is founded upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  We just need to remember to disregard it before diving into metaphysics. 

It is a dogma to claim that the universe is independent of observation. Einstein thought as much, but when Tagore denied his dogma, Einstein said "then I am more religious than you!". Reference the link on my profile for this discussion.
I will post the link here as well:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/einstein_tagore.htm

I'm honestly not sure what point you were trying to make here.  Could you elaborate upon the relationship between "absurdities of dogma" and what I said?

Good thing we have dogma. If we didn't, we wouldn't have scientific protocol, and we wouldn't have near the fun exchanging opinions in a forum like this, with people from around the world, 'cause we wouldn't have invented computers. We'd still be living like cavemen. Love that dogma.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

Let's just simplify things and equate 'observer' with 'information processor.'  An information processor 1) observes information and 2) interprets it in a meaningful way.  To soundly assert the Universe exists means that we must observe that Universe and interpret its existence.  

Without observers/information processors, there is nothing to interpret information in a meaningful way.  Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to assert the existence of the Universe, for to do so would require that information has been processed in an intelligible way that allows one to assert its existence.

You can hypothetically discuss "Universe actions" without observing them, but that's all it is -- a hypothetical scenario.  Does a falling tree make a sound if there are no observers of the event?  Answer: Irrelevant question.

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

You probably have some specific definition on observe I'm not aware of. How do you explain universe actions that are happening while we are not observing them?

If you employ a metric that can be divided infinitely, then space is continuous.  If you employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitely, then space is discontinuous.  If no metric is employed, then spacetime doesn't even exist.  

Nothing can be defined without a metric.  But, metrics by definition are abstract, and are therefore conceived from mentality/mind.  No mind --> No metric --> No definable Universe.

You can say that it's no struggle for you all you want, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether you're correct, and in fact you're provably incorrect.  You can in no way soundly conclude that a Universe exists without observers.  If I ask you whether this Universe exists, you have a choice to answer either yes or no.  If you can't answer, then you don't know whether the Universe exists or not.  In a Universe without observers, such a question becomes entirely irrelevant.  A universe without observers renders any question or statement about such a universe irrelevant because there is no entity capable of answering the question (i.e. no observer to confirm the state of the Universe).

Information is completely unintelligible without an information processor (e.g. us) to make sense of that information.  In a Universe with no observers there are no information processors.   Accordingly, such a Universe would have no way of employing a metric from which it could be defined, and there would be absolutely no intelligible information anywhere.  Consequently, due to this complete lack of intelligible information, there are no grounds upon which to make intelligible statements about such a Universe.

So, does the universe exist as an imperial system of feet and pounds? Or metric system of meters and kilograms?

For this empiricist, there is no struggle. The universe exists whether there are observers or not. Observers just use their own arbitrary metrics to observe and measure it with, but the fact that there are so many different metrics proves that they are nothing but observer created arbitrary units, not something that the universe depends on for existence.


Again, that's NOT how science and scientific discovery works. THEISTS start out with an idea (god dun did it), and look for proof. Scientists start out with observable facts, and try to find an explanation, whatever it may be. That explanation isn't "God did it! Now let's find evidence to prove it, and ignore all evidence to the contrary!" No, it's, "We have no idea what did it! But based on these real life observable facts, this is our best guess, which we can test and repeat over and over."

So, next time you ever think of someone looking to prove some idea, just remember, that's not science. And if you want to give us scientific proof of god, give us a scientific test to perform and repeat, with similar results every time, which shows that god exists (I bet you can't even come up with such a test!). Not point at something you can't explain, and claim that it's SO much above YOUR level of understanding, that god is the only answer. (I'm sure to anyone living in Jesus's times, entire cities built on a grain of sand, which we use as computer processors, would have been proof of god, too).

God-of-the-gaps? No gaps. http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm

Evolution science, at its core, doesn't have the answers. Evolution science, at its base, always goes back to "if"s, "maybe"s, and suppositions. If science ever became sufficiently knowledgeable that they virtually proved God to exist, would the men of science ever admit it? The honest ones might and are.

Youtube search on "cellular life" and watch the videos. There isn't anyone who has evidence that this stuff came about by evolution. But the simple operation of it all highly suggests God. Machines have makers.

If suggestions are infantile, then false assertions are downright criminal.

Oh I see, yes well you can see how the brainwashed theist will ignore rational examples that show their thinking to be grossly flawed, so I don't think we're going to be able to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Look at how dishonest their responses are. When presented with the fact that science, whether correct or incorrect, is based in reasoned reality, while theism invokes magical thinking about paranormal super-deities, they ignore the point being made and simply throw questions at you that require their own discussion topic to expand upon in the hope that they can invoke their god-of-the-gaps somewhere along the way.

Because that makes sense, you know, "Not sure about that yet, therefore, God"

It is infantile.

No, it's just, people say things that are too complex too exist simply can't, but that's really faulty, and I was trying to prove that by mentioning DNA.

Your role in any debate is to back up the claims that you have made or admit that you cannot. This following claim seems sensible when talking about macroevolution, but not so with abiogenesis:


The process is not understood, these alleged intermediates are unobserved, so they do not have a basis in reality, else they would fit with those seven observations and facts, which I will mention again:

I conclude that simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. How can you conclude the opposite without providing processes, observations, and statistics to counter these astounding numbers?

I think you should really study the matter in details and with a serious attitude, before you say that it happened "by accident" and once you get the basics you will see that dna is not perfect at all, the results from what you suggest was made from a divinity is even worse.

What do you mean human DNA is an 'extraordinary claim'? You don't think it exists?

As for your continuously dishonest crap jaguar, don't think nobody notices. My role in this debate is not to have to walk your through every scientific theory, my role is to point out that at least every scientific theory is based in reality, whether it be correct or not.

As has been pointed out, you don't get to go, "Science hasn't got a definite answer yet? Right, time to invoke my invisible super-deity-being"

You are not just intellectually dishonest, jaguar, you lack intellectual integrity too. The practice of answering a question with another question in order to avoid answering the first question is typical of the lack of honesty displayed by rabid theists in these discussions.

Don't misunderstand my statement guys. I said human DNA because I was trying to discuss whether it can be considered as an "extraordinary claim"

Pardon? I have not heard ANY explanation regarding this "incremental series of advances", which you allege to be "exactly what is observed and understood about the process". I am not inclined to take your "explanation" on faith, no matter how "rational", with the primary reason being that so far you have not proposed any explanation whatsoever.

So please tell me this explanation that I am not able to comprehend, but be sure that it accounts for the facts which have been "observed", I will mention them again:

I suggest that if you believe in something which is incorrect (disproven) then you should try to remedy that situation. To do otherwise is to behave irrationally.

I accept that explanations involving forces and elements which actually exist in this reality are at least rational, even if they are incorrect.