BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack somewhere in the electron clo
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:58 PM

All fossils are of transitional forms.*







*As indeed, are all living species, including us.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:27 PM

Occam's Razor, for what it's worth, deals with explanatory clout. It favours simple explanations that make as few assumptions as possible. It disfavours "explanations" that have to make huge assumptions that are themselves difficult to explain and/or which are impossibly complex. Assumptions, remember, are things we don't have evidence for. Apply Occam's Razor in its true spirit to creation versus evolution and poor old God don't get a look in. Well that's my take and I'm stickin' to it. I'm even fonder of Hitchens' Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 09:34 PM

Some replies suggest to me that several of you assume or suspect that I was espousing the "God-guided" evolutionary hypothesis.

That assumption, if real, may come from reading too many posts by the usual suspects on threads like this one.

I raised a hypothetical connection between God and evolution simply as a reminder that God and evolutionary change according to scientifically discoverable (and proven) principles are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Even if Pete and GfS and tens of millions of others believe they are.

In other words, my intention in bringing God in was not to unscrew the unscrutable but to impress the unimpressible.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 05:12 AM

Lighter: "I raised a hypothetical connection between God and evolution simply as a reminder that God and evolutionary change according to scientifically discoverable (and proven) principles are not mutually exclusive ideas."


Now THAT is the best post, from someone who is open to a new discovery, or facts, and is seemingly willing to adjust his reality, to what the facts really may be.......but you don't know, unless you're open.

....the rest of the time a lot of you sound like 'senility and proud of it!!'...oh except the harmonica player...he just blows and sucks and blows and sucks, sucks and blows...and didn't say nothing of any consequence!

..not only has he not looked at the video that he knows nothing of its content, he's arguing against what he presupposes its about, and he ain't got a clue.....it's alright though...because from this angle, it's pretty fucking amusing!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 05:48 AM

Some replies suggest to me that several of you assume or suspect that I was espousing the "God-guided" evolutionary hypothesis.

Fine. But don't grace the thing by calling it a hypothesis. That word needs to be preserved for things that fall inside the realms of rationality. It's merely a wacky notion without any foundation. Which doesn't mean it might not be true, of course.

Hellooo, did I hear someone mention that video again? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:47 AM

Hi GfS,

You still haven't given an explanation of how you can be 'from' an abstract noun. Perhaps you might consider changing your nom-de-plume to something more grammatical ... like 'Video Boy' for example!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 08:10 AM

Lighter

Some replies suggest to me that several of you assume or suspect that I was espousing the "God-guided" evolutionary hypothesis.

While Steve responded in his own inimitable style, I hope that I only commented on what you had said rather than criticising your inner beliefs.

I raised a hypothetical connection between God and evolution simply as a reminder that God and evolutionary change according to scientifically discoverable (and proven) principles are not mutually exclusive ideas.

No, Lighter, they ARE mutually exclusive. As I have already pointed out, Darwin's theory is that evolution is driven by natural selection and natural selection alone. There is nothing in it about guidance by God or any other external force. You can raise whatever hypothetical connection you like and it may help to ease the minds of theologians struggling to accommodate the evidence before them with their faith but it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and is, in fact, incompatible with it.

Steve Shaw

and which is highly probably true (OK, Snail, I bloody know you're watching....).

Progress! "highly probable" is enough. No need for "true".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 08:35 AM

"but you don't know, unless you're open"

Any scientist worth his salt is open; it's fundamental to doing good science. Don't confuse scientific process with speculation, which is what you're indulging in. It's not a hypothesis because that must be testable, and the idea that god drives evolution is not testable because there is no evidence to test. There are plenty of people looking for patterns in the evolutionary process for a number of reasons, but last I heard no-one had discovered the slightest hint any of the agents of evolution were guided by a divine hand.

If evidence for god, worldwide floods and the tooth fairy etc was ever found, reproduced and tested rigorously and proved theses existed, I'd be a believer. As it is, there's not a jot apart from the scribblings of a few unknown blokes thousands of years ago which frequently contradict each other, are open to a raft of interpretations and demonstrate a rather unpleasant attitude to women.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:29 AM

I always hated the works of DF H Lawerence, tho I studied English at Cambridge and was up to a point influenced by the 50s literary guru F R Leavis, to whom he was a sort of godlike figure. Too hysterical, too fudamentalist in his own idiosyncratic beliefs. Always found him summed up [Patience: the relevance to this thread is about to be revealed!] by the following story about him related by Aldous Huxley, which rfeminds me to a great extent of the way GfS and some others go on on this thread; and also the simultaneously ongoing 'Afterlife' one ~~

Huxley's vivid Introduction to his 1932 edition of Lawrence's letters includes an incisive vignette that dramatizes the two men's attitudes toward science:
His [Lawrence's] dislike of science was passionate and expressed itself in the most fantastically unreasonable terms. "All scientists are liars," he would say, when I brought up some experimentally established fact which he happened to dislike. "Liars, liars!" It was a most convenient theory. I remember in particular one long and violent argument on evolution, in the reality of which Lawrence always passionately disbelieved. "But look at the evidence, Lawrence,"
I insisted, "look at all the evidence." His answer was characteristic. "But I don't care about evidence. Evidence doesn't mean anything to me. I don't feel it here." And he pressed his two hands on his solar plexus. (Introduction xiv-xv)

See what I mean?...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:44 AM

Snail, you mean it isn't *possible* that Evolution by Natural Selection, whose principles are discoverable, could *not* have been invented and guided by an Ultrabeing whose existence is beyond the reach of science?

It may be a wacky idea, but that doesn't make it inconsistent with Evolution by NS. (And I mean actual E by NS as it occurs, not just Darwin's take on it.)

A more basic question is whether *anything* could, in theory, be beyond the reach of science. How about the quality of life on planets in parallel dimensions, if any? How about what image of which Hollywood starlet I have in my mind right now?

The answer is there's no way to know. I can't even be sure I'm not a brain in a vat in the 39th century. Can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:50 AM

M.: Yeah, some say all historians are "liars" too.

That way one can believe whatever one wants. Neato!

I too have always thought DH was overblown, despite a few good poems. His essays are on American literature are fun to read, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 11:43 AM

Following drift a bit:

Agree Lighter in preferring DHL's essays; and his plays were excellent; and some poems, e.g. The Collier's Wife (online as "a comic poem", but I don't think it's very comic).

But, oh my sirs [as his own Collier's Wife would put it], have you ever got the right word for so much of his fiction --

Overblown! Yay!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:20 PM

Sugarfoot Jack: "Any scientist worth his salt is open; it's fundamental to doing good science. Don't confuse scientific process with speculation, which is what you're indulging in."

Well of course...but being 'open' means being willing to accept findings that are beyond one's prejudices...wouldn't you think?..Some people just curl up and croak at the thought of 'God'...when they haven't even identified what 'God' is, yet.....then they go onto describing all these 'attributes' the figured this 'God' is that they claim they don't believe in, but don't like!
Go figure.

On the other hand, you might come to a place where there is some sort of consciousness or intelligence playing something out..and we are just the manifestation.

"Any scientist worth his salt is open..."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:22 PM

Snail, you mean it isn't *possible* that Evolution by Natural Selection, whose principles are discoverable, could *not* have been invented and guided by an Ultrabeing whose existence is beyond the reach of science?

It may be a wacky idea, but that doesn't make it inconsistent with Evolution by NS.

The problem is (apart from the science) that poor old Ultrabeing doesn't belong anywhere in the process, and you can extend that process as far back as you like, right back to the Big Bang. Everything we know about the formation of elements right "up" to the evolution of humans (cheers, Jack ;-) ) can be explained in terms of the laws of nature. As time goes on, science solves more and more of the questions along the way that have puzzled us. What's wrong, inconsistent and incompatible about the Godly bolt-on is that he's an impossibly complex and completely inexplicable intruder into a story that is elegant, clear, normal, largely innocent of assumptions and, ultimately, devastatingly simple. And for which, unlike him, we have evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:28 PM

We're wide open, Guffers. But we're wide open to evidence. Imagination and speculation are wonderful things, but, ultimately, edification comes through knowledge, and true scientific knowledge advances via evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:43 PM

Steve Shaw: "We're wide open, Guffers. But we're wide open to evidence."

Oh bullshit..you just like attention...if you want to discuss something mutually, then get a common ground premise. The video link has the topics you should be discussing.
The rest is your speculation about the reaction to your suppositions...how silly is that???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 01:31 PM

Lighter

Snail, you mean it isn't *possible* that Evolution by Natural Selection, whose principles are discoverable, could *not* have been invented and guided by an Ultrabeing whose existence is beyond the reach of science?

It is not a question of what is possible, it is question of what is or is not the Theory of Evolution. For the third time, the theory, originated by Darwin and refined over the the following 150 years states that the driving force of evolution is natural selection an natural selection alone. Any hypothesis that evolution is driven by natural selection AND intervention by God, a trans-dimensional super-intelligence or the programmers who wrote the vast computer simulation in which we all live is a differnt (and incompatible) theory. It is up to anyone who proposes such a hypothesis to demonstrate that it is not only able to explain the observed facts but that it does so better than the generally accepted theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:06 PM

"On the other hand, you might come to a place where there is some sort of consciousness or intelligence playing something out..and we are just the manifestation."

Well, 'Video Boy' any "blathering fool" can come up with limitless amounts of 'airy-fairy' speculation. No-one is required to take such bullshit seriously though. It may surprise you to know that what goes on in the vast,empty, windy space inside your head is not necessarily of much interest to anyone else - unless, that is, it's backed up by something more substantial than your ego!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: sciencegeek
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:15 PM

here is very nice discussion on genetic drift sans blue clicky

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

I took a grad course in evolution that had a real mickey mouse text and it took me awhile to come to the realization that the professor was actually an advocate of intelligent design. Ackkk!?!

I had just assumed that he was taking the devil's advocate position... until I found myself having to defend randomness in the genetic makeup of individuals within populations and how chance can be a major factor in what genes end up in a given population. Natural selection can only work on what's there... even mutations are dependent on the makeup of the alleles present. One of the reasons why species that are reduced to a tiny fraction of their former numbers, may not have enough genetic diversity left in their gene pool to escape extinction in the not to far off future.   

There is no preordained end result of evolution. You pays your money & takes your chances. No "higher beings"... just those that are still around & leaving descendants.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:54 PM

There is a difference between a "theory" in science than in other fields. Richard Dawkins suggests that we call a verifiable scientific theory, a theorum. The use of the term theory is often ambiguous.

The alternative to science is to return to primitive times in history, often with outmoded "theories" that in the light of science don't work. Certain medical practices for example such as "leaching" or even today, a New Age preoccupation with alternative "medicines".


By the way, there is an art to science. They are not mutually exclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 04:06 AM

I notice that at long last, this thread is working it's way down the list and about to fall off the bottom.





Oh Bollocks....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM

"then they go onto describing all these 'attributes' the figured this 'God' is that they claim they don't believe in, but don't like!"

Well, having been brought up in the Church of England, Methodist and finally a rather enjoyable free church traditions I do know something of the thoughts of god. I've read the New Testament (all his word apparently), been preached at and taught all the lessons, sung hymns and been an unquestioning part of that community. I can't escape the church now I'm older; it's in the news on a daily basis and it still influences law making in this country (26-odd bishops in the Lords, all of them men). I'm not prejudiced against the church, I simply don't believe their dogmatic, unquestioning and morally dubious take on the how life should be lived. I also don't like the idea of having to accept anything on blind faith . . . to my mind it seems to show a certain deficit of character were you to just submit to teachings without questioning things like the provenance, the motivations of the author and the context the teachings were written down in; the motivations of the teacher themselves.

So the 'attributes' of god are open to question, even if it gives the fundies the howling fantods, and I will question them. After all, why wouldn't I?

"On the other hand, you might come to a place where there is some sort of consciousness or intelligence playing something out..and we are just the manifestation"

You might, if there's evidence but for the time being this is pure speculation, not scientific enquiry and it doesn't display that much open-mindedness either, given the context the comment was made in.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:07 AM

Science has not proved the nonexistence of God, and it may be that it is incapable of doing so.

Which is not to say that God must or even probably exists. It means that science can't disprove that existence.

"Well," you say,"science can't disprove the existence of jet-propelled unicorns either. The idea of 'God' is similar." Very true. But the distinction is that I am the only person who believes in jet-propelled unicorns (and I don't mean to believe much beyond the end of this message), but belief in God or gods has been a nearly universal trait of the human mind. That, plus the fact that in its simplest form it does not conflict with scientific knowledge, gives it some presumption of credibility, though certainly at a very low level.

And by "simplest form" I mean the idea of a superintelligence that created everything but itself. All else one could say about such an entity is that It is extremely creative and powerful.

What It (if It exists) wants us to do about it (if anything), is up for grabs. That's where the wild conjecture and special pleading and religious slaughters come in.

Some will argue that perhaps the universe is God: eternal, superpowerful, and supercreative. ("Superintelligent" too, if intelligence is a purely material manifestation of physical laws dictated by the math that the universe seems to have dreamed up, if that's the right phrase.)

But at that point, since we don't know what, if anything, the universe wants us to do about it, it all becomes a pointless word game.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:34 AM

Er, yes, um, right, well...

Gosh. Is that the time? Must dash.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:40 AM

"Science has not proved the nonexistence of God, and it may be that it is incapable of doing so."

Science IS incapable of doing so because it's not possible to prove a negative. It is the responsibility of the God believers to prove that He exists. And when they've done that they need to explain who or what created God and who or what created the God creator and so on and so on ...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 09:57 AM

Science has not proved the nonexistence of God, and it may be that it is incapable of doing so.

It isn't science's job to prove or disprove anything.

Which is not to say that God must or even probably exists. It means that science can't disprove that existence.

No, but science can weigh up evidence. Evidence in its scientific sense must pass a number of tests. No evidence for God's existence ever put forward has ever qualified for scientific consideration. Not a single scrap. I've listed stuff many times before that is often put forward as evidence but which isn't. Neither the Bible, St Bernardette nor claimed out-of-body experiences make the cut. And we're not talking about shifting goalposts by unsympathetic, atheistic scientists here either. Just sensible criteria that are crucial in allowing science to move forward.

"Well," you say,"science can't disprove the existence of jet-propelled unicorns either. The idea of 'God' is similar." Very true. But the distinction is that I am the only person who believes in jet-propelled unicorns (and I don't mean to believe much beyond the end of this message), but belief in God or gods has been a nearly universal trait of the human mind.

The fact that belief in God (though I wish you lot would agree on exactly what it is you're supposed to be believing in) is highly popular, which no-one can deny, has often been proposed as evidence for God's existence. Well, the fact that Hitler was very popular doesn't make him a good man, nor does it demonstrate that German people somehow possess a fascism gene. We can only suggest that, in his case, persuasive arguments succeeded in taking a lot of people in. You'll surely agree that that is by far the most likely explanation for millions of Germans "believing in Hitler" as a good man, if you like. It is easy enough to put persuasive arguments for God's existence, usually playing on people's irrational side and often pandering to the propensity in many people to scare easily. The Power and the Glory keeping us all in line.

That, plus the fact that in its simplest form it does not conflict with scientific knowledge, gives it some presumption of credibility, though certainly at a very low level.

Your best hope is to say that God doesn't even touch science at all, not even tangentially. It is impossible for scientific evidence to be presented for God's existence. Many have said that God is beyond science, which is the whole point. I would say that believers themselves have deliberately put God outside science so that he can't be threatened by it. The first essential attribute required of God is that he is beyond threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 10:08 AM

Some negatives are indeed provable, at least to the satisfaction of any sane person. (I say the box is empty. You say it's full of cash and will be when we look. We look. No cash.)

The nonexistence of God may or not be one of those cases. I don't know. Obviously many people find the idea of that existence, one way or the other, either the most important thing there is or else a very painful bore.

They don't feel that way about jet-propelled unicorns, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 10:18 AM

"The box is empty" is not a negative at all. It is a positive assertion about a material object that can be examined (anyway, define "empty"!). I suppose you couldn't prove that there is no invisible empty box in orbit around Alpha Centauri. Though you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Stu
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 10:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM

That was me, cookie gone again. Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 04:33 PM

Science has no "job." Science consists of a method combined with how and to what its practitioners apply it.

Its researchers seek results that are so reliable that they must be accepted as proven - unless and until better conflicting evidence is discovered. "Proven," in the evolved natural language we are speaking, does not entail "for all time without possibility of refinement or contradiction."

"Proving a negative" means proving that something that has been asserted is not the case. It happens frequently. It does not mean, as some might believe, falsely "proving" that something nonexistent really exists. Quite the opposite.

Creationists, unlike scientists, take it as their "job" to prove what they already believe and are often proud to say they'll keep believing no matter what. Unlike scientists, they search diligently for evidence to support their claim, ignore whatever conflicts, stretch language to the breaking point ("Science is really just another false religion like egg worship"), rely on the authority of other creationists, and in general (wittingly or not) employ debating tricks that shouldn't fool any astute college freshman.

And with that, I'm gone for good. Rave on, guys 'n' gals!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 06:25 PM

"Proving a negative" means proving that something that has been asserted is not the case.

No it doesn't. it means proving that something that has been declared to be not the case/does not exist actually is not the case/does not exist. So, if I say there is no God, I can't prove it. There ya go.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 11:29 PM

But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their fingers in their ears will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr....

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:14 AM

MtheGM: "But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their heads in their asses will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr...."

Couldn't have said it better meself!

Hey, Happy Thanksgiving!....Give thanks and praise to your latest opinions..from which all blessings flop.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:44 AM

Hey! GfS ~~ I said 'ears', not 'arses' or 'asses'. It's cheating to copy/paste, change the content, and then attribute it to the original poster hoping he might not notice. Shame on you!

But nevertheless a Happy Thanksgiving right back 2U; and likewise to all our Over-There friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:10 AM

MtheGM: "Hey! GfS ~~ I said 'ears', not 'arses' or 'asses'. It's cheating to copy/paste, change the content, and then attribute it to the original poster hoping he might not notice. Shame on you!

But nevertheless a Happy Thanksgiving right back 2U; and likewise to all our Over-There friends."

You are correct....I was being 'lazy'...I must repent!!

MtheGM: "But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their fingers in their ears will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr...."

But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their heads in their asses will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr....

Couldn't have said it better meself!...besides it just bore repeating!..(grins)

Hey, and Happy Thanksgiving to you over there, as well!

Regards!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 07:05 AM

But that doesn't mean that you can't demonstrate its extreme to the nth degree unlikelihood; to which those with their fingers in their ears will pay not the remotest attention! Grrrr....

Which is what I've been saying ad nauseam. Actually, I'm not sure that "demonstrate" is quite the right word there. I can make the case, for example, that the likelihood of God's existence is, once you've applied all rational means to the argument, vanishingly small, but, by so doing, I haven't really demonstrated anything save my ability to make the point. We genuine atheists are very 'umble, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 09:48 AM

the principle that - everything that has a beginning,must have a sufficient cause - is i should have thought elementary.all for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 11:40 AM

the principle that - everything that has a beginning,must have a sufficient cause - is i should have thought elementary.all for now.

So where's your evidence that there are things that don't have a beginning? Presumably you intend that things without beginnings don't need to have had a cause. Um, well I can see the severely-twisted logic in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:37 PM

Steve Small: "I can make the case, for example, that the likelihood of God's existence is, once you've applied all rational means to the argument, vanishingly small...."

OK...maybe you should clear something up..maybe others may agree...When YOU use the term 'God', what do YOU mean??...How do you define, what you say you don't believe in??

Honest question..fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 01:51 PM

'the principle that - everything that has a beginning,must have a sufficient cause'
.,,.,.
I OP'd a thread quite a while back called "What went Big Bang?". It ran & ran ~ but I don't think an answer to the question ever emerged.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:00 PM

No, because I don't "not believe in" God. By attempting to make me declare such a negative, believers are trying to put me firmly in their territory. Not only do I not want to be there, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to be there. So I never say "I don't believe in God." I just say that I look at evidence, and, from what I can see, there is only a very remote possibility indeed that God exists. God is used as the explanation for all things created, yet the explanation is infinitely more complex and infinitely more inexplicable than the things it's supposed to explain.

When I use the term "God", I mean it in any sense that believers care to put forward, and those senses appear to be manifold. Either I get a plausible explanation for God that fits the laws of nature, and that I can pursue evidence for, or I get good, solid evidence for his existence. Otherwise I can think of far more interesting chaps, such as the ones I'm having some chunes with tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:05 PM

Ahh....It should be interesting, if one does emerge, that isn't the 'fairy tale gone sour' by whatever 'religion' fucked it up for the resident anti-'God' patrol!

it is obvious that they equate 'god' to some screwed up idea they got from 'church' they grew up in, and have been bitter ever since...Hey guys, get a clue, yes you were 'presented' with a notion of 'God'..but were lied to about it, so some church, that didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, could control lots of you people, and your families, to make a buck, and stay in business....but did they ever look DEEP into what science is now able to come together with in the spiritual??..NO!
So you just got stung with their bullshit, and as long as you remain bitter, and don't seek it out, you must like the taste of it!
Mission almost accomplished, church!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:10 PM

Well I'm not anti-God. I'm just pro-evidence. And purrrr-lease don't rattle on about your bloody video again, or else I shall have to rattle on again about what counts as evidence and what doesn't, and nobody wants me to do that, I'll be bound.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 02:48 PM

Rattle on, oh ignorant one..'cause here it is again!

..and it's in 7 parts. At least give some of the others who don't know what they're talking about a chance to reinforce that they don't know what they're talking about....OR...one or two may wish to engage in a learned discussion, instead of following in the wandering footsteps of one of your semi-literate(READ: "half witted") blathering, drooling rants!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 03:09 PM

well steve-glad you can see the logic.you almost made a concession!.
shimrod i think said "who made God?"that is an illogical question,like asking "to whom is the batchelor married"
of course,if your god is darwin or some other material entity there is a beginning.the same i guess for tooth fairies and spahgatti beasts.
matter etc is running down if i am correct and consequently cannot be eternal or it would have long since ceased.your beginning is some big bang from some condensed singularity[and before that?].
the maths experts here can tell me if there is consensus on the following-to wit that the probability of nothing exploding to begin everything and first life building blocks has so many zeros after it as to amount to an impossibility.
the theist points to an eternal,spiritual,supernatural,all powerful God and IMO the One described in the bible fits the bill.
your objection steve [other than blind prejudice] is that such a creator would need to be more complex than that which he made.
i think that this mindset posits him with the same material limitations as his creation.He is not material but spiritual and supernatural so not complex in material terms.
he is eternal,has no beginning and is the [more than ] sufficient cause required for creation.
this is not an argument that you will countenance but IMO IS a logical position-nothing twisted about it.
so we come to your version of beginnings with no scientific proof-a miracle without a miracle maker!.

so us and every thing are transitional forms?!sounds very clever but
i dont think darwin used that angle did he.im sure steve can give ch and vs if he did.i do know he was hoping transitional forms would be found but there is not much to show for it still.
i presume there were fossils found in his day but all the yrs and tons dug up since have not realized his expectations.just a lot more of much the same i suspect.
and as i mentioned before maybe - i could quote evolutionists confessing the dearth of such evidence.much more telling than creationists pointing it out-dont you think!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 04:06 PM

"shimrod i think said "who made God?"that is an illogical question,..."

No it's not! I think it's a very logical question. If I can't question the origin of God, you can't question the 'Big Bang'.

And, as far as I understand it, we don't know everything there is to know about the nature of the Big Bang - but the Big Bang is not a question of faith - it's a sort of holding position until we know more, and no doubt when we do know more there will be more questions.

pete, how many times do you need to be told? Scientific knowledge is necessarily incomplete. It is dishonest and naive to rummage around looking for 'holes' and (possible) inconsistencies into which you can insert God!

If you believe that all truth is contained in the Bible, that's your problem. If you're right then, if you know your Bible, you already know everything and don't need to worry any more (why should it concern you that others do not share your certainty?). Nevertheless, the PROCESS of science (which is NOT an unchangeable monolith like your faith)will go on exploring Nature and will no doubt change its perspective as new discoveries accumulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 04:14 PM

Nimrod: "No it's not! I think it's a very logical question. If I can't question the origin of God,..."

What 'God' are you referring to? Try your best to describe the 'God' you don't believe in. You might have some of us in agreement...because the 'God' you don't believe in is probably a 'God' that doesn't exist, anyway.
Maybe the whole 'God' thing is bigger than presented to you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 04:43 PM

GfS ~~ The 'God' I don't believe in is any entity which could possibly be subsumed under the referent "God" in any form, shape, or concept that has ever been, or could ever be, conceived. Will that do for you? If that is not a precise enough postulation for you of what I don't believe in, then I am going to take my ball and go home.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 06:31 PM

Promise?

(grins)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Nov 12 - 06:32 PM

Steve and Goofus FFS stop using the words "belief" and "believe" in your futile attempts to portray science as a belief or faith system.

IT SIMPLY IS NOT!

The scientist actively seeks that which will supercede his current knowledge and is always aware that every question he manages, by dint of scientific observation and experimentation, to answer leads, not to "the definitive proof, but to more questions.

The faithful creationist, on the other hand, already knows it all 'cos it's there in the book, and will go to any lengths to twist, stretch and fabricate the evidence to support that firm prejudice.

There is not, and never has been, any scientific evidence pointing to the need for a deity, let alone the actual existence of one.

If, in the future such a need became scientifically evident, the whole science community would accept, even welcome that new knowledge, and incorporate into total body of scientific knowledge.

If, on the other hand, the process by which life emerged were evidentially confirmed to be entirely natural, not one single creationist would accept it, or change one iota of hard wired prejudice.

That is the difference.

Don T.