"Real" ringworlds

[Aloofi]

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]

Well, sometimes one just have to laugh

(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]

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]

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]

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.

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 )...

[Fyron]

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]

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