[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society [Archive]

Chronon

March 10th, 2003, 05:14 AM

The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.Saint Augustine, wherever he is, is shaking his head right about now... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.When you think of one, let me know, and we'll discuss it.

Even if you should find one, though, you will still have to show that the Church had no positive impact on knowledge production in the Middle Ages. This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education.

So, how would eliminating the Church have sped up progress?

Captain Kwok

March 10th, 2003, 06:33 AM

I suppose I can weigh in on a few points:

The 'dark ages' in Europe were more the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire and with much war and food shortages, people were more concerned with the basics of survival than 'science' or technology. However, the Chinese and Arabs were doing just fine in these regards and developed lots of new stuff.

Like Chronon already mentioned:

The Church during this time was actually helpful as they copied/translated many important manuscripts which allowed later scholars to develop into new ideas, of course, this was not all good because when something went against the doctrine of the church - things could get it a little rough.

But it did not really hold back 'science'...it was more of people's convictions to the old school of though (i.e. Aristotle, etc).

You may notice I say 'science'. Real science did not begin until the late 1600s and wasn't really seperated from philosophy until the late 1700s.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:38: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 06:40 AM

Starting an OT thread is redundant. The original thread is already OT, and has veered into several different topics already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Even if you should find one, though, you will still have to show that the Church had no positive impact on knowledge production in the Middle Ages. This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education. The Church refused to acknowledge new ideas that conflicted with its views, which is how it slowed down advancement, not education. And again, I was talking about the European Dark Ages, not really about the time of Galileo. The EDA were over before he was ever born.

The 'dark ages' in Europe were more the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire and with much war and food shortages, people were more concerned with the basics of survival than 'science' or technology. However, the Chinese and Arabs were doing just fine in these regards and developed lots of new stuff.Yes, and I explicitly stated that several times during the discussion. Although, the Chinese did not make that many advancements during the period of time that the European Dark Ages Lasted, they just did not lose a lot of the basics like Europe did when Rome collapsed.

But it did not really hold back 'science'...it was more of people's convictions to the old school of though (i.e. Aristotle, etc).Yes, and the Church made very effort to preserve those old schools of thought.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Captain Kwok

March 10th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Sir Fyron:

If you misunderstood, the church did not get involved in such things until the time around Gallieo and Co., it didn't hold back anything in the dark ages.

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Sir Fyron:

If you misunderstood, the church did not get involved in such things until the time around Gallieo and Co., it didn't hold back anything in the dark ages.And on what do you base this claim?

tesco samoa

March 10th, 2003, 06:57 AM

Ahh come on.

SEIV Stock 1.84
Small Universe ,
3 planet start
3000 Racial Points
Good value 10k
No Intel
Events at High and Catastrophic ( worst speller ever ) so lots of floods, locusts, Scientific explosions
No Ai

Tag Team Match.

Those who Believe in a God vs Heretics.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Lets get this going.

We can settle this once and for all.

http://www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/heretics/heretics.html

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 06:59 AM

Umm... no. Debate is not served by violent confrontation.

Captain Kwok

March 10th, 2003, 07:02 AM

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the church or religion or anything like that...

The main factors that held back advancement in the dark ages was war, famine, and disease. People who are struggling to survive aren't as interested in 'science' or technology. The church was not a major factor and didn't really interfere with much until the late middle ages through the renaissance.

ZeroAdunn

March 10th, 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... no. Debate is not served by violent confrontation.That sounds like a weakling talking! You and me buddy, right here, right now, bare knuckle boxing, twenty rounds!

Fyron: You do realize that you are doing several things right now that you always complain about others doing.

First, you keep making a claim without any support material, while others are telling you you are wrong and using support material.

When other people offer counterpoints, you just restate your previous point which has no bearing on the new points.

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 08:04 AM

First, you keep making a claim without any support material, while others are telling you you are wrong and using support material.No, they do not have support material. I have seen them post no supporting material.

When other people offer counterpoints, you just restate your previous point which has no bearing on the new points.The only counterpoints where I did that were when they posted something that I had already said or talked about earlier in the discussion.

[ March 10, 2003, 06:05: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Narrew

March 10th, 2003, 09:03 AM

Ha, this is something that I have thought about a few times.
I do agree that Religion did hamper "Growth". True, they did copy selected "texts" that they deemed worthy, but the peasants were NOT encouraged to be literate, if they were, the Churches power base would weaken since they were the only ones that could give the word of GOD (which that was just their point). All in all it came down to POWER, the Church throttled freethinking, there were many good things that they did, but the bad/evil/ignorant things surely made up for it, such as the Crusades or the Inquisitions.

I think of the Great Library in Alexandria which had many documents from all over the known world. One thing was a simple working steam power device. What would have been if the library had not burned down?

I do think that we can look at history and draw more than one conclusion, hence the conflict of opinions (at least we wont go to the stake for them). If we do look back over the Last 2000 years, the Last 300 years have been amazing and the Last 80/90 more than astonishing (of course we all know that).

That all said, I am with Fyron. The Church was not everything in the power base of Europe, but it was a major part of it and the things it did to stifle knowledge (and I contend anything other than what THEY thought was true knowledge was ignored) had a long Lasting effect on Growth, otherwise how come when America won its freedom did we really start to see growth?

Ruatha

March 10th, 2003, 09:32 AM

Didn't the monks erase Aristoteles works and use the pergament for prayer books instead?
Thereby eradicating valuable knowledge, some of which has been independetly discovered so late as in the 20:th century.

Captain Kwok

March 10th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Didn't the monks erase Aristoteles works and use the pergament for prayer books instead?
Thereby eradicating valuable knowledge, some of which has been independetly discovered so late as in the 20:th century.They did not. In fact, they copied his works preferentially because of their divine implications, i.e., that everything in the universe is striving for its perfect state, etc...

If we are talking about the European dark ages ~500-1400 then war/invasion/disease were all primary causes of technological stagnation, not the church! The church didn't really start to take control until the 1200s etc, and that was after the Europeans were able to manage a bit of stability. The church in 1500-1600s is more what you guys are referring to - but even to some degree, it was the thinkers who were stuck on Aristotle and not open to new possibilities that kept new thinkers from making a bigger splash then they did...

Mephisto

March 10th, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Narrew:
...such as the Crusades or the Inquisitions.You see, Inquisition is just a good point to proof that the world isn't black and white.

You thinks "fair trail" is good thing? Who thinks the sentence "innocent until proved guilty" is a good one?
Well, you might be surprised but this fundaments of our (western) societies were laid down by the Inquisition. It's highest principle was that under no circumstances a innocent person could every be convicted. If there wasn't 100% proof of the guilt you had to release the accused person. And the only 100% proof was a confession. So, without a confession by the criminal himself you had to release him. I think this is quite remarkable and a very high standard.
Well, the same system created to prevent the punishment of the innocent let to torture. Without confession no conviction so they tortured you to get it. The system itself was build to give you security and ended in horror. The faults of us humans...
But after we abandoned torture it became the fundament of your punitive law systems�

Mephisto

March 10th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />First, you keep making a claim without any support material, while others are telling you you are wrong and using support material.No, they do not have support material. I have seen them post no supporting material.<hr /></blockquote>And neither are you, Fyron.
Science and education were preserved in the Church during the EDA in the monasteries. Without the sanctuary of the monasteries and Church buildings most if not all of the ancient wisdoms from the Greeks and Romans would have been destroyed. And, finally, don't just forget the worldly rulers. Do you think they had any interest in educating the pawns, their minions?

Chronon

March 10th, 2003, 06:38 PM

Well, this thread generated alot more discussion than I anticipated. It's good to know that many people are still interested in history. Perhaps this new thread isn't so redundant after all? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Tesco - Good idea, but since I would be on Fyron's team (if we're defining it along religious lines I'm definitely not a true believer - more of an agnostic really) we'd have to play the AI, and that just wouldn't be much fun.

Fyron - I thought that I did provide plenty of supporting examples on my points. Could you be more specific on the types of evidence you would like to see?

Narrew and Fyron - I won't argue that the world view of the Middle Ages seems somewhat limited from our modern perspective. But as Kwok has argued, the reasons for this go beyond the Church. Are you arguing that without the Church there would have arisen a kind of spontaneous Scientific Revolution?

Unknown_Enemy

March 10th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Nice topic. Here are my 2 cents.
(dark Age timeset : 300 - 1500 for this post)

At the beginning of the Dark Age, the WHOLE of Europe was invaded by barbarians. Some of these, the Francs, conquered the roman province of Gaulle and settled down. Most of the barbarian rulers were completely illiterates. Do you remember Charles Martel (Charlemagne) ? Well he was not able to write his name, but he was the very first powerful King to adopt Christianism.

It would be a dream to think knowledge was transmitted in the population. Serfs were not much more than slaves, they did not have the leisure to learn read/write. Knowledge was only transmitted between priests and monks who all learned latin. Until Charlemagne, almost all the ruling nobles were illiterate.

So, until Charlemagne, there is no question that knowledge salvaged from the roman Empire had been saved by the Churche.
Sometime, you even had improvement, but it was very slow. For example, until 1095, everybody in Europe (spain excepted, but it was Arab...)used to count with roman numbers (I, II, III, IV etc..). Only a handful of monks in europe were able to do a complexe multiplication or division. And if you do not believe it, just try to compute 52384.124 * 9145687.1235 using roman numbers.
Good luck.
Then went the first crusade. Then went a bunch of monks who came back from the holy land bringing knowledge of arabs numbers. In less than a century, every single idiot in europe became able to work out the basic operations using arab numbers.

That was for the church.
Speaking of it, which church are we speaking of ? High level church ? Or lowly monks in their covent ?
High ranking in the christian church were often coming from noble families. I would suggest everyone to try reading historical report on reign of Hugue Capet (a few years before 1000), and you'll see noble warriors continuously betraying each other, with the help of some of their family members in the ranks of the church. At that time, it was not unknown to have an eveque or such murdered by an enemy noble.

Most of the high church was about politics and power. But for this topics, what is interesting is the low level monks and priest, who has been the true gardians of both the faith and knowledge.

So Fyron, I have to disagree with you, the Church was tremendous in gaining and keeping track of human knowledge during the dark age. Simply put it, the time was not right for big advances despite the Church.

Alpha Kodiak

March 10th, 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Speaking of it, which church are we speaking of ? High level church ? Or lowly monks in their covent ?
High ranking in the christian church were often coming from noble families. I would suggest everyone to try reading historical report on reign of Hugue Capet (a few years before 1000), and you'll see noble warriors continuously betraying each other, with the help of some of their family members in the ranks of the church. At that time, it was not unknown to have an eveque or such murdered by an enemy noble.

Most of the high church was about politics and power. But for this topics, what is interesting is the low level monks and priest, who has been the true gardians of both the faith and knowledge.Unknown_Enemy has brought up a very important point. Once the church was no longer oppressed, but rather became the seat of power, it attracted those who seek power, rather than just those who truly followed the teachings of Christ.

To this day there is a dichotomy between those who use the institutional church as a source of political power and those for whom the church is a place of fellowship with others who also seek to follow Christ. It is interesting that the only people that Christ was recorded as having harsh words for were the religious leaders who put extra burdens upon their followers.

Given that dichotomy, my response to this thread is that the power structure of the church did do things that hindered scientific advancement, as well as perpetrate other embarrassments such as inquisitions and crusades. On the other hand, the underlying structure of the church was instrumental in both the preservation of knowledge and education, both of which provided foundations for future scientific advancement. Thus the issue is not really black and white at all, but rather a mix of good and bad. I do not feel qualified to comment on whether the good or the bad is of more significance.

Fyron

March 10th, 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />First, you keep making a claim without any support material, while others are telling you you are wrong and using support material.No, they do not have support material. I have seen them post no supporting material.<hr /></blockquote>And neither are you, Fyron.
Science and education were preserved in the Church during the EDA in the monasteries. Without the sanctuary of the monasteries and Church buildings most if not all of the ancient wisdoms from the Greeks and Romans would have been destroyed. And, finally, don't just forget the worldly rulers. Do you think they had any interest in educating the pawns, their minions?<hr /></blockquote>I think you people have misunderstood me. I never once said nor implied that the Church was the only factor. Of course other things were influences. What I said was that the Curch stifled new advancements. Of course the monastaries preserved old documents. I never once said they did not, or said anything that is affected by that fact. You do not get new advancements simply by preserving ancient texts. After the facts began overwhelming the Church's dogma, these texts were used to restore long lost knowledge. But, this still is not qualified as a new advancement.

Fyron - I thought that I did provide plenty of supporting examples on my points. Could you be more specific on the types of evidence you would like to see? My point was that you did not cite any sources for your claims, which some people seem to think is only a problem when I make Posts.

Narrew and Fyron - I won't argue that the world view of the Middle Ages seems somewhat limited from our modern perspective. But as Kwok has argued, the reasons for this go beyond the Church. Are you arguing that without the Church there would have arisen a kind of spontaneous Scientific Revolution? No, I am arguing that the Church's actions of clinging to old (false) beliefs about the nature of the world prolonged the European Dark Ages because questioning the Church was heresy. How can you come up with new ideas when you are branded as a heretic for doing so? If the Catholic Church was not there, there would have been a different Church that would have done just about the same exact thing.

It would be a dream to think knowledge was transmitted in the population.Of course it would. I have not seen anyone argue this so far.

Unknown_Enemy

March 11th, 2003, 12:46 AM

the underlying structure of the church was instrumental in both the preservation of knowledge and educationIndeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.

Krsqk

March 11th, 2003, 01:10 AM

/me reluctantly enters the discussion...

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that you did not cite any sources for your claims, which some people seem to think is only a problem when I make Posts.No, Fyron. You want other people to quote their sources, while your rebuttals consist of "I have objective proof that you're wrong. I have read it myself. I just don't have it available here right now." Fine, so you have proof that convinces you. So post it, so we can dissect and/or rebut it. I'm not saying anything about the validity of your sources, just that you can't expect everyone to accept your argument when what you've posted is basically "Take my word for it, there's good proof." To accept your proofs sight unseen is at least as grevious an error as to accept anyone else's assertions sans source.

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible was written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)

No, I am arguing that the Church's actions of clinging to old (false) beliefs about the nature of the world prolonged the European Dark Ages because questioning the Church was heresy. How can you come up with new ideas when you are branded as a heretic for doing so? If the Catholic Church was not there, there would have been a different Church that would have done just about the same exact thing.The first two sentences are true (although old does not always equal false). The third belies your mistrust of religion (and of anything else not scientifically provable). Where's the proof that "a different Church...would have done just about the exact same thing"? The RCC (at least those in power) during the EDA (and, some would argue, even now) was hardly a Bible-practicing church, as has been previously alluded to. Should church and government not have been married ~AD325, things may have turned out quite differently.

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.

[edits-stoopud keebored, removing an "n't"]

[ March 11, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

DavidG

March 11th, 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> the underlying structure of the church was instrumental in both the preservation of knowledge and educationIndeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.<hr /></blockquote>Knowing what is morally right and wrong is quite possible without the help of the chruch. In fact some would argue the opposite. (something along the lines that you can do whatever you want and then confess your sins and still get into heavan)It has always bothered me how some people seem to think that if you don't believe in God then you don't know what is right and wrong. (and no I am not accusing you of this but some people seem to believe this)

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 01:57 AM

No, Fyron. You want other people to quote their sources, while your rebuttals consist of "I have objective proof that you're wrong. I have read it myself. I just don't have it available here right now." I never said that. My point was that people keep calling on me for not doing that, while ignoring it when everyone else does it.

Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible wasn't written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?

although old does not always equal falseI never said that. But, a lot of the old "scientific" beliefs that the Church clung to were indeed wrong. It is more of a coincidence than some sweeping statement about old beliefs = wrong beliefs.

Where's the proof that "a different Church...would have done just about the exact same thing"?That was stated as an opinion, not a fact.

BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Indeed but I would argue that the biggest achievement of the Church has been the implementation of moral values which are still in effect in all western society. These values tamed the barbarians (Francs and others) and allowed the evolution of our civilization.Actually, a lot of those "barbarians" (such as the Celts) were more civil and moral than the Romans were.

The "barbarians" had their own systems of moral values that, while not the same as those of Catholicism, were by no means inferior.

I say "barbarians" because they were not normally barbaric, esp. compared to the Romans. A lot of them did not do things like place the heads of all rebels on pikes in front of newly conquered cities. They did not go in and force whole villages to move elsewhere so that they would not know the land around them, and would have a harder time forming a resistance. Or was that the Macedonians (under Alexander the Great)? Probably both.

They are only labeled as "barbarians" because the Romans used a word in Latin that the English "barbarian" is derived from. But, that word meant "foreigners" and not "savages". It is the original English translation that has caused a lot of misconceptions as to people assuming that all of the tribes that fought against the Romans were savage.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:17: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Krsqk

March 11th, 2003, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never said that. My point was that people keep calling on me for not doing that, while ignoring it when everyone else does it.You described (in the other thread, if not in this one) in great detail that you have read such and such, and the authors don't have an ax to grind, etc. You also said that you don't have the sources available to post. The whole point of my post (as opposed to the snippet you quoted) was that your proof might satisfy you, but don't expect it to satisfy those who haven't seen it. Since your replies frequently include phraseology such as "That's not true, according to basic historical facts" yet you haven't posted the facts, I assume you want us to take your word for it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Along the same lines, the burden of proof is on you to show the Bible wasn't written ex post facto. Repeatedly asserting is was doesn't make it so. "Show me the money." (To dredge up the previous OT-topic of the previous thread.)Umm.... I have said that the bible was written after the events occured. I never argued that it was written before the events occured. Why would I ever want to try to prove that?<hr /></blockquote>Let's not quibble over that extra "n't" in my post, 'kay? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I knew I missed something in my edits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The (corrected) point still stands--it is your responsibility to prove there is reasonable cause to doubt the pre-existence of prophetic material.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent "man-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). The pyramids (not just Egyptian) are probably the best-known example. Many of them are square to within 1/20 of a degree. There are also walls in South America built from huge stones--some up to 20 tons. Many civilizations also apparently understood that the earth was round. Much was lost in the repeated conquests of Greece and Rome, not to mention the later barbarian conquests.I hope this was not meant to be included in your argument against me, as I have never once written anything contrary to this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>No, it was just extra food for thought. It ties in with the current topic by showing that the EDA weren't a sudden regression in scientific knowledge, but a more pronounced era of a general trend.

[ March 11, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Let's not quibble over that extra "n't" in my post, 'kay? I knew I missed something in my edits. The (corrected) point still stands--it is your responsibility to prove there is reasonable cause to doubt the pre-existence of prophetic material.No, the burden of proof lies on those that claim that the Bible has prophetic ability. That claim is false without any supporting evidence. I did not randomly come out and say that the Bible has no predictive ability. I said that the people that said it does have those abilities were wrong. They had no convincing proof to back up their claims, and so they were wrong. I only have to debunk the effects of their evidence (or the evidence itself) to prove them wrong.

You started responding too soon, and probably missed half of my edits to that long post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Rigelian

March 11th, 2003, 02:28 AM

Re quoting sources: sorry Fyron, agree with most of your points but you can't operate double standards on that one. Trouble is, a trawl of sci-fi fans and wargamers rarely results in a crop of historians. So most of us are arguing from a pretty incomplete recollection of what is (at best) a very patchy body of evidence to begin with...

To throw a few points in that have been neglected I think.
This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education. With the exception of an early post mentioning Arabic (actually Indian, folks) numerals, the role of the Islamic world has been overlooked here. Many of the works of classical civilisation were preserved by Islamic scholars, along with many of the humanistic values of that civilisation. There is an argument that the beginnings of (relatively) peaceful contact with the Ottoman Empire in the post-crusading period were the main trigger for the Renaissance. Those classical texts were 'rediscovered' by Western scholars through those contacts. Remember that Europe was a complete backwater for almost a thousand years.

There has been an explosion of interest in the Classical period in recent years; making a massive generalisation, I would say that (rose-tinted of course) admiration for the Hellenistic civilisation often takes the form of considering 'us' to be closer to 'them' than to the people of the intervening couple of millenia. And I would argue that modern Christianity is an expression of this trend also.

The Christianity as practiced, and certainly as expressed by the church, in that intervening period has borne little relation to the tolerance and forgiveness espoused in the New Testament. On the contrary, it has far more often taken the form of the vicious, desert-tribe, patriachal nastiness of the Old. So has the church changed and 'evolved' (irony intentional) towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values of its own accord? Or is it an organisation forced, kicking and screaming to adapt to the civilisation it forms an increasingly smaller part of? I refer you to the example of the recent scandals in the Catholic church; voluntary or kicking-and-screaming reform? Ironically this of course arises from the one Classical practice indisputably preserved in the monasteries - pederasty.

So how did this religion occur, that can preach 'an eye for an eye' as well as 'turn the other cheek'? I would argue that New-Testament Christianity is a product of its time and place - the Hellenistic world. The values that many think of as uniquely Christian are nothing of the sort, they are Greek, to the extent that any single source for them can be postulated. The relationship between the modern Western state and the church is now quintessentially Roman of course - "any religion you like, just pay your taxes..".

But, back on the main line of the thread (or one of them). Did religion hold back advancement in Europe in the period between the Ancient and Modern periods? (not getting into the EDA timeframe scrap). I would say absolutely yes, because the fundamental mental landscape was that of 'argument from authority', rather than 'argument from evidence'. [much much more detail in the 'Galilieo' debate at the tail end of the parent thread]. This is an Achilles heel of all religions - it is the Secularism, not the Christianity, of the Western world that has allowed us to outstrip the rest so spectacularly.

One Last direct response:
BTW, there is at least some evidence that the pre-EDA was still a sort of "Dim Ages"--that is, that earlier civilizations had much better technology and scientific understanding that they are generally credited with (probably because of a prevalent man"-is-constantly-getting-better" bias, which the EDA would seem to belie). Please, please not a Hancock or (much worse) Von Daniken plug here I hope? But if you are just saying that earlier ages were composed of people just as intelligent as we are, then I heartily agree. But I would say that the 'prevalent' view, even now, is still the romantic motion of 'wise ancient civilisations'. This has not been true for centuries of course, but the majority of the populace today STILL mistrusts science, underestimates massively and tragically the extent to which technology has transformed their lives relative to their ancestors, and hankers for some mythical pastoral dream as the 'perfect' life. Try David Brin's website (http://www.davidbrin.com) for more elequent arguments along this line than mine.

tesco, count me in as a heretic, once my copy of Gold arrives http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 02:30 AM

Re quoting sources: sorry Fyron, agree with most of your points but you can't operate double standards on that one. I am not operating any double standards. Again, my point was that some people keep posting that stuff about my Posts that don't cite evidence, while ignoring any Posts made by anyone else that do the same thing mine do. I never once said anything about someone else's post that did not cite evidence.

Krsqk

March 11th, 2003, 02:35 AM

You need to stop editing once I start replying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I'm not referring to their contention that the Bible contains prophetic material. That's another matter entirely.

What I'm referring to is your assertion that the prophetic material in the Bible was written after the fact. You never backed that assertion, although your argument that the Bible cannot be prophetic was based (at least in part) on it. As such, it must be treated as an assumption, and not fact, until such time as you present your evidence (which has obviously convinced you).

"Proving" the prophetic nature of the Bible is a matter of determining the date of its writing and comparing the written account to the actual event. As such, it is dependent on the timeline debate. My observation is that you have not presented proof for your argument regarding the timeline aspect of this debate.

Is that all clear?

Again, my point was that some people keep posting that stuff about my Posts that don't cite evidence, while ignoring any Posts made by anyone else that do the same thing mine do.I think that's because you do such an adequate job of pointing out their Posts yourself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 00:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

DavidG

March 11th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[QB]

"Proving" the prophetic nature of the Bible is a matter of determining the date of its writing and comparing the written account to the actual event. As such, it is dependent on the timeline debate. My observation is that you have not presented proof for your argument regarding the timeline aspect of this debate.

Is that all clear?
[QB]Nope. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 03:00 AM

I do not have ready access to proof of the relative timeline, so I can not post it.

Be careful when you use the word "written", cause some people will go off on a tangent about oral tradition at the mention of writing something down, even though you may not have meant the literal date of when it was put to paper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Nope. I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.Actually, Rags did say that the Bible predicted the fall of Babylon and Assyria, though that is all he said about it. He gave no book references or anything like that, and he gave no evidence that the relevenat book of the Bible was actually written/composed/created before those events took place. He made a nice argument from authority though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Puke

March 11th, 2003, 03:18 AM

now driving this OT thread OT from its original topic, I have recently been made aware that the famed Grace Cathedral on top of Nob Hill in San Francisco contains a Starbucks franchise.

merchants hocking their wears in the temple? didnt JC throw a fit about that, and kick over a few pop-stands? I dont care if your religious or not, I think this is far more hypocritical and offensive than the recent sex scandals in the church, because its so overt.

Narrew

March 11th, 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Rigelian:
or (much worse) Von Daniken plug here I hope? Haha, I never heard of this guy so did a search to see what he thinks, and he seems a loonie, but I do like watching Stargate SG1, you think that is based on the truth? (I mean, its on TV, so it must be true J/K).

Narrew

March 11th, 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Puke:

merchants hocking their wears in the temple? didnt JC throw a fit about that, and kick over a few pop-stands? I dont care if your religious or not, I think this is far more hypocritical and offensive than the recent sex scandals in the church, because its so overt.Rigelian mentioned about being dragged kicking and screaming into reforming or evolving towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values, well the sex scandal is such a sick thing it just proves how hypocritical the Cathloic church truly is, if they could have swept if under the carpet (and they tried very hard to do just that) they would have. So a Starbucks in there? Why should that supprise or offend you? It is not about religion any more, it is about money, power and control. If it wasnt, birth control (as an example) would be encouraged by the Church to protect against STDs, over population and unwanted children, but no... that would cut into their money, even if it was the "right" thing to do.

If JC were here today (not debating if he exicts or not) I doubt that the Coffee shop would be the first thing on his list, maybe turning the corrupt leadership into pillar of salts perhaps.

Krsqk

March 11th, 2003, 06:01 AM

I do not have ready access to proof of the relative timeline, so I can not post it.Fine, but until you do, any posturing about "arguing from authority" rings rather hollow.

For a couple of specific prophecies, try:
 Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.
 Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.
 Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.
 The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.
Try Google with "Messianic prophecies" or some such. Now, of course, you're going to respond with "Well, those were all written after the fact." 1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such); 2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed; 3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their works; 4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.
That should be enough to keep this debate roiling until I can check back up on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

RE: the current state of the RCC (and many churches today)--I don't think anyone's claiming that most churches today even try to live up to the Bible. The vast majority who claim Christianity do not follow the Bible--why is it a surprise when most churches don't? Without a doubt, the intentions of the churches in question are noble (with the exception of those involved simply for power's sake), but that doesn't compensate for the drift away from the Bible. You can only go so far away from its teachings and still really be considered Christian. The word "Christian" as popularly seems to encompass much, much more than its strict definition would allow.

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.If only things were that simple... the predictions on when and how it will be destroyed were not accurate at all. Neither were the "prophecies" that predicted the fall of Babylon. They said that it would fall in a sudden catastrophe, when it took centuris of conquests before Babylon was destroyed. That is just like saying, "the US will fall." It will undoubtedly fall one day; nothing Lasts forever. But, this does not make such a statement very prophetic.

Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.Again, this is meaningless. I predict that Fort Knox will be plundered. It will undoubtably be robbed one day. But, this does not make me any sort of prophet.

Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.Considering that Jerusalem has always been in the neighborhood of people that are not very friendly to the Hebrew people, it is a safe bet to say that it will be destroyed one day. Saying that it will be rebuilt is also a safe bet, as it is the holy city of the Jews. Why would they not rebuild it if it were to be destroyed? These are not prophetic at all, they were safe bets for Isaiah to make.

Trying to find legitimate web sites that accurately discuss ancient history and are not steeped full of religious mumbo-jumbo is rather difficult... I just love the internet...

The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct.

The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.All of this assumes that you believe both the myth of the prophecy and the myth of JC. It is essentially rather circular reasoning because you have to already believe one part of the Bible in order for the other part to be verifiable. You can not support one supposition with another supposition.

1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such)Has it ever occured to you that the authors of the books may not have been telling the truth? People often stretch the truth in order to get their message across. Oh no, these mythic figures could not possibly have lied. They were the authors of the Bible, so they had to be telling the truth, cause the authors of the Bible would never lie. (more circular reasoning)

2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed1000s of years of maintaining the same flawed information that was designed to support their pre-conceived beliefs. Yep, sounds accurate enough to me.

3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their worksSays who? People that already believe what the Bible says, and so are blind to anything that does not support their beliefs?

4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.No traditionally accepted dates of writing have been presented.

Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.

All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong? Because the Bible says so? Because you believe that the Bible has prophetic powers (even though it does not), so it must be true? I am certain that if we looked, we could find other religious writings that have the same sort of "prophecies" as the Bible.

Chronon

March 11th, 2003, 07:07 AM

Just a few points I'd like to throw out there before I pack it in for the evening:

1) "Trouble is, a trawl of sci-fi fans and wargamers rarely results in a crop of historians. So most of us are arguing from a pretty incomplete recollection of what is (at best) a very patchy body of evidence to begin with..." (orginally posted by Rigelian) No need to be modest, you all are making some great historical points (even you Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

2) If you're interested in the impact of non-Western influences on modern science, check out Dick Teresi's "Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science - From the Babylonians to the Maya" I haven't gotten to it quite yet - too much other stuff to read at the moment - but I'm looking forward to reading it over the summer.

3) Yes, the Ancients were in many ways more advanced in science than their Medieval successors - thus the importance of the Renaissance rediscovery (in the Near East) of texts lost after the decline of Rome. Just a few examples:

Hipparchus of Nicea (196-126 BCE) calculated the Lunar month at 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 1/3 seconds (less than a minute off our current calculation). He also calculated the year within 6.5 minutes.

Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 BCE) proposed that the sun is the center of the cosmos, and that the Earth and other planets circle the sun. Copernicus knew of Aristarchus' idea - it wasn't original to Copernicus.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (276-196 BCE), librarian at Alexandria, calculated (using sundials and wells in Egypt) the circumference of the Earth to within 200 miles. He was one of the first to suggest the possibility of sailing west to get to the East.

Tying that into our main argument, it's not necessarily bad to hold on to old authorities, because they can be useful. So, the copying of ancient texts, while it did promote perhaps an overzealous devotion to them, was an important Medieval function of the RCC.

Why, then, didn't the Medieval period continue to expand on the work of the Ancients? Conditions just weren't there for it. Philosophizing - and that's what science was until recently - takes free time. There were really only two Groups of people in the Medieval period who had the time to contemplate the universe - the clergy and the nobles.

The clergy sought answers that agreed with the Ancients and their theology. The nobles were too busy fighting to think of much else (with some exceptions, of course). It wasn't until Europeans got wealthy again (in the Renaissance) that they could afford to patronize someone to investigate the heavens on a regular basis. Therefore, I would argue, it was the basic underlying socio-economic structure of feudalism - not the intellectual rigidness of the RCC - that slowed scientific advancement.

PS For those who are interested in sources http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif all my information comes from Judith G. Coffin, et al. Western Civilizations volume I.

Alpha Kodiak

March 11th, 2003, 07:23 AM

If the discussion includes speculation on what Jesus would say about the state of much of what is going on in organized religion today, perhaps some of his own words would be appropriate:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?

"And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. He who swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay a tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside may be clean also.

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocracy and lawlessness.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt.

"Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I assure you that all of these things will come upon this generation."

Matthew 23:13-36

As you can see, he had a thing or two to say about the religious leaders of his day. You can draw your own conclusions about his reaction to some of today's religious leaders. Do not assume that those in positions of power in organized religion necessarily reflect the teachings of Christ.

Phoenix-D

March 11th, 2003, 08:21 AM

"The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct."

Nice preconception there Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif It might actually support his argument, so therefore it has to be wrong.

Phoenix-D

QuarianRex

March 11th, 2003, 09:40 AM

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct."

Nice preconception there Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif It might actually support his argument, so therefore it has to be wrong.

Phoenix-DNo, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).

This is a completely unwarranted statement. The bible is not the Gilgamesh epic, or the tales of Hercules. The 'mythic' aspects are pretty much limited to the first book or so. Once you get past the creation story and the parting of the red sea you'll find a rather detailed account of the movers and shakers of the ancient jewish world. It describes the bloody history of a tribe of nomads that eventually settled down, usually through the perspective of the most influential political/religious leader at the time.I know what the Bible is. There is more to it than just the tale of the Hebrew people. Or are you specifically choosing to ignore the New Testament? There is plenty in it that has nothing to do with that tribe of nomads.

The books of the bible (both oral and then written) were passed down as historical records not mere folklore. Just because a lot of their decisions were made based upon what would seem to be bad acid trips does not mean that the bible is a book of fairy tales. If it was it would be a much more interesting read and wouldn't have so many "begat's" in it.[/b]Ok... you do not know what the term mythology means. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairy tales. I guess I will have to repeat myself: mythology is a collection of tales that define the moral values of a culture. Hmm... the Bible is a collection of tales, which Jews and Christians essentially get their moral values from. Therefore, Bible = mythology.

The Odyssey was passed down as historical record. Does that make everything it says historical fact? No way. Most religious texts/tales were passed down as historical record. The Bible is nothing special in this regard. It has parts based on reality, and parts that are fictional, dramatized for effect.

[quote]By the way Fyron, I seem to remember you mentioning that you don't even own a bible. Is that true? Without a doubt. But does that make a difference? No. There are plenty of Online copies of the Bible available for free.

If so, are you sure that you know what you are actually arguing about? Yes, I am quite sure.

Grossly misinformed statements like the above quote would seem to indicate that you have some kind of aVersion to religion itself, rather than a specific problem with the bible (a book that you appear to be quite unfamiliar with).You have grossly misinterpreted my statements. My statements are still quite accurate, and they stand.

I am unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty details of the Bible, but that does not really matter much for this debate. I do not know the nitty-gritty details of other manuscripts, such as the Constitution. But, I know what it is about. Would you say I am quite unfamiliar with it, just because I don't own a copy of it, and I don't read it very often? I would hope not.

[ March 11, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Mephisto

March 11th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
A lot of them did not do things like place the heads of all rebels on pikes in front of newly conquered cities. They did not go in and force whole villages to move elsewhere so that they would not know the land around them, and would have a harder time forming a resistance. Or was that the Macedonians (under Alexander the Great)? Probably both. They are only labelled as "barbarians" because the Romans used a word in Latin that the English "barbarian" is derived from. But, that word meant "foreigners" and not "savages". It is the original English translation that has caused a lot of misconceptions as to people assuming that all of the tribes that fought against the Romans were savage.Actually, the Romans were quite �liberal� as someone else already posted. Give me your money and live as you like. And for that matter, it were different times. The Celts weren�t better or worse in treating their enemies. Heck, they burned the Last warrior to come to a raid to death as a sacrifices to the gods. Better not be late, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
You are correct, �barbarians� is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means �bearded�, which was uncommon for Greeks.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesised appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).And that�s sums it up. No need to discuss any further. Fyron, you just did what you claimed the church did in the EDA. �The earth simply cannot revolve around the sun. If it seems to do so, something fishy has to have taken place.� You just rule out any other explanation because it won�t fit in your world. All the arguments I will bring forth on that matter will fall on deaf ears because what I say just cannot be true. Logic in your world says so!
The point about the prophesies is that either you think that they are possible or they are not. And as a scientist in a Hellenistic tradition you think it highly improbable that prophesy is possible. However, as long as there are indications that it might be possible (biblical texts) you cannot rule it out until you get hard proof that it really is impossible. It might be much more likely that someone tinkered with the texts but that�s no definite proof. I doubt that such hard proof will ever be available. So, I stand critical but will not rule out the possibility that the biblical texts are indeed prophecies.

Alpha Kodiak

March 11th, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).
Real prophesy is not possible IF there is no God. I cannot prove to you scientifically that God exists, but you cannot prove that God does not exist. Why? Because God is outside of creation, being the creator Himself. I can point to things that lead me to believe that there is a designer, such as the complexity of life, the complexity of molecular structures, the complexity of the formation of our solar system, and on and on, but you will say that those are the result of accidents, or are "the way things are". Neither of us can prove or disprove that there was a hand that set it all in motion.

Incidently, the point of prophesy in the Bible is not the prediction of the future, but the revealing of God's will. It might involve foretelling the future, but not always. It is God speaking through a person to reveal His truth.

Baron Munchausen

March 11th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Mephisto wrote:

You are correct, �barbarians� is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means �bearded�, which was uncommon for Greeks.
Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them. That's why the long, repetitive, multi-voweled 'trance' words in the Gnostic texts are called 'barbarous names'. They're huge, confusing messes of letters to us, but they were apparently representing some form of chant for the ancient people who wrote them down.

Alpha Kodiak: Kudos for recognizing that God cannot be either proven or disproven. Most people these days think that if the logic diagram cannot be closed then the 'issue' to be proven is automatically disproven. Deh... so much for modern 'education'...

[ March 11, 2003, 16:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Mephisto

March 11th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them.I stand corrected. There are sources that say it derrives from "bearded" but this seems only to be a rumor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A link:
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue010.html

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Alpha Kodiak: Kudos for recognizing that God cannot be either proven or disproven. Most people these days think that if the logic diagram cannot be closed then the 'issue' to be proven is automatically disproven. Deh... so much for modern 'education'...It is a good thing that I have never once made a claim or argument as to whether the Christian God exists or not, isn't it? If you can not prove whether something exists or not, continuing to claim that it exists is just as large a logical fallacy as continuing to claim that it does not exist.

I think I need to repost this, because it keeps being ignored, and it is much more important than these silly arguments over the alleged prophesizing powers of the Bible:

All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?

[ March 11, 2003, 17:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

QuarianRex

March 11th, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.[/QB] Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... you do not know what the term mythology means. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairy tales. I guess I will have to repeat myself: mythology is a collection of tales that define the moral values of a culture. Hmm... the Bible is a collection of tales, which Jews and Christians essentially get their moral values from. Therefore, Bible = mythology.

The Odyssey was passed down as historical record. Does that make everything it says historical fact? No way. Most religious texts/tales were passed down as historical record. The Bible is nothing special in this regard. It has parts based on reality, and parts that are fictional, dramatized for effect.
I am quite aware of the definition of mythology. Myths do not necessarily define the morals of a culture. They explain cultural practices and natural phenomena. Morality may or may not be associated with them. You seem to be saying that the only moral basis of a culture (particularly an ancient one) is myth. This isn't so. The morality dictated within the bible was shaped by the conditions and leaders at the time. The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with.

Comparing the bible to the odyssey is just an attempt to minimise the bible, nothing more. The odyssey is a literary construct showing the heroes journey through a supernatural landscape that required the heroes to stab cyclops in the eye and resist the unnatural lures of the siren (IIRC). The more fantastical elements of the bible are, for the most part, limited to visions by various prophets and environmental effects attributed to god. Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance.

Also, the bible (again, for the most part) is meant to be taken literally, and so does not really qualify as myth. Why did I have to qualify that? Because you have Take various scriptures in context. If prophet X tells his people about his vision it means that prophet X has literally had a vision and is acting upon it. It does not mean that the contents of said vision were walking around in biblical times.

Your implication that the bible is merely a collection of 'tales' minimizes any historical import that it may have and tries to force it into a Category of literature to which it does not belong.

Alpha Kodiak

March 11th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I think I need to repost this, because it keeps being ignored, and it is much more important than these silly arguments over the alleged prophesizing powers of the Bible:

All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?Ok, you asked for it.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Actually, what I am about to post is not some grand proof of Christian theology, and will probably not convince you of anything much, but it is the story of how I came to be where I am in my spiritual walk.

When I was entering fifth grade, far more years ago than I would like to admit, and through a variety of circumstances that are somewhat complex, I wound up in a private Christian school. As my parents were not particularly active in their faith, it was rather odd for me to be there, but, as I said the circumstances were somewhat complex.

As I went through my first year there, I noticed a difference in the way that my teachers cared for the students that did not come through in other schools. This is not to say that the teachers in other schools did not care for the students, but for me at that time, there was something powerful in the love that they showed. Being a Christian school, there were classes in the Bible, and I started learning the basics of Old and New Testament theology at that time. I was particularly struck by the passages speaking of man's sinfullness and God's active seeking to restore the relationship between man and Himself.

I knew even then that while I tried to be good, I would not always succeed. Fibs (lies) to cover silly pranks came all too easily. It was easy to show favoritism to popular kids, or to grow angry if I did not get my way. At any rate, it became clear to me that I was not able to meet God's standards on my own.

It was then that I turned to the promises of scripture such as:

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:21-26

I no longer had to be good in my own strength! All fall short of God's glory, but He has provided a way of escape:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

Ok, I can hear the protests already - "You can't use the Bible to prove itself." I know that, that's why I said earlier that this is a description of how I got to where I am now. A better question is to ask me, why do I still hold to this belief, and why do I have confidence that it is true?

Christianity in its pure form is not a religion, in that it is not man striving to do what he has to do to reach God. It is God reaching down in love to sinful man and restoring a relationship that was lost when man rebelled against Him. I have that relationship, and I know that it is real. I cannot prove it to you, but for me to deny it would be like me denying that I am married to my wife. He has been with me through times of joy and times of sadness, times of trouble when I had no strength to go on alone.

You also ask about those who believe differently, I have already said that I do not make my own judgment of them. I believe that God loves all people, and I believe that He wants to redeem all people. I also know that all are sinful and cannot make it to God on their own. How God deals with people who have not been exposed to Christianity, or those who believe other faiths is up to Him. I am responsible for how I respond to what has been revealed to me.

You are really pulling out the long Posts from me, something that is unusual for me. But this is actually the short form of why I believe what I believe. I could have written much more, and still offered no more proof. I have not posted this before because I know that it will not satisfy you, but you have asked for it repeatedly, so there it is.

Fyron

March 11th, 2003, 10:11 PM

QuarianRex :

I am quite aware of the definition of mythology. Myths do not necessarily define the morals of a culture. They explain cultural practices and natural phenomena. Morality may or may not be associated with them.A mythology does indeed relate the moral values of a culture.

You seem to be saying that the only moral basis of a culture (particularly an ancient one) is myth.That is not at all what I said. In fact, that does not even follow from what I said in any way.

The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with. I fail to see the purpose of saying such a thing. All religious mythology was written by religious people. Care to enumerate?

Comparing the bible to the odyssey is just an attempt to minimise the bible, nothing more.I was doing no such thing. You are again grossly misinterpreting my statements. If you want to compare the Odyssey to something, it would be one of the books of the Bible, not the entire Bible.

The odyssey is a literary construct showing the heroes journey through a supernatural landscape that required the heroes to stab cyclops in the eye and resist the unnatural lures of the siren (IIRC). The more fantastical elements of the bible are, for the most part, limited to visions by various prophets and environmental effects attributed to god.Oh really? Samson? David and Goliath? Jonah and the whale? These are fantastical tales just the same as those in the Odyssey, and they serve the exact same role within each culture.

The Odyssey is, for the most part, visions by various ancient Greek prophets and environmental effects attributed to the Greek gods. If you would stop being so provincial, you could see that both the Odyssey and the books of the Bible serve the exact same role for these different cultures. The Odyssey (and many other Greek myths) taught the Greek value system to the Greeks. The Bible teaches the Christian value system to Christians.

Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance....and within the realms of ancient comprehension and acceptance. What is your point?

Also, the bible (again, for the most part) is meant to be taken literally, and so does not really qualify as myth.All religious writings/tales are meant to be taken just as literally as the Bible. Maybe you need to learn more about other cultures. Well... the Bible was written in a language steeped with metaphor, and was not actually meant to be taken wholely literally. That is just an error made by people that speak a literal language.

Your implication that the bible is merely a collection of 'tales' minimizes any historical import that it may have and tries to force it into a Category of literature to which it does not belong.I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading what I posted, and not what you want me to have posted.

The Bible is indeed a collection of stories. So what? That is the entire purpose of the Bible: to be a collection of stories to help guide you to develop "proper" morals. That does not do anything to minimize any impact. In fact, that is the impact it has had. I have not forced it into any literary categories where it does not belong; I have merely stated the correct Category where it belongs, religious mythological works.

Basically, your error here is a common one of arrogance. Because you believe the Bible, and not other religious works, you refuse to see that the Bible is mythology, just like the Odyssey, the Koran, etc. You have wrongly associated the term with meaning falsehood, because you believe that other religious works are false. You have attempted to belittle them and isolate the work you believe from them to make it unique. Irregardless of any arguments about the veracity of the Bible, it is most certainly not in a separate Category as other religious works; they are all mythology. The term mythology has nothing to do with falsehood.

Alpha Kodiak:
Actually, what I am about to post is not some grand proof of Christian theology, and will probably not convince you of anything much, but it is the story of how I came to be where I am in my spiritual walk.This is fine. In fact, this is infinitely better than ignoring my query, which a lot of people have done so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So essentially, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe. That might work for you, but not for me. I could go into a long schpiel about how wrong that is, but it would definitely fail to convince you of anything, so I won't at this juncture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That, and I must leave now for hours of riveting classes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 11, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

ZeroAdunn

March 11th, 2003, 11:02 PM

So essentially, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe. That might work for you, but not for me. I could go into a long schpiel about how wrong that is, but it would definitely fail to convince you of anything, so I won't at this juncture. That, and I must leave now for hours of riveting classes.
You do realize that the vast majority of what everybody believes they believe because it is what they were taught to believe? And this goes beyond religion, for the most part, everything that we believe that we do not believe because we witnessed it, we are taught to believe.

Alpha Kodiak

March 11th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Alpha Kodiak:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Actually, what I am about to post is not some grand proof of Christian theology, and will probably not convince you of anything much, but it is the story of how I came to be where I am in my spiritual walk.This is fine. In fact, this is infinitely better than ignoring my query, which a lot of people have done so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So essentially, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe. That might work for you, but not for me. I could go into a long schpiel about how wrong that is, but it would definitely fail to convince you of anything, so I won't at this juncture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That, and I must leave now for hours of riveting classes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>I would only modify that slightly: I believe what I was taught to believe, verified by personal experience. Think of it this way, I doubt that you invented the scientific method, rather someone taught it to you. It has served you well (as it has served me well, it is not an alien concept to me, either) and so you trust it for future use.

I have trusted in the Lord, and He has proven Himself faithful to me, so I continue to trust Him.

Jack Simth

March 11th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is a good thing that I have never once made a claim or argument as to whether the Christian God exists or not, isn't it?
You haven't done so directly - however, many of the statements you make presuppose a total denial of the possibility of some of the attributes of God, thus indirectly saying He doesn't exist. For example:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).
 Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct.Saying real prophesy is impossible is to deny the possibility of One who knows past, present, and future and who is able to communicate with mortals, some of the attributes attributed to God. Further, that quote is a logical fallacy in the context it appeared in - the debate at that point was over whether or not there was legitimate prophecy in the Bible, and the apparent reasoning in that passage lies in the assumption that prophecy cannot truly exist, yet you use this to support your claim that the specific prophecy in question was false. While I couldn't quote the Latin name for the fallacy, it is one.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?Near as I can tell, the prophecy chain started because people used it as support for the Bible being correct, which would be an attempt to answer that very question.

As for my response -
I am a Christian, partly because that is what I grew up with, and partly because everything in the Bible that can be concretly tested and has been has come up in support of the Bible. For example, on the modern Mt. Ararat, buried in a glacer or two, there is a large wooden barge-like structure broken into three major pieces, of extreme age, which witnesses who have been inside say is filled with rows upon rows of what appear to be animal stalls. If you read of the flood in Genesis, specifically, the end of the flood, where Noah's Ark came to rest, you will find that it says the Ark came to rest in the Mountains of Ararat. Now, technically, this does not proove that the Bible happened. However, technically, nothing can be proven about the past. At best, evidence is "consistent with" or "inconsistent with" a particular tale of events. I find the bulk of the evidence to be consistent with the Biblical Version of events, and inconsistent with the most commonly postulated alternative, the tale of evolution. Mind you, this is a long post, so by the time I am done with it this post is likely to be outdated. C'est la vie.

Phoenix-D

March 11th, 2003, 11:49 PM

I'm not even going to TRY to follow this entire discussion, however one Last comment..

"No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus)."

Circular reasoning Fyron. Nothing but; this doesn't respond to my argument at all.

I'm going to point out again that the sound BARRIER was named that for a reason, originally. It was proven wrong more quickly than some assumptions, but logical doesn't always equal correct. Especially if you don't have all the data. And if you're dealing with a godlike force, you DON'T have all the data, because almost by definition a god would be able to break the rules of reality.

So the only way to prove it wasn't predicted is to prove it was written afterwards.

Phoenix-D

Mephisto

March 12th, 2003, 12:24 AM

It's a bit sad that you ignored my Last post, Fyron, because I would really like to know what you have to say about my point there.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The Odyssey is, for the most part, visions by various ancient Greek prophets and environmental effects attributed to the Greek gods.IIRC the Ilias and the Odyssey are both "written" by Homer who was surely no prophet and never claimed to be one. He was a poet. There was no prophecy in the Ilis or the Odyssey whatsoever, it was already history. In large parts it is a very good description of various parts of the mediteran a story about how fruitless and destructive war is. The Ilias and the Odyssey are no religious text. True, the Greek Gods have an appearance but they only serve the story, the story is not about them.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?There is some scientific evidence that Jesus has really lived and had some influence around the year 30 of our time. He is mentioned in several different texts, some of them not religious but official roman Messages from Palestine to Rome. As all persons in history without their own coins you have to believe that a source text is valid about the circumstances and persons it reports about. How do we know that Lucius Cotta fought in the Roman-Gallic war? Well, Ceasar tells us so (Liber quintus, 37, (4)) and either we believe in this source or we don't. Just the same for the historical Jesus.
That said, the spiritual Jesus is a matter of believe and again sources. Either you believe it and trust the sources or you don�t. There is no other proof until we invent a time machine.

Many other claims from the bible we cannot prove and some are, as it seems, just wrong and fictions. To say that every part of the bible is true will most certainly fail the test but this is at least not my point.
Maybe we both, Fyron, were talking along different lines. But I got the impression that you rejected the possibility that at least parts of the bible could be right even if we cannot proof it scientifically. And that is IMHO just as false as to say that every part of the bible is true.
There are sources that talked/wrote about Jesus in old books (old Testament) and we have sources that claim that just what was told to happen in these books came through in their time (new Testament). Either you believe in these sources or you don�t. You will never get any harder proof. How could that even be possible? What proof would make you believe a source and what doesn�t? Do you believe in Cesar when he tells us about Lucius Cotta or don�t you? Why?

QuarianRex

March 12th, 2003, 01:15 AM

Fyron:

A mythology does indeed relate the moral values of a culture. Cultures have been extracting moral value out of everything that they can, including myths. Myths are not inherently moral though. They are pre-scientific explanations for the world. Find a dictionary. Look it up.

Your insistance that all myths are moral is a tool to 'prove' that the moral basis of religions, in this case specifically the bible, are myths and so can be easily dismissed. You cannot prove a point by using false definitions. I know that you have not used these exact words but this is the actual implication of your statements.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with. I fail to see the purpose of saying such a thing. All religious mythology was written by religious people. Care to enumerate? <hr /></blockquote>The point of saying such a thing is that historical documentation, if based on religion, is not necessarily myth. While the bible does contain myths (garden of eden, etc.) saying that "Bible = mythology", as you not so eloquently stated, is dismissive and shows your ignorance of the books actual contents.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance. ...and within the realms of ancient comprehension and acceptance. What is your point? <hr /></blockquote>My point is that people having visions and attributing a fortuitous storm to the power of god are events that we can accept within our modern paradigm and do not require belief in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural may be required to justify to results but not to accept that they happened.

If you would stop being so provincial... Is that ever the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you need to learn more about other cultures. Well... the Bible was written in a language steeped with metaphor, and was not actually meant to be taken wholely literally. That is just an error made by people that speak a literal language.
You seem to be quoting a post that I made in the Alien Contact thread. How amusing. Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. This seems to point to your tendancy to argue from points of authority that you don't really understand. As with any document you must know the context of the time in which it was written. Once youn understand how they were saying things you can understand what they are saying. Then you can literally interpret what is said. Its quite like learning the slang of a close dialect. Once that is done you will find many interesting bits. For example, much of the bible is filled with barbs directed at the ruling oppressors of the day.

I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading what I posted, and not what you want me to have posted. And I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading your own Posts so that you understand what people are responding to. I even bolded some of the parts of your quote so that you could see exactly what I was refering to. Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water...

Basically, your error here is a common one of arrogance. Because you believe the Bible, and not other religious works, you refuse to see that the Bible is mythology, just like the Odyssey, the Koran, etc. You have wrongly associated the term with meaning falsehood, because you believe that other religious works are false. You have attempted to belittle them and isolate the work you believe from them to make it unique. Irregardless of any arguments about the veracity of the Bible, it is most certainly not in a separate Category as other religious works; they are all mythology. The term mythology has nothing to do with falsehood.
Where on earth did you dig up this minor rant? Please read my previous Posts and tell me where any of this applies. And who says that I an even christian? I have extensively studied christianity, hinduism, and buddhism and have lesser knowledge of many others. This, if anything, has broadened my understanding and appreciation for all religions. My argument is not that the bible is true while other religious texts are false (where you got this mistaken idea I do not know), but that your attempt to claim that all texts with religious roots (or do you just have something against the bible?) are myth is a false (and cheap) way for you to prove your point (whatever that may be). The term mythology has everything to do with falsehood. The word myth is filled with connotations of falsehood (here is the myth and here is the truth) and you are trying to play that up. I am trying isolate historical religious works from ancient fiction, since you seem to be claiming that they are one and the same.

Throwing the Odyssey into the same Category as the bible, koran, or rig veda is unwarranted as well. The Odyssey was never considered to be a religious work. It was an epic performed by bards (composed by The Bard) and in theatres. It contains religious figures, yes, but is not a religious text. That would be like saying that Marlowe's Faust is a religious text. You are trying to make new categories so that you points can be justified.

If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.

Fyron

March 12th, 2003, 03:19 AM

I am tired of my Posts being wildly misconstrued and also of words being placed in my mouth that I never said (nor typed). So, I am no longer going to respond to any Posts about religion. I will continue participating in the few discussions about non-religious matters in this thread though, as they are actually interesting.

Mephisto:
Actually, the Romans were quite �liberal� as someone else already posted. Give me your money and live as you like. And for that matter, it were different times. The Celts weren�t better or worse in treating their enemies. Heck, they burned the Last warrior to come to a raid to death as a sacrifices to the gods. Better not be late, eh? Maybe we should implement that in classes at College... those Celts were on to something... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k

The Celts did have an egalitarian society for most of their history in which the women and men were fairly equal though. In fact, women were allowed to be chiefs and kings, and I recall that property was inherited through the mother's side, not the father's.

The Celts also did not enslave anyone, unlike the Romans.

Mephisto:
You are correct, �barbarians� is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means �bearded�, which was uncommon for Greeks.BM:
Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them. That's why the long, repetitive, multi-voweled 'trance' words in the Gnostic texts are called 'barbarous names'. They're huge, confusing messes of letters to us, but they were apparently representing some form of chant for the ancient people who wrote them down. Greek, Roman, the point is still there, even if the technical details are slightly off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Barbarian still did not mean savage.

QuarianRex

March 12th, 2003, 05:02 AM

How disappointing.

tesco samoa

March 12th, 2003, 05:24 AM

MY GREAT GREAT.....GREAT Grandparents were once the rulers of Ireland.... 300 BC or 300 AD. I cannot remember exactly...As the documentation is not here but back in ireland

It is as far back as we can trace our family tree on my mothers side...

WOW eh

DavidG

March 12th, 2003, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.

Chronon

March 12th, 2003, 07:36 AM

Since Fyron has left it lying on the ground, I suppose I will pick up the secular humanist banner and carry it for this discussion. Since it's late (almost midnight local time) I'll try to keep these brief.

1) In our modern scientific culture "myth" has a negative connotation of falsehood and superstition - thus the reluctance to associate myth with the Bible. I think Fyron has a a good point about this, though, and I don't think he was trying to be gratuitously dismissive. "Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

2) I think the Bible can be quite a useful historical document (if used correctly and not taken literally on all accounts), especially when corroborated with other sources. The information on the Hebrews and Philistines, for example (Saul, David, etc.) can be very useful in sorting out the history of the Ancient Near East. The Babylonian Captivity is another clearly historical event, as is Cyrus the Great's restoration of the Hebrews to Israel. I recognize, though, that using it as a historical tool is a completely different endeavor than using it for personal salvation (if one believes that is possible).

3) I think the question of reading the Bible literally has actually been quite a problem for theologians and scientists for quite some time. It certainly created tension between Galileo (arguing for a metaphorical reading) and his Jesuit enemies (arguing for a literal reading "the sun moves through the sky") - eventually resulting in his trial. On the other hand, such highly admired theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have urged caution in reading the Bible literally. For example, St. Augustine wrote, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians" De actis cum Felice Manicheo Or Saint Thomas Aquinas, "First, hold the truth of scripture without wavering. Second, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon if it proved with certainty to be false: lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers and obstacles be placed to their believing."

I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).

ZeroAdunn

March 12th, 2003, 09:02 AM

Hey guys: Don't bother with the Mythology thing. I have had this argument with Fyron already, you can't win.

ZeroAdunn

March 12th, 2003, 09:10 AM

and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).
By this statement then, I can assume that the left behind series of books, the movie bless the child, and any other book/play/movie involving any religious figures/ideas is therefore a religios text?

Krsqk

March 12th, 2003, 04:58 PM

Wow, how much can happen in 18 hours... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The Bible is indeed a collection of stories. So what? That is the entire purpose of the Bible: to be a collection of stories to help guide you to develop "proper" morals. That does not do anything to minimize any impact. In fact, that is the impact it has had. I have not forced it into any literary categories where it does not belong; I have merely stated the correct Category where it belongs, religious mythological works.The Bible can hardly be categorized as religious mythological works. The Bible is hardly a collection of stories, either (anyone expecting a storybook and opening to Leviticus or Isaiah or Ephesians will be greatly disappointed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). The Old Testament, in part, is an account of the world's beginnings, the selection of Abraham and his descendants, and the events surrounding that nation. It also sets forth the tenets of the Jewish religion. It also predicts the coming of the Messiah, one who would fulfill the Jewish law and open the way to God for all men through His priesthood. The books of the Minor Prophets, in great majority, are calls to the Jews to repent and return to the spirit of their religion instead of the law (much like the discussion of modern Christianity). The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions). The New Testament begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus, written from four different perspectives for four different Groups of people. It continues with a description of the spread of Christianity and the shift of the church's center from Jerusalem to Antioch. It also introduces the author of the majority of the New Testament, Paul. The next 21 books are strictly doctrinal. They were written to deal with problems, to answer questions, and to exhort believers to stay true to the fundamentals of their faith. The Last book, Revelation, goes back to prophecy.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

[Edit] Oh, and let's get this straight. It's Jonah and the great fish, not Jonah and the whale. *mutters something about details under his breath* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ March 12, 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Chronon

March 12th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Interesting points Krsqk. Here are a few counterpoints for discussion purposes.

Mostly, I think our disagreement comes from an undervaluing of mythology, which in my opinion is critical for the survival of any culture (American mythologies: the melting pot, manifest destiny, equality, etc.). Mythology, in my opinion, has an undeserved bad reputation in our modern, scientific culture - mostly because of its association with superstition (which is what the Enlightenment philosphes called religion). All cultures have stories to tell themselves (ie mythologies) or they wouldn't be unified cultures. In other words, I'm arguing that mythologies are critical to any culture; they are fundamental building blocks of the whole cultural belief system. So, in my opinion, there is no shame in comparing the Bible to mythology, it does, after all lay down the fundamental value system of Christian culture, and that is the basic function of a mythos.

The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions). Good point, and in a metaphorical sense I think "Western Civ" is a secular mythology. It tells us stories about our beginnings that reinforce our value system, morals, and world view.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.Ah, here is the crux of our disagreement. I would argue that Greek religion, in it's time and place, was every bit as accepted as Judeo-Christian religion. It was neither superficial, nor superstitious (unless one believes, like the philosophes, that all religion is superstition). As Thucydides pointed out in The Peloponnesian War, Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial? It is essentially the same as saying that David defeated Goliath because he was favored by God.

Since Greek religion did not have a Bible, per se, Homer's accounts fulfilled some of the same functions. Like the Bible, Homer provides history: Troy was real (I've visited it myself - a nice spot really), and historians think that some of the wars he related were true (Mycenaean civilization fit his descriptions very well). His accounts very clearly describe the heroic warrior ethos (arete) and general religious mythology that any Greek person (regardless of polis affiliation) would instantly recognize. As a tool for cultural diffusion and language standard, Homer worked in a similar manner as the King James Bible.

So, I don't think one should dismiss Greek religion, or Homer, as superficial superstition. Yes, the Bible has other elements to it (Homer never claimed to be the voice of the Gods), but I don't see that the Bible is in any way defamed in a comparision with Greek mythoi, any more that it is defamed by a comparison with the Norse mythoi, Islamic mythoi, Hindu mythoi, or Buddhist mythoi.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 12, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Alpha Kodiak

March 12th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Chronon:
I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).In this area I steer a middle course. The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

I don't believe that the Bible attempted to explain all of the details of the physics of creation to nomadic tribesmen and shepherds with no frame of reference to understand it (perhaps we don't even have sufficient knowledge to completely understand it today), and the six days of creation seem more of a mnemonic device for remembering order than anything else. The important message that Genesis was trying to convey was that creation was an act of God.

I heard an interesting speculation by a physicist who believes in the veracity of the Bible. In Genesis 1:2 there is a description of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. The word in Hebrew for hovering conveys the idea of fluttering like a butterfly. The image of this verse then is the picture of God stirring up the "sea" of matter that He used to form the universe.

An interesting picture, if nothing else.

Aloofi

March 12th, 2003, 08:55 PM

Science its just another religion. You need a lot of faith to believe that the age of a rock can be found.
I'm all for Technology, but Science, as in the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution, looks to me like modern day religions.

QuarianRex

March 12th, 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QuarianRex:
If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.<hr /></blockquote>Not when it's true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif No, seriously, that may have come off as a wee bit snotty. It was not intended as such. It just gets my hackles up when someone calls me an arrogant, ignorant hillbilly (and tries to quote one of my own Posts to do it). Perhaps my response could have been a bit more moderate. Bah, so be it. What's done is done.

Originally posted by Chronon:
Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial?Any time the sh*t hits the fan people look to god (or the gods). Its much easier to blame things on the big man's disfavour that to admit that you screwed up. This is as true today as it was then. There were a lot of people asking why god let 9/11 happen and George W. invokes god in every one of his speeches. This does not mean that north american cultures pay anything more than lip service to any divinity. It is quite normal to hold religion in contempt and still invoke god when you are in trouble.

Originally posted by Chronon:
Since Greek religion did not have a Bible, per se, Homer's accounts fulfilled some of the same functions. Like the Bible, Homer provides history: Troy was real (I've visited it myself - a nice spot really), and historians think that some of the wars he related were true (Mycenaean civilization fit his descriptions very well). His accounts very clearly describe the heroic warrior ethos (arete) and general religious mythology that any Greek person (regardless of polis affiliation) would instantly recognize. As a tool for cultural diffusion and language standard, Homer worked in a similar manner as the King James Bible.Homer may have been a recruiting tool for the greek way of life but that doesn't put it in the same Category as a religious text. That's like saying that the movie Top Gun is an effective instructional tool for learning how to fly a fighter jet. Tis not, but it was a very effective recruitment tool. Using aspects of a religion as a literary tool is not the same thing as being the defining force behind said religion.

Also, the bible itself isn't much of a recruiting tool. Have you ever tried to actually read it? Few have. Most people maintain their faith in spite of the bible, not because of it.

Originally posted by Chronon:
I don't see that the Bible is in any way defamed in a comparision with Greek mythoi, any more that it is defamed by a comparison with the Norse mythoi, Islamic mythoi, Hindu mythoi, or Buddhist mythoi.Because these other mythoi (possibly excluding norse, I don't know enough about it to be sure) are derived from their religious texts. This makes it, theoretically, possible to go back to the text and seperate the myth from the historical accounts. This cannot be done with the Odyssey or with Beowulf because they are purely literary constructs whose religious content is there only as the backdrop for a story. Citing the accuracy of this background only proves that the author wanted the story to be beleivable (which is also why you don't see anyone on 'the west wing' sporting a three foot lizard tail).

Originally posted by Chronon:
"Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).My copy of Websters has this for 'myth':
1. "a traditional or legendary story, esp. one that involves gods and heroes and explains a cultural practice or natural phenomenon.
2. "a fictitious person, story, etc."
3. "an unproven or false belief."
The first definition can easily apply to parts of the bible. The book has numerous myths, parables, etc., all of which fit well within this meaning. The problem is applying this def. to the entire book (especially in light of the other two definitions). Much of the bible is basically a socio-political record of the jews (looking at the old testament here, where much of the debate seems to be based), and not of much mythological interest. Another problem is that the latter two definitions of myth are the more commonly accepted ones and so heavily weight any argument in which they are used.

In short, we would make far more progress in this debate if we found a term to use other than 'myth'. Its meaning is far too biased to be useful.

[ March 12, 2003, 20:17: Message edited by: QuarianRex ]

QuarianRex

March 12th, 2003, 10:29 PM

spoon

March 12th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
[QUOTE]The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.
Unless time was also created by the Big Bang. Then there would be no "before".

Jack Simth

March 12th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Science its just another religion. You need a lot of faith to believe that the age of a rock can be found.
I'm all for Technology, but Science, as in the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution, looks to me like modern day religions.In more ways than you know - when the various dating schemes are all tried on the same rock, they have a very strong tendency to disagree with each other by multiple orders of magnitude.

The 'date' that is most often used for the 'age' of the rock in question is based on the so called 'index fossils' found either in the rock itself or in the same geologic strata. However, the scientists then turn around and use the 'evidence' of the age of the rock to 'support' the theory of evolution, which is circular reasoning, as they used the theory of evolution to date the rock.

Even when the scientists go by one of the other dating schemes - perhaps potassium-argon dating - they will normally run the test numerous times on the same sample, and get widely disparate results, with many of the values returning zero (to within a few thousand years, anyway). However, the testers simply claim that the zero results don't make any sense, and throw them out, levying chages of contaimination on the sample. However, the only reason they 'know' the sample was contaminated is because the result doesn't agree with evolutionary theory, which again is an example of circular reasoning when the rock is then used to support the theory of evolution. The dates aren't experimentally determined, they are selected.

Further, when samples are taken of rocks that formed at a known time (via historical records, such as rocks form the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens) the dates of those samples sent back to the dating laboratory are generally in excess of the known date by several orders of magnitude.

Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.

Aloofi

March 12th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Jack, that was a great post, I encourage you to continuing posting in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .
I just don't like how scientists blame religious people of being "religious" when they are nothing more than another religion.
If just science were neutral the way technology is......

Alpha Kodiak

March 12th, 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
[QUOTE]The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.
Unless time was also created by the Big Bang. Then there would be no "before".<hr /></blockquote>Given the relativistic nature of time, I would not disagree with you. Still, the Big Bang does not address the origins of itself. Even if time originated in the Big Bang (a distinct possibility), something had to start the process.

A side question: for a photon travelling at the speed of light, does time pass at all? I know that time "slows down" as you approach the speed of light, but I am not sure what happens to time at the speed of light.

Mephisto

March 12th, 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe we should implement that in classes at College... those Celts were on to something... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/kAh, better not. Don't want to be at the receiving end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The Celts did have an egalitarian society for most of their history in which the women and men were fairly equal though. In fact, women were allowed to be chiefs and kings, and I recall that property was inherited through the mother's side, not the father's. The Celts also did not enslave anyone, unlike the Romans.You might be right about equality. But the Celts did have slaves, a quick link is here:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/yesss/Celts/AncienCelt/celts.htm

If your argument is more on the line that the did not enslave as much people as the Romans: Well, the Romans didn't enslave everyone else either. In most cases only those who resisted them. Many Gallic tribes were not enslaves (make this almost all). They took hostages but that was not slavery.

Ruatha

March 12th, 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
Didn't the monks erase Aristoteles works and use the pergament for prayer books instead?
Thereby eradicating valuable knowledge, some of which has been independetly discovered so late as in the 20:th century.They did not. In fact, they copied his works preferentially because of their divine implications, i.e., that everything in the universe is striving for its perfect state, etc...

If we are talking about the European dark ages ~500-1400 then war/invasion/disease were all primary causes of technological stagnation, not the church! The church didn't really start to take control until the 1200s etc, and that was after the Europeans were able to manage a bit of stability. The church in 1500-1600s is more what you guys are referring to - but even to some degree, it was the thinkers who were stuck on Aristotle and not open to new possibilities that kept new thinkers from making a bigger splash then they did...<hr /></blockquote>Ahh, yes I remembered wrongly .
It was Archimede's works they erased and used to write again on.
Most notably the Principles that now exist only as a palimpsest.
And it was propably around 1300 if I remember correctly. (Can't bother to do a search tonight, G'night)

(Edit Spellling)

[ March 12, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Jack Simth

March 13th, 2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Jack, that was a great post, I encourage you to continuing posting in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .
I just don't like how scientists blame religious people of being "religious" when they are nothing more than another religion.
If just science were neutral the way technology is......Technically, evolution isn't proper science, as it doesn't follow the scientific method:
1) Observe something
2) Hypothisize about what could cause it
3) Test Hypothesis via experiment
4) Check results against Hypothesis
5) Refine Hypothesis to better match results
6) back to 3, repeat indefinately

Evolution and cosmology can't follow this - one cannot test events that happened in the past, and any time scale on the order of thousands of years can't be done due to scientist death, and certainly could not be repeated. Evolutionary theory and modern cosmology use time scales on the order of millions of years. Thus they are not truely scientists. Likewise, even assuming the big bang actually happened, it was a one-shot deal, and cannot be repeated.

Wardad

March 13th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Actually, Science is the Art of Repeatable Results. Since the results are repeatable they are open to use or abuse by anyone.

The scientific method is used to determine what is repeatable and help in turn predict what should be repeatable. Observation, theory, and experimentation all have their place in this pursuit.

Evolution is a theory. It is useful for explaining observation and maybe even predicting results.

Generally, a theory is wrong if it fails once. Often a theory is incomplete and does not encompass all variables. That's how we learn about other factors that also produce repeatable results.

Ex. Evolution theory may not account for third party intervention (Divine or Human) or even the nuclear core of the Earth increasing it's radiation. OR DOES IT???? Bwahahahaahaaaa.

Often in applied science an exacting degree of perfection is not needed. Sure mass increases with the speed of light, but I'm not going to lose a few pounds by sitting on the couch.

Some of the sciences are not true sciences. I think science got such a good name that every related subject wanted to cash in on it.
Take psychology, PLEASE! Ok now, it can benifit from the scientific method and statistics, but in application it is heavily affected by the whims and perceptions of the subject and observer.

***
Religion depends on prayers and the whims of deities and/or demons (not repeatable).

What kind of deity would give us a universe with repeatable results that we can use/abuse? Maybe the same one who would give you a free will, watch your actions, and sit in judgement of your choices.
***

Accepting religion is like declaring this exsistance a simulation. Accepting science is like learning the simulation.

[ March 12, 2003, 23:50: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Wanderer

March 13th, 2003, 01:51 AM

*bites*

Jack:
I'm going to be slightly rude. Can I apologise in advance?

Your 'scientific method' is a litle too naive for my liking.

The important steps are that to stand up a theory must make predictions of the universe that can be tested and checked by others. How you a arrive at a theory is not really important - some theories are created in a moment of inspiration, others after years of careful observation.

It doesn't require that you perform an experiment that repeats the big bang to theorise that it took place, only that you explain what observations you would expect to be able to make in a universe created by a big bang.

Friedmann used Einstein's general relativity to argue the universe must be expanding to avoid gravity condensing it into a point. Einstein thought this was a complete fallacy, and thought his cosmological constant (a property of space that causes it to repel - i.e. a sort of anti-gravity) was right. Then Hubble made observations that showed the universe was expanding...

...the natural extrapolation is that if the universe is expanding it must be smaller the further you go back in the past.

Many scientists have tried to come up with alternatives to the big bang - for example, some have postulated a fractal universe. None have had any success so far.

I recommend Joao Magueijo's Faster Than The Speed Of Light for anyone who wants to read up on some modern big-bang physics.

I'm not going to touch evolution again with a 60ft barge-pole http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Addendum: give me a powerful enough telescope and I can look at parts of the universe as they were several billion years ago. Why experiment when you can observe the real thing?

[ March 12, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Wanderer ]

Fyron

March 13th, 2003, 03:30 AM

The 'date' that is most often used for the 'age' of the rock in question is based on the so called 'index fossils' found either in the rock itself or in the same geologic strata. However, the scientists then turn around and use the 'evidence' of the age of the rock to 'support' the theory of evolution, which is circular reasoning, as they used the theory of evolution to date the rock. That is wrong. The ages of rocks are calculated from the half-lives of and relative levels of Carbon, Uranium, and a few other substances in the rocks. This has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, and is in no way circular reasoning.

Originally posted by Mephisto:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Maybe we should implement that in classes at College... those Celts were on to something... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/kAh, better not. Don't want to be at the receiving end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Well... all of my lectures have at least half of the enrolled students gone each day. Maybe just sacrifice those that consistently fail to show up? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k ofc

You might be right about equality. But the Celts did have slaves, a quick link is here:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/yesss/Celts/AncienCelt/celts.htmFirst off, that links to a page discussing the Irish Celts, and as such, is not representative of Celts in general. With that being said, I had never heard anything about Celts owning slaves. I guess they did not own very many of them. Not that the Romans owned huge amounts; they did have a higher proportion of slaves than the Celts would have had though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If your argument is more on the line that the did not enslave as much people as the Romans: Well, the Romans didn't enslave everyone else either. In most cases only those who resisted them. Many Gallic tribes were not enslaves (make this almost all). They took hostages but that was not slavery.The Romans did not enslave everyone; that was not my point. Like the Greeks, their slaves were mostly prisoners of war, those that could not pay off their debts, and people sold into slavery as children by their parents so that they could pay off their debts (though I think the Last one was not very common). And, of course, it was not racial slavery, but economic slavery. They did not enslave whole races of people.

[ March 13, 2003, 01:37: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Chronon

March 13th, 2003, 08:20 AM

Orignally posted by QuarianRex;
In short, we would make far more progress in this debate if we found a term to use other than 'myth'. Its meaning is far too biased to be useful.Absolutely, I won't argue with you on that point, QuarianRex. Now...what term to use? I'm afraid my thesaurus gives me even more terms with connotations of falsehood: lore, fable, legend, and fantasy. Any ideas?

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The Romans did not enslave everyone...their slaves were mostly prisoners of war, those that could not pay off their debts...it was not racial slavery, but economic slavery. They did not enslave whole races of people.Technically speaking, you are absolutely right Fyron, but if you substitute ethnic for racial, then the Romans did enslave whole Groups of people. At the end of the Third Punic War (146 BCE), for example, the Romans destroyed the city of Carthage, and sold all 55,000 remaining Carthaginians into slavery.

The Romans had many slaves from their many conquests, and much of their economy depended on the work of slaves. The large agricultural estates in Sicily, for example, and the silver mines, were all worked by slaves. Their roads, aquaducts, and public buildings were built on the backs of slave labor, and then there were the gladiator slaves who died for entertainment.

On the whole, even though they were taken in battle, the Romans treated their slaves poorly. Here's a quote from my Western Civ textbook, "Roman slaves were scarcely considered people at all but instruments of production like cattle. Notwithstanding the fact that some of them were cultivated foreigners taken as prisoners of war, the standard policy of their owners was to get as much work out of them as possible during their prime until they died of exhaustion..." Considering the ubiquity of slavery throughout the Ancient Period, this is one area where the Middle Ages (very few slaves) weren't so dark.

Fyron

March 13th, 2003, 10:16 AM

Absolutely, I won't argue with you on that point, QuarianRex. Now...what term to use? I'm afraid my thesaurus gives me even more terms with connotations of falsehood: lore, fable, legend, and fantasy. Any ideas?The problem here is that mythology does not denote falsehood, and does not actually connote it either; that is a misconception perpetuated by a Christian-dominated culture that has butchered the term so that it can be used by those that do not have a strong grasp on the intricacies of the English language to deride all non-Christian myths, while leaving Christian myths alone (accompanined by not using the term myth to describe Christian myths). Being a myth has no bearing on the effect/meaning of a story.

... just so there is no confusion, this is an argument about language, not about anything really religious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 13, 2003, 08:16: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

QuarianRex

March 13th, 2003, 10:55 AM

Re-read my earlier post that the quote was based on. Labeling something as a myth does alter its meaning. Regardless of where the meaning of the term was 'tainted' (the church being the most likely culprit) the fact remains that it does have negative connotations of falsehood.

Chronon

March 13th, 2003, 05:21 PM

QuarianRex and Fyron, I think you both make good points on this one. Pinning down terminology is a very messy business because it's so flexible, and so "user" driven.

QuarianRex has a point, because unfortunately (in my view) mythology does have connotations of untruth, or half-truth, in our society. One of the meanings listed in my dictionary for mythological is "fabulous, imaginary," and one of the listings for myth is "one of the fictions or half-truths forming a part of the ideology of a society." I do not know the origin of these negative connotations, but I have seen them applied to Christian mythology (by scientists - especially on evolution/creation) just as often as I have seen them applied to Homer. That, I think, is why QuarianRex had such a negative reaction to your categorization of the Bible as mythology.

On the other hand, my dictionary also has the following definition for mythos: "1. Myth. 2. Mythology. 3. The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people, characteristically transmitted through the arts." This defintion has no negative connotations, (for me anyway) and seems pretty close to the mark when it comes to the Bible and other religious texts (I'll set aside the issue of Homer, for now), and it serves as the basis for my previous argument.

So, you're right Fyron, we are talking about language. But I think it could be resolved, especially if you clarify your position. Do you mean to say that Christian religion is myth in the fabulous, half-truth sense, or are you making more of a cultural point that Christianity and the Christian mythos should be given equal value in our society with other religions and their mythoi? If the latter is the case, I would wholeheartedly agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PS Cool new avatar QuarianRex (although I did like the historical one) - is that a particular character from fantasy or SF?

[ March 13, 2003, 15:25: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Fyron

March 13th, 2003, 07:29 PM

So, you're right Fyron, we are talking about language. But I think it could be resolved, especially if you clarify your position. Do you mean to say that Christian religion is myth in the fabulous, half-truth sense, or are you making more of a cultural point that Christianity and the Christian mythos should be given equal value in our society with other religions and their mythoi? If the latter is the case, I would wholeheartedly agree. My point was that Christian mythos are no more or less valuable to Christians than the mythos of other cultures are to that culture.

Andr�s

March 13th, 2003, 08:28 PM

You're also forgetting a fundamental difference between science and religion.

Science accepts its own flaws and limits.
A theory is the current best explanation, and can be disproved or enhanced by new research, observation, mathematics examinations, and experimentation.
Most laws have several conditions and parameters within which are valid.
For example Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied to sub-atomic particles or near-light "relativistic" speeds, but are still applicable to most "normal" mechanics that rule our everyday world.

On the other hand religion (not only christianity) is based on texts written about two thousand years ago, and not subject to change.
Limitations are only defined by the "faith" and judgement of the reader.

The most fanatic believers will blindly accept all scriptures as the literal absolute truth, and deny anything that contradicts them.
Others will be more liberal, even if they believe the scriptures are truth, they will know that the scriptures were written as a guide for the people of their time, and considering how they saw the universe, that many of its teachings are timeless truths but some are not applicable to the modern world.
Science is not opposed to religion, but complements it.

As a matter of fact, many renowned scientists do believe in god and actively practice a religion.

ISTR some of the scientists researching about the Big Bang saying something like "We're not trying to deny that god created the universe, we're trying to determine how He did it."

Phoenix-D

March 13th, 2003, 08:32 PM

"Science accepts its own flaws and limits."

Before anyone jumps on this I'd like to point out the scientists are human too, and this is in the ideal world. Of course, not everyone does this easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Still, one of the IMO most important attributes for a scientists is being able to admit that you've been proved wrong.

Phoenix-D

QuarianRex

March 13th, 2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Chronon:
PS Cool new avatar QuarianRex (although I did like the historical one) - is that a particular character from fantasy or SF?You would have to ask David Gervais (or maybe I will). I yanked it off of the avatar emporium. I liked the old one to, it reminded me of a monk or somesuch, but this one was calling to me.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that Christian mythos are no more or less valuable to Christians than the mythos of other cultures are to that culture.No argument here. The problem I had was in refering to the entirety of a religious text (of any religion) as myth, as opposed to pointing out the mythical elements of a text. I was never arguing for the dominance of the christian viewpoint. I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.

Jack Simth

March 13th, 2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is wrong. The ages of rocks are calculated from the half-lives of and relative levels of Carbon, Uranium, and a few other substances in the rocks. This has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, and is in no way circular reasoning.
Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.

Phoenix-D

March 14th, 2003, 12:21 AM

"Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307."

Simple method where this sort of thing can work.

You've found X fossil in several rock formations. They all date to approximately the same age. Now you find another X fossil in another rock formation. You can't date these rocks directly, because they don't have enough of the proper elements (dating based on nuclear decay doesn't work if there's nothing to decay). So you can say that the rocks are -probably- about the same age as the other rocks holding X fossil.

Immanuel Velikovsky- what I've heard of him was been..somewhat less than favorable. The words junk science comes to mind.

Phoenix-D

CEO TROLL

March 14th, 2003, 12:38 AM

DAMN!!! I am not needed on this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 01:39 AM

QR:
I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.

Jack:
Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307. I never said that there were not scientists that get things wrong. But- esp. in the modern day- the vast majority of scientists do not do what you said they do, they date things in the most correct and accurate manner available to us.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.My contradiction needed no sources, actually. I could have spent time finding them, but they would not have contributed anything to my post in this case that my own words did not contribute. Extra verification would have been overkill, as it is a basic fact, not an obtuse one.

[ March 13, 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Krsqk

March 14th, 2003, 01:53 AM

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 02:20 AM

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.The thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED. Only to people that think that the dictionary definition is the absolute authority. Dictionary definitions often do not address complex terms very well, and also tend to use (sometimes wrong) connotations as denotations. They also often completely miss some uses of more complex terms (most often literary terms- such as mythology).

Chronon

March 14th, 2003, 05:18 AM

This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.Please bear in mind that any communication relies on both the sender and receiver to work. You may not have intented triviality when you used the term mythology, but we have seen here that it has those connotations for many readers.

So, I really don't think anyone is putting words in your mouth; they were simply interpreted differently than you intended. Please try not to take it personally; I think about 90% of all communication has this problem. In my pessimistic moments (like when I'm listening to the latest news on Iraq for example) I wonder if it is possible for us to truly communicate with one another, or if we're all just wasting our breath. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 05:21 AM

The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.

Chronon

March 14th, 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.My point was more specifically about our mythology discussion, where it was more about an interpretation than a misreading. But, I won't deny that sometimes Posts are misread as well.

I guess what I was trying to say (perhaps not directly enough) is that if you really want to convince someone of your point of view, taking the reader to task is usually counter-productive. Why not simply rephrase you argument, and try again?

[ March 14, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Chronon

March 14th, 2003, 06:41 PM

Back on the science versus the church theme...

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. I personally do not believe this is necessarily true, but I did at one time(mostly because of the creation/evolution/big bang controversy). So, what do you think?

dogscoff

March 14th, 2003, 07:26 PM

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science.
Not at all. Given the amount of religiously devout scientists now and throughout history (many of whom have been listed in this thread) I don't think you can argue that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

IMHO the spiritual side of humans (including "God") is derived from human consciousness- it comes from within individuals. it is as individual as each person is, so I find the idea of an external institution (ie a church/ religion/ holy book) handing out "ready-made" spirituality to the masses laughable.
Despite this I think religion can still lead to spiritual awareness, but only as a tool for encouraging self-improvement, self-understanding and mental discipline. Maybe this is how religion was originally intended. However it's use through the ages as a tool for manipulating the masses has reduced its usefulness in this respect, and imo for most people religion actually blocks their spiritual development, because they believe they have nothing to contribute to it- they are told that someone else has already figured it all out and written it down in a book for them.

To wrap this up, I'm not really sure what I believe- it's easier to say what I don't believe (see footnote)- but I do believe this:
In time, scientists studying all those tiny sub-atomic thingummies and time/space and wierd forces and energies will eventually find themselves coming to conclusions about consciousness that have been known to spiritualists and so on for thousands of years.

Footnote. For the record, I do NOT believe in any of the following:
-Any god or pantheon.
-ghosts, angels or leprechauns.
-re-incarnation and remote viewing,
-Crystal healing & astrology
-Roswell aliens.

Jack Simth

March 14th, 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by: Krsqk
From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.
Krsqk -
You are exactly right - a date of 1 million for a Mt. St. Helens rock historically known to have been formed two decades ago would still be "correct" if the listed marig of error was 1 million years or more, as that would include the proper age of a little over two decades - but they don't come back that way. Instead, the results often come back more along the lines of one milion years +/- one hundred thousand years, a decidedly false result.

Originally Posted by: Imperator FyronThe thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.
Fyron -
Krsqk was referring to correct, you were referring to accurate, which are two very different things. Correct would refer to the entire range of values - one million years +/- one million years is correct if the real age is 20 years, but it isn't very accurate. However, like I told Krsk, that isn't the returned result in the majority of cases. For objects of known age that get tested, the testing method is usually demonstrated false. Yet you seem to hold that the method holds for large ages? Fine - based on what evidence? If it doesn't work on objects of known age, clearly the method hasn't been properly calibrated. If it cannot work on objects of known age, clearly the method cannot be checked at all for accuracy. How then can you hold to it?

CEO TROLL

March 14th, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Chronon:
Back on the science versus the church theme...

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. I personally do not believe this is necessarily true, but I did at one time(mostly because of the creation/evolution/big bang controversy). So, what do you think?The Scopes Monkey trial was a contrived controversial case. It was done to bring fame and fortune on the hosting community.

It shall be honored in the TROLL CAVE of FLAME.

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Jack:
Correct would refer to the entire range of values - one million years +/- one million years is correct if the real age is 20 years, Krsqk -
You are exactly right - a date of 1 million for a Mt. St. Helens rock historically known to have been formed two decades ago would still be "correct" if the listed marig of error was 1 million years or more, as that would include the proper age of a little over two decades - but they don't come back that way. Instead, the results often come back more along the lines of one milion years +/- one hundred thousand years, a decidedly false result.You can not use radio-isotope dating on objects that are only 20 years old. It was never designed to be used on such "young" objects, so stating that is completely irrelevant to the testing system. The eruption of Mount Saint Helens is not a valid test.

If it doesn't work on objects of known age, clearly the method hasn't been properly calibrated. Radio-isotope dating is not meant to work on "young" objects. There are always inaccuracies in the levels of isotopes in any object. When there has been a very long time since the object was buried, these inaccuracies tend to average out, so you get relatively more accurate results. But, you can not accurately use any radio-isotope dating on objects that are less than a few thousand years old (this threshhold changes depending on what the half-life of the particular element is). That is not how the testing is designed to work. An example of this is that if an object is exposed to fire, it gets a lot more Carbon-14 in it, so it throws off the calculated age based off of Carbon-14 dating. This is part of the reason why Carbon-14 is not a good isotope to use. Another reason would be that its half-life is only a few thousand years, so it can not be used to test the age of objects that are millions of years old. This is why elements like Uranium are used for older objects; Uranium isotopes ahve very long half-lives. But, Uranium can not be used for dating of objects that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, because of the inherent inaccuracies of radio-isotope dating. This is why legitimate scientists do not use it to date "young" objects. There are some other elements that can be used for objects of different possible ages, but I do not remember what they are at the moment.

Keep in mind, I do not know the exact half-lives and such, so don't bother pointing out that I am off on the values a bit. Take my post in relative terms, and there will not be a problem.

Chronon:
My point was more specifically about our mythology discussion, where it was more about an interpretation than a misreading. But, I won't deny that sometimes Posts are misread as well. Yes, there can be misinterpretations. But in this case, it was a misreading, not a misinterpretation.

I guess what I was trying to say (perhaps not directly enough) is that if you really want to convince someone of your point of view, taking the reader to task is usually counter-productive. Why not simply rephrase you argument, and try again?I tried that, actually. Whenever I tried it, the same people misconstrued my words again to make them mean what they wanted me to say, instead of what I had actually said.

Jack Simth

March 14th, 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You can not use radio-isotope dating on objects that are only 20 years old. It was never designed to be used on such "young" objects, so stating that is completely irrelevant to the testing system. The eruption of Mount Saint Helens is not a valid test.
In which case there are no truly valid tests of the method, as historical records cease to become useful for such things after times that are still "young" in terms of testing radioscopic methods . . . which would imply that you are taking all the radioscopic dataing methods on faith. Wouldn't that make you religious, Fyron?
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Radio-isotope dating is not meant to work on "young" objects. There are always inaccuracies in the levels of isotopes in any object. When there has been a very long time since the object was buried, these inaccuracies tend to average out, so you get relatively more accurate results. But, you can not accurately use any radio-isotope dating on objects that are less than a few thousand years old (this threshhold changes depending on what the half-life of the particular element is). That is not how the testing is designed to work. An example of this is that if an object is exposed to fire, it gets a lot more Carbon-14 in it, so it throws off the calculated age based off of Carbon-14 dating. This is part of the reason why Carbon-14 is not a good isotope to use. Another reason would be that its half-life is only a few thousand years, so it can not be used to test the age of objects that are millions of years old. This is why elements like Uranium are used for older objects; Uranium isotopes ahve very long half-lives. But, Uranium can not be used for dating of objects that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, because of the inherent inaccuracies of radio-isotope dating. This is why legitimate scientists do not use it to date "young" objects. There are some other elements that can be used for objects of different possible ages, but I do not remember what they are at the moment.
There are about a dozen that are used, essentially anything that decays in a radioactive fashon could theoretically be used for radioscopic dating. However, besides each specific method's individual problems, they all have a particular set of problematic assumptions lying at their cores:

1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from. Without these, determining the age via the half-life and the amounts of present parent and daughter products is impossible. These values are assumed, although normally based off of modern values (which may or may not be valid, but there is no way to tell)

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
More of the parent element produces a false young age, less produces a false old age. More of the daughter element produces a false old age, less produces a false young age. If you assume that a rock has been around for a long time, not being observed, how can anyone be certain that this migration hasn't happend? You can't.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero. They levy charges of leaching or contamination on that portion, and throw it out. However, if the specimine collectors can't tell a contaminated sample from an uncontaminated sample, how can one tell in the lab which sample is not contaminated? They differentiate based on assumed old ages, and throw out any results that don't match that assumption. Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?

[ March 14, 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

March 14th, 2003, 11:32 PM

In which case there are no truly valid tests of the method, as historical records cease to become useful for such things after times that are still "young" in terms of testing radioscopic methods . . . which would imply that you are taking all the radioscopic dataing methods on faith. Wouldn't that make you religious, Fyron?
No, as they are based off of sound scientific principles. We have no direct evidence of the existence of electrons. But, we still know that they exist. This has nothign to do with faith, or being religious in any sense of the word.

Jack Simth

March 14th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, as they are based off of sound scientific principles. We have no direct evidence of the existence of electrons. But, we still know that they exist. This has nothign to do with faith, or being religious in any sense of the word.You appear to have missed the second half of my post.
Let me quote myself:

There are about a dozen that are used, essentially anything that decays in a radioactive fashon could theoretically be used for radioscopic dating. However, besides each specific method's individual problems, they all have a particular set of problematic assumptions lying at their cores:

1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from. Without these, determining the age via the half-life and the amounts of present parent and daughter products is impossible. These values are assumed, although normally based off of modern values (which may or may not be valid, but there is no way to tell)

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
More of the parent element produces a false young age, less produces a false old age. More of the daughter element produces a false old age, less produces a false young age. If you assume that a rock has been around for a long time, not being observed, how can anyone be certain that this migration hasn't happend? You can't.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero. They levy charges of leaching or contamination on that portion, and throw it out. However, if the specimine collectors can't tell a contaminated sample from an uncontaminated sample, how can one tell in the lab which sample is not contaminated? They differentiate based on assumed old ages, and throw out any results that don't match that assumption. Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?


[ March 14, 2003, 21:38: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

spoon

March 15th, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

1) Initial values of parent and daughter elements
These values haven't been observed in the distant past that the object comes from.

2) Non-migration of both the parent and daughter elements.
While specimin collectors try to get samples from the field where this assumption is reasonable, the testing facility virtually always throws out much of the data from every sample because the ages resulting from that data are essentially zero. You will likely find a better argument over at talkorigins.org. I think your three points are addressed here:
isocron dating (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#genwrong)

In the future, after you make one of these Posts, you can do a search on talkorigins and cut-n-paste your findings in a reply to your own post. Not only will it save others the time from having to look it up themselves, but it will inflate your post count! Everyone wins!

-spoon

CEO TROLL

March 15th, 2003, 12:43 AM

quote:
Accepting their assumption is an act of faith, yet these methods are commonly used as valid. That would make the people doing this people of faith, and thus religious (after a fashion) wouldn't it?I am a Troll of faith. I believe the refrigerator light turns off when I shut the door. I believe it because I have tested the door switch and peaked by prying the magnet strip aside. I rest easy with this faith.

Those of little faith have limited themselves. My faith has led to believing in things working when I can not see them. My faith has led to building complex computer chips.

Andr�s

March 15th, 2003, 12:52 AM

You cannot measure the diameter of a hair with a measuring tape with lines every centimeter.
Different instruments must be used to measure different orders of magnitude, and every measure has an error interval.

Scientists know Radio-isotope dating is not an accurate measure and can only give an approximate result. They admit that, that is honest and gives more value to the result.

It's not a matter of faith to say "We estimate this rock is 10,000,000 y.o."

It would be a matter of faith it they said "It is written this rock was created 10,000,000 years ago.

Fyron

March 15th, 2003, 01:22 AM

You appear to have missed the second half of my post.No, I was on my way out, and did not write a full reply. I was just clarifying that it had nothing to do with faith as used in a religious sense.

Jack:
Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
You cannot measure the diameter of a hair with a measuring tape with lines every centimeter.
Different instruments must be used to measure different orders of magnitude, and every measure has an error interval.

Scientists know Radio-isotope dating is not an accurate measure and can only give an approximate result. They admit that, that is honest and gives more value to the result.

It's not a matter of faith to say "We estimate this rock is 10,000,000 y.o."

It would be a matter of faith it they said "It is written this rock was created 10,000,000 years ago.Actually, there is little more to say after what Andres said. No legitimate science has ever claimed that radio-isotope dating is an exact science. It is an estimation, based off of thorough experimentation and calculation as to the half-lives of the relevant isotopes. This is why using radio-isotope dating is not a matter of faith; it is based off of verifiable data. It is not a matter of: the Bible says so, so it is true. That is accepting something on religious faith. You are trying to use the connotations of the word faith to equate "believing in" science to believing in religion. This does not work, because there is no ground of comparison between science and religion. Scientific belief is always open to being wrong. If you find evidence contradicting religious beliefs, the evidence has to be wrong. The religious beliefs don't change to reflect accurate new evidence; scientific beliefs do. I do indeed have faith in science, but it is not at all like faith in religion. I can easily look at the data collected by scientists to see if their conclusions make sense. What religion does is to say, "this is how it is, accept it." I do not simply accept scientific suppositions as fact. In order to believe them, you have to accept religions suppositions as fact, as there is no possible evidence or experimentation to prove them. Religious "faith" is accepting something because that is what they say it is like. Scientific "faith" is accepting suppositions that have been based off of careful experimentation. It is accepting that there are people out there with more scientific knowledge than myself, and trusting them to know how to run experiments. It is being able to examine their data, and also to be able to run their experiments myself to see if I get the same results. All of this is lacking in religious "faith", so your argument that by me believing scientific principles equates to me being religious is baseless.

[ March 14, 2003, 23:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Cheeze

March 15th, 2003, 09:05 AM

I have to make mention of this supposed inability of religion or religious people to accept change or contradictory evidence. If that were true, there would have been no Judaism, since it links to a founder in Abraham as having turned to Yahweh first. Christianity was built on the introduction of "new evidence or theory" to Judaism, and Islam was a radical change from either of those two but also claiming some connection. The Protestant Reformation began with Martin Luther challenging Rome by presenting a series of theses that argued inside of Christendom. Hinduism is replete with examples of individuals changing the religious practices (Krishna stands out), and Buddhism ran counter to much of the prevailing Hindu or other beliefs, whether you talk about Siddhartha, Bodhidharma or Padmasambhava. And there are instances where the leading individuals in one or another religion found reason to change to another through personal conviction, not coercion.

And it also goes to say that many scientists have, in their day, been attacked, ostracized or ignored by the other scientists because what they presented ran counter to whatever the current theories and understandings were. Many scientists, like artists, gained much of their appreciation in times after they first published or made known their ideas, sometimes after their death.

Fyron

March 15th, 2003, 11:07 AM

My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.

Baron Munchausen

March 15th, 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question: Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith? It was expounded by a guy named Darwin as a possibility in the 19th century, and immediately accepted by the scientific community -- without proof. Ever since then it has been repeated and repeated as fact and anyone who dares to point out any flaws in it is subjected to the same sort of persecution that you see in religious disputes -- character assassination, blacklisting (getting people fired or breaking contracts), etc. It really looks to me like evolution was the 'new faith' invented to replace the old faith, and that's why it cannot be allowed to fail. Which makes it not science. We had a whole thread about it a while back, you can probably find it with the forum search.

[ March 15, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Andr�s

March 15th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Evolution theory is science, and it's based on observation.
It's not repeating what makes it valid, it's that it is still the best explanation consistent with most available data.
There are many fossil evidences of evolution of many species and examples of natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) in action in living species.

Chronon

March 15th, 2003, 07:54 PM

I think what Dogscoff had to say about his philosophy of religion is relevant here. As is usual with these discussions, we are operating on a number of different levels. As Dogscoff argued, there is a huge difference between organized religion (the Church) and a personal spiritual journey. I would argue that the path to enlightenment is a sort of personal progress (although the Zen masters would whack me around the shoulders for conceiving of it in this way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

Moreover,in the spirit of the Devil's Advocate (and post-modernists' advocate, too), I would like to toss out the postulate that progress itself is a modern myth. On one hand we have modern medicine, computers, cd players, SUV's, and Quick Marts. On the other hand, we have the atomic bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and totalitarianism (impossible without modern technology). Are we really improving ourselves?

About twenty years ago I would have answered a resounding yes. Now I'm not so sure...

Andr�s

March 15th, 2003, 11:41 PM

Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Introduction/Evidence.shtml)

Fyron

March 15th, 2003, 11:43 PM

Chronon:
ethnic cleansingWe have _always_ had ethnic cleansing. This is nothing new.

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Baron Munchausen :
This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a questionIt is only repeated because people keep missing my point. I have no choice but to reword it, in hopes that they can see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith?As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

Gryphin

March 16th, 2003, 12:14 AM

Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?

spoon

March 16th, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?One theory:
1) Nothing
2) Nothing

The follow-up:
1) What was there before God?
2) Where did God come from?

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Introduction/Evidence.shtml)Wrong example. The issue is not which theory is 'better'. The issue is that evolution is NOT a proven theory. I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory. This is the instant assumption of the believers in Scientism, though. Anyone who challenges evolution must be a religious fundamentalist.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 12:55 AM

Electron theory is not a "proven theory" either.

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.
Ah, but they are NOT different. There is such a thing as science but it is a long, long way from providing a complete world-view. To fill in the gaps a series of myths have been erected over the past couple of centuries. Gradualist evolution is one of them.

As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.Gradualist evolution is much broader than the 'evidence' which is claimed to prove it. It incorporates some, some, observations of the real world, but it glosses over major gaps and in fact defines the issues in ways that makes proof essentially impossible in any practical sense.

Variation within species has been observed, yes. Evolution of one species into another has NOT been observed. And it cannot pratically be expcted to be observed, since it takes millions of years. How convenient.

The so-called 'fossil record' is so fragmentary that they're not even certain if they can identify species. They are usually talking about families (the next level up in taxonomy) when identifying fossils. And there are millions of years and thousands of miles between the examples cited in an 'evolutionary line'. The horse for example, is supposed to have evolved on Asia, Europe, and North America over 30+ million years. What is the 'proof' that these widely scattered, and structurally very different, fossils represent one line of evolution? The High Priests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H experts say so! Oh, that's great.

See:
The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

This was bad enough. But in the Last few decades another branch of science has come up with outright contradictory evidence. Genetics is now advanced enough to compare the chromozones of various species and see how similar they are. It turns out that structurally similar species which have so-far been classed as related may have far less genetic similarity to each other than to completely unrelated (in the 'scientific' taxonomy system) species! The various species of frogs for example, don't have the same number of chromozones, let alone a high degree of similarity in genetic content in those chromozones.

Where does this leave the comparisons of fossils? All you have to go on in a fossil is 'gross anatomy' -- structure. Which is now known to NOT be related to genetic makeup. The 'fossil record' is now useless as any sort of 'proof' of evolution. We have no way of knowing the relationship of the various fossilized creatures that we find scattered all around the world.

Which brings us back to the problem. Evolution cannot be proven. Yet it is accepted, enforced even, by the modern scientific community. It's an article of faith, the new faith of Scientism. And as I said before, identifying the new faith as a faith and not a science doesn't mean I am a supporter of the old faith. This is not an either/or. It's a NOT.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 01:33 AM

If your rant (other than the whole Scientism junk) actually represents the full situation, then the theory of evolution will be changed to accomodate the inconsistencies. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. In fact, this serves to corroborate everything I have said, not disprove it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I said that if scientific theories are proven conclusively to be wrong, science will evolve.

The theories proposed by Newton were changed after people like Einstien came along. There was a lot of resistence, but it did happen. These new theories have been changed some in recent years due to new evidence. The changes met with resistance. I never once said that science changed at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of conclusive evidence to prove something wrong.

Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Going back to the religious aspect: religions (primarily in reference to the fundamentals of the religion, mostly as evidenced by the religious scriptures of that religion) do not change like science does to include new evidence. They stay the same, and declare the new evidence to be wrong. Science is not equatable to religion.Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.

Suicide Junkie

March 16th, 2003, 01:42 AM

I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory.So what we have is a choice between:
a) Who knows, it could be anything.
vs
b) So far "evolution" is the closest.

One is useful, the others are not.
(A) Is giving up. It does not help.
Instead, you go with (B) until something better comes along.

All we need is someone with a better idea.
Where better means:
a) matches the already-observed phenomena.
b) can be used to predict future observations more accurately.
c) is simpler. (Nice but not nessesary, of course)

For evolution in particular:
I have no doubt that it will change. The problem is you can't expect instantaneous results. Also, if you want to get rid of evolution, you need to BUILD a better, competing theory instead of just trying to demolish the old theory.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:54: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 02:07 AM

I didn't see any indication that the debate was about 'usefullness'. I saw Fyron asserting that there was some huge difference between 'science' and 'religion'. What I wanted to point out is that a close examination of some fields of 'science' shows them to be religious in character. So this big distinction is not so clear as he would like to think it is. And anyway, I'd sure like to know what 'use' an untestable theory is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Sure we've got a lot of practical benefits from various biological sciences, some of which might have been developed while trying to investigate evolution, but what have we gotten from evolution specifically?

P.S. Who says you have to have a new theory before you can dispose of the old one? Why can't I disprove the phlogiston theory of heat until I develop the radiation theory? It's easy to do. Grind a couple of wheels together and see that they never stop heating each other up by friction.

[ March 16, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Which is why I assert that evolution is not science. It does NOT change, it asserts that any contrary evidence is wrong.No, it does not assert that any and all contrary evidence is wrong. The contrary evidence is relatively recent, and the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going.

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 02:31 AM

In this case, Fyron, it is you who are wrong. Publicly doubting Darwinian evolution is fatal to academic and scientific careers. The quickest references would be Online, but you could find many more if you were interested. Try visiting http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-censorship.htm for some examples. There are many less formal situations with the same intent as some of the examples given here. For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor who would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution. I suppose I could go look that up. Or you could if you were interested in contrary evidence to your own beliefs.

[ March 16, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie

March 16th, 2003, 03:31 AM

For example there was a recent thread on Usenet about some biology professor would would not allow students to graduate unless they asserted that they 'believed in' evolution.That prof could use a smack upside the head http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Requiring a real understanding of it is certainly not a problem. Without learning the strengths and weaknesses of the current theories, what chance do you have of improving things?

I'm not a chemistry major, but I'm sure there must have been some good uses for the phlogiston theory. Chemical reactions are what it is good for, rather than mechanical things. ISTM that "Phlogiston concentration" would relate to the degree of oxidation.
It was not correct, but it was not totally wrong in a practical sense.

Andr�s

March 16th, 2003, 04:29 AM

Can you quote or post me a link to this new evidence that supposedly disproves evolution.

Most of what I've found ar the same scientifically wrong points raised once and again by creationists.
And now some who claim not to be creationists, although they repeat their points, and yet fail to provide any reasonable explanation.

I any case I fail to see a motive for "evil evolutionists" to censor the truth and contiue their lie, as some claim.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 04:30 AM

BM:
A few sad stories are not indicative of the whole of the scientific community. Scientists are people, after all. People make mistakes.

The theory of evolution is not a valid sample of science as a whole from which to base such sweeping statements about science being a kind of religion.

Evolution is not wrong. The evidence used in the past may well have been flawed, but so what. The currently accepted theory of evolution might not be 100% accurate, but neither were Newton's laws of gravitation. They only represented a special case of relativity. Once we learn more about genetics and such, we will be able to formulate a more precise theory of evolution. All evidence points to some sort of evolutionary processes. We of course do not fully understand them at the present time, but this is not a grounds to fully deny evolution. It is also not grounds to call science a type of religion. Religious beliefs are based off of: "We say it is this way, so it is this way". Scientific beliefs are based off of: "We see this evidence. We have a theory that the evidence seems to corroborate, amongst other theories. But, this one fits the evidence better than the others, so this theory looks like the best to use. Once we get more evidence, we can re-evaluate our theory, to see if we were right or not."

Since scientists are people, they are allowed to make mistakes. They try to minimize their errors, but they can not catch them all.

Gryphin

March 16th, 2003, 04:36 AM

I don't have nearly enough education or background to contribute to any of the arguments proffered here. One of the most frequently used words in this thread is
"Theory"
I thought I might offer an idea of what "Theory" means. In short it means that the concept has not been proven.
http://thinkertools.soe.berkeley.edu/agents/Isabel%20Inquirer/HTML/c_theory.html
Maybe everyone knows this but it seems a lot of the theorys here are being presented as fact. Then again this could be my lack of understanding and could be atributed to "he's off his meds again" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 04:42 AM

Gryphin, when used in Scientific terms, a Hypothesis is an unproven assumption about how something will work. A Theory is a hypothesis that is backed by proper evidence and experimentation, so it can be taken to be true. A Law is something that has been proven to be correct in all cases, and can be taken as a universal fact (until we find more situations in which the law could apply, and we have ot test it out to see if it is true, or if it is a special case of the bigger picture, like Newton's laws of gravitation and force).

This is another example of how dictionary definitions are not good to rely on for complex terms. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Andr�s

March 16th, 2003, 05:00 AM

SCIENTIFIC METHOD ( http://www.concannon.net/wilmer/Wilmer's%20WebPage/SCIMETH.htm )

Edit: Link refuses to appear like a link.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 05:06 AM

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-censorship.htm is a page featuring some relatively recent (in the Last decade) examples of the scientific establishment refusing to allow criticism of evolution. You can probably do some reasearch Online and find other sources to prove that these people exist and what is describe really happened.

http://www.alternativescience.com is the main site, which includes some pages on 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' a major book which lays out in fairly simple terms how the Darwinian picture of evolution doesn't work and never has.

http://www.alternativescience.com/shattering-the-myths-of-Darwinism.htm is the direct link to the book outline and contents.

It's not about 'new' evidence. It's about the fraud of asserting that the old evidence was adequate. It wasn't. And anyone with academic or scientific credentials will be run out of their jobs for attempting to point this out. The author of this book, a professional journalist rather than an academic, was subjected to considerable attacks, including the usual character assassination and behind-the-scenes blacklisting.

Fyron:

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?

Suicide Junkie

March 16th, 2003, 05:31 AM

Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.

Gryphin

March 16th, 2003, 05:43 AM

Fyron, thanks
Andr�s, thanks, :: saves link, goes and takes meds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif :::
I'll try to asorb that in the morning.

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.Yeah, anyone that questions the party line is run out of the field. Kinda hard to conduct research when your colleagues refuse to talk to you, reject your articles in peer-reviewed publications, and get you fired from your lab/university.

Stephen Jay Gould faced some fairly hostile reactions for merely proposing a slight modification of the theory. It's an on-going controversy though a bit less heated than it was. Do a web search on 'Punctuated Equilibrium' and read about it.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:51: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie

March 16th, 2003, 05:50 AM

There is also this link:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html

PS
Baron:
So, have you googled it lately?
And do you have a link to a good anti-PE page on it?

The supershort SJ summary:
When you have huge herds intermingling, they all get shoved back to the average due to the effects of sexual reproduction and gene mixing, and there is a lot of stability.

When some Groups get cut off from the mainstream, they have a chance to become specialized from the main pop. Living in a unique environment, having a relatively small population (less averaging out of mutations, inbreeding, etc), being a group of relative freaks getting kicked out, and anything else you find to throw in.

Then if they get reconnected to the main swath of territory and happen to have an advantage, they take over in a few thousand years. Bam! If they don't, too bad, another group will get a shot later on; we have many millions of years and acres to work with.

Reminds me of the recent trend towards mixed "races" of people (and the generation of the Groups in the first place), and the whole killer bees thing. Also of the world wars (uberrace & all), but that's more politics and technology than just biology.

[ March 16, 2003, 05:07: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Chronon

March 16th, 2003, 06:00 AM

Just a few historical points to throw into the frying pan:

1) Darwin was not the first to propose evolution of species. Lamarck, Chambers, and a number of others wrote about it decades earlier than Darwin. They had different ideas about how evolution worked, though. Darwin's revolutionary idea was natural selection - the process by which he thought evolution worked - not the concept of evolution itself.

2) The concept of evolution does have a history, and it has evolved http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif over time. Lamarck's evolution by adaptation lost out to Darwin's natural selection. But not right away. Most European (and especially British) scientists of the late nineteenth century believed in directed evolution. In other words, God directed how evolution progressed. They did not accept Darwin's random variation idea. Our discussion of evolution versus creation would seem silly to them because they saw evolution and God in the same evidence. Our modern theory is actually a combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwin's theory that did not become the generally accepted theory until a few decades into the twentieth century. So, evolution has not been a monolithic, never-changing dogma. Yes, it has become a kind of secular religion to some people in our society, with unfortunate results. But it has changed, and probably will again.

We cannot really know for sure if evolution is true because the time period is too long - we haven't been around to actually see it. As Fontenelle once once wrote, "All philosophy [he meant natural philosophy, which we would now call science] is based on two things only: curiosity and poor eyesight...the trouble is we want to know more than we can see." (Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, 1686) So, we try to do our best with the evidence at hand. Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma.

Andr�s

March 16th, 2003, 07:20 AM

Baron, I was looking for the supposed scientific evidence, not complains about censorship in a yellow-press pseudo-scientific page.

Most of what I see there is what I said, complains about censorship, about a work called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism". They seem to trying to sell me a book but looking at the contents page is enogh.

Those complains don't sound realistic at all. It's curious that it only quotes single words and short phrases and not longer complains.
What people were most likely complaining about was about deceiving people disguising those lies as true science.
And I really can't believe that no one actually refuted at least the most outright lies in that work.

Most of the points are repetitions of the same wrong arguments creationists have been using for decades, not something new (even if the authors claims not to be a creationist) and it looks that the only intention is to sell me a book.

The link I had posted about Evolution Vs. Creationisms is still valid conters most of those points with serious scientific yet easy to understand explanations.

The only new evidence that appears to be new genetic analisys that prove that some species are not so genetically similar as they were thought to be.
I'll have to investigate but I suspect that we're talking about a few exeptions that don't alter the big picture.

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 08:43 AM

BM:
Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.I know what you are trying to do, and it is not going to work.

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.No, not at all. You are simply not understanding what I have posted. Your Posts about "scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high" are wrong, and I see no need to repeat myself again as to why.

That page on scientific censorship is so steeped in biased propaganda and half-truths that I fail to see how you can actually believe what it says (unless, of course, you are only looking for other people with your not-quite-correct beliefs in an attempt to prove that you are not wrong). It has very little value, and I am sorry for you if you were duped into purchasing the book it advertises.

The page on shattering Darwin's theory of evolution does nothing to shatter his theory. Almost none of the quotes actually have any good scientific backing. It hurts your case more than helps it.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty? The theory of evolution does NOT say anything about how life came to be. It says that today, blah blah blah. It makes absolutley no mention on the origins of life. The two issues are wholely unrelated. Darwin (and Lamark et all) did not mention the origins of life in their theories, and the currently accepted theory of evolution does not either.

I have constantly said that there is no certainty to the theory of evolution. I never once said that "it is right because it is science". That is you placing words in my mouth. That, or not understanding what I posted. Or maybe seeing what you want me to have posted and going from there, instead of what I actually posted.

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.

Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma. I'll have to investigate but I suspect that we're talking about a few exeptions that don't alter the big picture.If only I could have said it in such a simple fashion, BM would not have gone off on such an unfounded tangent. Oh well.

Andr�s

March 16th, 2003, 04:11 PM

I agree that there may be another factor that complements natural selection as amechanism of evolution.
About the evolution of birds, you have example of biped dinosaurs that used their arms for balance and of some that were covered with feathers, then you even have the famous Archaeopteryx.
Yes is uncertain exactly how they achieved flight, but what would be your alternative explanation, intelligent design?

Andr�s

March 16th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Intelligent Design - Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)

Ruatha

March 16th, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Take birds for example: Evolution seems to be a slow and linear process. Most probably (but not necessarily) there wasn't a 4-legged-animal and the next breed had wings. So we need to have some steps in between the 4-legged-animal and a flying creature with wings. But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying). As far as I know we still have to find a fossil that shows us such a creature. Note, this does not say that "Natural Selection" isn't working or in effect. It just points out that it has a hard time to explain why, when you optimise your sun watch, you get a digital watch and not an optimised sun watch.That isn't to hard to explain.
Take animals living in trees who are good to jump from tree to tree. For them the step to better gliding and eventually wings would be beneficial.

spoon

March 16th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Mephisto:
The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Here are some example of reptile-bird transtions:
Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird)

Phoenix-D

March 16th, 2003, 06:07 PM

"But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying)."

Two words. Flying squirel. That's the sort of intermediate form you'd likely see..glide from tree to tree, climb, repeat. Could be a major advantage depending on what kind of predators were below.

Phoenix-D

Baron Munchausen

March 16th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Well, this is going nowhere but I'll toss out my position one more time before giving up.

The Shattering the Myths of Darwinism page is a summary, not the book. Maybe you should try reading the book before claiming it's full of inaccuracies? You can probably get it at a library like many other books and not have to pay for it. I don't claim that everything the author included in the book is correct. The author does not claim that everything he included in the book is correct. After discovering that evolutionary science was not anywhere near as complete and certain as we are taught in school he sought out the various alternative views offered over the years, many being suppressed by 'orthodox' science, and catalogued them. He is merely reporting what he found. And it's entirely possible that he did not explain some of these things as well as he should have. He is a journalist, not a scientist. He does give a lot of sources you could track down. Again, if you bothered to read the book instead of dismiss the summary.

And so what if those arguments have been used by creationists? The motive of the arguer has no bearing on the validity of the argument. This is the most blatant sort of logical mistake. You see why I don't think the community of believers in 'science' are really rational or scientific?

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

Flaws in the Theory of Evolution by Evan Shute (Craig Press, 1961)

Fyron:

I give up. You flat out deny what I say in the face of proof and deny you are denying. Then you distort what I say and claim I am distorting you. Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'. There it is quoted right over your own distortion, and you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim. Evolution is not about 'how life came to be how it is'? Then what is it? Isn't Darwin's famous book titled 'The Origin of Species'?

Anyway, I see now why you shouldn't confuse idealogues with facts. I have better things to do.

[ March 16, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

QuarianRex

March 16th, 2003, 08:47 PM

BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.

As far as evolution being impossible to actually observe, well that's not quite true. Scientists have been studying bacteria and viruses for many decades (longer actually but they didn't really have the tools). So long as you study something with a high enough rate of reproduction (and short enough lifespan) aspects of evolution can be seen in a reasonable amount of time. This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

Krsqk

March 16th, 2003, 10:33 PM

This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

Reptiles -> birds: There are more fundamental differences than just legs/wings. Most reptiles have 3-chambered hearts; most birds have 4-chambered hearts. Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart, or did the fourth one just happen all at once? Scales and feathers have no structural similarity, and even come from different genes. In fact, many of the "similarities" between any given pair of orders or families are found in completely different genes. There's nothing to suggest a mechanism for this "gene-hopping."

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.Yet this is exactly what happens from kindergarten through graduation in nearly every school across the country. Evolution is science; anything else is religion; let's not examine the evidence to see if parhaps there could be two interpretations. Why don't we start by teaching kids objective science and let them evaluate the evidence later? You know, the old "Teach them how to think, not just what to think" sort of thing?

Creationist bias/non-objectivity: Every evolutionist has just as much at stake in the debate as any creationist--his worldview, his life's work, his vocation.... There is just as much vitriol, hatred, and lack of objectivity coming from the evolutionist side as has been attributed to the creationist side. Whatever they want to say, it still comes down to "We have science, and you don't." The implication is that their science is objective and pure as the wind-driven snow, while their opponents are blinded by their religion and irrational thinking. In reality, few evolutionists are able to accept that there is another interpretation of the evidence we see and that they don't hold absolute truth. Some merely remain silent; some prefer to "beat 'em with the science stick" until they back off or shut up.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution. The only basis for calling it "no theory" is if one has already rejected creation/intelligent design as a theory. There seems to be a widespread fondness for tossing creation based on the half of the evidence with which it has difficulty, while conveniently ignoring the half with which evolution has difficulty. Maybe a better way of stating that would be this: Evolutionists love to pass off creationist arguments by saying, "No, the evidence really means this," while not admitting the possibility of alternative interpretations of evidence which has been interpreted to support them.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 16, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

spoon

March 16th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

<hr /></blockquote>Observed instances of origin of new species can be found here:

talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

Also suggest reading this page, which describes five major misconceptions about evolution:

talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

I encourage you read the entire talk origins faq, and post to talk origins if you really think you have Evolution beat. Then get back to us with your results.
-spoon

Andr�s

March 16th, 2003, 11:25 PM

I didn't find anyone defending a "no-theory", or an alternative third theory.

All I links I could find were supporting some variation of creationism. That name is discredited so now they avoid using it, but they present the same case, perhaps not a literally biblic creationism, "intelligent design" and "guided evolution" are just other names and variants of creationism.
Most times they use another wrong theory, the young-earth theory to support them (if you read the links posted here you'll find the correct explanation for every one of the supposed flaws uncovered in evolution, do we need to copy and paste every one here?)
And ALLWAYS involve an "intelligent designer" or some other name to replace God.

The objective of presenting them as alternative scientifically valid theories, is to disguise religion as science and be able to teach in public schools that are supposed to be lay in the US (and BTW also here in Argentina) that this "intelligent designer" exists.
I other words, to teach students that the God existence is scientifically proved.
+

Fyron

March 16th, 2003, 11:54 PM

BM:
Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'. I was not quoting anything there. Quoting you would have involved placing it in quote UBB tags. I did not distort anything there. In fact, you never said anything about "how life came to be how it is". I do not see it in any of your Posts.

you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim.No, because _you never said that phrase_. It was made-up "quote" (though not really a quote of anything, as it is not a quote), not a quote of you.

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.You do realize that I said that the theory of evolution is currently undergoing major re-evaluation, right? I never once said that the theory of evolution is set in stone, and that is how it is. You seem to think I have argued that, when I haven't. In fact, everything I have said leads to "if it is proven wrong, it will be changed to accomodate new evidence/experimentation".

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.Exactly what I have been saying all along. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heartKrsqk, please do not get into that half-organ garbage again. It did not help your case in that old thread, and it will not help here. Bringing it up will only hurt your argument.

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.Yes we do. There are dinorsaur fossils with legs and half-wings instead of arms. Actually, legs to wings is wrong. It is arms to wings that is the correct path.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?That is a distinct possibility.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution.And this is done constantly. Pure creation with no evolution always falls short because there is no valid evidence supporting it. The only "evidence" is false theories and incorrect analysis of the evidence. This is not to say that the current theory of evolution and all of the currently held paths of evolution are absolutely correct (as they probably are not), just to say that pure creationism is not supported by any valid evidence that we have.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay?I haven't done anything of the sort so far, so what makes you think I would start doing it now?

Mephisto

March 17th, 2003, 02:39 AM

The one problem "Natural selection" has as an evolution theory is how to explain how different species came to be.
Take birds for example: Evolution seems to be a slow and linear process. Most probably (but not necessarily) there wasn't a 4-legged-animal and the next breed had wings. So we need to have some steps in between the 4-legged-animal and a flying creature with wings. But now we have the problem why a creature, no more 4-legged but no bird either, is more fit to survive then the extreme ones (legged/flying). As far as I know we still have to find a fossil that shows us such a creature. Note, this does not say that "Natural Selection" isn't working or in effect. It just points out that it has a hard time to explain why, when you optimise your sun watch, you get a digital watch and not an optimised sun watch.

Suicide Junkie

March 17th, 2003, 06:02 AM

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. Did you really mean to type that?
Of course a true theory is better than a false one!
However, you are not going to find absolute truth in this life.

- "No theory" does squat by definition.
- "No theory" is not being advocated because we have something BETTER.

- Newton's laws are false. They explain a bunch of things with varying degrees of accuracy. They are better than the previous theories. They are vastly better than no theory.

- Evolution is false. It explains a bunch of things with varying degrees of accuracy. It works better than the previous ideas in the area, and is easily better than no theory.

What I'm trying to say is:
a) Absolute truth is not nessesary.
b) Rome was not built in a day. Better and better theories have and will continue to be thought up and replace the old.

raynor

March 17th, 2003, 06:06 AM

I'm looking for the title/author info for a book on scientific creationism. I think the theory is called Progressive Creationism. It was a fairly interesting theory in that it tries to allow for Creationism while at the same time allowing for and Old Earth.

It's unfortunate that separation of Church and State prevents schools from teaching Creationism. As theories go, Evolution vs. Creationism both seem equally plausible.

What about seeding by aliens? That doesn't mention religion. I think it is an equally plausible theory. Granted, I don't believe in aliens. But that's no more a major hole for this theory as any in Evolution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Andr�s

March 17th, 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
It's unfortunate that separation of Church and State prevents schools from teaching Creationism. As theories go, Evolution vs. Creationism both seem equally plausible.That is a lie.
Creationism can't be proved scientifically, unless you say God does not have to respect scientific law making any analisys invalid.

Evolution fits most scientific data,
Finding a supposed incinsistency in evolution (seems the argument creationists use all the time), that can be easily explained does not prove creationism is correct.

It's a good thing that only religious schools can teach religion.
What creationists want is an excuse to introduce children to religion in public schools.

[ March 17, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

Fyron

March 17th, 2003, 06:27 AM

What about seeding by aliens? That doesn't mention religion. I think it is an equally plausible theory. Granted, I don't believe in aliens. But that's no more a major hole for this theory as any in Evolution. Life on other planets must exist. The odds of there not being life anywhere else in the universe are infintesimal.

Of course, life on earth having been seeded by aliens is preposterous. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

raynor

March 17th, 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]Life on other planets must exist. The odds of there not being life anywhere else in the universe are infintesimal.
Of course, there is life on other planets. But they're all human. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thus, I don't believe in aliens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

March 17th, 2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]Life on other planets must exist. The odds of there not being life anywhere else in the universe are infintesimal.
Of course, there is life on other planets. But they're all human. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thus, I don't believe in aliens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>I am not going to comment further, as your smiley indicates that you are joking, and not serious about that all humans thing.

Andr�s

March 17th, 2003, 06:47 AM

The main porblem with the alien theory is that it does not explain the origin of life.
It at best moves its origin to somewhere beyond earth. Where did the aliens come from? Or is alien just another euphemism to refer to God without naming Him?

Andr�s

March 17th, 2003, 06:59 AM

And please repeat what is supposed to be the major hole in the theory of evolution, so we can cut and paste the correct scientific explanation to that lie, since you're obviously not reading the pages we link to.

[ March 17, 2003, 05:05: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

raynor

March 17th, 2003, 09:36 AM

The major problem with evolution is that the fossil record doesn't support it. At best, you can support micro-evolution--changes within one species. But there just isn't satisfactory fossil evidence to support the supposed transitional species. Without any evidence for macro evolution, you are left with waiting a million years. With a whole this large in evolution, creationism is equally valid.

Fyron

March 17th, 2003, 10:15 AM

What do you say of the fossils that are of dinosaurs with half-evolved (I would have used developed, but that word does not fit very well in this sense) wings?

Pure creationism has no valid evidence at all. Evolution has some valid evidence.

Your distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution does not show the theory of evolution to be false. "Micro" evolution is actually good evidence supporting the theory of "macro" evolution, because it is one of the things necessary for "macro" evolution to be possible. A theory is, after all, the best available model that explains the evidence at hand. As I have stated repeatedly, the current theory of evolution is undergoing re-evaluation, and could be not 100% accurate. This does not prove that evolution is wholely wrong, only that our current model is flawed. Once all of the evidence can be taken into account, the theory will be adjusted to fit. This happens in science constantly, and will happen with the theory of evolution.

The evidence we have supports evolution, and not pure creationism. Please stop just saying "evolution vs. creation". That is a bad distinction to make, because the two do not actually speak of the same events. Creation is a hypothesis about what happened at the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a theory that _does not_ make any conjectures as to what happened at the beginning of the universe. If you refuse to believe this, I am sure I can find you an exact quote on the theory of evolution to prove that it does not speak of the beginning, only what happens now, and in the distant past. They are not actually mutually exclusive, because they do not address the same issues. It is hypothetically possible that both are true. I think you are making the same mistake that a lot of people do in associating evolution with an anti-thesis of creation.

raynor

March 17th, 2003, 11:40 AM

Very simply, the fossil record does not support macro evolution. In order for macro evolution to hold water, there must be an equal or greater number of fossils showing intermediate-species transition steps. This evidence just doesn't exist.

Mephisto

March 17th, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What do you say of the fossils that are of dinosaurs with half-evolved (I would have used developed, but that word does not fit very well in this sense) wings?Quote replay: Please show me. I never ever heard of these. As far as I recall from my bio professor there are no such fossils.

General:
Archeopteryx: This fossil is exactly NOT an indication how reptiles become birds. It is already a creature able to fly and hence is subject to natural selection in his �habitat�, i.e. will be improved to a better bird. It doesn�t show us what gain a creature without usable forelegs and not able to fly had above birds and hence why wings were invented. We can guess but have no fossil prove for it up to now. Look here:

�On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils.�
and
�GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible�. (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird )

People, not everyone that points out weak spots in the �natural selection� theory is a creationist. I�m not, for all it matters. It just means that there may be other �forces� that drive evolution that we have not yet discovered. Maybe nature likes to jump every now and then with the gene pool and new species evolve. We don�t now. But keep asking and thinking of other possibilities! That�s what science is all about.

Andr�s

March 17th, 2003, 03:51 PM

I agree there might be some missing factors in evolution and a few little details that might need to be fixed or filled up. But overall the theory proves to be consistent with current knowledge.
Unless you are a fanatic believer, (claiming creation must be literally as it is written in Genesis or whatever religious text you beileve in) there's nothing wrong in considering that God might be one of the missing factors and that this was just the mechanism He used to create the modern shape of life.

Up no now I haven't heard of a 3rd theory.
The only alternative theory I've heard from people who deny evolution is creationism or some attempts to make a compromise between evolution and creationism.
Nothing that does not involve some kind of divine intervention.

Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today.

Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds.
Some scientists argue it could not have flown, others that it must have been a bad flier, limited to flap from tree to tree.

I don't have time to search now, but there are some examples of non-flying dinosaurs with feathers, that apparently were first developed for heat insulation.

The main answer of the "lack of transitional fossils" argument is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#transitional

And the explanation of rarity of these fossils and more details.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Mephisto

March 17th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today.
Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds.It is surley not wrong. It might be incomplete. That's the point.
And again, Archeopteryx is not a good example because it has already fully developed wings. The missing link would be a creature in between legs and wings. And such a fossil we have never found up to now. Archeopteryx shows us, that reptils and birds are related to each other but Archeopteryx is already quite on the "bird" site.

Krsqk

March 17th, 2003, 05:50 PM

since you're obviously not reading the pages we link to.I assume, since you've been posting links to talkorigins, that you have some idea of the vastness of the site. Be patient. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'm assuming that you actually wanted me to read the links, not just shift-click them so they'd change color on my screen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Pure creationism has no valid evidence at all. Evolution has some valid evidence.Pure creationism would not leave evidence of origins. There's not going to be a big digital clock stuck in the ground somewhere that says, "6184 years, 2 months, 3 days, 13 hours, and 28 minutes since creation." Or, "God was here." Creation doesn't purport to be scientifically provable (I get this odd feeling of deja vu every time I say that). It does claim that all the evidence we see is a result of post-creation activities. Is there any way to falsify that? No, since there's no way to scientifically falsify creation. Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next. Whether or not creation is true, there will never be any "evidence" for it.

Chronon

March 17th, 2003, 08:07 PM

I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).

The whole evolution versus creationism debate, in my view, is cultural. As Andres has pointed out, the issue that gets most people fired up about this is what to teach in school. Since the Scopes trial, it has been portrayed as a stark dichotomy between religion and science. As we have noted here in this forum, this is a false distiction. I think what we are arguing about is which epistemology should be primary in our cultures: scientific or religious. In other words, when trying to answer the ultimate question of life the universe and everything, do we use the scientific method (of course we know the answer is 42 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) or do we consult the Bible, Koran, Sutras, Zen masters or other spiritual/religious sources?

I, personally, think the two sources can be complementary - especially in one's own personal, individual journey through life. But what is being contested in our culture is which has the authority to define truth, science or Christianity (in the USA anyway - I doubt this is much of an issue in Japan). So, there is a lot at stake, and it's no wonder that sometimes the relative merits of a theory that we know is incomplete have been exaggerated to the point where it has become a secular religion.

For our purposes, then, I would propose that we stop emphasizing the evolution versus creation argument, and start defining our positions along the lines of natural selection versus intelligent design (or whichever theory applies).

Fyron

March 17th, 2003, 11:05 PM

Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next. I didn't do that.

Fyron

March 18th, 2003, 02:31 AM

People, not everyone that points out weak spots in the �natural selection� theory is a creationist. I�m not, for all it matters. It just means that there may be other �forces� that drive evolution that we have not yet discovered. Maybe nature likes to jump every now and then with the gene pool and new species evolve. We don�t now. But keep asking and thinking of other possibilities! That�s what science is all about.
This is precisely what I have been saying all along.

QuarianRex

March 18th, 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
The major problem with evolution is that the fossil record doesn't support it. At best, you can support micro-evolution--changes within one species. But there just isn't satisfactory fossil evidence to support the supposed transitional species. Without any evidence for macro evolution, you are left with waiting a million years. With a whole this large in evolution, creationism is equally valid.Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a fossil? A creature has to die in mud and then be covered in mud before the scavengers move in (simplified, I know, but you get the point). There are millions of species that will never have a fossil record due to their environment. For example, a million years from now there will not be any fossil record of the buffalo (or just about any mammal currently living in australia). That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Overall, we should cosider ourselves lucky that we have the fossils that we do. It is ludicrous to expect a member of every species to kindly travel to a mudpatch and drown itself so we can fill out our historical record. We work with what we have.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Fyron

March 18th, 2003, 03:35 AM

Another way to get fossils is for the animal to get trapped in a tar pit. But, that is even less likely to happen than mud. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Alpha Kodiak

March 18th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Chronon:
I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).
The difficulty of this debate is that how you view the evidence is based upon your world view. Either you believe that a supernatural power exists or not. As I have stated before, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God (or any other concept of a supernatural power) by natural means. That leaves us at an impass.

Since my world view includes God, I cannot accept an account of how things came to be as they are that doesn't include His involvement. This could mean instantaneous creation, guided evolution or something of both, but cannot in my view be entirely a result of random chance.

For the person whose world view does not allow for the supernatural, the only possible explanation is some variant of random chance. There may be a variety of possibilities there, as well, but in the end, it had to be random chance.

Thus both sides of the debate are locked by their world view. Neither can be convinced unless they are convinced to change their position on the unprovable fundamental assumption -- the existence or non-existence of a supernatural power.

Chronon

March 18th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.

Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process?

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.

Alpha Kodiak

March 18th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Chronon:
Well said, Alpha Kodiak, that does seem to sum it all up.

Personally, I cannot accept a Christian god, but I recognize that there is more to the universe than we perceive. I think that perhaps there is some room in the middle if one's spiritual leanings are more Eastern. I think it is possible to conceive of a universe that is directed by the Tao (or some such path, way, energy, or universal harmony) that does not necessarily involve the Supernatural with a capital S. Perhaps nature itself is directing the process?

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it.Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would say that other cultures/ideas may introduce other possible interpretations, but in all cases a persons view of spirituality leads them toward a particular set of conclusions.

Fyron

March 18th, 2003, 10:35 PM

But I digress. In our American culture, dominated by Christianity and secular science, the debate is just as you've described it. It is quite unfortunate that that happens.

Andr�s

March 19th, 2003, 01:10 AM

The creation of the universe, the formation of our galaxy, our sun and our planet, the geological age of earth, the origin of life are all theories that are no part, and not necessary for the theory of evolution. As a matter of fact many of those were already accepted theories in the times of Darwin, not made to afterwards to support his theory.
The only reason they are all put in the same bag, is that creation explains all of them at once.

Anyway I agree that no one here seems to be defending pure creationism.
We all seem to agree that there were species that disappeared to be replaced by more "evolved" species.

So as Alpha Kodiak suggested, let's discuss the mechanic of that "evolution".

Saying evolution is based on "random chance" is a simplification that might be misinterpreted.
Yes, evolution requires random variation, genetic drift, some modern theories even include an eventual hopeful mutation.
But the base of evolution is not that randomness, its the natural selection that happens next, a cruel method that separates good changes from bad changes, by their chances of surviving and if applicable their chances when contending for a mate.

If you're a believer I see no problem why you cannot accept that God is pulling the strings behind random variation + natural selection.
Then perhaps you want to call them God's variation + God's selection, but you'd be basically talking of the same concept. Just the same way that human conception is considered a miracle of God, even if it's been explained in detail from a biological/medical point of view.

QuarianRex

March 19th, 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
For the person whose world view does not allow for the supernatural, the only possible explanation is some variant of random chance. There may be a variety of possibilities there, as well, but in the end, it had to be random chance.Not necessarily. It's not necessarily a matter of chaos vs. the Hand of God (or what have you). I read a book called Non-Zero by Robert Wright that looks at evolution (all evolution, biological, mental, cultural, etc.) from the perspective of game theory.

For those who don't know, game theory can be broken down into two parts, zero sum and non-zero sum. Zero sum games (or anything else) occur when the success of one side equals the failure of the other (eg. sports, wars, etc.). Non-zero sum is when the victory for one side is a victory for all (eg. the astronauts on Apollo 13 were playing a very non-zero sum game when they were trying to figure out how to get back to earth alive). His premise is that all things tend toward greater and greater complexity and that those complex systems that operate in a non-zero sum capacity are the ones that survive and prosper (in the long term).

He applies this concept to evolution, cultural development, etc., showing a fascinating trend in all complex systems. He does a very good job of showing that life itself has a direction though not necessarily a divine one.

Its a suprisingly good read. Wright has a conversational writing style that conveys what might otherwise be dry material.

Krsqk

March 19th, 2003, 07:24 AM

I would agree that all of us seem to accept some degree of change--i.e., the flora and fauna we see today are not necessarily identical to their predecessors. Such an idea isn't contrary to Biblical creationism, either; the Bible only says things would bring forth after their "kind." As taxonomy isn't a natural science, but a man-made classification, it's rather hard to say exactly where the line would be drawn. I would say that "kind" demands similarity. *bum bum bum* "Which one of these things doesn't belong..." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Out of a dog, a wolf, a coyote, and a cat, I think the cat would be a different kind. Except maybe in some sort of metaphysical way, the same way we all are manifestations of Puke.

Following the same line of thought, then, the usual "cheap" reply to the intelligent design argument doesn't hold water--the "there's all sorts of systems that any freshman engineering student could design better" line of thinking. If things are quite possibly different from how they were originally, we don't know what the originals were. It also makes sense to design something which can continue to work even after some loss of functionality.

Along the same lines, the apparent old age of the earth may either be actual, or the result of conditions at the creation. For one, Biblical creation requires a mature creation--trees and plants bearing fruit and seed; man fully grown and able to marry, walk, talk, learn, and work from day one (actually Day 6, if you're picky http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )... God wouldn't create baby Adam and baby Eve and toss them a sack of seed and some garden tools and say, "Get to work, dinner's in an hour." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif For another, climatic and atmospheric conditions at creation could have been majorly different from how they are now, including "constants" way out of line from today's numbers.

From the creationist perspective, macroevolutionists aren't bad scientists--they just are misinterpreting the evidence from their own worldview. No falsehood is accepted without some amount of truth--no thinking person accepts something without rationale. Intra-species change, and to some extent, speciation does occur. From my view, evolution takes that truth and extrapolates it far beyond where it holds true--that all life came from a common ancestor (or two or three, etc.).

I also agree that the terms of the debate do come down to one's worldview--either natural force or supernatural force. You may quibble over which natural forces or supernatural forces do the causing, but there isn't an in-between. Put differently, it's a battle between materialism and "spiritualism," for lack of a better word. If you only accept what can be scientifically measured, you will interpret many things differently from one who accepts things out of the realm of science.

I cannot accept, based on my worldview, that God would use natural selection as a mechanism to accomplish His creation. 1)There are more efficient means to create, such as creating things the way you want them right off the bat; 2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it. That is not the God of the Bible; and if such a God is responsible for creating the world in such a manner, He may as well be a natural force. He is not interested in the plight of the puny inhabitants on the earth; we are no more than pawns to fulfill the designs of creation (and let's not be arrogant and assume we're the culmination of all life).

Now for some quotes:
He does a very good job of showing that life itself has a direction though not necessarily a divine one.Ahh, but then it's still a question of material or immaterial--the same old worldview debate.

Just the same way that human conception is considered a miracle of God, even if it's been explained in detail from a biological/medical point of view.While accepting the biological/medical point of view, the "miracle" is not seen as merely conception; rather, it is the joining of a new soul with a newly-created body. Of course, one cannot be a materialist from that viewpoint. A strict materialist would only refer to it as a "miracle" in a colloquial, metaphorical sense of the word.

The bottom line is, worldview is the determining factor in how related evidence will be interpreted.

dogscoff

March 19th, 2003, 01:18 PM

2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it.
Well... except for that bit where he remodelled the world by killing practically everyone and everything on it in the great flood.

Except for fish. Fish did ok...

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it.
Well... except for that bit where he remodelled the world by killing practically everyone and everything on it in the great flood.

Except for fish. Fish did ok...<hr /></blockquote>The Christian God is a very violent one and according to the Bible has killed many, many people to get His points across. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QuarianRex

March 19th, 2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
1)There are more efficient means to create, such as creating things the way you want them right off the bat; 2)No God who cares about His creation would use death as a means to accomplish it. That is not the God of the Bible; and if such a God is responsible for creating the world in such a manner, He may as well be a natural force. He is not interested in the plight of the puny inhabitants on the earth; we are no more than pawns to fulfill the designs of creation (and let's not be arrogant and assume we're the culmination of all life).1) Not necessarily. One thing that we are learning right now in AI (actual AI's, not game AI's and such) creation is that it is usually more efficient to create something capable of learning what you want it to know than to just program it with that knowledge. Perhaps it is the same on the spiritual level. And perhaps god wants us to earn our destiny rather than hand it to us. Both views would allow for natural selection.

2) As has been stated before, God can be a mean s.o.b., fully capable of allowing (and instigating) large-scale rape, slaughter, slavery, etc. That is the God of the bible. However, I don't think that that was what you were refering to. I think you meant that you cannot see god as being indifferent to his own creation. Just because he doesn't directly meddle doesn't mean that he doesn't care. Think of it in the terms of being a parent. When the kids leave home you have to allow them to make their own mistakes. You can't step in every time you see danger. Childhood is over. You can provide moral support, give a houewarming plant (even if it is on fire), and leave some reminder notes (a commandment or two etched on stone) but for the most part you have to stay out of it. This is especially true when your children are not your equal, when you presence will reduce them into a state of childhood. You want them to do the right thing for their own reasons not because you are standing right behind them. Leaving things alone is the only way to allow freedom of choice, the only way to develop a sense of morality. You see, direct divine meddling, the standard creationist viewpoint, may actually be against the desires of god.

Fyron

March 19th, 2003, 11:26 PM

Leaving things alone is the only way to allow freedom of choice... But do we actually have freedom of choice (will)? Don't answer in religious terms, but philosophical ones (eg: don't say, "the [insert holy scripture here] says...", as that is no argument at all). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

We do not have freedom of will. What happens in the future is determined by the laws of nature and what has happened in the past. I never actually chose to attend college. I am attending it because the events of my life have all added up to cause such an event to occur. There was really no choice to be made on my part. I do not ever make a conscious choice between eating food and not eating food. According to the laws of nature, the cells in my body will begin to die without a constant supply of energy (in the form of glucose). So, I eat food. I do not eat it because I actively set out to eat it. Just a few examples for contemplation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

QuarianRex

March 20th, 2003, 01:40 AM

Not making a choice is still a choice. If that is the one you prefer then so be it. And remember, until adulthood your parents make most of your choices for you (at least the ones that matter). That doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist, just that you have not yet begun to excercise it.

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 01:49 AM

That is hardly a logical response to my supposition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

My point was that I have no choice. What I will do is already determined by what happened in the past and according to the laws of nature. If I make no choice, that was already determined. If I make a choice, that choice was already determined.

Even when your parents make choices for you, it is still not their free will that causes them to make those choices.

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
do we actually have freedom of choice (will)? Why sure we do - even if you postulate that everything there is to a person is based solely on the various chemical and physical properties of that person's constituent elements, there is still the problem of Quantum Mechanics. The exact processes of the brain are poorly understood, but it is known that many of the processes run on an infintesimal scale, at which point the local randomness of QM becomes significant, which eliminates determinism as viable, leaving free will as a tenable approach.

Besides, I have to remind myself to eat. I can very easily get caught up in something and forget....

Edit: I kan't spell....

[ March 19, 2003, 23:56: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 01:59 AM

Fyron:
Interesting though - if you hold to a no free will universe, you contradict an earlier post where you said true prophecy was impossible. Without free will, prophecy simply becomes a matter of calculating inevitability, a feat of information processing, information awareness, and knoweledge of the rules of the universe, but not an impossibility.

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Fyron:
Interesting though - if you hold to a no free will universe, you contradict an earlier post where you said true prophecy was impossible. Without free will, prophecy simply becomes a matter of calculating inevitability, a feat of information processing, information awareness, and knoweledge of the rules of the universe, but not an impossibility.The problem is, you have to be outside of the universe to be able to calculate inevitability. You can not see every factor that goes into derermining what happens in the long run while you remain inside the universe. As there is no outside of the universe, you can't do that, and so prophecy remains impossible.

Why sure we do - even if you postulate that everything there is to a person is based solely on the various chemical and physical properties of that person's constituent elements, there is still the problem of Quantum Mechanics. I did not postulate that.

Besides, I have to remind myself to eat. I can very easily get caught up in something and forget....
Yes, but you did not choose whether to eat or not. What determined whether you ate or not was what had happened to you in the past few hours/days. You do not just randomly decide to eat a meal. What makes you eat is not having eaten for a long enough period to become hungry. What you eat is determined by what you have eaten in the past, and what you have learned about foods. The food you have been exposed to as a child helps to determine your tastes. You do not make a perfectly free-willed decision devoid of any other factors on whether to eat a pizza or a hamburger.

You have the illusion of free will because you do not realize all of the factors involved in your decisions.

[ March 20, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ragnarok

March 20th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Just my .02 on this matter.
You very well can have free choice. We can and we do. I chose to buy a computer. I chose which car I wanted to buy. I choose what kind of food I want to eat when I'm hungry. I choose who I talk to. I choose who I like. I choose what TV shows I want to watch. Needless to say I can keep going on, but I choose not to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 02:47 AM

Rags, you completely missed my point. And, your belief that you actually have free choice is an illusion (as illustrated prior).

Ragnarok

March 20th, 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Rags, you completely missed my point. And, your belief that you actually have free choice is an illusion (as illustrated prior).No, I didn't miss your point. And it's not an illusion that I have free choice.
Food for example: I choose what kind I want to eat once I become hungry. It has nothing to do with what happened in the past or events that just took place. I have foods I like thus I choose what kind I want to eat at any given time.

I choose who I hang out with. This also has nothing to do with events in the past. I meet someone and if I like them I'll hang out with them. If I don't, that's my choice to make.

Granted there are some choices that are decided by what events took place days prior to it but not all. There are still choices in our lives that are decided by us, not by events that took place that will help make the decision.

[ March 20, 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 02:55 AM

As there is no outside of the universe, On what basis do you make this claim? There have been hypothesis in the past that there are other universes - the problem being that they can neither be proved nor disproved, and thus they haven't recieved much serious attention.

I did not postulate that.
I didn't say you had. It appears you missed the qualifier "if" . . . and then you ignored the rest of the statement about quantum mechanics, which does leave room for non-determinism (one way of saying free will).

However, if you don't postulate that, then you leave the option of an independent soul open, which would really throw determinism out the window.

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 03:08 AM

... a perfectly free-willed decision devoid of any other factors ...That is a ridiculously tight-fisted statement, Fyron. "... a perfectly free-willed decision devoid of any other factors ..."(emhasis added) I don't think anyone who claims sanity claims to be totally unaffected by events, while it seems you would only be satisfied by such a response. This strikes me as unrealistic of you.

Edit: And just to beat you to the punch, it is a very big jump to go from affected by to determined solely by.

[ March 20, 2003, 01:15: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 03:17 AM

I was just trying to start a philosophical debate, but I can see that has failed miserably. Maybe I should just stop looking at this thread altogether.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 03:22 AM

And it's not an illusion that I have free choice. Ah, but how can you tell for sure? Or within a reasonable doubt?

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was just trying to start a philosophical debate, but I can see that has failed miserably. Maybe I should just stop looking at this thread altogether.That is the fastest I have seen you back off of a position. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Ah, but how can you tell for sure? Or within a reasonable doubt?Turn it around - How can you tell for sure (or wihin a reasonable doubt) that free will is an illusion? Until you can demonstrate your side, one hypothesis is as equally valid as the other. However, I made a point about quantum mechanics a while back which would support free will....

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was just trying to start a philosophical debate, but I can see that has failed miserably. Maybe I should just stop looking at this thread altogether.Failed how? There are people in this thread making logical arguments on exactly the topic in question.

Ragnarok

March 20th, 2003, 03:55 AM

You mean I was able to turn Fyron around?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Sorry to deter your philosophical debate Fyron, that wasn't my intentions, I just simply wanted to bring out that we do have free will. I will now leave and you can have your debate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Atrocities

March 20th, 2003, 03:56 AM

What is this thread about? I have never seen it before. It just appeared here magically one day. And now it has swelled in size. OMG! Its taking over!

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
You mean I was able to turn Fyron around?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Sorry to deter your philosophical debate Fyron, that wasn't my intentions, I just simply wanted to bring out that we do have free will. I will now leave and you can have your debate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'm not entierly sure it was you....

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
What is this thread about? I have never seen it before. It just appeared here magically one day. And now it has swelled in size. OMG! Its taking over!OT topics are the meterietes of the forums - they burn big and bright, for a relatively short time until people get tired of them and stop posting. It has happened before. Set the view to "Show All Topics" and you can see for yourself. This one only has 200 Posts so far; others have many more.

[ March 20, 2003, 02:03: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 04:53 AM

Jack:
That is the fastest I have seen you back off of a position. Rags:
You mean I was able to turn Fyron around?!?
There is a difference between holding a position and playing Socrates. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Rags:
Sorry to deter your philosophical debate Fyron, that wasn't my intentions, I just simply wanted to bring out that we do have free will. I will now leave and you can have your debate.
Your post had not an ounce of logical argument or philosophical merit to it, actually. All you did was to say "this is how it is". There was no reasoning given.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Atrocities:
What is this thread about? I have never seen it before. It just appeared here magically one day. And now it has swelled in size. OMG! Its taking over!OT topics are the meterietes of the forums - they burn big and bright, for a relatively short time until people get tired of them and stop posting. It has happened before. Set the view to "Show All Topics" and you can see for yourself. This one only has 200 Posts so far; others have many more.<hr /></blockquote>I assume Atrocities was joking. Look at his post count. He has posted here enough times to know about OT topics. In fact, he has started several of those OT threads that swelled in sized. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Chronon

March 20th, 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
What is this thread about? I have never seen it before. It just appeared here magically one day. And now it has swelled in size. OMG! Its taking over!Well, we seem to have left behind our discussion of Fyron's theory that the Roman Catholic Church slowed progress and lengthened the "Dark Ages" by a couple hundred years, the topic that started this thread, and moved on to all kinds of philosophical meanderings. Since we're talking about predestination, perhaps we have found our way back to early-modern religion. Are you a closet Calvinist Fyron? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 05:22 AM

It is probably time to give this thread a more appropriate title. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

No, I am not a Calvinist. We are not talking about predestination. Predestination is the belief that everyone's final destination in the afterlife is determined before they are born. Their actions on Earth make no difference between whether they go to heaven or hell. This is wholely different than determinism v. free will.

[ March 20, 2003, 03:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Ah, but how can you tell for sure? Or within a reasonable doubt?Turn it around - How can you tell for sure (or wihin a reasonable doubt) that free will is an illusion? Until you can demonstrate your side, one hypothesis is as equally valid as the other. However, I made a point about quantum mechanics a while back which would support free will....<hr /></blockquote>Exactly.
The post I was quoting had much determination, but nothing concrete backing it up.
I was just trying to encourage something deeper than "yes it is" "no it isn't". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

March 20th, 2003, 06:28 AM

I was just trying to encourage something deeper than "yes it is" "no it isn't". Yes, this was the crux of the problem. There is absolutely nothing logical or philosophical about the responses (the QM post comes close, but not quite). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The original post about this was not meant as an end-all, beat-all argument, but more as a topic to discuss. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 20, 2003, 04:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes, this was the crux of the problem. There is absolutely nothing logical or philosophical about the responses (the QM post comes close, but not quite). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The original post about this was not meant as an end-all, beat-all argument, but more as a topic to discuss. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif All right, then, um..
I do not ever make a conscious choice between eating food and not eating food. According to the laws of nature, the cells in my body will begin to die without a constant supply of energy (in the form of glucose). So, I eat food. I do not eat it because I actively set out to eat it. Just a few examples for contemplation.
How then could you explain the monks who deprive themselves for spiritual enlightenment or those who suicide? If everything is determined by the laws of nature, which state that things want to survive, then they cannot be explained. They can, however, if you postulate that the people involved have free will.
If you postulate that they do not have free will, and do so as a result of social and economic pressures, then you must also explain why most people don't.
If you postulate that people do what they do because of their genetic makeup and how they were raised, then you must also address how the child of a child beater will often not become a child beater him- or her- self, despite the very strong tendency for the furtheration of the parents' habits that is known to exist.

Chronon

March 20th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is probably time to give this thread a more appropriate title. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yes, you're probably right. See new title above...

dogscoff

March 20th, 2003, 05:43 PM

Cool, a pub. Just in time, with the demise of the Cantina I have nowhere to drown the sorrows inflicted by the Iraq thread.

*dogscoff orders and downs four pints of strong lager, all the while considering whether his actions are simply the deterministically inevitible results of an uncountable accumulation of absolute probablity events in the vast atomic pinball game that is the entirity of space/time since the Big Bang, or whether the essence of consciousness actually resides in the largely unexplored realms of quantum mechanics, thus scientifically proving that the human mind is greater than the sum of its parts and releasing decision from the deterministic constraints of cause and effect, implying that free will does exist and making tomorrow's hangover entirely his own fault.

Even though Fyron hasn't got his Comprehensive Deterministic Universal Modeller (C-DUM) working yet, everyone predicts that dogscoff will soon fall drunkenly off his chair. He does.

[ March 20, 2003, 15:46: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Alpha Kodiak

March 20th, 2003, 06:05 PM

It finally all came together for me, and now I understand. We are all doomed to play SEIV forever (or at least until SEV comes out) because of all of the events that have happened in the past. We have no choice, it is simply the way it is. So if someone gives any of us grief for playing the game too much, we should just respond that you can't fight nature, that this is the way things must be. I think I like this theory.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 06:16 PM

How about this:
Is it possible for a computer program (such as an AI routine) to have free will?

If so, a copy or close variant of that program, running in an organic neural net/brain would also provide free will.

dogscoff

March 20th, 2003, 06:23 PM

Is it possible for a computer program (such as an AI routine) to have free will?
Quite probably. All that mucking about with electrons that goes on inside circuitry probably involves QM.

You should have a read of Rob Schrab's Scud: Dispoible Assassin. It's a great read and there is a really nice concept about all of human history being predetermined by God, but then a Robot (without sould and therefore unconstrained by Destiny) messes everything up.

Not the same thing at all, I know, but it made me think of it and it's a damned good comic.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 06:38 PM

Quite probably. All that mucking about with electrons that goes on inside circuitry probably involves QMHow do you mean? By generating errors? They're pretty rare, except when using windows, and that's not due to QM, its due to QA.

I think we could also use a good definition of Free Will, and what it means to say one thing has it while another dosen't.
If an AI compares random numbers to decide whether to go left or right, is that free will? It will be chaotic and unpredictable...

dogscoff

March 20th, 2003, 07:15 PM

If an AI compares random numbers to decide whether to go left or right, is that free will? It will be chaotic and unpredictable... Apply a force to a ball on a pool table- if the force and direction and locations of all the balls are known, the exact consequences can be predicted and known by applying a series of known physical laws. Once the force is applied, the rest of their movements could be said to be pre-determined by the laws of physics. Cause and effect.

Now consider that not only pool balls are subject to physical laws. People, cars, planets, atoms, brain cells... these are all made of matter and subject to the laws of physics. Therefore, if you apply a force to a car and all the variables are known, then the end result can be predicted. The implications of this are scary, and it's called determinism:

Determinism goes beyond "you're hungry and people eat when they are hungry, so I can predict that you will eat." It's more like "your decision to eat or not eat depends upon an immensely complex balance of psychological and physiological factors, all of which can be theoretically reduced to a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulse flying about in your brain and body."
Chemicals and impulses that are subject to the laws of physics, just like the pool table.

Imagine the universe as a massive, four (more?) dimensional pool table, with every one of the squillions of most fundamental subatomic particles as a pool ball. At the very beginning of the universe, in the instant that the big bang occurs, a force is applied. The qualities of that force set the entire universe in motion in a direction determined by the qualities (power, direction etc) of the force. Every movement of every atom from that moment until now, including the atoms in your brain clustered together right now in the right pattern to form the decision "I will eat" or "I will not eat"... every single movement in the entire universe is predetermined in just the same way the the balls on the pool table were. you have no free will. Your decisions are just cause-and-effect results of physical phenomena within your brain, which in turn are only the way they are because they were put there by other cause and effect reactions, and so on right to the big bang.

Now quantum mechanics provides us with a get out clause. QM implies that there are some things going on in the universe which don't necessarily have anything to do with cause and effect. They do not follow predictable laws, and there's room for free will again, although it implies some very wierd and unscientific things about the nature of the mind.

Anyway, I gotta go...

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
If an AI compares random numbers to decide whether to go left or right, is that free will? It will be chaotic and unpredictable...As a computer programming student, I can tell you it is extremely difficult to get a computer to produce truly random numbers. It is possible, mind you - it takes hardware that produces truly random input, such as a noisy diode or a human user; sometimes a clever programmer will use the processor itself as a truly random number generator by using the clock drift - however, those are very rarely used. What is normally produced is pseudorandom numbers. These numbers come out of simple equations, where the routine goes something like this (I may have my suntax a bit off):

double Random(Double *seed){
double r = 1.73658965335795;
double d = 4.56891247479574;
*seed = r * (*seed) - d * (*seed) * (*seed)
return *seed;
}

While not truly random, these types of routines produce numbers that are scarecly predictable.

Suicide Junkie

March 20th, 2003, 07:59 PM

The least significant bits from a microphone input (even if the microphone isn't plugged in) should also do fairly well, I hear.

Jack Simth

March 20th, 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
The least significant bits from a microphone input (even if the microphone isn't plugged in) should also do fairly well, I hear.You made a pun!

QuarianRex

March 20th, 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
The qualities of that force set the entire universe in motion in a direction determined by the qualities (power, direction etc) of the force. Every movement of every atom from that moment until now, including the atoms in your brain clustered together right now in the right pattern to form the decision "I will eat" or "I will not eat"... every single movement in the entire universe is predetermined in just the same way the the balls on the pool table were. you have no free will. Your decisions are just cause-and-effect results of physical phenomena within your brain, which in turn are only the way they are because they were put there by other cause and effect reactions, and so on right to the big bang.Interesting statement. The problem is that it doesn't take onto account gestalt, or emergent, properties. When a system (whether it be composed of atoms, neurons, people, cultures, etc.) gets to a certain level of complexity it can display qualitatively different features, ones that cannot be predicted solely through knowledge of the constituent elements. Examples of such would be the emergence of life from matter, the emergence of consciousness, the emergence of the nation-state, the properties of many drugs, breaching the speed of light, etc. Using the billiard analogy, this would be equivalant to a particularly complex shot causing all the balls to merge into a 30 foot tall MechaGodzilla that promptly dashed off to play in the land of Nod. The laws of physics could not predict that.

Determinism falls apart in the face of such drastic shifts in expectation.

Suicide Junkie

March 21st, 2003, 12:22 AM

While there are properties you may not expect, that's because you aren't following the exact cause and effect, (mainly because its too hard to think about)

Things like the game of life (Link (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)) have emergent properties, but still, if you follow the rules, and know the exact starting conditions, you can predict.
Try the "shooter"; its pretty cool.

Also, what are you referring to about the speed of light? All of the reports I've seen were basically media-hyped illusions.

[ March 20, 2003, 22:26: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Jack Simth

March 21st, 2003, 01:02 AM

However, the more complex the system, the more effect even a small change can have. When you get to things as complicated as the human brain, quatum mechanical effects can no longer be ignored. However, one of the big things in QM is randomness and chance. For an organism as complex as a person, prediction based on the laws of physics breakes down. In the game of life you link to runs on a very small set of rules that ignore all possibility of QM effects.

Krsqk

March 21st, 2003, 01:43 AM

This is all interesting, but we're still don't have any working definitions. I'll start the ball rolling (and you all can kick it straight back in my face http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ):

Free will--the ability of an organism to make a decision independently of outside factors, including prior experience, available data, and previous input (training, education, etc). Free will acknowledges the influence of both internal and external factors, but reserves the responsibility of choice to the organism in question.

Determinism--the principle that thought and decision processes are predetermined by prior scientifically explainable physical or chemical processes. Determinism holds that the entire future of the universe was determined at the beginning of time, and the concept of free will is an illusion derived from the complexity of the physical forces involved.

Do those sound like good working definitions? Or should we make some changes/scrap and start over?

Jack Simth

March 21st, 2003, 01:48 AM

Those are decent working definitions for now.

dogscoff

March 21st, 2003, 02:22 AM

quarian: your emergent properties would still result from physical laws. The fact that no human could ever collect enough data to apply those laws and make a prediction is irrelevant. it's stilldetermined.

acording to a determinist...

just for the record, I'm not a determinist. I prefer to believe in the quantum stuff. God does play dice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Krsqk: Your definitions fit nicely.

QuarianRex

March 21st, 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Also, what are you referring to about the speed of light? All of the reports I've seen were basically media-hyped illusions.I was referring to the fact that the theory of relativity does not apply to anything going past lightspeed. Physical(?) laws after that point would be qualitatively different.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
quarian: your emergent properties would still result from physical laws. The fact that no human could ever collect enough data to apply those laws and make a prediction is irrelevant. it's stilldetermined.Perhaps, I was pointing out that the sometimes drastic changes that occur with emergent properties would nullify previous predictions based on the prior qualities. For example, projections based on the entropic qualities of quantities of matter are moot when said quantities acquire the anti-entropic qualities of life.

Perhaps this would be a better argument against prophecy. As complex systems grow in complexity they inevitably qualitatively change, thus nullifying existing predictions. Determinism is a little more annoying since it relies on supernatural influence (whether it be a god, a set of laws, etc.) and so is exempt from most rational arguments (it can always claim omniscience).

Suicide Junkie

March 21st, 2003, 04:50 AM

I was referring to the fact that the theory of relativity does not apply to anything going past lightspeed. Physical(?) laws after that point would be qualitatively differentOk, but I don't see what you're getting at...

Krsqk

March 21st, 2003, 05:45 AM

Perhaps this would be a better argument against prophecy. As complex systems grow in complexity they inevitably qualitatively change, thus nullifying existing predictions. Determinism is a little more annoying since it relies on supernatural influence (whether it be a god, a set of laws, etc.) and so is exempt from most rational arguments (it can always claim omniscience).Although, that would make prophecy under a free-will system all the more remarkable. BTW, I don't see the existence of the supernatural as contradictory to the operation of free will; they operate in different spheres (although supernatural could override/negate the effects of free will if necessary).

Kamog

March 21st, 2003, 07:26 AM

There seems to be at least two points of view in regards to how our thoughts originate. (1) There is the biochemistry view that says thoughts are a result of chemical reactions in the brain; i.e. the different chemical and electrical processes are what thought is. If this is so, free will would be an illusion. (2) Another view is that we have a soul or spirit which is separate from physical matter. Thoughts originate from this non-physical spirit, and the chemical processes in the brain are a secondary phenomenon caused by the thought. Then free will is possible because thoughts can originate independently of the arrangement of chemicals and atoms in the physical brain.

Even if quantum mechanics allow random processes to occur, that does not necessarily mean that we can have free will. If the reactions in the brain occur randomly, then we don't have a choice as to what the outcome is, and therefore we are not in control. Our thoughts would be a consequence of random quantum fluctuations, not a result of free will.

dogscoff

March 21st, 2003, 10:55 AM

thus nullifying existing predictions.
Quarian, you're still not getting it it. The predictions are irrelevant. Under determinsism, you are just a bunch of particles bouncing around, following the only path through history they possibly could have from their random creation in the Big Bang. The universe doesn't care whether you "predict" or "know" things or not, because your "knowledge" is just a complex pattern of matter in your "brain", which itself is nothing more than a bunch of atoms that happen to be hanging out together for a while because physics put them there.
Under determinism, you have no free will because in any given set of circumstances your atoms can only take one path- the path determined by the laws of physics. There is no possible alternative, no choice, no decision and no free will.

Determinism is a little more annoying since it relies on supernatural influence
No it doesn't. It absolutely does NOT. Determinism is the absolute extreme non-spiritual, absolutely physical view of the universe. It is the logical extreme of the assumption that everything in the universe is governed by a set of utterly consistent physical laws and nothing else- an assumption that has been central to science for centuries. The introduction of any supernatural presence would mean something affecting events from outside those laws, and so introduce unknown variables and screw everything up.

As for the speed of light, even if the way things react to circumstances change under those conditions, they will still be bound by a set of consistent rules.

Quantum mechanics introduces doubt to the determinist argument by taking the "utterly consistent" out of the physical laws. That's why it's so contraversial and ground-breaking. It still doesn't necessarily introduce a god or soul, although it doesn't rule them out completely either.

EDIT: I hadn't read Kamog's post. Good point.

[ March 21, 2003, 08:57: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Chronon

March 21st, 2003, 04:02 PM

I have to admit that I'm highly dubious of the extreme determinist position. Here are my two cents (or eurocents):

I'll grant that natural law (genetics, physics, etc.) does have some effect on basic human function, personality and so on. What I look like, how my body has developed, and my basic temperment does seem to have been imposed by natural law. After seeing the development of my daughter and her friends, I would agree that natural law does play a significant role (I used to be more of an extremist on the nurture side in the "nature versus nurture" debate).

But, I don't see how natural law makes me stay up too late working on the frigate design for my ship set, or dictates which type of cereal I eat in the morning.

So, the way I see it, natural law dictates a certain range of behaviors on the macro level, but free will has everything to do with decisions on a micro level. Perhaps quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are indeed a good analogy. Newtonian works for large bodies, but fails for small ones, just in the same way that natural law works for the general parameters of life, but not for determining what one eats for breakfast.

dogscoff

March 21st, 2003, 06:21 PM

I have to admit that I'm highly dubious of the extreme determinist position. Here are my two cents (or eurocents):
I agree with you, but I'm playing devil's advocate here, so...

So, the way I see it, natural law dictates a certain range of behaviors on the macro level, but free will has everything to do with decisions on a micro level.
But the macro level is just a manifestation of events on the micro level. In fact, there *is* no macro level- that's just an abstraction made up by our puny mortal minds that, for some obscure reason, find it easier to process the concept of "a lump of wood" than "a hundred squillion carbon, hydrogen and assorted other atoms in a particulr arrangement."

I'll grant that natural law (genetics, physics, etc.) does have some effect on basic human function, personality and so on. What I look like, how my body has developed, and my basic temperment does seem to have been imposed by natural law. After seeing the development of my daughter and her friends, I would agree that natural law does play a significant role (I used to be more of an extremist on the nurture side in the "nature versus nurture" debate).
It's not nature vs nurture- nature and nurture are *both* within the realm of cause and effect. I'll explain after another quote or two...

But, I don't see how natural law makes me stay up too late working on the frigate design for my ship set, or dictates which type of cereal I eat in the morning.
Let me put it this way: Your every decision and your every involuntary process is a result of who You are. (Note the capital letter) If you stay up all night on your shipset, it's because there are factors at work in You stronger than your urge to sleep. There's no mystery to it- A desire for completion, a desire to impress your peers, the fact that you had a nap just after lunch and aren't too tired... Dozens of conflicting factors that all combine to make Your behaviour. The question is, who are You?

The trouble is, you can't let go of this idea that You are any less a pile of atoms than your breakfast cereal or your desk. Your brain and body constitute a hugely complex pattern of matter, but it is still just a finite lump of matter.

The pattern your matter-lump now happens to occupy is You. Your entire state of mind and personality, your memories and emotions, all of it down to every Last tiny detail is encoded in the exact, unique arrangement of nerves and cells and tissues and chemicals that make up your brain and body at this exact moment. In a micro second it will be changed- gone forever, replaced by a slightly different You.

The important thing is that all those factors I mentioned earlier, the ones that decide whether or not you go to bed, those things are encoded in your current pattern as well. Your creative urge is a particularly complex budles of nerves somewhere in your head. Your tiredness is a build up of chemicals in your nervous system. Which one is stronger? Your decision to stay up or go to bed is determined by the interaction of this physical matter in You- your "pattern", as I keep calling it.

has everything to do with decisions on a micro level.
But the micro-level physical matter that is You is still subject to physical laws. If you were to look at any particle in your body at any given moment in time (for example the crucial atom in your brain that can tip the balance between you going to bed or not), if you looked at it you would see that it does not have a choice about what happens to it next. Physics (ignoring quantum stuff) only allows one possible course of action. There is only one thing it can do, so you WILL go to bed or you WILL stay up.

And all of this holds for every single one of your atoms and protons and neutrons and whatever-elsons, and all the other particles in the universe, all the time, and it has done since the Big Bang, and shall be ever thus until the entire universe crumples into itself in a great big entropic heap.

Extrapolate this process backwards through your life, with the state of your physical being at any given moment being the inevitable result of the state it was in an instant before, and you see that you have no free will. You just think you do, atom-bag.

[ March 21, 2003, 16:25: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Jack Simth

March 21st, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Kamog:
There seems to be at least two points of view in regards to how our thoughts originate. (1) There is the biochemistry view that says thoughts are a result of chemical reactions in the brain; i.e. the different chemical and electrical processes are what thought is. If this is so, free will would be an illusion. (2) Another view is that we have a soul or spirit which is separate from physical matter. Thoughts originate from this non-physical spirit, and the chemical processes in the brain are a secondary phenomenon caused by the thought. Then free will is possible because thoughts can originate independently of the arrangement of chemicals and atoms in the physical brain. Interesting take, but it does point out one important fact: Competing base unproveable assumptions. 1) Measureable reality is all that exists. 2) Soul exists and has influence.

Niether of these can be objectively tested (barring some controversial expieriments where dying people lost 3/4 of an ounce on death, disreputable claims on psionics, near-death experiences, et cetera) which would put the debate up to an endurance challenge on which side can keep shouting the longest, as both sides assume different things and niether assumption is either proveable or disproveable, and everything follows from those base assumptions.

Suicide Junkie

March 22nd, 2003, 01:03 AM

An interesting experiment had people reacting to things while in a real time scanner (CAT or MRI or something).

When for example, they touched something hot, they would, naturally, jerk their hand back.
A noticable amount of time later, the brain activity would kick up in response.

The people would report that they actively moved their hand, when it was a subconsious reflex, and the brain simply hadn't had a chance to notice and respond by that time. They just didn't remember it that way.

Fyron

March 22nd, 2003, 03:16 AM

Nerve cells do have some degree of functionality independant of the brain, after all.

Suicide Junkie

March 22nd, 2003, 03:47 AM

IIRC, most (if not all) reflexes just go to the spinal cord and back, rather than all the way up.

The thing is, those people remembered deciding to do something, when really, they had no choice.

Ah!
I just remembered what I was thinking about on the way to school this morning:

Consider a (3D) movie, and the characters in that movie.
From a vantage point independent of time (such as a god's) how are is our universe different from that movie reel?

Krsqk

March 22nd, 2003, 04:58 AM

I guess that would depend on the point of view one takes (deterministic or free will). A determinist would say that the film makes up life--every event was pre-recorded, and it only is a matter of happening. A free-will-ist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif would say the reverse, that life--each individual's thread of events--makes up the film.

The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.

To draw an analogy from chess--I am an aggressive player. I can push you this way and that, and leave you only one option. I have enough skill to beat you, but that's about it. That's the first view. The second would be if I were, say, a Grandmaster (ha, yeah, right) playing a novice. I wouldn't have to force you into submission. I could sit back and let you do what you want, and still subtly direct the play how I wanted it to go (control of the center and all that). Or maybe it's like a chess engine at 100-ply thought playing one at 1-ply thought--there's a difference in perspective there.

Chronon

March 22nd, 2003, 07:24 AM

Dogscoff, that is a very interesting argument for determinism. I am going to have to think about it for a while (it's too late at the moment, and the tired atom http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif is telling me to go to bed) and see if I can come up with a good counter-argument. Intuitively I believe that one can be a collection of atoms AND have free will, but I will have to think about how to properly construct an argument that works within natural law.

So, I'll be back... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Kamog

March 22nd, 2003, 07:55 AM

Some people say that only humans are self-aware and animals are not. According to them, a dog is not capable of introspection - it is able to learn and react to situations, but it does not know that it is doing so. I think that there is no way to confirm if this is true or not. Intuitively, it does not seem right that humans are special and fundamentally different from other life forms.

If humans have free will, then do dogs have free will? How about fish? Insects? Bacteria? Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, if we say that humans have free will, then all life forms must have it also.

If it is possible to arrange a collection of atoms in such a way as to have free will (as in a human brain), then in theory it must also be possible to construct a machine that has free will.

tbontob

March 22nd, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Kamog:
Some people say that only humans are self-aware and animals are not. According to them, a dog is not capable of introspection - it is able to learn and react to situations, but it does not know that it is doing so. I think that there is no way to confirm if this is true or not. Intuitively, it does not seem right that humans are special and fundamentally different from other life forms.

If humans have free will, then do dogs have free will? How about fish? Insects? Bacteria? Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, if we say that humans have free will, then all life forms must have it also.

If it is possible to arrange a collection of atoms in such a way as to have free will (as in a human brain), then in theory it must also be possible to construct a machine that has free will.I agree with you Kamog.

We humans often make the mistake of defining attributes in human terms.

It is obvious that animals do not have our self-awareness.

Now, it could be a matter of degree or they may have a self-awareness which is fundamentally different from ours.

So, just because they do not share our "type" of self-awareness, does not mean they lack self-awareness.

The above comments also apply to the concept of free will.

Suicide Junkie

March 22nd, 2003, 06:25 PM

The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.That seems to imply that God is embedded in time, and is dragged along with the "present" like the rest of us.

If you can view multiple points in time simultaneously, in fact, all time simultaneously, then the universe should look like some sort of lumpy/stringy 4-or-more dimensional construct.

tbontob

March 22nd, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.That seems to imply that God is embedded in time, and is dragged along with the "present" like the rest of us.

If you can view multiple points in time simultaneously, in fact, all time simultaneously, then the universe should look like some sort of lumpy/stringy 4-or-more dimensional construct.<hr /></blockquote>I thought about free-will and determinism a lot. There are pros and cons on each side.

Basically, I have resolved it for myself on a practical basis.

If determinism is in effect, then it doesn't matter what I do. It is all foreordained.

So, I might as well conduct my life as if free will was the opererative principle.

If I am right (free will), then I have tried to exercise free will. If not, it doesn't matter since my attempt to exercise free will was foreordained.

Baron Munchausen

March 22nd, 2003, 10:33 PM

The whole discussion about 'determinism' vs. 'free will' assumes that cause and effect it true. There is a traditional logical error called 'Post Hoc' (Latin 'After here') which is essentially about assuming cause and effect. Just because event B always follows event A does not 'prove' that event B is caused by event A. They could both come from a single common cause that you are not able to see. David Hume observed that even in the physical world of the senses you cannot see the cause of one object moving another by physical contact. You can observe the event but there is nothing in sensory data that tells you how and why it happens.

As you are finding with the discussion of time, it's a bit difficult to get a handle on a universe that doesn't rely on linear time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif But regardless of what the universe 'really is', if what we perceive as 'time' is not real the whole issue of 'determinism' vs. 'free will' is moot. Our 'will' could very well be included in whatever force(s) create the universe as a whole (from whatever 'external' perspective these forces act from) and so we have pre-determined ourselves by our own freewill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 22, 2003, 20:35: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Suicide Junkie

March 23rd, 2003, 12:00 AM

If determinism is in effect, then it doesn't matter what I do. It is all foreordained.

So, I might as well conduct my life as if free will was the opererative principle. I completely agree there.

tbontob

March 23rd, 2003, 12:45 AM

Baron, I couldn't agree with you more about time.

Because A follows B, we make the assumption B causes A.

And that may not be true.

And to take this discussion into a completely different direction, some proponents suggest time is an illusion.

They claim the past, present and the future already exist in a kind of omni-present. It is just that our perspective is riveted on the present and gives us the experience of discovering the future.

Can't say I really understand it, but it is a interesting concept.

[ March 22, 2003, 22:45: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Suicide Junkie

March 23rd, 2003, 01:50 AM

Because A follows B, we make the assumption B causes A.Aside from errors, such as where there is a third-event cause, isn't that part of the definition?

If not, how is cause defined?

Phoenix-D

March 23rd, 2003, 04:22 AM

"They claim the past, present and the future already exist in a kind of omni-present. It is just that our perspective is riveted on the present and gives us the experience of discovering the future."

There was a story written about this a while back..it's called "The story of your life"

Phoenix-D

Andr�s

March 23rd, 2003, 05:57 PM

I don’t like your two options, either there is a supernatural universe that dominates ours or everything can be predicted....
A myriad of chemical and electrical reactions inside my skull insist that they generate my free will.

Kamog

March 24th, 2003, 02:47 AM

If consciousness is produced by chemicals in the brain, then I wouldn't want to step into a Star Trek transporter. The moment my body is transformed into energy, I'll be dead. Then a duplicate clone of me with my exact memories and personality will be created at the destination. If you ask the new 'transported' me what happened, he will answer, "I stepped into the transported and now I find myself here." But the original me will be gone. What the real me would experience is stepping into the transporter, and into oblivion.

Chronon

March 24th, 2003, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Dogscoff:
Physics (ignoring quantum stuff) only allows one possible course of action. There is only one thing it can do, so you WILL go to bed or you WILL stay up.I think it's the quantum stuff that is actually more important here. I don't think it's really possible to model the human brain using Newtonian physics or strict chemical processes (as Kamog has pointed out). There is randomness at the particle level (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that cannot be predicted, and individual behavior is more like the sub-atomic particle (undetermined until it happens) than the motion of a large planet (very predictable). Also, I think the human mind is more a pattern of energy than strictly a chemical process. And this pattern is extremely complex and ever-changing. Add to it all the experiences I've had, and the learning I've done over the course of my life, and I don't think any predermined pattern could possibly account for everything that I've done.

I guess when it comes down to it, I believe we are more than just atom-bags. Perhaps just atom-bags plus energy, but that energy changes everything.