User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 176

  1. #151
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Oh damn...
    This thread is just an eye-opener. I mean I'm quite fond of the water crystal experiments, and there have supposedly been triple blind tests on the whole thing but still the arguments here are just insane. Demanding the other person to conclude that theories aren't facts through repetition isn't exactly the best debating style, and it only comes across as delusional and ignorent. Which only adds to the perception that you are attempting to fit things within a box despite evidence pointing otherwise.

    Big Bang - It's not more probable to that the universe was created by something, than the idea that it could have just existed in the first place. It's just more practical to assume that there is not one because a God is the more complicated option.

    This really belongs in the philosophy sub-forum considering that people are arguing from positions of practical science, and that of philosophical positions. But I'm inclined to agree that there is lots of evidence pointing towards the world having existed for long period of times even if evolution was not true. Now someone could argue that measurement of time is all wrong and that geology, biology and physics has been measured incorrectly or that God placed it there to test people. But that raises problems from a philosophical perspective: Namely - Why would God test people and send people to hell?

    Then there's additional problems: Christianity clashing with other religions such as Islam, where there are lots of people who also claim that the Islam book gives indication to many of the scientific discoveries observed today, except it's usually quite fuzzy.

  2. #152
    Junior Member Rixonomic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Oh damn...
    This thread is just an eye-opener. I mean I'm quite fond of the water crystal experiments, and there have supposedly been triple blind tests on the whole thing but still the arguments here are just insane. Demanding the other person to conclude that theories aren't facts through repetition isn't exactly the best debating style, and it only comes across as delusional and ignorent. Which only adds to the perception that you are attempting to fit things within a box despite evidence pointing otherwise.
    I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if someone would just show me an example of macro evolution, a beneficial mutation, intermediate fossils changing from one animal to another, or any evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Occam's Razor - The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

    If I can't see it, I have a very hard time assuming, believing, trusting or having faith in that it happened. My goal it to either convince others, or get them to convince me. So far, we are both failing.

    Big Bang - It's not more probable to that the universe was created by something, than the idea that it could have just existed in the first place. It's just more practical to assume that there is not one because a God is the more complicated option.
    So you're walking through the woods, and you see a factory. You don't see or hear anyone. But the factory is obviously there. Do you conclude that the factory made itself? That is simply existed in the first place? Is it not more probable that the factory was created by something, than the idea that it could have just existed in the first place?

    Sir, I'm not convinced that you're not underestimating the complexity of the universe in which you live. A single cell is more complicated than a space shuttle. Now if you want to believe that it evolved and increased in complexity over millions of years, really, that's fine with me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But if you can show me that this has happened... Then you will have peaked my curiosity.

    This really belongs in the philosophy sub-forum considering that people are arguing from positions of practical science, and that of philosophical positions. But I'm inclined to agree that there is lots of evidence pointing towards the world having existed for long period of times even if evolution was not true. Now someone could argue that measurement of time is all wrong and that geology, biology and physics has been measured incorrectly or that God placed it there to test people. But that raises problems from a philosophical perspective: Namely - Why would God test people and send people to hell?
    I agree, this issue in in the wrong part of town. However, I consider this to be a subject of great importance, and thus I feel it must be addressed.

    Did you know that the scientists who studied the Sahara desert, the largest, and oldest desert in the world, say it's only about 4000 years old? Did you know that we get mini grand canyons rapidly formed all over the world often times after there has been a volcano or flood? Did you know that we find petrified trees in the upright, upside down, and horizontal position running through multiple rock layers that are supposedly millions of years old? This raises some serious questions. Petrification is a very quick observable process. In fact, the only time we observe trees being petrified and buried in multiple layers of sediment is when there's been a volcano or a flood. The obvious implication here is that maybe, just maybe, the earth was flooded. It would explain the grand canyon. Otherwise, that river would have to have flowed uphill for millions of years in order to create that canyon. Please look it up if you doubt me. They dig up chunks of amber with air pockets in them, only to find them filled with 50% more oxygen than we have today. Scientists speculate the pterodactyl would require an atmosphere with 50% more air pressure in order to fly.

    And of course, this doesn't prove anything. I do, however, find it very interesting and certainly worth considering. I guess my point is really that there might be more science than just what you're being told. Seriously, aren't NT's supposed to question authority? Well, I can understand an SJ being cooperative, but what's everybody else's excuse?


    Then there's additional problems: Christianity clashing with other religions such as Islam, where there are lots of people who also claim that the Islam book gives indication to many of the scientific discoveries observed today, except it's usually quite fuzzy.
    Is it quite fuzzy? I know almost nothing about what the Islamic faith teaches. Based on your lack of understanding for what creationists teach in general, I hope you're prepared to back that statement up.

    I apologize if I come off as rude or offensive. This is hardly my intention. As previously stated, I'm really not against anyone here. I just want to have a clear picture of what is really going on in this crazy universe. I have a lot of problems with creation, the Bible, God, Satan, Heaven and Hell. But if you give an intelligent and well educated creationist a chance, much to my initial surprise, there's almost no issue he can't explain.

    But who needs to give the creationist a chance? We all know they have no idea what they're talking about anyway, right?

  3. #153
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if someone would just show me an example of macro evolution, a beneficial mutation, intermediate fossils changing from one animal to another, or any evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Occam's Razor - The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
    I'm sorry, I can't help you if you refuse to see what the connections between various facts are, and what their implications are.

    Occam's razor absolutely destroys religious belief in the first place - because you have to assume something (a deity) that there exists absolutely no evidence for whatsoever. Not only that, but Occam's razor is a nice shortcut, but no replacement for the scientific method. If there are two explanations for something, and one is much simpler than the other, then that one is generally true... in the absence of empirical evidence suggesting that the other is correct. We have plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that genes mutate, environments select the reproductive success of species, and that this causes changes over time. That's evolution, both micro and macro, in a nutshell. Quit moving the goalposts.

    If I can't see it, I have a very hard time assuming, believing, trusting or having faith in that it happened. My goal it to either convince others, or get them to convince me. So far, we are both failing.
    There is no assuming, believing, trusting or having faith involved. In fact, these actions are all anathema to the scientific method and empiricism as a whole. You don't assume - you check the facts. You don't believe, trust or have faith - you constantly question. You don't even try to convince anyone - you make a guess, you observe data, you devise an experiment, and you test the guess. If the guess fits the experimental data, you come up with more tests for it. If it doesn't, it's wrong. When you get a whole lot of tests that fit the hypothesis (guess), it goes from being a hypothesis to being a theory, particularly if it demonstrates a causative relationship.

    So you're walking through the woods, and you see a factory. You don't see or hear anyone. But the factory is obviously there. Do you conclude that the factory made itself? That is simply existed in the first place? Is it not more probable that the factory was created by something, than the idea that it could have just existed in the first place?
    No. You conclude nothing. You examine the factory, collecting data about its characteristics. You then come up with guesses as to what caused certain aspects of the factory, then come up with experiments to test those guesses. After that, you come up with higher-level guesses as to what created the factory as a whole. If the hypothesis that the factory was artificially created fits the data most closely, that's what you theorize. If the hypothesis that the factory was assembled through natural forces fits the data most closely, then that's what you theorize.

    You assume nothing until you experiment and find data.

    Sir, I'm not convinced that you're not underestimating the complexity of the universe in which you live. A single cell is more complicated than a space shuttle. Now if you want to believe that it evolved and increased in complexity over millions of years, really, that's fine with me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But if you can show me that this has happened... Then you will have peaked my curiosity.
    How much more evidence can we show you that wouldn't require you to live millions of years so you can see it in progress? How many people have been trying to prove evolution wrong and come up with a better theory for the last 150 years? You do that, you're famous for centuries. It doesn't happen, because the data all fits the theory of genetic variation leading to speciation through the process of natural selection.

    I agree, this issue in in the wrong part of town. However, I consider this to be a subject of great importance, and thus I feel it must be addressed.

    Did you know that the scientists who studied the Sahara desert, the largest, and oldest desert in the world, say it's only about 4000 years old? Did you know that we get mini grand canyons rapidly formed all over the world often times after there has been a volcano or flood? Did you know that we find petrified trees in the upright, upside down, and horizontal position running through multiple rock layers that are supposedly millions of years old? This raises some serious questions. Petrification is a very quick observable process. In fact, the only time we observe trees being petrified and buried in multiple layers of sediment is when there's been a volcano or a flood. The obvious implication here is that maybe, just maybe, the earth was flooded. It would explain the grand canyon. Otherwise, that river would have to have flowed uphill for millions of years in order to create that canyon. Please look it up if you doubt me. They dig up chunks of amber with air pockets in them, only to find them filled with 50% more oxygen than we have today. Scientists speculate the pterodactyl would require an atmosphere with 50% more air pressure in order to fly.
    Fine - come up with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that there was a global deluge
    X amount of years ago, and come up with an experiment that would demonstrate this data. Here's a hint - you wouldn't be the first one to come up with such a hypothesis. They're all debunked, and for good reason - none of them fit the data. If it doesn't fit the data, it's wrong. Period.

    And of course, this doesn't prove anything. I do, however, find it very interesting and certainly worth considering. I guess my point is really that there might be more science than just what you're being told. Seriously, aren't NT's supposed to question authority? Well, I can understand an SJ being cooperative, but what's everybody else's excuse?
    It's because science works. It's logical, explains an incredible amount, and fascinates us because of the implications. You seem to forget, NTs love implications, because it draws more questions to ask, more challenges to hurdle, more plans to make, and hones processes better than anything else. Science is incredible because it's so consistent, too, and yet is completely variable, given the addition of new data.

    That doesn't mean we aren't going to have some out-there hypotheses as well. For one, my thoughts are that if there is a god, its will represents itself through the manifestation of probability in this universe. As of now, that is a completely unfalsifiable statement, unscientific, and likely untrue. That being said, it is an idea that logically makes sense (along with if there were a deity, he'd speak in mathematics), interesting to bandy about, but in no way evident enough to make a declaration about. It's my own personal hunch, and that's all there is to it. Humans are subjective, you know.

    Is it quite fuzzy? I know almost nothing about what the Islamic faith teaches. Based on your lack of understanding for what creationists teach in general, I hope you're prepared to back that statement up.

    I apologize if I come off as rude or offensive. This is hardly my intention. As previously stated, I'm really not against anyone here. I just want to have a clear picture of what is really going on in this crazy universe. I have a lot of problems with creation, the Bible, God, Satan, Heaven and Hell. But if you give an intelligent and well educated creationist a chance, much to my initial surprise, there's almost no issue he can't explain.

    But who needs to give the creationist a chance? We all know they have no idea what they're talking about anyway, right?
    Muslims have a pretty good claim for originating many scientific endeavors - they did practically preserve ancient knowledge (along with inventing algebra, chemistry, modern astronomy and our current place-value number system) for a good 700 years, while Europe was too busy deciding whether the world was going to end tomorrow, if boiling water or trials by fire were better means of determining innocence or guilt, or whether converted Jews were ok, or still had to be executed.

    I agree that creationists can be very rational. They're masters of rationalization. The problem is that their rationalizations sever in the face of the sharp blade of empiricism. You must accept their premises (God exists, the world is too complex to be explained by natural processes) in order for the rationale to work, and none of these premises are falsifiable, and consequently non-empirical... which is why they're not scientific. Consequently, with Occam's razor in mind (as you mentioned before), what's the more plausible scenario - that an unobservable, metaphysical (and we can't even agree on that) being created the universe for reasons we can't agree upon, and created all this false data to obscure its existence? Or perhaps its that since the data shows that the universe has been around a long time, and that we can identify processes and methods of genetic code and phenotypes varying from generation to generation, particularly in response to environmental stimuli, that we should build our model for understanding the universe on that data? Particularly when that approach has made predictions that have turned out to be true many times in the past?

    The choice seems fairly obvious to me.

  4. #154
    Junior Member Rixonomic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I'm sorry, I can't help you if you refuse to see what the connections between various facts are, and what their implications are.

    Occam's razor absolutely destroys religious belief in the first place - because you have to assume something (a deity) that there exists absolutely no evidence for whatsoever. Not only that, but Occam's razor is a nice shortcut, but no replacement for the scientific method. If there are two explanations for something, and one is much simpler than the other, then that one is generally true... in the absence of empirical evidence suggesting that the other is correct. We have plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that genes mutate, environments select the reproductive success of species, and that this causes changes over time. That's evolution, both micro and macro, in a nutshell. Quit moving the goalposts.
    I'm not refusing to see anything. I have no problem imagining that evolution has happened, been doing it all my life. I'm saying I want to see it. With my eyes. If all you have to show me are theories, and implications, then of course you can't help me. That's not what I'm looking for.

    I agree, Occam's razor poses a serious threat to religious belief. This is precisely my issue with evolution. It is, as rationally and as objectively as I can see it, a religious belief.

    Now tell me, how can evidence that "suggests", be empirical? Can you show me one of these mutations? Already twice have I explained how natural selection is not a driving force for evolution. Let's try it again.

    Let's say you've got a job in a flute factory. And your job, your responsibility, is to take all the flutes with dings, and marks, and imperfections, and missing nozzles and what have you, and you throw 'em out. Quality control. That's all you do. Now tell me, how long will it take this process to turn that flute into a guitar?


    There is no assuming, believing, trusting or having faith involved. In fact, these actions are all anathema to the scientific method and empiricism as a whole. You don't assume - you check the facts. You don't believe, trust or have faith - you constantly question. You don't even try to convince anyone - you make a guess, you observe data, you devise an experiment, and you test the guess. If the guess fits the experimental data, you come up with more tests for it. If it doesn't, it's wrong. When you get a whole lot of tests that fit the hypothesis (guess), it goes from being a hypothesis to being a theory, particularly if it demonstrates a causative relationship.



    No. You conclude nothing. You examine the factory, collecting data about its characteristics. You then come up with guesses as to what caused certain aspects of the factory, then come up with experiments to test those guesses. After that, you come up with higher-level guesses as to what created the factory as a whole. If the hypothesis that the factory was artificially created fits the data most closely, that's what you theorize. If the hypothesis that the factory was assembled through natural forces fits the data most closely, then that's what you theorize.

    You assume nothing until you experiment and find data.
    Completely missed the point. :/

    It is not more logical to conclude that something as complicated as a factory has always, just been. I think anyone with a brain in their head would say, yes, someone must have built that factory.

    I find it equally as unlikely that something as complicated as the Universe has always just been. I didn't used to. A year ago I would have argued the exact opposite. I've since stepped out of that box.

    How much more evidence can we show you that wouldn't require you to live millions of years so you can see it in progress? How many people have been trying to prove evolution wrong and come up with a better theory for the last 150 years? You do that, you're famous for centuries. It doesn't happen, because the data all fits the theory of genetic variation leading to speciation through the process of natural selection.
    Well, you could start by showing me the evidence we observe for macro evolution. But now it sounds like you're telling me the only way I can actually see it is to live for millions of years. That's not observable science.

    Fine - come up with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that there was a global deluge
    X amount of years ago, and come up with an experiment that would demonstrate this data. Here's a hint - you wouldn't be the first one to come up with such a hypothesis. They're all debunked, and for good reason - none of them fit the data. If it doesn't fit the data, it's wrong. Period.
    Could you please cite a few examples? If it is so overwhelmingly obvious that creationists are wrong, I'd really like to see what I've been missing.

    I do happen to be familiar with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that there was a global deluge. It's based on a surprising amount of observable evidence, and I'd be more than happy to explain if you'd be willing to listen. Though, I'm not going to put the time into such an effort for it only to be ignored.

    It's because science works. It's logical, explains an incredible amount, and fascinates us because of the implications. You seem to forget, NTs love implications, because it draws more questions to ask, more challenges to hurdle, more plans to make, and hones processes better than anything else. Science is incredible because it's so consistent, too, and yet is completely variable, given the addition of new data.

    That doesn't mean we aren't going to have some out-there hypotheses as well. For one, my thoughts are that if there is a god, its will represents itself through the manifestation of probability in this universe. As of now, that is a completely unfalsifiable statement, unscientific, and likely untrue. That being said, it is an idea that logically makes sense (along with if there were a deity, he'd speak in mathematics), interesting to bandy about, but in no way evident enough to make a declaration about. It's my own personal hunch, and that's all there is to it. Humans are subjective, you know.

    Muslims have a pretty good claim for originating many scientific endeavors - they did practically preserve ancient knowledge (along with inventing algebra, chemistry, modern astronomy and our current place-value number system) for a good 700 years, while Europe was too busy deciding whether the world was going to end tomorrow, if boiling water or trials by fire were better means of determining innocence or guilt, or whether converted Jews were ok, or still had to be executed.

    I agree that creationists can be very rational. They're masters of rationalization. The problem is that their rationalizations sever in the face of the sharp blade of empiricism. You must accept their premises (God exists, the world is too complex to be explained by natural processes) in order for the rationale to work, and none of these premises are falsifiable, and consequently non-empirical... which is why they're not scientific. Consequently, with Occam's razor in mind (as you mentioned before), what's the more plausible scenario - that an unobservable, metaphysical (and we can't even agree on that) being created the universe for reasons we can't agree upon, and created all this false data to obscure its existence? Or perhaps its that since the data shows that the universe has been around a long time, and that we can identify processes and methods of genetic code and phenotypes varying from generation to generation, particularly in response to environmental stimuli, that we should build our model for understanding the universe on that data? Particularly when that approach has made predictions that have turned out to be true many times in the past?

    The choice seems fairly obvious to me.
    And still, not one example of macro evolution, a beneficial mutation, intermediate fossils changing from one animal to another, or any scientific evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old. You disappoint me, sir. Your argument is fierce, for I would expect nothing less from the ENTP, however the evidence given is less than sufficient. If the choice is so clear, shouldn't it be easy to show me why? I can easily relate to your argument, there's not a problem here, to understand the reasoning. As I continue to state and re-state, evolution has been, for me, a firmly held and defended belief for no less than 98% of my life. I still see just exactly why people have so much faith in it. I'm still not completely convinced it isn't happening. But the only place I can see it happen is in my mind. And just as with religion, I have a serious problem with that.


    -My life in the box-
    I have been in the box all my life.

    I always liked the box.

    Then one day I stepped out of the box.

    Now I'm looking at the box from the outside, and I see there might be some problems with it.

    But I can't seem to get anyone in the box to step out and take a look with me. They're all convinced it's fine, and there's no reason to leave.

    I'm only trying to help...


  5. #155
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    bleh
    Socionics
    bleh
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    First of all I'd like you to know I am not preaching here, I do not belong to any religion, I believe there is something to be learned in all religions.

    I usually don't talk about this either because most people create mental blocks when it comes to personal belief systems, but over the years I have been noticing some links between scripture, science, and reality. I have found scientific reasoning and truths in simple vague statements in the bible. Here are a couple examples.

    The bible tells you to pray before meals and show gratitude, but it doesn't tell you WHY. I found a reason, it quite literally makes your food BETTER and healthier, I've even conducted experiments of food decay and the one with positive prayer always looks better and fresher! take a look at my album for my experiment. However this is regarded as a pseudo science in the outside world, but the discoverer has even given lectures at harvard.

    In the story of creation, First there was the word. Words are sounds and vibrations, and science has found that these vibrations and changes in frequency actually changes the structure of matter itself, thus is becomes quite feasible that sounds can very well be essential elements to creating the universe. You and I even have our very own unique vibratory frequency. Let me show you this video, only sound is needed to shape the matter we do not have to touch it. YouTube - Shapeshifting from Vibration and Frequency - Send out Love?
    When you hit certain frequencies, you can actually see mini galaxies and mini planets forming.


    It's quite odd because 5 years ago I was more of a hardcore atheist, but these truths started to reveal themselves to me, I am very open minded, and I believe if I wasn't I would of rejected these ideas without proper investigation.

    However it does follow a trend that psychologists have been observing.
    Stages of Spiritual Growth - M. Scott Peck, M.D.

    "What about other observations like the claims of Dr. Masaru Emoto who was cited in the movie for his photographs of "water"? According to the movie Emoto set out containers of water with various labels"love and appreciation", "You Make Me Sick, I Will Kill You", etc.affixed to them, then photographed their structure through a microscope the following day. The photos revealed structures amazingly related to the labels. For example, "love and appreciation" had a beautiful snowflake form while "You Make Me Sick, I Will Kill You" had an ugly disjointed appearance.

    Although not discussed in the movie, the photos were actually made of frozen water drops 4. Also not discussed were Emoto's "experiments" with names like "Adolf Hitler" and "Mother Teresa" as well as labels with the same term in different languages. Emoto's "Adolf Hitler" ice picture looks like a messed up drawing of the globe, representing global conquest. The "Mother Teresa" photo is more pleasing, but a bit lopsided. "Thank you" in English and its translation "Arigato" in Japanese both look snowflake-like but slightly different. How exciting: according to Emoto's body of work, water apparently not only knows about humanity's current events and history but how to read in just about every human language. Gosh, why do we humans waste so much time in school?

    The movie says humans are "90% water"it's actually more like 75% waterand if a label can alter water just imagine what it can do to people! At one point Amanda starts drawing little hearts all over her skin and becomes almost giddy with self love in the process. Imagine what this could do for the tattoo industry. Just think of all the other possibilities: We could put messages like, "sober up and get a job", on liquor bottles and turn drunks into upstanding citizens. We could engrave, "love thy neighbor" onto the grips of handguns and lower the homicide rate. How about writing, "remain seated and be nice" on airliner seat-cushions; it would eliminate hijacking. Emoto's data certainly explains the behavior of students who prepare for tests by writing information on their arms and hands. It's not cheating, it's educating their internal waters.

    To our knowledge, Emoto's claims have never been independently tested by a reputable group nor been subjected to double blind testing: the standard procedure for eliminating experimenter bias. Double blind tests aside, there's not even an indication that any of the data points have been repeated. There's also no evidence that the results are uniform within the same water drop. It's unclear whether the photographed crystals were the only structure present or were part of some larger pattern. The James Randi Educational Foundation has offered a $1,000,000 prize to Dr. Emoto if his data can pass a double blind test.5 Alas, the mere thought of an evil the size of a million bucks would probably taint even the purest of water. If only we could be so tainted."

    are you ever going to pick up that prize money?

  6. #156
    triple nerd score poppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    intj
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    Let's say you've got a job in a flute factory. And your job, your responsibility, is to take all the flutes with dings, and marks, and imperfections, and missing nozzles and what have you, and you throw 'em out. Quality control. That's all you do. Now tell me, how long will it take this process to turn that flute into a guitar?
    I'm sorry, this analogy bothers me, because flutes don't struggle to survive. They don't breed or pass on traits such as smoothness to their flute-babies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    It is not more logical to conclude that something as complicated as a factory has always, just been. I think anyone with a brain in their head would say, yes, someone must have built that factory.
    Ok, I could see what you're saying here. As in, it's statistically very very very very unlikely a factory would just fall together, that bricks would tumble out of quarries and stack themselves in the shape of what we recognize as a building. Similarly, it is unlikely that the universe would just fall together. I agree that our ability to understand what was going on in the beginning of the universe is fuzzy, and that "Well conditions were just like that" isn't a very satisfactory answer. Inflationary cosmology isn't able to fill in that gap, and I'm right with you on that, however I still think intelligent design leaves something to be desired for the same reason: "God just made it like that". Neither is capable of satisfying me, but I feel that religion is unlikely to come across some new insight, whereas science might some day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    I do happen to be familiar with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that there was a global deluge. It's based on a surprising amount of observable evidence, and I'd be more than happy to explain if you'd be willing to listen. Though, I'm not going to put the time into such an effort for it only to be ignored.
    I'd be interested in that, but I feel like I lost something. I don't know very much about Christianity (I was raised by atheists and I'm frankly pretty ignorant when it comes to religion), but I don't understand how evidence of a global flood is proof of the existence of God.

  7. #157
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    It is not more logical to conclude that something as complicated as a factory has always, just been. I think anyone with a brain in their head would say, yes, someone must have built that factory.

    I find it equally as unlikely that something as complicated as the Universe has always just been. I didn't used to. A year ago I would have argued the exact opposite. I've since stepped out of that box.
    Subjective conjecture. You can label the existence of life "God", but I'll just call it "life". I'm not discounting the idea that there is a godly presence to the mechanics of life, but I'd rather not view it as if there is an omnipotent being crafting a universe.. I'd personally view it as seeing no distinction between the universe and its own faculties.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  8. #158
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    I'm not refusing to see anything. I have no problem imagining that evolution has happened, been doing it all my life. I'm saying I want to see it. With my eyes. If all you have to show me are theories, and implications, then of course you can't help me. That's not what I'm looking for.
    You know, concrete thought isn't the only way of looking at the world. You can temper the abstract with what you know about logic. Empiricism bridges the gap between what we can imagine, and what is real. That's why it's so powerful.

    I agree, Occam's razor poses a serious threat to religious belief. This is precisely my issue with evolution. It is, as rationally and as objectively as I can see it, a religious belief.
    No, it's not. It fits the evidence. Do you not see the difference between religion (which requires faith) and science (which requires questions and evidence to support claims)?

    Now tell me, how can evidence that "suggests", be empirical? Can you show me one of these mutations? Already twice have I explained how natural selection is not a driving force for evolution. Let's try it again.
    Yes I can. Trisomy 21 is a mutation that occurs in human beings. That one is not particularly advantageous, as it results in Down Syndrome.

    Meanwhile, Staphylococcus aureus had gene mutations that resulted in not only it being resistant to penicillin, but also to methicillin, oxycillin, tetracycline and a whole host of other antibiotics. Those are mutations.

    Do you really expect them to be arms growing out of someone's head? A mutation is a difference in how an organism produces a particular protein compared to its genetic progenitor. Nothing more. You misunderstand what a mutation is, in my estimation.

    Let's say you've got a job in a flute factory. And your job, your responsibility, is to take all the flutes with dings, and marks, and imperfections, and missing nozzles and what have you, and you throw 'em out. Quality control. That's all you do. Now tell me, how long will it take this process to turn that flute into a guitar?
    You're asking the wrong question - there's a teleology (end point, you want to get to a guitar). Not only that, but there's a standard - a flute is a flute, and anything that doesn't meet up to the flute's standard is rejected.

    Genetic variation reproduced through natural selection doesn't work that way. The only standard is "can you reproduce?". Given your example, if a reject flute goes on to copulate with another reject flute and create many reject flute babies, then it has succeeded as far as natural selection is concerned (as reproduction requires being able to sustain oneself). If over many years, these reject flute offspring, via differences of reproduction (in living beings, genetic mutations), change into what we would call a guitar, while still being able to reproduce, then that's the amount of time it would take.


    Completely missed the point. :/

    It is not more logical to conclude that something as complicated as a factory has always, just been. I think anyone with a brain in their head would say, yes, someone must have built that factory.

    I find it equally as unlikely that something as complicated as the Universe has always just been. I didn't used to. A year ago I would have argued the exact opposite. I've since stepped out of that box.
    No, I didn't. You seem to forget that what is most apparently logical isn't actually more logical. What reason, other than my past experiences, would I have to assume that the factory was artificial? I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH ANY SORT OF CREATIVE GOD WHATSOEVER. So given that lack of past experience, why would I start with the assumption that given the complexity of the Universe, that there were some sort of creator? Why wouldn't I just rely on the empirical data to make determinations?

    Well, you could start by showing me the evidence we observe for macro evolution. But now it sounds like you're telling me the only way I can actually see it is to live for millions of years. That's not observable science.
    If you're going to be willfully concrete, that's your prerogative, and
    I can't stop you. However, if you'd like to delve into the implications of the way certain things work out (yes, a very abstract concept), then maybe we could get somewhere.

    Antibiotic resistance is the exact same process as macroevolution (a false distinction, if there ever was one). If you can't accept that to be the case, then there's no convincing you, is there?

    Could you please cite a few examples? If it is so overwhelmingly obvious that creationists are wrong, I'd really like to see what I've been missing.

    I do happen to be familiar with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that there was a global deluge. It's based on a surprising amount of observable evidence, and I'd be more than happy to explain if you'd be willing to listen. Though, I'm not going to put the time into such an effort for it only to be ignored.
    Show me the data, and how they could not be explained by another hypothesis.

    And still, not one example of macro evolution, a beneficial mutation, intermediate fossils changing from one animal to another, or any scientific evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old. You disappoint me, sir. Your argument is fierce, for I would expect nothing less from the ENTP, however the evidence given is less than sufficient. If the choice is so clear, shouldn't it be easy to show me why? I can easily relate to your argument, there's not a problem here, to understand the reasoning. As I continue to state and re-state, evolution has been, for me, a firmly held and defended belief for no less than 98% of my life. I still see just exactly why people have so much faith in it. I'm still not completely convinced it isn't happening. But the only place I can see it happen is in my mind. And just as with religion, I have a serious problem with that.
    Why should I be the repository of complete knowledge for that which has been replicated in innumerable scientific journals? Once again, you're the one making the extraordinary claim; the extraordinary burden of proof is upon you. Modern synthesis biology constantly presents strong evidence of its veracity - via genetic studies, empirical data and predictive capabilities. My question to you is what would be the evidence that you would need to accept these findings as the most currently accurate models of the universe?

    Everything that happens in your brain isn't necessarily untrue - otherwise, I'd travel on a roadtrip and end up somewhere completely different than the route I planned.

    -My life in the box-
    I have been in the box all my life.

    I always liked the box.

    Then one day I stepped out of the box.

    Now I'm looking at the box from the outside, and I see there might be some problems with it.

    But I can't seem to get anyone in the box to step out and take a look with me. They're all convinced it's fine, and there's no reason to leave.

    I'm only trying to help...

    Fuck the box. Use it to make a platform. The difference? There still is a box... you're just using it differently

  9. #159
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    First of all I'd like you to know I am not preaching here, I do not belong to any religion, I believe there is something to be learned in all religions.

    I usually don't talk about this either because most people create mental blocks when it comes to personal belief systems, but over the years I have been noticing some links between scripture, science, and reality. I have found scientific reasoning and truths in simple vague statements in the bible. Here are a couple examples.

    The bible tells you to pray before meals and show gratitude, but it doesn't tell you WHY. I found a reason, it quite literally makes your food BETTER and healthier, I've even conducted experiments of food decay and the one with positive prayer always looks better and fresher! take a look at my album for my experiment. However this is regarded as a pseudo science in the outside world, but the discoverer has even given lectures at harvard.

    In the story of creation, First there was the word. Words are sounds and vibrations, and science has found that these vibrations and changes in frequency actually changes the structure of matter itself, thus is becomes quite feasible that sounds can very well be essential elements to creating the universe. You and I even have our very own unique vibratory frequency. Let me show you this video, only sound is needed to shape the matter we do not have to touch it. YouTube - Shapeshifting from Vibration and Frequency - Send out Love?

    When you hit certain frequencies, you can actually see mini galaxies and mini planets forming.


    It's quite odd because 5 years ago I was more of a hardcore atheist, but these truths started to reveal themselves to me, I am very open minded, and I believe if I wasn't I would of rejected these ideas without proper investigation.

    However it does follow a trend that psychologists have been observing.
    Stages of Spiritual Growth - M. Scott Peck, M.D.
    I have told this before.
    It did not create conversation.
    I find my point valid, though. Especially in the context.

    I was at school. Religion class.
    The teacher spoke. He said:

    - What did Jesus mean when he said: You shall not kill.
    I raised my hand.
    I said: Do not kill animals for food.

    Anita raised her hand.
    She said: Do not offend another person.
    The teacher said: Anita has the correct answer.

    In my country the animals are cooked alive. For food.
    Before we eat them, we hypocritically pray.

    A vegetarian does not pray.
    She does not need to.

  10. #160
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rixonomic View Post
    I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if someone would just show me an example of macro evolution, a beneficial mutation, intermediate fossils changing from one animal to another, or any evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old. Occam's Razor - The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

    If I can't see it, I have a very hard time assuming, believing, trusting or having faith in that it happened. My goal it to either convince others, or get them to convince me. So far, we are both failing.
    There's huge problems with the idea that God just put rocks that exist for million of years for giggles from a philosophical perspective. Otherwise I'm inclined to believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old through simple dating and understanding of plate tectonics. People can't readily observe this, but acknowledge it exists.

    So you're walking through the woods, and you see a factory. You don't see or hear anyone. But the factory is obviously there. Do you conclude that the factory made itself? That is simply existed in the first place? Is it not more probable that the factory was created by something, than the idea that it could have just existed in the first place?
    Who created the creator?
    At the end of the day: Something had to have existed in the first place. It's just as flawed to assume that it has to be a sentinent being rather than the universe having existed. If you were to use Occam's Razor, which personally I hate, then it would figure that a universe existing is much less complicated than a God.

    Sir, I'm not convinced that you're not underestimating the complexity of the universe in which you live. A single cell is more complicated than a space shuttle. Now if you want to believe that it evolved and increased in complexity over millions of years, really, that's fine with me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But if you can show me that this has happened... Then you will have peaked my curiosity.
    Oh I can accept that I won't grasp the complexity. I personally believe that religion and current understanding of the world is compatible, and the flaw lies in the misinterpretation of bible. Like I said, there's pretty huge flaws if God was lying to us.

    You would also be surprised to know that I am actually a theist, but I don't subscribe to the bible version of the Christian God. It's not as if I reject the idea that something created the universe, in fact I do believe this, except it's much more probable that the universe simply existed.

    I agree, this issue in in the wrong part of town. However, I consider this to be a subject of great importance, and thus I feel it must be addressed.

    Did you know that the scientists who studied the Sahara desert, the largest, and oldest desert in the world, say it's only about 4000 years old? Did you know that we get mini grand canyons rapidly formed all over the world often times after there has been a volcano or flood? Did you know that we find petrified trees in the upright, upside down, and horizontal position running through multiple rock layers that are supposedly millions of years old? This raises some serious questions. Petrification is a very quick observable process. In fact, the only time we observe trees being petrified and buried in multiple layers of sediment is when there's been a volcano or a flood. The obvious implication here is that maybe, just maybe, the earth was flooded. It would explain the grand canyon. Otherwise, that river would have to have flowed uphill for millions of years in order to create that canyon. Please look it up if you doubt me. They dig up chunks of amber with air pockets in them, only to find them filled with 50% more oxygen than we have today. Scientists speculate the pterodactyl would require an atmosphere with 50% more air pressure in order to fly.

    And of course, this doesn't prove anything. I do, however, find it very interesting and certainly worth considering. I guess my point is really that there might be more science than just what you're being told. Seriously, aren't NT's supposed to question authority? Well, I can understand an SJ being cooperative, but what's everybody else's excuse?
    I'd have to ask you to check where you got your information from to check whether it's a biased source. There's also the additional problem where I feel as if you are attempting to fit the empirical data to work with understanding.

    a) Many scientist would conclude that the earth was flooded, however does that mean that the whole earth was flooded at once?

    b) The idea that there used to be more oxygen. I'll have to check up on this one but from what I recall this shouldn't be a problem, unless of course it's meant to be that the past should contain less oxygen.

    c) The flooding of the earth as you mentions proves nothing about the bible being true, considering the time period it was written in. I'd imagine Islam faith also claim a similar thing to be truthful, which is the right one? They both have 'scientific evidence', is it probable that people writing the Quran or Bible just simply had understanding of the world?

    Is it quite fuzzy? I know almost nothing about what the Islamic faith teaches. Based on your lack of understanding for what creationists teach in general, I hope you're prepared to back that statement up.

    I apologize if I come off as rude or offensive. This is hardly my intention. As previously stated, I'm really not against anyone here. I just want to have a clear picture of what is really going on in this crazy universe. I have a lot of problems with creation, the Bible, God, Satan, Heaven and Hell. But if you give an intelligent and well educated creationist a chance, much to my initial surprise, there's almost no issue he can't explain.

    But who needs to give the creationist a chance? We all know they have no idea what they're talking about anyway, right?
    I'm merely commenting on Islam science. They talk about things coming from the sea to form something greater ie. It fits in with current understanding of how life formed. My biggest problem at the moment is radiometric dating and plate tectonics. Life existing being found on completely different continent from a period of time when it existed.I don't mind if you argue from a creationist position, but equally have you really looked into all the other mainstream ideas of common science?
    Last edited by Snow Turtle; 07-25-2009 at 04:01 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Sensing/iNtuiting Game: Perceiving Differences
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. RIAA and investigatory processes
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Intuitive memory...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 08:43 PM
  5. Do Sensors read faster than iNtuitives?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 03:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO