one of the chief oriticisms leveled by Creationists/IDers and panspermiests is that necessary organic molecules were unavailable and thus natural abiogenesis on Earth is impossible.
Most of the abiogenesis-is-impossible talks/discussions/arguments that I have heard chiefly deal with formation of life from the necessary molecules - e.g., the necessary protiens - not the formation of those molecules themselves. In other words, even if all the necessary components were there, those components don't magically create life. Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they? (open to reading something about that if you have something to suggest; I have never heard of it or been referred to something, though).
Formation of separate parts does not imply that those separate parts will "come together" and actually form RNA, does it? That would be an impressive assumption to make.
God put that stuff there and then made it all come together to form life.
*blinks* I'm confused about this one. It seems that you are suggesting that all Creationists (and by extension, Christians) believe God used evolution to form life? While there are plenty of "Theistic Evolutionists," there are also those that believe evolution of species did not occur at all (and that God did not use evolution).
This does not show that the basic building blocks of life were made by entirely natural processes. This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes. I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too. Not to mention the difficulty in getting "building blocks" or "components" to end up forming the actual thing that they are components/building-blocks of.
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
they aren't arguing with me, they're arguing with someone else.
Or at least arguing with one conception/"view" of God. Conceptions and views of God can be wrong without God not existing, too... it just means the conception or view is wrong.
Er, why? And from what I understand, the code is GPL'd, right? So they own it kinda in the same way RedHat owns RedHat Linux? (the answer to "why" may be found in educating me just what Oracle owns now, too, hehe...)
So.. you can test a claim as well as gather data to support or "start" a claim(/hypothesis) through either observation or experimentation. Right?
So, if you cannot observe nor experiment on something directly, it's all just data that needs to be interpreted, pretty much... and doesn't seem to fall to clearly into the realm of science.
For global warming specifically - I agree, you can't put the earth's climate in a test tube. It takes quite a bit of computational power just to try to put the meteorological system in a "test tube," heh. I don't recall ever really seeing any model that had correct predictions for global warming (man-made). Most of the predictions I am hearing about - in the media, obviously - are doomsday type predictions which obviously have not occurred.
Why would you think that experimentation is the requirement of science?
Not the. Just a. When I took science classes, there was one word that was mentioned quite a bit when it came to learning about the scientific method: repeatability.
I also heard a lot about controlled environments, changing one parameter, etc. They even talked about those things in macro-economics, which isn't exactly a hard science...
Statistically, 99.99% of all religions simply must be false since only one of them can be true, because none of them are compatible.
Heh. A non-postmodernist is a rarer find than people think these days. The illogical and irrational belief that you can have your truth and I can have mine and they are both equal is pretty prevalent, though. Religions that openly state what you just stated get labeled as intolerant.
But regardless - the author appears to want to take these big questions logically, mathematically, etc. I have yet to see a logically fool-proof and mathematical proof that God doesn't exist. I've seen plenty of evidence given for both sides (and typically one side will dismiss the other side's evidence as inconclusive or misinterpreted or "not really evidence" or whatever). But arguing that belief in God is far less prevalent than people think because belief in God is illogical? That is a pretty big logical jump there. The guy did not answer that particular question logically or mathematically. He merely gave his opinion and interpretation of some evidence while appearing to ignore some evidence and logical arguments.
You clearly do not understand how science works. Vulcanologists don't build volcanoes, zoologists don't build zebras or cows, cosmologists can't make black holes.
You give three examples of processes/phenomena that currently exist and are observable to counter an example of a non-current, non-observable process/phenomena like origins?
Yes, experimentation is a way to gain data and test hypotheses. While I know there are other ways to gain data - such as observation - and by the way, when was the last time you observed the origin of matter? - I would indeed have to be educated as to other ways to test a hypothesis. I can't think of a way to test something without experimenting. It's practically the same word in most people's vocabularies:)
As for suing my high school teacher... while we're at it, I should sue wikipedia, which must also be prejudiced against science, I guess...
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
...and also the Merriam Webster dictionary...
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
(I would, especially in a dictionary, not interpret "and" to mean "or")
"global warming," as it is commonly used in the media, does not refer to naturally caused climate changes. There's plenty of "global warming" propaganda to point to... or at least, the conclusions of "why" to point to (such as the Inconvenient Truth "documentary")
As for the scientific method, as I recall, that includes a lot of experimentation and repetition of experimentation, right? One thing I have never been able to figure out is how you can repeat experiments on origins (of matter, of forces, etc). Yes, directly referring to hypotheses such as the "big bang." It seems, if anything, that should be history, right?
Same with climate change, to some extent. Causation of climate change has not been scientifically tested without prejudices. I have never seen a study where they took a non-climate-changing atmosphere exactly like ours (which we don't even understand yet, since people don't seem to get that climate change occurs naturally, too) and put a few SUVs in it to test whether or not human CO2 emissions were able to affect the atmosphere...
OT: slashdot doesn't appear to accept subscript tags. sad!
Climate change, however, IS a fact. Our poles ARE receding, and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing. If you deny this I suggest a little more research.
Yes, the climate is always changing, is it not? That seems like a very reasonable asumption. There is certainly evidence of various cooling and warming in the geographic past, which kinda implies that it wasn't man making those climate changes.
Thank you, however, for your comments about the political outcry. In defense of the OP, "global warming" in non-scientific communities seems to typically apply to the idea of man-made global warming.... otherwise, Al Gore (great scientist that he is;) hehe) wouldn't refer to his agenda as simply "global warming." The news uses "global warming" to refer to the man-made stuff, etc.
I'm glad there are at least a few scientists willing to be upset about the political agendas:)
Re:When science fails.
on
The Big Questions
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
so I'll give greater weight to my prejudices.
You say that as if scientists don't have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. I've never met a human that didn't.
It's a "big" question to ask why there are atheistic best sellers?
most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.
Of course not. The question is, do most adults believe some of the tenets?
There is the argument that "interfaith dialog" makes no sense if you really believe (as many major religions teach) that your own religion's tenets are settled beyond discussion.
Ah yes. The "you have to have an open mind" argument. I guess evolution, global warming, and government health care debates, on the other hand, really ARE settled beyond discussion. [/sarcasm]. Seriously though - I know many major religions are of the gnostic type... hvae to have higher knowledge, enlightened, etc. But what exactly does "beyond discussion" mean? Not doubting/convinced? It seems that not-being-in-doubt and being-convinced are feelings reserved for atheists, now. Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief. Which is odd, since most logicians will tell you that it is much harder to prove non-existence than it is to prove existence. I wonder why Landsburg didn't mention that? Seems like that is a "big question" - why are many logicians and scientists atheists, since they are so careful not to deny existence of other things that we don't even have evidence for; they simply understand that denying existence is a big logical step in that you have to disprove every possible existence first. When it comes to the supernatural/God though, they are quite willing to believe in a non-existence and not be open to discussion. Why does Landsburg only pick on those who are convinced, perhaps illogically, that God does exist?
Incidentally, you can be illogically convinced to believe an correct thing, and you can be logically convinced to believe an incorrect thing. Logic is an argument; what you logically deduce or induce from makes a big difference, as your premise may be wrong, thus your conclusion could be wrong as well.
virtually no one behaves as if they actually believe in everlasting damnation after death as punishment for sin.
Most people don't behave like there is death at all. Most people don't want to talk about death, don't want to hear about death, and don't even want to think about death. Many people "defy" death and live like they won't die. I guess that means death doesn't actually exist! Cool!
I'd wondered before about how many people really did believe in God, but in just a few pages this argument had me thinking that the number was a lot lower than I'd ever thought before.
So without seeing any numbers and going entirely on the basis of logical deductions from unproved and perhaps disputed premises, you are coming to new conclusions on what people actually believe - without asking them.
It's not all that strange logic though, whetehr you agree with it or not. Yes, at the outset it looks like a contradiction...
However; there is no legal way to download child porn (and I think it should continue to be illegal, if nothing else, to produce child porn). OK, so that means that if P2P is one of the major ways to download child porn, then P2P increases the ability (not sure about motivation) of pornographers. If there's a way to get it to the customer, that increases the ability....
The first statement; there is a legal way to produce and distribute media. Whether you like the way it works or not, there's a completely legal way to purchase music, movies, etc. I am not defending the *IAA and not defending the way publishers work, etc... but it remains a fact that there is a legal way to get access to those materials. It could logically follow, then, that having a "cheap" illegal way to get access to the same material could reduce income/ability/motiviation to produce new content.
Do either of those happen? I don't know. But you could, IMO, logically deduce both. They are not mutually exclusive.
It's amazing how deluded people can get about themselves. We think that human nature has changed and that society/culture/psychology/education/liberalism/conservatism/government/what-have-you has somehow fixed some basic fundamental problems in humanity. And then we're surprised at people when they manifest it (while excusing ourselves when we manifest it). Self-deception is amazing.
After reading it, he has some good questions (if it's the link that Hatta posted below). Unfortunately, he is guilty of the same thing out-of-context-to-prove people are: he didn't bother researching his questions. For example, when Leviticus comments about not "touching" a woman during her menstrual period, it was not referring to any physical contact (say, a handshake) whatsoever, as I recall. "Touch" was a euphemism - as it is today, actually.
Interesting read, but nothing particularly new, honestly. I'm quite familiar with the debates about "OT vs. NT" and unfortunately, most people seem to think that when it comes to the Bible, if you want to take any part of it literally then you have to apply every part of it to everyone. Which is silly. Taking it "literally" means reading it for what it means. It doesn't mean that when God gave commands to a national government (Israel) that he meant those commands to be followed by America.
Not arguing that the OT is irrelevant and only the NT should be considered, as that would not be fair, either. I am arguing, however, that deciding what the Bible means/says shouldn't just be opening to a single verse in the middle of what is essentially a national constitution/covenant and applying it to the modern day... [/dead horse]
Incidentally, if Dr. Laura is trying to be an orthodox Jew, she is likely not going to particularly think the NT is all that relevant, as she has rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah... which puts her in a rather interesting position while interpreting the OT. Except that a lot of the first five books of the Bible - the Law, the "Tenach," etc - were given to the nation of Israel and a lot has to do with temple worship. Things have changed with national Israel in the last 3500 years though,including certain events around A.D. 70... but even before that, when the temples were destroyed, various captivities, etc. Israel, right now, cannot follow the OT Law if for no other reason than that there is an Islamic mosque on top of the temple mount. Which, again, puts Laura in an interesting position.
Hopefully it does not simply say "the Bible is wrong about this, so why use it for that?" as - whether true or not - that misses the "out of context" point.
People that believe the Bible still very, very, very frequently take it out of context and simply use it as proof of their own ideas. "proof-texting." Finding texts to prove your idea instead of finding the idea the text is giving...
I wasn't referring to the Bible. I'm saying that that is something Egypt would not be likely to record in their... "history stories." Curious why you would not object to Egyptian "history books" but do object to Jewish "history books." (I know, they didn't have "books.")
Who else would? I doubt Egypt would like to have "we let 2 million slaves walk across the Red Sea. Then we tried to go capture them again and our army got destroyed." in their history books...
Slashdot Mirror
So you might argue that the inability to power proprietary apps with MySQL's GPL code is encouraging non-proprietary apps to be created, instead? ;)
one of the chief oriticisms leveled by Creationists/IDers and panspermiests is that necessary organic molecules were unavailable and thus natural abiogenesis on Earth is impossible.
Most of the abiogenesis-is-impossible talks/discussions/arguments that I have heard chiefly deal with formation of life from the necessary molecules - e.g., the necessary protiens - not the formation of those molecules themselves. In other words, even if all the necessary components were there, those components don't magically create life. Scientists have not been able to talk the raw components, which we already have access to, and get them to form a something living, have they? (open to reading something about that if you have something to suggest; I have never heard of it or been referred to something, though).
Maybe I heard the wrong arguments. hehe.
Formation of separate parts does not imply that those separate parts will "come together" and actually form RNA, does it? That would be an impressive assumption to make.
God put that stuff there and then made it all come together to form life.
*blinks* I'm confused about this one. It seems that you are suggesting that all Creationists (and by extension, Christians) believe God used evolution to form life? While there are plenty of "Theistic Evolutionists," there are also those that believe evolution of species did not occur at all (and that God did not use evolution).
This does not show that the basic building blocks of life were made by entirely natural processes. This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes. I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too. Not to mention the difficulty in getting "building blocks" or "components" to end up forming the actual thing that they are components/building-blocks of.
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
That would be Evil (tm).
And for good reason. The last thing I want is for google to start deciding what news I should see and shouldn't see.
they aren't arguing with me, they're arguing with someone else.
Or at least arguing with one conception/"view" of God. Conceptions and views of God can be wrong without God not existing, too... it just means the conception or view is wrong.
They shouldn't be allowed to own MySQL
Er, why? And from what I understand, the code is GPL'd, right? So they own it kinda in the same way RedHat owns RedHat Linux? (the answer to "why" may be found in educating me just what Oracle owns now, too, hehe...)
I appreciate the non-moron status, hehe.
You test a claim through observation.
So.. you can test a claim as well as gather data to support or "start" a claim(/hypothesis) through either observation or experimentation. Right?
So, if you cannot observe nor experiment on something directly, it's all just data that needs to be interpreted, pretty much... and doesn't seem to fall to clearly into the realm of science.
For global warming specifically - I agree, you can't put the earth's climate in a test tube. It takes quite a bit of computational power just to try to put the meteorological system in a "test tube," heh. I don't recall ever really seeing any model that had correct predictions for global warming (man-made). Most of the predictions I am hearing about - in the media, obviously - are doomsday type predictions which obviously have not occurred.
Why would you think that experimentation is the requirement of science?
Not the. Just a. When I took science classes, there was one word that was mentioned quite a bit when it came to learning about the scientific method: repeatability.
I also heard a lot about controlled environments, changing one parameter, etc. They even talked about those things in macro-economics, which isn't exactly a hard science...
http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/11/oracle-sun-palns
I don't know what palns are or why Oracle/Sun thinks they are important, but ...
Statistically, 99.99% of all religions simply must be false since only one of them can be true, because none of them are compatible.
Heh. A non-postmodernist is a rarer find than people think these days. The illogical and irrational belief that you can have your truth and I can have mine and they are both equal is pretty prevalent, though. Religions that openly state what you just stated get labeled as intolerant.
But regardless - the author appears to want to take these big questions logically, mathematically, etc. I have yet to see a logically fool-proof and mathematical proof that God doesn't exist. I've seen plenty of evidence given for both sides (and typically one side will dismiss the other side's evidence as inconclusive or misinterpreted or "not really evidence" or whatever). But arguing that belief in God is far less prevalent than people think because belief in God is illogical? That is a pretty big logical jump there. The guy did not answer that particular question logically or mathematically. He merely gave his opinion and interpretation of some evidence while appearing to ignore some evidence and logical arguments.
You clearly do not understand how science works. Vulcanologists don't build volcanoes, zoologists don't build zebras or cows, cosmologists can't make black holes.
You give three examples of processes/phenomena that currently exist and are observable to counter an example of a non-current, non-observable process/phenomena like origins?
Yes, experimentation is a way to gain data and test hypotheses. While I know there are other ways to gain data - such as observation - and by the way, when was the last time you observed the origin of matter? - I would indeed have to be educated as to other ways to test a hypothesis. I can't think of a way to test something without experimenting. It's practically the same word in most people's vocabularies :)
As for suing my high school teacher... while we're at it, I should sue wikipedia, which must also be prejudiced against science, I guess...
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
...and also the Merriam Webster dictionary...
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
(I would, especially in a dictionary, not interpret "and" to mean "or")
"global warming," as it is commonly used in the media, does not refer to naturally caused climate changes. There's plenty of "global warming" propaganda to point to... or at least, the conclusions of "why" to point to (such as the Inconvenient Truth "documentary")
As for the scientific method, as I recall, that includes a lot of experimentation and repetition of experimentation, right? One thing I have never been able to figure out is how you can repeat experiments on origins (of matter, of forces, etc). Yes, directly referring to hypotheses such as the "big bang." It seems, if anything, that should be history, right?
Same with climate change, to some extent. Causation of climate change has not been scientifically tested without prejudices. I have never seen a study where they took a non-climate-changing atmosphere exactly like ours (which we don't even understand yet, since people don't seem to get that climate change occurs naturally, too) and put a few SUVs in it to test whether or not human CO2 emissions were able to affect the atmosphere...
OT: slashdot doesn't appear to accept subscript tags. sad!
Climate change, however, IS a fact. Our poles ARE receding, and our AVERAGE temperatures are increasing. If you deny this I suggest a little more research.
Yes, the climate is always changing, is it not? That seems like a very reasonable asumption. There is certainly evidence of various cooling and warming in the geographic past, which kinda implies that it wasn't man making those climate changes.
Thank you, however, for your comments about the political outcry. In defense of the OP, "global warming" in non-scientific communities seems to typically apply to the idea of man-made global warming.... otherwise, Al Gore (great scientist that he is ;) hehe) wouldn't refer to his agenda as simply "global warming." The news uses "global warming" to refer to the man-made stuff, etc.
I'm glad there are at least a few scientists willing to be upset about the political agendas :)
so I'll give greater weight to my prejudices.
You say that as if scientists don't have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. I've never met a human that didn't.
It's a "big" question to ask why there are atheistic best sellers?
most adults do not really believe the tenets of any major religion anyway.
Of course not. The question is, do most adults believe some of the tenets?
There is the argument that "interfaith dialog" makes no sense if you really believe (as many major religions teach) that your own religion's tenets are settled beyond discussion.
Ah yes. The "you have to have an open mind" argument. I guess evolution, global warming, and government health care debates, on the other hand, really ARE settled beyond discussion. [/sarcasm]. Seriously though - I know many major religions are of the gnostic type... hvae to have higher knowledge, enlightened, etc. But what exactly does "beyond discussion" mean? Not doubting/convinced? It seems that not-being-in-doubt and being-convinced are feelings reserved for atheists, now. Only someone dogmatically believing in the non-existence of an entity are allowed to be sure of their belief. Which is odd, since most logicians will tell you that it is much harder to prove non-existence than it is to prove existence. I wonder why Landsburg didn't mention that? Seems like that is a "big question" - why are many logicians and scientists atheists, since they are so careful not to deny existence of other things that we don't even have evidence for; they simply understand that denying existence is a big logical step in that you have to disprove every possible existence first. When it comes to the supernatural/God though, they are quite willing to believe in a non-existence and not be open to discussion. Why does Landsburg only pick on those who are convinced, perhaps illogically, that God does exist?
Incidentally, you can be illogically convinced to believe an correct thing, and you can be logically convinced to believe an incorrect thing. Logic is an argument; what you logically deduce or induce from makes a big difference, as your premise may be wrong, thus your conclusion could be wrong as well.
virtually no one behaves as if they actually believe in everlasting damnation after death as punishment for sin.
Most people don't behave like there is death at all. Most people don't want to talk about death, don't want to hear about death, and don't even want to think about death. Many people "defy" death and live like they won't die. I guess that means death doesn't actually exist! Cool!
I'd wondered before about how many people really did believe in God, but in just a few pages this argument had me thinking that the number was a lot lower than I'd ever thought before.
So without seeing any numbers and going entirely on the basis of logical deductions from unproved and perhaps disputed premises, you are coming to new conclusions on what people actually believe - without asking them.
It's not all that strange logic though, whetehr you agree with it or not. Yes, at the outset it looks like a contradiction...
However; there is no legal way to download child porn (and I think it should continue to be illegal, if nothing else, to produce child porn). OK, so that means that if P2P is one of the major ways to download child porn, then P2P increases the ability (not sure about motivation) of pornographers. If there's a way to get it to the customer, that increases the ability....
The first statement; there is a legal way to produce and distribute media. Whether you like the way it works or not, there's a completely legal way to purchase music, movies, etc. I am not defending the *IAA and not defending the way publishers work, etc... but it remains a fact that there is a legal way to get access to those materials. It could logically follow, then, that having a "cheap" illegal way to get access to the same material could reduce income/ability/motiviation to produce new content.
Do either of those happen? I don't know. But you could, IMO, logically deduce both. They are not mutually exclusive.
You never left them.
It's amazing how deluded people can get about themselves. We think that human nature has changed and that society/culture/psychology/education/liberalism/conservatism/government/what-have-you has somehow fixed some basic fundamental problems in humanity. And then we're surprised at people when they manifest it (while excusing ourselves when we manifest it). Self-deception is amazing.
apparently not
After reading it, he has some good questions (if it's the link that Hatta posted below). Unfortunately, he is guilty of the same thing out-of-context-to-prove people are: he didn't bother researching his questions. For example, when Leviticus comments about not "touching" a woman during her menstrual period, it was not referring to any physical contact (say, a handshake) whatsoever, as I recall. "Touch" was a euphemism - as it is today, actually.
Interesting read, but nothing particularly new, honestly. I'm quite familiar with the debates about "OT vs. NT" and unfortunately, most people seem to think that when it comes to the Bible, if you want to take any part of it literally then you have to apply every part of it to everyone. Which is silly. Taking it "literally" means reading it for what it means. It doesn't mean that when God gave commands to a national government (Israel) that he meant those commands to be followed by America.
Not arguing that the OT is irrelevant and only the NT should be considered, as that would not be fair, either. I am arguing, however, that deciding what the Bible means/says shouldn't just be opening to a single verse in the middle of what is essentially a national constitution/covenant and applying it to the modern day... [/dead horse]
Incidentally, if Dr. Laura is trying to be an orthodox Jew, she is likely not going to particularly think the NT is all that relevant, as she has rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah... which puts her in a rather interesting position while interpreting the OT. Except that a lot of the first five books of the Bible - the Law, the "Tenach," etc - were given to the nation of Israel and a lot has to do with temple worship. Things have changed with national Israel in the last 3500 years though,including certain events around A.D. 70... but even before that, when the temples were destroyed, various captivities, etc. Israel, right now, cannot follow the OT Law if for no other reason than that there is an Islamic mosque on top of the temple mount. Which, again, puts Laura in an interesting position.
[/ramble]
Thanks for the link, off I go...
I should read the article.
Hopefully it does not simply say "the Bible is wrong about this, so why use it for that?" as - whether true or not - that misses the "out of context" point.
People that believe the Bible still very, very, very frequently take it out of context and simply use it as proof of their own ideas. "proof-texting." Finding texts to prove your idea instead of finding the idea the text is giving...
I wasn't referring to the Bible. I'm saying that that is something Egypt would not be likely to record in their ... "history stories." Curious why you would not object to Egyptian "history books" but do object to Jewish "history books." (I know, they didn't have "books.")
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves
I know you're joking... but I'm curious: are you a Jew living in the land of Canaan?
Who else would? I doubt Egypt would like to have "we let 2 million slaves walk across the Red Sea. Then we tried to go capture them again and our army got destroyed." in their history books...