Exactly, Len ........ truth is often stranger than fiction - but just because it remains undiscovered or not understood, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Spirituality or an awareness/connnection with something that has not as yet been quantified by science, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
It just means that it doesn't fit within the parameters of present scientific thinking.
If you're not looking, you don't see it.
I, like Kigelia, am in total awe of people that have unquestionable faith.
It's not something I have ever had, or have been able to understand, but that does not make it any less real, nor would I dismiss it.
Faith is a purely personal matter that happens to be shared by billions of others in one form or another and all the scientific facts on the planet will not change that and nor should it.
Good grief we are all Charlton supporters and so blind faith is something we should know everything about, we are the best club in the world, FACT. Others will tell us different and point to facts that absolutely proves we're not. But would that make a diference, would it have us rushing northwards to old trafford, of course not.
As soon as I saw Dawkins in that classroom trying to convince those children that their beliefs were flawed, as fascinating as the resuting programme was, I had already gone off him as a person.
Just as this disilusioned young man went off those who tried to make me believe something I couldn't.
If someone says that god exists then he does, it's not up for debate, or question, because that's the way it is and all the counter debate or proof to the contrary, might change the mind of a few, but not the majority.
I did not lose my faith because of Darwin, it just cemented the path I was already taking.
The biggest myth on the planet at the moment is the one where people believe that wihout faith there would be no wars or conflict. As has already been stated, evil exists in the minds of human beings and would come out in some guise or another, regadless of religion.
I was enjoying this discussion from the sidelines - something of a three ring circus - and quite entertaining.
As often happens with debates where one or more of the participants wants to bully the other into submission it often descends into a clash of ideas / ideals.
What is rather interesting, from my point of view, and I have seen and heard it in many debates / discussions, is that the one accusing the other / others of being of a closed mind often needs to take a long look in the mirror!
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.
I thought it was interesting when he stood in class and the kids were saying they believed and made to believe what they were told about their religions and in their holy books, and it is a good question that don't you believe in what you were taught first? ie. if you were from a religious family who went to church and were taught the teachings of the bible or any other holy book you'd believe to a certain extent that was the way it was until you were educated into thinking that might not be everything?
As children you are impressionable and learn what people tell you as the truth, its only when you grow up to about 14/15 yrs old etc you get taught opinions and how to deal with counter arguments (hence why you debate in lessons).
I think its a valid point to suggest that you perhaps believe what you were told first as lots of people don't like to be challenged with their thoughts/beliefs. I never questioned what i was being taught really till I went to college and did sociology as everything was about opinions. nothing was right or wrong, it was all theories.
Hi Bigstemarra, I was agreeing or openminded about many of the points in your post - until that last sentence: "All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct"
Only from man's present myopic viewpoint.
When you look back on the ever rapidly increasing technological progress of man during the last couple of centuries, I am sure we are soon going to have to acknowledge 'facts' which are presently dismissed by science as false or unproven (which in science speak appears more or less the same thing).
[quote][cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Oh no. An argument about religion...
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.[/quote]
I thought Piltdown man was supposed to explain the "missing link" in the theory of evolution which is why it was exhibited in the British Museum hence my description of it as a plank of evolutionary theory.
http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
Sorry do not know how to quote and link in the same post. I have therefore quoted badly to enable the link to work.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Oh no. An argument about religion...
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.
I thought Piltdown man was supposed to explain the "missing link" in the theory of evolution which is why it was exhibited in the British Museum hence my description of it as a plank of evolutionary theory.
My understanding of piltdown man is that it was a hoax. If memory serves me correctly - the item found and identified as `piltdown man' and therefore the `missing link' was in fact the mandible (jawbone) of an orang utan.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Oh no. An argument about religion...
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.
I thought Piltdown man was supposed to explain the "missing link" in the theory of evolution which is why it was exhibited in the British Museum hence my description of it as a plank of evolutionary theory.
My understanding of piltdown man is that it was a hoax. If memory serves me correctly - the item found and identified as `piltdown man' and therefore the `missing link' was in fact the mandible (jawbone) of an orang utan.
Yes it was a hoax but for many years it was portrayed as the "missing link."
My point, using this as an example, is that science is not infallible and that a hostile consensus which quashes dissent through ridicule, personal abuse and threats to withdraw funding will often perpetrate many misconceptions for long periods of time.
In the present day it is taboo to suggest that global warming and climate change could occur because of factors beyond the control of man. Yet there are some courageous scientists who have stuck their heads above the parapet to say that many of the projections for global warming are based on dodgy computer modelling and nothing or little else.
[cite]Posted By: bigstemarra[/cite]Oh no. An argument about religion...
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.
I thought Piltdown man was supposed to explain the "missing link" in the theory of evolution which is why it was exhibited in the British Museum hence my description of it as a plank of evolutionary theory.
My understanding of piltdown man is that it was a hoax. If memory serves me correctly - the item found and identified as `piltdown man' and therefore the `missing link' was in fact the mandible (jawbone) of an orang utan.
Yes it was hoax but more many years it was portrayed as the "missing link."
My point, using this as an example, is that science is not infallible and that a hostile consensus will often perpetrate many misconceptions for long periods of time.
In the present day it is taboo to suggest that global warming and climate change could be because of factors beyond the control of man. Yet there are some courageous scientists who have stuck their heads above the parapet to say that many of the projections for global warming are based on dodgy computer modelling and nothing or little else.
OK Len I get the point now! And yes you are quite right - `scientists' are very good at declaring something as proven until the basic tenet on which their principle is based is later disproved and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
Sometimes the expression `you can't see the wood for the trees' is very valid!
From the BBC site: "It has become apparent, however, through analysis of Charles Dawson's career, that all is not as it seems.
Of his discoveries, at least 38 are fakes......... Charles Dawson gave British palaeontology what it had craved for so long: A British ancestor; a missing link from the home counties."
Why would somebody feel the need to 'prove' what science couldn't?
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from it's own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconcious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of it's carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them.
The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
To say that because Piltdown man is a fraud it in any way detracts from evolutionary theory is wrong. It was just a distraction that got too many people's hopes up.
But Len you are right to point to the fact that scientists will often treat a theory as correct even when it is not fully verified - and we do have to be cautious of this.
Which ties into what Oggy said. You are right there may well be many things that are dismissed now that come to be accepted. But until they are proven, they are, as you said, unproven. Which means we can't treat them as facts.
As a scientist myself, I don't like the arrogance of Dawkins and some of the others in my profession. I think they do science a dis-service because the whole point is that science is just the best way to explain the world as we know it, but it is a fluid thing. Something could be discovered tomorrow which forces us to rethink everything and no-one knows what that may be. Not even very, very clever people like Dawkins.
So why do people believe thay have the right to challange some ones faith ?
Prove it or it cant be correct !
Faith is what it is ,nothing more or less. An agruement i cant possibly loose because my faith is mine and not anyone elses. It does not belong in the field of facts and theories.
are we singing yet ?
In the words ofthe late great Dave Allen "may your God go with you".
It's refreshing to hear a scientist put things in an undogmatic way.
And I'm sure much of what is unproven today will lead into the facts of tomorrow - we just have to live long enough to see for ourselves. Or wait for reincarnation.
do we feel this has run as far as it can. Largely a very interesting debate though.
Couple of you are going to have to learn to be a bit more tolerant to others and cut the snipes back please, for the sake of forum harmony. Its starting to become a bit of a running feature and its not in anyone's best interests. thanks.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]do we feel this has run as far as it can.
Ah, but you don't know that for sure, do you AFKA?
It's a just theory of yours - and as yet unproven despite evolving within the parameters of logical scientific thinking.
Which means we can't treat it as fact.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but I get the impression that you consider it the complete answer in itself?
That depends on the question.
yes natural selection it is the complete answer to how species evolve and why we have the bio-diversity.
Does On the Origin of Species or The Decent of Man give the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything then no but why would expect it to.
And in any case we already know the answer to that. : - )
The point of science is that is can be tested and is based on facts. Scientists will argue but they can test or refute the basis of what they say with facts. Hence one set of scientist can dispute global warming as being based on faulty computer models. Science has many flaws but it is at least open to scrutiny.
You can ask, "what if" questions and they maybe useful starting points as an hypothesis eg did aliens come to earth and genetically engineer human evolution.
I can't disprove that but it's not for me to disprove it. I can't disprove a negative. In science the onus is on your to prove that it is true or at least offer some evidence. Other scientist can then examine and challenge that evidence.
Sorry but this all sounds a bit Eric Von Danikan Chariot of the Gods to me.
Try Carl Sagen's the Demon Haunted World. Sagen spend much of his life on his SETI Project the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. He used radio telescopes (?) to search the airwaves for patterns in radio signals from space.
He figured that as we can not leave the planet to find the aliens and the aliens haven't shown themselves on earth (he investigated and found no truth in any of the Roswell et al stories) the only evidence we could gather would be signals in the air.
In the same way our radio signals maybe picked up somewhere.
Sagan wanted to find aliens but he was also a scientist so he knew he needed evidence. He wasn't saying their are no aliens but he was saying we don't have any evidence to suggest that we do.
Maybe or maybe not, Henry. Plenty 'of what ifs' - surely that's always been the starting point for scientists?
Sure, I was suggesting that the development of man may have been influenced by other factors, rather than wholly reliant on evolution alone - maybe aliens did come, maybe they didn't.
Today Man is now, or very soon will be, capable of creating life forms consistant with the creation theory.
It's not that far fetched that long ago humankind was hugely influenced, or evolution fast-forwarded by beings at least at the same stage of development as ourselves - and made man in their own image?
Maybe it was an existing civilsation on earth which destroyed itself (ha! history about to repeat itself........?). Maybe something else that we dismiss or are yet to recognise ?
Maybe evolution, as told to us today, is incontrovertible and humankind is nothing more than super amoebas ?
And that's all there is to it.
I don't know for sure - and neither do our present day scientists.
I've read a little about the SETI project years ago, and I agree they haven't reported any positive results that we can recognise. So that's pretty definitive then, as far as our scientists are concerned, man is the only intelligent life form in the entire Universe.
Comments
Spirituality or an awareness/connnection with something that has not as yet been quantified by science, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
It just means that it doesn't fit within the parameters of present scientific thinking.
If you're not looking, you don't see it.
It's not something I have ever had, or have been able to understand, but that does not make it any less real, nor would I dismiss it.
Faith is a purely personal matter that happens to be shared by billions of others in one form or another and all the scientific facts on the planet will not change that and nor should it.
Good grief we are all Charlton supporters and so blind faith is something we should know everything about, we are the best club in the world, FACT. Others will tell us different and point to facts that absolutely proves we're not. But would that make a diference, would it have us rushing northwards to old trafford, of course not.
As soon as I saw Dawkins in that classroom trying to convince those children that their beliefs were flawed, as fascinating as the resuting programme was, I had already gone off him as a person.
Just as this disilusioned young man went off those who tried to make me believe something I couldn't.
If someone says that god exists then he does, it's not up for debate, or question, because that's the way it is and all the counter debate or proof to the contrary, might change the mind of a few, but not the majority.
I did not lose my faith because of Darwin, it just cemented the path I was already taking.
The biggest myth on the planet at the moment is the one where people believe that wihout faith there would be no wars or conflict. As has already been stated, evil exists in the minds of human beings and would come out in some guise or another, regadless of religion.
As often happens with debates where one or more of the participants wants to bully the other into submission it often descends into a clash of ideas / ideals.
What is rather interesting, from my point of view, and I have seen and heard it in many debates / discussions, is that the one accusing the other / others of being of a closed mind often needs to take a long look in the mirror!
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.
God exists i know it, dont have to explain it or could as its FAITH.
Impossible for anyone to agrue me out of that.
I have not said darwin is wrong , i have said one day science may explain everything. Still dont mean God dosnt exist.
The "realists" should agrue against God existing i dont have to justify my faith to any living soul.
I have stood in a good few places and said i have no religion. Including at my own Fathers cremation.That fact dosnt mean i dont believe in a God tho.
Kiss and make up?
As children you are impressionable and learn what people tell you as the truth, its only when you grow up to about 14/15 yrs old etc you get taught opinions and how to deal with counter arguments (hence why you debate in lessons).
I think its a valid point to suggest that you perhaps believe what you were told first as lots of people don't like to be challenged with their thoughts/beliefs. I never questioned what i was being taught really till I went to college and did sociology as everything was about opinions. nothing was right or wrong, it was all theories.
Only from man's present myopic viewpoint.
When you look back on the ever rapidly increasing technological progress of man during the last couple of centuries, I am sure we are soon going to have to acknowledge 'facts' which are presently dismissed by science as false or unproven (which in science speak appears more or less the same thing).
Anyway, welcome to the circus ......!
I believe in evolutionary theory, yet it does not rule out the existence of god (Darwin was a christian). It does not address the precise origin of life, but it shows how life evolved from simple to complex forms. It is a provable theory.
Piltdown man a plank of Darwinism? Since when?
The problem is that creationists/"intelligent" design nutters put out so much rubbish and disinformation that people end up quoting things like that. The difference is that scientific arguments are based upon the scientific method and can be proved. All the other "facts" are irrelevant and therefore false (or at least, unproven) until proven correct.[/quote]
I thought Piltdown man was supposed to explain the "missing link" in the theory of evolution which is why it was exhibited in the British Museum hence my description of it as a plank of evolutionary theory.
http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
Sorry do not know how to quote and link in the same post. I have therefore quoted badly to enable the link to work.
Now all hold hands and sing " Ill walk with God from this day on ------"
My understanding of piltdown man is that it was a hoax. If memory serves me correctly - the item found and identified as `piltdown man' and therefore the `missing link' was in fact the mandible (jawbone) of an orang utan.
Yes it was a hoax but for many years it was portrayed as the "missing link."
My point, using this as an example, is that science is not infallible and that a hostile consensus which quashes dissent through ridicule, personal abuse and threats to withdraw funding will often perpetrate many misconceptions for long periods of time.
In the present day it is taboo to suggest that global warming and climate change could occur because of factors beyond the control of man. Yet there are some courageous scientists who have stuck their heads above the parapet to say that many of the projections for global warming are based on dodgy computer modelling and nothing or little else.
OK Len I get the point now! And yes you are quite right - `scientists' are very good at declaring something as proven until the basic tenet on which their principle is based is later disproved and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
Sometimes the expression `you can't see the wood for the trees' is very valid!
"It has become apparent, however, through analysis of Charles Dawson's career, that all is not as it seems.
Of his discoveries, at least 38 are fakes......... Charles Dawson gave British palaeontology what it had craved for so long: A British ancestor; a missing link from the home counties."
Why would somebody feel the need to 'prove' what science couldn't?
The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Douglas Adams, another genius.
But Len you are right to point to the fact that scientists will often treat a theory as correct even when it is not fully verified - and we do have to be cautious of this.
Which ties into what Oggy said. You are right there may well be many things that are dismissed now that come to be accepted. But until they are proven, they are, as you said, unproven. Which means we can't treat them as facts.
As a scientist myself, I don't like the arrogance of Dawkins and some of the others in my profession. I think they do science a dis-service because the whole point is that science is just the best way to explain the world as we know it, but it is a fluid thing. Something could be discovered tomorrow which forces us to rethink everything and no-one knows what that may be. Not even very, very clever people like Dawkins.
Prove it or it cant be correct !
Faith is what it is ,nothing more or less. An agruement i cant possibly loose because my faith is mine and not anyone elses. It does not belong in the field of facts and theories.
are we singing yet ?
In the words ofthe late great Dave Allen "may your God go with you".
It's refreshing to hear a scientist put things in an undogmatic way.
And I'm sure much of what is unproven today will lead into the facts of tomorrow - we just have to live long enough to see for ourselves. Or wait for reincarnation.
Reincarnation, anybody ......?
;o)
A brief history of time ------- what the f**k was taht about ?
Couple of you are going to have to learn to be a bit more tolerant to others and cut the snipes back please, for the sake of forum harmony. Its starting to become a bit of a running feature and its not in anyone's best interests. thanks.
Ah, but you don't know that for sure, do you AFKA?
It's a just theory of yours - and as yet unproven despite evolving within the parameters of logical scientific thinking.
Which means we can't treat it as fact.
;o)
And on this board, we all know who is almighty and whose word is law.
;o)
Im sure now i think of it you and Slattery were facing The Valley and praying to King Arthur just prior to the game once.
Amen!
To me, evolution appears as part of the answer.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but I get the impression that you consider it the complete answer in itself?
That depends on the question.
yes natural selection it is the complete answer to how species evolve and why we have the bio-diversity.
Does On the Origin of Species or The Decent of Man give the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything then no but why would expect it to.
And in any case we already know the answer to that. : - )
The point of science is that is can be tested and is based on facts. Scientists will argue but they can test or refute the basis of what they say with facts. Hence one set of scientist can dispute global warming as being based on faulty computer models. Science has many flaws but it is at least open to scrutiny.
You can ask, "what if" questions and they maybe useful starting points as an hypothesis eg did aliens come to earth and genetically engineer human evolution.
I can't disprove that but it's not for me to disprove it. I can't disprove a negative. In science the onus is on your to prove that it is true or at least offer some evidence. Other scientist can then examine and challenge that evidence.
Sorry but this all sounds a bit Eric Von Danikan Chariot of the Gods to me.
Try Carl Sagen's the Demon Haunted World. Sagen spend much of his life on his SETI Project the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. He used radio telescopes (?) to search the airwaves for patterns in radio signals from space.
He figured that as we can not leave the planet to find the aliens and the aliens haven't shown themselves on earth (he investigated and found no truth in any of the Roswell et al stories) the only evidence we could gather would be signals in the air.
In the same way our radio signals maybe picked up somewhere.
Sagan wanted to find aliens but he was also a scientist so he knew he needed evidence. He wasn't saying their are no aliens but he was saying we don't have any evidence to suggest that we do.
Sure, I was suggesting that the development of man may have been influenced by other factors, rather than wholly reliant on evolution alone - maybe aliens did come, maybe they didn't.
Today Man is now, or very soon will be, capable of creating life forms consistant with the creation theory.
It's not that far fetched that long ago humankind was hugely influenced, or evolution fast-forwarded by beings at least at the same stage of development as ourselves - and made man in their own image?
Maybe it was an existing civilsation on earth which destroyed itself (ha! history about to repeat itself........?). Maybe something else that we dismiss or are yet to recognise ?
Maybe evolution, as told to us today, is incontrovertible and humankind is nothing more than super amoebas ?
And that's all there is to it.
I don't know for sure - and neither do our present day scientists.
I've read a little about the SETI project years ago, and I agree they haven't reported any positive results that we can recognise. So that's pretty definitive then, as far as our scientists are concerned, man is the only intelligent life form in the entire Universe.