Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: babylon5comlink on May 25, 2010, 08:56:33 pm
-
SO wich type of evolution do you believe in Macroevolution or Microevolution
Personally I believe in Microevolution. :D
-
:lol:
-
wtf is this **** and should I take it seriously
-
Macro, obviously. Bigger is better.
-
wtf is this **** and should I take it seriously
No.
I'd prefer microevolution. Some things are already big enough, time to go the other direction.
-
I believe in microevolution. 1000 years ago we had nothing micro at all.
Now we have microphones, microwaves, microprocessors, microchips, etc.
So it's pretty obvious that macro isn't evolving.
-
Obvious answer would be "both".
I believe in evolution just as much as I believe in the existence of oxygen.
-
actually the obvious answer is neither.
It's just 'evolution'
"Micro" and "Macro" were made up by religious folks who get defensive when evolution is objectively observed
Edit: Did I just get trolled or is this some type of serious discussion?
-
Edit: Did I just get trolled or is this some type of serious discussion?
If you have to ask, it's probably too late. :p
Personally, I think that because micromachines are awesome, it follows logically that microevolution is awesome as well. Macros are just an easy way for people to get viruses via word documents, making them lame, and by extension, macroevolution.
-
How could I forget McCain Microchips! It's definitely micro.
When I can have chips in 3 minutes I'll believe in the existence of macroevolution!
-
And microwave ovens, don't forget those!
EDIT: must read previous posts slower next time.
On topic (if there is any) I believe evolution will find it's own way, might be micro for some stuff and macro for some others.
-
Yes, and Jeff Goldblum will save us from the zombie dinosaurs.
-
Next comes microgravity vs. macrogravity.
I think it causes things to fall, but the stars are dots on the celestial sphere.
-
Macrogravity is boring, it just keeps things same old, same old. I wanna fly, dammit! :D
-
Well, it IS just a theory; you should be able to fly if you believe.
*flaps arms real fast*
-
I beleive in megaevolution
-
Next comes microgravity vs. macrogravity.
I think it causes things to fall, but the stars are dots on the celestial sphere.
That's a good one, I'll need to remember that next time I talk with a fundie. =P
-
Macrojesus versus Microjesus?
-
I say we move on to Microeconomics or Macroeconomics.
I dislike microeconomics becuase small scale money is hardly ever useful for buying interesting things. Macroeconomics is much better for that. Big money!
-
"Has evolution left you feeling micro? Click here for a big MACRO boost!!!"
-
My entire response to this thread (and indeed the OP himself) can be summarized in one short post consisting solely of the word "wat"
I shall proceed to make that statement
wat
-
My entire response to this thread (and indeed the OP himself) can be summarized in one short post consisting solely of the word "wat"
I shall proceed to make that statement
wat
Indeed.
-
how did we evolve into what we are today and if u explanation is correct then that would mean we are a mistake and that means your a mistake im a mistake u was never meant to be you was a acedent witch means u can drop dead without warning and if there was hot stuff that made the big bang wered that come from??
-
Evolution created it.
-
I beleive in megaevolution
Well, insects are getting smaller due to decreasing oxygen content in the atmosphere compared to when they peaked.
But, to compensate, we do have larger mammals. So I guess evolution maintains a balance on it's megafauna/flora.
-
Good. We don't need any three-foot-long dragonflies scaring the **** out of us. :p
-
Three metres long dragons, however...
(http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/reptile/komodo_dragon/komodo_dragon_04tfk.jpg)
-
Good. We don't need any three-foot-long dragonflies scaring the **** out of us. :p
If they ate mosquitoes I could live with it.
****ing mosquitoes!
-
I dunno, having a pet 3-foot long dragonfly sounds pretty cool tbh. :D
-
I dunno, having a pet 3-foot long dragonfly sounds pretty cool tbh. :D
Until it decapitates you
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
By the way I was being mostly serious but not any more---I am laughing to hard to care any more :lol:
-
By the way I was being mostly serious but not any more---I am laughing to hard to care any more :lol:
Hey, no worries. I was raised conservative Christian so I kinda know what you mean. People who believe in "microevolution" are people who don't believe in evolution but have been forced to concede that things evolve, but they want to pretend that species are somehow locked and can't gain/lose chromosomes etc.
In actuality, "microevolution" as you're putting it, is just evolution going about its business.
-
Oh.
Well.
Neither one is something you 'believe in', per se, and they're certainly not mutually exclusive, as your post seemed to suggest.
This is coming from a short reading of their articles on Wikipedia, and I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think it's pretty obvious what they are. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale, concerning the mutations that make an individual species adapt. The term 'allele frequency'- how prevalent a certain trait is- is used a lot. Macroevolution concerns the sum of these mutations and is more about the adaptations of all the species in an environment.
The assumption that you don't know all this already comes from the question of which one we 'believe in'. Which, given what they are, makes no sense at all. They're two different approaches to the study of evolution. They're not really separate theories.
-
The term 'allele frequency'- how prevalent a certain trait is- is used a lot.
To get a bit more precise, an allele is a variant of a given gene, and its frequency is (as you say) how often it turns up in a population.
It's a measure of how 'popular' a mutation is.
-
Let me be more specific: I believe that microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not.
By the way science cannot prove anything because science is always changing because of new discoveries.
-
ooooooooooooooooookay.
:/
Since all I can think of to say would be incredibly inflammatory, this will be my last post in this thread. I will however be reading with much amusement.
-
Let me be more specific: I believe that microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not.
By the way science cannot prove anything because science is always changing because of new discoveries.
You're wrong. (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract)
I'll be forced to take any further argument as a sign of tragic under-education. I will also watch with great amusement.
As an advisory to those interested in posting 'rebuttals': babylon5comlink is here to talk about what he believes. Science does not run on people's beliefs; it is based on data. Arguing with someone with this mindset is not going to get you anything but frustration - their attitudes on the topic are shaped by religion and dogma, not by any kind of rationality.
You can rest assured that evolutionary science will remain one of the most heavily tested, thoroughly reliable cornerstones of science whether or not this particular Internet denizen 'believes' in it.
I suggest that any escalation of the topic on OP's part be handled by a discussion of what's holding up the world. I suggest turtles.
-
Ah yes, "macroevolution". The legendary process of one species allegedly transforming into another species, or appearance of previously unexistant organs of "irreducible complexity".
We have dismissed that claim.*
I challenge anyone to prove that so called "macro"evolution is impossible to happen through accumulated "micro"evolution. You'll fail, but it will be amusing for anyone who understands basic premises of biology, genetics and animal anatomy/morphology.
*I'm Herra Tohtori, and this is my favourite memetic mutation in Mass Effect 2.
-
@GB why do you always have to be like that?
I "believe in" macroevolution, but I don't know what Battuta is trying to show with that abstract. Even the mutated bacteria were still bacteria. I'm not really used to the distinction between macro- and microevolution.
-
I'll be forced to take any further argument as a sign of tragic under-education. ...
Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. :nervous:
(By the way no hard feelings. I just like to debate with people :))
-
@GB why do you always have to be like that?
I "believe in" macroevolution, but I don't know what Battuta is trying to show with that abstract. Even the mutated bacteria were still bacteria. I'm not really used to the distinction between macro- and microevolution.
The abstract demonstrates historical contingency in microevolution. This is 'macroevolution'.
Here's a more explicit and accessible one. (http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Study_catches_2_bird_populations_as_they_split_into_separate_species.asp)
I'll be forced to take any further argument as a sign of tragic under-education. ...
Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. :nervous:
(By the way no hard feelings. I just like to debate with people :))
Go ahead and present your evidence on the topic, then. As a starter, you can disprove founder effect, genetic drift, and population bottlenecks as sources of speciation (citations from a peer reviewed source would be ideal, but not strictly necessary for a friendly debate). For an applied case, you can explain how life on Earth adapted to breathe toxic, highly lethal oxygen without 'macroevolution.'
Alternatively, I would accept a hypothetical construction of the family tree of the Hyracotherium and all its descendants that explains how they can be genetically related without having evolved and speciated.
Go on, get to it!
-
One word: Creationism
Babylon5comlink watches this thread go boom in his face :snipe:
-
One word: Creationism
Babylon5comlink watches this thread go boom in his face :snipe:
Go back 6 posts!
-
Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. :nervous:
That you believe there's some global cabal of scientists all working towards imprinting their unified world view on everyone else is a clear indication of under education or maybe just non-factual education.
-
I just like to debate with people
It's not a debate if you just make statements that have absolute truth value to you.
Example:
"I believe in tooth fairies." statement that tooth fairies exist; there's no way to prove or disprove this claim
"Okay, I accept that you believe in tooth fairies."
"I believe tooth fairies are responsible for taking away old teeth and making new ones grow." statement that tooth fairies are responsible for something that has a well documented scientific and medical records, x-ray imagery and other data to support a contrary position
"I disagree, tooth fairies have nothing to do with it, the teeth grow from tooth buds embedded in the jaw bones. They develope and emerge as the individual grows. Here's an X-Ray image where you can see the tooth buds in varying degrees of maturation."
"Well yeah but that X-Ray image doesn't disprove that tooth fairies aren't responsible. I still believe in tooth fairies and that they are responsible for tooth change."
"...right."
Debate involves an intellectual process of defending your position with logical arguments, and also putting your own position to test of counter-arguments.
Example:
"Is it possible that my hypothesis regarding tooth fairies could actually be factually incorrect? Is there any evidence that supports my theory other than stories my mother told me when I was a wee lad?"
-
(http://ui25.gamespot.com/1816/ibtl_2.gif)
Ahh, my favorite macro..
-
I dunno, having a pet 3-foot long dragonfly sounds pretty cool tbh. :D
Until it decapitates you
how about a giant chicken as a pet :confused:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/xkvlmb.jpg)
-
(http://ui25.gamespot.com/1816/ibtl_2.gif)
Ahh, my favorite macro..
In B4 Hero_Swe gets 3 days off for telling me how to do my job.
Wait, in AFTER Hero_Swe gets 3 days off for telling me how to do my job.
Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. :nervous:
The fact that you know nothing about the subject but yet state an opinion shows you are under-educated. An educated person has learned not to give an opinion on things he knows nothing about. :p
-
how about a giant chicken as a pet :confused:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/xkvlmb.jpg)
Hey, that's my home city!!! :)
-
It's impossible for creationism to be true science because it is not objective. It is considered pseudo-science. Since you attempt to piece together evidence to explain a preconceived idea.
-
It's impossible for creationism to be true science because it is not objective. It is considered pseudo-science. Since you attempt to piece together evidence to explain a preconceived idea.
Pseudoscience? It's a fairy tale.
-
It's impossible for creationism to be true science because it is not objective. It is considered pseudo-science. Since you attempt to piece together evidence to explain a preconceived idea.
Pseudoscience? It's a fairy tale.
http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
-
yeah, but you said "creationism," not "creation science" or "intelligent design"
Creationism is a fairytale, creation science and intelligent design are fairy tales wrapped up in bad science to fool people.
-
Ahh... I see. Same thing to me.
-
pseudo-science
"a pretended or mistaken science," 1844, from pseudo- (q.v.) + science.
pseudo-
comb. form meaning "false, feigned, erroneous," from Gk. pseudo-, comb. form of pseudes "false," or pseudos "falsehood," both from pseudein "to deceive."
(from www.etymonline.com)
-
pseudoscience still doesn't pertain to fairy tales and myths in general. you can't call greek mythology a pseudoscience, can you? creation science is the pseudoscience trying to prove a creation myth is true.
-
When they try to pass it off as science, it does!
-
whatever, you're still kinda wrong but it's just semantics.
-
Let's agree it's not true and be friends. :P
-
Whatever gave you the impression we were capable of that? :P
-
I like friends :)
-
I like friends :)
my friends microevolved
they're in my microwave oven right now
microevolving :)
hmmmmmmmmm CLING
-
my friends microevolved
they're in my microwave oven right now
microevolving :)
hmmmmmmmmm CLING
That's microrevolving :P
-
Quote from Shivan Hunter
ooooooooooooooooookay.
:/
Since all I can think of to say would be incredibly inflammatory, this will be my last post in this thread. I will however be reading with much amusement.
I'll bring on the beer! Party at your house after the show.
Quote from karajorma
If they ate mosquitoes I could live with it.
****ing mosquitoes!
A Brit complaining of mosquitos? I would say there are no mosquitoes in the UK!
By the way science cannot prove anything because science is always changing because of new discoveries.
Oh boy... I don't even know where to begin - so I don't!
I don't know, should the original post be considered that debate inducing homework somebody mentioned a while ago? The kind of homework where teacher encouraged students to go to internet forums and argue about creationism?
-
Creationism is kind of like a disabled runner in the Olympics. People keep directing him over to the proper place; the paralympics, but he insists he doesn't need legs to be able to compete here. If people just place him at the finish line, he'll be all set. If they won't do that, he'll claim discrimination and call it a conspiracy against the handicapped.
That is kind of what Creationism tries to do - We don't need things like "evidence", the "scientific method", "intellectual honesty" or the "peer-review process" when we can just crowbar our theocratic values into society with help from organizations like the Discovery Institute and morons like the Texas State Board of Education. If you don't let us do that, you're discriminating against Christians. Besides, science can't DISPROVE that God made the Earth, right? So let's teach both sides.
(http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png)
-
That's only when Creationism masquerades as science. Using science to explain purpose in life is as silly as using faith to explain how the world works.
-
That's only when Creationism masquerades as science. Using science to explain purpose in life is as silly as using faith to explain how the world works.
QFT.
-
That's only when Creationism masquerades as science. Using science to explain purpose in life is as silly as using faith to explain how the world works.
Well, our purpose in life is what we make of it. There's one thing I don't understand - Why would anyone choose a faith-based conclusion instead of a big question mark? Wait I remember now - Hell. If they don't do that, they'll go to hell! :D
But seriously, I do have a very, very important video that anyone involved in this debate should watch. It's a two-hour lecture by evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, basically a lecturized version of the the court case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District in which he was involved. That case sent the Intelligent Design and Creationism movement crashing down and proved that ID was a simple word change to circumvent the second amendment to get around that pesky First Amendment of theirs. So it deals with all the evidence for and against evolution. As it turns out, all the evidence for ID/Creationism like "irreducible complexity" was shown to be complete nonsense and this was demonstrated in the trial, too. Enough info, watch it, you damn, dirty apes! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
-
That's only when Creationism masquerades as science. Using science to explain purpose in life is as silly as using faith to explain how the world works.
There's no evidence that there is any high purpose in life.
-
What if someone is looking for purpose in their life though? It doesn't have to be a high-and-mighty overarching purpose that applies to everyone, individuals can seek their own purpose in life. Religion can help with that.
-
That's only when Creationism masquerades as science. Using science to explain purpose in life is as silly as using faith to explain how the world works.
There's no evidence that there is any high purpose in life.
That's kind of the point. Science keeps out of the purpose, faith keeps out of they hows.
-
How pretty much determines why.
-
No. Not even close.
Take a look at, say, a piece of cutlery. You could learn everything about how it was produced, how it works, etc., but that wouldn't answer why it was made. One person looking at it might think it was made to stab people with. And it could be. Someone else might think, of all things, to keep a few papers from blowing away. Still another person might think it an entertaining way of passing the time by throwing it at a target.
Of course, actually knowing why it was made, we can say it's supposed to be used in the preparation of food. The hows give no indication and does not determine the why.
-
i dont believe in evolution, we were created by robots, we rebelled, and we have a plan.
unfortunately that plan includes creating new robots.
-
How pretty much determines why.
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
-
No. Not even close.
Take a look at, say, a piece of cutlery. You could learn everything about how it was produced, how it works, etc., but that wouldn't answer why it was made. One person looking at it might think it was made to stab people with. And it could be. Someone else might think, of all things, to keep a few papers from blowing away. Still another person might think it an entertaining way of passing the time by throwing it at a target.
Of course, actually knowing why it was made, we can say it's supposed to be used in the preparation of food. The hows give no indication and does not determine the why.
That's stupid. We use how to determine why all the time. Archeology for example. If we find an ancient knife, we use its qualities to determined what it was used for. Certain properties in a knife are better suited to certain things. Nobody that isn't a retard would come up with "paperweight."
We do the same with extinct animals. We can look at an extinct bird's beak and generally determine what kinds of things it ate.
How something is made is a direct result of why. If we know how it was made, an educated guess for why will usually be correct.
-
How something is made is a direct result of why. If we know how it was made, an educated guess for why will usually be correct.
But how does not determine why. It may gives clue toward, but it is not the source of why the object/creature/whathaveyou was made.
-
How pretty much determines why.
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?
-
How pretty much determines why.
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?
That's actually what I mean.
-
How something is made is a direct result of why. If we know how it was made, an educated guess for why will usually be correct.
But how does not determine why. It may gives clue toward, but it is not the source of why the object/creature/whathaveyou was made.
Actually, how does determine why. It's just that we aren't always able to see all the variables. Hence, educated guess.
Why do we have sentience? Because of evolution. wow, problem solved.
-
How pretty much determines why.
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?
That's actually what I mean.
And yet I can't tell anymore, which is why Poe's Law sucks so bad. :( Actually forget it, I'm just going to believe whatever you say like I did before.
@iamzack, that's actually a cause and not a reason, so it's still "how."
-
So, what, the only "why" allowed is magic?
-
How pretty much determines why.
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?
That's actually what I mean.
And yet I can't tell anymore, which is why Poe's Law sucks so bad. :( Actually forget it, I'm just going to believe whatever you say like I did before.
Is the content of his post sensical, logical, coherent, based in reality? If so, then you probably don't have to worry about it being related to Poe's Law.
-
How pretty much determines why.
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
I really hate Poe's law. Why don't people just say what they mean?
That's actually what I mean.
And yet I can't tell anymore, which is why Poe's Law sucks so bad. :( Actually forget it, I'm just going to believe whatever you say like I did before.
Is the content of his post sensical, logical, coherent, based in reality? If so, then you probably don't have to worry about it being related to Poe's Law.
It was the "we're all aware" that was obviously false and threw me off for the rest of the post. Otherwise it sounded like I would expect Battuta to sound.
-
Battuta's optimistic sometimes.
-
I think we're all aware that life the universe is just a deterministic process without reason or purpose. People are feel free to add their own metagames to it if they please, since it supplies goals and short-term rewards to focus on.
As someone grim but true once put it, in the long run, we're all dead.
Disagree.
That is, I agree with the thing you think we're all aware of, but I disagree about everyone being aware of it. :p And I'm tempted to disagree about whether you think that, while I'm at it.
-
I think everybody's aware at some level. It's been codified as terror management theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory)
Although I do think that TMT is a load of crock in some respects...I do believe it's correct that everyone confronts the nihilistic truth and handles it in different ways, mostly by denying it in a roundabout fashion.
Myself, I think the deterministic, purposeless universe is rather cheery. The universe is a sandbox for us to make a mark on. And our conduct towards each other is up to us, not to invisible laws from the ether. I think we can handle it.
-
I think everybody's aware at some level. It's been codified as terror management theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory)
Although I do think that TMT is a load of crock in some respects...I do believe it's correct that everyone confronts the nihilistic truth and handles it in different ways, mostly by denying it in a roundabout fashion.
Myself, I think the deterministic, purposeless universe is rather cheery. The universe is a sandbox for us to make a mark on. And our conduct towards each other is up to us, not to invisible laws from the ether. I think we can handle it.
Nihilism rules.
Needs moar hedonism, though.
-
There are several things that seem to disprove the hypothesis of universe being deterministic. Mainly, Bell inequality experiments related to hidden variables (or lack thereof) in quantum physics. Which, for me at least, is a preferable reality to completely discrete and deterministic universe, since I despise destiny and fart in the general direction of fate.
This, of course, does not have any bearing on the meaning of life, universe and everything. My opinion is that such things are part of person, and not applicable to other people or entities in the universe. So, if universe has a personality, then it may or may not have a "meaning". If it doesn't have a personality, then it doesn't have meaning aside from what sentient beings living in it consider it to be.
Maybe the purpose of universe is, or was, or will be to produce YOU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)... or to be more precise, you wouldn't be here to observe the universe if the universe didn't exist in a manner that allowed the evolution of observers. ;)
-
Adding an element of randomness to the universe does not make it less deterministic. It just makes that determinism stochastic. The dice will fall the way they fall.
-
Adding an element of randomness to the universe does not make it less deterministic. It just makes that determinism stochastic. The dice will fall the way they fall.
When you think about it, that is really cool.
-
Quote from karajorma
If they ate mosquitoes I could live with it.
****ing mosquitoes!
A Brit complaining of mosquitos? I would say there are no mosquitoes in the UK!
I moved to China nearly a year ago. :p
So, what, the only "why" allowed is magic?
That is the major why, not the only one, examples of others are the more far out notions (We're all in the matrix, the entire universe was created by aliens seeding it from another universe, etc).
The major counterpoint is that there simply isn't a why.
Which is correct isn't really a matter for science to detect.
-
Which is correct isn't really a matter for science to detect.
Why not?
As far as I can tell the only reason science doesn't try to answer those questions is to appease religious nuts.
-
"Are you really a brain in a jar somewhere being fed information via neural inputs?"
How would science ever answer that question?
Similarly, "Is there a purpose to the universe?"
How would you ever test that? Sure you can form hypotheses about what the meaning of life is but how would you test them?
Science doesn't try to answer those sorts of questions because there is no way science can answer them.
-
How can science say there are no unicorns?!
If a hypothesis is untestable, it's probably false, ain't it?
-
That's not how science works. That would be faith.
-
Since there's no scientific evidence for unicorns (despite thousands of years of people claiming to have seen them), then unicorns probably don't exist.
But it's faith to say they don't exist? Unicorn****.
-
maybe the reason science doesn't answer that question is because no one wants to really know the answer, why don't we try to think of some ways to test if the universe has purpose, for the purpose (lol) of simplicity lets use the theoretical physicist's definition of testability for the first iteration.
so to start off, if there was a purpose to the universe then we would see many common elements in it that pointed toward the same end. currently the only common end that can be observed it the slow withering death of everything, so if there was a purpose it seems as if that purpose was to not exist, but if that was the purpose then the fastest means toward it would have been to never had the universe come into existence. the universe's existence contradicts it's most obvious purpose. therefore there is no purpose.
anyone have any ideas?
-
I'm inclined to think the only reasonable answer is that there is no purpose.
-
so am I, but if you don't test you don't know.
-
If it's untestable, it doesn't warrant any kind of consideration for any reason.
-
If it's untestable, it doesn't warrant any kind of consideration for any reason.
Then you're not arriving at that conclusion scientifically.
-
Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.
-
If it's untestable, it doesn't warrant any kind of consideration for any reason.
It warrants consideration from me, because I'm interested in what I should do independent of what's in my self-interest.
-
Altruism isn't untestable.
-
It might not be what I should do either.
-
You need religion to tell you to be nice to people?
-
Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.
This doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing, does it?
Science is not for the whys. Do you still disagree with that? If so, provide arguments backing it up.
-
I didn't say what it is that I should do. Maybe I'm supposed to be mean to people. But I want to know if there is some way that people should act, and if so what that is. So I need to consider whether or not the universe has a purpose.
-
Science is not for the whys. Do you still disagree with that? If so, provide arguments backing it up.
Science is all about the "how". But in the process of explaining the how, it might disprove specific "whys". Whether or not you accept the scientific explanation, or stick to the disproven stuff is up to you. Just don't complain when people point and laugh at you when you do.
-
Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.
This doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing, does it?
Science is not for the whys. Do you still disagree with that? If so, provide arguments backing it up.
Yes. Is there anything except religion for which we go "well, there's no evidence for it, so it's up to people to decide whether it's real or not." There's no scientific evidence for whys. That means whys probably don't have answers. If science can't find a purpose for our existence, then there is most likely no purpose for our existence. It is irrational and unreasonable to believe that there IS a purpose.
I didn't say what it is that I should do. Maybe I'm supposed to be mean to people. But I want to know if there is some way that people should act, and if so what that is. So I need to consider whether or not the universe has a purpose.
Why do you have to be told what you're supposed to do? Can't you just do what makes you happy as long as you're not hurting anyone else? Why is that a hard concept to grasp?
-
Iamzack is correct. The universe provides no normative information on human interaction.
The only guidelines available to you are those supplied by evolution, which will select for stable societies that boost the fitness of all those within them.
-
@ iamzack: but unicorns DO exist! Just... they're underwater, and they're called narwhals. And they have a campaign list on the wiki :p
-
How can science say there are no unicorns?!
If a hypothesis is untestable, it's probably false, ain't it?
Who says it's untestable? You can test for the existence of unicorns pretty easily. You go where someone claims there are unicorns and look for evidence. We can fairly conclusively state that there aren't unicorns on Earth. There might be some kidnapped by aliens on another planet somewhere but there aren't any here.
The brain in a jar thing is completely untestable, there is no test you could devise which wouldn't be skewed by the fact that all the results you are seeing are fictional anyway. So science can't disprove that particular belief. It could prove it perhaps, but only if it is true and willing to be proved. :)
Logic isn't science though. Logic does mean that you would be irrational to believe it. Your objections to belief in religion are logical ones, not scientific ones. People who understand science tend to think in a more logical fashion so it's hardly surprising that a larger percentage of scientists are also atheists. This doesn't mean that it was science that disproved religion though. Simply that they applied Occam's Razor and picked the simpler choice.
-
You know, normally I'm prone to believing in silly stuff like souls and afterlife and **** like that. Talking to religious people makes me so furious I temporarily become an atheist. Stupidity offends me. Silly, huh.
-
Interesting to know that you consider my personal beliefs stupidity.
Silly also how you can't prove it's stupidity.
-
She probably implied it, and you probably weren't wrong to infer it, but she didn't say that. She only said stupidity offends her... or do you personally believe that your religion is stupid?
-
Nah, I think she meant that when stupid people (not necessarily anyone from this forum) believe the same thing she does, she changes her beliefs. At least, that's what I find myself doing sometimes.
-
Name one untestable thing that matters even to people who have never heard of the idea.
String theory. :p
-
I just love to have some of those long debates with my mother about god an all that stuff, but it's just that... debate. You can't go further with someone that truly believes in something, even if you could actually prove something about religion, it would still be hard for many to even start thinking otherwise.
The hard thing about this is that, like in many other fields, religions tend to have tons and tons of hardcore fanatics which can't seem to realize where their rights end and the decisions and choices the other ones make cease to be THEIR BUISNESS, after all... tolerance is preached by most of the religions today, but none seem to abide it.
-
Interesting to know that you consider my personal beliefs stupidity.
Silly also how you can't prove it's stupidity.
If I can just make a general observation about judging the beliefs of others here -
I'm betting you are Christian. As a Christian, what do you think of the Mormons' beliefs that Jesus came to America and the Native Americans are really Israelites whose skin was turned red because they disobeyed God? What about Joseph Smith reading and translating the Book of Mormon out of a hat? Yeah, sure, that's their belief and you respect that, but honest answer: That is kind of funny isn't it?
Religious people generally live inside their own bubbles where they keep their delusions. Critical thinking about religion applies to everything apart from the one they keep inside their own bubble. Looking outwards from inside their own bubble, the Christians see the Mormons' beliefs about seer stones and magical underwear as hysterical and wrong. At the same time, the Mormons are inside their own bubble, laughing at the Muslims' concept of Muhammed as a prophet. There's a lot of that going around, and that's what makes the "interfaith" thing so disingenuous -- You automatically sign up as a foot soldier for this war in one way or another when you join a religion, because religions claim to hold the incontrovertible truth, so whichever one you join, you are always a heathen, and a follower of the one true religion at the same time. The only way to get out of this, is to not be religious. This whole thing is called "compartmentalization", and it's a must for religions, because they cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a rational, analytical mind.
-
Nah, I think she meant that when stupid people (not necessarily anyone from this forum) believe the same thing she does, she changes her beliefs. At least, that's what I find myself doing sometimes.
Nope, I definitely consider Christian beliefs really stupid. I mean, seriously, how many holes are there in the briefest possible story? God had to impregnate a human woman with himself and then sacrifice himself to himself into order to convince himself to forgive the sins of the beings he created in his own image? And people go on and on about John 3:13 (or whatever the verse is) "god so loved the world that he sacrificed his only son..."
SACRIFICED HIS SON? His son ended up in heaven at the right hand of his father for eternity! That's not a sacrifice! His son went through a tiny, brief amount of pain, and then sat at the right hand of god in heaven for forever. Come on, that's not sacrifice at all.
Meanwhile, the all powerful god has nothing better to do than police the sex lives of humans and help various basketball teams win championships or something while millions who pray just as hard to him starve to death.
And then we have the nonsense with talking donkeys, talking snakes, silly (STUPID) and pointless laws (gay sex is apparently so much worse than rape that the punishment for gay sex is death, while the punishment for rape is purchasing the rape victim from her father).
But god works in mysterious ****ing ways, right?
God has never done **** that was worth worshipping him over.
"you can't prove it's stupidity"
I can and I did and it wasn't hard.
-
I like to think of religions as particularly devoted science fiction fandoms.
Within the fandom, they make perfect sense to each other.
To the uninitiated, they are opaque and sometimes silly.
And that leads to a great deal of frustration on both sides.
Occasionally a fandom member will attempt to demonstrate, via objective means, that their fandom is the best fandom, and furthermore that anyone of reason could see this (my favorite example of this is when people try to cite the number and historical veracity of their religion's holy texts, by comparison with other religions.) This generally leaves them looking like a bit of a loon.
I suppose a religious person could take this as bashing, but the fact is, we're all members of a particularly small and devoted fandom right here, so 'empathy' might be a better term.
-
Captain Picard makes a better god than God.
-
SACRIFICED HIS SON? His son ended up in heaven at the right hand of his father for eternity! That's not a sacrifice! His son went through a tiny, brief amount of pain, and then sat at the right hand of god in heaven for forever. Come on, that's not sacrifice at all.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Sacrificing himself is clearly suicide, which is a sin. Hence Jesus must have ended up in hell at the right hand of Satan for all eternity.
-
he was in hell for three days. baw.
-
he was in hell for three days. baw.
Captain Picard became a Borg. Also, he was tortured by Cardassians.
-
How many lights do you see?
-
Oh yeah, he also died. He then had to put up with Q's bull****. Q is much more crafty and silly than satan.
-
speaking of satan, the entire book of Job also disproves the existence of the jewish/christian god
-
It does?
-
the omnipotent, omniscient god needs to test a man's faith by killing off his family and destroying his life in order to prove to satan that job is faithful and ****?
-
Makes sense to me.
-
Captain Picard once encountered a society that believed he was god. He demanded they stop, and allowed one of them to shoot him to prove his mortality. Truly, an example to follow.
-
the omnipotent, omniscient god needs to test a man's faith by killing off his family and destroying his life in order to prove to satan that job is faithful and ****?
Proves he's a bastard, not so sure it disproves his existence though. :p
-
you didn't see all the contradictions in that sentence?
-
I didn't see anything special about Job. You could pick almost any chapter and make the same claim.
-
Captain Picard once encountered a society that believed he was god. He demanded they stop, and allowed one of them to shoot him to prove his mortality. Truly, an example to follow.
mmm.. another one as good as that and I'm joining the cult!
-
I don't mind that not everybody believes the same way I do, but I do occasionally get frustrated that people don't even try to understand each others beliefs, and just paint broad brushstrokes instead. Not just for religious beliefs, either.
I hold out hope that humanity will get better at mutual understanding than it is at mutual bashing. Unfortunately, history doesn't give me much hope for that. :(
-
ITT iamzack exhibits incredible ignorance regarding the tenets of Christianity. Film at 11!
(Also, Picard was a pussy. :p)
-
I always thought Benjamin Sisco was far more worship worthy, being an actual religious leader and all.
-
I'm part of the Cult of Kirk myself. Mmmm, Orion slave girls...
-
I always thought Benjamin Sisco was far more worship worthy, being an actual religious leader and all.
That's precisely why he is unfit for the job.