Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
"Luke"
27 Jun 97 13:19:14 -0700
On Mon, Jun 23, 1997 11:36 AM, Edd
wrote:
>Stix wrote
>>Jack of Hearts posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>
>>>Daniel Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah YES! some one who understands! A mutation is a loss or corruption
>>>> of genetic information, and you can't get more information by losing
it.
>>>
>>>Not true. Is a cat that mutates 6 toes losing information, or gaining
it?
>>
>>One of my friends has a Rottweiler crossed with a Blue Heeler (Australian
>>cattle dog). Strangely, the dog resembles neither parent, is completely
>>black, sans any markings from either breed, and more resembles a
>labrador.
>>It also has duel dewclaws on both hind legs, giving it a total of six
>>"toes" per hind foot. Dewclaws, IIRC, are vestigal toes that perform
little
>>to no function on a dog. However, if *natural* selection (as opposed to
>>human induced selective breeding) were in play and duel dewclaws
>>assisted
>>in survival and/or reproduction, it stands to reason that the mutation
>>would be passed along. Similarly, if humans apply the human version of
>>natural selection - selective breeding - and deliberately chose to breed
>>dogs with the extra dewclaws, we'd eventually see an entire strain of
dual
>>dewclawed labrador lookalikes.
>>
>>Evolution is SO FUCKING OBVIOUSLY FACT that my mind boggles when I see
>all
>>these ignorant, brainless fools conclusively stating either that it
doesn't
>>occur or that it can't or didn't occur. It did, it does, and it is.
>>
>>Deal with it.
>>
>>Oh, by the way, what are seals and penguins if not "species in
transition"?
>BTW, ever hear of that African tribe that had 6 fingers. (Everyone in
>the tribe had 6 fingers, thats NOT 6 fingers across the whole tribe
>before someone says something). Of course that was from Ripleys Believe
>It Or Not, so take with a pinch of salt.
>--
>Edd
>
The extra claws as well as the fact that the dog looked like neither parent
is probably not a mutation the same goes for the six-fingered people. It is
probably a case of horizontal variation.
What are seals and penguins transitioning to and from? They are fine for
the environment in which they live, but how about a transition between a
rat and a bat? Imagine a rat with sonar equipment or webbed forefeet... It
wouldn't stand a chance in life!
Luke
Re: INTERESTING DIVERSION, Avoiding the second historic mistake
Edouard Boily
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:07:32 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------F13BC193E1EB17ECDCB7A928
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B47B3D1D9F40B56D6C0556A5"
--------------B47B3D1D9F40B56D6C0556A5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> > > > I had to laugh out loud when I read a review of one of Steven
> > > Hawking's
> > > > (sp?) books where he says that nobody is really sure if black holes
> > > > exist, and that personally he was betting against them. (!) Great
> > > > statement! I believe that he was clearly making the point that our
> > > > *fashionable* laws of physics are themselves based on laws which are
> > >
> > > > based on laws which are.....(etc).....which are based on a guess.
> > >
> > > I do not agree. First, don't forget that Black Holes are a theoretical
> > > extrapolation of verifyable laws of physics. This is the essence of a
> > > physic's law: it is experimentally verifyable. And because of this,
> > > there is no way you can deny it. It is not just a guess. What will
> > > evolve however is the positioning of the law in a context.
> >
> > I believe this to be total nonsense. You can find a context to fit ANY
> > cockamamy law! Gravity is a flakey law in the context of a drunk trying
> > to walk home, and ice cream is a wonderful standard of measurements to a
> > child. Let me try to explain using your (following) criteria.
> >
> > Let's say that I lived at newton's time, and I said "please don't take
> > these laws as absolute, since these laws are only based upon other laws
> > that we have created, and that someday someone will discover that these
> > laws will only work for a limited number of contexts."
> >
> > This would have made you happy, yes? But it would have been the same
> > for me to say:
> >
> > "please understand that what we know of as laws are verifiable only
> > because of other laws we have created."
> >
> > To give a rather brute force example. Noone has seen a sub-atomic
> > particle. Therefore one might be bold and say, if I cannot see it than
> > it doesn't exist. But I would go a step further, and state that even
> > seeing something and knowing that it is true is only based upon the fact
> > that you have seen something previously and thought that to be true. In
> > other words, the notion of sight being a verifier of truth is based on
> > sight being a verifier of truth!
>
Total nonsense? I visibly did not succeed making my point clear. Let me
try again. Let me give you a comprehensive example.
Let's say that one scientist measures that when he applies a force to an
object, the object accelerates in the same direction than the force. He
try this experiment one thousand times, varying the force both in
direction and in amplitude and consistently get observations in line. He
might then risk to say that he discovered a law. He might even try to
express this law:
The acceleration a body gets is proportional to the force applied to it.
and he can formulate it:
F (is proportional to) a
The scientist do not rely on any previous laws. His sole inspiration is
the consistent observations set from laboratory experiments.
Now, if I get you right, you are saying that the fact that the objective
observation itself being considered as true, is a non-proven assumption.
You are saying that it is not because we objectively observe something
that this something is real or true. You even refer to altered
perception stated (your drunk body) and the fact that an altered
perception state context invalidates a law of physics!
I will argue that what you objectively observe IS truth. The
interpretation you make of it might be wrong, you might not be aware of
all the details of the observational context but the observation is the
truth. In order to demonstrate that an objective and error-free
observation represent the nature of the reality, I will assume the
opposite. Let's assume that what we observe is not the truth. From a
serie of independant observations, some or all of them being false, some
or all of them being true. The problem with this picture is that if
observation is such, it is impossible to come up with a consistent set
of observations. The only way to come up with a consistent set of
observations is with the case where all error-free objective
observations represents the reality. This fact does not validate all
individual observations but validate an error-free objective
observation. This fact says that observations are directly linked to the
reality.
I am not sure that your drunk body can reproduce consistently his
observations at the level of details required in order to pass the peer
review test. Anoher drunk driver will most certainly not get the exact
same set of observations in order to confirm his modelisation of the
reality.
Observation of nature (and I am implying here whatever perception we get
on nature, might it be through objective instruments or not) is our sole
reality check. And I agree with you on the criticality of this issue.
This is why the observation procedure, in order to reach error-free and
objectivism, must be carefully established and validated before we are
able to announce the discovery of a new law. The validation of the
observation procedure is done by an independant group of scientists
repeating the experience, most of the time with another set of
observation procedures and aparitus. When one or more valid and
orthogonal sets of observations are consistent with the original set, we
consider that reality has been correctly observed and we have a grasp to
model it with a physics law. If a set of observation is in contradiction
with the others, it must be carefully reviewed in order to understand
why it is so. The cause might be a erroneous observation or the
observation is not in the same context as the others. Let me expand this
a little bit.
If I continue on the example of the Force-acceleration law, one person
might come and show a valid set of observations that are not in
conformity with the law. Careful study will reveal that the later
observations have been performed from a non-inertial frame of reference.
And this observation can be repeated, validated, etc. One can then state
that the force-acceleration law is valid, but only in the context of an
inertial frame of reference. All the observations that initially
confirmed the first version of the law are still valid. It is only that
the context or the domain of application of the law are refined to the
inertial framework only.
The questionable part of science is usually the interpretation of the
observations, not the observations themselves (when they are well done
though).
This is the method on which science has been elaborated. One rock at a
time, each observation being carefully validated in the most possible
defined context. Applied science (technology) is the final proof that
science, at least partly, model well the reality because it IS working.
Science does not rely on guesses. This is the domain of metaphysics and
pseudosciences.
- Edouard
--------------B47B3D1D9F40B56D6C0556A5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> > > I had to laugh out loud when I read a review of one of Steven
> > Hawking's
> > > (sp?) books where he says that nobody is really sure if black holes
> > > exist, and that personally he was betting against them. (!) Great
> > > statement! I believe that he was clearly making the point that our
> > > *fashionable* laws of physics are themselves based on laws which are
> >
> > > based on laws which are.....(etc).....which are based on a guess.
> >
> > I do not agree. First, don't forget that Black Holes are a theoretical
> > extrapolation of verifyable laws of physics. This is the essence of a
> > physic's law: it is experimentally verifyable. And because of this,
> > there is no way you can deny it. It is not just a guess. What will
> > evolve however is the positioning of the law in a context.
>
> I believe this to be total nonsense. You can find a context to fit ANY
> cockamamy law! Gravity is a flakey law in the context of a drunk trying
> to walk home, and ice cream is a wonderful standard of measurements to a
> child. Let me try to explain using your (following) criteria.
>
> Let's say that I lived at newton's time, and I said "please don't take
> these laws as absolute, since these laws are only based upon other laws
> that we have created, and that someday someone will discover that these
> laws will only work for a limited number of contexts."
>
> This would have made you happy, yes? But it would have been the same
> for me to say:
>
> "please understand that what we know of as laws are verifiable only
> because of other laws we have created."
>
> To give a rather brute force example. Noone has seen a sub-atomic
> particle. Therefore one might be bold and say, if I cannot see it than
> it doesn't exist. But I would go a step further, and state that even
> seeing something and knowing that it is true is only based upon the fact
> that you have seen something previously and thought that to be true. In
> other words, the notion of sight being a verifier of truth is based on
> sight being a verifier of truth!
Total nonsense? I visibly did not succeed making my point clear. Let
me try again. Let me give you a comprehensive example.
Let's say that one scientist measures that when he applies a force to
an object, the object accelerates in the same direction than the force.
He try this experiment one thousand times, varying the force both in direction
and in amplitude and consistently get observations in line. He might then
risk to say that he discovered a law. He might even try to express this
law:
The acceleration a body gets is proportional to the force applied
to it.
and he can formulate it:
F (is proportional to) a
The scientist do not rely on any previous laws. His sole inspiration
is the consistent observations set from laboratory experiments.
Now, if I get you right, you are saying that the fact that the objective
observation itself being considered as true, is a non-proven assumption.
You are saying that it is not because we objectively observe something
that this something is real or true. You even refer to altered perception
stated (your drunk body) and the fact that an altered perception state
context invalidates a law of physics!
I will argue that what you objectively observe IS truth. The interpretation
you make of it might be wrong, you might not be aware of all the details
of the observational context but the observation is the truth. In order
to demonstrate that an objective and error-free observation represent the
nature of the reality, I will assume the opposite. Let's assume that what
we observe is not the truth. From a serie of independant observations,
some or all of them being false, some or all of them being true. The problem
with this picture is that if observation is such, it is impossible to come
up with a consistent set of observations. The only way to come up with
a consistent set of observations is with the case where all error-free
objective observations represents the reality. This fact does not validate
all individual observations but validate an error-free objective observation.
This fact says that observations are directly linked to the reality.
I am not sure that your drunk body can reproduce consistently his observations
at the level of details required in order to pass the peer review test.
Anoher drunk driver will most certainly not get the exact same set of observations
in order to confirm his modelisation of the reality.
Observation of nature (and I am implying here whatever perception we
get on nature, might it be through objective instruments or not) is our
sole reality check. And I agree with you on the criticality of this issue.
This is why the observation procedure, in order to reach error-free and
objectivism, must be carefully established and validated before we are
able to announce the discovery of a new law. The validation of the observation
procedure is done by an independant group of scientists repeating the experience,
most of the time with another set of observation procedures and aparitus.
When one or more valid and orthogonal sets of observations are consistent
with the original set, we consider that reality has been correctly observed
and we have a grasp to model it with a physics law. If a set of observation
is in contradiction with the others, it must be carefully reviewed in order
to understand why it is so. The cause might be a erroneous observation
or the observation is not in the same context as the others. Let me expand
this a little bit.
If I continue on the example of the Force-acceleration law, one person
might come and show a valid set of observations that are not in conformity
with the law. Careful study will reveal that the later observations have
been performed from a non-inertial frame of reference. And this observation
can be repeated, validated, etc. One can then state that the force-acceleration
law is valid, but only in the context of an inertial frame of reference.
All the observations that initially confirmed the first version of the
law are still valid. It is only that the context or the domain of application
of the law are refined to the inertial framework only.
The questionable part of science is usually the interpretation of the
observations, not the observations themselves (when they are well done
though).
This is the method on which science has been elaborated. One rock at
a time, each observation being carefully validated in the most possible
defined context. Applied science (technology) is the final proof that science,
at least partly, model well the reality because it IS working.
Science does not rely on guesses. This is the domain of metaphysics
and pseudosciences.
- Edouard
--------------B47B3D1D9F40B56D6C0556A5--
--------------F13BC193E1EB17ECDCB7A928
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Edouard Boily
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Edouard Boily
n: Boily;Edouard
org: Bell Sygma Telecom Solutions
adr: 1000, de la Gauchetiere Ouest;;#4-400S;Montreal;Quebec;H3B 4W5;CANADA
email;internet: eboily@qc.bell.ca
title: Managing Consultant
tel;work: (514) 391-5285
tel;fax: (514) 393-1295
tel;home: (514) 838-9975
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------F13BC193E1EB17ECDCB7A928--
Re: * 3 polarizer problem
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:58:47 GMT
In article <5ovag9$gst@panix2.panix.com>, erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
>[This post has been flagged by the Sentention Bot. This is only a
>warning, but this notice has been added to the body and sent to the
>postmaster of erg@panix.com . The sentention level of this post
>is 0.07 . Posts with sentention level of 0.1 or greater will be
>cancelled ] The Net Police.
>
Neato!
... snip ...
>
>Introductory accounts of quantum mechanics delight in flaunting (I saw
>recently that 'flout' and 'flaunt' are suffering semantic merging, so
>it's up to all good men and true to use them correctly in a sentence
>now and again :) the 'paradoxical' nature of the subject matter,
>flouting our understanding -- just like certain accounts of special
>relativity. These stories work, as zardoz tells us, by first
>postulating a model that is inadequate to explain the results of all
>experiments, demonstrating it leads to conceptual contradiction, then
>showing it again, then fondling this contradiction like is was their
>long lost love, and in general carrying on as if the entire point of
>quantum mechanics were to generate these conundrums!
>
What you're saying is that introductory texts of QM are doing their
best to instill in the reader a sense of awe and amazment, confusing
him in the process. I agree.
... snip ...
>
>>As for the question "what do photons do between interactions?" we
>>don't and can't know for sure what anything does between interactions,
>>be it photons, electrons, usenet posts or people.
>
>Or you could say, to be really annoying, it's not a well posed
>question in terms of the model. :-)
I could, but since I'm trying to be very annoying, I say that it is
not well posed in terms of any model.
>
>"There is no dominantly accepted ontology of quantum mechanics, and
>in fact no common understanding of how to formulate the ontological
>and epistemological question surrounding quantum mechanics. Therefore
>we shall restrict ourselves as much as possible to formulation of the
>mathematical models, and indicate where the results of these models
>have been tested against experiment".
>
>In short: "We don't know what it means".
>
Or at least "we can't express it in terms of stuff we've intuitive
understanding of"
>> All information is
>>generated and transmitted through interactions and from physics point
>>of view an object is simply the sum total of all its possible
>>interactions (mind you, "all possible", which is more than "all
>>measurable in a finite space within a finite time").
>
>You might say an object is a part of a model with 'objective' character
>traits. :-) When we find we have postulated a false object we are
>quite put out, and call it an 'illusion' to signify our displeasure.
No, why. We postulate a better one and inquire about tickets to
Stockholm :-)
>
>>But, what we can do is postulate specific behavior between
>>interactions, then evaluate what sort of consequences said
>>postulate(s) have for measurable results of interactions, then check
>>whether we do indeed observe said consequences. And, as long as the
>>results of the theory agree with the measurements, we do assume it is
>>correct. If and when they disagree we either modify the theory or
>>create a new one. So, what's the problem?
>
>Too little learned dialogue on Usenet.
You get what you pay for (at most) :-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Re: Why do you believe?
nurban@sps1.phys.vt.edu (Nathan Urban)
26 Jun 1997 01:57:35 -0400
In article <33B33C06.4C93@earthlink.com>, Nornus wrote:
> > > Perhaps because science, technology, and logic don't address or answer
> > > basic questions about life and spirtuality. Like why are we here? What
> > > is our purpose? Do we even have a purpose?
> > We are here by an accident of nature and we have no "greater purpose."
> > Apparently this is sad stuff for people like you. The sooner you get
> > over the shock of Galileo, Neitszche, Darwin, Freud, and me, the sooner we
> > can get on with answering all these questions since the data exists and
> > requires only our continued work to find it. Alas, some people never
> > stop believing in Santa Claus.
> It must be nice to have such a secure belief in the complete scientific
> (ie.rationally understood) quantification of reality. Do you truly
> believe that the human mind will eventually(through science and data
> collection) be able to comprehend every aspect of existance?
I feel compelled to point out that many atheists do not believe that,
even when they do believe the poster's first sentence.
> Logically,
> such knowledge is required before one can completly dismiss the notion
> that a higher purpose or intelligence exists, an intelligence that might
> elude us because it is beyond our rational comprehension.
Correct.
> What does science tell us? It actually creates more questions than it
> answers. The big bang theory, which states that the universe was
> spontaneously created from "nothingness" is a good example. Even given
> an INFINITE amount of time for it to happen, it is doubtfull that
> SOMETHING will come from NOTHING, there must be a chain of events,
> events that cannot exist in nothingness.
That is misinterpreting the Big Bang theory. There is no _time_ before
the Big Bang, so you can't say that something came from nothing. Given
any instant in time, there is an instant in time that comes before it,
but the instants are bounded instead of unbounded.
> Human conciousness also seems to defy science. The human brain can be
> mapped and described, the network of synapses and recievers charted and
> rationally reconstructed, expained as a complex chain of cause and
> effect, but isn't conciousness something more than this?
Some people think so (Penrose and others have argued so), but there is
no real evidence for it.
> The mind is NOT a computer, fixed to the strict rules of mathematics.
Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the mind is
not computable? Note that the mind could perform actions strictly
determined by some random number generator, and would thus appear to be
wildly illogical, yet remain "fixed to the strict rules of mathematics"
in that its behavior could be deterministically predicted given the
random number it used. (Not that I'm implying that the brain works
completely randomly, of course.)
> Computers are
> unable to emulate the creative decisions, and the seemingly random mix
> of emotions, feelings, intuitions, dreams, etc that create thoughts in
> the concious mind.
Just because we can't make them do that doesn't mean that they can't do
that. The mind is far more complex than any computer we're able to
build now, nor do we have the computational power to allow a computer to
_evolve_ such things; we'd have to analyze them ourselves and program a
computer specifically to do that -- and who is to say that human
intelligence is even capable of fully analyzing such things in a way
that allows us to encode them as algorithms? (Which is not to say that
they are unanalyzable by any intelligence, by the way.)
> Yet the mind CAN operate as precisly as a computer,
> as demonstrated by autistic individuals with incredibly accurate
> mathematical abilitys. How is it possible for such a super accurate
> logic machine to alternate between these two functional extremes with
> such ease?
Neural nets are pretty flexible. Just because all the computers you've
seen are "super accurate logic machines" doesn't mean that they are
limited to that. There may be models of computation, for that matter,
that we have not yet discovered. Studying the brain could be helpful.
(And of course, supposing we never figure out how to make a computer
emulate emotions and creativity, that would not imply that computers
cannot do such things, just that we are incapable of specifying a
sufficient algorithm to do so.)
> It makes a case for some sort of external influence
> manifesting itself in the illogical biological/electrical processes of
> the brain.
Not particularly. And are you suggesting this external influence is
responsible for all the illogical processes of the brain, which is
inherently a completely rational computer?
Re: Why do you believe?
"David Knaack"
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 21:53:58 -0700
Nornus wrote in article <33B33C06.4C93@earthlink.com>...
>Perhaps because science, technology, and logic don't address or answer
>> basic questions about life and spirtuality. Like why are we here?
What
>> is our purpose? Do we even have a purpose?
>We are here by an accident of nature and we have no "greater purpose."
>Apparently this is sad stuff for people like you. The sooner you get
>over
>the shock of Galileo, Neitszche, Darwin, Freud, and me, the sooner we
>can
>get on with answering all these questions since the data exists and
>requires only our continued work to find it. Alas, some people never
>stop
>believing in Santa Claus.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It must be nice to have such a secure belief in the complete scientific
>(ie.rationally understood) quantification of reality. Do you truly
>believe that the human mind will eventually(through science and data
>collection) be able to comprehend every aspect of existance? Logically,
>such knowledge is required before one can completly dismiss the notion
>that a higher purpose or intelligence exists, an intelligence that might
>elude us because it is beyond our rational comprehension.
I do believe that humanity has the potential to know all that is knowable.
>What does science tell us? It actually creates more questions than it
>answers.
All that shows is that there is more we don't know that what we do know.
There was no question of that in the first place. As we answer more of the
questions, the balance will be shifted.
>The big bang theory, which states that the universe was
>spontaneously created from "nothingness" is a good example. Even given
>an INFINITE amount of time for it to happen, it is doubtfull that
>SOMETHING will come from NOTHING, there must be a chain of events,
>events that cannot exist in nothingness.
Point. In quantum mechanics, it is permissable for particles to be
spontaneously created. They are refered to as virtual particles, because
they are destroyed almost as soon as they are created. Under certain
conditions, a virtual partical pair can become real. Effectivly creating
something from nothing.
Point. If nothing exists, then you cannot have time, and therefore, you
cannot have an infinite amount of time (or anything else for that matter)
for anything to happen in. Give 'nothing', anything that would or could
happen, would do so. More than likely it is not possable for 'nothing' to
exist (or we wouldn't be discussing it would we?).
>Human conciousness also seems to defy science. The human brain can be
>mapped and described, the network of synapses and recievers charted and
>rationally reconstructed, expained as a complex chain of cause and
>effect, but isn't conciousness something more than this?
Nope, the 'self' is nothing more than that which arises from the complex
chaotic interactions between the neurons in our heads.
> The mind is
>NOT a computer, fixed to the strict rules of mathematics. Computers are
>unable to emulate the creative decisions, and the seemingly random mix
>of emotions, feelings, intuitions, dreams, etc that create thoughts in
>the concious mind.
Very true, the mind is a mushy, chaotic system in which nothing is ever the
same, very diffrent from the highly ordered logic of human designed
computers.
>Yet the mind CAN operate as precisly as a computer,
>as demonstrated by autistic individuals with incredibly accurate
>mathematical abilitys.
Not true. Some individuals are able to perform logic operations at
astonishing speed, but it is nowhere near that of a computer. This is not
a failing of the brain, mind you, but a design issue. There has been no
evolutionary push for the human brain to perform straight logic operations,
so it has not implimented the ability to do so.
> How is it possible for such a super accurate
>logic machine to alternate between these two functional extremes with
>such ease? It makes a case for some sort of external influence
>manifesting itself in the illogical biological/electrical processes of
>the brain.
I don't think so. The analog signals that make up our brains does not
function on rules of logic. Its more of a fuzzy logic system. Given
inputs A and B, output will be C... Most of the time, but not always. This
is because instead of logic gates, we have adaptive neural networks, that
are always changing. Computers have gates that are always the same. A
computer can simulate neural nets, and if such a net were complex enough,
it would probably consider itself to be self aware. However, such a net
would not be operating at the level of the logic gates of the computer it
was running on, it would be a product of the origanization and
manuipulation of information.
>As much as science wishes to ignore so called "paranormal" experiences,
>certainly the universality of their acceptance proves there are mental
>processes (a sixth sense?) that exist despite rational scientific
>explaination.
True science does not ignore _ANY_ information. All inputs must be
considered valid until shown not to be (or shown to be irrelevant). People
wish to ignore the data.
>The US government recently revealed data from a 20 year
>program that studied the so-called "remote viewing" phenomena. The
>report states that these phenomena do exist, but paradoxically cannot be
>quantified by the exacting process of controlled laboratory science.
>Therefore they do not exist in strictly scientific terms, but affect
>reality on a extra-scientific level, fluctuating in space/time.
Never heard of the phenomena, so the only comment is what is your
refrence?
>So, I guess I'd have to say "I believe" because unlike you, I cannot
>surrender my faith completely to the rational sciences. Science is
>merely a logical construct of the HUMAN MIND, unnable to see beyond the
>limits of that medium and incapable of perceiving all that reality is.
You believe because you do not have enough information not to? That is as
good a reason as any, since that is why religion came about anyway (IMO).
We can organize information and use it to extrapolate and predict events
and properties in the world around us. Science is not a logical construct
that exists only in the mind, it is a logical and creative process that
seeks to organize and ultimatly manipulate what we find around us. It has
proven itself many times over. The medium over which we are communicating
could not have come about without it. Science perceives nothing, it is
mearly a tool we use to understand the universe. We are limited only by
our ability to understand, and sometime in the future, we will understand
tools which will be able to understand that which we cannot. I am speaking
of artifical intelligence. The intelligent, self aware machines that we
will eventually build will likely be both faster and more intelligent than
ourselves (lets hope they have our best intrests in mind!), and will
understand that which we cannot begin to, which is the ultimate reason to
build them.
My opinion. Just remember, science is a tool we use, and has no inherent
limits.
--
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|David Knaack | "...scanning the sky for [signals] |
|Email replies are appreciated,| from intelligent life. One group |
|but not necessary. | has improved its ability to |
+------------------------------+ distinguish human signals from the |
|Return address mangled, use: | real things." Science 271, 1055. |
|User : dknaack +------------------------------------+
|Domain : rdtech.com | 'Thou art god' - The Man from Mars |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
xyz@psn.net (The_Sage)
Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:06:03 GMT
>george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>> How can you experience something that doesn't exist?
>How do you KNOW it doesn't exist?
Because I know the difference between what exists and what doesn't
and "it" has all the qualities of something that doesn't exist. Do you
know the difference between what exists and what does not exist? I
bet you don't.
>> >Instead of asking others to prove God to you, if you are interested in
>> >finding Him, you will have to look for him yourself.
>> Look where?
>In yourself.
I looked and He isn't there. I guess that proves you are wrong.
>> There is no other domain other then the physical one. Well, that is not
>> counting the imaginary domain, there is no other domain.
>And your proof of this is?
The lack of evidence of another dimension. Your proof that there is one?
>> Singularities are just speculation and not known to exist. Quantum
>> Physics is the science of amatuers, relatively speaking, since it is
>> a relatively new science.
>Whoa, boy! I can't believe the people you've just painted as amatures
>with that statement! Or do you consider Stephen Hawking an amatuer?
Yes. What do you paint him as? Another rendition of a person who never
makes a mistake and could never be wrong?
>> You can't expect amatuers to do an experts
>> work. Just give them time and they will though. Logic and reason are
>> universal tools that can explain everything.
>Hardly. Since you deny the broad body of work of quantum physics by many
>experts, I don't think there's much possible discussion left.
I don't deny "the broad body of work of quantum phyics by many experts",
but if you want to believe yet another falsehood, then I can't stop you.
>> Are you a prophet? Can you prove to us how you came to the definite
>> conclusion that these questions will never be able to be answered?
>Some very qualified scientists have reasons to believe so.
And some very qualified scientists used to believe that man could never
fly, and some very qualified scienctists used to believe that man couldn't
ever set foot on the moon, and some very qualified scientists used to believe
that there could never exist a plastic so tough, that it could be used in
bullet-proof windows or vests. Your point was?
Now you can begin to understand why the scientific method insists that
any appeal to "expert opinions" or "authorities" is invalid proof of any
hypothesis, even if they happen to be correct, unless that expert or authority
can never make mistakes and can never be wrong in anything they say or do.
It is bad science to do so.
>> I can think of many more "unanswerable" questions, but don't keep
>> making the invalid assumption that just because they are unanswerable
>> now, doesn't mean that they will always be unanswerable. You see,
>> science has always made progress, unlike religion, so if the past
>> history of science is any indication of what the future holds for answering
>> these questions (and more), the future for science looks very good indeed.
>Religion hasn't made progress? Get real. Do some studies of religion
>from antiquity to present day. You'll see lots of progress and refinement
>in understanding and philosophy.
I have and there is none. And don't confuse religion with philosophy. Although
they may cross ground _just a little bit at times_ they are not the same thing.
>As for the future of science, it may not be as bright as you think. Some
>of the questions that are being asked require energy levels far beyond
>what we can produce in the forseeable future.
No, you only _think_ the required energy levels are far beyond what we
can produce in the forseeable future. You can't predict the future, but like
I said, the past is a better indication of what the future holds then the
speculation you are giving.
>This is very frustrating for quantum physists. They feel we discovered to
>early, as we don't have the technology to fully explore it. Or maybe we
>will never have the technology to fully explore it because of the time,
>energy, and money involved.
Maybe? Sounds like you don't know either. How can you pass an absolute
judgement on something neither you nor these scientists know for certain
yet? Wait until the science matures before you start making such sweeping
and absolute generalizations.
>What about dark matter? Logic and reason tells us that something must be
>out there due to cosmic motion, but we can't detect it by any means
>(except for a small fraction). Either this means it doesn't exist, or our
>science is badly flawed.
More likely your logic is flawed.
The_Sage
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
Raistlin@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:08:27 GMT
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:07:48 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend)
let it be known that:
>In article <33b40714.4281892@news.execpc.com>,
>Raistlin@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage)
>wrote:
>
>> >By definition, I know our own language, which is built around our normal
>> >"reality" is inadequate to fully describe things spiritual.
>>
>> You cannot claim that until you have proven that the "spiritual" realm
>> exists.
>
>I can't claim how our langauge works, and that it is inadequate to discuss
>concepts beyond day-to-day existance?
Not without proof.
>> And a flawed one it is.
>
>So you say. Read something like "Flatland" or "Planiverse" and then tell
>me if it is necessarily flawed.
They have nothing to do with reality.
>
>> Time is a dimension. Space and time are not two separate items.
>
>I agree time is a dimension, but it has different properties than the
>other 3 spatial dimensions. Probably the most important is that we can
>only travel along it in one direction.
We *perceive* it unidirectionally.
>
>> You have a difficulty understanding that you've never proven that
>> anything exists beyond our normal "reality".
>
>And you only go looking for something if you know it exists? That's not
>very pragmatic thinking. "Hmmm...I've never heard of an answer for this
>problem, so I won't bother looking for a solution."
Strawman.
>
>> If you want to posit the "transcendent" and not have any proof for it,
>> you will get nowhere.
>
>Why do you need proof of something before you can find it? That doesn't
>make any sense.
Why do you need proof that you owe me $10,000?
>
>
>> >Take the space shuttle for an example. Can you comprehend the full
>> >technical aspects of it, down the every last nut, bolt, and wire. Down to
>> >every procedure, process, and contingency plan?
>>
>> False analogy.
>
>Easily said. But tell me why?
The space shuttle is known to exist. No on has even shown that the
"spiritual" realm exists.
>
>> >And what you consider extraordinary might be somewhat ordinary to me.
>>
>> I see that you're being rather dishonest.
>
>I am? How so? Am I misleading you? Am I lying to you?
Yes. You claim to have proven things which you have not.
>
>>
>> >By the way, what dogma came up with that "Extraordinary claims require
>> >extraordinary evidence". I've never seen that in any science text.
>>
>> The dogma of logic and reason. Perhaps you've heard of them.
>
>Yep, but I've never seen that rule codified. If you have a source, please cite.
If you have any objective evidence for the existence of the "spiritual"
realm, please remit it now.
>
>> >> "God exists" is an
>> >> extraordinary claim.
>> >
>> >Obviously for some, but not so for others.
>>
>> For all.
>
>And why is that?
Hmmmmm. The existence of some "transcendent", all powerful superbeing
is not an extraordinary claim. Well, if it's not, then I don't know what is.
> A school-child may find the fact that atoms are
>invisibly small extraordinary.
And you can provide them with proof.
> I physist may not.
Because it was *objectively* proven. You didn't accept it on "faith".
> Much depends on your training and attitude.
Much depends on objective evidence.
But here's the deal: either objectively prove your claim that the
"spiritual" realm exists or retract it. Those are your only options.
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:25:46 -0600
In article <33b44d91.800742@news.psn.net>, xyz@psn.net wrote:
> Then why hasn't it worked that way ever? You are confusing
> false presuppositions with logic. Only if you start out with
> false presuppositions can you then prove or disprove anything
> with a logical system based on those false presuppositions.
> But question the validity of the presuppositions and the whole
> thing will fall apart.
This is exactly the problem with logic. There are so many initial
conditions that we do not or cannot know, how can you fully trust it?
> What spirit? Show me that you aren't making things up.
Here's where you get hung up. You seem unwilling to suspend disbelief in
a concept long enough to see what might happen if you believe differently
or make different assumptions.
For an example, let's think of a world in only two dimensions. Not to say
it is possible, but let's imagine and think what rammifications such a
world would have. When you do so you come up with some very interesting
ideas. Some of which can be taken and applied to our 3 dimensional world.
> >As an engineer, I have to depend on scientific principles and the
> >results of experiments just like any scientist does. But I also have
> >the added dimension of the spirit by which to explore this amazing
> >creation of His.
Hey to this! I'm in the same boat.
> And just what scietifically sound, mechanically reproducible experiment
> did you perform in order to validate that spirits do exist? Call yourself
> whatever you want: engineer, scientitist, expert...they are only words
> and do not prove that you can think logically or scientifically. That
> make believe spirit of yours that you keep on imagining is proof of this.
Again, I recommend you read "Flatland" or "Planiverse". These are not
religious texts by any means, but they do stretch your concepts of what we
call normal reality. A third book I might recommend is "Hyperverse". It
talks of the scientific ramifications and advantages of higher dimensional
thinking (not in a mystical sense, but in a mathematical sense).
> If it exists it is provable. Only if it does not exist is it not
provable. When
> you talk about all these other people having experiences similiar to yours,
> you aren't talking about proof, you are talking about fads, mass delusions,
> mob mentality, and placebos.
And your proof of this is?
> For thousands of years people had experienced the effects of a flat earth:
> they could see that it was flat through their sense of sight, but little
> did they know how wrong they were. That is because experience that cannot
> be validated proves nothing.
Actually, scholars knew that the earth was not flat thousands of years ago
for various reasons. The unwashed masses rejected this, because their
5-senses and common experience told them otherwise. They were unwilling
to explore what seemed "insane" to them.
> Oops! That isn't true at all. For another creature to exist one dimension
> lower than ours, it would require that one of those dimension be
> reduced to an infinitely thin length. How can you see anything that is
> infinitely thin? You can't, therefore your analogy is incorrect and
> inaccurate.
Boy, you really have to read either "Flatland" or "Planiverse". His
analogy is neither innacurate nor incorrect, but rather enlightened.
> If God is more than four dimensional, then he doesn't exist.
Why so?
> Oh puhleeease, not another so-called expert in relativity. Why don't
> you stick to things you do know, rather then things that you only know
> how to speculate about?
If we only spoke about the things we KNOW, we would get nowhere with
science or technology. Speculation and imagination are the greatest
innovative tools we have. They may not seem reasonable or logical to you,
but just about every great advancement we have made has come from someone
who thought "out-of-the-box".
> But not for very long since it is so incomplete in it's presuppositions.
You'll never have complete or accurate presuppositions except in the most
simplest of cases.
======================================================================
| | |
| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies | Visit us & request a free issue |
| Advanced Technology Consulting | of our weekly security report. We |
| Networks-Security-Computing | summarize current security news |
| http://www.nishnabotna.com | and alerts for you! |
| | |
======================================================================
