Fairytale?

[Blayz]

How does without reasonable doubt differ from absolutely true?/quote]


In a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is > 92% (12/12/ jurors)

Since there are no absolutes in any of the empirical sciences, its all degrees of confidence.

 

[Psudopod]

How does without reasonable doubt differ from absolutely true?

It's about falsification (I hope that's a word )Something without reasonable doubt is something that can still be potentially falsified, but has a large body of evidence to back it up. Something which is absolutely true is something that was falsified, but all the potential falsifications have been shown to be untrue. Of couse, it's very unlikely that we'll ever do this, so most things are described as beyond reasonable doubt, certainly in a science sense.

Something from nothing, common sense.

What about vacuum particles. As I understand it, those are effectivly something from nothing. And what in the theory of evolutution describes something coming from nothing anyway?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I knew within myself that God existed before ever I read this.

So you knew about God before being told about God?

You knew that there was a being who was that being than which none greater can be conceived, had "necessary existence", who chose a small group of individuals on the eastern side of the Mediterannean Sea as his "Chosen People", and who, after several thousand years of sin by all people (chosen and non-chosen) decided that he must come back to that same place and arrange to appear as a human who was simultaneously all-God and all-human and arrange to have himself sacrificed to himself to atone mankind to himself thereby eliminating the need for many of the Laws he had previously established and which he, himself in the form of the all-human version of himself, said would never pass away until the end of the earth, and then this same God-man resurrected 3 days later to ascend into heaven to sit at the right hand of himself to later judge the quick and the dead, forever and ever, amen....without ever being told about this?

I am duly impressed. When did you experience this flash of insight? I'm guessing it was before you were able to speak or read since once children can speak and even before they can read, they are usually exposed to religion, and here in the West they are usually exposed to a variant of Christianity.

Please, elaborate!

 

[Aron-Ra]

Give me an example of one thing that is impossible, and explain the criteria required to determine that.

Something from nothing, common sense.

I asked you to explain your criteria for how you would determine whether you believe something to be impossible. You gave no criteria, and instead cited only "common sense". Yet your example of something impossible is something you believe actually happened! Worse, you believe even incantations can cause something to come from nothing! Obviously that's impossible too, right? But if its impossible, then how could you believe it happened? And how could such an illogical contradiction count as common sense? Are you suggesting that we decide that something is impossible based on your belief that it happened, since (as I said) you believe in impossible things?

Of course common sense allowed me to predict the example you would give. You think science believes this too, but without the excuse that magic allows them to break the laws of physics. Since nothing supernatural can be demonstrated or tested for, then its just a made up excuse which can't be used in science. But quantum physics can be tested and demonstrated to allow science a way around the laws of standard physics.

You may also be surprised to learn that big bang cosmologists do not believe in "something from nothing". They don't yet know exactly what to believe, but their best idea to date is that all matter in the universe, and the universe itself, all space and time erupted into this plane possibly from a pan-dimensional rift. All atoms are made of a few subatomic particles and a whole lot of empty space. Take away the empty space, and you've got a helluva compression in matter. Hubble's discovery of the red shift indicates that everything in the universe -on the galactic scale- is flying away from everything else at very high speeds, which of course means that if we hit STOP and REWIND, we would see all the galaxies flying toward each other at very high speeds. Seen in reverse, everything seems to be zooming into one central point, a "singularity". The discovery of cosmic background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the first substantial evidence of the big bang, and it won them the Nobel prize in 1976. Just last year, another Nobel was awarded to members of their team for further discoveries refining our understanding of evidence of the big bang. (BBC News).

String theorists cite a "mathematic eloquence" to suggest a series of dimensions, which they propose could imply an extra-planerial source for all matter in the universe. That remains to be seen, but the fact remains that science does not believe in "something from nothing". Creationists do, even though they know it is impossible.

I'll allow you to rethink your criteria and give a better explanation for how to determine whether something is impossible or merely improbable. I gave you my criteria for that, and you rejected it without any explanation. Perhaps you should think about that too.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, you're talking about demes, which are culturally defined regardless of physical trends. The reason is that there is no trait that every member of one deme has that is shared with every single member of that deme, and is not shared by any member of any other deme. You would need that for your defintion of "race" to apply. Otherwise, the word "race" can distinguish Picts from Celts and Navajos from Apache, Hatfields and McCoys, etc.

In some isolated communities, the locals can indeed pick out the Hatfield chin, the McCoy ears, the Smythe eyebrows, etc. It's true that not every McCoy will have those oddball ears and there may be some illicit mixing of Hatfield & McCoys.

I thought paternal lineage could be traced to specific continents. That whiile not all with ancestors from the Middle East would have a specific marker, all who did have the marker had ancestors from there. Are genetic anthropology and DNA migratory patterns totally bogus?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/faq.html

 

[Aron-Ra]

In some isolated communities, the locals can indeed pick out the Hatfield chin, the McCoy ears, the Smythe eyebrows, etc. It's true that not every McCoy will have those oddball ears and there may be some illicit mixing of Hatfield & McCoys.

I thought paternal lineage could be traced to specific continents. That whiile not all with ancestors from the Middle East would have a specific marker, all who did have the marker had ancestors from there. Are genetic anthropology and DNA migratory patterns totally bogus?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/faq.html

IIRC, the claim was that race was something as distinct as a subspecies grouping; harkening back to the old notion of Caucazoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid races. But no such harsh division actually exists. The word 'race' has returned to its original meaning, which is that of a cladistic lineage, although admittedly even that collapses once Jeb Hatfield and Lurlene McCoy give birth lil Brittany n' Junior. And it would get even worse when they turn 13 and marry each other, giving birth to siamese triplets Billy-Jo-Bob.

 

[FoeHammer]

In a court of law beyond reasonable doubt is > 92% (12/12/ jurors)

Since there are no absolutes in any of the empirical sciences, its all degrees of confidence.

Confidence = trust = faith, as I have been saying all along.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

So you knew about God before being told about God?

Yep.

*****
I am duly impressed. When did you experience this flash of insight? I'm guessing it was before you were able to speak or read since once children can speak and even before they can read, they are usually exposed to religion, and here in the West they are usually exposed to a variant of Christianity.

Please, elaborate!

As I said, it's in the BIOS.

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Confidence = trust = faith, as I have been saying all along.

And as I have repeatedly prooved, you've been wrong all along.

According to every difinitive or authorative source,

Stoic (confidence, belief, or trust) without evidence = faith.

Trust only equals trust.

 

[TheOutsider]

Yep.As I said, it's in the BIOS.

FoeHammer.

This seems a little unlikely. Why don't we hear of people from places like Africa or the Amazon who are separated from the rest of society spontaneously becoming Christians without outside influence? That would a lot like your something from nothing idea.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yep.As I said, it's in the BIOS.

FoeHammer.

Wow. Did you really just tell me that you knew all about God and Jesus and the various subtleties of Christian theology before being told about it? While still a pre-verbal infant???

That is the most amazing claim I've seen on this board.

Bar none!

I would have to say this is about as close to a miracle as I've read.

I would ask for proof, but I don't even know where to begin to think what proof of this claim would look like.

So you, before you could speak or read, knew about the Jews? You knew about Grace vs Works? You knew that Jesus was a descendant of a Bronze age king named David who was chosen by God to be the righteous branch of Jesse?

Wow. FoeHammer. I mean WOW.

Jaw-droppingly WOW.

So, being as you are, a miracle person, have you had any luck in converting the majority of people on the earth to your insight and knowledge?

I am stunned.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This seems a little unlikely. Why don't we hear of people from places like Africa or the Amazon who are separated from the rest of society spontaneously becoming Christians without outside influence? That would a lot like your something from nothing idea.

Outsider, FoeHammer has made an amazing claim here. I would like to think that he is not the ONLY PERSON to have realized truth even before he could speak or read or be introduced to it, and certainly, a story of spontaneous conversion, or really more accurate still:

spontaneous development of Christianity (complete with all details) but done completely independently of any prior Christian exposure would be a fantastic start.

If it is "written in the BIOS" as FH likes to say, then surely it can arise in a vacuum of religious thought. Complete with all the little subtleties that make Christianity Christianity (ie grace v works, Chosen People from a small semitic tribe, homoisiousness as a prerequisite for the human-god hybrid to the self-same god, etc.), all without any prior exposure to any religion, let alone Christianity.

It would be amazing to see.

 

[Split Rock]

How does without reasonable doubt differ from absolutely true?

The term "reasonable doubt" is subjective, but I will use the definition applied in legal circles, as: "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."

It is and this is yet another example. You throw in natural selection as an answer all.
How did it happen? Naturalselectiondidit.

There are other mechanisms of evolution, but Natural Selection has been shown by experimentation to be the most important driving force in large-scale evolutionary change. We do not have specific answers to every "how did such and such occur" but we are leaning more every year.

Why would you think that?

Because humans are all fallible, despite what you may think about your own capabilities.

It's plain enough.

If it was "plain enough" I would have understood you.

As ever you believe what suits you.

Thanks!

Consensus - majority of opinion.
Tip: Rethink.

It is the majority professional opinion. Professional opinion is not the same as just anyone's opinion. It is even recognized as different in our legal system.

Yippee! An agreement.

LOL! We don't seem to agree on very much... do we?

Yes. At what level?

At any level.

Subjective opinion noted.

Thanks again!

Would you please explain what you mean by that?

"It's plain enough"

Then it is you who is confused.

"Subjective opinion noted"

 

[Aron-Ra]

you were wrong and unfair in your description of me.

Prove it. Because I'm betting that you'll be a typical creationist, meaning that you'll repeatedly ignore critical points, you'll refuse to answer direct questions, you'll continue to embrace foundational falsehoods and maintain logical fallacies even after they've been disproved, and you will move the goal posts whenever or however you can in order to avoid being held accountable on any point. Because one thing that has always been consistently true is that no one can defend creationism otherwise. Once one begins to systematically explore this contraversy in-depth, one has to choose whether to remain honest or whether to remain creationist; because it will no longer be possible to be both.

I guess Inan3 has made her choice.

 

[Inan3]

[/COLOR]How you ever got that out of what I said is a mystery to me. I suppose that is the same way that the rhetoric of evolution comes about also. You evolutionists are great story tellers now aren't you!

Everyone else[/COLOR] reading this thread should notice that there was no story there. Never the less, it is "tell tale" that you were unable to produce a single credible proponant of evangelical creationism, nor a single verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism. Why is that?

I don't know why other Creationists end your debates but I know, in that particular discussion, you had just accused me of a bunch of things and quite frankly, I didn't want to keep going around with you on it. You are obviously a very smart man but not so smart that you know everything about everybody. The fact still remains that you the odds are that you are wrong a whole lot more than you think you are. And you were wrong and unfair in your description of me.

Prove it. (put up your dukes) Because I'm betting that you'll be a typical creationist, meaning that you'll repeatedly ignore critical points, you'll refuse to answer direct questions, you'll continue to embrace foundational falsehoods and maintain logical fallacies even after they've been disproved, and you will move the goal posts whenever or however you can in order to avoid being held accountable on any point. Because one thing that has always been consistently true is that no one can defend creationism otherwise. Once one begins to systematically explore this contraversy in-depth, one has to choose whether to remain honest or whether to remain creationist; because it will no longer be possible to be both.

I guess Inan3 has made her choice.

Firstly, I thought I had already made it clear what my choice was, in that, I did not want to keep going around and around with you on it. It seemed to me that you, either didn't get what I was saying, or you didn't care, because you kept the punches coming.

Secondly, At this point, it seems to me, that in your mind, you have already made my choice for me. Why should I go any further? "A man convinced against his will if of the same opinion still."

I'm sure that we could both learn "something" from the other but when the communication can only be one sided then it is breached. Mutual respect for each other as human beings is a starting point and should be maintained. I do not ask for respect as a scientist because I do not claim to be one and I am not ignorant of the fact that your knowledge in this area is far greater than mine. So, I'm not interested in "duking" it out with you. You out weigh me in scientific knowledge. You are a heavyweight and I am a light weight, so we are obviously, mismatched for the ring.

Yet, if I suggest an opinion that is wrong or contrary to yours, I have every right to do that. Quite frankly though, I have no desire to even do that, so you can get "off" by pummeling me to impress "everyone else reading this thread" . I think that is wisdom on my part and I do make a choice not to partake. If on the other hand you make a choice to play with a "handicap" by being nice to this "lowly theist" and taking off the gloves, my choice could indeed be changed. It is now in your corner to decide.

NOTE: Before you or anyone else, misunderstands the meaning of my last sentence above, please know, I was referring to my choice of continued communication being changed and not my choice of belief that God is real and Creator of all that is seen and known. That will not change! He is my life and my identity!


Pink color added is my posting

 

[Lilandra]

I'm sure that we could both learn "something" from the other but when the communication can only be one sided then it is breached. Mutual respect for each other as human beings is a starting point and should be maintained. I do not ask for respect as a scientist because I do not claim to be one and I am not ignorant of the fact that your knowledge in this area is far greater than mine. So, I'm not interested in "duking" it out with you. You out weigh me in scientific knowledge. You are a heavyweight and I am a light weight, so we are obviously, mismatched for the ring.

Or perhaps rather than attempting to duke it out, you could learn a little bit more about evolution, before attempting to opine or draw a conclusion that it is invalid. Especially since you admit that your scientific knowledge is not that great.

Most of the posters would be happy to answer any questions that you have in a noncombative manner. However once you start accusing people of "blindly" accepting evolution the gloves come off.

I teach science to 12 year olds. A lot of the knowledge necessary to at least understand evolution is basic enough for them to be expected to understand. For example, your assertion that people blindly accept evolution demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Scientific Method. Conclusions are arrived at after experimentation and observation and are communicated to other scientists for more testing. Science is the opposite of gullibility, science is skeptical by necessity.

One last point the amount of aversion you seem to have to evolution seems to indicate that you are the victim of prolonged indoctrination. My students don't show near the same aversion to being shown things like humans and non human apes have about the same number of hair follicles or that we didn't evolve from monkeys, but monkey species are related to each other through a common ancestor.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Firstly, I thought I had already made it clear what my choice was, in that, I did not want to keep going around and around with you on it. It seemed to me that you, either didn't get what I was saying, or you didn't care, because you kept the punches coming.

I'm definitely tired of "going round and round" myself. But that's all you're doing on this board at present, and that's precisely why I made the challenge that I did, so we could stop that, and let me make my case so that you'll finally understand it. That's a necessarily participatory process because I can tell you anything and you'll just dismiss it literally without a thought. So the trick is to get you to think about this in a way you never would have otherwise. I need some promise of accountability from you to do that.

Secondly, At this point, it seems to me, that in your mind, you have already made my choice for me. Why should I go any further? "A man convinced against his will if of the same opinion still."

This is not a contest of will. It is a matter of what is demonstrably true, and what we can prove to be false.

I'm sure that we could both learn "something" from the other but when the communication can only be one sided then it is breached.

Can you prove creationism to me? Do you have any compelling facts about that to show me? One credible proponant of your position with just one verifibaly accurate argument? Because I do have all that in spades, and I can prove my position to your satisifaction. There is no kind of equality between us. So this conversation will be inevitably one-sided. Just because you have nothing to teach me doesn't mean that you can't learn something from me.

Mutual respect for each other as human beings is a starting point and should be maintained. I do not ask for respect as a scientist because I do not claim to be one and I am not ignorant of the fact that your knowledge in this area is far greater than mine. So, I'm not interested in "duking" it out with you. You out weigh me in scientific knowledge. You are a heavyweight and I am a light weight, so we are obviously, mismatched for the ring.

I wonder if Lilandra's job as a teacher is comprimised by the fact that her students can't teach her? I wonder if her students think they're "duking it out" with her just because she's trying to teach them something? According to you, the very fact that they don't know as much as she implies that they should not learn anything from her.

Yet, if I suggest an opinion that is wrong or contrary to yours, I have every right to do that. Quite frankly though, I have no desire to even do that, so you can get "off" by pummeling me to impress "everyone else reading this thread" . I think that is wisdom on my part and I do make a choice not to partake. If on the other hand you make a choice to play with a "handicap" by being nice to this "lowly theist" and taking off the gloves, my choice could indeed be changed. It is now in your corner to decide.

I stand by the decision I already expressed to you; to explain aspects of evolution to you such that you won't continue to make embarrassingly ignorant, obviously false, and logically absurd statements about it. As I said, creationism depends on a series of foundational falsehoods, and not on one thing that is verifiably accurate or correct. If I were in your situation, I wouldn't hesitate to take that challenge. If you're wrong, wouldn't you want to know it? Would you rather continue to be wrong? Or would you rather correct errors in your perception so your perspective improve?

NOTE: Before you or anyone else, misunderstands the meaning of my last sentence above, please know, I was referring to my choice of continued communication being changed and not my choice of belief that God is real and Creator of all that is seen and known. That will not change! He is my life and my identity!

Who cares? Your choice of which magic invisible friends you want to imagine will not be relevant to this discussion. Because, as I told you before, I do not intend to challenge your belief in God. At most, I would only challenge your belief in the scriptures men wrote while pretending to speak for him.

 

[Inan3]

Or perhaps rather than attempting to duke it out, you could learn a little bit more about evolution, before attempting to opine or draw a conclusion that it is invalid. Especially since you admit that your scientific knowledge is not that great.

MY point was that I don't want to duke it out. So once again, you guys got it all backwards. Hopefully you get your "facts" better when teaching your students.

I teach science to 12 year olds.


One last point the amount of aversion you seem to have to evolution seems to indicate that you are the victim of prolonged indoctrination. My students don't show near the same aversion to being shown things like humans and non human apes have about the same number of hair follicles or that we didn't evolve from monkeys, but monkey species are related to each other through a common ancestor.

Being a teacher does not necessarily make you an expert on life. Firstly, your students are 12 years old! Has it not occured to you that they don't have the place of showing aversion to their teacher? Imagine how they would be treated if they did. Now is the time for their "so called" indoctrination and you are a great part of it but of course, this indoctrination is acceptable to you.

Another thing you don't know about is "my" life. I was not a "victim" of prolonged indoctrination but it seems you have been if you believe that. I made a choice as an adult, when I was presented with Christianity. Prior to that I had no idea of what Christianity was really all about. It was amazing what I had to "un" learn. Today 36 years later the only indoctrination I have had is from my "own" doing. If one were truly able to make honest and correct assessments of anothers state of understanding, then they would see that I am a very skeptical individual who is NOT easily indoctrinated by anybody!

One last point, my aversion to evolution includes the way it is presented or NOT. I am sure there are those on this forum that can present it without arrogance, judgement or insult. If not I am very capable of finding it out on my own.

 

[Inan3]

I'm definitely tired of "going round and round" myself. But that's all you're doing on this board at present, and that's precisely why I made the challenge that I did, so we could stop that, and let me make my case so that you'll finally understand it. That's a necessarily participatory process because I can tell you anything and you'll just dismiss it literally without a thought. So the trick is to get you to think about this in a way you never would have otherwise. I need some promise of accountability from you to do that.
This is not a contest of will. It is a matter of what is demonstrably true, and what we can prove to be false.
Can you prove creationism to me? Do you have any compelling facts about that to show me? One credible proponant of your position with just one verifibaly accurate argument? Because I do have all that in spades, and I can prove my position to your satisifaction. There is no kind of equality between us. So this conversation will be inevitably one-sided. Just because you have nothing to teach me doesn't mean that you can't learn something from me.
I wonder if Lilandra's job as a teacher is comprimised by the fact that her students can't teach her? I wonder if her students think they're "duking it out" with her just because she's trying to teach them something? According to you, the very fact that they don't know as much as she implies that they should not learn anything from her.
I stand by the decision I already expressed to you; to explain aspects of evolution to you such that you won't continue to make embarrassingly ignorant, obviously false, and logically absurd statements about it. As I said, creationism depends on a series of foundational falsehoods, and not on one thing that is verifiably accurate or correct. If I were in your situation, I wouldn't hesitate to take that challenge. If you're wrong, wouldn't you want to know it? Would you rather continue to be wrong? Or would you rather correct errors in your perception so your perspective improve?
Who cares? Your choice of which magic invisible friends you want to imagine will not be relevant to this discussion. Because, as I told you before, I do not intend to challenge your belief in God. At most, I would only challenge your belief in the scriptures men wrote while pretending to speak for him.

I choose....No, not interested!

 

[Lilandra]

MY point was that I don't want to duke it out. So once again, you guys got it all backwards. Hopefully you get your "facts" better when teaching your students.

My point was you do not have to duke it out. You can simply discuss it.

Being a teacher does not necessarily make you an expert on life.

Where have I claimed I am an expert on anything much less all of life?

Firstly, your students are 12 years old! Has it not occured to you that they don't have the place of showing aversion to their teacher? Imagine how they would be treated if they did.

Has it occured to you that you don't have the place of concluding anything about evolution to the people here without knowledge of what you speak?

As to the other comment of imagining how any student of mine would be treated for questioning me, I will chalk that up to you speaking without having a clue what you are talking about, yet again.

Now is the time for their "so called" indoctrination and you are a great part of it but of course, this indoctrination is acceptable to you.

Again you don't have a clue what you talking about. I always tell my students that the nature of science is that they can question any scientific conclusion. They can research it themselves, perform some of the same experiments. They don't have to accept anything I say without questioning it. Any conclusion in science is tentative and can be changed with new information.

The nature of ignorance is the opposite. An ignorant person rejects any information that does not support their favored conclusion without consideration.

So no, I am not indoctrinating anyone, I am helping them to learn to question authority before they accept anything.

Another thing you don't know about is "my" life. I was not a "victim" of prolonged indoctrination but it seems you have been if you believe that. I made a choice as an adult, when I was presented with Christianity. Prior to that I had no idea of what Christianity was really all about. It was amazing what I had to "un" learn. Today 36 years later the only indoctrination I have had is from my "own" doing. If one were truly able to make honest and correct assessments of anothers state of understanding, then they would see that I am a very skeptical individual who is NOT easily indoctrinated by anybody!

You haven't demonstrated that here. 36 years is indeed a long period of indoctrination, including what you have done to yourself.

One last point, my aversion to evolution includes the way it is presented or NOT. I am sure there are those on this forum that can present it without arrogance, judgement or insult. If not I am very capable of finding it out on my own.

Then it would be reasonable for you to at least learn more about it from them before drawing a conclusion.