Tenchiboard: Anime and More
http://bbs.noneedfortenchi.com/

science VS faith
http://bbs.noneedfortenchi.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1680		 Page 2 of 6
Author:  JadenStriker2ndGen [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ???
I'm not Rolfwing, I'm trying to keep other people from getting POed.<br><br>"up to the bad atheist professor"<br><br>When I saw that in your post, I new of the high risk potintal of another person who has chosen to belife atheisium getting POed at that, and therefor set out to keep that from happening, and the statement seems emotional itself which commonly would be dirived from a bad experance with another person who belive in something that was diffrent from that and unreasonably attacked.<br><br>Sence this toipic has maintain for the most part a civilised and construtive discution, I set out to block something that runs such a high risk of causing a fight, hence the reason why I wrote the following.<br><br>"Don't bring your personal dislike of christains here. This topic is ok as long as we don't get out emtions involved and push to change another persons belife."<br><br>Did I assume from the evidance that I have seen in the past that you could have been an atheist that had a bad experance with a christain? Yes I did. I'm I wrong in doing so? Quite possibly now that you have said<br><br>"How can I dislike Christians? My mother, father, half-brothers, two nephews and niece are christians, with varying degrees of participation in that community. I don't dislike them for that."<br><br>and therefor, I now have evidance to belive you could be a christain. I am perfectly willing to admit weather I am wrong on it, my objective is not to be right or impose my belife on another person, just to keep this thread civilized and safe to post on, and free from conflict so people can feel confertable stating their opintions. <p></p><i></i>
Author:  True Sheol [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  'Tis What It Is
It's a hypothetical situation targeted towards those receptive to its message. Is it propaganda? Maybe, maybe not. Religious messages originate from individuals as well as institutions. How many are systematic and how many are not? Discerning betwixt and between the two is probably futile given the diversity and practices amongst believers.<br><br>An atheistic version of it would probably take place in a religiously-oriented private school where a "free-thinking" student goes up against a "dogmatic" professor. Actually, I've seen e-mails of that type as well. The practice of using story-telling to convey a message is a legitimate and long-standing practice. Ultimately, each individual will choose what lesson to take from it, if only that many e-mails exist only to be deleted from the Inbox.<br><br>As can be seen in the interaction here, coexistence does not require anything more than adherence to the rules of society. Given that the matter is often related to emotionally-charged experiences, illogical and unreasonable statements by one or more parties is understandable... and probably to be expected. <p></p><i></i>
Author:  kori hakubi [ Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 'Tis What It Is
Crap crap crap.<br><br>Baaaaaad topic choice <<;<br><br>While I must say that Araq's intention was good, people obviously are going to start ranting and raving about their opinion on the issue, completely disreguarding the fact that no matter how much they argue, nothing will come from it. Nothing that is but a lot of angry people... *runs off to consult with the other mods* <p><a href="http://buncha-network.com" target="_blank"> <img border="0" src="http://webpages.charter.net/korichan/boards/bn-button.gif" alt="Buncha-Network.com ^.^" width="88" height="31"></a> | <a href="http://pub39.ezboard.com/bdabestmessageboard" target="_blank" alt="Heidi-sama's Board">Da Best Message Board</a> | <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/chibi_kori/" target="_blank">Chaos of My mind</a><a href="http://www.facethejury.com/profile.asp?user_name=bishounenboi" target="_blank" alt="Me on FaceTheJury.com"><br> What do you <b><i>really</i></b> think of me?</a> | <a href="http://pub50.ezboard.com/bjanaslittlehideout" target="_blank">Jana's Little Hideout</a></p><i></i>
Author:  True Sheol [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:18 am ]
Post subject:  Jumping the Gun?
There's no fire here yet. The avoidance of controversial discussion encourages intellectual weakness, in my opinion. Well, whatever they choose to do. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
Author:  KEN OHKI CABBIT [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jumping the Gun?
That is a ZANY story. Unrealistic. Not all that good at proving the point that it wants to prove but...eh. Try <A HREF="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp">this </A>for controversy with TEH FUNNY. <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://members.fortunecity.com/davincontrol/BlackCat.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Goodbye, Blue Monday.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://sidequest.keenspace.com">Read SIDE QUEST</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->||<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://pub21.ezboard.com/bzeldawalkthroughmessageboard">Free SeXXORZ</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->||<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.reikitantei.net">Reikitantei</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->||<br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://pub34.ezboard.com/bzealpalace">Zeal's Board</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->||<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://pub23.ezboard.com/bcolony195animeboard">My Board of Doom and Disillusionment</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->|| <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.thedashcat.net">A load of carp.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->||<br><br> "If there's ever a war, and you're drafted, you may want to throw a vegetable over at the enemy, instead of a grenade. Maybe then everyone will think about how crazy war is. Then, while they're thinking about that, you can throw a real grenade."<br>-Jack Handey</p><i></i>
Author:  JadenStriker2ndGen [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Jumping the gun?
GAH!<br><br>Ok lets not get too hard core now. Some people do require bluntness and force, but not every one, some do require a softer aproach and I am not sure as to what this sercomstance dictates (need more data and time to study), but I really fear that link may take this a little to far. Has a high risk of being taking as cult like. Some people who read it may not finish it and rush to a reply in an appault state of dismay, while others who do read the whole thing become offended and think it is all a bunch of cult like bull. Yes there will be some people who take the time to understand, but not every one is going to take a lot of time to understand the extinst of somethings, and using something like the link above can be to blunt and easiely tooking the wrong way. I can honstily say all that because I almost did both, had to force my self to first finish it (got stuck in the middle where the mother was blasting her daughter), and second not take it the wrong way at the end my self. The end part I had trouble with mostly because of what people may think that have a very diffrent belife. I defentaly wouldn't want them to think that it was cult like in nature, and fear that the little script doesn't do a good job accuratly depicting that. Personally I don't think the some of the satanic refrances where apropryate, nore was the burning of the board games/ Somethink like that take a bit of extra effort to understand, and I don't know how it is going to be took. <br><br>Well, here is to hoping for the best result! Cuss it is going to take a lot of willing ness for peeple to go out of there way to get that one. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :| --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> crap <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :| --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/indifferent.gif ALT=":|"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
Author:  rolfwind [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 'Tis What It Is
First, Jaden, I understand the message you're spreading but I'm hardly politically correct nor do I mind confrontation^_^<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The practice of using story-telling to convey a message is a legitimate and long-standing practice. Ultimately, each individual will choose what lesson to take from it, if only that many e-mails exist only to be deleted from the Inbox.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I consider it only legitimate if it was portrayed as a story. But it's not, it is often implied that this really happened, yet I have no names, dates, etc.<br><br>Second, it argues using several fallacies, and as I read it, it concluded:<br><br>"I guess you'll have to take them on faith."<br><br>So Science=Another Religion because both require faith. Well, if you put it that way, mathematics is a faith because even with all the logic built upon it, it rests on several basic axioms that cannot be proven.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.iewu.org/Mlaw.htm">www.iewu.org/Mlaw.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>But science has several benefits religion doesn't have. <br><br>First, there replication. I execute an experiment and say so and so happened. If somebody questions the results, they may carry out their own experiments and if their results differ significantly, it calls into question my own results and my methods.<br><br>Second, theories have to be falsifiable, otherwise they have no scientific value. The entire point of most scientific theories are to predict things otherwise they have no value. Scientific theories can be modified or trashed over time if the originals do not stand up. I believe Newtonian physics do not hold up when approaching the speed of light thus, some new ideas were introduced.<br><br>If someone tells me Jesus rose up from the dead, I can't prove a negative. But that idea has no scientific value either, it doesn't predict anything tangible or measurable.<br><br>If I don't agree with a certain facet of science, I don't need faith, I can test it given the means.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This is ignoring several things and stating several things I find false: first that theories are absolute and not subject to change/scrapping. Second, it says you only know what you see with your eyes. Third, it's equating all opinion are worth the same, that an educated guess is worth as much as a random guess.<br><br>Theories are not absolut but require evidence. There is evidence for evolution, if I'm not mistaken. The mechanisms of DNA for one and the fossil record second.<br><br>As to not seeing evolution, I never saw an individual atom or fumes from gass yet I don't find the ideas ludicrous provided there is some physical evidence.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Apparently this student has absolutely no understanding of the idea of inductive reasoning. I find it extremely questionable that his 'professor' didn't bring that up and I find it implausible that any average scienctist would claim the professor has no brain based on 'established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol':<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm">trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/dedind.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure......"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And this is where I run into the biggest problems. From what I've seen from science, it concerns itself with physical phenomena. Most reasonable scientists don't try to bring god into the equation because it's unneeded. <br><br>Logically, you can't prove a negative so most logical scientists don't broach the subject, it's a waste of time one way or the other. Either you believe or you don't. And second, we have no way to test the idea or measure it. Scientifically, it's fruitless.<br><br>And that is why I'm against mixing god and science. <p><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons.....<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rolfwind>rolfwind</A> at: 10/28/03 6:23 pm<br></i>
Author:  JadenStriker2ndGen [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 'Tis what it is
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Quote:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br>This is ignoring several things, first that theories are absolute and not subject to change/scrapping. Second, it says you only know what you see with your eyes. Third, it's equating all opinion are worth the same, that an educated guess is worth as much as a random guess.<br><br>There is evidence for evolution, if I'm not mistaken. The mechanisms of DNA for one and the fossil record second.<br><br>As to not seeing evolution, I never saw an individual atom or fumes from gass yet I don't find the ideas ludicrous provided there is some physical evidence.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The theory of evolution is not absolut, and it is not absolute because there are 3 forms of it, spawntainius, big bang, and progressive evolution over millions or more years, a year count that keeps changing with new theorys.<br><br>Spawntainius evolution is thrown out by science because it states that one animail can give birth to to a totally new kind, and study of DNA has concluded this impossible.<br><br>The big bang threory is hard to suggest and even harder to test, stating that all of the univerce started from a small supercondensed matter that exploded and spawned the univerce as we know it today. This cannont be tested by measuring insterments because the equipment would have to be perfect, which is impossible. If you knew what I know about electronic circuits, your testing instriments, you would know that the laws of physics limit the capibility of electronic equipment. A bunch of stuff involving Ohms law, the diffrence between AC power and DC power. Your measuring istrerments are limited to taking voltage readingts and processing them through mathmaticly arrange conductors and insulators, making testing the big bang next to impossible unless you can make a power plant super hug and dedicated to super expencive testing equipment the likes of which NASA doesn't have the budget to make.<br><br>And the progressive theor is not absolut because at one point by that theory the world was though to be some where around 4.5 million or billoin of years old. Can't remember which, long time sence I looked it up. And that number keeps raising over time, infact I remember seeing a web site that says NASA or someone found a planet in a soler system extreamly far away from earth, don't remember the distance, and wish I could find the site again, that taking into account the known theories of the speed of light, and the distance I can't remember, the artical said that planet would make the universe over trillions of years old, which would negate the progressive theory. Lets take a Flu virus and use it for an example for the Progressive Theory. A cold virus is a virus that attacks your throught and lungs. This virus changes its attrubuts every year, doctors had medical labs have to keep up with this evolving virus every year, changing the vactionation shot. The flu virus has many attrubuts that can be changed, and that do change, but there is one problem, the flu virus is still the flu virus, it still attacks your throught and lungs. This virus has yet to evolve into a new orginisum with a diffrent function. Granted the progressive theory says that over time it will, but the flu virus has been under the mircoscope for a very long time. Why haven't we been able to test and see it evolve into something totally knew and diffrent? Do you have an instance where one organic life for was watched evolving into another organic lifeform?<br><br>The point is you have 1 theory that is through out by science itself, another theory that can't be tested because the laws of physic limit the measuring divices, and another theory thats time based that keeps changing which makes it hard to prove as well as the lack of even a small organisum totally changing all of its attrubutes and function, so taking that into account, you may have evidance, but that evidance is inturpited by measurements, and the measuring divices cannot do all the things you want, so your evolution is stuck in the same problem my choice of religion is in, beliving in something that hasn't been proven.<br><br>I know a lot about your measuring equipemtn, I have to calibrate them in my classes. I deal a lot with Electircal equipment that measures only the voltage drops against the measuring divices, and can tell you through long lectures how you get Tempeture readins, pressure readings, speed readings, and density readings. Unfortunatlly that would take a lot of time explaining what resistors are, what is an inductor, what a capacitor it, how AC and DC work with those circuits, and how they combind into an electical divice. I mess with bordon tubes that don't require electircal equipment to messure pressure. I know about how the mercury in an evacuated glass tube marked with tempature measurements works.<br><br>So I know that you can't test evolution, you have to come up with a formula to interpit the true measurable vules into what you think is right, which is the problem, because one persons interpitation of what he can measure maybe totally off, and that exist many times in these measuring divices, not excluding any instance that can be measured. This equipment is very logical in design using mathmatical formula, and there is also a wide range of human involvement with these divices that can meet human error or fallicy.<br><br>You trust your equipment, but you don't know how it works, and many of the measurments you know the display screen and software shows you are not the exact measure it recives, it is a mathmatical interpitation of other measurements it can take. And trust me, your not measuring PSI, Celcius, or seeing the accual atom, you are seeing the mathmatical interpitation of logic from a voltage drop through a resistance in the circuit, or refrance movement of a physical element, and comparing them. <p></p><i></i>
Author:  JadenStriker2ndGen [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 'Tis what it is
Now that that is said and done, lets stop trying to enforce our belifes on each other. Quite frankly we both have edivdance that we will claim that supports our belife, and both have example that we can use to discredit the other. To use them is to act in an effort to prove our seporet belifes, and quite frankly, neither of us can. Having the objective to sway people in beliveing one belife over the other is going to be what makes this thread into an unnessesary battle. So please Rolfwind, don not be so unwilling to admit that your belife in evolution is still unproven, and do not push so much effort to discredit my belife because you know it is unproven and don't approve of it. I don't approve of the belife of evolution, but I'm not going to go so far out of my way to change a persons oppention on this board, because quite frankly, that doesn't matter much at this time. What does matter right now is wether we can stay co-oprative and able to work together as a team in other instances. So lets just drop trying to prove what belife is the right belife, both have supporting evidance, both have logic, both of evidance that counters the others point of view, but both are as of yet, still unproven, which means science has a problem with the diffrent belives, as well as can be used to suggest the existance of one belife over another through measurements, but even then the divices use to measure are not 100%, are not perfect and require calibration, wither it is a physical object or a form of logic, neither side has irrefutable proff. <br><br>Let this matter of what to belive be a matter for the single person to deside, don't let it be a matter of public conflict that has lead to so many unessesary wars in the past, and unnessesary conflits even in today. <p></p><i></i>
Author:  Cerebrate Araq [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 'Tis what it is
Good Neelick, what have I unleashed onto this board!<br><br>I should of seen this coming. ;.; <p><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center"><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2002_12/images/apocalypse_now_250.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--><br><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center"><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Mama, take this badge off of me<br>I can't use it anymore.<br>It's gettin' dark, too dark for me to see<br>I feel like I'm knockin' on heaven's door.<br></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--></p><i></i>
Author:  Spade the Ninja [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  ASDF
To address the title of this topic, I don't like science, and I have faith(just not in God). <p></p><i></i>
Author:  rolfwind [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 'Tis what it is
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The theory of evolution is not absolut<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If you read what I wrote, I said the same thing, theories are not absolute in context (I forgot 'not' but surely you must have guessed by the rest of my remarks). They are subject to change/modification or if that's not appropriate, the scrap heap of history. Otherwise theories would be wholly worthless.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Now that that is said and done, lets stop trying to enforce our belifes on each other.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Why is it when I write something, it's 'enforcing our beliefs on each other'? Isn't discussion what a discussion board is for? You write awfully long comments and then demand no one enforce their beliefs on one another?! That's pretty selfish. <p><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center">I'm a Ayeka/Ryoko fan for good reasons.....<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.ewulf.com/images/kiss_ts.JPG"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub19.ezboard.com/btenchimuyo79943.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rolfwind>rolfwind</A> at: 10/28/03 6:18 pm<br></i>
Author:  JadenStriker2ndGen [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ASDF
Well, at least for the most part we haven't gone insaine. This subject is ok to have just as long as no one statrs getting the objective to prove there belife is real, or impose the belife. Most of those fights start out of fear that the other person is going to make an attack on their belifes and make a rash desition, or push their belife because they utterly refuse to belive that any one should think diffrent and try to force some one to think the same way. All 3 sides have someone like that, Monotheist, polytheisist, Nondeitiest.<br><br>Right know the only thing that matters is if you can freely and confertably say what you belive and not get blasted by someone who doesn't see things the same way.<br><br>Though Spade, don't hate science, science is just a systematic method of testing and understanding what we can see and measure, it can't prove a belife system. Many people tent to make the mistake that science and atheisium are one in the same, they are not, and are seporated by the fact that atheisium is a belife, a non-deity, but a belife never the less. It is a patteren of observation, senario generating, and testing and confermation system, I.E. a tool of best guesses and testing, and would be bais for someone to have a belife that science only supports their belife.<br><br>Given all that, the matter of what you should belive should be left up to you and you alone and not imposed by others. <p></p><i></i>
Author:  True Sheol [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Conflict is Inevitable, but Let's Keep It Civil.
<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>rolf wrote: <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>I consider it only legitimate if it was portrayed as a story. But it's not, it is often implied that this really happened, yet I have no names, dates, etc.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>But aren't most allegorical tales portrayed as an actual occurrence? To a critical-minded person, it is obvious that the story is not depicting an actual event, just as "To Kill a Mockingbird" did not actually happen. They may represent a similar series of personal and shared experiences, to some extent.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>First, there replication. I execute an experiment and say so and so happened. If somebody questions the results, they may carry out their own experiments and if their results differ significantly, it calls into question my own results and my methods.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Precisely. One can question the theory, the protocols, the measurements, and any aspect of the experiment. This is not to say that errors are not also replicatible. If the protocols are faulty, the results can be skewed. Human error is a constant in scientific experiment. Yet, isn't it present in all things man-made, including religion?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Second, theories have to be falsifiable, otherwise they have no scientific value. The entire point of most scientific theories are to predict things otherwise they have no value. Scientific theories can be modified or trashed over time if the originals do not stand up. I believe Newtonian physics do not hold up when approaching the speed of light thus, some new ideas were introduced.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>To be precise, there has to be a test by which the theory or the product of the theory can be proven false. If a theory says that a specific design will hold up to crushing force of 1000 newtons, well then I should be able to test that. Religion hardly offers much of itself to such scrutiny. However given that religion is a philosophical construct, one can use logical analysis to determine whether aspects of its beliefs match that which is present in reality and whether it is in harmony with itself.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>There is evidence for evolution, if I'm not mistaken. The mechanisms of DNA for one and the fossil record second.<br><br>As to not seeing evolution, I never saw an individual atom or fumes from gass yet I don't find the ideas ludicrous provided there is some physical evidence.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>But is genetic recombination inevitably connected with evolution? Following mathematical and biochemical models, we know that they cannot lead to the changes required to produce a creature that can be classified as being outside of its genus. Experiments with mutation lead to a another dead end as the resulting creatures are simply genetic aberrations within the species and that induced mutations have not been beneficial.<br><br>The fossil record is another dead end. We don't see a progression of evolution in the fossil record. We see one type of creature begin and another one die off. We do see the mechanisms of adaptation, but given that evolution is generally supposed to take place over a period of thousands and millions of years, wouldn't we expect to see creatures evolve from one species to another, eventuall splitting off into its own genus? We would, but we don't. So, unless one subscribes to accelerated or spontaneous evolution, there really isn't any evidence supporting evolution.<br><br>One can observe the effects of the presence of a gas and contrast it to its absence. You can cause a chemical reaction and observe how a gas interacts (or doesn't as the case may be). You can measure relative density and conductive properties. For while we might not be able to see the atoms or molecules, we can observe its effects. The case is not so with evolution as it is an abstract theory that has no effect that can be directly observed.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Apparently this student has absolutely no understanding of the idea of inductive reasoning. I find it extremely questionable that his 'professor' didn't bring that up and I find it implausible that any average scienctist would claim the professor has no brain based on 'established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol':</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>It is a common aspect of storytelling that a writer will ignore sensible and logical alternatives to the chosen path. Much as one might watch a horror movie and know that when somone is trying to kill you, it is not wise to go into a dark room. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :p --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> Logical fallacies are all too common in such stories as it they exist to prove a point, not leave themselves open to interpretation.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>And that is why I'm against mixing god and science.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>I certainly agree there. However, I would go one step further and hold that unprovable abstracts such as evolution have little place in practical science as well. Should the time come when mankind is in a position to measure it, having the knowledge and technology required, then that is when the matter should be tackled. Doing so otherwise is merely an exercise in futility. <p></p><i></i>
Author:  JadenStriker2ndGen [ Tue Oct 28, 2003 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ASDF
Rolfwind you know the first time I refuted you was because of the word you used had a high risk of striking an emtional core that would have let to a flame war.<br><br>This second time I went against you was because you looked for error in the story that was posted by Cerebrate Araq.<br><br>In both of those instances it seems that you would wish to impose your belife rather then say what you belive. If your going to say what your belifes are, don't look for the fault in other belifes, to do so is to attack their belifes.<br><br>I won't have a problemn with you just as long as you stop looking for the bad things you see. Look for something good and uplifting, look for a positive meaning in something. I those other two instances, you seem to do the exact oppesit, and it is as if you have a grud to take out. It easily seems that way when you use a high risk statement and quote things just to say what you think is wrong with them.<br><br>Did I do that to? Yes I did, and I did it because I wanted you to see how in feels and hope that you would stop using those methods. Those things tend to do more to induce a rash emitional reaction rather then address the issue. So I ask that you becareful to not use word or examples that run the high risk of inducing a rash emitional reaction. The reason why I don't approve of KENs link is because of that high risk factor and don't want this thread turing into a flame war, which most unfavorably is.<br><br>The people of this board don't want this to become a flame war, just study their own replies, they want to avoid this flame war. I want to avoid this flame war, but I can't do that if my influance isn't strong enough to deture high risk replies, or deture a rash emotional reasponce, or someone deturmand to impose their belife.<br><br>Are you imposing your belife? As far as I can tell there is only hints to it, but with the possibilty that your not. Are you emotional? Well honistly, I don't know, but your post does seem that way.<br><br>All of those put together lead to my replies. Granted some of them are based on an undeturmand possiblilty, and hope that they are incorrect, but I don't have a lot else to work with when what I have observe suggest a serton conclution, a conclusion that says this will lead to a flame war, and I therefor do every think I think I should to prevent it. <p></p><i></i>
Page 2 of 6 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/