Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by Palynka
Can you rephrase this? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by it...

Edit: In this time of the year, Halkidiki wouldn't be too bad either!

I love your country, your bica, your fados and your vintage ports🙂

I thought you considered astrology as a field, which we cannot put it into the drawer with the non trustworthy fields. And then I commented as above, meaning that a scientific field like astronomy is trustworthy while a fake scientific one, like astrology, is never trustworthy. Therefore an astronomist is a scientist while an astrologist is a fraud.

Originally posted by black beetle
I love your country, your bica, your fados and your vintage ports🙂

I thought you considered astrology as a field, which we cannot put it into the drawer with the non trustworthy fields. And then I commented as above, meaning that a scientific field like astronomy is trustworthy while a fake scientific one, like astrology, is never trustworthy. Therefore an astronomist is a scientist while an astrologist is a fraud.

No, no, astrology was my example of a non-trustworthy field. Of course I think it's a fraud!

Originally posted by Palynka
No, no, astrology was my example of a non-trustworthy field. Of course I think it's a fraud!

So OK; then we may agree that a scientific field (i.e. biology) is trustworthy while a non scientific field (i.e. theology) is a fraud;

Originally posted by black beetle
So OK; then we may agree that a scientific field (i.e. biology) is trustworthy while a non scientific field (i.e. theology) is a fraud;

LOL, not exactly. I don't think Theology is a fraud, just that it isn't scientific (in the sense that the scientific method in strict sense doesn't apply). For example, I'm sure you don't consider Philosophy a fraud, yet you cannot claim that it is scientific in that sense.

Originally posted by Palynka
LOL, not exactly. I don't think Theology is a fraud, just that it isn't scientific (in the sense that the scientific method in strict sense doesn't apply). For example, I'm sure you don't consider Philosophy a fraud, yet you cannot claim that it is scientific in that sense.

Philosophy is scientific in full -just consider that we are here thanks to philosophy; however theology is not a science -but the science of religions is science allright;

Originally posted by black beetle
Philosophy is scientific in full -just consider that we are here thanks to philosophy; however theology is not a science -but the science of religions is science allright;

The scientific method does not apply to Philosophy, so it cannot be considered a science. If you wish to include it as a science, then you need to find a way to define what a science is that includes fields for which the scientific method is not necessary.

Note that I'm not, in any way, undermining the value of Philosophy. That's part of my point.

Originally posted by Palynka
The scientific method does not apply to Philosophy, so it cannot be considered a science. If you wish to include it as a science, then you need to find a way to define what a science is that includes fields for which the scientific method is not necessary.

Note that I'm not, in any way, undermining the value of Philosophy. That's part of my point.

Right, I was taken by force. The philosophers and the scientists undertook a critical analysis of the function and nature of scientific theory in general, and of the mathematical formulations of physical theory in particular. Scientific theory and concepts are qualities that they develop and change in time, and I cannot state that any of the present ideas express the way things really are. The primary function of theory and hypothesis is to organize known discoveries and to propose new questions to put to nature.

Originally posted by Palynka
The scientific method does not apply to Philosophy, so it cannot be considered a science. If you wish to include it as a science, then you need to find a way to define what a science is that includes fields for which the scientific method is not necessary.

Note that I'm not, in any way, undermining the value of Philosophy. That's part of my point.

…The scientific method does not apply to Philosophy, so it cannot be considered a science. ...…

That depends on exactly what you mean by “Philosophy”.
If you mean “moral philosophy” then I would agree -that would be a false science.
I have once heard of the so called “science of ethics” which I regard as a laughable contradiction in terms (unless the “science of ethics” is really only about the science of what psychologically causes somebody to form the ethical views they do? -that could be a real science!)

But have you heard of scientific philosophy:

http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/concluph.htm

And:

http://scientific-philosophy.blogspot.com/

-or mathematical philosophy :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Mathematical_Philosophy

Hypothesis can be scientifically proved or disproved in these fields of philosophy thus they really are part of real science.

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "I really was interested in why
you felt evolution of the eye was such a fact, you never produced
anything that amounted to much to prove that point, the things you
did bring like variety, and and such were just statements of belief
on your part as near as I could tell."

Well I don’t’ “believe” nothing about the evolution of the eye -I ...[text shortened]... d evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago.

So far:
1. Variety was mentioned, in my opinion that was shot down due
to variety does not show anything but variety.
2. The myth about a light-sensitive pigment spot on the skin was
brought up, I wanted to know when, at what level of creature could this
have been an advantage a one cell creature or something more
complex, than how complex would it be to matter? Why is it assumed
that an light-sensitive pigment spot would be an advantage and not a
distraction. Processing data it never received before wouldn’t be
something it knew what to do with so why is it assumed it could happen
and it automatically be an advantage and not a distraction?
3. You want to design the perfect eye and do a comparison I suggest
that you begin, and I’ll give your judgment on what is a good design of
the eye more credit. Until then I do not believe you’re qualified to say
it isn’t just right for the needs of humans in this world as it.

Your whole approach about the eye is nothing but a belief, stories that
may have occurred, processes that could have happen and so on, so
far the whole approach to the eye is wrapped up around stories people
have made up to fill in the blanks, I guess you and theist are not that
far apart.

“Well I don’t’ “believe” nothing about the evolution of the eye -I know only the scientific approach regarding this organ: the first eye-like structure was a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, and probably through changes and complexities the human eye was formed.”

Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "You on the other hand suggested we debate the subject, and
your strongest points so far has been go read someone else's book."

KellyJay,

A scientific theory describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together and stands until proven wrong -it is never proven correct. Nothing till today has disproved the theory of the evol ...[text shortened]... ecause everybody must be at least a bit familiar with an issue in order to debate about it.

I suggest you stop asking people to debate you if you cannot on your
own speak to people at levels you believe they are at than. If your
whole debate is to tell people to go read a book, I than suggest you
instead of offering to debate you simply say, I got a lot of information
on that topic with this book, I may have read it than. Instead what I
got from you is lets debate, go read a book so you can talk to you
on your level, from that I want nothing to do with you, or your sources.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think that's his point. Further few people are sufficiently aware of this -- most tend to act as if scientific theory were ironclad fact and so act in 'faith' of science.

Correct me if I've misunderstood you, KJ.

You nailed it.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
AH dude,

I make my opinion clear: when I quoted that the scintific theories are not proven I meant that they always stand under constant cross-check. Science proceeds gradually seeking for concrete theories. Science does not act "in the name of the faith". The scientists have certain procedures regarding how they have to think instead of following b ...[text shortened]... announcement that forebodes the splintering of the sharp practice from which they live";

You make me sick, you are a twisted, I have not given you 'proof
of a book' in any of our discussions yet you use it to discredit me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm all for trying to figure out what are the odds of words being put
to there out with rocks, how about words on computer's screen or
book? Can we come up with odds on something like that being design
or just happening naturally by the odds of them falling into place?
There some type of test for that too? What is so specieal about words
in your opinion that show design by their very nature?
Kelly

YOU raised the rocks spelling out "welcome to....." scenario.

It doesn't matter what the object is, if you can show that the subcomponents do not occur naturally in the environment and / or they do not have a natural affinity to each other to form more complex parts....... plus the whole replication thing (not repeating myself anymore for you) then they have been designed.

Books and computer would fail the above tests therefore ANY words on them have been designed regardless of whether they make sense.

To repeat i don't actually think words have any real relevance here, that was YOUR weak analogy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That goes straight back to you need to know where they came from,
which is not a test for design. That is simply a "I need to know how
they began inorder to tell you how they began", it isn't a test for
design it is a look at the factory. If life were designed all you could
see is the current process of it in action, that does not tell you how
it started only what the current state is. This answer is a complete
cop out in my opinion.
Kelly

A valid test cannot be constructed without a priori information, that information might come from exploratory analysis i.e. do the subcomponents exist naturally? From there you move onto can they form more complex parts or do they require intervention to be joined (i.e welding metal or moulding rubber).

Neither of the above is looking for a factory; understood?

Is there some fundamental point you are not understanding here? If so please detail and i will try to explain....... or are you just being obtuse and i should respond from hereonin with typical KJ responses....

Originally posted by KellyJay
You make me sick, you are a twisted, I have not given you 'proof
of a book' in any of our discussions yet you use it to discredit me.
Kelly

Very sorry I made you sick, but your questions regarding the theory of the evolution are the common questions by the creationists, and creationism is based blindly on faith.

More than 600 million years ago, early organisms had photoreceptor cells that could be used for shadow detection in order to escape from predators and for controlling their circadian rhythm. They did not have an image forming eye. Our last common ancestor with these primitive bilaterally symmetrical animals diverged from them over 580 million years ago. Animals with a skull appeared about 530 million years ago, while animals with vertebrates appeared about 500 million years ago. Sometime between 540 and 500 million years ago, image forming eyes and visual systems came into existence. This corresponds to a period of time called the Cambrian explosion, marked by the rapid evolution of animal body shapes.
In the phylogenetic tree the scientists highlighted five modern groups of animals that are relevant to the study of the origin of the vertebrate eye.
The scientists conclude that the camera-like vertebrate eye already existed in the last common ancestor between jawless and jawed vertebrates, about 500 million years ago. They also proved that the molecular components of vertebrate photoreceptors were modified from those found in invertebrate photoreceptors.
Based on current evidence, the authors propose a multistep sequence of events that result in the formation of the vertebrate eye. Nothing is over: in the furure more experiments will help refine the certainty and precision of our nowdays understanding of the evolution of the eye.
So the evolution of the eye is well understood at the anatomical, physiological and molecular levels.

Have a good time, KJ;