SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How about the ice that forms outside on the ground in the winter? Does your god go around personally freezing every bit of water in sight?
Come on.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Come on.
All experiments are concocted.
And, no, the Miller-Urey experiments don't show that. They show that people can create the conditions in nature and show what also happens when these molecules find one another naturally. Crash dummy impacts are experiments to show what happens outside the lab. It happens to be safer and quicker to do these experiments than to simply observe unplanned crashes, and the data from the arranged applies to spontaneous crashes. Of course, if your religion said otherwise, you'd say, "That means nothing. It was a concocted experiment." Is that your opinion? I'll bet not, because it DOESN'T contradict your religious beliefs.
It happens without human intervention as well. If that weren't the case, there'd be no point in doing experiments to discover nature's secrets - a program that has delivered stellar results and reshaped the human condition. Those with no creationist confirmation biases understand that. The believer who has a stake in not understanding that won't, but that's not a problem for those who can do better.
To you. That's fine. Maybe all your science avoidance and denial will get you to heaven. That's its purpose for the Abrahamic theist, correct?
Only the shape of the crystal is designed. Nobody can make pure water form a crystal lattice above 0 deg C and 1 atm pressure, nor can anybody stop it when those conditions obtain. Putting it in an ice tray doesn't change the physics or make the appearance of ice at freezing an artifact of experiment.
I don't know what that means. Ouija boards are not science, and using them IS experimenting. Unfortunately, the experiment confirms the null hypothesis.
Semantics is, "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."
All arguments are dependent on semantics. You probably mean something closer to meaningless quibbling over meaning. If so, you'll need to do more than make the claim repeatedly like this. At some point, you'll need to demonstrate why it's correct.
Science is based in observation. Sometime, that means observing the results of an experiment as discussed above (Miller-Urey), and sometimes, the observation is of nature untouched.
What's frightening is how many DON'T accept science.
Of course, as stated earlier, although I know what science is, I don't know what "science" means to you. I don't know why you added scare quotes or how that's different from the word without them. This would be a good place for a little clarifying semantics to explain what you mean.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
Darwin employed ouija board science. No experiment. This was NOT science at all.
More word games. More semantics.\
NO!!! In its simplest form it is Observation > Experiment. You can't legitimately simplify it further and maintain any semblance of its real metaphysics but if you could simplify it further it would have to read "science is experiment". I simplify this erroneous concept to the more proper "all science is based on experiment".
You are simply mistaken.
And there it is; belief in science. And invariably the believer accepts consensus and dogma without ever looking at the experiment and evidence for himself. Some are to bust trying to learn more science than to examine metaphysics but most are just too lazy. It's easy to side with the majority in all things so most believers do things like buy high and sell low. They usually go to their graves convinced in the omniscience of Peers and the rightness of dogma. We do truly stupid things like diffuse our sneezes and the tiny little droplets of snot and germs with handkerchiefs so everyone can get sick and die. Most things we do are simply stupid because we learned them on our parents' knees just as we learned language and ofttimes word games. This is the human condition. On some level we all know we are ignorant and stupid so instead of thinking for ourselves or buying out of favor investments we go along with everyone else. Misery loves company.
It would just never occur to most believers to take a close look at metaphysics and how each experiment corresponds to it. So instead of reason we get paradigms that never change until enough funerals have transpired.
Such is life but only for homo omnisciencis. All other species are conscious and logical. If they were like we think they are (or like we are) they would all be extinct. This is because no amount of fitness will save you from a predator or from making stupid decisions based on beliefs.
I just don't know how Darwin could have been more wrong about anything at all. Simple observation shows species change suddenly based on genetics (as expressed in consciousness/ behavior) not fitness.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Metaphysics is the basis of science and if you don't understand how and why science works it is utterly impossible to understand science. This is why most of the believers and armchair scientists can't design or build simple machines or form hypotheses as to solutions to problems.
It might take me a lot longer to get to a solution or have a working design but I do get there.
Science is nothing but a process, perspective, and its results. People usually miss this. They think what they read in text books is science. They think science is something to memorize rather than to employ in their day to day lives or to understand bits and pieces of their world. They think they can live their lives according to science never realizing many of the things we do everyday appear impossible to theory or are wholly inexplicable in scientific terms. Even consciousness, the observer, is undefined by science.
None of these words are so hard to parse but no one will respond to them. They'll just continue with the same tactics.
cladking
Well-Known Member
There are a great number of great posts in this thread and I find it highly disturbing that the vast majority are written by those looked down on as "creationists". If I had read a thread like this when I was young it would have had a profound effect on me but over the years I've learned that are none so much holier than thou as believers in science. I've learned exactly why science changes one funeral at a time and have some insights into how the status quo is perpetuated long after it ceases to be beneficial to the commonwealth.
It's a wonder anything ever changes when those peers who see consensus is wrong must work to perpetuate it or find other employment. PC has a chokehold on reality itself if you are a believer.
It's a wonder anything ever changes when those peers who see consensus is wrong must work to perpetuate it or find other employment. PC has a chokehold on reality itself if you are a believer.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Since there are no known structures related to consciousness which remains undefined there are no known structures intermediate to it.
This isn't to say I believe in "Irreducible Complexity" merely that I'm pointing out many things related to evolution and even gravity have yet to be reduced through experiment to our understanding. The complexity of the real world is many orders of magnitude greater than most can even imagine but nobody has a problem imaging survival of the fittest drives a gradual change in species. Imagination is not science. Experiment is science.
When did you last bring yourself up to date on the leading theories of consciousness?
Have a read >here<. Catch up with the science ─ indeed a work in progress but not a work lacking progress ─ and leave the woo to crumble and blow away.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
This has already been addressed.
Ice in a freezer.
Ice wouldn't happen on a hot summer day without the human "intervention and set-up" of building a freezer, plugging it into a power source and placing water on the inside.
But that doesn't make ice an artificially made product.
Already refuted, which refutation went unaddressed. I consider all issues resolved when the last plausible, unsuccessfully rebutted claim is made. You make a claim about all science is experiment. I falsify that with examples of purely observational science. You disregard that and repeat your rebutted claim, and we're done.
It was a definition of semantics, which is the science of linguistic meaning.
No, you are. I made the falsifying argument and you had no counter-rebuttal. That's how correct and incorrect are determined.
Yes. Why? It works.
There is no dogma in science. Nor does somebody like me need to look at any data to know that the science that took man to the moon is correct. Why? It worked. That's why confidence in such a program and its output is neither dogma nor faith, but rather, an empirically established "truth."
You seem to think that stable paradigms are antithetical to reason. Correct ideas don't need to change and shouldn't change except to be refined further and made more useful. The heliocentric theory and the germ theory of infectious disease are stable paradigms because they are correct and quite well reasoned.
The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt.
I wrote, "I don't know what "science" means to you." Do you think you explained what science is to you - what you mean when you use the word? I don't. I still don't know, and expect that I never will.
I also don't know what the word metaphysics means to YOU.
When you use vague predicates, your words have no clear, distinct meaning.
Maybe. But how does that defeat evolution by natural selection/deselection?
ciao
- viole
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Insofar as I understand, before humans were created there is nothing to suggest imo that bees, gorillas, etc. invented machines and items like plastics that polluted the earth. I use the word created because I do not subscribe to the theory of evolution as many propose it to be. So I hope you will discuss rather the point about destroying the earth by mankind's manufactured ways. The point is that before humans there is nothing that I learn suggesting that animals (not humans) polluted the earth to the brink of ruination of the earth's basic sustainable qualities.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I think I like this post.
Consciousness is well-defined and understood by science. On the other hand philosophers debate consciousness and think that 'thinking about consciousness' will not come up with an explanation for consciousness.
Vague philosophical 'arguing from ignorance' does not help your case. The unanswered question in all science, including the question of consciousness does not justify your objections to what science has achieved concerning the relationship between the brain and consciousness. You have perpetually 'hand waved' my references on the subject without understanding or a coherent response.
Keep 'thinking' about it and we will make a statue of you someday.
Gravity has been reduced to experiments every day. Yes, the question of resolving the place gravity has on the smallest Quantum scale is not resolved. Again . . . not related to the question of consciousness which has been determined to be the product of the brain throughout the animal kingdom with a nervous system.
Not the best reference, but sort of okay:
Problem of time - Wikipedia
In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1][2] This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws at the microscopic level seem to require a single direction.[3] For macroscopic systems the directionality of time is directly linked to first principles such as the second law of thermodynamics.
Time in quantum mechanics
In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.Special relativity has modified the notion of time. But from a fixed Lorentz observer's viewpoint time remains a distinguished, absolute, external, global parameter. The Newtonian notion of time essentially carries over to special relativistic systems, hidden in the spacetime structure.
Again . . . the 'unanswered questions' concerning gravity do not negate the achievements of science concerning the subject.
cladking
Well-Known Member
We've been through all of this. It is believers arguing from ignorance.
Of course a great deal is known about "consciousness" but there is infinitely more not known than is known. This isn't as simple as equations that can be quantified and applied to the real world because we don't even know all the terms of the equations far less their magnitude or even how to measure them. We lack the theoretical framework or even a proper definition for it. Homo omniscience has always extrapolated a tiny bit of knowledge into omniscience.
These facts and every point is simply ignored by believers because they can see only their beliefs. They lack not only the big picture but the little pictures that are metaphysics.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Yes. I've heard this many times; "Science has already won the argument and everyone else needs to shut up.".
Reality doesn't work this way. When egyptologists say "they mustta used ramps so it's case closed" it doesn't change the nature of the evidence, the laws of nature, or common sense.
"Arguments" per se can not be won or lost except through experiment and those too cowardly or omniscient to use real science do not win by announcement. Science, real science, is NEVER settled.
If you are incapable of citing experiment to make a case then you might be a believers. I cite dozens of experiments and observations that support my theory but mostly I get back et als, opinion, and what science has currently settled on. I believe the paradigm established by Darwin has already failed based on cutting edge research. I believe ancient people shared my beliefs and hypotheses. They came to them similarly to the way I came to them; observation and logic except instead of logic, since I'm just as illogical as everyone else, I had to use the logic of experiment and to a lesser extent; evidence.
You'll know you won the argument when I come to agree with you. Until then you have barely begun to even address my points while I've addressed every single one presented by believers and students of science including numerous scientists and experts.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This is the exact same thing a witch doctor says when there is a good outcome.
You simply discount the Gemini fire, Apollo XIII, and the simple fact ancient people managed to get 481' to the moon with nothing but magic and superstition and no less understanding of gravity. Yes, they were well aware of G and called it what should translate as the negative second derivative of tefnut or the first derivative of shu.
Surgeons in the 1860's still believed washing their hands was a waste of time and their patients died.
Science still changes one funeral at time and those with a slavish worship of Darwin are the ones dying now days.
cladking
Well-Known Member
If I'm right then eventually it will be noticed and will lay the groundwork of an entirely new and non-newtonian modern science. There will be a line of Peers claiming to have beaten me to it and saying that without the supporting math my theory has no meaning. Of course math is irrelevant to reality so their argument will have no bearing.
Obviously I might be wrong.
Most people and all believers in science don't understand that there are countless ways to properly model experiment and reality. Even Darwin's model of evolution has validity from some perspectives and in some instances. It's not so much Darwin is "wrong" as that his "theory" applies to little of reality incarnate. His theory is highly misleading and a wholly improper interpretation for evidence and experiment. Most of reality is invisible in terms of Darwin. No theory will ever be "perfect" using our science which is dependent on definitions and language. It can never be perfect because reality does not follow mathematical laws but rather merely resonates with math because they both reflect logic. It can never be perfect because it is by nature reductionistic. I propose a non-reductionistic science.
If Egyptologists ever perform any science at all I'll get my fifteen minutes. I'll repeat this again; ancient people understood the nature of life and how it changes and this is largely the basis of modern religions. The status quo rules almost everything and everywhere now days. It always has (one funeral at a time) but never with the iron fisted grip it's had since about the year 2000.
That's not an accurate depiction of what I wrote, which related to your "Ouija board science" claim about Darwin's work and the fact that I had already given you a counterargument: "Ouija boards are not science, and using them IS experimenting. Unfortunately, the experiment confirms the null hypothesis." You didn't comment on that then or since, but you did repeat yourself, so I pointed that out: "Already refuted, which refutation went unaddressed. I consider all issues resolved when the last plausible, unsuccessfully rebutted claim is made. You make a claim about all science is experiment. I falsify that with examples of purely observational science. You disregard that and repeat your rebutted claim, and we're done." And then that non sequitur above.
That's incorrect. Observation and valid reasoning are sufficient. One can win an argument with nothing but reason and evidence. It's how it's done in a courtroom. No experimenting, just evidence, argument, and a verdict.
Correct, but only in the sense that we must always retain a modicum of philosophical doubt. The heliocentric theory seems pretty firmly established beyond reasonable doubt, but we can still entertain unlikely hypotheses (unreasonable doubt). Maybe the solar system is a hologram and will be reconfigured. Not a very reasonable thing to actually worry about, so it's not wrong to call that settled science in that sense.
That's also true with the theory of evolution. It's settled science beyond reasonable doubt. Yet we can entertain unreasonable doubt: perhaps some great deceiver and intelligent designer planted the evidence we think confirms the theory, and we somehow discover that. That's the degree of doubt there - vanishingly small. We can call that settled science as well in the same sense.
You were arguing to me that all science is experiment. Citing experiments doesn't establish that. You need to demonstrate that there is no other kind of science.
If you're correct, you can demonstrate the failure and the adverse consequences. If you're incorrect, that will be impossible.
I see it the other way around. I address your comments clearly and directly like I am now, but I don't get clarifying answers from you when I ask for them.
Hardly. The success of those missions to the moon speaks for itself. The science that made that possible is correct. You don't need to see it. You don't need to be able to understand the math or physics. You don't need to do any experiment. You only need to know that if it worked, the science must have been correct.
I have to discount the last part. I don't know what it means beginning with "and the simple fact." The fire was tragic, but doesn't speak against the validity of rocket science. And Apollo XIII showed us that the science isn't enough. The technology must be flawless as well. Great job Houston did getting those boys home - a human triumph.
OK. And now we know better.
Would you call sterile technique in surgery settled science? I would. The germ theory of infectious disease is another one not going away any time soon.
The reality today is non-Newtonian science. It is Quantum Mechanics at the smallest scale.
There are not countless ways to model experiments
You will need to provide a basis for your non-reductionist science because, without a process of confirmation, it offers nothing more than a philosophy of maybes.
Poor understanding of the work of Charles Darwin and the sciences of evolution. Science never claims"perfection" if falsifies theories and hypotheses based on evidence.
There are no math laws. Math is the science of a logical number system based on proofs and axioms as tools of everyday life, science, and applied science such as engineering.
Egyptian science was devoted to engineering. temples and shipbuilding, and practical trial and error everyday life like most ancient cultures. Religions then and now have little or nothing to offer science. Science does not deal with status quo rules.
Trial and error science progressively replaced with Methodological Naturalism which was first proposed in Islam.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
Of course. But things like "time" show up in the equation for gravity and it is not understood (as you go on to say). But more relevantly the nature of gravity, its cause, is still unknown.