What is your Religious position?

**ron** · 07-02-2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Amazing how many of the alternate solutions suggest the OPERA scientists made errors or that there were things they hadn't considered, even though the experiment took place 30,000 times using the original calculations and has been replicated a number of times using a shorter pulse. It is possible that several of the world's leading physicists didn't understand time or gravity constraints, but a collective 'doh' seems highly unlikely. You'd have thought someone would have said,'wait chaps, what about x?' Interesting to see the comments on the second article - people accusing others of writing complete nonsense etc.

Indeed it is true there are unknowns, more than 80% of the universe is 'dark matter' - that is to say, stuff we know nothing about. Even the stuff we know something about has never been touched - 13 billion galaxies is a lot of unexplored space. We have yet to calculate the edge of our solar system and how many planets there are in it (there are still arguments about poor old Pluto being downgraded). All we know of the universe is effectively based on light or radio waves what equipment can pick up from afar. Virtually everything we 'see', apart from the closer stars, might no longer even exist.

If you cannot prove what dark matter is how can you express its qualities. Perhaps it's all travelling around at faster than light speeds so we can't pin it down. I don't know and nor does anybody else at present.

What I genuinely don't understand is the certainty expressed by so many people when the scientists admit they don't know the answers. String theory and theories relating to anti-matter are only that. Nothing has been seen, nor can be seen at present to prove either, it's just that the calculations work.

Until we obtain cells from another planet (it is thought there is microscopic life on another planet in our solar system and I've actually met the NASA scientist working on the project to go and find it) then we don't even know whether the theories concerning life can be validated. All experimentation currently relies on what's on Earth combined with a small amount of samples obtained in our near solar system. Nothing else exists.

All I ask is that people stop telling me that something has been proved, when it hasn't, and relying on that proof to 'win' the debate. If it is later decided that things can't go faster than the speed of light, and we'll get the results fairly soon, then physics returns to the state it was in after Einstein's special theory of relativity.

I have some sympathy with your view and, having had a few of these types of discussions before, I accept that it is really down to belief. However, the big difference is that over time the various scientific explanations are either confirmed or refined based on evidence whereas the religious explanations remain set in stone regardless of evidence so tend to be slowly undermined (or reinterpreted) over time. Whilst 100% proof does not and often never will exist, the scientific explanations tend to be more robust than the religious so the "leap of faith" is not very great to believe the scientific hypotheses of life, the Universe and everything compared to the religious explanations.

In other words, perhaps atheists don't feel a need for a God since scientific explanations, even if not 100% confirmed, are far more plausible than the existence of such an incredible being. I have never consciously decided not to believe in God, it just hasn't occurred to me that I should need to.

**Aardvark** · 07-02-2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber

TimeTree :: The Timescale of Life I think that's the one where you can ask when any 2 species had a common ancester.

That's a blo0dy big jump from:

The point about the compairing of DNA sequences from different individuals in a species is that it allows us to know how closely related to each other they are. The same can be done for different species. We can see how many generations ago we and cats had a common ancester.

That we cannot read this with the 100% elequence as yet so some of it is a little imprecise does not mean it is in accurate.

This goes back to the first cells. It does not tell us which bit of the ocean it started in or what the weather was like that day. But it does tell us how many generations have passed between the point of seperation of two population groups.

The evidence is not complete. The Time Tree link has a major caveat:

Those most likely to find the search utility in TimeTree useful will be researchers who already have some knowledge of evolutionary biology and wish to mine the available published data, which often require interpretation.

To establish links to any level of accuracy is as yet impossible. You say it is not inaccurate, but if I had a plumber who felt that the level of accuracy of a few million years is not inaccurate I'd be permanently flooded.[/b]

I entered homo sapiens and feliformia into the search (trying to find a cat). The mean result is 94.4 million years ago. The median of published results is 96.6 million years ago and the expert result is 97.4 million years ago - a tolerance of 3 million years, or about 150,00 human generations. This from a range of published research that, as it refers to specific subspecies or individual DNA sequences, gives a latitude of between 57 million and 117 million years ago. You might think that is accurate, but I beg to differ.

It's 'ancestor' by the way.

**Tim the plumber** · 07-02-2012, 02:09 PM

The difference between precision and accuracy is the issue here.

It is precise to say I have £100,345.47 in my bank account. It is also wrong. It is accurate to say I have between -£1 million and +£1 million. It is also useless.

The time at which a cat (you can put in cat by the way) and a cabbage had a common ancestor is known accurately but not all that precisely. Is it important to you if it is 2 or 3 billion years ago? The point is they have a common ancestor, and we can prove it. The overwhelming evidence is in the pattern of their DNA.

The level of intelegent sceptisim you apply to the claims of science is good, I wish you would apply 10% of that to the claims of the God squad. The result of that exercise would be a 100% loss of faith in any rehashed Mespotainian fair tale.

**Lolkitten** · 07-02-2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Lolkitten,

The neutrinos experiment was carried out 30,000 times before it was even announced publicly. I'm happy that it was successful and things do travel faster than the speed of light.

The ICARUS team at Gran Sasso aren't due to the lack of Cherenkov radiation.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

I'm not accusing you of fraud or dishonesty, but there are people who delight in making changes to Wikipedia and screwing up items (some of them have even posted here). Why not just use the history and cite the source material?

It's accessible to the layman. I'm not a telepath.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Even where samples are taken from living cells and all mutations are clearly identifiable there will still be information that is not present. We do not have samples from all human beings therefore cannot say with certainty that we know everything. Progress is being made, but we still have a long way to go. The calculations are going to become more accurate in the fullness of time, that is all I am saying. I still think there will be major changes to theories as more information is discovered.

We're talking about the theory of chemistry and rocks dug out of the ground. As far as the rocks go, they might dig a few new and interesting ones out, but as far as the big picture of evolution from a common ancestor goes, it'd be like sticking a spike on the severn bridge. If the rules of bolting molecules together out of commonly found atoms alters a large amount, I'll honestly be surpised.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

The comparison with milling machines is a false analogy. Micron accuracy is not what is required for daily use of most materials. Where we need to go further we are developing new materials and new techniques to improve accuracy. In the quest for human source code there might not need to be one hundred per cent accurate at present, but some theories will only be complete when we have delved deeper.

Micron accuracy is what you are demanding, despite the fact the door wedge of evolution is already functional.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

I was not the person, however, who said we could work out to within a generation when cats and humans diverged. That cannot be calculated at present. That was what I was saying. If you make an assertion that we can make the calculation to within 500 generations, then I can believe that. I will not accept, without a reference, an assertion that the level of accuracy is to within one generation when that point is being used to 'defeat' me in a discussion.

Fair enough, though frankly your claims about neutrinos have come to mind again.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

I've been broad ranging in what I say and have not sought to make a point based on accurate calculations. Tim, however, has asserted that certain evidence exists. It does not.

I am widely read in certain aspects of the subject, if only because I am waiting for the marks for my masters paper on the law of genetics.

Max Planck institute.

**Aardvark** · 09-02-2012, 01:09 PM

http://images.4channel.org/f/src/589...e_enhanced.swf

I'm still not convinced mankind knows everything.

**Besoeker** · 10-02-2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Aardvark

http://images.4channel.org/f/src/589...e_enhanced.swf

I'm still not convinced mankind knows everything.

I'm convinced mankind doesn't.

**Tim the plumber** · 10-02-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Aardvark

http://images.4channel.org/f/src/589...e_enhanced.swf

I'm still not convinced mankind knows everything.

Mankind does not know everything. If we did science would be a completed project.

We do however know that the Bible is wrong on most of it's points.

We do know that all the religions of the world are also wrong.

We know that nam is capable of making up God. We know that we have done this often.

**Northumbrian** · 10-02-2012, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber

We know that man is capable of making up God. We know that we have done this often.

'I think it exists....therefore it does'. The whole premise of religion.

**Aardvark** · 12-02-2012, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber

Mankind does not know everything. If we did science would be a completed project.

True.

We do however know that the Bible is wrong on most of it's points.

Depends what you mean by points. A lot of the Bible is not 'points' per se, but law, poetry, history (a lot of which has not been contradicted), parables etc. I'm not sure you can prove that 50% + 1 of the 'points' in the Bible are wrong.

We do know that all the religions of the world are also wrong.

There are some 2500 religions. I'm not sure we do 'know' that. I've not read up on every religion and nor have you. I think you assume that because you can disprove certain religious assumptions that you can disprove them all. That is a non sequitur.

We know that nam is capable of making up God. We know that we have done this often.

Did man make up God, or did his limited observable deductions lead him to deduce that there was a higher power that he didn't fully understand? Yahweh doesn't translate as God, but rather 'I am who I am' and allows of different interpretations by each person. The deductions were made at a time when nobody knew about the origins of the Sun, Moon, stars, evolution etc. What would you have deduced?

**Petrosal** · 12-02-2012, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by For_England

since you cannot prove that life could arise from non-living, non conscious material via random forces,

Name me any credible scientist that says "random forces" are all that cause evolution or create life.

Creationists always harp on about "random" forces or "chance". Pure unmitigated poppycock because creationists always like to ignore natural selection within the process, which is the opposite of "random".

"Random" does play a part as far as creating genetic mutation and variation but also natural selection rears it's ugly head sorting out these "random" creations that have the best "chance" of surviving and propagating. These things are ongoing and running all the time (i.e. more variations happen and natural selection weeds some out and so on).

Have you mentioned irreducible complexity yet?

View Poll Results: How would you describe your religious position? (Multi-option poll)

Thread: What is your Religious position?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions