"Real" ringworlds [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Dingocat85

May 13th, 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Maybe a ringworld should occupy the 8 sectors around an star......Yeah, that would be cool...instead of 8 planets in a circle, it would actually be one planet occupying 8 sectors http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif . The sun would become part of the Ringworld when it was generated (to prevent solar bombs/supernova-ing stars)...but since the ringworld doesn't really block Solar light, the Ringworld should still generate solar effects - meaning Solar Panels, and that Crystalline stuff that's sun-dependent, would still work.

However, a Sphereworld - which totally encompasses a sun - would totally surround a sun, so it'd look like a big Sphere in the middle of your Galaxy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif ....Unfortunately, since the Sphereworld completely encompasses the Sun, building one should "disable" the sun, and keep solar panels/those crystalline generator things from working http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ...UNLESS you have a bi/trinary solar system.

That brings up more problems http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ...if you have three suns in a system that are very close together, and built three Ring/Sphereworlds, they'd overlap - not good. So, if a ring/sphereworld will ever take up the 8 sectors surrounding a sun (including the sector with the sun), there will have to be a hardcoded requirement: *NOTHING* can be generated within 8 sectors of a Sun, not even another sun.

(Another option with bi-trinary solar systems, is to give them the ability to build binary & trinary Ring/sphereworlds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif - but I severely doubt anything that huge would ever be implemented http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ May 13, 2003, 02:15: Message edited by: Dingocat85 ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 13th, 2003, 05:31 AM

niven did a nice listing of various big stuff in one of his books, including how to get a ringworld to move, magnetic, spinning, sun for fuel. am i to brief sometimes?

[ May 13, 2003, 04:31: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Aloofi

May 13th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Maybe an sphere world should be as big as a Red Giant, but then of course it would overlap the other planets.....
One question, when an sphere world is build, isn't it suppose to block the sunlight completely, thus making all the other planets in the solar system too cold to be habitable without domes?

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 12:10 AM

A bit of background on ringworlds etc.

Niven did write 3 very good books based on a ringworld, including all the physics required etc. Also spawned an RPG and several other books.

It basicly works out that the RW needs to be made of a material as strong as an atomic nucleus (imposisble). To generate gravity its spun at 770 million miles per second around the sun. To do this requires as much energy as our sun produces in several billion years and is therefore impossible. Day/night is generated by panels (Shadow squares) on an inner orbit. Both these panels and the ringworld are not in stable orbits; i.e. if an asteroid hits either panels or RW they would eventually drift and crash into the sun, or each other. This also happens if there is a gravity disturbance, by another planet for example. Corrected by giant thrusters of some sort. Atmosphere is held in by walls 1600 km high at the endge, however if anything punctures the bottom, all the air is forced out and the resuting thrust crashes it into the star. Again.
It has a mass that is only about 350 times that of earth, it is about a million miles wide and about 600 mllion miles long, all habitable. Thats about 3 million earths! Big, very big.

Desdinova

May 14th, 2003, 12:13 AM

if you can put one more impossible in there we can all go have breakfast at Milliways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 14th, 2003, 12:13 AM

we couldn't do it, but someone with 90 million years of research probably could. if you could find some way of lowering inertia....

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 12:58 AM

The problem is, if you can build one of these, why do you need it? You would probably have mastered mass-energy convserion, intergalactic travel, and many other things. So why go through all the effort? Yes one of these has the area of 3 million planets, but thats only a fraction of all the planets in the galaxy.

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 01:04 AM

sphereworlds: a how-to guide

A typical sphereworld is a solid shell, however without anti-grav everything falls into the sun. If you spin it then all the atmosphere moves to the equator and it bulges. You could cover the inside with solar cells and inhabit the outside.

Another aproach is to use a large network of orbiting platforms, like satalites. They dont have gravity and you would need a lot to completly block the sun complelely however. Also if one crashed then you would get a chain reaction.

My personal favourite would be to build a set of ringworlds, all at diffferent angles within each other.

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 01:22 AM

In a game context, the size of a ringworld would vary depending on species and/or sun. A cold species would want a larger ring/cooler sun etc. Ideally you would only have the ringworld and one sun in a system, plus warp points. However, the ringworld should have no mineral content. After all you only have what you put there in the first place!

Ive experimented with pre-generated ringworlds in a system. Its not too bad but either they have to be gas/none (they apear in other places otherwise) or you have to re-write all the systems that have planets of any/any/any type to be more specific. I cant find any appropriate pictures though, Ive resorted to copying the star background and drawing a circle on it with paint!

Gwaihir

May 14th, 2003, 09:28 AM

One reason to build one is to have 3 million very high quality, custom-built planets, all conveniently located in the same solar system, so that you can do whatever you want to do on a massive scale without needing to waste time and energy shuttling stuff back and forth between 2 million star systems. Also, you can do as Niven's Ringworld engineers did, and build in a bunch of ecosystems, installing all sorts of living things in a huge zoo, where each exhibit is a whole planet in size, with plenty of geography to explore.

Plus, if you can, why not? Having mastered the universe, sounds like a fun project to keep you busy for a while. You're already able to play god on a little scale, creating custom living organisms and such, so why not go all out and make a custom planet, only make it bigger and better than the planets! Be good practice if you want to start building netowrks of stars, too - start small http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

or better yet, neworks of black holes - i bet you could get a lot of energy (or *something*) out of an orchestrated system of black holes, somehow.

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 02:49 PM

I havnt read the culture novels so im not too sure about this but here goes. I got some background from the site below, by banks himself (apparently)
culture orbitals and stuff (http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html)

A bit of basic research shows that it would have to be as strong as a ringworld. I like the idea of building it from pairs of plates and cables(sound familiar?), you could apply that to ringworlds too, to a degree. An orbital would be useable if unfinished, you would just have to have temporary walls around the edge. Ringworlds could be built from orbiting plates, but couldnt be spun at full speed untill completed.

Each orbital holds 20 earths surface and 1 earth can be made into 1500 orbitals. By contrast a ringworld is made from 250 earths and has 3 million times the surface area. So by orbitals 1 earth => 30000 earths and by ringworld 1 earth => 12000 earths. So orbitals are more efficient (in terms of surface area/mass ratio) and easier to make (cos smaller).

I have found one reaseon for contruction, going back to the original dyson sphere. Since all known energy is derived from the sun (eventually) to achieve maximum efficency you would have to cover all the sun with solar panels to harness it to maximum capacity. This is a sphereworld (without being lived on). It wouldnt have to be very large, only to about the orbit of mercury at most. Surely it would be easier to start a small star separatly though? cold fusion, for example

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Every single living organism on this planet .... wants to do only one thing: Find and fix problems. Thats not stricly true. There is no concious disire to "fix problems". Its simply that those that do not "fix problems" die. Conside a group of foxes and a group of rabits. The foxes chase the rabits, the slow rabits are caught and die, so the remaining rabits are the only ones that can breed and the next generateion are on average faster. The slow foxes don't catch any rabits and die of starvation. Therefore only the fastest foxes breed and the next generatin is also, on average, faster than the previous one. This kills the slower of the new rabits, which get faster, and then starve the slower foxes, which get faster,..... and so on ad infinitum. Until you get light speed rabitts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

We have ears because long ago things with ears did better than things without ears. Then things with relatively good ears did better than things with relatively bad ears. etc

Its a great debate whether this applies to emivromentaly mannipulative organisms (humans) because there nothing to compare us with. As a species, nothing hunts us, we dont have to struggle for food, we change our eviroment to suit us rahter than us changing to suit our enviroment, virtually everyone has children.

The question is, given everything else is equal, will a group that builds a ringworld do better than a group that doesn't build a ringworld. But how do you measure better?

Aloofi

May 14th, 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:

As a species, nothing hunts us, we dont have to struggle for food, we change our eviroment to suit us rahter than us changing to suit our enviroment, virtually everyone has children.

Nothing hunt us?
We hunt ourselves, and waste our lives and resources in civil wars, from an species perspective.
And some of us do have to struggle for food, and all of us have to adapt to the enviroment that we have changed.

.

Primogenitor

May 14th, 2003, 10:13 PM

Ok then, point accepted

No other species hunts us. We are plagued by simian tribalism and teritoriality from our ancient genetic heritage that has little relevance to our "sentient" minds. Our selfish genes that once drove us to band together with others who were likely to hold other copies of those genes in order for those genes to prosper and spread now propell humanity on a hopeless course towards essesive resource accumulation and short term gains at the expense of long term survival. Unless our minds can surpass our genetic makeup, we are doomed to destroy ourselves in overpowering greed and guttony. Evolution had no design, no forsight, no plan, no morals, no order, no direction, no skill, no predictability, no rules, no fairness, in humanities creation. It simply is, because it could not be otherwise. Do we have the will to plan, to survive the evolutionary forces that would destroy us? Can our society evolve fast enough that we can survive without destroyed all the resources we need? Could the earth ever support a species like us again? Evolution may have given birth to us, and the earth may be our cradle, but you cannot stay in the cradle forever.

[/End Rant]

Narrew

May 14th, 2003, 11:12 PM

I thought that Dyson Spheres were inhabited on the inside like a Ring World, but completely encompass the sun to trap all energy and possiably hide from the rest of the universe (wasnt it a Star Trek movie that found a bunch of Dyson Spheres?).

*sigh* too bad we have to mess around on this rock of a world instead of going out to the "Last frontier"

Jack Simth

May 14th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Dingocat85:
The only thing physicists see as a use for black holes (besides a big trash can http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) is going forward in time, in a sense.Actually, there is the theoretical possibility of using one to get energy - Microscopic black holes produce Hawking Radiation (http://www.leonllo.freeservers.com/blackrad.html) - the smaller the black hole, the more radiation produced. However, you can't readily control the rate of production (it is a function of the black hole's mass, which can be difficult to change). You could also capture energy by feeding the black hole matter - gas dropped into a black hole heats up to compensate for the gravitational potential energy loss, and hot gas produces light, some of which can escape the gravity well from the black hole.

Mind you, to get this energy, you have to be able to manipulate a small black hole, which is probably very difficult (if possible) and very dangerous.

[ May 14, 2003, 22:33: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Jack Simth

May 14th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Narrew:
I thought that Dyson Spheres were inhabited on the inside like a Ring World, but completely encompass the sun to trap all energy and possiably hide from the rest of the universe (wasnt it a Star Trek movie that found a bunch of Dyson Spheres?).That was the original idea, but the mass of the Dyson Sphere is useless for producing gravity inside the sphere, as the gravitation produced by the mass "below" you is cancelled out exactly by the rest of the sphere (assuming an even distribution, that is) leaving only the mass of the star to pull on you - which means things tend to drop into the star if they aren't anchored down. Some form of artifical gravity, or anti-gravity would be required.
Likewise, the star isn't affected by the gravity of the sphere, and can wander around, probably impacting on the sphere's inner surface, unless some controlled force is applied.

In other words, to get a Dyson Sphere to work, you need artifical gravity and the ability to move stars around at will - in addition to the matter needed to build the sphere, the materials technology so that the sphere maintains its shape, and possibly a few other things.

If you plan on living on the outside, you can drop the artifical gravity, but not the rest.

[ May 14, 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Narrew

May 14th, 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Mind you, to get this energy, you have to be able to manipulate a small black hole, which is probably very difficult (if possible) and very dangerous.Wife: Honey!!! YOUR son is doing it again...
Husband: *chuckles* what is my son doing this time?
Wife: Well *hands on hips* he took that Science kit you got him for Christmas out back and just opened a tiny black hole!!! And now all the cloths I have drying on the line are getting sucked into it. So you go out there and FIX it now!
Husband: Yes dear *smiling* *under his breath* Thats my boy!

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 12:54 AM

evelution has no explanation for intelligence and rules it out. why? chemicals aren't intelligent. chemicals have gravity. lots of chemicals have lots of gravity. lots of chemicals don't have intelligence. unless everything is intelligent, in which case, i may not win, but you will lose.

Dingocat85

May 15th, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Gwaihir:
[Responding to why an empire would build a ringworld in real life:] If you can, why not? Having mastered the universe, sounds like a fun project to keep you busy for a while.Your empire would never get the chance...there would always be some sort of problem or another facing the empire, and unless you had a "purpose" to building a Ringworld, you'd ***never*** get it built.
Every single living organism on this planet (so naturally, every single living organism in the universe aswell) wants to do only one thing: Find and fix problems. Evolution long ago realized that the universe was very, very far from perfect conditions for any living organism...so, the only way to have an organism maintain (and maybe even proliferate) its species' survival, would be to have it endlessly looking for, and fixing problems.
So, no matter how happy your population got in real life, there would always be someone that was unhappy, wanting their problem to be fixed. If you stifled their unhappiness, feelings of discontent would build up, until - you guessed it - Revolution time.
Look at it this way: Your ears are designed to hear, so if there's no sound, they won't work. Your tastebuds are designed to taste, so if there's nothing to taste, they won't work. Organisms are designed to fix problems - so if there are no problems to fix, the organism won't work.

Here's a quote from The Matrix, that backs me up:

Agent Smith: "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program...Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."

Originally posted by Gwaihir:
or better yet, neworks of black holes - i bet you could get a lot of energy (or *something*) out of an orchestrated system of black holes, somehow."The only thing physicists see as a use for black holes (besides a big trash can http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) is going forward in time, in a sense. Assuming you have enough fuel to do this, if you approach a black hole at a specific angle (and at a fast enough speed that you avoid getting sucked in), you'll get whipped around the black hole (very fast, since the gravitational pull of a black hole is so high), and get slung away from it, traveling at incredible speeds.
The faster you're traveling in space, the slower time moves for you - in other words, 1 second for you on your fast ship, would be longer than 1 second on Earth - in this example, 1 second on your ship would result in a good deal of time passing on earth.
When your ship finally slows down and starts moving at more reasonable speeds, you will have hardly aged, while the rest of the everyone & everything else will have aged considerably.

[ May 14, 2003, 12:19: Message edited by: Dingocat85 ]

dogscoff

May 15th, 2003, 01:48 AM

OK, so apparently a Niven-esque ringworld is technically impossible since the materials required cannot physically exist.

How about an Orbital from the Culture novels? They look like ringworlds, except that they don't encircle the star, they just orbit it in the same way a planet does. They are much smaller (only a few hundred thousand or million miles across, if memory serves, although that still offers many multiples Earth's surface area) and because the star isn't at the centre of the ring, all the night/day problems are avoided straight off.

Krsqk

May 15th, 2003, 05:04 AM

Mind you, to get this energy, you have to be able to manipulate a small black hole, which is probably very difficult (if possible) and very dangerous.Dangerous? Is that where all the neighborhood cats have gone? Dear me, what a terrible accident. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Like Mom always said, "It's all fun and games until someone gets radiation poisoning." Or was it "until someone gets knocked past an event horizon"?

Phoenix-D

May 15th, 2003, 05:24 AM

evelution has no explanation for intelligence and rules it out. why? chemicals aren't intelligent."

Evolution has very little to do with chemicals actually. That's a couple levels too low.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 05:53 AM

from an evelotionary point of view, where chemicals and electromagnatism and electricity. none of these explains intelligence, becuase none of these has been shown to have intelligence.

Phoenix-D

May 15th, 2003, 06:46 AM

narf, you're missing my point I think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Evolution doesn't work on the chemical level. (well, not in the sense biologists are talking about)

Move up to organisms and populations. There you CAN get intelligence supported by natural selection- if it results in the intelligent variant having more offspring or surving better.

Whether the indivudual molecules or atoms have intelligence is irrelevet; intelligence is an emergant property, like a heartbeat, breathing etc. Looking at one cell, you couldn't predict it. Take a human heart cell by itself, and it would be a sad, useless critter. Link it up with other, differently specialized cells though, and you've got something useful.

Dingocat85

May 15th, 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Every single living organism on this planet .... wants to do only one thing: Find and fix problems. Thats not stricly true. There is no concious disire to "fix problems". Its simply that those that do not "fix problems" die. Conside a group of foxes and a group of rabits. The foxes chase the rabits, the slow rabits are caught and die, so the remaining rabits are the only ones that can breed and the next generateion are on average faster. The slow foxes don't catch any rabits and die of starvation. Therefore only the fastest foxes breed and the next generatin is also, on average, faster than the previous one. This kills the slower of the new rabits, which get faster, and then starve the slower foxes, which get faster,..... and so on ad infinitum. Until you get light speed rabitts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Ah, but the foxes and the rabbits - even the ones that die - are still trying to fix problems.

In the foxes' case:Each fox is trying to fix the problem of not having enough food to eat.
In the rabbits' case:Each rabbit is trying to (ah! ah! ah! ah!) stay alive, fixing the problem of their lives being in danger.

The foxes that die because they can't catch food, and the rabbits that are too slow, are animals that can't fix their problems...So, evolution is just survival of the animals best suited to fix their problems.

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
ev{o}lution has no explanation for intelligence and rules it out. why? chemicals aren't intelligent. chemicals have gravity. lots of chemicals have lots of gravity. lots of chemicals don't have intelligence. unless everything is intelligent, in which case, I may not win, but you will lose.Intelligence actually is an evolutionary trait. Without intelligence, organisms get better suited to their environment via natural selection. Those less suited to their environment die off, the better-suited breed, etc. etc. - in other words, , and the organisms adapt to the environment (via mutations given to them at birth), propelled by death (of the weaker).

The more intelligence an organism has, the more it gets better suited to its environment via innovation. Just like the non (or almost non-)intelligent organisms, those less suited to their environment die off, the beter-suited proliferate & breed, etc. etc. - but the difference is, the environment is adapted by the organisms - Intelligence is giving organisms a chance to improve their own ability to survice, instead of using nothing more than their naturally imbued abilities.

There are two extremes on this specialization vs. adaptability spectrum:

On one end, you have Insects. Insects are very specialized, almost perfectly adapted to their current environment. The problem is...is the environment changes into something they're not adapted to, the insects die off. This is why insects have such short lifespans, and breed so quickly...those weaker-suited insects die before they can "make" more of their weak, not-suited-to-survive-in-this-environment kind. Conversely, those that are better sutied to the environment breed & breed & breed, and the whole cycle of better-suited insects making more of their kind goes on & on.
This mass breed/death cycle propels evolution, giving every newly created insect a slightly different variation - and those with advantageous variations proliferate & make more of their kind.

The other side of the spectrum is, of course, humans. Next to reptiles, Humans have one of the longest lifespans out of all creatures on this planet. Why? So they can think up more innovations, ways to manage their problems better.
Including a naturally adaptible chassis, humans can survive in a variety of environments and through a variety of problems armed with two things: tools (clothing, cars, bow & arrow), and knowledge (those purple berries are bad, this is the best knot to use when rigging a ship's sails). But neither tools nor knowledge come to a human at birth; they are acquired, used, and improved upon. Humans are such intellectual creatures, that the solutions they come up with (cars, iron working) create their own problems (pollution, dependency on metal)...we are also the only creatures we know of that have routinely engaged in genetic manipulation (horses used to be only strong enough to pull things, i.e. chariots, wagons - then they got stronger, and they could have stuff on their back, i.e. packhorses, horseback riders - then they got so strong, they could even wear armor, i.e. knights & cavaliers.
The intellect of humans also allows us to have complex social bonds, letting a soceity function as a whole - but that's a whole different story.

Note 1: There is some knowledge that has become so essential, and has been basically the same knowledge every time it was used, that people are born knowing that knowledge. Otherwise known as Instinct, some examples are eating & sleeping.

Note 2: Some scientists think that the only reason humans are so smart, is that when deciding between a man with intellect and a man who's fit, women have repeatedly chose those with brains http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

EDIT: Humans are also remarkable, because they have a form of communication that can express an infinite amount of ideas...

[ May 15, 2003, 06:52: Message edited by: Dingocat85 ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 08:02 AM

my point was, that although the brain is a complex computer and could come up with ideas, that doesn't explain why i exist. chemicals and energy can't come up with me, they just are acted upon, there is nothing there to act.

Primogenitor

May 15th, 2003, 08:22 AM

Im slightly worried now. This is getting terrible close to "what is consiousness" and "souls" and therefore "God".
"You are not a beutiful and unique Snowflake."-Tylor Durgen

What is different between human intelligence and others is unclear. Many animals have a complex social structure (e.g monkeys,lions), many animals comunicate (e.g dolphins, whales), quite a few use tools (e.g. otters, thrush) and can teach others (e.g. chimpanzees, New Calidonian Crows)

Phoenix-D

May 15th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Pet peeve: most animals communiate, not just a few. Or do you think those bird calls are for their health? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

"my point was, that although the brain is a complex computer and could come up with ideas, that doesn't explain why i exist. chemicals and energy can't come up with me, they just are acted upon, there is nothing there to act."

Which is waaay the heck outside evolutionary theory, which is what you brought up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You want the "What the hell am I doing here?" aisle.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 09:20 AM

no, i'm saying evelutionary theory can't explain and rules it out. if we are unintelligent chemicals and electricity, there's no way we could be intelligent. i, by my very existence, rule out evelutionary theory.

nobodies yelled yet.

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 09:50 AM

Ummm... narf, chemicals do not have to be intelligent for the sum total of what is composed of those chemicals to be intelligent.

The theory of evolution DOES NOT make any claims as to how life began, only as to how it changes.

You do not rule out the theory of evolution; you in fact are good evidence of it's validity.

I think you should go do some research on evolution (on university web sites and such, not random .coms, or better, in books and such http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) and stop posting about it until you learn what evolution actually is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 15, 2003, 08:51: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
from an evelotionary point of view, where chemicals and electromagnatism and electricity. none of these explains intelligence, becuase none of these has been shown to have intelligence.All brain functions are the result of chemical and electrical signal and morphlogy.
It's easy to map brain functions to different areas using functional MR scans and PET scans during brain activities.
Brain damage affects the brain functions (Cognitive, emotional, functional) in a predictive way.

True we have barely touched the surface of the knowledge required to fully understand the way we think, but we are moving along and learning more for each day.
It seems very propably that we one day will understand it completely.
It is after all based on the natural laws, it's all chemistry and electricity.

That doesn't imply that that's all we are, we are more than the sum, but that is also true of most complex things.
Take a pen for example, it's clearly more than the sum of it's parts.
(And no, I do not say that we are the same as a pen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

All this doesn't rule out the possibility of a deity if you are inclined to belive in such.

[ May 15, 2003, 09:05: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 10:16 AM

ok. something quick. i am trying to change my sleeping hours. therefore, i am tired and sound less comprehensible than i am. but, i have made a point.
you cannot make something more complex and expect it to get intelligent. you can only say that in theory, while in fact there is no link.
now, i must sleep.

[ May 15, 2003, 09:18: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 10:41 AM

Actually, you can. It happens every second of every day, and has been happening for every second of every day for all of eternity. All systems get more complex as time goes on. Entropy is always increasing. More chaotic systems are be definition more complex. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Primogenitor

May 15th, 2003, 11:54 AM

Complexity does not mean intelligence. But then what is? Computers can do math faster, store more data, but are they inteligent? Where in the animal world do you draw the line? are dolphins/whales smart? What about apes/monkeys?

This is getting rather Zen. Or maybe it isnt because it doesnt exist? Who am I, Am I Me? Since this entire thread is mearly an imterpretation of an arangement of magnetic feilds and electrons, does it exist?

dogscoff

May 15th, 2003, 12:07 PM

you cannot make something more complex and expect it to get intelligent.
We're not doing that- not every complex system is "expected" to gain intelligence. For example no-one is expecting the global telephone network to suddenly achieve sentience. (although that would make a cool scifi book=-)

However, it is scientifically provable that at least one very specific kind of complex structure (the brain) gives rise to (or is required to harbour) intelligence.

Your argument seems to be equivalent to "this bit of unrefined metal can't open a tin, therefore tin openers do not exist."

dogscoff

May 15th, 2003, 12:10 PM

Where in the animal world do you draw the line?
that depends entirely on how you define intelligence/ sentience.

Why does there have to be a line anyway? Why not just have a big, vague sliding scale? Better yet, a six-dimensional graph with lots of axes and different colours.

Primogenitor

May 15th, 2003, 12:14 PM

Better yet, a six-dimensional graph with lots of axes and different colours.
Axes imply a scale, since weve agreed you cant scale ro measure intelligence. The graph would not have axes, or values. Ha! Integrate that!

Loser

May 15th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You do not rule out the theory of evolution; you in fact are good evidence of it's validity.That sounds troublingly circular, since Evolution was formed specifically to explain our existence.

Before a discussion of evolution gets any further, I would like to point out a few things about how theories and science work.

Science: the dogma that is wrong

In science, we make up reasons for why the world works the way it does. These are hypotheses and humans have probably been doing this for as long as we've been here, or longer. What makes science better than other dogmas is what you do next.

After forming a hypothesis the scientist finds a way to test it. This test should not only be a "if this works, I'm right" setup, it should also cover "if it turns out this way, I'm wrong" circumstances.

The greatest thing about science is that it is often wrong. It is in a continual climb of improvement.

But what if it's about Napoleon, Doctor Wally?

There are two kinds of theories for which this is very difficult, in fact almost impossible. The first are sociological theories, as the test group or the control group tend to be subjected to inhumane situations in order to prove or disprove the theory. See the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/) or the Johnson/Tudor Stuttering Experiment (http://www.jsOnline.com/news/nat/jun01/stutter11061001.asp) for examples of some of the least inhumane experiments. Note, if you will, that sociological theories are still tested today, but the limitations on the test that can be done also limit the theories that are proposed.

The other sort of theory that is difficult to test are historical theories. The Theory of Evolution and the theory "Democracies don't make war on each other" that I have brought up in the Iraq thread are both theories of this sort. Most of the time theories of historical matters are of such a scale, and deal with matters so unreachable, that proving them is a matter of waiting for something new to be found.

Alternately, you can use the theory to suggest that something would exist is a certain place and of a certain nature. This is the way we will prove the theory of evolution: we search for the 'missing links' that the theory of evolution specifies must exist between differing species.

Now I speak about things

Unfortunately, we have not yet found any conclusive evidence in this matter. There are a number of places that we could look for such things, a number of dramatic transitions rich in the possibility for such a find: water-to-land, ground-to-air, land-to-water, ape-to-man. But, despite the fact that so many separate species seem to have made the first three transitions, we have not found a proper candidate.

Not that you'd be aware of that, if all you listen to is popular media. It turns out that any currently existing water-to-land transitional species is at it's 'evolutionary limit' and is unlikely to finish the transition. And no fossil evidence has produced any water-to-land transitional species that could be an ancestor to any other known land species.

The land-to-air transition seems the most promising, really, since it has happened twice recently (avians and mammals), because the animals involved were of fairly sturdy structure (unlike the soft amphibians), and because we have so much fossilized material from the time period when we're pretty sure at least one of these transitions (avian) must have happened.

I'm sure you are aware of the Archaeopteryx (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html). This species is certainly the strongest contender for a 'missing link', but even here there are uncertainties. Archaeopteryx can be seen as having both some of the features of an avian and some of a dinosaur, but it remains a strong possibility that Archaeopteryx is no ancestor to modern avians. The likelihood that it developed along side them is very real. Then there is the matter of the stuttering steps: we have several wonderful examples of Archaeopteryx in fossilized form, but none of other steps in the process, before or after Archaeopteryx.

I was under the impression that there were no strong examples of land-to-sea transitional species, but I could be wrong.

In the matter of ape-to-man, we again run in to the problem of relation. We can find creatures that are much like man, or creatures that are much like apes, but nothing in between. An additional problem is that many of the older examples of homids do not seem to have lead to modern man at all, but instead represent dead ends in an evolutionary paradigm.

These facts do not disprove evolution, in fact most support it or at least can be fit into the evolutionary paradigm with trivial supposition. But the difference between "the best idea we've got" and "downright fact" is an important distinction to make.

A couple additional things to note.

We're lucky to have a fossil record at all. The conditions required to make a fossil are exacting and rare. There are some creatures that will may never know of, because they were made of too-delicate stuff, or because none of their members died in the right place at the right time.

It speaks strongly of the Theory of Evolution that even the Creationists have incorporated some of its principles into their world-view. 'Creation Science' now purports that animals can, in fact, change to suit their environment (they do still maintain, however, that one sort of creature cannot change into another sort). While this is a reactionary movement, its members may still have something to contribute to the scientific community if they focus on more scientific method and less on philosophical detractions.

In closing

I would like to say at this time that I am uncertain of my intentions in this rant. I do not know what I meant to accomplish by saying these things, but I am fairly sure that I have said all I meant to. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you or your family.

Thank you.

dogscoff

May 15th, 2003, 03:57 PM

Axes imply a scale, since weve agreed you cant scale ro measure intelligence. The graph would not have axes, or values. Ha! Integrate that!
Well I was trying to imply that a single scale to measure intelligence wouldn't do- that intelligence is not just one single value but a the combination of many different attributes. My arbitrary value of 6 is probably a little mean.

Aloofi

May 15th, 2003, 05:41 PM

That theory about evolution have never convinced me.
The fact that life seems to evolve doesn't mean that we come from an ameba.
And all those bones are doubtfull at best, fraudulents at worst.
Anyway, to tell the truth, I will never belive in evolution not just because of all the inconsistence I see, but because Evolution is the official theory of the whole world, and official theories are official because they serve to someone interests, and since I'm not that someone, then its very likely that theory benefits someone that its interested in keeping me on the dark, whatever that dark may be.

Humm...... I guess I'm having a bad day today. All 4 post that I have posted today are anti-corporations and full of grammatical errors..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Edit] What did I edit?

[ May 15, 2003, 16:43: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Loser

May 15th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
... and official theories are official because they serve to someone interests...Buddy, you're starting to sound paranoid.

I don't think multi-cellular life would have come from amoebas. An amoeba has no reason to take the trouble needed to go multi-cellular, no present-day eukaryotes do really.

The life that would have taken a multi-cellular approach was probably something we don't have anymore. It likely took the collective approach to meet a certain goal, and having met that goal better with a multi-celled form, drove all its single-celled ancestors out of that niche. Now the only single-celled life left are those that fill a niche in which multi-cellular life simply can't compete.

That said...

Science does not serve any one man. Popularised pseudo-science certainly can, but true science serves only humanity as a whole.

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 08:25 PM

That sounds troublingly circular, since Evolution was formed specifically to explain our existence.
The theory of evolution starts off with "in the present day...". The theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. There are many other theories on that, but evolution itself quite clearly does not cover it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 08:29 PM

no, i'm saying that a more complex piece of tin won't become intelligent. it just doesn't compute for me. so, if you take my belief that evolution didn't make me, then evelution couldn't have made me, therefore there's big hole in evelution. which states that our development is random.

Phoenix-D

May 15th, 2003, 09:05 PM

"no, i'm saying that a more complex piece of tin won't become intelligent. it just doesn't compute for me. so, if you take my belief that evolution didn't make me, then evelution couldn't have made me, therefore there's big hole in evelution. which states that our development is random."

I'll work backwards here. Evolution isn't always random. Mutations and to a certain extent genetic drift can be; natural selection is definitely not. To a certain extent it is- who happens to be in the path of the firestorm when it starts, who walks under the tree limb when it falls- but in most cases it isn't.

Did evolution make you? Nope. Wrong level again. Your parents made you. I would aruge that the human species is halfway out of the evolutionary process by now, because of modern medicine.

A more complex piece of tin will not become intelligent- intelligence is something limited to living systems, which a piece of tin is not. But a piece of tin CAN be made into something more complex that an uneducated person might not expect.

It works the same way with intelligence. Once you've got a brain- which is required to get above a certain level of complexity- it becomes a test. Does adding brain power increase survival or reproduction? If yes, the species's intelligence will probably increase. If not, it won't.

I agree with Dogscoff that intelligence is not a on/off switch, nor is there one type.

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
no, i'm saying that a more complex piece of tin won't become intelligent. it just doesn't compute for me. so, if you take my belief that evolution didn't make me, then evelution couldn't have made me, therefore there's big hole in evelution. which states that our development is random.Umm... your belief that it is wrong in no way shows that there is a big hole in it. All it shows is that there is a distinct close-mindedness about your thinking and a lack of willingness to accept that you just might not be right.

And besides, evolution didn't make you. It is not some factory pumping people out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ruatha

May 15th, 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

A more complex piece of tin will not become intelligent- intelligence is something limited to living systems, which a piece of tin is not. But a piece of tin CAN be made into something more complex that an uneducated person might not expect.I see no reason that we someday can't create an intelligent machine.
If we understand the ways the human brain works we will propably be able to emulate it by using other technology. Emulating here doesn't mean that that machine will be less intelligent than a human, in the beginning it surely will but eventuall we will beable to improve it.
When this will happen is impossible to say but that it will happen is most likely.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 15th, 2003, 10:44 PM

i'm not saying that through evelution a brain could not sit here and type this i'm saying that there would be nothing behind the eyes!

Fyron

May 15th, 2003, 10:47 PM

Again, you are completely wrong in your thinking of what evolution is. Please go do some research on evolution to learn what it really is.

Primogenitor

May 15th, 2003, 11:06 PM

I think narf is trying to say that humans have a "soul" and that such a "soul" cannot be the product of evolution.

LOL

You believe what you want, but i dont think so.

Narrew

May 16th, 2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And besides, evolution didn't make you. It is not some factory pumping people out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif God, that is soo funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

oh, when I say God, its a figure of speech, not a comment on evolution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 16th, 2003, 12:12 AM

yes, primogenitor, that's what i'm saying. now, if i could figure out why fyron wants me to look up the definition of evolution...oh well, doing it anyway...ok, it still doesn't explain conciousness and there's nothing there, really, that i didn't know. so it couldn't have come up with it.

[ May 15, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 16th, 2003, 12:43 AM

Evolution DOES NOT make any claims as to how life began. That is a class of theories labeled as origin theories. Evolution only talks about how life is now and in the distant past. So, it does not need to explain how consciousness could develop from chemicals and electricity. However, there are many, many origin theories that explain such things.

I have told you to learn what evolution is because you are confusing it with origin theory, which it is not.

Also, you have categorically ignored at least 5 Posts that directly talked about how intelligence developed. You did not even acknowledge their existence. If you wish to hold a discussion, you must provide counter arguments to the arguments made against your point, not simply ignore them.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 16th, 2003, 03:57 AM

i did ackknowledge them, but only to say that evolution would only produce a computer. am i to brief? probably. i apologize. i think our confusion comes from the fact that your talking about evolution the definition, i'm talking about evolution the process, as it, according to the theory as i understand it, would happen.

[ May 16, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 16th, 2003, 05:55 AM

The definition outlines the process, so any and all arguments about that are the same.

The source of confusion is that you are confusing evolution with origin theories.

Also, you did indeed ignore the Posts. All you did was restate your original statement 3-4 times. You did not address the points they had raised of how you were wrong.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 16th, 2003, 06:27 AM

i read the Last two pages, and didn't see anything in regards to my assertation that couldn't be answered by my assertation that all that would produce would be a computer.
now, if i theorize that a certain process will give rise to a certain better, stronger and more flexible steel, how does it affect my theory if i find an example of that steel in nature and that steel is intelligent?

[ May 16, 2003, 05:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 16th, 2003, 06:35 AM

Narf, you have obviously misunderstood the responses to your Posts then. Several Posts have indeed adressed the issue quite clearly.

Go google for origins theories to get some good answers to your question.

[ May 16, 2003, 05:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Phoenix-D

May 16th, 2003, 08:01 AM

"i read the Last two pages, and didn't see anything in regards to my assertation that couldn't be answered by my assertation that all that would produce would be a computer."

Err..you didn't say that at all. You said evolution couldn't produce intelligence; now you claim you meant it couldn't produce a soul. Two different things. Intelligence can be shown to exist, even if it is hard to measure. A soul..can't. Its a belief that it exists, or doesn't, and falls outside the realm of science (and therefore evolution)

"now, if i theorize that a certain process will give rise to a certain better, stronger and more flexible steel, how does it affect my theory if i find an example of that steel in nature and that steel is intelligent?"

It affects it not at all, unless the steel was produced by that process you theorized. Knowing -one- way something can happen doesn't mean that is the only way, even if a lot of the time it is. (it doesn't -support- your theory at all though)

Primogenitor

May 16th, 2003, 06:34 PM

One of the great things about theories is that they are not set in stone tablets, they can change in the light of new information and interpretation. Thoeries are not proved. When an idea is first proposed, it is a hypothosis. When it has some evidence it is a theory. When it is proven, it is fact. When evolution was first proposed, no one knew anything of DNA, genes, or much of what would now be considered important information. Indeed, for a time it was though that proteins were the material of inheritance and not DNA. The original ideas of inheritance were that offspring were a blend of both parents, tall dads + short mums = medium height kids. Of course this is rubbish, you can easily see that over time everyone would become the same, and in the world today there is a lot of variety, but at the time no one had any better ideas.

If you did find an amazing new metal, then your theory could be modified to include an explanation for how it came to be. Or it could be replaced with something completely different. Over the years many peices of evidence have been suggested to contradice evolution, but all can be fitted in to the model. One of the first was the evolution of the eye.

A: The eye is so complex that it cannot have suddenly apeared fully formed overnight by a single mutation. Therefore evolution is wrong!

B: Ahh, but it changed bit by bit, each better than the Last.

A: But part of an eye cannot see. If you dont have a lens, you cannot focus, without a pupil ou cannot adjust to light and dark. What use is an eye that doesnt work? If you cannot see then you cannot avoid predators/catch prey/see mates/etc.

B: It doesnt have to work to the same standard as ours. It only has to be better than the eyes of the competition at the time. The first eyes may only have seen black and white at very low resolution. But any mutant that could see in grey would do better than just the black and white ones. They dont have to compete with modern eyes, because they dont exist yet. Your eyes do not see as well as a hawks, but they still work.

There are hundred more examples, things that didnt fit to start with, but then the theory was changed or someone thought of an explanation. Go on, try some! Ill do the best i can http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Jack Simth

May 16th, 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
There are hundred more examples, things that didnt fit to start with, but then the theory was changed or someone thought of an explanation. Go on, try some! Ill do the best i can http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif How about the circulation system? It appears to be required for any non-plant that is bigger than a few cells, and yet it is highly complex and interrelated:
A heart is useless without bloodand blood vessels
Blood vessels are useless without blood and a heart
Blood is useless without a heart and blood vessels
In order for any of them to happen, all three would have to happen simultaneously, or be nothing but a liability. E.G. the heart has to be a functional pump in order to move the blood through the veins, the blood needs to be able to carry nutrients at that same time, and the blood vessels need to already extend to everywhere they need to go.

Primogenitor

May 16th, 2003, 07:35 PM

An easy one to start with then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Note: plants do have a circulatory system, its just different to animals, esp mammals. They draw water into the roots and this goes into long tubes all the way up to the leaves where it evaporates. As water evaporates it draws more up the tube by surface tension and capillary action, kind of like drinking a straw. As the water moves, nutients such as minerals are brought with it from the soil up to the leaves. Theres another system which goes the other way, but im not sure how that works.

The reason you need a cirulatory system is because of surface area/volume ratio. Above a certain distince from the outside the cells of the organsim cannot get to oxygen/food at a fast enough rate. This is the reason you dont have worms above about 1/2 cm wide, they get longer because that keeps the distance the same. You could have a worm 10 miles long, as long as it is no more than the critical width.
One way to get around this is to put air tubes reaching from the outside inwards. Then as long as no cell is too far from a tube, its OK. But they can ony be a certain length before diffusion doesnt work.
So the bottom of the tubes is filled with a liquid, many chemicals will disolve in water better than in air.
Something that can carry oxygen/co2 in it (heamoglobin like).
The ends could seal over with cells that can move the required stuff from the air into the liquid in the tubes.
The tubes could join up within the organism so that they can exchange liquid. However, its still moving by diffusion.
It could be pumped by the walls of the tubes contracting, like your throat when you swallow.
The same liquid could also carry nutrients, waste, hormone, anything that need to get to all of the cells.
Some of the cells in the middle of the tube network become better at pumping, so that those at the outside can become specialised into transfereing nutrients/gases into the liquid.
Voila, you have a proto-heart, a proto-blood, and proto-blood vessels.

Remember, at all stages it only has to compete with the previous stage. This is also not orthodox theory, this is just off the top of my head. It probably has several holes in it, but im sure they can be fixed.

Evidence:
Insects have air tubes going into their bodies.
I dont think fish have a heart (cos i know the gills evolved into it).
Plants dont need a pump to move water.
Many small organisms are just filled with water(n stuff).
In an embryo, the heart doesnt start beating for some time. Gets nutrients from amniotic fluid)
There are many liquid containing orifices, the mouth for example.
Arteries are partially contractile and muscle lined.

Next! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Spoo

May 16th, 2003, 07:52 PM

I dont think fish have a heart (cos i know the gills evolved into it) Fish have hearts. The gills "evolved into" lungs.

Primogenitor

May 16th, 2003, 08:10 PM

My mistake. Ive just looked it up to confirm.
Fish have a two chambered heart and a single circulation (Heart->Gills->Body->Heart).
Mammals and birds have a 4 chanbered heart and a double circulation (Heart->Lungs->Heart->Body->Heart)
I got confused. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

It is more basic than a mammal heart however, so it still shows that you dont need a complete mammalian heart to have a working circulatory system.

[ May 16, 2003, 19:18: Message edited by: Primogenitor ]

Loser

May 16th, 2003, 09:01 PM

The argument of the eye, and the approach that Jack used with the circulation system, has a name. It is Irreducible Complexity, and it would disprove evolution if a case of it could ever be proven to exist.

There are a number of candidates for Irreducible Complexity status, and the eye is actually one of them. The problem with the eye is not so much that is competing with other eyes, but that even the simplest vertebrate eye, and a few invertebrate eye, is filled with a clear fluid. It is the formation of this fluid that has the potential to be a case of Irreducible Complexity. Without this clear, and non-living, fluid, the vertebrate-type eye is not possible.

Currently, however, we do not even understand how this fluid forms during the embryonic stages. One moment the entire eye-sack is filled with odd blood vessels, the next is filled with the 'human jelly'. The metamorphosis is not understood at all, Last I heard. It is easily foreseeable that once we understand how this process occurs during the development of every vertebrate life form on this planet we will better understand how it could have happened the first time.

Another example is the cilia. These organelles are constructs that require complex and perfectly configured elements to function at all. Without any one of these elements these rudimentary limbs would simply not function at all. To view matters in evolutionary terms, the whole construct would have had to spontaneously generate in a complete, if relatively simple, form, as there are no 'more primitive' Versions possible. To take away even a single molecule, or even a single atom from one of the constituent molecules, would render the whole apparatus not less efficient but totally nonfunctional

Almost all cilia are made of the same clever molecule, though sometimes (as on the humane sperm) the same structure is repeated on top of itself numerous times to increase the strength of the whip. But this matter has only been studied for a few decades, and you can't hold it against science if the scientists don't figure out everything right away.

There are a couple other contenders for Irreducible Complexity status, but just because they might be irreducible does not mean they are. Give it time, science will pin it all down, even the things it has gotten wrong so far. But when you start questioning scientific theories, you need to use science to challenge them. build a hypothesis, test it, publish it for your peers, respond to their criticism.

Or, of course, you could always just engage in energetic discussions, like this one. They're Grrrreat!

Jack Simth

May 16th, 2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
It is more basic than a mammal heart however, so it still shows that you dont need a complete mammalian heart to have a working circulatory system.I'm confused - where did I specify mammilian? Even worms have hearts, blood, and veins (of a sort).

Edit: Point of fact, I seem to have even specified that I wasn't just talking about mammals: It appears to be required for any non-plant that is bigger than a few cells 

[ May 16, 2003, 22:22: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Jack Simth

May 16th, 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Give it time, science will pin it all down, even the things it has gotten wrong so far.Just because it might be possible to "pin it down", doesn't mean it is possible to pin it down (to paraphrase yourself). Making that leap (as you appear to) is an act of faith.
Creation theory can readily explain such irreducibly complexities right now while, at present, evolution doesn't seem to be able to. Yet you seem to believe that evolutionary theory is a better explanation of such things. This is a very curious leap of faith on your part.

Krsqk

May 16th, 2003, 11:24 PM

I think the problem with most of these debates was alluded to further down in this thread and discussed quite a bit in the Plato's Pub thread a few months back. Any data (not evidence--see below) we can present can be fit into almost any hypothesis with a minimum of difficulty. Because no one is offering their theory as the "We-have-all-the-details-worked-out" theory (ok, no one who can be taken seriously), it's fairly simple to reinterpret the data to fit your pet ideas.

Probably the biggest hurdle to obtaining true "evidence" is our very limited scientific understanding. Some have estimated that the invention of the computer has allowed us to understand 22,000 years' worth of research in this century (in pre-computer years)--an improvement of 220 times--but all it has done has demonstrate our lack of understanding. Each new advance opens up a new level of complexity which must be studied, and it takes decades before we can be said to have a grasp on a new field of study. We will have no real "evidence" until we reach the informational limits of the complex world in which we live. Obviously, we need to build a Central Computer Complex III to speed things up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

My other peeve with this issue is not one with the real reasoned debaters, but the psuedosciencemongers (did I just invent a new word?). At least in popular media, evolution is portrayed as a scientific hypothesis against alternate supernatural hypotheses. Evolution is not scientific, but naturalistic. The issue is usually one of competing worldviews, not one of science and myth.

[edit]The distinction between scientific and naturalistic is important because most people think evolution is scientifically provable while recognizing that creation is outside the realm of science. The only "scientific" means of proving macroevolution is to observe it (requiring long periods of time), which still would not prove it as the means of species origination.

Also, I don't buy into the currently popular "Evolution has nothing to do with origins" mantra. Micro-evolution has nothing to do with origins, nor is it much disputed(although I think the terminology is unfortunate--adaptation worked quite nicely, thank you). However, when one says "Microevolution, ergo macroevolution," one is dealing with origins and hypothesis. Unless, of course, one wants to Fyronize the word origin to mean "the origin of the first life form" instead of "the origin of all life forms." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It's always helpful to know exactly what we're saying here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 16, 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Fyron

May 17th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Krsqk, there is no "mantra" as you put it. Evolution does not deal with how life began. It deals with how life changes. The arguments of how evolution must be wrong because we can't use it to show how life began are irrelevant at best because evolution makes no claims as to how life came from unlife. That topic of discussion is in no way about an evolutionary process. There is no "fyronizing" going on; only explanation of the huge distinction between theories and hypotheses of evolution and those of the origins of life. Several people have already shown that they believe evolution explains the origins of life, when it in fact does not. It is impossible to soundly argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because it does not explain how life began because it does not address that issue in any way. The theory of gravity does not address atomic spin, but noone would say it is wrong because of this. Gravitational force and atomic spin are not related (with current understandings of the physical world) in the same way that evolution and the origin of life are not related.

Most scientific origin hypothesis use evolution in them, yes. But, evolution is still not false if the origin hypothesis is false. This is not to say that evolution is true either, it is to say that no possible connection can be drawn between the two. In fact, it is entirely possible that the form of Creationism in which God created life and then let it go free and the theory of evolution are both true. Evolution does not depend on how life began.

[ May 16, 2003, 23:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 17th, 2003, 02:35 AM

ok, i figured something out yesterday while falling asleep, note, don't get into that habit. it will keep you up nights. keep your deep thoughts to sensible places, like the toilet.

but, like somebody said, i don't think you can really seperate evolution from beginnings and endings. and, by saying things like soul, i was trying to describe thinking and knowing your thinking. and, my understanding of the theory of evolutuion is that it does try to deal with how T.A.K.Y.T. came about, but if fyron's definition is right, so's he and then i'm not right in saying my theory rules it out.

[ May 17, 2003, 01:36: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 17th, 2003, 02:52 AM

T.A.K.Y.T. Eh?

narf poit chez BOOM

May 17th, 2003, 03:30 AM

thinking and knowing your thinking
and that steel and tin stuff was a metaphor. someone didn't understand that.

Fyron

May 17th, 2003, 05:05 AM

It was not a metaphor as you wrote it. Maybe you intended it to be one, but it wasn't. An analogy, maybe. But, the basis of comparison is poor. For an analogy to work, the items have to be similar already. Intelligence and "better tin" have no similarities. Tin does not "evolve" or anything like that. Tin is tin is tin. It is never worse than tin nor better than tin. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

i don't think you can really seperate evolution from beginnings and endings In that, you are absolutely wrong. Evolution does not address the beginning or the end, only the middle.

[ May 17, 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Krsqk

May 17th, 2003, 05:34 AM

The problem lies in how the word "evolution" is used. One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species. As such, it is closely related to hypotheses of spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, and the origin of life itself. You can restrict the term "evolution" to strictly mean microevolution, but the vast majority of those discussing and debating it on both sides use it to mean any and/or all aspects of the theory/hypotheses, often switching freely between definitions (sometimes even mid-sentence).

[edit]Fyron, this post isn't necessarily directed at you. You, at least, are usually fairly consistent in how you use a word (sometimes annoyingly so). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif However, evolution has come to mean much more in popular parlance than the limited scope which you place on it.

[ May 17, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Phoenix-D

May 17th, 2003, 05:57 AM

"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."

But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem.

StarBaseSweeper

May 17th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Micro-Evolution: T(n+1)=T(n)+1

Origin of life: T(0)=0

Macro evolution: T(n)=n ?

Primogenitor

May 17th, 2003, 09:08 AM

So what were getting at is this:

Evolution (of any sort) can only apply once you have an (living?) organism that can copy itself almost perfectly (doesnt have to be a cell or anything we recognise today)

Micro evolution is short term, such as differences between wild and tame farm animals. It is evolution within the same "species"

Macro evolution is evolution over long term, such as differences between birds and mammals, plants and animals. Evolution between "species"

NB: I dont like the word "species", its not very accurate over evolutionary time. But i cant think of a better term.

Primogenitor

May 17th, 2003, 09:14 AM

Heres a poser then:

Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution?

StarBaseSweeper

May 17th, 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
Heres a poser then:

Can non-living things evolve? E.g. Computer programs. What is actually needed for evolution?Of Course, else how could you have MC III from MC II ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[EDIT] Amd even more important, by who would the shrike have been created?

[ May 17, 2003, 08:37: Message edited by: StarBaseSweeper ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 17th, 2003, 11:59 PM

troops. evolution also means manuvers with troops.

Fyron

May 18th, 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"One minute it's used to describe the process of microevolution, and the next it's referring to the hypothesis of macroevolution--which indeed deals with the origin of species."

But not the origin of life, which is a different and much stickier problem.Exactly. Krsqk just likes lumping all of biology together so he can dismiss it more easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k

dogscoff

May 18th, 2003, 02:19 AM

Gah! It's the evolution debate again!

*dogscoff runs screaming from the thread...

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Yes, biology is a demonic branch of science, geology is blasphemous, and astronomy is an attempt to corrupt young minds and open them to the evils of astrology. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I don't reject macroevolution and abiogenesis because they are the same; there are enough other reasons to toss them. I was griping about the tendency of debaters and pseudoscientists to "prove" macroevolution via microevolution, and then take abiogenesis as a given--after all, they just proved macroevolution, so that proves the entire theory. In other words, evolution is presented for public consumption as a seamless theory starting with a big bang and ending with us. It's almost as if the public couldn't handle the knowledge that scientists don't have everything worked out. If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.

*joins dogscoff in running and screaming--six miles later, stops and wonders exactly why and where we're running*

[ May 19, 2003, 14:06: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
If evolutionists were more interested in public understanding of their theory, they would work a little harder at clearing up common public misconceptions of it.The problem isn't the evolutionists, it's their publicists, really. These people are probably working for grants. Their 'job' is to make sure the grant-board wants to give them more money. Very few scientists can afford the expensive hobby of educating the public.

And it's not even the fault of the educators. They don't make the decisions, they don't write the textbooks anymore, they don't even get to choose them.

And it's not the fault of the administrators. They don't have time to learn the theories, let alone time to make the right decisions. They're doing the best they can with what they've got.

And it's not the fault of the fifth estate. The members of the media aren't getting paid to educate the public. They aren't even getting paid to delivery correct or verifiable information. Face it, they are getting paid to entertain us: 'educational' programming is just a different sort of entertainment.

It is the fault of the public, as much as you might be able to use the word 'fault'. We (they, if you'd rather) don't really care to take the time, to invest our minds, to think enough to actually understand any of this stuff. At best we (or they again, of you want) just do a poor job of memorizing poorly delivered 'facts'. Humans don't want enlightenment, we (they if you must, you elietist) want dogma, want unquestionable rules handed down from those higher on the priestly hierarchy than we are, want to assail and exclude those who don't know those rule or, worse yet, challenge them.

So many people don't understand the one thing that makes Science better than any other Dogma: it is wrong, it is fallible, it is questionable and it's okay with that. It should be all these things; anything that isn't provable and improvable like "The Will of God" for example, anything that requires faith belongs in a different field.

At this point I would like to remind a few of you what faith is, to paraphrase a certain philosopher: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived, I would have to know Greek to understand the implications of the tense. Since we can prove scientific theories, one would be slandering 'faith' by using it to defend ones beliefs against assaults supported by proof. Such a defense has to be mustered in similar form: hypothesis, tests, evidence, rational arguments, and peer review.

I have faith that humanity will continue to improve; on the other hand I have evidence that it has improved. I have faith that Science will solve all the problems humanity will ever find or make for itself, while I have evidence that it has solved many, many problems and answered many curiosities in the past. I have faith that I will offend someone today. I have proof that many people are easily offended. Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Creation theory can readily explain such irreducibly complexities right now while, at present, evolution doesn't seem to be able to.There is some truth to this. But what many Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality; I'd love to see certain Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin and an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun should a 'backwoods' mystic type walk into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real actual paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.

Any one of these can easily, quickly, and confidently come up with 'answers'. But many of these 'answers' will either fail to stand up to Science, or will call upon forces outside the jurisdiction of Science. Things like God and Aliens and whatnot.

Again, they can all bring something to Science. They need only follow the rules the scientists follow.

It strongly reminds me of all the Southern U.S. Bible Belters who think they want God in Government but forget how uncomfortable they'd be with the God that would end up (or already is) in the government of Utah. They don't really care about God in Government, if they did they wouldn't want a Mormon God in such a nearby government. They just want power, and this is a cheap way to get it. Just another caucus.

[edit: removed some generalizations, after their nature was made clear by a later poster]

[ May 19, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Loser ]

dogscoff

May 19th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Beautifully put Loser, all of it.

Then imagine the fun when a 'backwoods' mystic type walks into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real paranoid delusional...
Don't forget the Norse mythologists, we want to stick our oar (axe) in as well.

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Beautifully put Loser, all of it.Thank you, you are too kind.

Hey, anyone and everyone, if you like what I'm saying, how I'm saying it, or the sound of my name, show your love and feed my rating.

If you dislike what I've got to say, how I'm saying it, or are having a bad day don't be shy: step up and give it a wack. Go on, you know you want to. Originally posted by dogscoff:
Don't forget the Norse mythologists, we want to stick our oar (axe) in as well.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Ack! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I feel quite foolish. I knew there was another fairly well-known creation mythos I ought to have mentioned... I completely neglected Europe's other well defined religious traditions.

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
There is some truth to this. But what Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality, I'd love to see their Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin or an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun when a 'backwoods' mystic type walks into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.It would probably be about the same as when a uniformitarian evolutionist, a catastrophic evolutionist, and a puntuated equilibrium evolutionist get together - you see, evolutionists don't agree too much on the nature of reality either, except within their own enclaves.

Ruatha

May 19th, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
There is some truth to this. But what Creationists seem to forget is that any 'creation theory' can explain away all the mysteries in the universe. The Christians can't even agree among themselves on the nature of reality, I'd love to see their Creationists sit down and discuss the beginning of time with a Brahmin or an Islamic Cleric. Then imagine the fun when a 'backwoods' mystic type walks into the room. And when they are joined by a 'crystal waving nutcase' or UFO culter or a real paranoid delusional... yeah... that's great.It would probably be about the same as when a uniformitarian evolutionist, a catastrophic evolutionist, and a puntuated equilibrium evolutionist get together - you see, evolutionists don't agree too much on the nature of reality either, except within their own enclaves.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answers, where the creationists usually are quite convinced that they already have all the answers.

Go Loser, that was one of the best Posts this year!

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 06:17 PM

Is it just me, or is there a gross mischaracterization of creationists and evolutionists going on here? At least in my circle, I don't know of any "we have all the answers" creationists. And you're also lumping all creationists in with your dislike of "Bible-belt" Christians, which I'm sure any Buddhist or Muslim (or Viking, for that matter) would take great issue with.

While we're tossing ad hominem attacks around, why not discuss the evolutionist who says (or at least behaves), "We may not have all the answers, but at least we don't believe in some religious superstition"? Isn't that as bigoted and closed-minded as the people about whom you take issue?

In all the times I have discussed creation/evolution with evolutionists, I have not been accused of being closed-minded about science; but I have been accused of being closed-minded because I would not accept macroevolution and origins theory as more scientific than creation. That reflects a mindset of superiority and a refusal to distinguish between belief and science.

[edit] Maybe the thread title should be edited to more accurately reflect its contents. Primogenitor?

[ May 19, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 07:14 PM

I appreciate your reply, Krsqk, and I may go back and edit my previous post to tone down a couple generalities in those Last two paragraphs.

But I must object that we have right here, and I quoted, an 'all the answers' Creationist. Involving a 'higher power' is a catch-all that can be abused, so easily, to answer any rational challenge. I know Creation Science has moved past such things as 'Gap Theory', so this example is a little dated, but let me just show you what I mean. "What about the dinosaurs, how do they fit in?"

"God put the fossils there. Maybe it was to test us, to test you, sinner."The explanation is silly (and I know full well that Creation Science has a better approach to this specific question these days), and you might say it's only silly at this level. But it just doesn't stop being silly when you move it up to the grand, epic, where-did-it-all-really-come-from scale.

The Christian Creationists I know, and have questioned, and with whom I have debated, all have the same reason for wanting to believe in Creation Science: they do not want to question the Bible. It is of great importance to them. It makes them happy and secure (the good ones) or at least makes them who they are.

(If this is not the case for you, then I would love to carry on a discussion of the matter with you, perhaps through private Messages or e-mail, if you'd allow it. Or in person if you happen this way.)

This is placing the Bible itself above challenge, above improvement, and above question. Does not Paul himself say "Test everything. Keep that which is good."? What is right will be proven, what is weak will break, and the human race may be left with something worth clutching, worth studying, worth devoting to memory, and worth devoting our lives to. Lord knows we could use something like that, because psychology, sociology, and pharmacology aren't doing any better than the dead-end Dogma with which we formerly oppressed each other.

Just for the record, I don't dislike Bible Belt Christians. I dislike power-plays in the guise of piety.

I will not call you close-minded at your first confession of faith. I will only call you closed minded if you fail to respond to questioning. I will not call anyone close minded who can entertain an idea without believing it, really. Isn't that someone's (Aristotle's?) definition of an intellectual?

There is faith, and it is a good thing. And there are matters provable by Science, and it is a good thing.

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
A mini-essay on science, faith, and Southern Baptists http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I agree that creationism is a theory of faith. I also say that evolutionary theory (macroevolution, abiogenesis, etc.) is a theory of faith--that is, a theory which by definition places itself outside of the realm of science. It is not scientific theory, but naturalistic theory. As such, it has no claim to the respectability of science.

By "evolutionist," I do not refer just to the scientists, but their promoters, the textbook authors, the professors, etc.--in general, those who believe in evolution (as "creationist" usually means "one who believes in creation"). The public could do a better job of looking past the surface--they could also look deeper into politics, but few will do that. It is because of this that political deception is widely effective. I place the major blame in two places--textbook authors, who should have a grasp of the difference between science and theory; and teachers/professors who do know the difference, but often blur over the distinctions, especially in lower level science classes. I realize that a 100-level course isn't going to delve into molecular biology; but it's not too much to ask to say, "This is how we think it happened, but there's room for disagreement." The professors who are out to destroy their freshmen students' faith are pushing an agenda, not teaching science.

[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 19, 2003, 18:23: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answersNot really. (link) (http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-censorship.htm)

[ May 19, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Krsqk

May 19th, 2003, 07:51 PM

In order to stay mostly on topic, I will respond to your faith/Bible/etc. points via PM/email.

Some creationists, just like some evolutionists (and if there are any other competing families of theories, some of those people, too) will concoct an ad hoc pseudo-knowledgeable reply to temporarily silence any question for which they do not have a better answer. It is difficult, without tone of voice, to distinguish between such a response and a purely theoretical, "This-might-be-the-answer" response. (I would also note that "sinner" isn't a derogatory term in Biblical Christianity, so that isn't a good indicator of the tone.)

I agree that "Well, maybe God did it" doesn't fit well into logical argument. Evolution theory has an equivalent--"Given enough time, it's possible." This is not based on observation, but is merely conjecture. The problem with attempting to fit origins debate into logical structure is that neither one can be logically proved. Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process. As one creationist put it (not referring to you and me), "I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'" Sure, it's a cutesy saying meant to make evolution sound silly and isn't meant to prove anything; but the heart of it is correct--it's a debate between the natural and the supernatural.

Mopping up a few loose ends: Again, I wasn't referring to your comments on Bible-belt Christians, but to Ruatha's. I agree that many people don't think through the consequences of their political desires, instead focusing on short-term convenience.
 Intellectual debate without believing the ideas being debated is fine and good, as far as that goes. Emotional detachment is not a requirement of cognitive engagement, though. Vehement argument against an idea is not a sign of close-mindedness, but of passion.

There is faith, and it is a good thing. And there are matters provable by Science, and it is a good thing.I won't tell you the planets and stars all move out of love for the Prime Mover if you don't tell me science favors a naturalistic origin of the universe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ruatha

May 19th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ruatha:
Yes, but they agree that they can't be sure of everything and that they don't have all the answersNot really. (link) (http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-censorship.htm)<hr /></blockquote>So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!

Fyron

May 19th, 2003, 08:31 PM

In all the times I have discussed creation/evolution with evolutionists, I have not been accused of being closed-minded about science; but I have been accused of being closed-minded because I would not accept macroevolution and origins theory as more scientific than creation. That reflects a mindset of superiority and a refusal to distinguish between belief and science. The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world. Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point. Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach. This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Ruatha:
So?
I don't see anyone there stating that they have all the answers?
You must point me more clearly where to look, I might be a bit tired tonight!Perhaps I should have elaborated more. It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[edit] Note: This is to Loser's first essay, not the one immediately below. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Actually, it was my third in this thread. I encourage everyone who can to go back a few pages and give my other Posts, one of which was very essay-like, a read. While you all are back there, catch up on the thread as a whole. This is the sort of thread that can revisit issues.

Perhaps you should say "essay before Last"... Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It isn't so much that they are saying they have all the answers; rather, the page points out a tendency on the part of the scientific community to silence those who disagree with conventional wisdom by means other than rational debate, which would imply that the silencers believe they have all the answers (to the major questions, at least).Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.

Crack-science serves only to line the pocketbooks of crack-scientists. If I found out that my tax dollars were paying the bills for some clipboard jockey filing reports on something that Science has proven (really, really proven) will not work I would not be pleased. I might write a letter. I might just vote. Originally posted by Krsqk:
"I believe 'In the beginning, God'; you believe 'In the beginning, dirt.'"I like 'In the beginning, dirt.'! That pretty much sums up a health secular outlook.

The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...

I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.

[edited for lag]

[ May 19, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Loser ]

Fyron

May 19th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Creation relies on faith in supernatural process; evolution relies on faith in natural process. So I see I failed to get through to you on the explaination of the term "faith" in the Last debates on these issues... should I go dig up those Posts again? You are using the wrong connotations of faith in the wrong place here...

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that Creationist hypotheses are based off of what some arbitrary random person says (either alive today or written in some book (or other piece of literature)). Scientific origin hypothesis are based off of what some random arbitrary person says based off of actual fact and evidence from the real world.
Arbitrary vs. Arbitrary - equivalent; of course, the arbitrary person you refer for the creationist side isn't (in most cases) still around to have their evidence questioned - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there for him/her to view, which you seem to assume. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:Most of them are probably completely wrong, but at the least they have a rational (logic-based, not other meanings) basis. Most Creationist hypotheses do not have a rational basis, but one that requires divine revelation, and so can not be considered valid from a rational stand point.Why not? Many of the great advancements in science have come about from someone assuming something with no empirical reason, checking it against observed evidence, and finding a better fit than previous theories. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: Yes, there are some that use logic and reason as their basis, but those are drifting away from religious viewpoints and getting into philosophical ones (which almost never rule out science (in part or in whole) as a lot of religious hypotheses tend to do), and they do not characterize Creationism in general. The vast majority of Creationists ignore any sort of rational (logic-based, not other meanings of the word) approach.Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies Originally posted by Imperator Fyron: This is what causes you to think scientists have some sort of superiority attitude. Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories.Doesn't apply to theories about the past, as they cannot be properly tested. Besides, there is historical precedent for theories to become widely accepted by the scientific community without being subject to this bombardment, as was the early Version of evolution as Darwin wrote it.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.

There is no way anyone can prove how old is a rock. That is a fact.

Of course, the High Priests of the new religion wants you to abandon the ways of the old religion.

Just like every time before.

That's why I embrace technology, but not that cult called Science

[ May 19, 2003, 20:02: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

Ruatha

May 19th, 2003, 09:05 PM

Well, sometimes one just have to laugh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

(Please continue the discussion, I find it very interesting but I can't make such good quality Posts as you guys have been producing, from both sides.
Some are also quite humurous (No disrespect).

[ May 19, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Yes, they are human. And humans are subject to politics. And humans should spend research money, money from the government, from the people, with some responsibly.
If you will read back a few Posts, I was responding to a remark that could be paraphrased as "the creationist community is dogmatic while the evolutionist community isn't" Originally posted by Loser:

The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time...
No, it isn't. Strictly speaking, nothing about the past can be proven. At best, evidence is either "consistent with" or "inconsistent with" a particular tale of events; further, evidence can be (in)consistent with multiple tails. This is why juries are instructed to rule based on reasonable doubt rather than just doubt. Originally posted by Loser:

I went over this in my first big post in this thread. We don't have to wait for things to change, either. We just have to look for the right footprints. How will you find footprints of God? Don't give me some spiritual wise-crack, either. Give me something we can prove.
Well, there would be a decided lack of transitional structures (e.g., you could find scales, quills, and feathers, but you wouldn't find scathers, scquiles, or quithers (stuff halfway in between) - everything would either be functional or decay from something that was functional) in both the fossil record and modern critters.

Some of the Creation-related Biblical stories would leave footprints - the Flood, for example, has a few things it would leave behind, such as Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (there are witnesses to it, and satelite photos of an anomily that would fit the description) and evidence of a large water cataclysm (a Biblical explanation of the fossil record, also a good explanation for the smoothness of modern coal, trans-strata petrified trees, and a few other things).

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.
...Aloofi, if you would go back, in this thread, and read my first massive post, I would look forward to reading your reply to my description of the differences between Science and Religion.

Fyron

May 19th, 2003, 09:18 PM

Jack:
Arbitrary vs. Arbitrary - equivalent; of course, the arbitrary person you refer for the creationist side isn't (in most cases) still around to have their evidence questioned - that doesn't mean that it wasn't there for him/her to view, which you seem to assume. No, I don't assume that. Their evidence was based off of complete ignorance of the universe. They knew nothing of geology, astronomy (real astronomy, not just things like postions of stars and such), physics, biology, quantum mechanics, etc. While we do not know everything about these subjects today, we know enough to be able to see that the hypotheses about the origins of the unvierse that people came up with 5000 years ago (basis of Christianity) are inherently flawed and can't be relied upon. Even those of 2000 years ago are suspect.

Why not? Many of the great advancements in science have come about from someone assuming something with no empirical reason, checking it against observed evidence, and finding a better fit than previous theories. You have confused hypotheses and theories. Hypotheses are unproven guesses. Theories are ex-hypotheses that have been backed up by lots of evidence and experimentation. Those hypotheses that ended up being right are the exception, not the rule.

Overgeneralization, Ad Hominin fallacies No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.

Doesn't apply to theories about the past, as they cannot be properly tested. Besides, there is historical precedent for theories to become widely accepted by the scientific community without being subject to this bombardment, as was the early Version of evolution as Darwin wrote it.Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aloofi:
Yeah, science is just another religion that demand as much faith as any other religion.Umm... no. I think I will have to enlighten some of you with the actual meanings of faith from older debates here... but I must get to class, so I will do so later.

There is no way anyone can prove how old is a rock. That is a fact.The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven. You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )...

Fyron

May 19th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Jack:
Well, there would be a decided lack of transitional structures (e.g., you could find scales, quills, and feathers, but you wouldn't find scathers, scquiles, or quithers (stuff halfway in between) - everything would either be functional or decay from something that was functional) in both the fossil record and modern critters.
Not another one of these arguments from ignorance... fossils are extremely rare. Only a very very small number of organisms ever get fossilized. The chances of a member of all species to have ever existed being fossilized are negligible. We are extremely lucky to have the fossils that we do.

All:
I have not yet seen anyone post a rational argument for Creationism (or something else that defies evolution and scientific origins theories). All you have done is post (often wrong) minor details/inconsistences and such with evolution and origin theories. This is no way to hold a rational debate. You need to present your side of the argument. So are you up to it? Can you post a good argument?

The reason I ask this is that you are not arguing from a valid foundation. If you are going to declare a theory wrong, you have to present a valid counter-theory (simply spurting out Creationism is not a theory, but a hypothesis).

[ May 19, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 19th, 2003, 09:35 PM

you want proof, try faith. it can't work any other way.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Fyron:
The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven. You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so Yeah, I know that I'm an ignorant, but I think I have an idea of how that works. They claim that some type of rocks from some kind of stratus have certain age, but is purely especulative, based in that the deeper the oldest, or something like that. It gives me headache in my ignorant head, so I'm not really interested in knowing all the details, other than to critize it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So yeah, I'm guilty, I made my mind years ago.
Science is a cult.
Scientists are the new priests.
And I'm a very proud ignorant.
Will they burn me in the stake for heresy?

narf poit chez BOOM

May 19th, 2003, 09:44 PM

and the bible intructs us to try what it says. so obviously that guy, at least, was confident he had proof.

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 09:51 PM

Arrg.... post lag.

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
you want proof, try faith. it can't work any other way."Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is not about believing in things that you could find. Faith is about believing in things that cannot be proven. Faith is about those things that are out of Science's league: the value of a man, life after death, the existence of a supreme being. Faith is not proof. Faith is what you use when proof is not possible, not when it simply is not available. Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Some of the Creation-related Biblical stories would leave footprints - the Flood, for example, has a few things it would leave behind, such as Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (there are witnesses to it, and satelite photos of an anomily that would fit the description) and evidence of a large water cataclysm (a Biblical explanation of the fossil record, also a good explanation for the smoothness of modern coal, trans-strata petrified trees, and a few other things).You are not telling me about footprints to look for. You are pointing at things we already know about and tying them into your theory.
Tell me about something we will find. When we find it, it will be proof (not perfect proof, but proof). If we don't find it, you will not be penalized. If we find that it is not possible, your theory will require revision.

I tell you we will find transitional specimens. 'We haven't found them yet' does not disprove evolution, but finding them is the test of it, always has been. Please read, again, my first unreasonably large post.

And dependence on eyewitness reports is unacceptable. If it is real, bring in consistent evidence. Those satellite photos over Turkey have not been reproduced. Yes, it looks like there's something there. It also looked like there was a face on Mars (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010528.html). We checked closer. It's a hill. Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Strictly speaking, nothing about the past can be proven.Oh my. In response to this I must speak the most terrible thing I could ever say to another speaking creature.

Bah.

This is the path of desperation. Strictly speaking you can never prove anything. Try proving the existence of time. We have all this evidence, but we have to start with a belief in the past in order to test and prove that time exists. That one hurts me in special places.

Yes, historical theories are difficult to prove, but we not actually sure about gravity either. It's possible that we are completely misunderstanding the mechanics of it. But it is darn good enough to accept as fact. And evolution can get 'good enough' as well. Eventually we'll see it happen anyway.

And with that unnecessarily personal comment, I am offically stepping out of this thread for the day.

Stay turned to this channel for Fyron's lecture on Faith. I know I will.

Loser

May 19th, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
and the bible intructs us to try what it says. so obviously that guy, at least, was confident he had proof.Narf.... I just don't know what to say. I have no idea what's going on in there, and I've had that same problem with your previous Posts.

Not that I'm complaining, they've led us to a very interesting place. But you've got to be the highest Creationist I know.

Now, it's also possible that I've been missing something very simple, something that would make complete sense of everything you've said. If this is the case, I apologise.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 10:00 PM

My problem with Science is that they have stolen the technology from us, they have mixed their especulations with proven technology to give credit to their nonsense.
Some people have come as far as to tell me that I can't be a technology buff while renegating of science, like if the two of them were the same thing.
I have no problem with calculating the distance to an star, but why in the world we have to especulate about the AGE of that star when that can't be proven and that is irrelevant?

.

Aloofi

May 19th, 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Loser:

This is the path of desperation. Strictly speaking you can never prove anything. Try proving the existence of time. We have all this evidence, but we have to start with a belief in the past in order to test and prove that time exists. That one hurts me in special places.

.Who says time exists?
Time is nothing more than the succesion of events.
You can't go back, you can't go forward.
It doesn't exist.
But it impress us, so we think it exists.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 19th, 2003, 10:15 PM

You are not telling me about footprints to look for. You are pointing at things we already know about and tying them into your theory.
and what's wrong with that? if you find an apple on the ground and a bunch in a tree above, even if you don't know about gravity you can still make it up and say the apple fell.

and fyron said that ancient religious figures where making statements that couldn't be proven. that guy seemed sure they could.

and things found in faith can be tried to see if they work in life. i've done it. and, fyron, if moses was shown all of god's works, he knew about things that make quantum physics small. of course, it requires faith to believe that moses was shown that, but if you exercise faith enough.
faith is a working bootstrap. i've seen it work.

time, like space and many other things, can only really be observed by it's affects. why you have to have faith that your not crazy. even if you take a little chance, your either having faith or desperation.

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceivednot seen is not the same as not percieved.

[ May 19, 2003, 21:36: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Grandpa Kim

May 19th, 2003, 11:06 PM

The universe was created 5 minutes ago! Complete with your "memories" and "evidence" that the universe is billions of years old.

This Creationist Theory is as good as any other creationist theory; all it requires is faith.

Science deals not with faith, but with what we can see and touch and measure. The key word being "we". Other, more omnipotent beings may have other means. Meanwhile we muddle along with what the human brain and mind can deal with. Evidence is there and we have the capacity to learn much of it. Was it put there to test our "faith"? Sorry, I don't buy that; my god holds himself to a higher moral standard. He is not a trickster out for a good bellylaugh watching the aimless searchings of lesser beings to see if they will keep the faith with absolutely no evidence. No, he has given us an immense mystery and the tools to solve it. Don't ask me why (yet), I'm just glad to be here.

[ May 19, 2003, 22:07: Message edited by: Grandpa Kim ]

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, I don't assume that. Their evidence was based off of complete ignorance of the universe. They knew nothing of geology, astronomy (real astronomy, not just things like postions of stars and such), physics, biology, quantum mechanics, etc. While we do not know everything about these subjects today, we know enough to be able to see that the hypotheses about the origins of the unvierse that people came up with 5000 years ago (basis of Christianity) are inherently flawed and can't be relied upon. Even those of 2000 years ago are suspect.
On what basis do you make this claim? There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment. Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence Edit: that is, when attempting to disprove something - I sometimes words in longer Posts, sorry) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration. You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here.
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You have confused hypotheses and theories. Hypotheses are unproven guesses. Theories are ex-hypotheses that have been backed up by lots of evidence and experimentation. Those hypotheses that ended up being right are the exception, not the rule.No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it isn't. It is a realistic observation of how people operate. Most people do not use reason in crafting their arguments.
The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... Darwin's theory of evolution was bombarded quite heavily when it was published. It was not simply accepted as fact without contest.
Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

And, Darwin's theory of evolution is as much a thoery of the present as it is of the past. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The exact date can not be proven, no. But a relative date can indeed be proven.Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You are just ignorant of the details of the methods used to do so (as am I, though not to the same extent). And, keep in mind that "ignorant" in no way means "stupid", just "lacking knowledge of a particular thing". I don't want to start any unnecessary semantics tangents (faith is not a tangent http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )...

[ May 20, 2003, 00:29: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Not another one of these arguments from ignorance... fossils are extremely rare. Only a very very small number of organisms ever get fossilized. The chances of a member of all species to have ever existed being fossilized are negligible. We are extremely lucky to have the fossils that we do.
As I recall, ~ 99% of all known fossils are microbes; of the remaining ~1%, ~99% are hard shelled mollusks; of the remaining ~.01%, ~99% are bony fish. The remaining ~.0001% encompasses all land vertabrates and many others. Besides, if the fossil record is that far from complete, then it ought not to be used in support of evolution, either. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

All:
I have not yet seen anyone post a rational argument for Creationism (or something else that defies evolution and scientific origins theories). All you have done is post (often wrong) minor details/inconsistences and such with evolution and origin theories. This is no way to hold a rational debate. You need to present your side of the argument. So are you up to it? Can you post a good argument?
Neither has the evolutionist side. Besides, the better of competing hypothesis/theories are normally/ideally chosen on the basis of which one better predicts or accounts for observable evidence where they differ; these minor inconsistencies that get pointed out are quite valid in that context. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

The reason I ask this is that you are not arguing from a valid foundation. If you are going to declare a theory wrong, you have to present a valid counter-theoryNot necessarily - you just have to demonstrate a case it can't account for. A valid counter-theory is only necessary if you want to throw the entire thing out. Besides, you haven't specified the details of the Version of Evolution you hold, why should we specify the details of Creation we hold to? That would be a double standard, Fyron.

Jack Simth

May 19th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

...

I tell you we will find transitional specimens. 'We haven't found them yet' does not disprove evolution, but finding them is the test of it, always has been. Please read, again, my first unreasonably large post.
You right in that something not found yet doesn't proove it isn't there - but your statement that they will be found when they haven't been yet is a statement of faith as you yourself defined it. You seem to predict that we will find transitional structures; I predict that we won't. As none have been found yet, mine holds better at the moment.

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Aloofi The Ignorant:
My problem with Science is that they have stolen the technology from us, they have mixed their especulations with proven technology to give credit to their nonsense.
Some people have come as far as to tell me that I can't be a technology buff while renegating of science, like if the two of them were the same thing.
I have no problem with calculating the distance to an star, but why in the world we have to especulate about the AGE of that star when that can't be proven and that is irrelevant?

.Yes, it can be proven.

Calculating the age of a rock (or any old object) requires careful calculations involving the rates of isotopic decays and the average rates of increase of the levels of those isotopes. Those that try to dismiss isotopic dating are often ignorant of how it is actually used, and are not aware that all factors are taken into consideration. Yes, there are errors in the calculations. But, they are relatively small errors. The calculations are never meant to give 100% accurate results, but estimates.

The age of stars can be calculated fairly easily and very accurately, actually. I am not an astrophysicist, so I can not give you the formulae used. But I do know that they are fairly accurate. Saying that the age of something can not be proven is technically true. But, scientists never try to prove the exact age. They try to get the best estimation possible, and are rather good at it.

Ragnarok

May 20th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QUOTE]
The age of stars can be calculated fairly easily and very accurately, actually. I am not an astrophysicist, so I can not give you the formulae used. But I do know that they are fairly accurate. Saying that the age of something can not be proven is technically true. But, scientists never try to prove the exact age. They try to get the best estimation possible, and are rather good at it.Something just popped into my head about this subject. How do you, or I, know that they are accurate in their calculations on how old a star is? They could easily say that this star is 1 Million years old and no one would really know the difference, because no one is going to question it; besides other scientist who are studying the same star. But still, how do the scientists themselves know if they are correct in their calculations? They don't know if their formulae is correct in figuring the age.
Just a thought.

I now return you to your topic and me lurking in this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 01:29 AM

Rags:
Something just popped into my head about this subject. How do you, or I, know that they are accurate in their calculations on how old a star is? They could easily say that this star is 1 Million years old and no one would really know the difference, because no one is going to question it; besides other scientist who are studying the same star. But still, how do the scientists themselves know if they are correct in their calculations? They don't know if their formulae is correct in figuring the age.I am not sure what exactly goes into calculating the age of a star, but I could easily find it. The age of a star is not accepted until a relatively large number of independant Groups study the star and calculate its age. So, it isn't just one guy doing all the math, it is a lot of people continually doubting each other and triple-checking all the work of others as well as their own work.

Jack:
I notice you have a tendency to not post counter-arguments, just to throw out various latin terms for things you perceive to be fallacies that may in fact not be fallacal (in fact, none of them actually approach being a fallacy, only your misconceptions about what was posted do). If you want to argue against points, you need to start posting more sound counter-arguments.

On what basis do you make this claim? It isn't a "claim", it is a fact.

There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment. That just isn't true.

Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration. And what is this "basic Creationist postulate"? You need to define things like that when you reference them...

You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here. Nice argument technique, throwing around fancy latin terms in the hopes that you look smarter than me and so are automatcially correct. You should stop that.

No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit. As you used the terms incorrectly, you are obviously confused as to their meanings.

The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing. It is a good thing I didn't do that then. Creationism is not based off of rational argument, but off of divine revelation. This is what I said before. You just misinterpreted my meaning due to the wording of the post.

Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall. Yes it was! It was attacked from many sides by the scientific community.

It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past. Yes, the near past, which is closer to the present than the past you are attempting to attack it from, which is the origin of life. His theory most clearly did not address the origin of life.

Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated. Yes, they can be properly calibrated. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but with enough accuracy that the relative date is as good as it can get. I guess if you take a literal definition of "properly" to mean 100%, then your statement holds. But if you take a realistic approach to the problem, it does not. All of the calculations take the sources of error into account and minimize their effects quite well. Just because you are not a mathematician and don't understand how they work does not mean that they do not work.

As I recall, ~ 99% of all known fossils are microbes; of the remaining ~1%, ~99% are hard shelled mollusks; of the remaining ~.01%, ~99% are bony fish. The remaining ~.0001% encompasses all land vertabrates and many others. Besides, if the fossil record is that far from complete, then it ought not to be used in support of evolution, either. The fossil record provides some meagre support for evolution, and it throws out most forms of Creationism completely. Namely, those forms where a deity created all life on the planet as it should be. Extinction does not fit in with Creationism in general. Many Creationists try to compensate for this by saying that their deity created all of the fossils and such, but that is getting into extremely circular logic. Other forms of Creationism that allow for lifeforms to become extinct suffer the problem that eventually all lifeforms will die off, and nothing will be left alive. There is no evolution, after all. So, new species can't come to replace them. It is only when you allow for both a Creation and evolution that you can have a valid use of Creationism. Evolution certainly does not rule out the possibility of divine Creation because it NEVER addresses the origins of life, just how it changes now and in the distant past. I hope people will begin seeing these sentences I keep posting and realize that they are wrong when they try to say evolution is wrong because it doesn't fit in with Creation...

Neither has the evolutionist side. Besides, the better of competing hypothesis/theories are normally/ideally chosen on the basis of which one better predicts or accounts for observable evidence where they differ; these minor inconsistencies that get pointed out are quite valid in that context.You have not proposed a competing theory, which is the problem. Only pure, literal Creationism is a valid competition with evolution because evolution does not address the origins of life in any way shape or form. That is a whole other branch of biology. Creationism that only says "God created the universe and life" does not rule out the possibility of evolution at all. See above paragraph. So, pointing out some perceived flaws in evolution (some perceptions have been true, others false) does not make it wrong in this context, as you have not proposed any competing theory or hypothesis.

Not necessarily - you just have to demonstrate a case it can't account for. You just contradicted yourself.

Besides, you haven't specified the details of the Version of Evolution you hold,There is only one Version of evolution, and it does not address the origins of life at all. There are different implementations of it, different competing theories of what evolved from what, but they all use the same theory of evolution. I have not stated what origin theory I support because I am not going to get into that sort of argument with a Creationist. Arguing about that with a Creationist is like arguing with a wall; the Creationist can't be wrong, so no amount of argument and evidence would possibly have an effect. And, the origin of life is irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways.

That would be a double standard, Fyron.No, it wouldn't. There is one Version of evolution, and many Versions of Creationism.

I am no longer going to directly respond to arguments that clearly confuse evolution with origin theories. It is very tiring, and very unproductive. If you want to argue against evolution, stop mixing origin theories in with it.

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 01:31 AM

Narf:
and fyron said that ancient religious figures where making statements that couldn't be proven. that guy seemed sure they could.
No, I said they were making guesses about the nature of reality based off of a distinct lack of information. They knew nothing of the actual mechanics of reality, and so their hypotheses were inherently flawed.

and, fyron, if moses was shown all of god's works, he knew about things that make quantum physics small. That is about as circular as reasoning can get. You can not use something to prove itself.

not seen is not the same as not percieved.
What was the point of saying that? It is irrelevant to the preceding quote. The meaning of the quote and the post following it is exactly the same. The semantics do not invalidate his point.

[ May 20, 2003, 00:34: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 01:51 AM

Ah, here is my "lecture" on faith (as someone put it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). It came about when someone accused me of being religious because I accepted that radio-carbon dating was relatively accurate enough to give accurate estimates. I am not trying to start up any old arguments, I am just posting this to help some people better understand how scientific and religious "faith" are wholely different concepts.

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.

Aloofi

May 20th, 2003, 05:06 PM

Science and relegion are not mutually exclusive. Several hundred years ago, humans believed that lighting was the work of god. Since then significant evidence has accumulated that lighting is a trasnfer of electrons created by static electricity (I think, im open to correction). Most significant modern religions (I.e. most of the world population follow) would not say that lightning is an act of god (I think) (Though insurance companies might). This is because most of the world would say that lighting is a transfere of electrons created by static electricity.
I don't get it. Why would a lightning not be an act of God? Yeah, its a transfer of electrons or something, so what?
You know, I think the problem here is the type of education recieved. I received a Jewish education, that says that every act that happens is an act of God, while it seems that in Christian/Western countries the concept of an act of God is diferent, like it have to be something unexplainable.

Aloofi

May 20th, 2003, 05:14 PM

Yes, it can be proven.

Calculating the age of a rock (or any old object) requires careful calculations involving the rates of isotopic decays and the average rates of increase of the levels of those isotopes. .
Don't you get it?
How can you be sure that the decay of isotops is constant, or that is not affected by wether?
How can you prove that 5 isotops means 5 years or whatever?
Nobody have taken a time machine to go back and make sure that all those time measuring "theories" actually work!!!

Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

Primogenitor

May 20th, 2003, 05:28 PM

You have to make basic assumptions, such as constant decay. Given the assumptions are true, you can measure the decay in a certain time, say 5 minutes. You can then extrapolate that back into the past. Or forward into the future.

The assumptions you make can affect the result. There is also some uncertanty in any measurement of a continuous scale, such as time or distance. Thats why results are often given a margin of error. You could say the rock is 500 years of plus or minus 1 day. Thats quite accurate. Or it could be 500 years plus or minus 1000 years. Thats very inaccurate. If the assumptions are false, then the result will be wrong. In many cases, the assumptions made are known to be false, but are made in order to make it easier to work out. If you read a real science paper in a proper journal, such as Nature or Science or whatever, there are always certain assumptions whether declared or not. Those assumptions are based on previous work, which had assumptions based on previous work, etc. Right back to basics. You have to trust other peoples work.

I do think this forum has a large amount of christian background in it. It would be very nice to get some non-christian viewpoints and discussion. I think its fair to say that the majority of people reading this thread are aged 20-40, christian (if any religion), white european (including americans), male, educated to a reasonable level (just below Bachelor on average), and american or european, but i could be wrong.

[editied to raise age range as corrected by Ruatha]

[ May 20, 2003, 16:49: Message edited by: Primogenitor ]

Krsqk

May 20th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Hmmm. Step out for ~24 hours, and there's a ton to respond to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I guess I'll just have to excerpt quotes from the Last three pages:

Fyron:
"Scientific origin hypothesis..." "Any hypothesis that does not have a sound logical basis can be safely dismissed without a second thought. Most scientific hypotheses that are concocted fall under this Category too. It is only the ones that stand up to bombardment by the scientific community as a whole that can be translated into theories."I'll deal with most of this later. For now, suffice it to say that at best, this blurs the line between science (repeatable, observable experimentation) and educated guessing. At worst, it blurs the line between science and pick a theory. You cannot experiment on the past, so origin theories are outside of the realm of science.

Loser:
"The big difference, here, between Creationism and the Theory of Evolution is that evolution can be proven. I'm not saying it has been proven, but it is possible... given enough time..."Don't make Fyron straighten you out on evolution versus origins. Unless, as 99.9% of people, you use evolution to mean how everything came to be here, from the beginning to the present. Again, no origins theory can be proved, as there would have been no observation.

Fyron:
"The reason I ask this is that you are not arguing from a valid foundation. If you are going to declare a theory wrong, you have to present a valid counter-theory (simply spurting out Creationism is not a theory, but a hypothesis)."I'm assuming, again, that you're placing creationism on the same basis as evolution--that is, not as a theory of origins? Or are you comparing the two families of origins theory?

Loser:
"Yes, historical theories are difficult to prove, but we not actually sure about gravity either. It's possible that we are completely misunderstanding the mechanics of it. But it is darn good enough to accept as fact. And evolution can get 'good enough' as well. Eventually we'll see it happen anyway."Fyron would tell you your analogy doesn't work because you're comparing two different things--historical theories and scientific theories. By definition, historical theories cannot be experimented on or repeated. In some cases, historical research (documents, interviews, etc) can be done, but I don't think that works too well for origin theories--the Big Bang doesn't accept interviews, and God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Fyron:
"I am no longer going to directly respond to arguments that clearly confuse evolution with origin theories. It is very tiring, and very unproductive. If you want to argue against evolution, stop mixing origin theories in with it."I want to argue about origins--stop mixing evolution in with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Why does every debate we have need to be about evolution? Why can't it be about origins? Maybe because one can't apply logic and science to it?

That's the big problem here. In effect, the evolution "side" of this argument says "Creationists, produce proof for your side." Since the supernatural is unproveable, the creationist platform is assumed to be proven false. Logic itself would dictate that unproveability does not equal falsehood, and that quantifiability does not equal superiority. They are two separate realms. Gotta run now--I will edit this post and finish my thoughts in an hour or so.

Ruatha

May 20th, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
I think its fair to say that the majority of people reading this thread are aged 15-30I think you are wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I'm not sure but this seems to indicate a wider range on the + side;
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002107;p=1

[ May 20, 2003, 16:39: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Suicide Junkie

May 20th, 2003, 05:57 PM

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Aloofi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Yes, it can be proven.

Calculating the age of a rock (or any old object) requires careful calculations involving the rates of isotopic decays and the average rates of increase of the levels of those isotopes. .
Don't you get it?
How can you be sure that the decay of isotops is constant, or that is not affected by wether?
How can you prove that 5 isotops means 5 years or whatever?
Nobody have taken a time machine to go back and make sure that all those time measuring "theories" actually work!!!

Am I the only one that sees a problem here?<hr /></blockquote>Aloofi, all of those factors are taken into account in the caclulations. The decay is not quite constant, and that is factored in. The average increases over time are factored in.

And what SJ said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
I'll deal with most of this later. For now, suffice it to say that at best, this blurs the line between science (repeatable, observable experimentation) and educated guessing. At worst, it blurs the line between science and pick a theory. You cannot experiment on the past, so origin theories are outside of the realm of science. No one ever pretends to be able to experiment on the past. Scientific origin theories are based off of current observations, past observations, etc. No one has made any claims that they are absolute fact and there is no other possibility. That is what Creationists do, not scientists. Electron theory and quantum mechanics are our best guesses on how subatomic particles work. We can not experiment on them. Does that mean that those are out of the realm of science? Hardly. We can not experiment on stars, black holes, nebula, and other stellar phenomena. Does that mean that they are out of the realm of science? Certainly not.

The only people that have been lumping origins theories and evolution together are those that refuse to accept that their religious world view might not be entirely correct, so that they can dismiss them more easily.

Don't make Fyron straighten you out on evolution versus origins. Unless, as 99.9% of people, you use evolution to mean how everything came to be here, from the beginning to the present. Again, no origins theory can be proved, as there would have been no observation.
99.9% of ignorant people, yes. Weight of numbers for a belief by no means indicates that that belief is right. Again, astronomical theories can not be proven, as there would have been no observation. We can't see what other stars and such are actually like, just make guesses as to their nature based off of facts we do know and our observations. Much like evolution and origins theories. Hmm... anyone else see a connection? And before you say it, no, religious origins theories are not equivalent to scientific ones because they are not based off of logical reasoning and facts that we do know, they are based off of what some random person claimed to be true thousands of years ago with no evidence to back it up.

I'm assuming, again, that you're placing creationism on the same basis as evolution--that is, not as a theory of origins? Or are you comparing the two families of origins theory? I was asking for a counter theory to evolution. Other people have commited the fallacy of comparing evolution with the origins aspects of Creationism, but I have not.

God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions. I certainly hope that you are not really such an intolerant elitist as you just painted yourself with that remark... I am going to assume (hope) the contrary because of the smiley you included, but you never know. Such remarks do not help you make your point at all; in fact, they hurt it pretty severely.

I want to argue about origins--stop mixing evolution in with it. Why does every debate we have need to be about evolution? Why can't it be about origins? Maybe because one can't apply logic and science to it? Yes, logic can be applied to origins. You haven't applied any logic to your side of the argument. But that does not mean that it can not be done. Go do some research on philosophical works and you will see that there are numerous people that come up with logical arguments for or against any of the myriad of sides in this issue.

I do not keep "mixing evolution in with it". Most of this thread has been about evolution and not origins.

That's the big problem here. In effect, the evolution "side" of this argument says "Creationists, produce proof for your side." Since the supernatural is unproveable, the creationist platform is assumed to be proven false. Logic itself would dictate that unproveability does not equal falsehood, and that quantifiability does not equal superiority.Maybe you should take lessons in logic then. There are more ways to prove something than hard physical evidence. This is how things like origin theories can (though not all of them) fall under the realm of science.

[ May 20, 2003, 18:01: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Krsqk

May 20th, 2003, 09:59 PM

I do think this forum has a large amount of christian background in it. It would be very nice to get some non-christian viewpoints and discussion.I assume you mean something besides Christian and atheist? I would guess that the geographical make up of this forum is as much a cause for the dominance of those two beliefs as anything else is.

So, there you have it. If you're Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or Taoist or anything else, your input is needed. If your Christian or athiest, don't talk so much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 20, 2003, 21:22: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Fyron

May 20th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Well I'm neither Christian nor Atheist, so I guess I get to keep talking as much as I want! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ruatha

May 20th, 2003, 10:52 PM

I can talk too, I'm an agnostic.

Krsqk

May 20th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Again, astronomical theories can not be proven, as there would have been no observation. We can't see what other stars and such are actually like, just make guesses as to their nature based off of facts we do know and our observations. Much like evolution and origins theories. Hmm... anyone else see a connection?Well, yes. In both cases, the observations made are very distant from the subject (whether in time or distance), and both are inordinately based on extrapolation of mathematical measurements and constants which may or may not be accurate--the length of time involved more or less ensures a lare margin of error for the results. Surely you don't put the results gleaned by astronomy on the same level as those from, say, botany or chemistry. Theoretical science has exploded in the past few decades, and it will take quite a bit of time for it to "settle out" and yield some hard facts, instead of just theoretical entities which currently only exist (to us) mathematically.

...[religious origins theories] are based off of what some random person claimed to be true thousands of years ago with no evidence to back it up.Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.

I was asking for a counter theory to evolution. Other people have commited the fallacy of comparing evolution with the origins aspects of Creationism, but I have not.So you're asking for what, exactly? An explanation of speciation under creationism? It is not possible under most forms of creationism to separate origins from our present-day state.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />God's too busy answering my prayers to answer your questions.I certainly hope that you are not really such an intolerant elitist as you just painted yourself with that remark... I am going to assume (hope) the contrary because of the smiley you included, but you never know. Such remarks do not help you make your point at all; in fact, they hurt it pretty severely.<hr /></blockquote>No, they don't hurt it any more than saying the Big Bang doesn't accept interviews hurts it. As for the intolerant elitist thing, I think the smiley was sufficient for that. Or would you prefer a http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif instead of just a http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ? The point was, there is no possible observation of the past and there is no one to interview who was there. Thus, the standard methods of verifying historical theories are unavailable.

Maybe you should take lessons in logic then. There are more ways to prove something than hard physical evidence. This is how things like origin theories can (though not all of them) fall under the realm of science.Actually, I have taken lessons in logic. I can spot and spit out Bulverisms, ad hominems, and amphibolies right along side everyone else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I am aware of many of the various philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, the supernatural, and (for that matter) reason itself. Not one of those arguments is a proof for anything--at most, they are an intellectual diVersion which is picked up, toyed with, and set aside. We can experience and/or believe in any of those examples. We can, in some sense, observe reason, though this is a subjective, not objective, observation. The bottom line is, the ability to logically discuss something does not equal the ability to logically prove or disprove it.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 21st, 2003, 12:51 AM

What was the point of saying that? It is irrelevant to the preceding quote. The meaning of the quote and the post following it is exactly the same. The semantics do not invalidate his point.
seen is not the same as percieved. if you hear an object, you percieve an object, even if you don't see it. i believe there are ways of percieving that involve spiritual senses rather than physical ones.

This is because most of the world would say that lighting is a transfere of electrons created by static electricity.
just becuase lightning is a transfer of electrons doesn't rule out god creating the lightning. if i throw a rock with a quantum cannon and you discover newtons laws, it doesn't rule out the quantum cannon. not to sure that quantum physics is right, though. just stating, don't want to start anothere debate.

Hmmm. Step out for ~24 hours, and there's a ton to respond to. [Smile] I guess I'll just have to excerpt quotes from the Last three pages:
2 pages for me

Don't make Fyron straighten you out on evolution versus origins. Unless, as 99.9% of people, you use evolution to mean how everything came to be here, from the beginning to the present. Again, no origins theory can be proved, as there would have been no observation.
no mortal observation. so, origin theory can be proven.

Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.
yup.

[ May 20, 2003, 23:52: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 21st, 2003, 01:15 AM

Narf:
seen is not the same as percieved. if you hear an object, you percieve an object, even if you don't see it. i believe there are ways of percieving that involve spiritual senses rather than physical ones.That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.

Krsqk:
Well, we don't know that. If that person was receiving direct revelation from God, I would think they could accept that as evidence.
That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So you're asking for what, exactly? An explanation of speciation under creationism? It is not possible under most forms of creationism to separate origins from our present-day state.I am asking for something more than just trying to pick out every minor perceived flaw (most of them are based on incorrect assumptions or a lack of knowledge about the specifics of the reasoning behind the theory). It was not directed at you specifically, but at everyone that has been doing things like this.

And you are right, such things are not possible under ignore-all-the-evidence-around-us forms of Creationism. But there are other forms of Creationism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Primogenitor

May 21st, 2003, 01:29 AM

Blimey! I go away for a weekend and theres several pages to catch up on! Good work all!

One of the problems that i think a lot of people have with science stems is because there is so much of it. If you truly wanted, you coud go right back to basics and repeat everyhing. However, since that is very impractical, you have to trust ("have faith") that other peoples work is reliable and true. Scientists have been caught out before, and will be again.

What Darwin did was not evolution. It was a mechanism by which evolution worked. He was so afraid of ridicule for it that he spent most of his life ammasing evidence to prove it and only published when another guy (Russel or Alfred Wallace is think) had a similar idea while in a malarial coma!

You could say that both Evolution Theory (ies) and Creationist Theory (ies) are the products of evolution themselves. All that is needed for evolution is inheritance, variation, and natural selection. Most ideas/knowledge/concepts have these.
Inheritance is teaching others (verbally, writings, or forun threads!)
Variation is different interpretations (look at the types of christianity)
Natural selection is differential inheritance (norse relegion against christianity)

Science and relegion are not mutually exclusive. Several hundred years ago, humans believed that lighting was the work of god (Zeus et al). Since then significant evidence has accumulated that lighting is a trasnfer of electrons created by static electricity (I think, im open to correction). Most significant modern religions (I.e. most of the world population follow) would not say that lightning is an act of god (I think) (Though insurance companies might). This is because most of the world would say that lighting is a transfere of electrons created by static electricity.

And finaly...

Quote from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn�t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don�t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn�t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

Ruatha

May 21st, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Primogenitor:
Most significant modern religions (I.e. most of the world population follow) would not say that lightning is an act of god (I think) (Though insurance companies might).*LOL*

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Krsqk

May 21st, 2003, 04:57 AM

That requries extremely circular logic. You are using that to prove itself, which most certainly does not work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Actually, I was trying to demonstrate that a theory can be valid without being provable. Assuming creation to be true, if God did give divine revelation about creation to someone to be written down, that doesn't mean He sent copies of the interview to everyone with a press credential. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif There would be no objective proof of the creation, but it would nonetheless have happened. That is just the way a supernatural event would be--it's nothing against logic; it just isn't subject to logical proof or disproof.

Fyron

May 21st, 2003, 05:22 AM

Sigh. I think you need to take some new philosophy classes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

narf poit chez BOOM

May 21st, 2003, 07:32 AM

the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is not about the things you can prove, but about things you do not perceive, perhaps things that cannot be perceived
That was my point. You are implying that there is something wrong with the quote because it only involves sight, but I was trying to explain that it involves other forms of perception too. The post following the quote was not focusing on sight alone, just using it as a synonym.
ok, now that i have that down:
he was saying that there are thing's that perhaps cannot be perceived, i missed the perhaps, and i was saying that everything can be percieved, although not with our physical senses. they require faith. like i said, faith is a working bootstrap, which also is why scientists have problems with it.

Fyron

May 21st, 2003, 08:21 AM

Narf, please go read my post on "faith"...

narf poit chez BOOM

May 21st, 2003, 08:30 AM

my original reply, which you replied to, was not to you. it was to that first qoute in my Last post

[ May 21, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 21st, 2003, 08:38 AM

It does not matter who it was directed at. You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 21st, 2003, 09:41 AM

read it again. you define faith differantly than i do. i know that if i have faith that i will get an answer, i will get an answer. that is verification.

Fyron

May 21st, 2003, 09:36 PM

I define faith correctly.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 21st, 2003, 10:12 PM

dictionary definitions are not always accurate for each persons use.

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 12:16 AM

I never used a dictionary. In fact, my "definitions" are the complex extended ones, not dictionary ones. And, words have specific, universal meanings. They are not dependant upon the speaker.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 22nd, 2003, 08:37 AM

like, i don't think so. so you know, like not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
ok, that answers kinda cheezy, but the meanings of words, to the people involved, can change radically depending on region and dialect. any universal, overarching meaning isn't dependent on mortals. which is one reason to listen for the sense of the words.

[ May 22, 2003, 07:41: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 08:56 AM

Sigh. That applies in limited scope to words that are only in certain regional dialects, yes. But, complex words do not change drastically in meaning from one region to another. And even if the word is used in a slightly different manner, that is immaterial; it is the concepts that matter. You are not understanding the concepts of the various forms of faith. You are only able to make your argument because you are using the wrong meanings of the word faith in the wrong context. If you refuse to even listen to my arguments instead of just brush them aside as you are currently doing (no counter-argument has been made at all), then there is little point in discussing this with you.

[ May 22, 2003, 07:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM

May 22nd, 2003, 08:58 AM

ok.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 08:59 AM

You responded before I finished fixing my post...

narf poit chez BOOM

May 22nd, 2003, 09:03 AM

ok, now that i have that down:
he was saying that there are thing's that perhaps cannot be perceived, i missed the perhaps, and i was saying that everything can be percieved, although not with our physical senses. they require faith. like i said, faith is a working bootstrap, which also is why scientists have problems with it.
it looks like a counter-argument to me. at the very least it's an argument and a statement of opinion.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:05: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 09:05 AM

No, it is not a counter-argument. It is a repetition of your misuse of "faith" to try to prove a point.

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 09:07 AM

If you are going to try and argue against "my definition" of faith (which isn't mine, it is a reflection of what faith really means), you have to argue against it directly, not continue using the term in improper manners. And saying "nah uh, you're wrong!" is in no way shape or form a counter-argument.

narf poit chez BOOM

May 22nd, 2003, 09:20 AM

i pointed out a diferent usage of commen terms. i also acknowlegde that it was cheezy and i wasn't trying to be insulting, just make a point. and the ancient isrealite's defined faith as a verb. what faith really means is one objective meaning and a number of subjective meanings. my definition difers from yours, that i know of, in that i beleive faith can be confirmed. since you seem to understand that, i only have left to say that disscusions of subjective definitions, which yours, unless you are omniscient, is, tend to annoy me, and i don't think we're going to get anywhere here, since i don't see any reason why i can't use my definition.
signing off.
if this message is in any way impolite, i'll fix it tommorow. i apologize if it is.

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 09:38 AM

Narf, "faith" in english means a lot more than what the ancient Israelis used it for. You can have faith in something without any religious connotations at all. And, you can have deeply religious faith in something as well. You seem to be ignoring the former and only accepting the latter, which is not good.

My "definition" includes all common usages of the term faith. You are just brushing off all but the one that fits your agenda.

[ May 22, 2003, 08:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

dogscoff

May 22nd, 2003, 10:14 AM

*dogscoff puts on a fake John Cleese moustache.

And saying "nah uh, you're wrong!" is in no way shape or form a counter-argument.
Yes it is.

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 11:17 AM

*shakes head at DS* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

dogscoff

May 22nd, 2003, 11:46 AM

*nods vigourously at IF in contradiction* (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)

EDIT: Anyone who wants to practise their debating skills with socrates himself, click here. (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sclinic.htm)

[ May 22, 2003, 10:58: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Jack Simth

May 22nd, 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you are going to try and argue against "my definition" of faith (which isn't mine, it is a reflection of what faith really means),How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning, especially as there is someone sitting there contradicting you, and you claim not to use a dictionary, instead apparently relying solely on your own authority in the matter, and seeming to assume that your authority will be recognized. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
you have to argue against it directly, not continue using the term in improper manners. And saying "nah uh, you're wrong!" is in no way shape or form a counter-argument.Curious - you seem to be primarily doing the "nah uh, you're wrong!" bit too:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You still need to learn what faith really is. You are using it inappropriately in this context.You just contradict him - no reason given;
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I define faith correctly.Agin - you just assert that you are correct; no reason given;
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never used a dictionary. In fact, my "definitions" are the complex extended ones, not dictionary ones. And, words have specific, universal meanings. They are not dependant upon the speaker.Here, you just declare that your definitions are the right type, and that there is no speaker dependence, which would imply that you are the prescriptivist in the argument.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Sigh. That applies in limited scope to words that are only in certain regional dialects, yes. But, complex words do not change drastically in meaning from one region to another. And even if the word is used in a slightly different manner, that is immaterial; it is the concepts that matter. You are not understanding the concepts of the various forms of faith. You are only able to make your argument because you are using the wrong meanings of the word faith in the wrong context. If you refuse to even listen to my arguments instead of just brush them aside as you are currently doing (no counter-argument has been made at all), then there is little point in discussing this with you.Why should he post a conter argument when all you have been doing is contradicting him, and not arguing yourself? You just keep repeating that he has the "wrong" definition, that Narf is "not understanding the concepts" and that you're right. Nowhere have I seen a rational argument for this (in this thread "arguing" against Narf, anyway); you seem to just keep restating your own belief that you are right. At best, you define what you mean by faith. You aren't arguing either.

Please, contradict me on this. Quote yourself where you were actually giving evidence or showing logic in the Last few pages of this thread in the segment where you are talking to Narf about faith, and explain how that was evidence or logic; all I see you doing is contradicting Narf flat out, except for that one little spot where you define what you mean by faith.

It would appear that your argument with Narf is essentially the argument that can happen between any two people, one of whom has a descriptivist approach to language and one of whom has a prescriptivist approach to language. The descriptivist is confident in their own position because language is a flexible thing, and they are sure they are using the definition the majority of people are using, and so are correct. The prescriptivist is confident in their own position becuase language is an inflexible thing, and they are sure they are using the correct definition.

spoon

May 22nd, 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning... Here is the dictionary definition:
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
- Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

And here is a more succinct definition:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain

I hope that clears things up! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

General Woundwort

May 22nd, 2003, 06:53 PM

This is what I get for just glancing over a topic because the title didn't seem directly interesting or applicable.

Just to get my foot in the door, perhaps a good definition of "faith" would be 'a trust in an assertion or a person based on the perceived trustworthiness of the person making the assertion and/or the authority on which that assertion is based". You therefore deal with both the basis of believing in the object of faith, and deal with the (probable) lack of direct evidence for the assertion believed in.

Erax

May 22nd, 2003, 07:35 PM

This is an old post, but I read it today and really, really need to get my two cents in :

Originally posted by Dingocat85:
Note 2: Some scientists think that the only reason humans are so smart, is that when deciding between a man with intellect and a man who's fit, women have repeatedly chose those with brains http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Yeah, well, those scientists probably never lived in my neck of the woods. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif (end rant).

Fyron

May 22nd, 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
How do you know you are the one with the "real" meaning... Here is the dictionary definition:
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
- Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

And here is a more succinct definition:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
- Mark Twain

I hope that clears things up! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>As I have said countless times, dictionaries are great for a basic understanding of a term, but they often miss the more sublte meanings and uses of complex terms.

Jack:
I never claimed to have "authority" in this matter. Just because someone is contradicting me (though not very effectively) does not mean that I am autmotatically wrong.

Why should he post a conter argument when all you have been doing is contradicting him, and not arguing yourself? I already posted my argument, and he ignored it up until the very Last post or two. There is not really much in his Posts to argue against. And, any more argument on my part would be repeating what I already said, which would be counter-productive. Most of my Posts were trying to get him to actually read my post, which took quite some time.

Actually, now that I think about it, I did post another argument, that his "definition" was included in part of my "definition". His is just too narrow.

Here is a quote of myself for you:
My "definition" includes all common usages of the term faith. This is part of the argument that the term "faith" is much broader than Narf thinks it is.

[ May 22, 2003, 19:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]