tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post8728462028542386531..comments2024-01-02T10:55:10.607-06:00Comments on Angry Astronomer: Expelled: The MovieJon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comBlogger266125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-3232903128335680822011-05-10T18:25:53.532-05:002011-05-10T18:25:53.532-05:00Hmmm...Maybe I should clarifyWhat I meant in sever...Hmmm...Maybe I should clarify<br>What I meant in several cases appears to be different from how it reads and for that I apologize, Im not Shakespear and cant write perfect first drafts<br>Firstly, I frequently switch in and out of layman and my limited science talk pretty frequently, I already know that ID doesn't fit as theory.<br>Second you're right as far as random mutation goes, that is what I meant. Thank you for clarifying Mr. Neil and no I do not know what MRSA is.<br>What my post essentially meant to state is that both sides have among there supporters many many laymen. The problem this leads to is a lack of ability to intelligently discuss the theories and arguments that exist. That is what I meant by circular logic: making an argument to prove a conclusion instead of arguing (in the debate sense) and coming up with a conclusion.<br>When this happens, there is very interesting, entertaining and friendly dialogue.<br>To restate, from my point of view, science is our attempt to fill the gaps in things that are not mentioned in the Word or other teachings; simply because they are not relevant to it.<br>As such I believe the two are infinitly compatable.<br>Jon Voisley<br>You make an interesting point, however, you do make an assumption that there can not be a God in your argument. I understand why, and applaud your honesty, but it is better to make no assumptions in argument. We are all guilty of it, it is impossible to avoid, but we can avoid jabs and punches to the other side. That being said, it is nice to actually HEAR an athiests argument. My experience is that too many are willing to simply blow you off if you believe what an atheists do not.<br><br>Finally I want to try and summarize what I think the problem is in the discussions between the sides. Both work from Ideals<br><br>To the Evolutionsists: You have an excellent (generally) understanding of scientific thought, as well as some very decent arguments. However, the gap in knowledge between yourselves and many others is the reason they get upset and so do you. Even speaking layman doesn't help because you fight for an ideal where everyone understands (even if unconciously) and everyone accepts.<br><br>To Creationists (in general not just ID there is a difference): We work very hard to try and show our views and to convince others. However, we need to accept that getting angry solves nothing. Just because someone doesn't agree soen't mean they are not intelligent or even partly right. Show the love that is commanded of us and accept that no matter what, some will never agree.<br><br>The short and Deformed one, <br>Also known as HideousdwarfJaredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263002476207555653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-35047350537965903912011-05-10T18:25:53.299-05:002011-05-10T18:25:53.299-05:00Hey, looks like you've got a few trolls on you...Hey, looks like you've got a few trolls on your blog. I'd offer my dustpan and brush to help clean up, but I think it's a moot point by now. Thanks for the info and the links! Very helpful in learning about the movie.Lorelei Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718563056270058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-34038803686529745902011-05-10T18:25:52.526-05:002011-05-10T18:25:52.526-05:00Isn't it amazing how almost every scientist wh...Isn't it amazing how almost every scientist who allegedly supports intelligent design either is<b> not </b>a biologist or lived prior to the theory of evolution?<br><br>Did the above anonymous person fail to read my comment that historical scientists are not authorities or prophets?<br><br>Jon, I'm surprised you didn't mention Project Steve.<br><br>I love this exerpt...<br><br><i>"What motive might there be to reject such overwhelming evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer? The concept of a Designer or God carries with it certain metaphysical implications that to some would be quite unsavory."</i><br><br>In back-to-back statements, the above person has the audacity to say that there is evidence for intelligent design and then immediately appeals to adverse consequence.<br><br>And sadly, that's the best argument that he/she has. The rest of it is just one extended argument from ignorance.<br><br><i>"I don't know how life started. I can't figure out the evolutionary pattern that would produce an eye. Whine whine whine... Too complex! God did it."</i><br><br>The funny thing about the eye argument, or any argument involving irreducible complexity, is that the creationist always manages to forget about vestigial functions. The irreducibility of any complex structure is only valid if one assumes that the eye, or any other complex organ, must have come about with the specific intent of being that organ, which no competent biologist would suppose. Design with intent is not evolution; it's creationism.<br><br>Of course, creationists absurdly deny the very notion of vestigial structures in biology, despite obvious examples.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-13484871852927899342011-05-10T18:25:50.925-05:002011-05-10T18:25:50.925-05:00Thanks Jon that is enough for me. You have at lea...Thanks Jon that is enough for me. You have at least admitted that the door is not completely shut when it comes to ID. Now I implore you to argue tooth and nail for your beliefs/evidence/findings. Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-42089545999749186102011-05-10T18:25:50.507-05:002011-05-10T18:25:50.507-05:00The way I usually put it when theists say "yo...The way I usually put it when theists say "you can't disprove my God" is, "That's your problem, not mine.".<br><br>I mean, that's a pretty flimsy defense, and it just stuns me how many Christians go right for it. There's a video floating around Youtube of Richard Dawkins on Bill O'Reilly, and Billo was employing that defense literally within the first minute or so. And Dawkins is like, oh gee, Bill, never heard that one before.<br><br>Well, the thing is, if you can't disprove God, then it stands to reason that you can't PROVE God either (otherwise you'd be using a MUCH better argument). So what reason is there to believe?<br><br>Other than...<br><br>A. being brought up in a Christian family; tradition.<br>B. don't know how universe started; must be God dun it.<br>C. emotional appeal/threat of hell/guilt of sins, etc.<br><br>None of those are particularly good reasons to believe ANYTHING, although I'm most forgiving of tradition. After all, if you like going to Church on Sunday, knock yourself out.<br><br>But when you use a "You can't disprove" sort of argument, especially when you use it as quickly as Bill O'Reilly uses it, you're basically waving the white flag already. It's cognative disconnect.<br><br>If I was a theist and that was the best trump card I could play, that would drive me CRAZY, because I'd know I was full of shit, because in doing so, it shows that no reason exists to believe.<br><br>When you feel confident in your beliefs based on your opponents inability to prove a negative, the only one you're defeating is yourself.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-82902986098723069202011-05-10T18:25:50.154-05:002011-05-10T18:25:50.154-05:00And here, I thought this was a site about the movi...And here, I thought this was a site about the movie 'Expelled'?! An unbelievable amount of debate about a topic that Jon and Neil are obviously resolved about (atheism and evolution). If you are so convinced in your 'beliefs' on these subjects, then why debate them so? As a logical thinker and onlooker here, it appears to me that if evolution is as undeniable as you claim, then what are you so concerned about or afraid of that will come to light through this film? I find this entire dialogue pointless and irrelevent to the release of this film. As for theological debate, that should be taken elsewhere. For the record, Ben Stein, doesn't profess to be a Christian, and yet in an earlier post his ethics were challenged on this preface. Again, irrelevent. He's not a christian, so don't use christian values/standards as the crutch to blast his ethics. Ultimately, if you hold all the answers (which, apparently you do) then what are you so angry about?! You've got it all figured out scientifically, philosophically and spiritually, so why feel the need to make everyone else believe like you? Your methodology is no different than those you claim to despise. You have the answers and want to 'enlighten' others to the level of wisdom you have achieved. How is that any different than your view of the creationists you so vehemently despise again?! Oh, I forgot, you're more enlightened than the rest, therefore, making your views, opinions, and beliefs valid and all others should leave the building. I believe you've been trumped!dawnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-64606227597414403462011-05-10T18:25:49.900-05:002011-05-10T18:25:49.900-05:00Actually, I believe in God because I have seen thi...Actually, I believe in God because I have seen this proven true within the course of my life and those around me.<br><br>Romans 8:28<br>And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.<br><br>Christians are not immune to the tragedies that everyone experiences. Sicknesses, senseless acts of violence, natural catastrophes... you name it. But somehow, at the end of it, if you ask someone who truly believes in God, if they understand that God allowed it to happen for a purpose, most of them say they wouldn't trade it in. Amazing testimonies. Doesn't make sense in an all-natural world. <br><br>But I don't expect you to be convinced. Not trying to win you over. I just don't think that the list of reasons to believe in God is accurate for those of us who His hand working in our everyday lives, and decisions.<br><br>And, btw, Jon and Neil, you proved my point. I wrote a neutral, "harmonious" blog, if you will. Followed shortly behind by the outrageous one by anon. And both you responded to him, not to me. So if we do find a middle ground of believing in evolution, but disagreeing on the God thing, there is no more heated debate, thus no more need for discussion? Interesting.<br><br>And epeeist... I've been to the top of Mt. Olympus. No Zeus there. With all of the ancient religions, it is only Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism that have survived (in mass, of course there are still the pockets of tribal beliefs). Christianity and Islam are both branches of the Jewish God, finding their ancestry through Abraham. So it is not even worth spending time explaining why this is a useless discussion. <br><br>But again, the proof of God is not going to be found in logical arguments. It is found within the psyche of the human soul.double2http://www.blogger.com/profile/18009039256627616605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-68431669326360588002011-05-10T18:25:49.661-05:002011-05-10T18:25:49.661-05:00"And, btw, Jon and Neil, you proved my point....<i>"And, btw, Jon and Neil, you proved my point. I wrote a neutral, 'harmonious' blog, if you will. Followed shortly behind by the outrageous one by anon. And both you responded to him, not to me. So if we do find a middle ground of believing in evolution, but disagreeing on the God thing, there is no more heated debate, thus no more need for discussion? Interesting."</i><br><br>More or less. I still don't agree with everything you say, but I think if you keep reading, you'll find out a lot of the problems for yourself. If I just sit here and tell you everything, that doesn't do you a lot of good. There's no way I or anyone could cover all the intrical details of biology in a blog response.<br><br>Really, I would just like to see the mistruths go away, which is why there's such importance on addressing this movie and any other nonsense that comes down the way. So far, based on the reviews, it seems as though the movie is fairly unconvincing, but I still think it's going to do a lot of damage. Already, it's given the super fundamentalist Bible thumpers way more confidence than they deserve, and I can hardly post ANYWHERE without being met with heavy dissidence by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. And this movie taught them to do that. Way to go, Ben Stein!<br><br><br><i>"Actually, I believe in God because I have seen this proven true within the course of my life and those around me."</i><br><br>Again, if I sat here and TOLD you the problems with everything you say, you probably wouldn't learn for yourself. But if I could offer a hint, you should beware of circularity in your thinking.<br><br>Think about what criteria you're using for identifying proof of God. It is objective, or is it just an overlay based on your theological perspective?<br><br>And please regard that as a RHETORICAL question. That means, you can answer it now if you like, but I'd like it to be a question that you hang onto so that you can evaluate your own thinking.<br><br>The point being that it's deceptively easy for ANYONE to fall into the trap of tautology.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-15361272238567621472011-05-10T18:25:49.008-05:002011-05-10T18:25:49.008-05:00Neil:Seriously, do we honestly have to deduce ours...Neil:<br><br>Seriously, do we honestly have to deduce ourselves to namecalling here? <br><br>1. I reiterate - just because Ben Stein may very well 'attack' what you believe, why should that constitute an outrage by you? If you are secure in your beliefs then why would a 'troll' anger you so? If creationists have it so wrong, then let science and human intelligence work out the logistics. Why do you feel the need to right all the apparent wrongs in this world of multifaceted beliefs?<br><br>2. Sorry, I didn't request a definition and defense of evolution in my previous post. <br><br>3. Trust me, I've read this very lengthy and overly drawn out blog which tries to stand and defend and accuse every belief out there. I say, let bygones be bygone. I don't care that we don't agree on the topic of evolution. I don't see the need to 'correct' everyone who comes in my path that has a different viewpoint than my own as you do. Let it go, man. <br><br>So they made a movie you disagree with. Move on...possibly to an actual debate with Ben Stein? You know I was always taught to take it up with whomever I had the problem. But maybe that's just something we mindless (in your opinion) ethical creationists do? Personally, Ben Stein doesn't dictate how I live my life or what I believe, so this film may actually just be a form of entertainment, not real dogma, but I digress, just the thoughts of a logical thinker here.<br><br>Keep on blogging....I'm out.dawnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-46864054269484676512011-05-10T18:25:48.708-05:002011-05-10T18:25:48.708-05:00"I reiterate - just because Ben Stein may ver...<i>"I reiterate - just because Ben Stein may very well 'attack' what you believe, why should that constitute an outrage by you?"</i><br><br>That's just it, Dawna. He<b> doesn't </b>attack evolution. He attacks a<b> strawman</b>. That's the whole point.<br><br>And with that, I'm done talking to you, since you obviously don't get it. Troll.<br><br><br><i>"Anyway, what, original story of Eve are you referring to? Who has claim to this story before the Hebrews?"</i><br><br>I'm not talking about that. I don't claim to know where the story originates, but if you read the story the way it's written without a rosey pair of Bible glasses on, then it turns into a rather different tale. In Christian tradition, the interpretation of the story is that God is kicking them out of the garden because they brought sin unto the world, but if you read the story on its own merit, it's not saying that at all. He's kicking them out for an entirely different reason. Instead of Eve causing original sin and bringing spiritual death and sin to the human race, it's more a story of God being afraid of mankind becoming gods themselves. He even says this in reference to the tree of eternal life. It's one of the few times in the Bible when God is acting more like Zues. My whole point had to do with the context of the story itself, which is the birth of human knowledge and how God stopped it from going any further. It's strangely more of a story ascension than what the Christian canon says it is.<br><br><br><i>"Theory does not mean uncertainity. Evolution is a theory, not because it isn't proved, but because it IS!"</i><br><br>Exactly, and thus Ben Stein's entire movie is completely undermined by the body of knowledge that already exists.<br><br>Read a science book, watch his movie, and behold the cognative disconnect in everything Ben Stein says.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-37071384316068340562011-05-10T18:25:48.428-05:002011-05-10T18:25:48.428-05:00I, for one, rail on Michael Moore, too, although I...I, for one, rail on Michael Moore, too, although I'm with Jon. Moore may be an emotionally-manipulative little weasle, but he's never released anything as bad as Expelled.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-31661045008212983412011-05-10T18:25:48.180-05:002011-05-10T18:25:48.180-05:00Evolution is Science. Intelligent Design is bad t...Evolution is Science. Intelligent Design is bad theology disgused as science.Hoppernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-22946579824024724452011-05-10T18:25:47.982-05:002011-05-10T18:25:47.982-05:00"I personally find it hilarious how close min...<i>"I personally find it hilarious how close minded everyone in here is. I only skimmed the contents of the comments.</i><br><br>How can you comment on close-mindedness if you only skimmed?<br><br><br><i>"Basically my two cents is this, proponents of evolution get a major pass in society. And it's no lie that some of the leading evolutionary thinkers in an effort to buy time have made some outrageous claims to defend their faith."</i><br><br>Evolution is not a faith. It's a fact of biology.<br><br><br><i>"Therefore I think the makers of this film have every right to deceive people in order to get what they want. If that means lying to professors who otherwise wouldnt speak to someone making a documentary film that would completely refute what you're saying."</i><br><br>Why should we trust a film made by people who have to lie to get interviews?<br><br><br><i>"If you're making a movie ripping on ID would a leading scholar on the subject want to be in such a movie? Probably not. It's simple."</i><br><br>That's speculative, condescending bullshit. Penn & Teller did an episode on intelligent design, and they got Duane Gish to appear on their program. DUANE GISH. They NEVER lied to anyone about what kind of show they were producing. NEVER EVER EVER.<br><br><br><i>"Lastly what the scholars in Expelled said is what they actually believe and if you're upset that it exposed their outrageous theories, then well you're justified but you're also faced with the realization that evolutionary theory isn't flawless."</i><br><br>Non sequitur. The personal beliefs of individual scientists has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Second, whether or not evolution flawless is irrelevent, as well. Science doesn't claim absolute perfection. Evolution may not be a perfect theory, but then neither is any other theory. Third, an imperfect theory is infinitecimally superior to the meaningless conjecture of intelligent design.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-89618166981345031952011-05-10T18:25:47.723-05:002011-05-10T18:25:47.723-05:00So could we have this discussion without the name ...So could we have this discussion without the name calling? I am neither a Darwinist nor a creationist, but I did just see the movie and noted the name calling there too. Let's go out on a limb and hypothesize that no one entering into this dialogue is ignorant nor insane. Perhaps a question one percieves as "stupid" will launch another individual to think in a new way and in turn resolve the mystery of how we all came to be.<br><br>While there is an evident spin to the arguments made in the movie I really appreciated the underlying theme-- If one is refused the opportunity to ask questions how will one learn? I think this should be true in science, religion, race relations, world peace, etc. As a therapist my science is much softer than most but I always want my clients to challenge everything in order to illicit change. The movie portrayed the squelching of questions as equivalent to Hitler's extermination of Jews. What I took from it was who of us has the right to decide which questions should live and which should die. When my clients challenge a therory or concept it makes me stop and think of how I can explain it in a way that they understand. When it is a principle I believe to be essential i.e., positive reinforcement in relationship building, I find a way to make it make sense in their worldview but even then the client has the right to choose to disagree and implement his/her own practices. <br><br>Thanks for the forum--Let's find the answers to all of lifes questions and enjoy the process and stimulating thought.<br><br>While not a Darwinist nor creationist I am a very proud KU Alum--Rock Chalk Jayhawk!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-19456690092962307562011-05-10T18:25:47.526-05:002011-05-10T18:25:47.526-05:00"Well I see a lot of anger, a lot of frustrat...<i>"Well I see a lot of anger, a lot of frustration but once again a complete avoidance of the question. Dawkins himself admits there is intelligent design within the basic building blocks of life, but for him 'aliens did it' is a more plausible alternative than God. Ok...that's scientific."</i><br><br>Is there an argument here, or are you just appealing to ridicule?<br><br><br><i>"It is absolutely impossible for there to be an intellectually honest atheist. If they are truly intellectually honest they could at best claim to not believe in a God but could not in intellectual honesty claim unequically that there is not one. At best an intellectually honest person could claim to be agnostic."</i><br><br>That's semantic bullshit. Agnostics don't even define themselves by that criteria. By that criteria, EVERYONE is an agnostic.<br><br>For example, you can't claim that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can only disbelieve and be agnostic to him.<br><br>Or to be even more damning, you can't claim to know that there's actually a god. You would have to be agnostic to his existence, too. That's a two-way door there, pally.<br><br><br><i>"When an atheist/evolutionist can propose for me a more reasonable alternative than a Creator God, then I will be happy to listen."</i><br><br>Oh, so your resolve is to just hide behind the argument from ignorance. Just like Bill O'Reilly. Okay, that's your problem, then.<br><br>See ya.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-17866365283375298452011-05-10T18:25:47.007-05:002011-05-10T18:25:47.007-05:00Anon:It is refreshing to read your post. I feel as...Anon:<br><br>It is refreshing to read your post. I feel as if I've been having a great dialogue with Niel and Jon. Many of the others posts by believers have not been helpful because you can see they don't know what they're talking about and the tone is all wrong. So thank you for taking the time to write your piece.<br><br>Questions:<br>1. You briefly mentioned your astronomy background. How long do you think the universe has been here? <br>2. Have you read Gingerich's God's Universe?<br>3. What credible scientific books (for laymen) would you suggest? I am a long-time believer and have always avoided the sciences. My fields of study are history and sociology. So all this science talk is new to me. But I've been doing a lot of reading these last few weeks, and have not come in contact with your arguments. <br><br>Jon, I am reading Selfish Gene. I am learning from his chapters of biology and the processes that he describes. However, he started his book with a paragraph that made me rather skeptical of his thinking. He said that if superior creatures from space were to come, they would wonder if we had figured out evolution yet. Hello!!!! What??? If the universe is billions and billions of years old, and there is intelligent life in another universe, who make it here to find us, then they are millions of years further evolved then we are. Seems rather short-sighted and arrogant to think that they would wonder about EVOLUTION!! Look at the last one thousand years, okay, the last one hundred years. Where are we going to be in another one hundred years, let alone a thousand years? Our technology and science are going to be so far advanced from today... and Dawkins thinks they are going to "assess the level of our civilization" based on evolution. Give me a break! So, I'm reading it. But I don't give his "theories" much credence. (I have more issues with other points he makes, but I can't believe he started his book that way!)double2http://www.blogger.com/profile/18009039256627616605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-4368331352246608402011-05-10T18:25:46.079-05:002011-05-10T18:25:46.079-05:00Timmy,"When you say 'laws are those which...Timmy,<br><br><i>"When you say 'laws are those which are described based on the Nature of the universe' aren't you just saying 'Nature obeys laws'"</i><br><br>No. Read it again.<br><br>HINT: The key word is DESCRIBE. A scientific law is a description. Nothing more.<br><br>By saying that nature "obeys" a law, you've taken it out of this context. And you're begging the question.<br><br><br><i>"Question - how do we/you know what we/you observe is real? Science needs a starting point too, a given a 'revealed truth', doesn't it?"</i><br><br>What do you mean by "revealed truth"? Why does anything have to be revealed? Aren't you, once again, begging the question?<br><br>If something is revealed to you, aren't you just OBSERVING the revelation? If so, then what's wrong with simply accepting our observations as fact? Divine revelation doesn't solve these philosophical questions. It just moves the problem back a step and tries to pretend as though these questions have been answered, even when they haven't. I'm not impressed by this apologetic tactic. Actually, I find it quite annoying.<br><br>Technically, we DON'T know that what we observe is real, however it is far less of an assumption to assume that our observations are real than it is to assume that they are not.<br><br>In fact, you pretty much have to trust your observations anyway. I'd really like to see you try and do otherwise.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-87382075956065174212011-05-10T18:25:45.703-05:002011-05-10T18:25:45.703-05:00The Duhem-Quine thesis is that theories are under-...The Duhem-Quine thesis is that theories are under-determined. A theory is under-determined if, given the available evidence, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with the theory that is at least as consistent with the evidence.<br><br>This being so there is obvious scope for someone out there to develop a rival theory. But bear in mind that it has to have at least the same explanatory power as the current theory. It has also got be both testable and falsifiable as Popper accepted Darwin's theory of evolution to be.epeeisthttp://epeeist.myopenid.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-52459908023967412362011-05-10T18:25:45.436-05:002011-05-10T18:25:45.436-05:00Well the figures are out - http://www.france24.com...Well the figures are out - http://www.france24.com/en/20080420-forbidden-kingdom-high-kicks-top-us-box-office<br><br>It seems Expelled took $3.2 million at the box office. Just behind another fantasy movie "Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!"epeeisthttp://epeeist.myopenid.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-46515088792028424382011-05-10T18:25:44.888-05:002011-05-10T18:25:44.888-05:00Right, but that's not what math is, and you sh...Right, but that's not what math is, and you should know that.<br><br>Math is a system by which we quantify units reality for the sake of measurement. Your statement that "the physical universe seems to follow math" is absolutely backwards.<br><br>When I say that it's mathematically impossible to exceed the speed of light, what that means is that the properties of the universe are such that you cannot exceed the speed of light without violating said properties. Math is the way that we quantify this to demonstrate the impossibility. (E=MC²)<br><br>If you don't understand physics, you're not going to get a crash course here. You need to visit your local library.<br><br>The fact that you keep looking for absolutes to supersede the universe, as if there are rules<b> imposed </b>on the universe, illustrates a very basic misunderstanding of what science is. Nobody believes this other than theists. And the more you keep trying to look for these, the less convinced I'm going to be that your questions are sincere. Again, pardon my cynicism, but I've been around this block way too many times.<br><br>You might be able to get a less experienced atheist to say something silly like math is an "absolute", but you're not going to get that from me.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-48264715615317356112011-05-10T18:25:44.562-05:002011-05-10T18:25:44.562-05:00"ok - so maybe a better way of saying it woul...<i>"ok - so maybe a better way of saying it would be : 'We seem to be able to express how the universe operates according to mathematical descriptions'"</i><br><br>Or perhaps it would be better if you would just stop trying to reword everything I say. It's not the most constructive thing you could be doing. Besides which, the above sentence is such a grammatical mess that I don't even know where to begin with it.<br><br>A better statement would be, "We define quantifiable properties of nature with mathematics." There's no "seem to be able to" statements about it. We take nature as we observe and give it syntax. Mathematics, like language, is an expression.<br><br><br><i>"If we came up with this math concept that fits the way the universe works - what keeps us from changing a basic axiom (say 1 + 1 = 3) if it makes the model fit what we observe - rather than try to find a better mathematical model that adheres to the basic axioms of math?"</i><br><br>The reason 1 + 1 can never equal 3 is because "three" is a word that we've assigned to a particular recognized quantity. If you and I both held a cantaloupe, and we put them both down together on a table, we would say that there are "two" on the table, because that's the recognized label that we have for that particular quantity.<br><br>And besides which, it's really simplistic to refer to 1+1=2 as an axiom. The statement is true, but only in a rhetorical sense. It's like saying water equals H²0. All you're saying is that these two statements, given syntax, mean the same thing.<br><br>I'm not trying to be coy here. I do understand what you're trying to look for, but I also think that your ideas relating to math, science, and nature are a little simplistic.<br><br>I'm not the most patient person with this sort of discussion, either. And I'm far from the best. If you're really looking for people who could explain this better than I could, you should hop on Google and seek out either Scott Clifton or maybe Bitbutter.<br><br>And yes, that would be Scott Clifton of<i> One Life To Live</i>. ...Not that I've ever watched that show.TV's Mr. Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-67455558464917359522011-05-10T18:25:44.239-05:002011-05-10T18:25:44.239-05:00Ok, yes we have strayed but I'll try to sum it...Ok, yes we have strayed but I'll try to sum it up and bring it back to where I jumped in and then sign off - that science does have starting points which it assumes are true - that are just given (ie. absolute) and one way to spot those is if an argument is circular. In following the quantifying concept - it seems your argument is (and maybe I'm wrong and I will read your response but like I said - I'll sign off) that we recognize a property as quantifiable from the reality that there is physical property to quantify - that looks like a circular agument (we know its quantifiable because its quantifiable) - maybe I'm wrong and you can comment (i'd be interested in your take on it and maybe I haven't done a good job on what I mean ) but yep I've appreciated the exchange too, its given me some insight - and it was challenging to meTimmynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-43968829335929889292009-11-18T11:22:43.231-06:002009-11-18T11:22:43.231-06:00Right. One is not analogous to the other. Timmy,...Right. One is not analogous to the other. Timmy, you've shown your cards here, because you came in here assuming that you could show that science has the same sort of the faith as religion, which is demonstrably untrue.<br /><br />Richard Dawkins said it best when he said, “Show me a cultural relativist at 30 000 feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite.”TV's Mr. Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-32827123165044484422009-11-18T11:02:06.918-06:002009-11-18T11:02:06.918-06:00Timmy,
One of the bottom lines I think you should...Timmy,<br /><br />One of the bottom lines I think you should take from all this is that the (temporarily) absolutes science takes come from a very different source than that of faith:<br /><br />In faith, they come from authoritative and transcendent sources: God, scripture, divine revelation....<br /><br />In science, they come from observation: Testing, mathematical derivation, logic....<br /><br />Again, scientific "absolutes" aren't really absolute and we only use them as such for the time being and because they <i>work</i>. Accepting things as such gives us a basis for a <i>predictive</i> framework. This is something that faith absolutely lacks. If our basis was so wrong then the predictive power would be destroyed to the level of being no better than guessing, like Astrology or dowsing.<br /><br />So again, it's pretty clear that trying to equivocate scientific "faith" with religious "faith" or scientific "absolutes" with religious "absolutes" just doesn't work. The terms may work in some broad sense, but when you get down to how they actually are applied and work out, there's a world of difference.Jon Voiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-4288970969335044112009-11-18T10:50:41.621-06:002009-11-18T10:50:41.621-06:00"...that science does have starting points wh...<i>"...that science does have starting points which it assumes are true - that are just given (ie. absolute) and one way to spot those is if an argument is circular."</i><br /><br />And here you are explicitly stating your intent to find absolutes, which you intended to weed out of my statements, as if I'm a representative of the scientific community, even after I already told you that I'm not.<br /><br />This is why I call shenanigans on you. Again, if you're actually interested in determining what foundation science assumes, you should ask a variety of people,<b> STARTING WITH ACTUAL SCIENTISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS.</b><br /><br />For you to attempt to find circularity in science by questioning a layman is bullshit.TV's Mr. Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134940916393648860noreply@blogger.com