 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7558
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: What's with the widespread distrust of science around here? |
 |
|
I've noticed a widespread and disturbing trend on this message board. I don't know to what extent this is reflected in the broader picture of society, but many regulars here have a disturbingly distrustful opinion of science.
I'm having virtually the same argument with multiple people in multiple forums:
1. In my 1 v. 1 debate with Prysdieheer I'm having an extremely hard time getting through to him what science is and why his viewpoint that the Earth is only 6000 years old contradicts many different areas of science. His latest claim is that common sense is much better than education and science. My scientific arguments don't seem to register at all, and he seems to be incapable of formulating scientific arguments supporting his position. He has an *EXTREME* distrust (I want to say hatred) of mainstream science.
2. In the global warming thread, I've been debating with Pondering for many months and with RevJP for a little while as well, trying to explain to them the scientific arguments which show that the Earth is warming and that humans are primarily responsible. My scientific arguments (straight from the scientific literature) don't seem to register at all; they seem to be incapable of formulating scientific arguments supporting their position, and have an extreme distrust of mainstream science.
3. In several threads, several people have been debating with 45. He claims that virtually all of mainstream physics, astronomy, and cosmology is wrong. In fairness to 45, his arguments were more scientific. He thinks that the law of gravity is not to be trusted, and that plasma cosmology actually explains everything. Unfortunately, plasma cosmology was shown to be wrong some years ago. The bottom line is that he has an extreme distrust of mainstream science.
4. In the ID being a U.S. issue thread, several people have been debating with Dust, who is a big proponent of ID. Once again, the scientific arguments don't seem to register at all, and he seems to be incapable of formulating scientific arguments supporting his position. Much like the others listed above, he has an extreme distrust and disrespect for mainstream science.
If it were just one or two people, then I would understand, but the distrust and fear of science that I see on this discussion board is epidemic. There aren't many areas of science which HAVEN'T been attacked on this board. And it's not like people here are attacking areas of fringe science; they seem to consistently attack the mainstream! In the several threads where people are battling to defend science, all they ever do is give vanilla-flavored, highly-conservative statements from the mainstream scientific consensus.
Seriously, everybody, please listen: Science is GOOD. It has been ENORMOUSLY successful. No endeavor in human history has discovered as many FACTS as science. You NEED to stop disrespecting and fearing science.
Here's a scary statement: I claim that the Christians on this board are more united by their fear and distrust of science than they are by their Christianity. Just think about the significance of that statement. It seems to be the ONLY thing that you guys can all agree on.
No single pair of you guys can agree on even a significant number of details from the Bible. Some of the Christians here have disagreed about nit-picky Biblical trivia so much that they became vicious and abusive with everyone around them (including moderators) and had to be banned. But they seem to have no problems agreeing that science is the enemy.
Why is that? I conjecture that there are two reasons for this:
1. People don't understand science, and humans generally fear and distrust what they don't understand, and
2. They are threatened by science because they fear that it attacks their religious beliefs.
I propose the following solutions to these two problems:
1. ASK QUESTIONS! There are several people here (myself included) who are educated in science and are HAPPY to answer questions and explain things. I'll take as much time as necessary and never get impatient with your questions, and will NEVER consider any of your questions to be stupid. I went to school for many years learning this stuff, and I can pass it on to you for *FREE*. You really should take advantage of this opportunity.
2. Instead of attacking science because your feel that your religious views are threatened by it, you should EMBRACE science as a tool for better understanding the Bible. If science says something which you think disagrees with the Bible, then it doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong.... It means that your INTERPRETATION of the Bible is wrong. You are human, and humans make mistakes, so this should not make you feel badly. The most important thing here is that you be honest. Do you think God wants you to stick to false interpretations of the Bible which have been shown to be wrong?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
One observation:
I see numerous times in the OP where P123... has stated that his 'arguments' do not register at all with those he is debating with. What I see in this thread is that the same assertion is most certainly applied to the author of this thread.
I seem to recall a recent thread wherein the difference between the alleged distrust of science; and the distrust of those who misapply science and logic, and the debatable conclusions of those people, is discussed.
Most assuredly that argument continually does not register.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7558
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
I see numerous times in the OP where P123... has stated that his 'arguments' do not register at all with those he is debating with. What I see in this thread is that the same assertion is most certainly applied to the author of this thread. |
I explained this. When debating scientific topics, there is exactly one currency which people should trade in, and that is scientific (and logical) arguments.
Do I dismiss unscientific and unscientific arguments all the time? Absolutely! There's nothing wrong with that. This is the correct thing to do. And by the way, dismissing is not the same as ignoring. I rarely ignore an argument. I'll dismiss it as being unscientific or illogical and therefore worthless, but I'll usually have the courtesy tell you so.
If and when the anti-science crowd here one day starts to make scientific arguments, then believe me, I'll start taking your arguments more seriously. Your ice cubes in a glass of water argument in the global warming thread was a good example of this. Did I dismiss it? Or did I address it head-on?
By contrast, there IS something wrong when you and others refuse to accept SCIENTIFIC arguments.
| RevJP wrote: |
I seem to recall a recent thread wherein the difference between the alleged distrust of science; and the distrust of those who misapply science and logic, and the debatable conclusions of those people, is discussed. |
If the many attacks on science in the many threads of this forum have any truth to them, then almost ALL scientists in ALL scientific areas misapply science and logic. If you and Pondering and Pyrsdieheer and Dust and 45 are all right, then there are hardly ANY scientists out there in ANY field who are capable of applying science and logic properly. I hope you understand that this is ridiculous.
This is why I say that you guys have no respect for science and why you have an extreme distrust of it. If we lined up all of the world's scientists against a wall, and you guys were the firing squad, ordered to shoot any scientist whose conclusions you disagree with, then not many of them would survive.
| RevJP wrote: |
Most assuredly that argument continually does not register. |
You're making an argument that you guys don't distrust science, but rather just those who misapply science. It's not that this argument doesn't register with me. I understand what you're saying. But what you're saying is wrong, because you guys think that virtually ALL scientists misapply science. If we take the union of your attacks on science, you guys think that all of evolutionary biology and radiological dating and astronomy and continental drift and atomic theory and climatology and many other areas of science are a misapplication of science. This is a ridiculous argument.
I'm not ignoring your argument. It's registering just fine. But I AM saying that it's wrong.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me point out one important, and thus far, ignored (on your part) fact:
From what I see in the majority of the discussions around here, it is the conclusions you assert that are debated, not the evidence you offer.
When the evidence you offer is debated it is more often than not, countered with contradictory evidence (scientific evidence), which you regularly dismiss out of hand.
Overall, what I see is that you assert that the inferences you make, and the conclusions you assert, must be accepted because you feel the evidence leads to those conclusions, and if someone views the same evidence and considers contradictory evidence and forms a different conclusion, you claim they distrust science.
BTW, I maintain that you do not understand the concept of logic and its application, and that you erroneously defer to 'logic' in your debates.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3234
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my goodness, P123. There are so many untruths and wrong conclusions in your OP, it would take me all day to dissect them. 
But let me at least say this, the perfecting of the followers of Christ involves the moving away from fear of anything concerning the flesh including the big one, death. So if we are not to fear death, why would we be even remotely afraid of science?
I suspect the reason many people argue with you over it is because you often maintain that one can't believe in science **and** God. One could naturally return the same question to you, why do you fear believing in God? You promote that the two are mutually exclusive.
In addition, even in the scientific community, there are diversities of opinion on various things ie: global warming
So you can't use an example like that to say it's just Christians who question the validity of the evidence.
For the sake of clarification, let's say there are two types of logic. One is the kind you study and has a specific definition and must follow certain rules. The other is what I'm going to call street logic or deductive reasoning. For instance, if I look out my window and the streets and sidewalks and trees and rooftops are all uniformly wet, I can reasonably conclude it has rained even if I didn't see the rain. Most of your arguments demand I actually see the rain in order to conclude it rained and many of your arguments dismiss the type of deductive conclusions that people practice on a daily basis. Your argument is that one must be a scientist in order to conclude it has rained; it must be recreated in the lab; and anyone who isn't formally trained in science is incapable of reaching the proper conclusions.
What comes first? Observation outside of the lab or in? Outside obviously, which observation is what causes the scientists to take it into the lab to begin with.
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7558
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Let me point out one important, and thus far, ignored (on your part) fact:
From what I see in the majority of the discussions around here, it is the conclusions you assert that are debated, not the evidence you offer.
When the evidence you offer is debated it is more often than not, countered with contradictory evidence (scientific evidence),
|
This simply isn't true. Most of the people here who attack science don't even understand THAT they have to give a scientific argument, let alone HOW to!
They don't understand the scientific process, the role of peer review, or even WHERE to find scientific papers. Even if they COULD find the relevant scientific papers, they most likely would lack the background needed to read a technical document.
By the way, this includes you. You believe that every single evolutionary biologist who has ever lived is 'misapplying science and logic', and yet you have NEVER, and I really mean NOT EVEN ONCE given a scientific argument or referenced a scientific paper pointing out a fundamental flaw in evolutionary theory, or supporting creationism. NOT ONCE.
The same goes for the global warming thread. Never once have you cited a paper or given a scientific argument pointing out a fundamental flaw in the mainstream consensus, nor have you cited a paper or given a scientific argument giving an alternative hypothesis for why the Earth is warming. NOT ONCE.
| RevJP wrote: |
Overall, what I see is that you assert that the inferences you make, and the conclusions you assert, must be accepted because you feel the evidence leads to those conclusions, and if someone views the same evidence and considers contradictory evidence and forms a different conclusion, you claim they distrust science.
|
No, when I see someone who dismisses an ENTIRE scientific field and thinks that ALL of the scientists in it are 'misapplying science', then I claim that they distrust science. This is not an unreasonable assertion.
You dismiss virtually the ENTIRE field of evolutionary biology and most of climatology.
Dust and Prysdieheer dismiss all of science and logic.
45 dimisses all of mainstream astronomy.
I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion: You guys really and truly do distrust science. This is pretty obviously true.
| RevJP wrote: |
BTW, I maintain that you do not understand the concept of logic and its application, and that you erroneously defer to 'logic' in your debates. |
I'll give you full marks for boldness, saying this to someone who is completing a Ph.D. in logic, but you really and truly have no idea what you're talking about. I've spent A LONG time studying logic. I've taught it, for heaven's sake! I understand what logic is and how to apply it. By any reasonable measure, I'm an EXPERT in logic.
You haven't studied it formally. You've got no background in it. Seriously, what justification do you have for making your pronouncements about my knowledge of logic? How can you be so confident and bold? How do you have any faith in yourself that you would even know what formal logic looks like if you've never studied it? All you've got is your intuitive notion of what logic is!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7558
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MoJo wrote: | | Oh my goodness, P123. There are so many untruths and wrong conclusions in your OP, it would take me all day to dissect them. |
By all means I welcome you to go ahead and give it your best shot.
| MoJo wrote: |
But let me at least say this, the perfecting of the followers of Christ involves the moving away from fear of anything concerning the flesh including the big one, death. So if we are not to fear death, why would we be even remotely afraid of science? |
I gave two candidate answers to this:
1. Most people don't understand science, and people fear what they don't understand.
2. Most religious see science as an attack on their religious beliefs, and therefore automatically see it as an adversary.
| MoJo wrote: |
I suspect the reason many people argue with you over it is because you often maintain that one can't believe in science **and** God. |
That's not quite what I say. I argue that the default scientific position on whether or not God exists is one of skepticism. Believing in God doesn't preclude you from believing in continental drift, or evolution, or astronomy or many of the other areas of science which are constantly attacked on this discussion board.
| MoJo wrote: |
One could naturally return the same question to you, why do you fear believing in God? You promote that the two are mutually exclusive. |
I don't fear myself believing in God. I fear it when others do, and especially when they are fundamentalists about it. The reasons for fearing this are pretty obvious.
| MoJo wrote: |
In addition, even in the scientific community, there are diversities of opinion on various things ie: global warming
|
Actually, there aren't. The number of skeptics is absolutely tiny when compared with the massive consensus among experts that global warming is happening and that humans are a primary cause.
| MoJo wrote: |
So you can't use an example like that to say it's just Christians who question the validity of the evidence. |
Scientists are SUPPOSED to question the validity of evidence. That's a VITAL part of the scientific process. But that's NOT what is going on on this discussion board. Here we have people (not even all Christians; as far as I know, Pondering is not a Christian, but rather a Deist) who deny that ENTIRE AREAS of science are totally wrong. A good example is evolutionary biology. A LOT of people here think that the entire area is totally wrong. Then there's RevJP and Pondering with global warming, 45 with astronomy and cosmology, Prysdieheer with pretty much all of science, etc.
| MoJo wrote: |
For the sake of clarification, let's say there are two types of logic. One is the kind you study and has a specific definition and must follow certain rules. The other is what I'm going to call street logic or deductive reasoning. |
Deductive reasoning is part of formal logic. 'Street logic' is something entirely different. People here seem to like to call this 'common sense'.
| MoJo wrote: |
For instance, if I look out my window and the streets and sidewalks and trees and rooftops are all uniformly wet, I can reasonably conclude it has rained even if I didn't see the rain. Most of your arguments demand I actually see the rain in order to conclude it rained and many of your arguments dismiss the type of deductive conclusions that people practice on a daily basis. |
You've got it EXACTLY backwards! When I see that everything is wet outside, I conclude that it's been raining, even if I didn't see it rain. It's the religious people here who do the analog of denying this ALL THE TIME!
How many times have creationists here said, "Nobody has ever observed a fish evolve into a mouse, and therefore evolution is entirely speculative." This is the rallying cry of the anti-evolution movement!
Go look at the 1 v 1 debate I'm having with Prysdieheer. I argue that Africa and South America used to be next to each other, and that all of the evidence shows that they moved apart due to continental drift. He's arguing that we only know that the plates are moving now, and not that they moved in the past (because there was nobody there to see it and record it).
I've CONSTANTLY AND REPEATEDLY stated that science does NOT require direct observation, and that logical implication is a perfectly sound mechanism for making scientifically valid conclusions. I've brought up forensic science as an example of this MANY TIMES.
Do a search on this board. Look up all of the times I've used the word 'forensic' in a post, and have a look at them. My position on this has been very consistent.
| MoJo wrote: |
Your argument is that one must be a scientist in order to conclude it has rained; |
Are you kidding? You seriously think that I believe this?
| MoJo wrote: |
it must be recreated in the lab;
|
Nope. Reproducibility is not necessary for science to be sound. If it were, then forensic science would be worth spit because it's not like we can reproduce a murder which nobody witnessed.
| MoJo wrote: |
and anyone who isn't formally trained in science is incapable of reaching the proper conclusions.
|
Nope. Anyone can use sound reasoning. But it just so happens that reasoning correctly is a hard thing to do, and humans don't do it naturally, so the ones using logic and science correctly tend to be those who have been trained in it.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok P I will bite, how is this for logic.
P1: Science has observed that continental drift is occurring.
P2: Africa and South America are moving apart.
P3: Africa's and South America's geographical characteristics seem to fit together.
C: Therefore, at one time Africa and South America were once connected.
I agree with this all of the premises are true and the conclusion follows.
But how about this one.
P1: An object will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
P2: It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the universe some things are in motion.
P3:Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion.
P4: Motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.
P5: Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.
P6: It is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.
P7: It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.
C: Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.
P1":If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.
P2": This cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover.
C": Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
Source : ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA , PART 1, QUESTION 2, ARTICLE 3
This is how I arrived at a necessary existence of God. Now how is it that this is not logical?
Are any of the Premises’ not true? Do the conclusions not follow?
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | Most of the people here who attack science don't even understand THAT they have to give a scientific argument, let alone HOW to! |
False assertion. I do see that you carefully qualified it with 'most', but that doesn't allow that you've debated with Pondering on many issues and he has continually debated your conclusions with scientific evidence. Subsequently, your gross generalizations carry little or no weight. Sorry. Once again you logically failed in your argument.
| Quote: |
Most of the people here who attack science don't even understand THAT they have to give a scientific argument, let alone HOW to! |
You assume too much about too many people. How is that logical?
| Quote: | | You believe that every single evolutionary biologist who has ever lived is 'misapplying science and logic', |
Explain the logic in assuming what I think. where have I ever stated such as you has accused me?
| Quote: | | and yet you have NEVER, and I really mean NOT EVEN ONCE given a scientific argument or referenced a scientific paper pointing out a fundamental flaw in evolutionary theory, or supporting creationism. NOT ONCE. |
Excuse me. I've pointed out a significant flaw in the logic of the conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence at hand. That you cannot grasp the concept that the conclusions are based on inference and assumption than actual observable, demonstrable, repeatable fact speaks highly of your desire to accept what you want to believe rather than what has actually been proven. I dare say it speaks of your grasp of formal logic as well.
| Quote: |
The same goes for the global warming thread. Never once have you cited a paper or given a scientific argument pointing out a fundamental flaw in the mainstream consensus, nor have you cited a paper or given a scientific argument giving an alternative hypothesis for why the Earth is warming. NOT ONCE. |
please see above.
| Quote: | | No, when I see someone who dismisses an ENTIRE scientific field and thinks that ALL of the scientists in it are 'misapplying science', then I claim that they distrust science. This is not an unreasonable assertion. |
Please cite when and where I have done this.
| Quote: | | You dismiss virtually the ENTIRE field of evolutionary biology and most of climatology. |
This is simply a false accusation. Would you care to back that up with some sort of proof?
| Quote: |
I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion: |
This is the entire point. You cannot see it so you lash about at others who do not come to the same conclusions you do - and you do so quite devoid of any since of objectivity and logic.
| Quote: | | You guys really and truly do distrust science. This is pretty obviously true. |
You are being obtuse. Is it intentional?
| Quote: | | I'll give you full marks for boldness, saying this to someone who is completing a Ph.D. in logic, but you really and truly have no idea what you're talking about. I've spent A LONG time studying logic. I've taught it, for heaven's sake! I understand what logic is and how to apply it. By any reasonable measure, I'm an EXPERT in logic |
Those who can't do, teach perhaps?
You should not boast of your 'expertise' when you consistently demonstrate an inability to employ logic in your arguments and assertions.
| Quote: |
You haven't studied it formally. You've got no background in it. Seriously, what justification do you have for making your pronouncements about my knowledge of logic? How can you be so confident and bold? How do you have any faith in yourself that you would even know what formal logic looks like if you've never studied it? All you've got is your intuitive notion of what logic is! |
More assumptions about that of which you have no knowledge. Unlike you, I do not boast of my education and experience, and unlike you I do not assume things about which I have absolutely no knowledge. Like you I do have formal education in Logic, unlike you, I actually understand it.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7558
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: |
This is how I arrived at a necessary existence of God. Now how is it that this is not logical?
|
It was in the time of Aquinas, but not anymore.
| ragman13 wrote: |
Are any of the Premises’ not true? Do the conclusions not follow? |
I agree that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would follow. Unfortunately, the premises are not true because they are based on Newtonian mechanics, which do not hold under situations in which the velocities are close to the speed of light or where the amount of gravity is HUGE. Since everything started with the Big Bang which involves very high velocities and huge gravity, Newtonian mechanics don't apply.
It's not a bad attempt at an argument, and Aquinas couldn't have known better, but we now know that it is not valid.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoJo
Moderator
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 3234
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| p123 wrote: | | Since everything started with the Big Bang which involves very high velocities and huge gravity, Newtonian mechanics don't apply |
Now isn't this just exactly the type of statement that gets you into trouble?
| Quote: | | Ref: http://www.olduniverse.com/ Although scientific magazines and television programs treat the Big Bang theory as absolute fact, there is strong opposition to the Big Bang theory in the scientific community. The website www.cosmology.info describes the Alternate Cosmology Group, which was initiated with the "Open Letter on Cosmology", written to the scientific community and published in the New Scientist magazine on May 22, 2004. This letter was endorsed by a large group of scientists throughout the world. |
_________________
matt 6: 34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | C": Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
Source : ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA , PART 1, QUESTION 2, ARTICLE 3
This is how I arrived at a necessary existence of God. Now how is it that this is not logical?
Are any of the Premises’ not true? Do the conclusions not follow? |
Without going into too much depth about the argument itself, I'll grant that it's sound. However, where do you get "necessary existence of God" from? Necessary existence of a "first mover," sure, but God? Where'd that come into the argument? It doesn't follow.
To actually examine the validity of the argument, though, Newton's laws apply accurately solely at the levels we commonly deal with. When it comes to the very small, very fast or very large, they are less accurate or even don't apply. Hell, Newton wasn't even aware of Brownian motion.
There, MoJo. The argument doesn't work even if you don't go so far as the Big Bang to explain why.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would follow. Unfortunately, the premises are not true because they are based on Newtonian mechanics, which do not hold under situations in which the velocities are close to the speed of light or where the amount of gravity is HUGE. Since everything started with the Big Bang which involves very high velocities and huge gravity, Newtonian mechanics don't apply. |
If one is based from the other I would have to say that Newtonian Mechanics is based on Thomism.
Sir Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274)
Ok so explain to me the premises that are untrue.
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7558
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | P123 wrote: | | Most of the people here who attack science don't even understand THAT they have to give a scientific argument, let alone HOW to! |
False assertion. I do see that you carefully qualified it with 'most', but that doesn't allow that you've debated with Pondering on many issues and he has continually debated your conclusions with scientific evidence.
|
No, he really hasn't. The global warming thread is a fantastic example. I've cited many scientific papers in that thread, and he's cited maybe one, the IPCC, which he thinks is crap. He has cited Senator Inhofe, and he gives emotional arguments along the lines of, 'We're just tiny humans. It's arrogant to assume that we can change the planet.' These are not scientific arguments, and there is very little science coming from him or you in that thread.
In fact, I've offered to send you guys relevant scientific papers which I have access to through my university and the general public doesn't. I've made this offer more than once to Pondering, and once to you, and never have you guys shown even the slightest interest at seeing the evidence for yourselves. That's NOT scientific.
| RevJP wrote: |
Subsequently, your gross generalizations carry little or no weight. Sorry. Once again you logically failed in your argument.
| Quote: |
Most of the people here who attack science don't even understand THAT they have to give a scientific argument, let alone HOW to! |
You assume too much about too many people. How is that logical?
|
It's not assumption. See what I wrote above about seeing scientific evidence for yourselves. You guys don't seem to be interested. You would rather deny it based on things you read in the media or hear from other people rather than read the raw findings yourselves. That's NOT scientific, so I stand by my statement.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | You believe that every single evolutionary biologist who has ever lived is 'misapplying science and logic', |
Explain the logic in assuming what I think. where have I ever stated such as you has accused me?
|
How's this for logic:
The descent of man from lower primates is a mainstream conclusion in biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and especially in evolutionary biology. You don't believe that humans evolved from lower primates. You state that you don't have a problem with science, but rather that you have a problem with people who misapply science and logic. Therefore it follows logically that you must believe that the mainstream biologists (and especially all of the ones in evolutionary biology -I'm talking about 99.999% of the people working in the field) are misapplying science.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | and yet you have NEVER, and I really mean NOT EVEN ONCE given a scientific argument or referenced a scientific paper pointing out a fundamental flaw in evolutionary theory, or supporting creationism. NOT ONCE. |
Excuse me. I've pointed out a significant flaw in the logic of the conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence at hand. |
No, you really haven't. Evolution doesn't rely on a single piece of evidence or a single logical conclusion. It is an extremely well-supported and theory which is supported by compelling evidence from hundreds of *independent* research areas, from continental drift to biochemistry to the fossil record, etc. You haven't even come CLOSE to showing that ANY of these, let alone ALL of these are 'misapplications of science'.
| RevJP wrote: |
That you cannot grasp the concept that the conclusions are based on inference and assumption than actual observable, demonstrable, repeatable fact speaks highly of your desire to accept what you want to believe rather than what has actually been proven. I dare say it speaks of your grasp of formal logic as well. |
You've made this same argument like 50 times on this board, and you have not pointed out a single assumption which is made by evolutionary biology.
I'd *LOVE* it if you would start a thread entitled, "The assumptions made by evolutionists and why their conclusions are unsound", or something like that. Whenever you think of one of these assumptions, put it in there.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
The same goes for the global warming thread. Never once have you cited a paper or given a scientific argument pointing out a fundamental flaw in the mainstream consensus, nor have you cited a paper or given a scientific argument giving an alternative hypothesis for why the Earth is warming. NOT ONCE. |
please see above. |
Saying 'please see above' doesn't change the fact that you've never given a scientific argument against global warming or given an alternative hypothesis why the Earth is warming.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, when I see someone who dismisses an ENTIRE scientific field and thinks that ALL of the scientists in it are 'misapplying science', then I claim that they distrust science. This is not an unreasonable assertion. |
Please cite when and where I have done this. |
You do it all the time! You believe that the entire mainstream of biology is misapplying science when they conclude that humans evolved from lower primates. Just to tell you how important evolution is to mainstream biology, they call it their 'unifying theory'. It is what ties all of the different areas of biology together. If you're right, and the conclusion that humans evolved from lower primates is a 'misapplication of science', or a 'fallacious conclusion based on assumptions', then it means that the entire field of biology and the VAST majority of experts in it have misapplied science.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion: |
This is the entire point. You cannot see it so you lash about at others who do not come to the same conclusions you do - and you do so quite devoid of any since of objectivity and logic.
|
What are you talking about? I base my arguments on objectivity and logic ALL THE TIME. People on this discussion board (you, Pondering, Prysdieheer, 45, and Dust) between you have dismissed mainstream geology, astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, biology, microbiology, atomic theory, relativity, and many other areas. And you don't attack fringe hypotheses in these areas, you dismiss their CORE ideas -the ones which have been well-established by science. And what's more, these fields are all BASED on objectivity and logic.
To say that you guys are extremely distrustful of science is a VERY safe assertion!
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | You guys really and truly do distrust science. This is pretty obviously true. |
You are being obtuse. Is it intentional? |
I'm not the one who denies mainstream scientific conclusions. Are you being obtuse?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | I'll give you full marks for boldness, saying this to someone who is completing a Ph.D. in logic, but you really and truly have no idea what you're talking about. I've spent A LONG time studying logic. I've taught it, for heaven's sake! I understand what logic is and how to apply it. By any reasonable measure, I'm an EXPERT in logic |
Those who can't do, teach perhaps?
|
Do you really believe this? I haven't taught logic at some backwater high school somewhere. I've taught it at the most respected university in all of Canada. There are Nobel Prize winners teaching here. Do you think they know what they're doing? Or maybe because they teach, that shows that they don't understand their subject either?
| RevJP wrote: |
You should not boast of your 'expertise' when you consistently demonstrate an inability to employ logic in your arguments and assertions.
|
You've tried to attack my logic many times, and you ALWAYS get it wrong. For example, you have no idea what fallacies are, and you misuse the term all the time. You think that when I cite experts, it's a fallacious appeal to authority. It isn't, because they are experts.
If we were talking about military tactics, an area which you are an expert in, and you cited someone who is universally respected in the area, your citation would NOT be a fallacious appeal to authority.
| RevJP wrote: |
Like you I do have formal education in Logic, unlike you, I actually understand it.
|
Then perhaps you can explain to the class why you don't understand what a fallacious appeal to authority is...
Your 'slippery slope' argument in the global warming thread was also a misapplication. Why is that?
Did you actually LEARN anything in the class you took?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How much times do I have to tell you.
I`m Not Against Science-
I like science-
I`m Against the flaws mixed in with it,, which you call science.
Science should go through the right procedures, your theories don`t.
You are mistaking Science, with believes of science.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer!
_________________
Love is never a problem, it is always the solution!
If God did not exist, you would not Exist.
Im a YEC. Find out more on www.yecheadquarters.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
