Exactly!
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How were they wrong? Additional research has allowed for an alternative explanation for the evolutionary origins of birds. That is what science is all about. For my part, I still support the birds as dinosaurs theory.
"How were they wrong?" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: "Science" fetishists -- and that includes you, sadly -- refuse to reason soundly. This thing about the configuration of bird's legs being integral to their mode of breathing is only the most recent evidence against the so-called theory you're for. And, because you folk refuse to reason properly, we can assuredly count on one of you (you, possibly; Ravel or Splinter, definitely) to retort: "Oh, yeah! So if you're so so smart, what's your theory!?" "Additional research has allowed for an alternative explanation for the evolutionary origins of birds. That is what science is all about." This "science" thingie that you folk worship isn't actually science, it isn't about truth and knowledge; it is rather a tawdry materialism pretending to not be metaphysics. What "science" is all about is protecting reductionistic materialism. === By the way, I'd read about this the other day; I posted this now becasue I wanted to share Vox Day's observation.
Ilíon wrote:
What "science" is all about is protecting reductionistic materialism.
I tend to agree with you about that. However, even if it were not, even if science remained a prestine means of unraveling the phenomenon we observe in the natural world, the purpose of science is ultimately to provide for precisely the ability to update and enhance formerly accepted conclusions as more information becomes available and new observations are conducted. It certainly does no damage to the theory of evolution whether birds are, or are not, a kind of flying dinosaur. The purpose of science is, in fact, to increase our understanding of the purely materialistic aspects of nature. Science isn't about truth, but it is about knowledge. And acquiring knowledge must include the ability to reject former conclusions. So yeah, if you're so smart, what's your theory? How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What "science" is all about is protecting reductionistic materialism.
I tend to agree with you about that. However, even if it were not, even if science remained a prestine means of unraveling the phenomenon we observe in the natural world, the purpose of science is ultimately to provide for precisely the ability to update and enhance formerly accepted conclusions as more information becomes available and new observations are conducted. It certainly does no damage to the theory of evolution whether birds are, or are not, a kind of flying dinosaur. The purpose of science is, in fact, to increase our understanding of the purely materialistic aspects of nature. Science isn't about truth, but it is about knowledge. And acquiring knowledge must include the ability to reject former conclusions. So yeah, if you're so smart, what's your theory? How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
Surely, as a Christian, he is allowed to state that his belief in a divine being means he doesn't need to provide an alternative explanation ? Having said that, I find any Christian who decides it's their mission to attack science, as a bit of a sad and tragic figure, really.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Vox Day: Evolution: wrong again[^]
It really is remarkable what junk "science" is based on evolutionary theory. It's not just useless, its conclusions are reliably wrong[^]:
Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs. The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.... The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
No doubt in twenty years, evolutionarians will be arguing that no scientist ever really believed that birds descended directly from dinosaurs and that you just don't understand science if you think anyone ever did... despite the fact that half the biology textbooks in America will still say that they did.
I think Mr Day has it nailed with that prediction.
Hmm... I fail to see how one broken assumption at the top of the pile is supposed to break the foundation. And this:
Ilíon wrote:
This "science" thingie that you folk worship isn't actually science, it isn't about truth and knowledge
doesn't make any sense no matter how many times you repeat it. Riddle me this Batman, how old is the Earth?
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
Ilíon wrote:
What "science" is all about is protecting reductionistic materialism.
I tend to agree with you about that. However, even if it were not, even if science remained a prestine means of unraveling the phenomenon we observe in the natural world, the purpose of science is ultimately to provide for precisely the ability to update and enhance formerly accepted conclusions as more information becomes available and new observations are conducted. It certainly does no damage to the theory of evolution whether birds are, or are not, a kind of flying dinosaur. The purpose of science is, in fact, to increase our understanding of the purely materialistic aspects of nature. Science isn't about truth, but it is about knowledge. And acquiring knowledge must include the ability to reject former conclusions. So yeah, if you're so smart, what's your theory? How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Science isn't about truth, but it is about knowledge.
:laugh: Knowledge is all about truth: "knowledge" which isn't true is not knowledge; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know, knowledge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So yeah, if you're so smart, what's your theory? How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
As I keep pointing out, you "science" groupies refuse to reason properly and soundly. An "explanation" which isn't true is not an explanation; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know, an explanation.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
Surely, as a Christian, he is allowed to state that his belief in a divine being means he doesn't need to provide an alternative explanation ? Having said that, I find any Christian who decides it's their mission to attack science, as a bit of a sad and tragic figure, really.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Hmm... I fail to see how one broken assumption at the top of the pile is supposed to break the foundation. And this:
Ilíon wrote:
This "science" thingie that you folk worship isn't actually science, it isn't about truth and knowledge
doesn't make any sense no matter how many times you repeat it. Riddle me this Batman, how old is the Earth?
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
BoneSoft wrote:
Riddle me this Batman, how old is the Earth?
I have no idea ... and neither do you. But my psyche isn't invested in pretending that I do.
BoneSoft wrote:
Hmm... I fail to see how one broken assumption at the top of the pile is supposed to break the foundation.
But then, you're not really into reasoning validly, are you?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Science isn't about truth, but it is about knowledge.
:laugh: Knowledge is all about truth: "knowledge" which isn't true is not knowledge; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know, knowledge.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So yeah, if you're so smart, what's your theory? How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
As I keep pointing out, you "science" groupies refuse to reason properly and soundly. An "explanation" which isn't true is not an explanation; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know, an explanation.
Ilíon wrote:
which isn't true is not knowledge; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know
I disagree completely. Newtonian physics, for example, isn't "truth" in the sense that it accurately and completely explains gravity. However, it does represent knowledge in the sense that it allows for a means of more predictably manipulating our natural environment. Frankly, I don't believe that science even has the ability to reveal actual truth. Either the universe is rational, or it is irrational. The truth therefore must ultimately either be obtained only by revelation or it is entirely unobtainable.
Ilíon wrote:
An "explanation" which isn't true is not an explanation; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know, an explanation.
No, it is merely an incomplete explanation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How do you account for the existence of birds as an observable natural phenomenon, an element of a materialistic universe, in a way that does not require an appeal to a devine being?
Surely, as a Christian, he is allowed to state that his belief in a divine being means he doesn't need to provide an alternative explanation ? Having said that, I find any Christian who decides it's their mission to attack science, as a bit of a sad and tragic figure, really.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely, as a Christian, he is allowed to state that his belief in a divine being means he doesn't need to provide an alternative explanation ?
He does if he is going to relate it to science. I mean, hell, I believe the universe was created as a purposeful, intelligent act also. But if we are going to continue to better understand its underlieing...well... nature, than we have to leave out the devine being even if that devine being went on television every mourning at 9:00 and gave us a long lecture about all the things he created.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Having said that, I find any Christian who decides it's their mission to attack science, as a bit of a sad and tragic figure, really.
You pathetic being: I'm not attacking science; I'm mocking deliberate illogic and irrationality.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm not attacking science; I'm mocking deliberate illogic and irrationality.
I made a general statement, funny you assume it applies to you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely, as a Christian, he is allowed to state that his belief in a divine being means he doesn't need to provide an alternative explanation ?
He does if he is going to relate it to science. I mean, hell, I believe the universe was created as a purposeful, intelligent act also. But if we are going to continue to better understand its underlieing...well... nature, than we have to leave out the devine being even if that devine being went on television every mourning at 9:00 and gave us a long lecture about all the things he created.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
to leave out the devine being even if that devine being
I hate to be the spelling police, but it's bugging me. Divine.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He does if he is going to relate it to science. I mean, hell, I believe the universe was created as a purposeful, intelligent act also.
OK, so why does he then have to prove that it was NOT created by a divine being ? I mean, I agree that science has to go beyond 'He waved His hands and it was there', by definition. But, your statement seems a bit contradictory to me, unless you just mean he should either ignore science, or he should accept what science discovers. I would certainly say that I believe God created all life, but that science gives us an evolving understanding of how that life works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Ilíon wrote:
which isn't true is not knowledge; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know
I disagree completely. Newtonian physics, for example, isn't "truth" in the sense that it accurately and completely explains gravity. However, it does represent knowledge in the sense that it allows for a means of more predictably manipulating our natural environment. Frankly, I don't believe that science even has the ability to reveal actual truth. Either the universe is rational, or it is irrational. The truth therefore must ultimately either be obtained only by revelation or it is entirely unobtainable.
Ilíon wrote:
An "explanation" which isn't true is not an explanation; it may be useful, but it isn't, you know, an explanation.
No, it is merely an incomplete explanation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ilíon wrote:
I'm not attacking science; I'm mocking deliberate illogic and irrationality.
I made a general statement, funny you assume it applies to you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Riddle me this Batman, how old is the Earth?
I have no idea ... and neither do you. But my psyche isn't invested in pretending that I do.
BoneSoft wrote:
Hmm... I fail to see how one broken assumption at the top of the pile is supposed to break the foundation.
But then, you're not really into reasoning validly, are you?
Ilíon wrote:
But then, you're not really into reasoning validly, are you?
You want to reason? Try this: At no point has Darwin's Theory ever been taken as more then it is. That is a Theory. We're talking science here, so bare with me. A theory encompasses the available empirical evidence and tries to ascertain what the reason is behind it. Through experiment and/or observation the scientist arrives at a theory. Subsequently, the theory may be proved. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has not, to date, been proved. But that does not mean that it is false. It is still, with the additions over the last 150 years, the best starting point.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I made a general statement, funny you assume it applies to you.
Funny you should make the silly statement in the first place.
OK, well, given that you think the statement is silly, I guess that says a lot about you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
OK, well, given that you think the statement is silly, I guess that says a lot about you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
That you can't see its silliness says at least as much about you. For, among other things, it's utterly impossible to attack science (though, one may certainly the fetish that some call "science").
Ilíon wrote:
For, among other things, it's utterly impossible to attack science
How do you figure ?
Ilíon wrote:
(though, one may certainly the fetish that some call "science").
Ah, you redefine it before you attack it. Gotcha.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
to leave out the devine being even if that devine being
I hate to be the spelling police, but it's bugging me. Divine.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He does if he is going to relate it to science. I mean, hell, I believe the universe was created as a purposeful, intelligent act also.
OK, so why does he then have to prove that it was NOT created by a divine being ? I mean, I agree that science has to go beyond 'He waved His hands and it was there', by definition. But, your statement seems a bit contradictory to me, unless you just mean he should either ignore science, or he should accept what science discovers. I would certainly say that I believe God created all life, but that science gives us an evolving understanding of how that life works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
I hate to be the spelling police,
Are you sure? He may have been referring to Roy Rogers's fat sidekick, Andy. Given his lack of theological underpinnings he may have trouble differentiating between the two. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ilíon wrote:
Dude, you're a post-modernist!
I don't think so, although, actually, I can't even figure out what that is, and I've just spent the last 10 minutes reading about it. I firmly believe in a rational universe, purposefully create by an overt act of intelligence. The only other possibilities are that we live in either a purposeless universe which is rational for no particular reason at all, or that we live in a purposeless, irrational universe, which merely appears rational because thats how our brains just happen to work. Neitehr one of those , however, is very intellectually satisfying. I suppose one could also claim that an irrational, purposeful universe was an option, but I've never been able to figure out what that means (Could God purposefully create an irrational universe?)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
to leave out the devine being even if that devine being
I hate to be the spelling police, but it's bugging me. Divine.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He does if he is going to relate it to science. I mean, hell, I believe the universe was created as a purposeful, intelligent act also.
OK, so why does he then have to prove that it was NOT created by a divine being ? I mean, I agree that science has to go beyond 'He waved His hands and it was there', by definition. But, your statement seems a bit contradictory to me, unless you just mean he should either ignore science, or he should accept what science discovers. I would certainly say that I believe God created all life, but that science gives us an evolving understanding of how that life works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
Christian Graus wrote:
Divine.
Sorry, but thats one I'll never get correct. So I gave up trying. Has something to do with the accent - it is pronounced dee-vine where I come from.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so why does he then have to prove that it was NOT created by a divine being ? I mean, I agree that science has to go beyond 'He waved His hands and it was there', by definition. But, your statement seems a bit contradictory to me, unless you just mean he should either ignore science, or he should accept what science discovers. I would certainly say that I believe God created all life, but that science gives us an evolving understanding of how that life works.
No, but science is a specific thing. And that thing is a way to understand phenomenon we observe in nature in a way that does not require or depend upon supernatural explanations. If I create a house and someone later wishes to know how it got there, you could either say "Stan did it" or you could describe the process for building a house. Either one is an explanation, but only one actually allows you to understand the means of building a house. To me it boils down to a simple question: Could science prove the existence of God? My answer is: No. Science is about understanding the material, not the spiritual.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Divine.
Sorry, but thats one I'll never get correct. So I gave up trying. Has something to do with the accent - it is pronounced dee-vine where I come from.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so why does he then have to prove that it was NOT created by a divine being ? I mean, I agree that science has to go beyond 'He waved His hands and it was there', by definition. But, your statement seems a bit contradictory to me, unless you just mean he should either ignore science, or he should accept what science discovers. I would certainly say that I believe God created all life, but that science gives us an evolving understanding of how that life works.
No, but science is a specific thing. And that thing is a way to understand phenomenon we observe in nature in a way that does not require or depend upon supernatural explanations. If I create a house and someone later wishes to know how it got there, you could either say "Stan did it" or you could describe the process for building a house. Either one is an explanation, but only one actually allows you to understand the means of building a house. To me it boils down to a simple question: Could science prove the existence of God? My answer is: No. Science is about understanding the material, not the spiritual.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And that thing is a way to understand phenomenon we observe in nature in a way that does not require or depend upon supernatural explanations.
Sure, that's fine. And, if anyone wants to discuss science, it needs to be on those terms. But, surely I am free to discuss why I believe that God created life, and still trust in scientific evidence as being, quite obviously, our best theories based on current understanding of the evidence ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If I create a house and someone later wishes to know how it got there, you could either say "Stan did it" or you could describe the process for building a house.
I may well say 'Stan did it, and I don't understand exactly how, but I've looked at the roof and it looks to me like it was probably done like this' ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Could science prove the existence of God?
Of course not. But, your original comment seemed to suggest that the onus was on someone who believed in God, to come up with an explantion of how He doesn't really matter, or could perhaps not exist at all. Given that I don't believe that, I can't really make much of a case for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp