Pages: « 1 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Everyone is Always Right  (Read 10961 times)
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #30 Posted on: January 06, 2014, 08:05:31 AM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860

View Profile
Quote
Your definition of science is non-existant. I can just as easily tell you the same things.
Well I gave several definitions, and there are several, but there is an overarching idea that they all share.
Quote
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
And here comes in your understanding what is meant with observation and experimentation. Because evolution (as for example Robert pointed out) is both observed and experimented with. The fact that you cannot see human go from ape ancestor to now doesn't change anything. Just how we haven't actually seen gamma radiation with our own eyes, but only detect it via secondary means.
Quote
ExDeus, you've repeatedly mentioned creatures adapting to back up evolution, so if evolution has nothing to do with that, you are contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.
There again is difference between "adaption" in biology (and evolution) and "adaption" in the layman's terms which you were actually using. Using a coat is adaption in layman's terms, because you are making a conscious decision towards a goal. It's not like a coat spontaneously generated around you. No, you either made it or bought it, and then you wore it. You adapted to outside world, but you made an effort to do that. Here is evolutionary definition:
Quote
1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation) What here is meant that the organism doesn't actually decide that it will adapt to survive. What it means is that certain individuals in the population have the traits to survive in a specific habitat while others do not. An example of evolution and adaption:
Take flies and put them in a box with air, food and anything else they would need to survive and procreate. At certain temperature flies would die immediate - for example, at -10C they would probably die pretty fast if put there from room temperature. But if you lower the temperature slowly (very slow, over hundreds or even thousands of generations) then this is what will happen - Flies that are more resistant to colder temperatures will live longer than those who are not suited. That mean the ones more resistant will procreate more and their descendants will also be more resistant (as it will be more likely that both parents have this mutation). After hundreds or thousands of generations they will be able to survive at cold temperature, because even though maybe 0.1% at the beginning were capable of that, in the end 100% will be. So they evolved and adapted to the habitat via the evolution. The reason for their survival could even be a "coat" - as in more hairy flies would be the ones more resistant to cold. This would also make them a new species - a hairy cold resistant fly. They would also be physically (visibly) changed. So they "adapted", but trough evolution and random mutations. If none of them had these mutations, they would die out (go extinct). If the temperature change was very drastic (like taking from room temperature into -10C), then they would also all die out even if there was some individuals who had the mutation, because of the speed of the event it would not be possible for the right individuals to procreate and the mutation that gives the resistance to cold could also be primary only over time (many generations). I could probably even program this as an example in ENIGMA.

Quote
What was this shit you were saying about science not based on visual evidense?
And it's not. Observation, again, doesn't mean LOOKING. You keep using your own basic vocabulary and jump to conclusions. None of the words you keep using have the definitions you think they have in the context we use. For example, definition of observation:
Quote
Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source
Thus, nothing specifically to do with visual evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science)

Quote
And science doesn't need to be tested in order to be declared science?
It does need to be tested. I never said it doesn't need to be. But your understanding of "testing" or "experimentation" is very limited as you don't get what induction and deduction means. Many (I would say up to 99%) of hypothesis cannot be tested directly, so they are instead tested indirectly by knowing relationships (which theories and hypothesis describe) between things.

Quote
Mutations have never been proven to cause anything positive or hereditary such as a species becoming dominant or survive longer than other species.
There have been countless examples (even posted here) on the contrary.

Quote
Mutations can never be passed on to the next generation, so who are you fooling here?
What? Do you know what a mutation even is? How the hell you think it cannot be passed to the next generation? You do know, that for example, eye color is a mutation. One has green, others has blue. If both parents have blue eyes it is a lot more likely that the child will also have blue eyes, because they passed that mutation to their next generation. On the other hand it is possible that the child has a different mutation and eye color doesn't match. For example, all my family has blue eyes while I am the only one with green. Even my grandparents doesn't have green eyes. So I have a mutation that I didn't inherit. But my children have a pretty large chance to inherit green eyes from me.

Quote
This is an issue I have, if this is the case, then why are we not amongst some of our already evolving ancestors.
40k in evolutionary terms is drop in an ocean. People usually have problems with large numbers and understanding the scale of evolutionary time. There are subtle changes from people that lived 40k years ago, but of course there isn't much that has changed. Just like Cambrian explosion. I have seen some movies where creationists use it as an example why evolution is wrong. They say that it's impossible that number of species increased so fast, as the length of time is only about 20minutes in earths lifetime (if we take earth's life as 24 hours). But the thing is these 20minutes is still 80million years. And even 80million years divided by 40k you were mentioning is 2000. So that evolutionary stage took 2000 times more. So in the end evolution is extremely slow process and it works only because we can take hundreds of millions of years into account. 40k or even 100k is drop in an ocean on this scale.

Quote
The big bang is a theory because a large majority of scientists can not recreate the same experiment and get the same results consistently proving the big bang
Actually scientist do recreate same experiments with consistent results. That is why big bang is also "theory" in the scientific sense - as in everyone agrees that it most probably happened - or alternatively - as close to fact as possible. Like we know pretty detailedly what happened less than fraction of a second after the big bang. Knowing what happened before this fraction is still the open question and that is why we build very expensive machines.

Quote
Now gravity is a scientific law because it has been tested by many scientists and regular people over and over again with the same equations and always yielded the same results.
In science it actually still is theory. I already pointed out what is law and theory in science. Gravity is defined by general relativity theory, not by general relativity law. We of course do know that it works and in layman's terms it is a law. But scientifically, it is a theory.

Quote
So i think it's a little bold to say there is no difference between theory and facts.
In science theory and fact and law are often used interchangeably. There are subtle differences, but overall they doesn't make one less true than the other. And theories try to explain observations and make predictions. I guess using "facts" in any context is quite bold because of the misunderstanding people might get.

Quote
often belong to 'clans', with their 'dogmas
I don't like seeing these words in scientific context. Because while of course people do fight new ideas, scientists are the ones who are the most open minded. They are the ones having no problems changing their understanding when new facts arise. They don't care about being "right" before, they care about being "right" right now. That means you can propose a revolutionary idea, and if it has any evidence behind, they will accept it. That is why every theory is tested. For example, when some Italians (or whatever) made headlines by creating "cold fusion" reactor, most scientists of course were skeptical, as they know that such a device is probably impossible. Yet, they didn't have problems performing tests on their machine or read their paper on it. Of course scientists ended up being right, as their reactor was most probably not a cold fusion reactor. But it does show how every theory is tested when it makes sense to do so, even if it contradicts our current understanding. They don't hold on to their dogmas. They hold on to what they know. If someone says something they don't know, then they listen. Giving credit and listening to others is very important in science. I have never seen a scientist who has been ridiculed for a theory if the theory is in any way valid/probable.

Quote
micro-evolution
But what is a billion micro-evolutions? Couldn't it then be macro-evolution?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 08:08:42 AM by TheExDeus » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) egofree
Reply #31 Posted on: January 06, 2014, 02:58:17 PM
Contributor
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 601

View Profile Email
I don't like seeing these words in scientific context. Because while of course people do fight new ideas, scientists are the ones who are the most open minded. They are the ones having no problems changing their understanding when new facts arise. They don't care about being "right" before, they care about being "right" right now.

That's an ideal view of science. As you are young and innocent, i will forgive your ignorance !  ;)
More seriously, if you read with an open mind some books about the history of science, you will find a lot of examples of what i said. One interesting example, which is rather recent : the book 'Trouble with physics' by Lee Smoolin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics) The author, who is a theorist in physics, explains the political war between two theories of 'quantum gravity': string theory and loop quantum gravity. He works on the loop quantum gravity, but he says none of the theory are complete, and none are really testable for the moment. He is not really against string theory, as he said this theory has also positive aspects, which are not found in the loop quantum theory. Then he explains that the string theory has more supporters than 'his' theory, but the main problem is that string theorists have got all the power. He explains that in american university, if you are a young researcher and you want to make a career in high energy physics, you have to agree with string theory, otherwise the university professors will neither accept you. He explains also that the most passionate supporters of string theory are dogmatic and neither accept any critics. He doesn't ask his theory to be the 'favorite', but he doesn't want all the power and money are given to only one theory. Of course, you will find the most passionate supporters of string theory, like Lubos Motl, saying Lee Smoolin is only an idiot. But it is really amazing ?

That's said, it's better now than in the past. In middle age, you could get burn by the inquisition if you didn't believe in their dogmas, nowadays, you get only your career screwed !  :D
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 03:04:14 PM by egofree » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) egofree
Reply #32 Posted on: January 06, 2014, 03:11:51 PM
Contributor
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 601

View Profile Email
I would actually like to build onto that, the opponents also rarely ever help us actually figure out the truth. We have already been building other theories on top of evolution in order to come up with new vaccines and new treatments among other innovations. Yet these same people still want to debate the same subject from the 1950's, and effectively accomplish nothing, while Science does and Scientists do.

Max Planck, who was one of the father of the quantum physics, the physics of particles, was speaking about fight of ideas between scientists. But of course then you have people who are against science in general. First in the traditional religions, you find people who believe every word of their sacred book and reject science when it's doesn't agree with theirs beliefs. But now, in the post-modern world, we find a lot of environmentalists who think nature is holy and science and technology are evil. So science is really attacked from all sides ! >:( And i don't like this because i am a big supporter of science.But that doesn't mean that we should not see scientists are not always perfect, as they are human beings !
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 03:17:04 PM by egofree » Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #33 Posted on: January 06, 2014, 03:15:54 PM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1170

View Profile Email
ExDeus

Evolutionists are also very passionate about always being right and will often make up lies since in their world there is no motivation to stop lying. Not in every case, but it is quite common. Normally I hate to put labels but they technically don't have a book of rules to guide them on what is right, wrong, or for them to possibly be aware of what a "lie" is and why it shouldn't be so loosely practiced.

That example of the flies you gave I won't believe until you've tested it yourself. Please do that and get back to me. If you want to be right show me a log and video results, then just maybe will there be a snowball's chance in hell I'll take you more seriously. Again I will say this, the example I gave of the sweater wasn't the best example out there I know that's not what evolution is claimed to be all about. But it's just as rediculous and makes just as little sense. That's all I meant. I can still Admit now I could be wrong, but have you made the smallest attempt to do so yourself? Of course not. Everyone is always right. We can't all be right. And the chances of being right are slim amoung millions of conflicting opinions.

These conflicting opinions include what appears to be many "holes" in Christianity. There are many denominations of this faith, they can't all be right. Baptists believe miracles and praying in tongues don't happen, though both are often performed directly from God at my church, I haven't seen any physical healing for the most part, my great aunt had the doctor tell her she was going to die in a week and there would be nothing to do about it. After much prayer, she's alive today now that it has been nearly three years later. The doctor has no idea what to think I'm sure. That's the closest I got to seeing a physical healing. As for spiritual healing, not that you nessisarily care about such since to you we don't have eternal spirits, I had a personal encounter. But I won't even mention what it was since I'm sure you don't care.

Though, I've not seen more convincing physical healings other than what happened to my great aunt, I've heard very immersive stories at church and my dad's former boss had some very interesting things happen. These people if they were lying skeptics in the crowd could take to these people outside of church and these pastors, etc would be more than willing to prove with health and medical records as well as contacting doctors who seen first hand. If these guys were lying they would get caught rather quick and people would stop attending my church including me. yet my church has been around for a good number of years, with three campuses now, pastor Dan bought the third building before it was made into a parking lot.

Anyway the Baptists disagree with all this they believe in the same God, just a different version they think praying in tongues of angels and performing miracles by the power of God's love no longer happen and won't happen ever again since "the perfect" (or Messiah) has already come. While my version of Christianity believes "the perfect" won't come until all is made new. Baptists have formed their view rather reasonably, because they never really seen modern miracles or praying in tongues, while my church including plenty others globally have seen miracles and we pray in tongues therefore we have a reasonable means to believe what we do. My church has an international service built up of many international students, some from China, South Africa, and pretty much from all around the globe and almost all of them I've heard from and talked with have seen miracles of all kinds, including physical and raising of the dead after 3 days+ being dead but now alive. In the international service we sing in Manderine (Chinese), Zulu, Swahili, Ghana, Spanish, Tongous of Angels, and of course English since the church is in the US.

My church sometimes hosts the OneThing Conference at our Deep Creek Campus, which is a worship session and preaching service founded and overseen by the International House of Prayer (IHOP for short). It was amazing.

Now, there are also many "holes" in Evolution, just like there are many versions of Christianity, there are many versions of Evolution. Some believe in the big bang, some believe the universe was always here. Some believe the Gulf of Mexico is a crater left by an asteroid which killed off 70% of the dinosaurs. While others believe that asteroid wasn't enough to kill off that much, so they believe there is another crater somewhere. There were several possibilities but other people believe none of the craters discovered to date were enoungh to potentially wipe out them all. Honestly whether it was an asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs partially it doesn't exactly disprove creationism. But just like baptists, any version of Christianity, Evolution has a ton of "holes" and unanswered questions. It doesn't mean it's comepletely disproven however. All the faiths out there as well as evolution, we all have our logical and compelling reasons to believe what we do. None of us, including evolutionists, should have the audacity to say we are undeniably right. That's bogus, just because you can't relate, just because you think you know everything, just because you have your own reasons doesn't mean we don't have our own reasons. Everyone thinks their right. Evolutionists formed their views no more or less reasonably than any average creationist.

If you teach yourself and study information on something whether it's right or wrong if you are determined enough for it to be right, it will become reality to you, it's just how the human mind predictably works. If you force yourself to believe something that isn't reasonable to believe it will one way or another become a reality. Whatever that reality may be, that is one reality out of many others, so many it's too many digits to count.

If you teach a toddler until he becomes an adult that pigs fly, but he has never seen or heard all that time what a pig looks like or that they don't have wings he wouldn't help it but to be cripple-minded and believe that pigs, whatever the heck they are he wouldn't know, that they have the ability to fly. It would be a reality to him and he wouldn't know any different.

Deus, most of my schooling from 1st to 12th grade was in public school and I'm still finnishing up my credits this being my second year in the 12th grade but I finished all my science class credits on time, a year early, my junior year, so heck yeah I know what the hell evolution is. I passed each class higher than a C. So don't tell me I'm fucking stupid and don't know what evolution or science is go back to class and learn it all over again something tells me you are in your fourties+ and can't remember anything you did in school way back when, so you resort to guessing and coughing up first-time Google searches. Stop living in the past.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 04:00:18 PM by time-killer-games » Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #34 Posted on: January 06, 2014, 05:06:52 PM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1170

View Profile Email
Whether religion or evolution is correct we can all agree on at least something here. The human mind can force itself to believe things that are true and aren't true, simply because of a stubborn will, a desire for an unreachable or reachable truth.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the creationists are desperate to last forever and to be happy and at peace forever. so they force themselves to believe they will have these things one day, until it becomes fact to them. If flaws that could disprove their views arise, these creationists will ignore it and alter the bible so it will line up with their personal reality, but while doing so creating new unanswered questions and self-contradictions.

From a creationist's standpoint, the evolutionists are inheretly desperate to live a life without any form of God. These evolutionists don't like or agree with God-given morals, and don't want to follow Him. They want to do everything the way they want, they don't like the idea of hell because it is too harsh. And they don't like the idea of heaven because the people who supposedly go there don't deserve such generous reward. So these evolutionists crafted their own security blanket and called it evolution. It comforts them because it means they with it they can blind themselves of the reality of God, escape the depths of hell, when really no matter how much they try to ignore it its still there. If flaws that could disprove evolution arise, these people will do all the can to blot it out and fill in gaps, but only to find more holes.

So from both perspectives, we can agree that if the majority of society agrees on something, it doesn't nessisarily make it fact. Evolutionists - what if most of society converts to creationism? Does that make them right? Creationists - what if evolutionists grow in number in the next few years - does that make them right? How many people share the same view doesn't determine who's right or who's wrong. I'm tempted to mention that thing I said about brainwashing a toddler again. It really is that simple to make people passionately believe something that isn't true, whatever that false truth may be.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 05:09:45 PM by time-killer-games » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) egofree
Reply #35 Posted on: January 07, 2014, 03:35:16 AM
Contributor
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 601

View Profile Email
Otherwise they're just as bad as religious people.

I don't know, but anyway i prefer to live in a modern society than in traditional religious society. Modern societies have theirs problems of course, but in general they are far more tolerant than 'religious' societies. Robert, you said you are gay. Imagine living in some traditional countries. You would have to hide your homosexually, if you don't want to have serious troubles. It's is said that US has a very strong religious roots, but anyway for for civil rights, it's a modern society. Also you talked about Alain Turing. He was prosecuted for homosexuality in 1952, when such acts were still criminalised in the UK. In the end, he commited suicide. England, like others countries, was a much more conservative country in this period, but nowadays it's much better. We should not forget that we should feel grateful for the people who started the fight for civil rights. These people are the ones who started several centuries ago the 'age of enlightnement' and the scientific revolution. On this topic, you can still find people religious people who think homosexuals will go to hell, as it's written in their book.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 06:19:07 AM by egofree » Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #36 Posted on: January 07, 2014, 09:43:48 AM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1170

View Profile Email
Homosexuals don't go to hell. It's homosexuals that both don't repent and do as they please without any desire to change before they die. This isn't exclusive to homosexuality, but rather all sin. You can have a struggle with homosexual tendencies and actions, this includes having straight up gay sex. You can have gay sex regularly - as long as you know it's wrong and have a desire to change, and to repent and ask for God's help to change - you're good to go. Paul back when referred to as Saul was a murderer of many Christians, but God revealed Himself to him, he changed his ways and lifestyle instantly, he still sinned but had much less of a tendency of doing so to the extent I'm sure most people who knew back then if they didn't know any better would think he's sinless. But people who are saved don't always change instantly, for most of us it is a gradual process, even those who die before they have an effective chance to change still go to heaven, the thief on the cross next to Jesus repented, and died moments later and even with literally no opportunity for him to change his lifestyle, simply because he recognized he was weak and needed a saviour, Jesus told him then and there before he died "You'll be with me in paradise".

Homosexuality is not the unpartable sin, it's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit that gets people in hell. By that meaning for one to reject God and/or His existence even after He make himself undeniably known to them. As Christians it's never our place to point the finger and say one is going to hell, God gave us eternal life, He can withdraw that gift just as easily if He wanted to, no one knows the eternal destiny of one who isn't saved except God. We don't know whether one who isn't saved is to become saved before they die, that isn't up to us to determine or make accusations about.

Homosexuality just like any other sin or struggle God is just as willing to save anyone who seeks Him. He will save them regardless of whatever sins they still commit. Even murder. Again Paul is an example of this.

This is not me sadly attempting to be a witness or preach I'm just clarifying that to Christians homosexuality is no worse than any other sin, and it's just as easy for God to forgive if the heart truly repents.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 09:47:36 AM by time-killer-games » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3
  Print