UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-08-2012, 07:33 PM   #51
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
"According to the big bang theory, what happened in the beginning of the universe?"
What.

The Big Bang Theory took like 60 years to make. It started out with Einstein and ended with Hawking. I am not about to go into all the details, but it's honestly not something that anyone is about to make the case for. If you don't believe it, you clearly don't know what it is except as something that someone told you was a direct attack on religion.

((And what's more, it is the theory the Pope believes, ipso facto it is truth.))
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 07:38 PM   #52
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Papal infallibility is something of an oxymoron though. [/heretic] Plenty of past popes have been wrong before. If we find out in 2152 a new theory which better explains the origins of our universe and the then Pope accepts those views, what will it mean for what the Pope of today claimed was truth?

Also, seeing as he's Mormon, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care much for what the Pope says. What with the whole, y'know, Catholic stance regarding the Church of Latter-Day Saints.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 07:39 PM   #53
Blastoise
We deny our creators.
 
Blastoise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reduces construction time
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
((And what's more, it is the theory the Pope believes, ipso facto it is truth.))
He's Mormon, the papacy is either a cute remnant of the time before the Protestant reformation or an insidious cancer spreading through Christendom depending on who you ask.
__________________
"It does not matter anymore. We cannot change the past. The future will have to do."
-Windham Khatib
Blastoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 08:54 PM   #54
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This is a statement of observational fact. It can be recorded, and there is no partiality. It does not attempt to explain why the reaction occurs, only that such a reaction is observable when an action is taken.
S'cuse me, it's funny because this isn't a fact and doesn't always happen. I find it funny that you mention this as a fact when you could easily mention something much simpler...such as...dare I say it, evolution occuring on this planet?

__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 02:59 AM   #55
Sneaze
Mrow?
 
Sneaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,934
>"This grass at this moment is green" is a statement of observational fact. It can be recorded, it can be observed, there is no partiality in the statement, and, as the statement distinctly specifies "this moment," it will always be the case, that this grass was green at the moment in time specified.

Actually grass is typically purple and simply appears green due to the ozone layer causing light to reflect off of it at an odd angle. In fact, most things are not actually the color they appear to be to the human eye, similarly to how the sky appears blue even though it is actually colorless but the refraction of light through the water in the air makes it appear blue.l
__________________

Daisy wins at life for making this Battle Cut
Sneaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 03:11 AM   #56
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
>"This grass at this moment is green" is a statement of observational fact. It can be recorded, it can be observed, there is no partiality in the statement, and, as the statement distinctly specifies "this moment," it will always be the case, that this grass was green at the moment in time specified.

Actually grass is typically purple and simply appears green due to the ozone layer causing light to reflect off of it at an odd angle. In fact, most things are not actually the color they appear to be to the human eye, similarly to how the sky appears blue even though it is actually colorless but the refraction of light through the water in the air makes it appear blue.l
I'd typically say that this is Sneeze being sarcastic...but I think this is true. To an extent. :/

Here is my definition of science:

Science is the way that people understand and comprehend the world around them. While a large part of science is making observations and recording data, it also consists of trying to understand the world around us by asking questions, making and conducting experiments, and concluding on the data. Simple empirical data does not explain the world. It is the conclusions based on that data that do.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 01:03 PM   #57
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
>You told me to define science as I believe in it. And now you disagree with my definition simply because it's different from yours?

That's not the point.

It is impossible for us to have a debate on a topic when we cannot reconcile our definitions. And since I think that most of us will not agree with you on your definition of science, there is no way for us to have a debate with you concerning science. Unless you care to humor us on our definition of science, there's no point in even addressing any of your posts since we're just going to talk in circles about two different things.

In this case, I'm not looking to prove you wrong (even if I think you are) but only want to show that it is pretty much moot to try to have any kind of discussion with you concerning the topic of the sciences. When we can all agree on a definition, we can have a debate, but until then, we're not going to ever reach any sort of conclusion.
Well then, I suppose we need to reconcile our definitions.

What do you define as science?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastoise View Post
He's Mormon, the papacy is either a cute remnant of the time before the Protestant reformation or an insidious cancer spreading through Christendom depending on who you ask.
I like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
>"This grass at this moment is green" is a statement of observational fact. It can be recorded, it can be observed, there is no partiality in the statement, and, as the statement distinctly specifies "this moment," it will always be the case, that this grass was green at the moment in time specified.

Actually grass is typically purple and simply appears green due to the ozone layer causing light to reflect off of it at an odd angle. In fact, most things are not actually the color they appear to be to the human eye, similarly to how the sky appears blue even though it is actually colorless but the refraction of light through the water in the air makes it appear blue.l
I guess this depends on our definition of the words "green," "purple," and "is," than.

I suppose I didn't do a good enough job making the statement completely impartial. Perhaps a better phrasing would be, "That which I consider to be grass, at this moment in time, appears to my eyes to be the color I identify as green."

Good enough for ya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Here is my definition of science:

Science is the way that people understand and comprehend the world around them. While a large part of science is making observations and recording data, it also consists of trying to understand the world around us by asking questions, making and conducting experiments, and concluding on the data. Simple empirical data does not explain the world. It is the conclusions based on that data that do.
I disagree with concluding anything in science outside of putting together the observations, because at this point, it no longer becomes fact, but is subject to speculation, and consolidation into a world view, which then acquires the qualities that define a religion.

The qualities that define a religion are:
Narrative
Experiential
Social
Doctrinal
Ethical
Ritual
Material

And when science acquires these qualities, it no longer remains science, and must be viewed through a religious perspective.

In my view, science is about "how things work," or the mechanics behind their cause. Religion is about "why things work," or the purpose for things working. And Philosophy is about, "the logic of things working," or the reasoning behind things working the way they do. They are mutually exclusive, but necessarily must be interconnected and used in tandem to find all truth.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-09-2012 at 01:11 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 03:50 PM   #58
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
> What do you define as science?

Science is the process through which we acquire knowledge about the workings of our world through observation and experimentation. We use the scientific method in order to acquire that knowledge. This entails creating experiments which can be repeated under the same conditions and shown to produce identical results (or at least results that hover around an average, since you're probably never going to have an experiment occur identically every single time). In order to do this, we must first form a hypothesis, which is essentially what we expect to happen (i.e. what we expect our conclusion to be). From this, we can test and see whether or not our hypothesis was correct.

Before I go any further with this, I'd like a little bit of clarification on your views.

>I disagree with concluding anything in science outside of putting together the observations, because at this point, it no longer becomes fact, but is subject to speculation, and consolidation into a world view, which then acquires the qualities that define a religion.

Could I get a non-controversial example of where this would be the case?
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 04:58 PM   #59
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I disagree with concluding anything in science outside of putting together the observations, because at this point, it no longer becomes fact, but is subject to speculation, and consolidation into a world view, which then acquires the qualities that define a religion.

The qualities that define a religion are:
Narrative
Experiential
Social
Doctrinal
Ethical
Ritual
Material

And when science acquires these qualities, it no longer remains science, and must be viewed through a religious perspective.

In my view, science is about "how things work," or the mechanics behind their cause. Religion is about "why things work," or the purpose for things working. And Philosophy is about, "the logic of things working," or the reasoning behind things working the way they do. They are mutually exclusive, but necessarily must be interconnected and used in tandem to find all truth.
Therefore, psychology is religion - it attempts to describe and explain behavior and mental processes. If you want to continue the analogy and particularly like Freud (which I personally don't), you could argue that he is the central deity of the religion along with several other notable psychologists forming a pantheon of Psychologology.

All hail the Great Psychologology WOLOLO

((give it up unownmew "what is science?" is not an argument you can win))
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 07:32 PM   #60
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
> What do you define as science?

Science is the process through which we acquire knowledge about the workings of our world through observation and experimentation. We use the scientific method in order to acquire that knowledge. This entails creating experiments which can be repeated under the same conditions and shown to produce identical results (or at least results that hover around an average, since you're probably never going to have an experiment occur identically every single time). In order to do this, we must first form a hypothesis, which is essentially what we expect to happen (i.e. what we expect our conclusion to be). From this, we can test and see whether or not our hypothesis was correct.

I could go with this definition. Except, I disagree with the need for a hypothesis, because that opens the door for bias in the interpretation of the data-set acquired, and the establishment of science based upon the hypothesis rather than the effects, which then builds upon itself in circles of incorrect assumptions that aren't found to be incorrect until the next pioneering scientist seeks to disprove it.

For example, a scientist desires to prove their hypothesis so, they intentionally, or unintentionally design their experiment in such a way that it produces the result they are looking for, but doesn't cover certain areas which would definitely make their conclusion incorrect.

If instead we simply observed certain effects and then state the observations, the knowledge is still obtained, but the probability of bias is severely lessened.


Quote:
Before I go any further with this, I'd like a little bit of clarification on your views.

>I disagree with concluding anything in science outside of putting together the observations, because at this point, it no longer becomes fact, but is subject to speculation, and consolidation into a world view, which then acquires the qualities that define a religion.

Could I get a non-controversial example of where this would be the case?
Non-controversial? I suppose by this you mean not to mention anything about the Big Bang, Global Warming, or Evolution, and the like? That's a bit hard since, science taking the form of religion is inherently controversial, and pretty much all the cases where it's occurred are already hot-spots causing much controversy.


I suppose, as a partial example, I could bring up the Geocentric model of the universe. Of course it was taught under a religion to begin with, rather than forming out of a secular science into a religious science, but that's still kind of the point. It was taught religiously as an immutable science under the association that had monopolizing power over science at the time (Conspiracy at it's best).

If you want better than that, I'm afraid it'll take a while to concoct and describe a currently nonexistent example of the principle, or otherwise heavily research into something already occurring that meets your requirement of "not controversial." Your choice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
((give it up unownmew "what is science?" is not an argument you can win))
I wasn't arguing what it is. I was merely stating what I consider it to be. I can't lose anything by that.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-09-2012 at 07:47 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 07:51 PM   #61
Treepandaone
Original Gangsters
 
Treepandaone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I can't lose anything by that.
Respect and dignity.
Treepandaone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 12:15 AM   #62
Sneaze
Mrow?
 
Sneaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,934
>I'd typically say that this is Sneeze being sarcastic...but I think this is true. To an extent. :/

Why does everyone think that I am made of pure sarcasm?
__________________

Daisy wins at life for making this Battle Cut
Sneaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 06:03 PM   #63
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I hate biased sources but it was the one I was linked to. It has a few pages from the textbook in question so you can extrapolate yourself.
Textbook?
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 06:17 PM   #64
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
I hate biased sources but it was the one I was linked to. It has a few pages from the textbook in question so you can extrapolate yourself.
Textbook?
Putting aside the obvious linguistic spin contained within the earlier sentences, there honestly isn't much of a problem until we hit this line: "If this were true, simple life forms would all be buried in the lowest layer of rock." It's here that the author(s) + editor(s) betray not only their agenda and ill-conceived strawman but their total inability to understand how evolution actually works.

From that sentence forward, it just becomes really, really bad. A lot of bogus claims about evidence which disproves evolution as well as evidence which supports Creationism. One of the saddest parts is on the top of the second page with that blue and red table which tabulates the supposed beliefs of Creationists and Evolutionists. I say "supposed" because they can't even fucking get their basic facts straight for the other side. We believe the Earth is "millions" of years old? Try billions, retard. Millions of years is just barely enough to take you back to around when primates were all branching off from one another. I mean, fuck, guys, did the Jurassic Park slogan "65 million years in the making" mean nothing to you!? If you're going to do your damnedest to portray Creationism as being right and paleontology as being hogwash, whatever, but at least fucking represent the paleontologists' claims properly.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 06:29 PM   #65
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Putting aside the obvious linguistic spin contained within the earlier sentences, there honestly isn't much of a problem until we hit this line: "If this were true, simple life forms would all be buried in the lowest layer of rock." It's here that the author(s) + editor(s) betray not only their agenda and ill-conceived strawman but their total inability to understand how evolution actually works.

From that sentence forward, it just becomes really, really bad. A lot of bogus claims about evidence which disproves evolution as well as evidence which supports Creationism. One of the saddest parts is on the top of the second page with that blue and red table which tabulates the supposed beliefs of Creationists and Evolutionists. I say "supposed" because they can't even fucking get their basic facts straight for the other side. We believe the Earth is "millions" of years old? Try billions, retard. Millions of years is just barely enough to take you back to around when primates were all branching off from one another. I mean, fuck, guys, did the Jurassic Park slogan "65 million years in the making" mean nothing to you!? If you're going to do your damnedest to portray Creationism as being right and paleontology as being hogwash, whatever, but at least fucking represent the paleontologists' claims properly.
This is basically what I feel. The idea was supposed to be to prevent indoctrination, I think - Don't let our kids be forced to learn evolution when it's wrong! - but its apparent "solution" is just more indoctrination. Only this indoctrination is the opposite of the other indoctrination, which somehow makes it Right.

Remember, though, I'm a Catholic. And we decided that whatever doesn't contradict our faith and is supported by scientific inquiry is okay with us, as long as it is treated as science. Evolution is okay because there is no direct contradiction of Christian views. However, Protestants (and mormons and baptists etc.) are having trouble with evolution because they decided it was Wrong and Against the Natural Order of Things, and then created an opposing theory, which they now have to staunchly support and cling to or risk looking like idiots.

Honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised at how much tolerance there is nowadays. In the old days we used to burn people for disagreeing with us more vocally than we liked...
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 12:08 PM   #66
kaisap112
Volcano Badge
 
kaisap112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Protestants (and mormons and baptists etc.) are having trouble with evolution because they decided it was Wrong and Against the Natural Order of Things, and then created an opposing theory, which they now have to staunchly support and cling to or risk looking like idiots.
Okay, I'm not religious in the least myself, but I have yet to hear a Lutheran person in Finland say evolution is wrong. Finland is very much a Lutheran country (over 80% of the people are Lutherans) so we usually go with what that institution says when it comes to religion.
__________________
kaisap112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 01:55 PM   #67
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
Every Lutheran I've ever met who was actually practicing has thought evolution is wrong.

That said, a possible explanation might be that Europe is far more secularized than America is, so Lutheranism might be more moderate there, which is certainly a good thing considering it's Lutheranism.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 02:18 PM   #68
kaisap112
Volcano Badge
 
kaisap112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amras.MG View Post
That said, a possible explanation might be that Europe is far more secularized than America is, so Lutheranism might be more moderate there, which is certainly a good thing considering it's Lutheranism.
I have to admit, secularization is the thing here. You could only dream of hearing a politician or an athlete here say "I thank God for blahblah" - it'd be the same as announcing that you're crazy. We don't go to Sunday church; we hardly go to church on Christmas or Easter!

Compared to people like the Westboro Baptist Church, we're atheists.

...boy, am I glad for that.
__________________
kaisap112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 04:37 PM   #69
Amras.MG
Not sure if gone...
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
How would someone look less religious compared to Westboro Baptist Church? Everyone looks more Christian compared to them.
Amras.MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 05:55 PM   #70
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
The Westboro Baptist Church aren't Baptists, nor are they Christian. They are assholes looking to make money off of lawsuits and media attention by exploiting the first amendment.

I grew up in a very Baptist family, and my grandfather was a Baptist minister his entire life. I have discussed evolution with them all, but none of them have outright denied it because "it goes against the natural order of things" as Shuckle suggests. And having gone to Catholic schools my entire thirteen years in grade school, I can also tell you that the view between the two is just as mixed: Some have no problem with it, and others see it as a contradiction to Biblical word, while those others see evolution as being a part of God's creation. So I honestly have no idea where you get this notion that all Catholics are completely accepting of evolution while other Christian denominations have major issues with it.

Back on topic - I fell apart at the same line Talon did which mentioned fossils being deeper in layers of rock or whatever. There is absolutely no logic in this at all and is very clearly the author's point of view.

My problem with the article though is this is very clearly a religious textbook, probably for private schools teaching religious classes, and the article doesn't specify that. I don't buy that this is science class textbook - because they would be batshit crazy to put this in one.
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 07:42 PM   #71
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
So I honestly have no idea where you get this notion that all Catholics are completely accepting of evolution while other Christian denominations have major issues with it.
What Shuckle's talking about is a de facto process for recruitment into the church; the RCC is the largest, most heterogenous church in the world and so has a lot of conflicting viewpoints the lower one goes on the hierarchical totem pole. Pope Benedict XVI is the only person who is unified in his doctrine, since he's the only occupant of his tier below God himself, but there's dissent even within the college of Cardinals. Understandably, we common plebeians have our disagreements as well.

The church employs a passive acceptance of anything that doesn't contradict doctrine to make it a lot more appealing to outsiders, or to give the impression it's a welcoming church. Once you progress through the education system, though, that changes but the key point to the bait 'n switch is getting people into a position where they'll be able to be fully converted.

This approach is usually used for Latins and their "maternal" approach to religious superstition. Doctrinally, we aren't supposed to pray to Jesus or Mary, instead it's God the Father, but Latins tend to worship Mary and non-Catholics pray to Jesus. It's kind of ironic...I don't feel comfortable praying to Jesus, since I feel he's a distinct personality from God the Father, but to admit that is the most profane of blasphemies since it denies the holy trinity (and foundation of the faith) and recasts me as Mormon. But, that's what I was taught! It's a fine line we tread.

I'm pretty sure though that the "official" rulings/literature on evolution is supportive, though. Any Catholic school that teaches otherwise isn't in compliance.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.