[Cause]

I not understand. Expand!

[Cold Iron]

Morgoth, on Dec 20 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

Cause, on Dec 20 2008, 03:02 AM, said:

Disucssion forum seems to be a it slow of late. Someone needs to start up any topic soon

we just agree too much outside of religion

We must be right then

[Camel]

Abracadabra, hocus pocus
May science bring this thread into focus!

Okay, so I read a bit of this thread, and I have some stuff to offer.

Actually, it's late and I have a flight in the morning, so I'll just link you to it.

The answer to the Evolution-Creationist argument is that it's turtles all the way down. In other words, you'll never be able to prove either argument to the exclusion of the other. So why bother?

[Cause]

Abracadabra, hocus pocus
May science bring this thread into focus!

Okay, so I read a bit of this thread, and I have some stuff to offer.

Actually, it's late and I have a flight in the morning, so I'll just link you to it.

The answer to the Evolution-Creationist argument is that it's turtles all the way down. In other words, you'll never be able to prove either argument to the exclusion of the other. So why bother?
[/quote]

Because what you have just said is not true!?

[Cold Iron]

lol yeah i'm not even sure how an infinite regression is relevant.

[Camel]

It's the story that's relevant.

A man goes to a monk and says "Your Holiness, tell me of the world."
The monk replies "Why, everyone knows the world is flat."
"Ah, yes, that is so. What, then, is the world standing on?"
"Why, the world is atop four giant elephants, surely."
"Ah yes, but my name isn't Shirley. What, then, are the elephants standing upon?"
"Why, the elephants are atop two giant tigers, naturally."
"Ah, yes.. but what are the tigers standing upon?"
"Why, the tigers are standing atop a giant turtle."
"Ah. But uh, what is the turtle standing upon?"
The monk is clearly annoyed at this point and replies,
"It's turtles all the way down, okay?"


Basically, you can ask questions about topics such as abortion, God, creation, etc, and you'll never reach a definitive answer. Can you prove God doesn't exist? Of course not. Can you prove he does? Of course not. It's turtles all the way down. Every answer will just provide more questions.

Sandra Day O'Connor (a former Supreme Court Justice, for those not from the U.S.) wrote when they declined to hear an abortion case, "It's turtles all the way down."

In other words: "there's no definitive answer, so don't waste our time."

The whole creation/evolution debate will go on forever, because while you can prove evolution to an extent, you can't prove creationism. Faith will win out over reason 90% of the time, precisely because of the reasons you guys discussed in the Dawkins thread.

Actually, I probably should've posted this on the Dawkins thread.

Oh well.

[Dolorous Menhir]

"To an extent"

?

"90% of the time"

?

[Camel]

Well, the theory of evolution works in principle and has been proven in several different applications, but it's still largely a work in progress. There are huge gaps and unexplained anomalies that scientists are working to explain, unlike, say, the theory of gravity, which has been proven in any number of ways and one of the only real things left to figure out with respect to gravity is exactly how particles exert pull on others. Gravity is basically proven to death (and everyone accepts it) whereas evolution, while proven, is like that teenage daughter that has some explaining to do.

As for the 90% of the time, i just made that number up, but when you're talking to someone like Gem, her faith is going to win over your reason, regardless of how much you prove the facts. The reason faith wins is precisely because of the reasons you guys mentioned in the Dawkins video. People like that speaker will appeal to emotion over facts, and for most people, that's enough. We all believe things based on emotion that aren't supported by the facts ("She loves me, therefore she won't cheat on me", etc).

The problem with this whole debate is that everyone's already made up their minds. Any scientific proof of how something worked (say, the parting of the Red Sea) is going to go up against a question or explanation about that event that will be credited to God or whichever all-powerful being is being defended (How could the sea have parted just in time for Moses and his people to cross, yet drowning the Egyptions? God must've done it!). Anyone who believes in creationism is going to accept the latter argument, while anyone who supports evolution will reject the latter argument in favor of the scientific explanation of lunar pull.

Bottom line, it's turtles all the way down. You'll never be able to scientifically prove that God doesn't exist, and the religious types will always come up with an explanation supported by their religious text or what-have-you or will always point out some as-of-yet unexplained phenomenon and claim God is responsible, because, hey, you can't prove he isn't.

This post has been edited by Camel: 02 January 2009 - 08:52 PM

[Dolorous Menhir]

Camel, on Jan 2 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

Well, the theory of evolution works in principle and has been proven in several different applications, but it's still largely a work in progress. There are huge gaps and unexplained anomalies that scientists are working to explain, unlike, say, the theory of gravity, which has been proven in any number of ways and one of the only real things left to figure out with respect to gravity is exactly how particles exert pull on others. Gravity is basically proven to death (and everyone accepts it) whereas evolution, while proven, is like that teenage daughter that has some explaining to do.

No. Evolution is established scientific fact, though I will concede perhaps not to the degree that gravity is. (Isn't it curious how the "theory of gravity" is always the contrast chosen in this argument, even though there isn't really a "theory of gravity" so much as there are other theories that incorporate gravity? I think it's because the people making the comparison have only minimal knowledge of what they are discussing).

Anyway, evolution is disputed because it conflicts with religious thought, not because it lacks the necessary scientific heft to convince the faithful. If it had no relevance to theology, it would be as uncontroversial as electromagnetism.

Quote

The problem with this whole debate is that everyone's already made up their minds. Any scientific proof of how something worked (say, the parting of the Red Sea) is going to go up against a question or explanation about that event that will be credited to God or whichever all-powerful being is being defended (How could the sea have parted just in time for Moses and his people to cross, yet drowning the Egyptions? God must've done it!). Anyone who believes in creationism is going to accept the latter argument, while anyone who supports evolution will reject the latter argument in favor of the scientific explanation of lunar pull.

Uh, I didn't realise there was a science vs. faith debate on this issue. I thought there was a debate between "of course it happened, it was in the Bible" and "of course it didn't happen, the Bible is a work of fiction".

Lunar pull? Are you serious?

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 02 January 2009 - 09:03 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Camel, on Jan 2 2009, 09:48 PM, said:

As for the 90% of the time, i just made that number up, but when you're talking to someone like Gem, her faith is going to win over your reason, regardless of how much you prove the facts. The reason faith wins is precisely because of the reasons you guys mentioned in the Dawkins video. People like that speaker will appeal to emotion over facts, and for most people, that's enough. We all believe things based on emotion that aren't supported by the facts ("She loves me, therefore she won't cheat on me", etc).

Err...excuse me? If someone proved something I believed in was wrong, I'd accept that. It's the line where something is proven that people disagree on, not that proof matters. Someone might say something is proven, while another say that they need more proof, or that they don't accept certain evidence or maybe don't agree with the conclusions drawn. But proof is still proof. Problem is, not everything is as black or white evidence-wise as some might want you to think.

Whoohoooo, what are you trying to do here, buddy? You might wanna speed down.

[Camel]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 2 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

Whoohoooo, what are you trying to do here, buddy? You might wanna speed down.

Sorry, I retract using your name as an example.

Quote

(Isn't it curious how the "theory of gravity" is always the contrast chosen in this argument, even though there isn't really a "theory of gravity" so much as there are other theories that incorporate gravity? I think it's because the people making the comparison have only minimal knowledge of what they are discussing)

You're correct. I'm not a scientist by profession. I think a lot of people use the "theory of gravity" because it's most commonly used in the argument. Regardless of whether there's a unifying "theory of gravity" or a bunch of theories that incorporate gravity, the point remains the same.

Quote

Uh, I didn't realise there was a science vs. faith debate on this issue. I thought there was a debate between "of course it happened, it was in the Bible" and "of course it didn't happen, the Bible is a work of fiction".

Sorry, those are two different arguments. It can be in the Bible and still be a work of fiction. The argument is whether the Bible is a work of fiction or not. Those that believe the Bible is Truth take it on faith.

Quote

Lunar pull? Are you serious?

I could be wrong, but I recall a study that showed that excessively low tides 5000 years ago could have provided a thin land-bridge across the Red Sea. Why? What was the explanation you heard?

[Gem Windcaster]

Camel, on Jan 2 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

Sorry, I retract using your name as an example.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Cold Iron]

Camel, on Jan 3 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Sandra Day O'Connor (a former Supreme Court Justice, for those not from the U.S.) wrote when they declined to hear an abortion case, "It's turtles all the way down."

I'm not sure that she correctly understands the concept of an infinitely regressive argument. The debate about whether god is or is not provable is not infinitely regressive. The debate about whether evolution or creation is or is not provable is not infinitely regressive.

If you are referring to the common argument of who created the creator, this is circular, not infinitely regressive.

She should have said "It's turtles all the way round".

[Cause]

I would believe that the story is an exaggerated lie before I would feel the need to explain the ten plagues or the splitting of the sea by science. According to the torah around a million jews took part in the exodus, left egypt crossed the sea wondered the dessert for forty years and picked up the torah at mt sinai. A million? No evidence has ever been found to suggest such a thing. A million people would leave behind some mark of the passage.

A wind blows across the dessert and the wheel turns and fact turns to myth turns to legend before the age that brought it about comes again and a few thousand people gets turned into a million because it sounds cool.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Jan 3 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

I would believe that the story is an exaggerated lie before I would feel the need to explain the ten plagues or the splitting of the sea by science. According to the torah around a million jews took part in the exodus, left egypt crossed the sea wondered the dessert for forty years and picked up the torah at mt sinai. A million? No evidence has ever been found to suggest such a thing. A million people would leave behind some mark of the passage.

A wind blows across the dessert and the wheel turns and fact turns to myth turns to legend before the age that brought it about comes again and a few thousand people gets turned into a million because it sounds cool.

And I still think the story about life coming from a rock sounds pretty retarded. Each to his own I guess.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Camel, on Jan 2 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Quote

(Isn't it curious how the "theory of gravity" is always the contrast chosen in this argument, even though there isn't really a "theory of gravity" so much as there are other theories that incorporate gravity? I think it's because the people making the comparison have only minimal knowledge of what they are discussing)

You're correct. I'm not a scientist by profession. I think a lot of people use the "theory of gravity" because it's most commonly used in the argument. Regardless of whether there's a unifying "theory of gravity" or a bunch of theories that incorporate gravity, the point remains the same.

I believe the original intent in referencing gravity was just to pick something that is self evident. I doubt you would find many people who will question whether gravity exists or what it does. The choice itself is ironic, as gravity is the least understood of the fundamental forces and there is more uncertainty about how gravity works than there is about evolution. Any fundamental theory of gravity will also be understood by very few, as it ties in with M-theory and multiple extra dimensions, whereas evolution can be understood by most quite readily.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

And I still think the story about life coming from a rock sounds pretty retarded. Each to his own I guess.

When you say it like a retard it does sound retarded

Gwynn ap Nudd, on Jan 4 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

I believe the original intent in referencing gravity was just to pick something that is self evident. I doubt you would find many people who will question whether gravity exists or what it does. The choice itself is ironic, as gravity is the least understood of the fundamental forces and there is more uncertainty about how gravity works than there is about evolution. Any fundamental theory of gravity will also be understood by very few, as it ties in with M-theory and multiple extra dimensions, whereas evolution can be understood by most quite readily.

Great post. Let's hope 2009 is the year of the LHC.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on Jan 4 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

And I still think the story about life coming from a rock sounds pretty retarded. Each to his own I guess.

When you say it like a retard it does sound retarded

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof. But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

- Gem, suggests everybody make a note what happens when you throw semantics at someone 'saying it like a retard'.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 04 January 2009 - 03:03 AM

[Illuyankas]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 4 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

And I still think the story about life coming from a rock sounds pretty retarded. Each to his own I guess.

When you say it like a retard it does sound retarded

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof. But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

- Gem, suggests everybody make a note what happens when you throw semantics at someone 'saying it like a retard'.

This is one of the most offensively stupid and deliberately unintelligent things I've ever seen you write on this forum. Saying life came from a rock is retarded, since no-one thinks that. Posting that anyone saying evolution exists is merely rewriting the sentence 'life came from a rock' is repugnantly ignorant. I am going to pretend you are trolling instead of being serious, as I don't want to fill the Discussion forum with massive personal attacks, which you would fully deserve right now if you genuinely meant any of this crap.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 02:02 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on Jan 4 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 06:36 AM, said:

And I still think the story about life coming from a rock sounds pretty retarded. Each to his own I guess.

When you say it like a retard it does sound retarded

No, it sounds retarded because it is retarded. Unless you actually admit that how you say things effect the level of proof. But I really don't think you would admit to that, since that would sincerely screw up said theory - since it is all about how you say it.

- Gem, suggests everybody make a note what happens when you throw semantics at someone 'saying it like a retard'.

I'm not throwing semantics at you, my dear, I'm throwing inaccuracy at you. "Life coming from a rock" is not simply a semantically incorrect summary of the threory of evolution, it is a retardedly inaccurate one