By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

appolose on 21 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

He was just pointing out that multiple phenomena are not necessary.  

And supposing that it was shown that mass was being created without any apparent use of or decline in energy, that might unseat much of physics but science is not capable of concluding that a supernatural force is the cause of any phenomenon.  "For reasons unknown" is the closest it can come.  And "for reasons unknown" is all that would happen, not "oops we can't answer this (YET) so I guess the scientific method should be discarded".  

To say "For reasons unknown" is to imply that one of your well-established observations is false, which goes back to the problem of contradicting that basic tenet.  Since we can't have contradiction, it's either science goes or the supernatural comes (I posit).

How can an observation of a phenomenon itself contradict another observation?  Sure, it can contradict a theory, but that leaves open the potential that a correct (other) explanation exists.  So no matter how many theories you destroy, there is always the possibility that we have simply not thought of the correct theory to explain what has happened, unless you somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist.  

So if apples start falling up instead of down and it can't be reconciled with gravity as we know it, then our understanding of gravity is wrong [edit:  (or we're missing some other factor overpowering gravity)], but that doesn't mean there's NO scientific explanation for things falling up and down.  

Kinda funny how the "can't prove a negative" atheists face is going the other way now.   

My example to Rath is just that:  It is observed (hypothetically) that matter cannot be created physically, then observed that matter comes into existence.  These are contradictory if you don't invoke the supernatural, are they not?  For how could matter become without physical means if the physical is all there is?

For your example; yes, I've acknowledged that to Khuutra.  My example is not such a situation.  Your's entails having a well-established observation become a not-well-established observation.  Mine, on the other hand, shows two well-established observations that are not contradictory unless the sole existence of the phsyical is assumed.

How exactly could you "observe" that matter cannot be created?  It's nonsensical.  The most you could say is "I have never seen this happen."  "This cannot happen" is a THEORY derived from never seeing it happen.  Which would then be shown to be incorrect.  

Your hypothetical observation is impossible.   

What are you talking about?  It's (or, at least was) a law in physics.

Edit: And that is how science operates: after a number of "I have seen this", it becomes a "This always is".



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
Final-Fan on 21 September 2009
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:

He was just pointing out that multiple phenomena are not necessary.  

And supposing that it was shown that mass was being created without any apparent use of or decline in energy, that might unseat much of physics but science is not capable of concluding that a supernatural force is the cause of any phenomenon.  "For reasons unknown" is the closest it can come.  And "for reasons unknown" is all that would happen, not "oops we can't answer this (YET) so I guess the scientific method should be discarded".  

To say "For reasons unknown" is to imply that one of your well-established observations is false, which goes back to the problem of contradicting that basic tenet.  Since we can't have contradiction, it's either science goes or the supernatural comes (I posit).

How can an observation of a phenomenon itself contradict another observation?  Sure, it can contradict a theory, but that leaves open the potential that a correct (other) explanation exists.  So no matter how many theories you destroy, there is always the possibility that we have simply not thought of the correct theory to explain what has happened, unless you somehow prove that no natural explanation can possibly exist.  

So if apples start falling up instead of down and it can't be reconciled with gravity as we know it, then our understanding of gravity is wrong [edit:  (or we're missing some other factor overpowering gravity)], but that doesn't mean there's NO scientific explanation for things falling up and down.  

Kinda funny how the "can't prove a negative" atheists face is going the other way now.   

My example to Rath is just that:  It is observed (hypothetically) that matter cannot be created physically, then observed that matter comes into existence.  These are contradictory if you don't invoke the supernatural, are they not?  For how could matter become without physical means if the physical is all there is?

For your example; yes, I've acknowledged that to Khuutra.  My example is not such a situation.  Your's entails having a well-established observation become a not-well-established observation.  Mine, on the other hand, shows two well-established observations that are not contradictory unless the sole existence of the phsyical is assumed.

How exactly could you "observe" that matter cannot be created?  It's nonsensical.  The most you could say is "I have never seen this happen."  "This cannot happen" is a THEORY derived from never seeing it happen.  Which would then be shown to be incorrect.  

Your hypothetical observation is impossible.   

What are you talking about?  It's (or, at least was) a law in physics.

Edit: And that is how science operates: after a number of "I have seen this", it becomes a "This always is".

You said "IT IS OBSERVED that matter cannot be created etc. etc."  Not that it was mathematically impossible.  

It's either a scientific theory based on observation, 
or a fact (proven theorem) of mathematics.  

If it's the first, then your hypothetical scenario makes no sense.  If it's the second, then why did you ask me to "imagine that the math doesn't work"?  Because clearly, for the purposes of this discussion, you cannot simultaneously invoke the fact that it does and the idea that it doesn't.  

And since you SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME that your supposed contradiction was found because of two contradicting observations, your objection maddens me.  

I'm going to work in a bit.   

Responding to your edit:  AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL A FUCKING THEORY! 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan on 21 September 2009



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

ManusJustus on 21 September 2009
appolose said:

1.  You assume I have a computer. 

2. You assume my unpluggin it is connected to it being off.

3.  You assume that I can recognize the states of the computer

4.  You assume I haven't unplugged it.

5. You assume ect.

Whether or nor I assume the above list has no bearing on it being an unfounded assumption.  Even if I claimed that I did not assume those things (but really did), my hypocrisy has no bearing on my argument.

1. I know that you have a computer.

2. I know that your computer is plugged in.

3. I know that your computer is functioning to the point where you can visit this forum.

4. I know that you have not unplugged your computer (or if you have you've been met with unfavorable results).

How do I know these things?  Because I know things about reality, and since we are in the same realtity I can know things about your reality as well.  I don't have to travel to your house and look to see if your computer is plugged into the wall or running off of electricity, because I know that it is.

Your argument doesnt matter because:

- If I exist, I have to plug my computer in to get on the internet.

- If I dont exist, I have to plug my compuer in to get on the internet.



Final-Fan on 21 September 2009

appolose: Manus means that all those things are true in the reality you perceive together, whether or not you admit it, which may or may not be the case in the Matrix or dream of that guy in Alice in Wonderland or whatever.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
appolose on 21 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:

My example to Rath is just that:  It is observed (hypothetically) that matter cannot be created physically, then observed that matter comes into existence.  These are contradictory if you don't invoke the supernatural, are they not?  For how could matter become without physical means if the physical is all there is?

For your example; yes, I've acknowledged that to Khuutra.  My example is not such a situation.  Your's entails having a well-established observation become a not-well-established observation.  Mine, on the other hand, shows two well-established observations that are not contradictory unless the sole existence of the phsyical is assumed.

How exactly could you "observe" that matter cannot be created?  It's nonsensical.  The most you could say is "I have never seen this happen."  "This cannot happen" is a THEORY derived from never seeing it happen.  Which would then be shown to be incorrect.  

Your hypothetical observation is impossible.   

What are you talking about?  It's (or, at least was) a law in physics.

Edit: And that is how science operates: after a number of "I have seen this", it becomes a "This always is".

You said "IT IS OBSERVED that matter cannot be created etc. etc."  Not that it was mathematically impossible.  

It's either a scientific theory based on observation, 
or a fact (proven theorem) of mathematics.  

If it's the first, then your hypothetical scenario makes no sense.  If it's the second, then why did you ask me to "imagine that the math doesn't work"?  Because clearly, for the purposes of this discussion, you cannot simultaneously invoke the fact that it does and the idea that it doesn't.  

And since you SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME that your supposed contradiction was found because of two contradicting observations, your objection maddens me.  

I'm going to work in a bit.   

Responding to your edit:  AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL A FUCKING THEORY! 

Heh, sorry, don't mean to make you frustrated :P

It's the first  (I'm not sure why you're bringing math back into this, but whatever).  We've already gone over what a well-established observation is, and you agreed to it.  It is observed enough so that it is assumed it's true (basic tenet here).  So, it makes perfect sense (thanks Rol).

As for your last objection, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I'll attempt to answer.  You are referring to whenever a theory gets overturned in light of new observations that are the opposite of what was originally observed, but what I'm referring to is two observations that would contradict unless a supernatural answer was imposed (if all there is is the physical, then we have a contradiction, yes?).  These are different in that the first is demonstrating that the original observation is no longer well-observed, while the other is not a case of that.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose on 21 September 2009
ManusJustus said:
appolose said:

1.  You assume I have a computer. 

2. You assume my unpluggin it is connected to it being off.

3.  You assume that I can recognize the states of the computer

4.  You assume I haven't unplugged it.

5. You assume ect.

Whether or nor I assume the above list has no bearing on it being an unfounded assumption.  Even if I claimed that I did not assume those things (but really did), my hypocrisy has no bearing on my argument.

1. I know that you have a computer.

2. I know that your computer is plugged in.

3. I know that your computer is functioning to the point where you can visit this forum.

4. I know that you have not unplugged your computer (or if you have you've been met with unfavorable results).

How do I know these things?  Because I know things about reality, and since we are in the same realtity I can know things about your reality as well.  I don't have to travel to your house and look to see if your computer is plugged into the wall or running off of electricity, because I know that it is.

Your argument doesnt matter because:

- If I exist, I have to plug my computer in to get on the internet.

- If I dont exist, I have to plug my compuer in to get on the internet.

You're proof only works if you assume that there are other people in reality, and that they have the same idea you do (even then, it doesn't actually work).  You also claim to know things about reality, and I must ask how you've made what you know not assumptions.

@Finalfan

Manus assumes there is a "together" (but was that what you were getting at?  I'm not sure).



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Khuutra on 21 September 2009
appolose said:

In my scenario, if it were a case of us missing something, then I am positing that to assume so would be to contradict a basic tenet (that's better, eh?) of science. While you may be right in saying this is a thought experiment, my point is merely to demonstrate that is is possible for science to come to a supernatural conclusion.

No, it isn't.

In that scenario, a guy would go "Okay guys! We have missed something. We better change the field theory!"

Scientists will never come to the conclusion that something supernatural is going on. If there is a God, he'd be part of the natural order anyway, and probably accounted for in a unified field theory.



appolose on 21 September 2009
Khuutra said:
appolose said:

In my scenario, if it were a case of us missing something, then I am positing that to assume so would be to contradict a basic tenet (that's better, eh?) of science. While you may be right in saying this is a thought experiment, my point is merely to demonstrate that is is possible for science to come to a supernatural conclusion.

No, it isn't.

In that scenario, a guy would go "Okay guys! We have missed something. We better change the field theory!"

Scientists will never come to the conclusion that something supernatural is going on. If there is a God, he'd be part of the natural order anyway, and probably accounted for in a unified field theory.

If they did, that would contradict that basic tenet of science (being, that if something is observed enough, it is assumed to be true).

"Scientists will never come to the conclusion that something supernatural is going on".

No offense, but I do know that that is your position already :/



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Khuutra on 21 September 2009
appolose said:
Khuutra said:
appolose said:

In my scenario, if it were a case of us missing something, then I am positing that to assume so would be to contradict a basic tenet (that's better, eh?) of science. While you may be right in saying this is a thought experiment, my point is merely to demonstrate that is is possible for science to come to a supernatural conclusion.

No, it isn't.

In that scenario, a guy would go "Okay guys! We have missed something. We better change the field theory!"

Scientists will never come to the conclusion that something supernatural is going on. If there is a God, he'd be part of the natural order anyway, and probably accounted for in a unified field theory.

If they did, that would contradict that basic tenet of science (being, that if something is observed enough, it is assumed to be true).

"Scientists will never come to the conclusion that something supernatural is going on".

No offense, but I do know that that is your position already :/

I do not know where you are getting this tenet from. If something is observed not to be true, ever, then it's not true. If we can find an explanation, fine, but if we can't, theories get thrown out. That's not in violation of science.

Here, let me break down your hypothetical, see if I have this right:

Scientist A observes a phenomenon.

Scientist B observes soemethign that suggests that phenomenon could never happen.

For argument's sake, we will say that they observed these separate happenings a billion times.

About right so far?