You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
My point is simply to pick an example that illustrates the low probability that intelligent life could have occurred randomly on planet earth. It's simply an illustration. I think you're being unfair here. I believe that if you could show that evolution occurred with 99.99999999999% probability, you'd be flashing the #s just as I am.Quote from stu:
So you are now asking Joe lottery to find 1 particular dime in a sea of dimes. Why? How does that equate to the question of intelligent design??
How does that relate to the chances of something coming from nothing and not from intelligent design ??
Why only one Joe Lottery? Is this somehow supposed to be analogous to what??...one chance... or one God? Then mathematically speaking there is no chance and no God !!?? Is that it?
The fallacy of this is that you get to state and decide ALL the controlling conditions with the Joe Lottery scenario.
But after more analysis I find out that there wasn't just one chance for Joe Lottery. He spawned another and another ad infinitum, whose sole purpose of existence was only to attract a 1983 dime to the sole of their shoes as they ran through a 4ft global sea of 1982 dimes. The only inevitable result is that they will find the dime. My viewpoint changes from divine intervention to mathematically and statistically probable.
Unfortunately this also destroys the idea that it needs one God to intervene for Joe Lottery to succeed.
Science = Technology.Quote from TM_Direct:what are the scientific findings of a computer? Don't confuse technology with scientific findings.
Science as a method to enable development of technology.
hhmm...let's see how can chips be faster and cooler.. ooooo I know use atoms instead of etching silicon layers. How do atoms work oooo ...I know build some technology to tell or us..... errm no use don't know how .....Ahhhh try SCIENCE. Use Science to work out a method.
You could also try fondue set collecting or butterfly wrestling or religion, but I guess it will be science which comes up with some practical and useful answers
__________________________________Quote from stu:
Big problem with that doubter, it works equally well for believing in religion.
Unlike religion, Science shows how things CAN and ARE achieved, not by humans fiddling the statistics because they want to be published. Even if they get away with that, SCIENCE will find them out.
And you will then say what?... Science is wrong because it can be misused or abused?
What is the big problem? Are you saying that scientists are above this sort of thing. And where did I say that religion is not effected by this problem. I said that this is essentially a "human" problem and is prevalent everywhere. In the specific case I am witnessing they are not fiddling with the statistics but merely not reporting findings outside their preconceived ideas. So far this instance has gone on for 60 years and has not been found out and it won't be as long as funding and promotions are the goals.
Science is sometimes wrong because it is misused and sometimes it is right. I am only saying that if you question the positions of religion because of human frailties then science should surely be held to the same standard. If people should not believe in God then they maybe shouldn't make a god out of science and believe it too is infallible.
or just plain wrong... yes but you know it is just plain wrong because other science, or practical logical deduction shows it to be. And you try to do better.Quote from ElCubano:or just plain out wrong.....because something that makes the first finding wrong was found in the second finding by a different scientist or group of scientist...this is not uncommon...
When the "science" or practical logical deduction of religion is just plain wrong as axeman described the Genesis nonsense to be, religion's answer is... just keeps the Genesis nonsense in place. It wallows in incoherence.
Quote from stu:
When the "science" or practical logical deduction of religion is just plain wrong as axeman described the Genesis nonsense to be, religion's answer is... just keeps the Genesis nonsense in place. It wallows in incoherence.
There you go again. I have shown how Genesis "coincidentally" provides the exact sequence of the astronomical and archaeological record and provided good answers to all of axeman's objections (on p. 32) and yet you still flame Genesis as "nonsense". Is it too much to ask that you don't insult every Jew and Christian on the planet w/o at least providing some evidence for your accusations? Where is Genesis 1 incorrect if it is "nonsense" as you say?
doubter,
People are fallible so applying the scientific method is fallible.
People don't have all the information so the application of science is fallible. Applying methods of Science is an attempt to build and improve on useful findings which are the very least fallible.
Numerous practical lifesaving life enhancing benefits are possible using science and improving a better knowledge of science everyday.
People are fallible so religion is fallible.
Religion makes some people feel good. Its an art form. It's like music (although music makes more sense to me). But you can't save or enhance life with music or religion like you can with the results of scientific development.
People are fallible so applying the scientific method is fallible.
People don't have all the information so the application of science is fallible. Applying methods of Science is an attempt to build and improve on useful findings which are the very least fallible.
Numerous practical lifesaving life enhancing benefits are possible using science and improving a better knowledge of science everyday.
People are fallible so religion is fallible.
Religion makes some people feel good. Its an art form. It's like music (although music makes more sense to me). But you can't save or enhance life with music or religion like you can with the results of scientific development.
And, no, I don't expect anyone to go, "Oh, I think I'll become Jewish or Christian." I just want people to stop trash talking Genesis 1 without substantive reasons.
Quote from stu:
Science = Technology.
Science as a method to enable development of technology.
hhmm...let's see how can chips be faster and cooler.. ooooo I know use atoms instead of etching silicon layers. How do atoms work oooo ...I know build some technology to tell or us..... errm no use don't know how .....Ahhhh try SCIENCE. Use Science to work out a method.
You could also try fondue set collecting or butterfly wrestling or religion, but I guess it will be science which comes up with some practical and useful answers
Main Entry: sci·ence
Function: noun
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
Using the above definition of science....i still don;t understand how there is scientific findings in a computer? A computer is a tool...nothing more .....now if you want to say some science knowledge went into making this tool, im ok with that, but when you make a tool you have an inanimate object which cannot be denied...read # 3......many of these supposed findings are based on information on a lot of theory, not scientific methods of proving their hypothesis....which, is very much like religion...it's all a leap of faith....that is why i laugh as they discuss with certainty that dinosaurs were this color, ate that or became extinct because of a large asteroid....or when they talk about an expanding universe and black holes which they can not see , touch, or experiment on....yet it's some of these same scientists who are the biggest atheists....why? lack of evidence
Just because some cannot understand Genesis 1 does not mean it is not understandable.
Just because I don't understand some theories of physics does not mean that they are not understandable.
The Bible itself says you won't understand its' principles unless the spirit interprets them for you. I have certainly noticed this and have discussed the phenomenon with many others who are more highly educated than I am.
Just because I don't understand some theories of physics does not mean that they are not understandable.
The Bible itself says you won't understand its' principles unless the spirit interprets them for you. I have certainly noticed this and have discussed the phenomenon with many others who are more highly educated than I am.