Author Topic: EarthQuake  (Read 8639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stolen from Carl Sagan, emphasis mine.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, some empty paint cans, an old tricycle – but no dragon.

"Where’s the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she’s right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You’ll spray paint the dragon to make her visible.

"Good idea, except she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.


Sorry Beowulf, but your logic is bass-ackwards.  Just like this dragon here, you can't prove God exists without some evidence to indicate its existence.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 12:11:07 am by 661 »

 

Offline Ace

  • Truth of Babel
  • 212
    • http://www.lordofrigel.com
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
but it was the begining of people thinking


Well I'll disagree with that, the Greeks have the best recorded early philosiphy, but I'd say that the Sumerians were the ones who really did the first thinking. Working out workable laws, cities, the first religious writings, etc.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 01:34:30 am by 72 »
Ace
Self-plagiarism is style.
-Alfred Hitchcock

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
The whole purpose of religion is belief, anyway.  Proveability is unimportant.


Exactly. If I could scientifically prove that God exists, do you think for a moment that I'd not be doing so everywhere I go?

Christianity holds that the acceptance of Jesus comes by revelation. We did not chose Him, He chose us, etc etc. We can argue until we're blue in the face and beyond, but we cannot scientifically prove what we believe in to be true.

Signs and wonders, by the way, are very convincing when you're a witness to them. Buit what are they convincing of? Simply that there things affecting this world that we cannot explain (yet? No guarantee we'll ever be able to). Personally, I don't believe in miracles that counter absolute science - we simply haven't gotten to the point where we can comprehend how they happened scientifically. I believe that God choses to work in that way - that His interventions in this universe, be they historical or modern-day events, are done without breaking the basic laws of the universe He created.

But that doesn't mean that other spiritual beings cannot affect the universe in the same apparent manner. It's happened and is happening all the time.

Quote
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Sorry Beowulf, but your logic is bass-ackwards.  Just like this dragon here, you can't prove God exists without some evidence to indicate its existence.


Quite right, as far as it goes. But it's missing a point, which I can't explain ATM - gotta run to work. Perhaps in a few hours.
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Beowulf


Shortened and very much condensed:

Reason. Reason and Logic. It is only LOGICAL that god exists. He absolutely has to. I am not speaking of my own personal need, but of science's need. Science cannot explain the creation of the universe, the creation of a cell, science can hardly explain anything of the physical/animal/natural world.

Looking at everything, there are only two solutions.

(1) God exists
(2) God does not exist

We cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore, he must exist.


By that logic God is a giant badger. Prove to me that he isn't! You can't, therefore he must be.

The simple fact is that your logic is so flawed I'm suprised you even wrote it down. Just because science hasn't found an answer to a question yet doesn't mean their isn't one. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is willing to say "We don't know yet so check back with us in 50 years". Religion on the other hand says "We can't find any logical reason so here's some **** we made up"

 Besides science already proved the Christian god doesn't exist. We just can't get Christians to listen.
 Genesis is all wrong about how humanity came about so either God is wrong or he is misrepresented by his own holy book. Evolution and geology throw up all kinds of contradictions to the bible but the fact is that cause they disagree with christians fundemental assumptions about the world they simply refuse to believe them and without even understanding how it works they tell the scientists that they are wrong. It's pretty hard to prove something to someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and hums loudly but what's really annoying is when they then claim that you don't know the answer.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma

 Besides science already proved the Christian god doesn't exist. We just can't get Christians to listen.
 Genesis is all wrong about how humanity came about so either God is wrong or he is misrepresented by his own holy book.


*refers karajorma to previous discussion threads about Gerald Schroeder, time dilation, and ~16 billion years equalling 6 days*
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
I was talking about Adam and Eve as opposed to evolution.

As for the time dilation theory a bigger load of rubbish I've yet to hear. This is yet more proof of how religious people refuse to listen to anyone who has scientific proof that they are wrong.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Quote
Originally posted by Beowulf


Listen, I know exactly what you mean about morality. The problem with your reasoning is that there is no absolute. Hence, there is no truth. And if there is no truth, by my last statement, it's not true.

The problem with my statement working the other way (as all other similar reasonings WOULD) is that science CANNOT explain god. God can explain all science.


The absolute is survival....  as a species, humans are weak and fragile.  From the beginning of our existance, we will have had to develop the behaviour to survive, and this has embedded itself in our moral code.  Personally, I believe the bible, holy books, etc were built to enforce this, rather than being sent by God.

God can explain all science? Only if you believe it.  But God can explain everything if you try - it doesn't equate to proof, because you'd only take it as such if you already believed it.

 

Offline Singh

  • Hasn't Accomplished Anything Special Or Notable
  • 211
  • Degrees of guilt.
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
I was talking about Adam and Eve as opposed to evolution.

As for the time dilation theory a bigger load of rubbish I've yet to hear. This is yet more proof of how religious people refuse to listen to anyone who has scientific proof that they are wrong.


Thing is, I'm not a religious person, but I still don't believe that Evolution is entirely correct. I'm not saying that the Bible, Kuran, or even the Guru Granth Sahib are correct either- its just that nobody knows

Something like Genesis or creation may have occured in the sense of the first Humans understanding and having clear, possesive thought rather than just sheer instinct, just as Evolution might have had a hand in getting there.

This is just my opinion- others may ignore it or flame me for it, but Jesus, Allah, Buddah, all the Sikh Gurus for the most part did have some things in common- that all humans should exist in peace, have mastery over themselves and excersice the mental muscle rather than the physical (the giving up of physical needs and desires forms quite a major part of many religions, correct me if I am wrong however). The most recent 'diety' of sorts that can be considered at the same level was Mahatma Ghandi. Unfortunately, nobody remembers him anymore, despite the fact that at one time, he had at his command 1/6th of Humanity and was the only socialist leader that practiced socialism himself.

Btw, I thought this was about the Earthquake in Iran, not evolution and God itself?
Going back to the topic, all I can say is my Sympathies for the Iranian people. Earthquakes can be deadly, especially in undeveloped areas. Just 2 years ago, one rocked Gujarat and the effects were as bad, if not worse. Hopefully, the Indian government has pledged aid, but im not too sure of this.
"Blessed be the FREDder that knows his sexps."
"Cursed be the FREDder that trusts FRED2_Open."
Dreamed of much, accomplished little. :(

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Singh
Thing is, I'm not a religious person, but I still don't believe that Evolution is entirely correct. I'm not saying that the Bible, Kuran, or even the Guru Granth Sahib are correct either- its just that nobody knows


Aha. The agnostic view finally appears :D The simple fact is that you may not believe it's entirely correct and you're welcome to that belief but just because you don't understand it doesn't make something untrue and it's very rare that I hear anyone claim that evolution isn't entirely correct from someone who actually fully understands it.

Most people who complain about evolution being incorrect couldn't explain simple evolutionary concepts (like how the eye evolved).
« Last Edit: December 31, 2003, 08:05:23 am by 340 »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Singh

  • Hasn't Accomplished Anything Special Or Notable
  • 211
  • Degrees of guilt.
I'm talking about complex evolutionary problems Karajoma. I understand how  the eye develops, and its a pretty complex (yet somewhat simple) process. I'm not saying that Evolution doesn't exist or it doesn't work, just saying that it isn't entirely complete and may have errors, the theory itself is evolving in a sense, just like everything else did ;)

I have a few examples of this lying around somewhere......just have to remember 'em.

Another thing to note about Darwin and evolution. I heard that In the end of his book describing the theory, he mentions that to create such enormous complexity, to start off the reaction for such beauty, God had to have a hand in it somewhere, and all he was doing was describing how it happened. Im not too sure of this though, anyone with access to that book of his may want to check the last page and correct me if I am wrong.
"Blessed be the FREDder that knows his sexps."
"Cursed be the FREDder that trusts FRED2_Open."
Dreamed of much, accomplished little. :(

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
I've never read The Origin of the Species but dispite what the creationsists believe aetheists don't believe that Darwin is god. He could very easily have been wrong even if he did say that. Einstien made all kinds of mistakes in his theories but I don't see anyone saying that just cause he made one mistake every single thing he said was also a mistake.

Just cause evolutionary theory is incomplete doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you wish to believe that evolution was started by a higher being that's your choice. However enough of evolutionary theory has been proved correct to prove that humankind didn't come from two people who were the first sentient beings to ever exist on Earth. As I said that directly contridicts the bible.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Odyssey

  • Stormrider
  • 28
[color=cc9900]What I don't understand are the people who would devote their lives to finding out how we came about. It's practically useless knowledge - rather than finding out how we got here, we'd be much better served to try and find out what we're going to do now we are here, otherwise we'll wipe ourselves out and negate all this evolution (or possibly even prove it by getting rid of ourselves).[/color]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Sorry, wrong thread.

 

Offline Singh

  • Hasn't Accomplished Anything Special Or Notable
  • 211
  • Degrees of guilt.
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
I've never read The Origin of the Species but dispite what the creationsists believe aetheists don't believe that Darwin is god. He could very easily have been wrong even if he did say that. Einstien made all kinds of mistakes in his theories but I don't see anyone saying that just cause he made one mistake every single thing he said was also a mistake.

Just cause evolutionary theory is incomplete doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you wish to believe that evolution was started by a higher being that's your choice. However enough of evolutionary theory has been proved correct to prove that humankind didn't come from two people who were the first sentient beings to ever exist on Earth. As I said that directly contridicts the bible.


I was hoping not to give that impression. As I said, Evolutionary theory is for the most part correct, and I prefer it to genesis to the other theories, because I can understand it better and its logical. It does afford an explaination, and a somewhat better one than some of what I've seen till now. Proof DOES exist for evolutionary theory- this is in the Finches darwin studied in the galapagos. I'll scrounge about for a site with the details on this.

I've just though of one error or problem with the theory. Please correct me about this since I've always wanted to find the answer. How did the trees and plants evolve? The theory dictates that life started in the deep oceans where primitive plants changed CO2 to O2, and that hence led to the formation of other life that could exist on the ocean. Thing is....where did the basis of the trees and plants on land come from? Supposedly, by the time fishes could come onto shore, their were already insects and what-not plants there. But how is this possible if the first life and the only conditions for first life existed in the oceans? Did microscopic algea scrape up from the bottom and reach the top? if so, how could they change to form fungi or the plants that we see today? This is one of the anomalies I was talking about and any clarification from an expert is much appreciated :) :nod:.

It isn't 100% Complete, it isn't 100% correct, but its scientific theory and its logical, so for the moment, its the best we've got. :nod:

Also, if you really wanted to look at it, humanity could have come from 2 beings- perhaps the first 2 humans that were capable of concious thought, or evolved it from their non-setient predecessors and then expanded the gene pool to incorporate more. It all depends on how you look at it ;)
"Blessed be the FREDder that knows his sexps."
"Cursed be the FREDder that trusts FRED2_Open."
Dreamed of much, accomplished little. :(

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
There is no such thing as useless knowledge. Reseach into evolution has allowed some amazing discoveries. In fact genetics is mostly based on people wanting to study the mechanisms behind heredity and evolution. If the drive for blue sky research didn't exist I doubt we'd have come as far in that field of biology at all.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Singh

  • Hasn't Accomplished Anything Special Or Notable
  • 211
  • Degrees of guilt.
Oh yes, another question. My english isn't good,but what does agnostic mean? :/
"Blessed be the FREDder that knows his sexps."
"Cursed be the FREDder that trusts FRED2_Open."
Dreamed of much, accomplished little. :(

 

Offline Odyssey

  • Stormrider
  • 28
[color=cc9900]karajorma:
Isn't genetics just one other way we can kill ourselves? The more we know, the more there is to abuse.
Singh:
I suppose it's possible that surface algae would wash up on land in freak weather conditions, and after a while adapt to that pattern until eventually it settles, then spores/pollen/etc. would spread further inland.
And agnostic means believing it is impossible to either prove or disprove God.[/color]

 

Offline Singh

  • Hasn't Accomplished Anything Special Or Notable
  • 211
  • Degrees of guilt.
Quote
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]karajorma:
Isn't genetics just one other way we can kill ourselves? The more we know, the more there is to abuse.
Singh:
I suppose it's possible that surface algae would wash up on land in freak weather conditions, and after a while adapt to that pattern until eventually it settles, then spores/pollen/etc. would spread further inland.
And agnostic means believing it is impossible to either prove or disprove God.[/color]


Thanks for the explaination of the word. :nod:

ummm.....the atom bomb was another way we could kill ourselves, yet we still use it to fuel power sources (albiet, it still is used to kill us as well). IMO, if we didnt bother going for all this, we'd be bored to death and hurting each other instead of....I dunno.....just sitting around and getting bored to death?
"Blessed be the FREDder that knows his sexps."
"Cursed be the FREDder that trusts FRED2_Open."
Dreamed of much, accomplished little. :(

 

Offline Odyssey

  • Stormrider
  • 28
Quote
Originally posted by Singh
ummm.....the atom bomb was another way we could kill ourselves, yet we still use it to fuel power sources (albiet, it still is used to kill us as well). IMO, if we didnt bother going for all this, we'd be bored to death and hurting each other instead of....I dunno.....just sitting around and getting bored to death?

[color=cc9900]The atom bomb wasn't in the field of evolution though. And, to clarify - we don't use atom bombs in power sources, we use nuclear fission. Atom bombs are nuclear fusion, in an uncontrolled fashion, whereas controlled nuclear fusion has yet to be invented.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any research, I'm just saying that research into evolution specifically isn't getting us anywhere.[/color]

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Odyssey

[color=cc9900]The atom bomb wasn't in the field of evolution though. And, to clarify - we don't use atom bombs in power sources, we use nuclear fission. Atom bombs are nuclear fusion, in an uncontrolled fashion, whereas controlled nuclear fusion has yet to be invented.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any research, I'm just saying that research into evolution specifically isn't getting us anywhere.[/color]


But it is. Almost all research on bateria, on a cure to AIDS will involve understanding how a virus or bacteria can evolve. Besides like I said no one knew that Origin of the Species would lead to genetics so who knows what research into evolution will lead to?

As for your atom bomb comments you're wrong. H-bombs are fusion. The nukes dropped on japan weren't H-bombs though. They were powered by fission as are many (if not most) small atom bombs.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]