Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
Well I finally made it, and without ever having to get angry or insult anyone (that was my self-appointed goal):
(From "water on Saturn's moon" thread)
Not that it matters, but my comment was this... (doesn't say anything we don't know, feel free to scroll down if you like)
| Quote | "LoL! Keep moving the goal-posts! Purpose doesn’t have to be “some great cosmological plan”. A beaver’s “instinct” allowed it to create dams and lodges? That is just stupid."
Moving the goalposts? I thought we were discussing about some ultimate purpose behind the existence of the universe... Did I miss something, and we're now just talking about beavers and their ways? Either way, I explained that the "purpose" behind the building of dams by a beaver (like nests by a chicken, or anthills by ants) is none other than the creatures suvival: that is the ultimate goal of all life. That is no puzzle for science: what scientists seek to know, however, is what ways does life find to achieve this end, and how they are accomplished (and I do not understand your disapproval of instinct- do you think beavers are capable of abstract thought, or is the Intelligent Designer always whispering in their ear?). And of course, I suppose you agree that your other two examples are completely off the mark. We do not seek a purpose a comet might have for colliding with a planet: We look for the reasons
That led to the collision.
"That is your opinion. And you are welcome to it. Just don’t try to force it on me."
Nobody's trying to force anything on you- we're having a discussion, and it is you who asked for what I propose.
"True it was a given, but that was to demonstrate a valid point."
How can it be a valid point if the supernatural designer is taken as a given? In reality, the scientific method is not inconsistent because we do not know if there is a supernatural designer: we're working with what we have. That statement is just another way of phrasing the old phisosophical argument:
"You claim not to believe in God because there is no proof, but what if God turns out to exist after all? What would you say then? I bet you'd look silly"
...Which is not an argument at all.
"There you go Phed. If you want to falsify the design inference provide evidence that supports option #1 or shut up."
I'm afraid you don't get it. It is neither my job nor yours to falsify either theory: It's the job of the theory's proponents to try and prove it. You see, there are three ways of trying to establish a theory:
1. "I propose theory A, and I will try to find evidence to support it"
2. "I propose theory B, but I won't bother producing any reliable evidence for it"
3. "None of you can definitely prove their theories, let alone disprove mine, so I can say whatever I want"
Now, which do you think is proper science, which is bad science, and which is no science at all?
"Scienec isn’t about “proof”.
From Dr. Behe:(...)"
Come on, don't quote Behe as an authority on what science is about- He claimed on the stand that astrology can be science, for crying out loud.
Science is indeed "an effort to make true statements about physical reality", But in order to do so in any meaningful way it simply has to figure out what "rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted". The whole scientific revolution of the past centuries is based on this notion that Behe finds mistaken.
"If science isn’t about finding the reality to our existence, whatever that reality is, then it is useless. Just as Mike Gene’s demonstrations states."
If you mean finding the reality of the universe around and within us, I wholeheartedly agree. If you mean finding some hidden meaning behind our existence, well, no. If that was science's true goal, it would have dissolved into philosophy ages ago- and I'll let you figure out how useful this would have been for today's world.
"The technology behind the internet is not related to the lame science you want us to believe in. "
Avoiding the issue? This is not about evolution ,or physics, or any particular field of science: It's about scientific methodology in general. *all* science follows the scientific method, not just ToE.
Now, do you seriously believe we would have the internet, or computers, or electricity for that matter, if science was not about finding *natural* mechanisms to explain natural phenomena? Think about it.
"BTW Phed- archaeology is filled with purpose- Why did people build Stonehenge? What is the purpose of the lines and figures on the Nasca Plain?"
So, now we've gone from looking for intelligent purpose in the properties of the universe to looking for intelligent purpose in intelligent actions? And it's me who's shifting the goalposts?
Even so, and although speculating on the purpose for the actions of people in ancient times can help in its cause (people are intelligent after all), search for purpose is hardly what archaeology is all about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
The real challenge in archaeology is not why Stonehenge was built (or the Nazca drawings, or the pyramids, you name it) but *who* built them and *how*. And that's where the scientific methodology is essential.
Think about it: Stonehenge seems like an impossible task for the people of that time (well it seemed, once). Should archaeology take into serious consideration the possibility that Merlin actually brought the stones floating in the air from Ireland, using his magic?
A lot of respectable authors of yore have mentioned that story, so it is backed up by authority- and it's much simpler than to imagine intricate constructions of wood and soil nobody proved without doubt they existed, and large groups of people working under the command of some geniouses that just could not exist at the time? All we have to do is accept the possibility some mythical person suspended the laws of gravity once, in an unexplained way (we won't go into that), and everything falls into place!
Once again, I'll leave it to you to figure out what we would actually know about the past now, if archaeology (and science in general) worked that way. |
| Quote | Comment deleted.
Phed, you’re not fitting in well here. I think it’s time for you to bother a different blog.
Thanks for all the fish. -ds
Comment by Phed — March 14, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
|
Should've seen it coming, but joseph was kinda getting on my nerves with his "shut up stupid" arguments...
I'll show you shut up, pal! you're outta- oh wait s**t
Um, could you like, register again for a minute?-ds
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
?
