Know Thyself/Intelligent Design ?

[ThinkForYourself]

I'm referring to the 'ignorance' implied by FatBurk, which in her mind is disagreement with what she believes, symbolized by the 'brick wall'.

Not trying to put words in FatBurk's mouth, but from what I've read of her posts, what she believes is backed up by facts and evidence. Your beliefs are based on faith.

There is no equivalence between belief based on facts and evidence and beliefs based on faith.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You claimed that the possibility of extra-terrestrial life is so rare as to be incalculable.

I claimed we lack knowledge to know how rare life is in the universe. In other words, you cannot make a claim as to the rarity of extra-terrestrial life.

I think we are disagreeing over terms. How about e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y (x10) rare.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I think we are disagreeing over terms. How about e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y (x10) rare.

No.

AFAIK, we lack the knowledge to make any claim as to the rarity of extra-terrestrial life. Perhaps it is quite common.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not trying to put words in FatBurk's mouth, but from what I've read of her posts, what she believes is backed up by facts and evidence. Your beliefs are based on faith.

There is no equivalence between belief based on facts and evidence and beliefs based on faith.

I'm in general agreement with that, unless of course the two happen to agree in some instances.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I'm in general agreement with that, unless of course the two happen to agree in some instances.

Then it is no longer belief based on faith.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then it is no longer belief based on faith.

Faith (moral judgment) can exist without science, but science cannot exist without faith (moral judgment).

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Faith (moral judgment) can exist without science, but science cannot exist without faith (moral judgment).

How so?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How so?

Much science is driven by moral imperatives (very unscientific).

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Much science is driven by moral imperatives (very unscientific).

OK, I'll bite.

I can't imagine how. Do tell?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK, I'll bite.

I can't imagine how. Do tell?

Searching for cures for diseases might involve a moral imperative. Faith (moral imperative) and works (science) go well together.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Searching for cures for diseases might involve a moral imperative. Faith (moral imperative) and works (science) go well together.

Sorry, I don't see any link between science and moral imperative.

Science's entire purpose to learn about the world around us. Some of it turns out well, such as cures for diseases, and some of it turns out poorly, such as modern weaponry.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, I don't see any link between science and moral imperative.

Science's entire purpose to learn about the world around us. Some of it turns out well, such as cures for diseases, and some of it turns out poorly, such as modern weaponry.

You might be right. Big Pharma has decided not to spend money developing new antibiotics that cure disease but cannot return a large profit. Science is first and foremost a business and the need for profit outweighs the need to cure disease.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

this ancient advice 'Know Thyself ' has been ignored and forgotten and it seems it is now widely mistakenly accepted that we breathe and think,but this is not so and we are,indeed,wonderfully and intelligently designed - really we only think we breathe and even think we think - twinc

Do you think your asinine statement is legitimate? Or that you don't have to provide evidence to support it if you just make some arm-wavy claim?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You might be right. Big Pharma has decided not to spend money developing new antibiotics that cure disease but cannot return a large profit. Science is first and foremost a business and the need for profit outweighs the need to cure disease.

Research certainly costs money.

If there was more money spent on research, and less on building monstrous war machines, it would certainly be a better world.

Can't blame science for how the money is spent.

 

[EternalDragon]

Not trying to put words in FatBurk's mouth, but from what I've read of her posts, what she believes is backed up by facts and evidence. Your beliefs are based on faith.

There is no equivalence between belief based on facts and evidence and beliefs based on faith.

I do not agree. For instance, scientists try to say we are related to chimps simply because some 95% of the DNA they tested matches. But when you examine it, that 5% is a huge amount of difference. (Too large to fit into the small amount of human evolution time). Plus the fact that the 95% represents only like 1% of the genetic makeup.

So the evidence is that since we have a similar body plan the DNA is similar. That's all the evidence shows. The idea that we are related to the chimp or that a man came from an ape is the non-fact, "take it on faith" part. Along with all the other evolution speculations. Those are not evidence or facts.

A Christians beliefs are based on faith and the exact same evidence. Similarities can also be evidence of a single intelligent designer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Research certainly costs money.

If there was more money spent on research, and less on building monstrous war machines, it would certainly be a better world.

Can't blame science for how the money is spent.

Without science there would be no monstrous war machines. Science is as involved in war as is government and big business.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Without science there would be no monstrous war machines. Science is as involved in war as is government and big business.

True, but without science we would still be firmly entrenched in the dark ages, with religion ruling all. And we would still have monstrous war machines, just not with the advanced weaponry.

Thank goodness for science!

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I do not agree. For instance, scientists try to say we are related to chimps simply because some 95% of the DNA they tested matches. But when you examine it, that 5% is a huge amount of difference. (Too large to fit into the small amount of human evolution time). Plus the fact that the 95% represents only like 1% of the genetic makeup.

So the evidence is that since we have a similar body plan the DNA is similar. That's all the evidence shows. The idea that we are related to the chimp or that a man came from an ape is the non-fact, "take it on faith" part. Along with all the other evolution speculations. Those are not evidence or facts.

A Christians beliefs are based on faith and the exact same evidence. Similarities can also be evidence of a single intelligent designer.

You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

There are thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence to support the ToE. Of course you can find an individual piece of evidence, and say that one alone doesn't prove anything. Its when you put them all together that the evidence becomes overwhelming. That's why scientists put so much stock in the ToE.

I'm sure if you take the time to google evolution, and study it, you will realize your mistake. I hope (pray) you do.

 

[FatBurk]

The problem creationism has with evolution is simple, if it's wrong what can replace it? prayer? Bible verses? a good sermon?
If creationists want to sit in the dark and lose weight they should move to a science free compound, will they?
a million to one says they won't.

 

[lasthero]

So the evidence is that since we have a similar body plan the DNA is similar.

A little more to it than that.

There's the fossil record, which shows a gradual transition over time.

There are atavisms and signs of vestigiality with primates, such as occurances of humans with semi-functional tails, the grasp reflex that certain infants are born with (chimp babies have this in order to grasp onto their mothers fur...human babies do tis, despite the fact human mothers have nothing for a baby to grasp onto, and it disappears after a few weeks), and the presence of things like goosebumps. These and other examples are predictions of evolution and lend support to it.

There are ERVs, which crossconfirm phylogeny and shows that we share about a dozen ERVs with chimps. The odds of a single ERV randomly popping into the same place between two unrelated organisms is about 1 in 3 billion. We 'just so happen' to share about a dozen of them. Process that.

There's the fused on chromosome 2, which was predicted as a result of evolution. All the other great apes possess 24 pairs of chromosomes...humans only have 23. If evolution is correct, the common ancestor to great apes would have to have 23 pairs or 24 pairs. If the former is correct, then the ancestors to the great ape must have had one of their chromosomes divide into two pairs. If the latter is true, then the ancestors unique to humans should have a fused chromosome - two that became one. And guess what we found? A fused chromosome. Exactly what we expected to find. Were scientists just lucky? Did they just make a really good guess? I mean, really, what are the odds that the exact thing they expected to find would be there, staring them in the face?

But yeah - aside from all that stuff - and other things I'm leaving out - it's just similarities.