|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2003 : 15:47:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You've missed Gorgo's point, hippy, which is that to be a true "seeker for truth," one must be able to say that one has no idea how or why something has occured, but must wait for further investigation to learn what the reality is.
Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn or context but I took what Gorgo said, to mean...it's ok not to know. Maybe some day we will but if we don't now, it's ok, we can keep looking.
As for your reply above, "one must be able to say that one has no idea how or why something has occured", I think you might mean in scientific terms, if not, I'm sorry for my conclusion but if in science.....they have a theory which they try to prove. So they don't really say they don't know at all. Again, sorry if that's not the point, just trying to show how we read things differently.
quote:
Saying "He always was" is not based upon hard evidence or investigation, but is simply an assumption.
kind of like the above, it's a theory until they prove it with hard evidence. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2003 : 20:43:58 [Permalink]
|
Snake, one must be able to say that one doesn't know. Bad scientists (who aren't really scientists) are often incapable of saying "I don't know," and instead toss off ad-hoc hypotheses which aren't grounded in observation. Good scientists need to be able to say "I don't know," and with that, acknowledge that science has limits.
"Why does Snake hate 'rap crap' so vehemently" is a question which will probably never be answered to the point where someone can trace a path from those sounds, to your ears, into your brain, and follow the neurotransmitter activity from neuron to neuron which seems to provoke a feeling of disgust in you. A good scientific answer to that question is, therefore, "I don't know," and a better one is "I'll probably never know." A bad scientist with an interest in the subject will offer up some guess or other, instead, and imply that he/she has data to support it.
Of course, I may have read Gorgo completely wrong myself, so I apologize for speaking as if I could read his mind.quote:
...it's a theory until they prove it with hard evidence.
You appear to be getting the common man's definition of 'theory' (a wild guess) confused with the scientific definition. Scientific theories are based upon empirical observations. First you observe something, and then you create a hypothesis which explains it, then you test your hypothesis. The more testing, the better. But good theories never come before the observation of the evidence they purport to explain.
"He always was" is not an observation, and isn't even a testable hypothesis.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2003 : 23:41:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You appear to be getting the common man's definition of 'theory' (a wild guess) confused with the scientific definition. Scientific theories are based upon empirical observations. First you observe something, and then you create a hypothesis which explains it, then you test your hypothesis. The more testing, the better. But good theories never come before the observation of the evidence they purport to explain.
Nope! I was remembering what is in my geometry book of many, many years ago. And you explained it very well, that's exactly what I meant. I guess the (printed) words didn't come out right, English was my worst subject, never got better than an 'F'. (execpt for the 'C', finally after trying 3 times in Jr. College) I do tend to give an abreavated version of what I'm trying to say.
Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2003 : 23:51:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Why does Snake hate 'rap crap' so vehemently" is a question which will probably never be answered to the point where someone can trace a path from those sounds, to your ears, into your brain, and follow the neurotransmitter activity from neuron to neuron which seems to provoke a feeling of disgust in you.
But we are talking about something entirely, IMO, subjective. Yes, you can put it in a scientific catagory because it's sound but I don't think that's the point.
The only connection is the not knowing. Not because there's a theory that can be proven.
LOL, hey! That's the best I can do for midnight.(the best explanation) Hope it's comprehendable. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2003 : 03:29:50 [Permalink]
|
| I could probably ask Snake a few questions and understand, at least to my satisfaction, why Snake doesn't like rap. If I didn't find out, I wouldn't create a god(s) to explain it. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2003 : 13:30:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: Actually, I wasn't assuming, I was presuming. When you assume, you believe something with no evidence. When you presume, you believe something with partial evidence, but not enough to make it undeniable. And yes, I could be wrong, and I can't prove that He always was. I believe what I do because it makes the most sense to me, and I am here to learn why other people beleive the way they do.
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2003 : 14:33:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
How did life form in the first place, according to your theory?
I assume you're talking about the Theory of Evolution. In which case, it doesn't explain how life formed in the first place. It explains how life changed since its initial formation. As jmcginn said, the beginning of life is a different theory...abiogenesis (life from non-life). The theory of evolution is very well supported (i.e., with evidence). There is no well supported theory of abiogenesis (several hypotheses & trial theories are being batted around). So, overall, scientists "do not know" (do not have a strong explanation) how life came from non-life.
This ultimate origin question is the same for your "universe" question on the origin of matter. Big Bang theory explains how the universe has changed since its beginning...it does not explain how it got its beginning. That too is a case of "I don't know" for scientists.
quote:
I've heard that amino acids are 'the building blocks of life', but where'd they come from?
Indeed amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, which in turn are the building blocks for living things. Amino acids can be created through natural/abiotic processes by chemical processes involving organic matter (i.e., molecules with lots of carbon and hydrogen atoms). |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2003 : 14:37:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
How did thier paintings on cavewalls last hundreds of thousands of years, when Leonardo da Vinci's paints are already starting to fade?
Cave art has faded. See also the previous answer about cave environments.
(aside - I'm not sure...isn't cave art 10's of thousands of years old, not 100's?)
quote:
Perhaps cavemen were just people who hid out in caves whenever a civilization crashed, like the Romans when they were overrun by barbarians.
Ask yourself...if the above is true, then how did their remains ended up being incorporated into rock that predates civilizations? |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 12:05:40 [Permalink]
|
About that rock that predates civilization: I've seen reports of iron hammers imbedded in rock that supposedly predates civilization, so just what is this method of dating, and how accurate is it?
And about cave environments: since when is a cave dry, aren't caves made by running water? And isn't Lascaux in Southern France, which has a Mediterranian climate?
Back to the original topic, what if the correct answer is scientifically unprovable? I can't prove that God always was, but neither can it be proven how life started. Even if a theory was made that didn't have any problems, it still couldn't be proven that that was what happened. But let me ask you this: if life did spontaneously form, why isn't it still spontaneously forming? Has anyone ever discovered premordial slime? |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 12:35:59 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
quote:
I've seen reports of iron hammers imbedded in rock that supposedly predates civilization, so just what is this method of dating, and how accurate is it?
This is the London hammer that you are referring to, and there is only one, not "hammers", and it is debated and kept secret by creationists who won't let anyone else examine it. It has been carbon dated to recent to 700 years old, although nobody is for sure what lab dated it and when. Also it appears to be of early American style.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm
The only known dating of the rock is by comparing the sandstone it is supposedly encased in to the rock it was found by and by its fossil contents.
As for other dating methods that could be used there are numerous types and they can be cross-checked for independent validation.
quote:
And about cave environments: since when is a cave dry, aren't caves made by running water?
Yes caves are made by running water, but many caves then later become dry. I just did some spelunking in Carter Co. KY in July in a cave called the X-cave where two caves run nearly parallel. One is active and wet, the other is dry as a bone and dead despite actually touching each other with several interconnecting passages.
quote:
And isn't Lascaux in Southern France, which has a Mediterranian climate?
External climates have no effect on any cave of any suitable depth. For instance the caves I mentioned above are in humid KY weather, but both stay constantly cool year round and the dry cave had virtually no humidity.
Edited to add:
The London hammer claim is proported by the late Carl Baugh, a creationists who has made a whole host of claims including finding Noah's ark among a host of other Christian artifacts. Even other creationists groups won't touch him (or his theology) with a 10' pole.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/baugh.html |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 08/13/2003 12:50:25 |
|
|
|
Avenel
Skeptic Friend
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 13:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
About that rock that predates civilization: I've seen reports of iron hammers imbedded in rock that supposedly predates civilization, so just what is this method of dating, and how accurate is it?
The only such hammer I am aware of belongs to Carl Baugh, and is simply a 19th century miner's hammer, the head of which is encased in a concretion. See here.
quote:
And about cave environments: since when is a cave dry, aren't caves made by running water? And isn't Lascaux in Southern France, which has a Mediterranian climate?
Not all caves are formed by water. The Lascaux caves are limestone, so were formed by flowing water. Just because a cave was formed by water does not mean that water always must flow through that cave.
quote:
Back to the original topic, what if the correct answer is scientifically unprovable? I can't prove that God always was, but neither can it be proven how life started. Even if a theory was made that didn't have any problems, it still couldn't be proven that that was what happened. But let me ask you this: if life did spontaneously form, why isn't it still spontaneously forming? Has anyone ever discovered premordial slime?
Theories in science are never proved. A theory is a current best explaination for a body of observations. Certain theories are very robust, in that new observations fail to contradict them. However, it is always possible that a new observation will contradict a theory, which will then have to be reworked or replaced.
As far as spontaneous generation of primitive life goes, remember that the environmental conditions of the Earth now are very different then they were 4 billion years ago. This may proclude new generations of crude self-replicating biological structures. Also, since the Earth is teeming with sophisitated life, it may be that any newly generated life is quickly made into a meal by the life around it. |
"How many angels can swim on the head of a beer?" - Roger Ramjet |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 19:04:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But let me ask you this: if life did spontaneously form, why isn't it still spontaneously forming?
Because conditions on earth have changed over the last 4 billion years. In particular, the original life that evolved on the primordial earth has changed the planet and continues to do so. The atmosphere was once composed primarily of nitrogen and C02. Now it contains a lot of oxygen. Primitive anaerobic organisms (which are probably similar to the first living things) find oxygen quite toxic. This addition of oxygen to the atmosphere is a direct result of life processes. Life has even had a direct effect on the climate of the planet (drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere acts to cool the planet since it is a greenhouse gas).
Also, original life has had billions of years to perfect means of exploiting organic resources and ecological niches. New life cannot spontaneously arise because existing life uses the available resources. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 14:42:48 [Permalink]
|
"Primitive anaerobic organisms...find oxygen quite toxic"
But that assumes that only anaerobic life forms on Earth. Wouldn't new life that was trying to form adapt and evolove to oxygen?
About the hammer: no, that doesn't sound like the hammer I'm talking about. The one they showed me had the handle rotted away and it was imbedded in solid rock that they said supposedly came from some age (I don't remember precisely which) that predates man. Also, they had it on exhibit and I saw it. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 15:23:07 [Permalink]
|
hippy4christ,
quote:
But that assumes that only anaerobic life forms on Earth. Wouldn't new life that was trying to form adapt and evolove to oxygen?
No it is based on the fact that oxygen has this nasty tendency to oxidize just about anything, thus making the formation of most complex organic molecules quite improbable, thus life would not have had much of a chance to form under an such conditions.
quote:
About the hammer: no, that doesn't sound like the hammer I'm talking about. The one they showed me had the handle rotted away and it was imbedded in solid rock that they said supposedly came from some age (I don't remember precisely which) that predates man. Also, they had it on exhibit and I saw it.
What exhibit? Where at? This sounds just like the London hammer, it has a partially rotted handle, and was incased in stone when found. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
