Viewing 17 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11613
      telanerv
      Participant

      Should anyone even entertain the words that philosophers put forth when their claims are backed up by words?
      Answer: only if you want entertainment

      These forums are for discussing science, not for claims made by people selling snake oil

    • #92248
      AFJ
      Participant

      telenerv,
      1)Evolution must rest upon a philosophical stand of metaphysical naturalism. This is a philosophical persuasion that says all known phenomena and material have only natural explanation. This is based in humanistic thought i.e. if we did not have eyes, how could we define light.

      2)Evolution also has a preconceived model i.e. the geologic timescale that all evidence must be interpreted to fit. That is why we have articles that tell us blood vessels found in dinosaur bones have been preserved for 68 million years. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

    • #92256
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      Should anyone even entertain the words that philosophers put forth when their claims are backed up by words?

      science is based on words and puts forth it claims in words
      ie the theory of natural selection is all in words
      take the words
      species
      phylum
      speciation
      life
      all nothing but words as well

    • #92308
      canalon
      Participant

      Right, science use word to communicate. That is true. But maybe you would care to share with us an alternative way of communication?

      The point is, science use words to communicate about the real world and to share experiences. Those can then be replicated by others and then confirmed (or infirmed). So there is just more than words in science. And words do have problems, because they are never quite precise enough. However between rationale people they are useful, and discussion can be had, which suppose that people listen to one another and try to understand one another. Sadly until now you have refused to understand what has been explained to you at great length by many posters. You did your best to look like a fool. And congratulations, you managed very successfully. You have fully discredited yourself, and tainted a little more a discipline that did not need it.
      Philosophy has a lot of interesting to say, but you proved that you are not a good speaker for it. I suggest that you go back to your books, have your sterile discussion with like minded people (or mute persons, it would not make much differences in your case, as you are not listening anyway).

    • #92312
      gamila
      Participant
      quote :

      science use words to communicate about the real world

      thats a big call
      to say the real world
      just what is the real world apart from words

      please tell us what the real world is
      bear in mind philosophers hotley debate the issue
      ie idealism
      realism
      the hindus just call it maya ie illusion – but that implys they know what is not illusion or real about the world
      so please tell us just what the real world is
      and dont say
      the real world is what science tell us it is
      as
      1 that is just a circular argument
      2) science has been telling us what the real world is for years and each new generation of scientist changes that view ie we where once told the real world was based on the bohr model of the atom
      but that view was changed

      scientific models of the world are always changing
      so you cant real say science is about the real world -when models of the world are always changing

      take deans point about species
      biologists tell us the real world is made up of species
      but
      when you investigate that claim you see as has been pointed out the term species ends in meaninglessness ie contradiction
      so just what is the so called real world

      lets take words
      we can only understand the world by words
      so whose words capture this real world your say science is about
      is it
      hopi
      latin
      chinese
      swahili
      english
      etc

      just which language is the privilaged system to understand the real world

    • #92320
      canalon
      Participant

      I must that I am not surprised by your answer. I was kind of expecting something like that.

      But once again you do very selective quoting. I was indeed saying that language is imperfect but is also the only way we have to communicate. So yes anything using langugae will be imperfect, but we do our best.

      Now we can push your arguments a bit further: this exchange is just made of word. Words cannot be trusted to represent reality, so I cannot prove that we are discussing. Now unless you prove me that you are not just a figment of my own (admitedly perverted and sadistic) imagination, I do not see the point in communicatin with you any more…

    • #92330
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      I believe sado-masochistic is what you’re looking for there canalon. But, then again, those are just words too 😀

    • #93107
      Sophyclese
      Participant

      Philosophy is only meant to question other humans around us and their way of thinking. Also, Philosophy almost never gives an answer to any of the questions asked.
      Science, however, does ask questions about the world around us as well as searching for the answer to those questions (theories).
      Philosophy deals with the questions and opinions of the mind, never with actual facts. Science deals with questions of the mind, yes, but questions about FACTS and not opinions.

      Please give me your thoughts on Philosophy vs. Science.
      My username is Sophyclese.

    • #93303
      david23
      Participant

      Modern Philosophy taught in schools do not conflict with science principles, they cooperate with it very well. And they dont go so far as to make up new things like in ancient philosophy EX: Aristotle’s long long erroneous beliefs about chemistry and physics.

    • #93331
      cherib
      Participant

      Just my two cents…

      In my opinion philosophy and science are intertwined in a complex (mutualistic!) symbiotic relationship. Metacognition and epistomology allow one to recognizing patterns and possible bias in one’s own thought process- this important for any scientist because bias can affect how data is interpreted and utilized. Philosophy encourages us to question reality as we know it, and to form opinions about the relationships and processes that make up our natural world. Science allows us to test these opinions, and through the process of trial and error (or trial and success) we develop a factual basis for our beliefs. It is important to note that ALL scientists (and philosophers) should never be absolutely certain about anything- confident, yes, certain, no. For example, the laws of physics that are ingrained in our society (i.e. Newton’s Laws, for one) hold true on Earth, but once you get into space, or examine a phenomenon on the molecular level, everything that was once "certain" becomes false. There is so much we don’t know (and probably will never know) that it is not logical to categorize anything as absolute. All biological systems are perpetuated by constant movement, interaction, and change- I guess you could call it fluidity in a sense- and therefore our thought processes as scientists must be ready to adjust to whatever the data is telling us, even if it isn’t what we originally expected. Philosophy encourages thinking "outside of the box" and questioning the why and how- without it, there would be nothing to question because reality would only what was tangible and instantaneously certain. As a student of both philosophy and biological science, I believe both to be equally important in explaining and understanding our universe, our world, and our lives.

    • #93337
      HylaCinerea
      Participant

      For me science to philosophy is physical to metaphysical. The scientist ponders how something occurs and the philospher ponders why it occurs.

    • #103965
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      Why does no one pay attention to the fact that there is actual historical and scientific evidence that proves the Creation model.

    • #103967
      canalon
      Participant
      quote Jonl1408:

      Why does no one pay attention to the fact that there is actual historical and scientific evidence that proves the Creation model.

      Care to give some?

    • #104014
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      I am posting fifteen examples of how science proves young age for earth here, here is the link that they came from http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
      1.Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.
      Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.
      Common cultural “myths” speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.
      2.The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3rd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.
      3.The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).
      4.Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
      5.Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
      6.Slowing down of the earth. Tidal dissipation rate of Earth’s angular momentum: increasing length of day, currently by 0.002 seconds/day every century (thus an impossibly short day billions of years ago and a very slow day shortly after accretion and before the postulated giant impact to form the Moon). See: How long has the moon been receding?
      7.Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).
      8.Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
      9.Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
      Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
      Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
      Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
      10.Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
      The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
      11.The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth.
      The discovery that underwater landslides (“turbidity currents”) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly
      12. Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the “missing” geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
      13.Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood.
      14.Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
      Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
      Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
      15. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of “fossil” soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If “deep time” were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries “challenge” to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
      Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the “great unconformity” at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata

      I claim none of this as my own work, it all came from http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

    • #104015
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      okay, I agree I was wrong about the big bang being connected to evolution, but I do not agree with the statement that archaeology disproves the Bible.

      The book of Daniel in the Bible speaks of many events, which include the battles of Antiochus Epiphanes, which happened after the time the Book of Daniel was written, that is to say the 6th century B.C. Therefore skeptics claim that it was written in the 1st century B.C., after the events it foretells, and that it was faked to have been that old, but there is one important fact that made the Book of Daniel stand out, it claimed that Belshazzar was the last Babylonian king. The historians of the 1st century and before, until recently had always claimed that Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, and therefore they all agreed that the Book of Daniel was false. This all changed in 1854, when the Nabonidus Cylinder, and The Nabonidus Chronicle were found. The Nabonidus Cylinder, records a prayer from Nabonidus for his son Belshazzar, the Nabonidus Chronicle states that Nabonidus was in Tema with his army, while his son, Belshazzar, stayed in Babylonia as co-regent. The Book of Daniel also states that Belshazzar rewarded Daniel for a favor, by naming him 3rd in the kingdom, why name him 3rd, why not second?
      Could it be because Belshazzar himself, was 2nd in the kingdom, since his father was gone? Here is a link on the subject, http://chriswatsonlee.wordpress.com/200 … chronicle/.

      There is also the story of Sennacherib, in which he came to take the city of Jerusalem. To take the city of Jerusalem, he had to also take the city of Lachish, which was nearby. There is a hexagonal prism named Sennacherib’s prism, because it tells of him and his conquests, this prism tells of the siege of Lachish, but says nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, in fact it tells of Sennacherib going home after the siege of Lachish. There is even an archaeological find in the British Museum, of tons of stone panels from the South-west Palace of Sennacherib, that all depict the siege of Lachish, in great detail, and even what he did to the prisoners afterwards, but they found nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, which was his main target. What happened, why does he say nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, why do the records say he went home and never invaded Israel again? The Bible says that Sennacherib camped around Jerusalem, and in one night his whole army was destroyed by the Angel of the Lord. Since Sennacherib says nothing of this, skeptics claim that the Bible is false, but if you had just had your whole army destroyed in one night, and you think that you are the mightiest king ever,
      ( check what his prism says at http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html)
      would you put it down in the history books to be laughed at? Most people would not, they would do exactly what Sennacherib did, go home have them write down stories of the battles you did win, and blot the night that your whole army was destroyed from the history books. These stories were in the Bible before any archaeological evidence had ever surfaced. These are just two examples, but I don’t have time to write down all of the archaeological finds corroborating the Bible.
      Thanks for reading this, and God Bless

    • #104274
      Thonzo
      Participant

      The toolbox of philosophy is argumentative logic and that of science is the scientific method. Philosophy dwells on questions that science (at least at the present) cannot answer philosophy though does not give us unequivocal answers but a list of possible equivocal answers, deduced and induced by logic. These possible answers can be traced back to basal conclusions that serve as axioms, vis. ideas assumed to be true for the sake of further logical investigation. Science likewise poses questions about the world it also makes assumptions (hypotheses) but instead of forming arguments branching into all conceivable terminal conclusions it tests these assumptions and rejects those that do not withstand these tests.
      I don’t believe that science gives us the "Best" answers but I do believe it gives us answers that man can procure with a degree of certainty that philosophy does not in its self give; Though Philosophy has its place allowing us to entertain questions that science cannot, for as the hackneyed saying goes “absent of evidence is not evidence of absence“(Carl Sagan) and for my purpose, that is to say that which is not proffered by evidence remains in the field of philosophy.

    • #104815
      maksevrod
      Participant

      But this logic somethimes so square 🙂

    • #105325
      philipsteele
      Participant

      behind the every philosophy have some logic to think and the science proves many of the things… ❗

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • The forum ‘Off Topic Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.