Page 97 of 132 FirstFirst ... 4787969798107 ... LastLast
Results 3,361 to 3,395 of 4610

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #3361
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,415

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Keith, in common with the braying herd here, you are seriously underestimating the quality and competence of some who have given the matter serious and intelligent consideration. It does you no credit to bring it down to this level .....
    While I was being sarcastic, I was making a dead-serious point about creationist 'logic'. If God intervenes in the natural world, there is nothing, absolutely nothing at all, that requires him to be parsimonious with miracles. If you posit one miracle, why not two? If two, why not three? If three, why not three billion? If giant blobs of water with all the magnetic fields magically aligned ('magic' being a term interchangeable with 'miracle', although less polite), why not miniaturized animals to fit on a plausibly-sized ark? If a magical flood covering the whole earth, why not radioactive decay products miraculously created in situ 6000 years ago to make it look like the earth is 4 billion years old? Think about this; really. Science does not admit the supernatural. Once you do, you have utter chaos, limited only by your imagination.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  2. #3362
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Wakefield, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    8,847

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    forgive me , i am no expert in this
    In fact, your understanding of the subject is extremely weak, so you're unable to spot the errors and deception you've been fed on sites like creation.com. I briefly considered trying to straighten out some of those basic misconceptions, but you're in "argument mode," not "learning mode," so it doesn't seem worth the effort. It's hard enough to learn about molecular genetics when you're engaged and interested. To learn about it in a suspicious, argumentative frame of mind would be impossible.

    You said, earlier in the thread, that you enjoy the "cut and thrust," and I have to say, it's fairly frustrating to explain things to a person who is always "cutting and thrusting." Instead of doing that, I will recommend a book to you. It is a very lively and entertaining introduction to the kind of work that molecular biologists like twodot do every day. It won't make you competent in genetics, but it will give you a sense of what competence looks like. Heck, if you promise to read it, I'll even send you a copy.

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/herdin...9781472910066/


  3. #3363
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,230

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    no - but it does mean that they still stand unrefuted
    So you say.
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  4. #3364
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Taylor View Post
    In fact, your understanding of the subject is extremely weak, so you're unable to spot the errors and deception you've been fed on sites like creation.com. I briefly considered trying to straighten out some of those basic misconceptions, but you're in "argument mode," not "learning mode," so it doesn't seem worth the effort. It's hard enough to learn about molecular genetics when you're engaged and interested. To learn about it in a suspicious, argumentative frame of mind would be impossible.

    You said, earlier in the thread, that you enjoy the "cut and thrust," and I have to say, it's fairly frustrating to explain things to a person who is always "cutting and thrusting." Instead of doing that, I will recommend a book to you. It is a very lively and entertaining introduction to the kind of work that molecular biologists like twodot do every day. It won't make you competent in genetics, but it will give you a sense of what competence looks like. Heck, if you promise to read it, I'll even send you a copy.

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/herdin...9781472910066/

    Well, thankyou Bruce,

    (pls forgive tardy reply - windstorm here and lots of cleanup of fallen trees .....)

    Please dont think that my being in "argument mode" (actually, i hadnt thought i was, really!) means that i am not primarily committed to getting at the truth.

    The plain truth (or the best guess at what is closest to it) i recognise is often difficult for a person to accept (or understand even) if it is different to one's background understanding or training or "education" (quotes because often, particularly nowadays, i think that education is unfortunatelly geared more to delivering dogma than awakening critical faculties for enquiry - more focused on passing exams than generating the tools of understanding - and most critically for me, the education process seems to have lost understanding of, and respect for, truth)

    (rant over)

    Yes, please, i would be interested to look at the book - it appears a lively read - but i fear that biology, along with chemistry, is a subject i most struggle with - all those names, and unfathonable words! not to mention the jargon. i sometimes think that , as a biologist, i would have made a good flood - mitigation Civil Engineer! (i didnt get to do that either due to life's misadventures and ended up ekeing out a career in electronics ....)

    But, might i prevail upon you to have a deco at my attempt to understand the Peppered Moth thing as i set out in my post #3364 and give me your thoughts? I am particularly interested in what seems to me to be the cutting edge stuff that involves the jumping genes (and whether they might be responding to some kind of epigenetic (?) control - rather than bieng merely a random or fortuitous mutation of some kind).

    thanks again,

    frank

    o - and was i really wildly out in my understanding in my comments re what i termed the Mark 1. version?
    Last edited by Frank!; 02-15-2018 at 10:30 AM.

  5. #3365
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    While I was being sarcastic, I was making a dead-serious point about creationist 'logic'. If God intervenes in the natural world, there is nothing, absolutely nothing at all, that requires him to be parsimonious with miracles. If you posit one miracle, why not two? If two, why not three? If three, why not three billion? If giant blobs of water with all the magnetic fields magically aligned ('magic' being a term interchangeable with 'miracle', although less polite), why not miniaturized animals to fit on a plausibly-sized ark? If a magical flood covering the whole earth, why not radioactive decay products miraculously created in situ 6000 years ago to make it look like the earth is 4 billion years old? Think about this; really. Science does not admit the supernatural. Once you do, you have utter chaos, limited only by your imagination.
    Yes Keith, i used to not accept that there were ever any true miracles - but perhaps it was the perspective of Shakespeare that (IIRC) "there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your science ...." that began to break down my simplistic assumptions.

    Also, i took comfort in what i understand to be a dictum of Physics that if something can be demonstrated to be probably true by a factor of 10 to the 50th power - then it can be accepted as a fact ..... and dont lose sleep over it unless one can come up with a better idea.

    I found myself coming across things that were so beyond the bounds of coincidence (at least as far as i could see at the time) - that i found it easier to just accept it as a 'miracle' and leave it at that.

    That being said, i would not accept that so many compounding miracles are likely to happen that , as you say, utter chaos reigns and we can not be certain of anything.

    Whilst i am comfortable that that there are some genuinely reported miracles in the bible, and some of them (eg Resurrection) are crucial to the vast majority of adherents of christianity - i expect that god has been a bit parsimonious with them and only allowed those that make a point of some kind - even if the point does not seem apparent immediately.

    That is why i do not accept that god would "plant" radioactive decay products, or put fossils in rocks that look like they were caught up there by a great watery catastrophe if they were not really, or implant in the light from distant stars false evidences of "age" - and so on.

    But, "Science does not admit the supernatural" - well, no - that is a misinterpretation imposed upon the scientific method. as i have pointed out before, science has no limitations as to what it can investigate - otherwise we could not investigate claims fro the paranormal, or UFOs, or any number of things - even the origin of the universe which is by definition a unique, unrepeatable event!

    I think you can say there are no presupositions allowed when doing science . You can no more say "God is true" than you can say "Evolution is true" - or anything else for that matter ..... you can start with those as propositions - and seek evidence for and against - that is what true science is for - and that is what i see as the real purpose of threads like this one. I see no point in parading dogma here, but presenting evidence for discussion. ther is no point in vilifying someone because they happen to have a different view, or because they present "unacceptable evidences" - it has to be properly disposed of.

    well i probly said more than enuf,

    frank(ly)

  6. #3366
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,415

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    That is why i do not accept that god would "plant" radioactive decay products, or put fossils in rocks that look like they were caught up there by a great watery catastrophe if they were not really, or implant in the light from distant stars false evidences of "age" - and so on.
    Why not? Again, if one miracle, why not one million, or one every millisecond? You are inventing a God that fits your preconceptions, one that generally lets things work according to ordinary repeatable understandable natural law, but very rarely does something completely outside those bounds. How do you know God works that way? Frank, who are you to tell God what to do?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  7. #3367
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Why not? Again, if one miracle, why not one million, or one every millisecond? You are inventing a God that fits your preconceptions, one that generally lets things work according to ordinary repeatable understandable natural law, but very rarely does something completely outside those bounds. How do you know God works that way? Frank, who are you to tell God what to do?
    Yup - i accept that some people TOTALLY reject miracles (i did once)

  8. #3368
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,415

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Yup - i accept that some people TOTALLY reject miracles (i did once)
    You're either missing or avoiding my point. Once you start positing things that are utterly beyond human understanding, how can you say anything at all? If not one miracle, why not ten? If ten, why not divine intervention in every atom of existence at every moment? How can you tell what's miraculous and what isn't? Who are we to tell God what to do?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  9. #3369
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,098

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    You're either missing or avoiding my point. Once you start positing things that are utterly beyond human understanding, how can you say anything at all? If not one miracle, why not ten? If ten, why not divine intervention in every atom of existence at every moment? How can you tell what's miraculous and what isn't? Who are we to tell God what to do?
    It sounds as though Frank is falling into the god of the gaps trap.
    Everything except miracles can be explained by scienceists, so god must be responsible for those handful of miracles.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  10. #3370
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Frank!, I'd love some answer to my question. "Light", "Day" and "Night" pop up three days before the Earth, and four days before stars and the Moon.

    How can this be? Is it merely a translation error? Naturally you should, if taking a literal view of the bible, understand the culture and language of the most original source available. But then, you'd have to accept raqia as a physical vault as in the original Genesis, which would (surely?) then automatically leave you to dismiss heliocentricity as part of accommodating your Young Earth Creationism...

    Are you up for that?

    Andy
    "We were schooner-rigged and rakish, with a long and lissome hull ..."

  11. #3371
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,098

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Frank!, I'd love some answer to my question. "Light", "Day" and "Night" pop up three days before the Earth, and four days before stars and the Moon.

    How can this be? Is it merely a translation error? Naturally you should, if taking a literal view of the bible, understand the culture and language of the most original source available. But then, you'd have to accept raqia as a physical vault as in the original Genesis, which would (surely?) then automatically leave you to dismiss heliocentricity as part of accommodating your Young Earth Creationism...

    Are you up for that?

    Andy
    Back in post http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...67#post5469267
    I recommended a book on genealogy and origin myths. In the concluding chapters the author deals with how different peoples created genealogy as a part of the creation myths. These were aural traditions so in order to make them manageable they were all limited to ten or so ancestors back to the first human who was born of, fathered by, or created by a god. It was only after writing was invented that the family tree could grow past the limit of what could easily be remembered. This is why the list of patriarchs in genesis is not complete and misleads the YEC literalists who use it to calculate creation in 4004 BC.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  12. #3372
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    East coast of England
    Posts
    3,997

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It sounds as though Frank is falling into the god of the gaps trap.
    Everything except miracles can be explained by scienceists, so god must be responsible for those handful of miracles.
    If we don't (yet) understand something, it must be a miracle. I'm imagining someone time travelling from 6000 years ago to visit us. He or she would be truly amazed - incredulous - at the number of miracles God has wrought in this world since his or her own time.
    "Mozart is the heart's touchstone" (Edwin Fischer)

  13. #3373
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,230

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Arthur C. Clark's 3rd law covers it pretty well. Both for someone from 6000 years ago, as well as Frank!

    "It's turtles, all the way down."
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  14. #3374
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Well, the following is in the account. Perhaps he can help?

    Day one of Genesis, the unnamed third-person narrator (who he?) states that we get light. Day four is the creation of the Sun and all the other 1*10^24 stars, planets and what-not. Isn't this a tiny bit of a stumbling block to fully-literal interpretations?

    Andy, confused
    Yeh - i find that i can not even begin to sort through what those early days were like

    But i am equally dissatisfied (perhaps more so cos my engineering soul does not like things that i can (sort of) understand - but still refuse to fit properly. }

    The most accepted version (i understand there are many versions of the Big Bang thoery in attempts to plug various holes .......) - of the BB theory has a fudge factor of more than twenty times - in other words there is, according to those experts, twenty times as much stuff out there as what they can wxplain. - and this supernatural stuff they call "Dark" - as if that explains anything!

    No wonder Cosmologists of all stripes are similarly dissatisfied , and are all having a go at coming up with better models.

    A couple that i have come across take Einstein's equations to the 5th dimension (apparently mathematically, that is valid?) and find no need for dark matter, dark energy, etc.

    Another interesting thing in some of the models is that , just as Einstein allows twin Astronauts to have different ages according to their voyaging history (does everyone else have no problem with that?) - different parts of the universe can have different ages......

    hey , Andy - if you get anywhere with this - let us know will you?

    peace,

    frank

  15. #3375
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,926

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    All to do with traveling at or near the speed of light, doesn’t quite make sense to me but I don’t lose sleep over it. I don’t understand algebra either but I know it works. Same with biology and geology I understand some of it and that is enough. I know plate tectonics exist because we can measure the rate of I drift and if you go to Iceland you can see it in action. I know coal seams were once forests because we find the fossil remains of plants in them. I also know the process takes millions of years. I also know that the ark story is at best based on a very localised event.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  16. #3376
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    2,071

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
    "People should be able to access these benefits [Social Welfare] as a matter of right, with no more loss of their own standards of self-respect than would be involved in collecting from an insurance company the proceeds of an endowment policy on which they have been paying premiums for years."
    Robert Menzies - Liberal Party (Conservative) Prime Minister of Australia.

  17. #3377
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,926

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    Saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
    Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  18. #3378
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,926

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Well worth watching. Frank will hate it.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7xVBldyy_Oo
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  19. #3379
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge


  20. #3380
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,926

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Some people have too much time on their hands.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  21. #3381
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,098

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    You can read anything into anything if you really want to.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  22. #3382
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,415

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Human beings have very active pattern detectors. We are very good at finding patterns where they exist, but also imagining them where they don't.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  23. #3383
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    au revoir

    frank

  24. #3384
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,098

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    au revoir

    frank

    I could not resist
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  25. #3385
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,230

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You can read anything into anything if you really want to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Human beings have very active pattern detectors. We are very good at finding patterns where they exist, but also imagining them where they don't.
    It's really quite biblical if you think about it. "Seek and ye shall find." Sometimes one must seek a little harder, or more earnestly. But it's there to be found, isn't it?
    "The future is already here it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  26. #3386
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    25,926

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post

    I could not resist
    Beautiful.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  27. #3387
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    6,949

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    bump

    Skip

    ---This post is delivered with righteous passion and with a solemn southern directness --
    ...........fighting against the deliberate polarization of politics...

  28. #3388
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    22,441

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Jesus! Now look what you've gone and done!
    What kind of BROTM are you anyhow?

  29. #3389
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    6,949

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    No collusion! No collusion!
    Skip

    ---This post is delivered with righteous passion and with a solemn southern directness --
    ...........fighting against the deliberate polarization of politics...

  30. #3390
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,513

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Do you think that one of the old "Novice" threads might stand resurrection?

    Just as a BROTM project.
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  31. #3391
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    56,289

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Longino View Post
    ..."I'm also not convinced that evolution is anything more than a hypothesis with very little evidence supporting it..."

    Gobbledygook!

    Evolution is reality based on tons of evidence. Your ignorance of that fact indicates that you should simply keep your ignorance to yourself rather than trying to spread it around here.
    The problem is with evolution there IS NO evidence to refute it and a heck of a lot of information to confirm it. So technically, it IS just a theory.

  32. #3392
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    22,441

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    It was a theory over a hundred years ago, Jamie.
    Today evolution is recognized as fact by all but the Troglodytes.

  33. #3393
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    56,289

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Longino View Post
    It was a theory over a hundred years ago, Jamie.
    Today evolution is recognized as fact by all but the Troglodytes.
    1859 to be exact. And in science, it can't be a fact. When you read any article on Evolution with a title the title READS; The Theory of Evolution, not just Evolution.

  34. #3394
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,788

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    1859 to be exact. And in science, it can't be a fact. When you read any article on Evolution with a title the title READS; The Theory of Evolution, not just Evolution.
    The theory of evolution is a theory of how it works. The fact of evolution is the fact that it has happened. There is ample evidence that evolution has happened, and plenty for the basic ideas about how it has happened. Every once and a while, someone comes up with a new wrinkle on the theory, such as Gould's notion of punctuated equilibrium, and we start looking for to confirm or disconfirm that new theory.

  35. #3395
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,176

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by SKIP KILPATRICK View Post
    bump

    There's a fundamental problem - dearsay none here would accept they could not handle the truth - well cop this
    https://youtu.be/0aBHKsztF74

    Good luck
    Frank

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •