[Terez]

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

No one has ever observed an electron or a quark or a boson.

Hmm, I was under the impression that the electron and some boson particles (photon, W, Z) have been observed, while other boson particles have not been observed at all (graviton, Higgs) and the gluon along with quarks have been observed indirectly.

[Giles]

I think he means that we cant see them with the naked eye, rather than that they havent been observed. I think its just confusion caused by using the word observed rather than seen.

This post has been edited by baudin: 27 October 2008 - 06:36 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Well, then, lets take the gravion particle that Terez was helpful enough to bring up, it's an excellent example of what I am trying to say.
I am inclined to believe in the gravion particle, because I think it makes sense. But since there haven't been the same sort of observations regarding that particle as with others, I can't say it has been proved.

But I have great hopes of the particle being spotted soon enough - but until then no scientist will say that there are proof that it exist.

The evolution nobody have seen - there are certain indications according to some scientists - if you agree with the premises - but there are no proof. It's a theory, not fact, and since we have no hope of immediately spotting the evolution, it will stay a theory for quite some time.

Scientists can either agree with a theory, or discard it. It's not really that important to me, but when pressured, I'd discard it because we have no proof of it being true, and because of my faith. Does that make me less scientific minded? No, not really, just a different scientific minded person.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 27 October 2008 - 06:50 PM

[Terez]

Evolution is observable directly on the micro scale, and you can prove that it has happened on the macro scale through the fossil record.

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 27 2008, 08:49 PM, said:

Well, then, lets take the gravion particle that Terez was helpful enough to bring up, it's an excellent example of what I am trying to say.
I am inclined to believe in the gravion particle, because I think it makes sense. But since there haven't been the same sort of observations regarding that particle as with others, I can't say it has been proved.

But I have great hopes of the particle being spotted soon enough - but until then no scientist will say that there are proof that it exist.

The evolution nobody have seen - there are certain indications according to some scientists - if you agree with the premises - but there are no proof. It's a theory, not fact, and since we have no hope of immediately spotting the evolution, it will stay a theory for quite some time.

Scientists can either agree with a theory, or discard it. It's not really that important to me, but when pressured, I'd discard it because we have no proof of it being true, and because of my faith. Does that make me less scientific minded? No, not really, just a different scientific minded person.

Its like watching 1984 double think in action. No theory has been proven. It is a philisophical impossibility. A theory in science is as good as it gets. And that in no way suggests that science is nothing more than theories. A theory is a hypothesis with experimental evidence to back it up. Gravity electromagnetsim are all theories. But you know this Im sure, we have spoken about this misunderstanding a thousand times. I confess it appears to me that you are conveintly forgetting.

As for you saying my previous point with electrons is not the same thing. Its excactly the same thing. By doing experiments and observing secondry effects we can postulate the prime cause.

But lets look at the evolution theory

We have facts
-Animals are alive today which were not alive in the past. The fossil record shows this.

Hypothesis
-Some form of evolution must have led to the creatures of today being formed from the creatures of yesterday

Hypothesis suggests
-That if animals have a common ancestor their will be homology and similarity in the genome

Experiment
-Sequnce coding DNA for Histone 4 protein of all vertebrates. Run Basic local alligment search tool.

Experimental result
-Large regions of conserved local alligment. Experiment matches hypothesis prediction

Further expriments show
-conservation of chirality
-Vestigial organs
-Homologous structures
etc,etc,etc

Graduates to theory!

[Gem Windcaster]

We have different opinions, and that is fine.

All I am saying is the some theories are not accepted by by all - as it should be - and the theory of evolution is one of the theories I don't accept.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Its like watching 1984 double think in action. No theory has been proven. It is a philisophical impossibility. A theory in science is as good as it gets. And that in no way suggests that science is nothing more than theories. A theory is a hypothesis with experimental evidence to back it up. Gravity electromagnetsim are all theories. But you know this Im sure, we have spoken about this misunderstanding a thousand times. I confess it appears to me that you are conveintly forgetting.

Yes, there's experimental evidence, but then it's up the the scientist to interpret what the evidence means. Something you conveniently forget.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

As for you saying my previous point with electrons is not the same thing. Its excactly the same thing. By doing experiments and observing secondry effects we can postulate the prime cause.

I'd love for you to do a evolutionary experiment over millions of years and observing the effects.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

But lets look at the evolution theory

We have facts
-Animals are alive today which were not alive in the past. The fossil record shows this.

Mm, yes, so far so good.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Hypothesis
-Some form of evolution must have led to the creatures of today being formed from the creatures of yesterday

Really? Sounds amazing.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Hypothesis suggests
-That if animals have a common ancestor their will be homology and similarity in the genome

This in itself doesn't prove anything, but sure, it fits into the theory nicely.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Experiment
-Sequnce coding DNA for Histone 4 protein of all vertebrates. Run Basic local alligment search tool.

Experimental result
-Large regions of conserved local alligment. Experiment matches hypothesis prediction

Doesn't prove a thing. It just proves that the DNA in question have the same creator; be it evolution or God.

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Further expriments show
-conservation of chirality
-Vestigial organs
-Homologous structures
etc,etc,etc

Graduates to theory!

Yes, same creator. And since you can't accept the theory of God you have to accept another theory, mash something that fits into the evidence, so you build this reality and call it The Theory, so you don't have to deal with the ensuing chaos from a reality thrown in your face.

We believe different things, and accept different theories, there's nothing wrong with that. If I can free myself intellectually from old traditional habits, then so can you.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Oct 27 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Evolution is observable directly on the micro scale, and you can prove that it has happened on the macro scale through the fossil record.

I see your point, but the evolution on a small scare doesn't cut it - it's not enough - and will never be. But even if it does happen, and will happen, and has happened in the future, that doesn't mean that it happened the way the theory of evolution describes. Of that you cannot find evidence, unless you find a way to observe life over millions of years. You don't know what the evolutionary processes would do to that life you observe - what the effect will be - if any.

And if you could observe it, you still have to give a name to the thing that make the changes. Will you name it Chance and worship it as a scientific Goddess?

Nothing of what you call evidence can't be attributed to a Creator.

[Grief]

Size matters not.
Perhaps to god we are as these Micro-beasts.

Besides, since holy texts are unreliable, you can attribute anything you like to God, or a creator, or whatever.
Same goes for h9usdfnasdf. Its just that more people believe in god, cause theres a book about him.

[frookenhauer]

Cold Iron, on Oct 27 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

Attacking religion for it's scienfitic inaccuracies is like attacking MacDonalds for it's lack of nutritional value. It's not really trying to be nutritious, it serves an entirely different function. If at some point when the franchise was new or when we were young and naive we actually believed it was nutritious, we have all long since abandoned the belief, causing the purpose or intent of continuing to rail at it to in truth have nothing to do with actually educating or convincing people.

When I want to know something unquatifiable like how to be a better person, I don't call Stephen Hawking. When I want to know what happened during the first planck of the universe, or what, if anything, exists outside the universe, or what, for that matter, is the nature of existance, I don't call Pope Benedict.

This is not to say that religion and science are wholly seperable, just that they are not opposed.

Its all very well saying that, but when has Macdonalds tried to tell us how the world was formed. The bible sets itself up as THE authority on everything, it baldly states that THIS is how God created everything. Science has actually been able to tell the world that "Hold on chaps the book has got it wrong", up pop people such as yourself telling us that we shouldn't attack it for its scientific inaccuracy. About 500 years ago you'd have had your testicles in a vice for even mentioning that you thought that the book was in any way wrong, but that's beside the point. The point is that if the bible has got it wrong with regards to creation as you seem to be suggesting (BTW, I totally subscribe to this idea) what else has it got wrong?

And I am fairly surprised that the argument for the efficacy and correctness, for want of a better word, with regards to experimental data and theories has gone on so long. On the one hand you've got scientists with reams and reams of data and theories which are based upon the data (key word) and on the other you've got belief, which while it has a number of books based upon the subject are readily trounced by data and facts. In fact whenever science rears its ugly head (Lets face it, the truth is always ugly) the believers say, not fair! you can't apply something that is based on data and logic to something as profound as the bible. what? I'm not sure the argument needed to fill a whole page.

The key word again for those that missed it: DATA, science has it, uses it, lives for it, and by god does it want more of it. How does belief even compare?

[Darkwatch]

frookenhauer, on Oct 27 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

The key word again for those that missed it: DATA, science has it, uses it, lives for it, and by god does it want more of it. How does belief even compare?

Define what you think belief is. Is it blind unquestioning faith or is it faith based on critical analysis and reasoning?

There's one problem that seems to be the major hurtle in these threads and that is as follows:

Both parties use what could be called "laymans" definitions of opposing concepts.

When frook says "god" I get the distinct feeling he's talking about a popular traditional idea of god, that of a big bearded man in the sky.
Most fanatical atheists will say: "That's what it boils down to." Well no, the equivalent from a believers point of view would be to say: "The Big Bang. First there was nothing. Then it blew up." When some one has said this here the response to it has been fierce and hurt. The Big Bang theory is far more complexe and complete than that, it's just that the offending remark was based on a layman's perception of the Big Bang.
The same goes for God. CI is right you can't bring God into science, but you can apply a philosophical process (critical analysis) to him. This is called theology.
Theology endeavours to strip superstition and mythology from the entity of God. He is no longer a big bearded man in the sky.

The problem is there are no theologians on the forum.

My point is that if you say the idea and nature of god has not being pondered on seriously then you're wrong.
The church fathers, St-Agustin, St Thomas d'Aquin and many other philosophers and theologians have pondered the question in impressive depth. Just the fact that Oeconomical Councils were held to debate the nature of God and Christ throughout history proves this. The original heresies were based on theological differences (see the Monophyscists vs. the Nestorians or the Arian heresy). These are all based around incredibly long thought out and reasoned concepts of God and Christ.

It's like basing your arguments by asking someone on the street their concept of God or the Big Bang. Unless you come across someone who's had the education then your going to get very basic ideas that any specialist would jump out and correct.

Kind of like telling a historian that the first Roman Emperor was Gaius Julius Ceasar.

This post has been edited by Darkwatch: 27 October 2008 - 11:30 PM

[frookenhauer]

What you're saying amounts to a bollocking to children saying that they shouldn't butt in when their elders are talking. Cheers pal, I aint been asked ID in a long time, but this came close.

But I'm surprised that anyone has compared my ramblings to any type of scientific analysis (please help yourselves with this statement ) I was merely having a chuckle about sea monsters, mostly. The simple fact is that you've got this book and it covers a diverse range of subjects. And it stands squarely on the proposition that it is the truth. A bold statement, a righteous one, but if even a simple country bumpkin such as myself can pick holes in it...How much truth can it really contain? All I did was go through the first couple of pages and found out the universe is made of water.

Belief is belief is belief, whether its a little or a lot. It has the ability to skew the universe around a point. If I believe that a person hates me, everything that person says is an affront. If you believe that the world is out to get you, the guy behind the counter at Macdonalds really has spat in your food. Which is why I hesitate to agree with your theologians. They start at the point of belief and all their work stems from that point. It is akin to a scientist believing a theory without reservation and doing his experimentation from that point. It just don't sound kosher, know what I mean. You can't be impartial if you've got belief.

[Cold Iron]

There is no point in debating the nature of god if you don't believe in it. Start with what you do believe in. Yourself? Are you here? Are the rest of us here? When you get to "why are we here?" you will be faced with two kinds of answers. One is the mechanics of why we are here, the other is the purpose for us being here. The former being a scientific account of the causes to our effect (big bang, gravitational attraction, nuclear fusion, organic chemestry, evolution, copulation, hey presto) the later being a projection as to our ultimate purpose, the effects to our cause.

If you then look at this idea of purpose it will eventually lead you past the point where you can speculate as to the things that your actions can influence. What about after your death, or after the death of your civilisation or species? What part of you lives on? We can't say. Ultimately you regress until you are faced with a choice. Do you choose to believe that nothing you do has any ultimate purpose, or do you choose to trust god (see alien thread) and trust that even though you don't know what it is, there is ultimately a purpose.

Without this trust, things that you will be convinced you have no influence on will simply happen to you, and you will rail at their injustices because you will believe you have no control. With trust in an ultimate purpose you provide yourself with a reason for all events and a method to attaining your goals. You gain control over your life.

This is when debating the nature of god becomes relevent because it is now that the nature of god is synonymous with the path in life you walk. It is not some bullshit that quaks made up, or even an external force that controls you but an internal force that you yourself shape with your thoughts and actions.

[caladanbrood]

Terez, on Oct 27 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

No one has ever observed an electron or a quark or a boson.

Hmm, I was under the impression that the electron and some boson particles (photon, W, Z) have been observed, while other boson particles have not been observed at all (graviton, Higgs) and the gluon along with quarks have been observed indirectly.

Most fundamental particles are in fact alomst impossible to observe. What you see is the energy released by said particle and that's as close as you can get It still counts. It's like Uncertainty theory shows that the only way to observe some particles is by the effects they cause. Though this is all only vaguely relevant, just thought I'd add my scientific side to the discussion for once

[Cold Iron]

caladanbrood, on Oct 28 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

Terez, on Oct 27 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Cause, on Oct 27 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

No one has ever observed an electron or a quark or a boson.

Hmm, I was under the impression that the electron and some boson particles (photon, W, Z) have been observed, while other boson particles have not been observed at all (graviton, Higgs) and the gluon along with quarks have been observed indirectly.

Most fundamental particles are in fact alomst impossible to observe. What you see is the energy released by said particle and that's as close as you can get It still counts. It's like Uncertainty theory shows that the only way to observe some particles is by the effects they cause. Though this is all only vaguely relevant, just thought I'd add my scientific side to the discussion for once

Which may or may not lead you to contemplate whether particles are actually real or whether they are simply a convenient way to quantify our observations.

Which may or may not lead you to contemplate the nature of the planck and whether or not the existance of a fundamental unit of measurement has implications about the fundamental nature of matter.

Which may or may not lead you to conclude that we are not really here, or at least not in the way we think we are.

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster, on Oct 27 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Terez, on Oct 27 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

Evolution is observable directly on the micro scale, and you can prove that it has happened on the macro scale through the fossil record.

I see your point, but the evolution on a small scare doesn't cut it - it's not enough - and will never be. But even if it does happen, and will happen, and has happened in the future, that doesn't mean that it happened the way the theory of evolution describes. Of that you cannot find evidence, unless you find a way to observe life over millions of years. You don't know what the evolutionary processes would do to that life you observe - what the effect will be - if any.

And if you could observe it, you still have to give a name to the thing that make the changes. Will you name it Chance and worship it as a scientific Goddess?

Nothing of what you call evidence can't be attributed to a Creator.

*sigh*
Without belabouring the point; Evolution on the small scale cuts it like a razor when you factor in geological time.

The implication that chance should be (or is) worshipped by those who think that the current state of evolutionary theory explains (to a close approximation) the history of life on earth is something of a straw man; after all, who says we should worship anything? Emphatically not me, for one.

The problem with a hypothetical creator - especially the omnipotent, omniscient (and to my mind schizophrenic and insanely sadistic) one posited by the JudeoChristian/Islamic traditions - is that any and all evidence can be attributed to it. There is in fact no evidence that can't be attributed to it. Which would appear to imply that any and all evidence is an irrelevance if you're going to hold on to the religious paradigm. I mean, who needs evidence when you've got faith?

Science is about naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) explanations for the state of the universe as it is now. God is not and cannot be a naturalistic explanation for anything. If you want to believe in God (and a lot of people do) then good luck to you, but it would be foolish to try and doublethink that (or any other) deity into a scientific worldview, there's a reason it won't fit.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 28 October 2008 - 06:47 PM

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

You can observe an electron by running a wave against it and observing how the wavelength changes. Due to the fact that you can actually only use the top and bottom part of a wave eg min and max you can only have as much precision as the length of the wave. Short wavelengths give more precision as far as the position of the electron but also greatly bias the energy of the electron because of the high energy they themselves carry. Long wavelengths are imprecise but somewhat more gentle on the electron and thus they can be used to determine it's impulse.

That's all there is to it. Visual observation is bouncing light off an object. There are other kinds of observation in which the method is later translated to fit our senses of sight or sound. In the end it's only the flaw of the method that's holding us back not some fundamental law of nature.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Oct 28 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

If you want to believe in God (and a lot of people do) then good luck to you, but it would be foolish to try and doublethink that (or any other) deity into a scientific worldview, there's a reason it won't fit.

Then there's the difference between us - I don't try to make it fit - I don't have to. I don't have to divide the universe and the world around me in either the white box or the black box, I'm perfectly happy with grey. The world is not as simplistic as believing in God or believing in Science. And just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it can't make sense to someone else. You think that is foolish, I get that, but the feeling is mutual, so I guess we have a problem.

Other than it's not really a problem. I won't try to make you fit into my world view - I'm perfectly fine with the grey. It's an intellectual freedom I thought everyone strove for.

Seems like Cold Iron and I have very similar views on science. I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything he says from a philosophical standpoint.

[frookenhauer]

My relationship with god is complex, I am more than happy to entertain the concept that he exists, furthermore I am also prepared to try to understand the nature of god. To this I make the assumption that he exists. After that its have a look see what all the people what believe in him have got to say for themselves...Bible and all the other stuff that's out there and I am actually reading the bloody things and doing my best to wrap my puny intellect around some of the ideas. But, if I see something I don't like, or something that is lets face it past its sell by date as a theory to explain things, I'm liable to blurt it out, so you'll have to forgive us this trespass.

So you see, my problem is not with God, but in the religions and stories that people have with regards to god. I honestly think things are just too...coincidental, for want of a better, but that is not proof enough, which is why I'm still sitting on the fence. From this vantage point, however, atheists have more of the cards and they're making more every day. Can I ask a question? In all these 2000 or so years, how much as faith in christ really done for mankind? Or Mohammed? or Moses?

[Cold Iron]

frookenhauer, on Oct 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

So you see, my problem is not with God, but in the religions and stories that people have with regards to god. I honestly think things are just too...coincidental, for want of a better, but that is not proof enough, which is why I'm still sitting on the fence. From this vantage point, however, atheists have more of the cards and they're making more every day. Can I ask a question? In all these 2000 or so years, how much as faith in christ really done for mankind? Or Mohammed? or Moses?

If I may be so bold, it is my opinion that the answer to your question will be found in your initial observation here. You have a problem with the religions and stories because you are looking at them at face value, trying to glean literal truth from them. This is why you see no benefit in them. You must look deaper. The truth in religious stories are not on their face value but in their imagery - the analogues they represent, and how they relate to the things in your life, your world.

With a view to looking at the Bible or any other scripture for literal truth there is no wonder you are left feeling like it's a crock of shit. It's not scientifically accurate, that's a bald fact that a child can see from the outset. Move past it. Scripture is not about your consciousness. It does not seek to teach skills like how to read or count. Rather it communicates with your subconscious via your emotions through imagery. It's like when you have a dream, and 2 years later something happens to you that reminds you of that dream and changes your whole mood or state of mind. Learning about god does the same thing. You may not know what the story means right away, but 2 years later something will happen to you that reminds you of that passage and it will change your whole mood or state of mind. It can be, at times, truely miraculous.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 29 October 2008 - 02:12 AM

[frookenhauer]

Boldness rules! I see what you mean with regards to deeper truths, but with things like that even Aesops fables and even Star Wars can also show me deeper truths, both about myself and the world about me. What I would expect from a book of God however is both. My revelation in Genesis is that its just written by people who have no real idea of how things work and yet have tried to push forward this idea of creation. Why would God not work through the art of science to place us at the exact point where life can exist and nudge things along. Why is it so difficult to imagine that he would not use evolution as his tool for our creation? A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day fits quite neatly with that idea. The problem with the bible is that it is written by men, and Like Gem says, man has stopped listening to god since the fall of man (and before). If the book of god cannot hold water, then that is the fault of the men who wrote it. And its patchwork style shows it to be written by many and added to by different sources, there are inconsistencies almost from the first. The problem with religion is that we create it, and we are ever imperfect.