Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
rob smith
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 7679
Credit: 44,937,618
RAC: 76,505
United Kingdom
Message 1311278 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 6:39:31 UTC - in response to Message 1311262.

Nice math. Not proof.


Sorry, wrong on TWO points - not "math", very simple arithmetic, backed by some very interesting and involved astronomic observations.
And if the answer is non-zero then not only do you have PROOF, THAT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF, you have the magnitude of dark energy, its sign, and its directionality.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1311293 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 7:51:44 UTC

Gentleman, you can't reason with ID, he has belief, which trumps reason.

Also in this case he is correct, first you have to prove the law of gravity applies the same in all places in the universe and that it doesn't vary with time. While this is accepted, it has not been proved, so the effects could be explained with changes to the theory of gravity just as easily as dark energy. Never mind that there is no proof that your yardsticks don't vary in some manner.

Unfortunately you can't prove any of nature's laws, because first you have to prove existence, and unfortunately, Renee Descartes proved that can not be established.

____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3406
Credit: 345,883
RAC: 137
Italy
Message 1311345 - Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 15:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 1311266.
Last modified: 29 Nov 2012, 15:36:16 UTC

Perfect. That was an observation. But recently people at MIT started making Lab astrophysics using the powerful magnets of the ALCATOR tokamak built by Bruno Coppi. They created waves of plasma and made two of them collide creating a third wave at a much higher temperature, simulating what happens in the Sun's corona, which has a much higher temperature than the photosphere. So I was wrong, a Lab astrophysics is just starting. But the observation made at Principe Island of the deflection of light during a solar eclipse, which gave the first confirmation of General Relativity was just an observation, not an experiment.
Tullio
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2349
Credit: 1,160,997
RAC: 185
United States
Message 1313812 - Posted: 11 Dec 2012, 1:42:09 UTC - in response to Message 1313593.
Last modified: 11 Dec 2012, 1:42:32 UTC

I don't think that Darwinism rules out a benevelent (?), old god putting the whole thing in motion. If so she made a good many mistakes which would put into question the infallibility thing. Did Darwin opine on this ?

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2349
Credit: 1,160,997
RAC: 185
United States
Message 1314071 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 0:41:36 UTC - in response to Message 1313820.
Last modified: 12 Dec 2012, 0:42:38 UTC

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.[/quote]

Profile Do Keep Trying
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,278,714
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314123 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 3:40:11 UTC - in response to Message 1314071.

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views

Religious views
For more details on this topic, see Charles Darwin's religious views.

In 1851 Darwin was devastated when his daughter Annie died. By then his faith in Christianity had dwindled, and he had stopped going to church.[155]

Darwin's family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism, while his father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding school were Church of England.[19] When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.[24] He learned John Herschel's science which, like William Paley's natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.[26][27] On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality.[156] He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution,[48] and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".[50]

By his return he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid.[156] In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.[85] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[157] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[131] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin was reluctant to give up the idea of God as an ultimate lawgiver. He was increasingly troubled by the problem of evil.[158][159]

Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[160] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[155] He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[161][162] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[85][161]

The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[163]

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,416
RAC: 141
Korea, North
Message 1314447 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 22:49:11 UTC - in response to Message 1314149.

Did Darwin opine on infallibility? Is that your question?


I was wondering whether Darwin stated that there was no God involved in Evolution.


Darwin as a young man embraced Intelligent Design. He was a big fan of the "Watch Maker" argument. Kinda strange that he spent the rest of his life showing us the Design in nature and then called himself an agnostic. I have a copy of his autobiography that I picked up some 5 years ago, it's a little worn and has post-it notes all over it. I also believe that nature took millions of years to come to what we see now. However, the Guiding Hand of the Causal Agent is needed for what we see, not chance. There are way too many gaps in nature for the seamless evolution that Neo-Darwinist like to call the "Tree of Life."

Darwin often, very often, talked about "fixed laws" in nature but didn't bother to tell us how or why they was fixed. If such a thing is fixed, and cannot be broken, then that in and of itself implies a Designer. On page 85 to 96 he takes a HUGE shot at Christianity. And here we get to your point (in general), he denies the miracles of Christ. The Gospels are a lie to him. He points out that they cannot be proven to have been written at the same time as the events, also, that he does not believe in Christianity as a divine revelation. He likes to argue in a circle a lot. Many people here say this is what I do. Yet they accept Neo-Darwinism that does this in spades. Darwin dismisses the Bible by dismissing the the four who wrote the Bible(Gospels), and he dismisses the four who wrote the Bible(Gospels)because they contain miracles. And yet he believes in fixed laws that can only be made by a Designer(Causal Agent), not chance.[/quote]
why are you arguing with yourself. Imply what you will on others there statements stand true.
Darwin saw that nature chose the changes in animals and that animals though different are actually related in generations past. that the environment has an affect on physical changes in animals and plants is without a doubt the greatest thing we could know. We know similar looking bird species are probably related, that bacteria, even in its uniquely unevolved state, evolves, changes to make itself better suited to its environment. Why else would a bacteria develop immunities to antibiotics? Not Gods choice but survival.

You keep bleeting out the same old nonsense of what one person believed in a moment in time, yet completely ignore the persons remaining life. If anything it should freak you out that you don't see that this could possibly also be you. Maybe someday you'll wake up and find you've not lost your faith but come to understand that evolution is a reality not because of God(its not mentioned in the Bible) or despite. it just is what it is. A working model of our understanding of the creation of life and how life changed due to its environment.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2349
Credit: 1,160,997
RAC: 185
United States
Message 1314473 - Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 23:54:43 UTC - in response to Message 1314447.

Skil,

Thank you for your post. We were discussing evolution and I made the statement that it shouldn't matter whether a "God" started it or it is the result of pure chance and survival in Nature. I don't think that those who mire themselves in controversy on this subject actually dispute that evolution took place and is taking place.

Profile Do Keep Trying
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,278,714
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1314485 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 0:55:49 UTC
Last modified: 13 Dec 2012, 0:56:06 UTC

No such thing as clairvoyance.
Hence, chance exists.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,416
RAC: 141
Korea, North
Message 1314857 - Posted: 13 Dec 2012, 21:07:58 UTC - in response to Message 1314796.

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
~ The Weight of Glory; C.S. Lewis

quite right he was. zIt's pretty clear he was calling Christians to task and not the other way around. Christians simply take things for granted, that their religion answers everything.

Quite honestly Christianity has done its level best to hide obfuscate and befuddle science at every turn. you are a perfect example of the sick perverted idea that God told us everything we need to know in 1 simple book.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Copyright © 2014 University of California