|
On July 15 2008 06:30 BlackStar wrote:
The structure of the DNA molecule, and that DNA was actually DNA, was discovered in 1953. But that has nothing to do with genetics itself.
...and this has no bearing on the fact that genetics is a post-Darwinian concept. Mendel published his work after Darwin published his, and nobody even noticed until the 20th century, decades later.
There was a whole body of Darwinist work before anyone heard of genetics, and it was seen by many as a rather trivial detail.
I just mentioned the discovery of DNA to put the time scale in perspective.
|
I found an interesting video interview with Richard Dawkins. Maybe not so focused on religion. Apparently he is now working on a book that will contain proofs of evolution. I bet it will be a good read  The interviewer is a Computer Scientist and many of the questions are different from what he is usually asked in interviews today. The questions stretch from things like artificial intelligence to the effect the bacteria in our body's might have on our evolution. A 40 minute good watch:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2566,3QD-interviews-Richard-Dawkins,Three-Quarks-Daily
|
On July 14 2008 23:44 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 22:05 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 19:47 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 14:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 12:58 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 10:23 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion? You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is. To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world. i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion. ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards. it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama) there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet.. well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes? science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things. i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense. nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge. also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now) what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives. also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding. i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video. "what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing. and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making. I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly. maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet what?
its like saying would you be able to fly with cavemen technology, no
is it because technology is the wrong way to go about it?, no just that it hasnt evolved enough yet
|
On July 14 2008 20:13 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 15:46 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote:
In response to LuckyOne:
Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories. magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for wut? magic things don't exist.
out of all the universe? in the future? how do you know it doesnt exist , will not exist?
|
On July 15 2008 10:29 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 23:44 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 22:05 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 19:47 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 14:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 12:58 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 10:23 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:
[quote]
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?).
And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world. i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion. ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards. it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama) there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet.. well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes? science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things. i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense. nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge. also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now) what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives. also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding. i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video. "what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing. and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making. I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly. maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet what? its like saying would you be able to fly with cavemen technology, no is it because technology is the wrong way to go about it?, no just that it hasnt evolved enough yet
Did you just compare technology to astrology?
|
Yay for deeply nested quotes. Yowch.
Probably repeating what someone else said already, but science and religion are totally different and not necessarily mutually exclusive.
By different I don't mean that they do things differently. They're as different as rocks and Christmas.
Religion is a belief. Or a set of beliefs. That's it. There's simply nothing more to it. Some people try to shake this belief using "evidence" or "proof." They fail horribly because such things are irrelevant. There is nothing but the belief. As such, religion can never "fail."
Science is a process. More specifically, it's a process for creating belief. Since these beliefs are mutable and temporary, the preferred term is "hypothesis" or "theory." In principle, this process may fail to create a consistent, lasting belief, and can be said to fail. Some may argue that this has already happened. However, science has been hugely, unilaterally successful so far. If this data doesn't convince you, you're not a scientist. Catch-22, huh?
|
i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
|
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote:
i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
Ia ia Cthulhu F'htagn!
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 15 2008 10:32 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 20:13 MyLostTemple wrote:On July 14 2008 15:46 LuckyOne wrote:On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote:
In response to LuckyOne:
Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories. magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for wut? magic things don't exist. out of all the universe? in the future? how do you know it doesnt exist , will not exist?
do me and yourself a favor:
define the scientific method and then define what magic is. Otherwise i'm giving up on you.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
Whenever you get unbanned redmourn you might want to do a little bit of research on that clown who's giving the lecture in your video. he's been very VERY criticized by the scientific community for skewing Darwinism. He's also appeared in a multitude of creationist propaganda movies including an up and coming one called: Expelled. Dawkins, like other major evolutionary biologists are not interested in applying social Darwinism. Darwinism is a description not a prescription.
Also, Hitler did similar things to Fredrick Nietzsches Nihilism. He even had Nietzsche's sister rewrite some of his works so they held a more Nazish tone. Anyways i think the subject is rather hackneyed and disproven by now.
|
Nietzsche was certainly inspired by Darwin.
Without Darwin, there would have been no Nietzsche. Without Nietzsche, there would have been no Hitler. Without Hitler, no Nazis. Without Nazis, no Holocaust. And all for the want of a nail.
Perhaps without Ford and the Model T, Hitler would not have believed in the potential for mass-produced tanks.
A butterfly flapped its wings and Hiroshima blew up.
Why are people fighting to prevent any sort of connection between Darwin's teachings and Hitler's politics? It is hardly news that science and technology are dangerous, and the Nazis certainly applied both technology and scientific ideals toward inhumane ends in innumerable ways.
Is it somehow more troubling that science supplies ideological weapons than that it supplies physical weapons? Personally, I am more frightened of the latter sort.
|
On July 15 2008 15:46 geometryb wrote:
i actually think there probably is something more out there. but, it's beyond our ability to understand. Kind of like how ants dont have the capacity of knowing about more than the little tunnels they build.
ever seen those lizards that spit blood out of their eyes to scare predators?
i cant explain how they got there with evolution , anyone know?
|
Now that we have the physical capability to destroy a significant portion of ourselves, I'm more concerned with the ideological aspects. It didn't take much for America to OK two wars. I'm hoping we'll never find out how little it takes for America (or anyone else) to OK an ABC one.
|
I cannot comprehend this thread. Why do you guys insist so much? Why bother trying to give logical explanation to someone who openly admits not accepting reason as an argument?
Saying "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in science" or any of it's variants is precisely the same as saying "I cannot comprehend logic, therefore trying to convince me with logical arguments is futile". How do you argue with someone like this?
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
|
VIB, it's for people like you to enlighten us as to how futile it is to reason with religion.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 15 2008 17:13 Funchucks wrote:
Nietzsche was certainly inspired by Darwin.
Without Darwin, there would have been no Nietzsche. Without Nietzsche, there would have been no Hitler. Without Hitler, no Nazis. Without Nazis, no Holocaust. And all for the want of a nail.
Perhaps without Ford and the Model T, Hitler would not have believed in the potential for mass-produced tanks.
A butterfly flapped its wings and Hiroshima blew up.
Why are people fighting to prevent any sort of connection between Darwin's teachings and Hitler's politics? It is hardly news that science and technology are dangerous, and the Nazis certainly applied both technology and scientific ideals toward inhumane ends in innumerable ways.
Is it somehow more troubling that science supplies ideological weapons than that it supplies physical weapons? Personally, I am more frightened of the latter sort.
i think the point is that neither darwin nor neitzsche would have supported Hitlers ideas. both thinkers had their ideas manipulated for a nationalist hate mongering party. it's like associating karl marx with stallion.
all advancements in human thought and technology are at risk of being abused for negative purposes.
|
There also isn't much evidence for Hitler being inspired by Nietzsche.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 15 2008 17:53 BlackStar wrote:
There also isn't much evidence for Hitler being inspired by Nietzsche.
well there's some, hitler actually even visited Nietzsche's memorial with some of his nazi party members.
speaking of which, would anyone be interested in me compiling some Nietzsche documentaries? Maybe Christopher Hitchens debates?
|
Nietzional schezialismus?
|
On July 15 2008 17:26 VIB wrote:
I cannot comprehend this thread. Why do you guys insist so much? Why bother trying to give logical explanation to someone who openly admits not accepting reason as an argument?
Saying "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in science" or any of it's variants is precisely the same as saying "I cannot comprehend logic, therefore trying to convince me with logical arguments is futile". How do you argue with someone like this?
Until we find a cure for stupidity, all of you in this thread, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or whoever are all just wasting your time (well them at least are making money off it).
The real problem and real stupidity is not when one is religious (although one might argue that's the case too then :p ), but only when one believes that his religion is "the real truth" or "better than science". In that case, this person is a retard (maybe even a dangerous one. Fundamentalists and terrorists are always potentially dangerous).
Questioning certain scientific methods is OK, otherwise there would be no advancements, but you have to come up with a logical, scientific argument then. Religious people should never question science just because their religious fantasies tell a different story.
As long as this is the case, I believe that religion and science can coexist peacefully (lol, just had to think of that one Bush quote). But stupidity never dies, and so we have many fundamentalists today who are basically one of the biggest threats to modern society with their medieval thinking. If they manage to be somehow more convincing to the general public than scientists are (and they really got far in the US with their Intelligent Design crap), we're in for some bad time once again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
