1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Aristotle on the Origin of Life

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by rrobs, Feb 19, 2020.

  1. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,548
    Ratings:
    +323
    Religion:
    Christian
    All I can say is that I think you are reading way more into what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying. I think that whatever I say will be read through some kind of "hate Christians" filter. Life is not one dimensional. People even less so.
     
    #141 rrobs, Feb 24, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  2. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,548
    Ratings:
    +323
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why did you bring up creationism? It has nothing to do with the OP. I was pondering whether science in the 40th century will make ours look primitive. I understand you to think that will not be the case. Thanks for the input.
     
  3. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    The term was first used in 1950's science fiction stories. The very first was a Bradbury story "the Sound of Thunder". This was derived from weather models on Univac computers that showed tiny changes in initial data caused massive changes in prediction. In other words the term pre-dates Chaos Theory and 'strange attractors".
     
  4. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    586
    Ratings:
    +238
    Religion:
    Not religious
    No it's not.
     
  5. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    586
    Ratings:
    +238
    Religion:
    Not religious
    You still didn't explain why you think it's called the butterfly effect.
     
  6. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,482
    Ratings:
    +4,537
    Religion:
    Pi π
    If you were agnostic...as I am agnostic...and you were writing craps, then I will tell you, you are writing craps.

    I don’t care if the person behind the other side of screen is atheist, theist, agnostic, or from what other -ism that person follow: BS is BS.

    And woo is woo crap.

    It is not about the person being “Christian”, because I get along fine with a number of Christians here.

    It is the BS that I have problem with.

    If you are going to argue against one area or another, at least have basic understanding that you disagree with.

    Most creationists I have come across here, and these creationists have very little understanding of Evolution and Abiogenesis, so they make up some BS.

    And right now, I am dealing with your craps.

    I don’t disagree with you that Abiogenesis hasn’t answered all the questions. But for you to deny there are some evidence that do support Abiogenesis, then you are speaking rubbish, whenever say there are nothing in Abiogenesis (eg no evidence for Abiogenesis).

    Several of us already explain where you were incorrect, but you refused to acknowledge your mistakes or to learn from it, or to a little researches.

    And that’s the craps I am talking about. We are going around in circles, with you not learning a damn thing in this thread.
     
    #146 gnostic, Feb 24, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  7. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    "Omniscience" isn't about believing in omniscience.

    It's about believing in everything else.
     
  8. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,548
    Ratings:
    +323
    Religion:
    Christian
    And that is about all I said. Actually, I never really gave any opinion one way or the other on Albigensian or evolution in the OP.

    You have some weird concept of education. Let me try your method;

    You are an ignorant fool who has no idea what the scriptures say. You talk nothing but crap. It is obvious you have no idea about the nature of God. There have been many who tried to explain God to you, but you are too stubborn to understand. You are stuck in your own stupid ideas and won't listen to anybody. I quoted many scriptures but you are too blinded by your stupid prejudice that you incapable of seeing the truth. You are just plain ignorant.​

    Does that help you see my side? Does it help me convince you that I am right and you are wrong? No? Then I guess the insult method of education might not work.

    You may well be highly intelligent, but your rants don't help make the case. I think there is a lot of info on the internet that may help you formulate better responses to an argument. Might be worth a look.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Thank you very much for the reference. For those many of us who prefer pictures rather than words I got this;

    Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, - Google Search

    I'll study it later.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    You are mistaken, I believe.

    As I've tried to explain countless times I don't believe in "evolution". I believe based on the obvious that change in species is sudden and the result not of "survival of the fittest" but rather is the result of consciousness. You seek a process that gives rise to a reductionistic definition for "life" and I'm seeking a process that gives rise to consciousness. This may seem a fine distinction to you but the reality is that without consciousness life isn't possible.

    It's not likely that life even arose on earth but you'll see this as another fine distinction since you believe it must have originated somewhere. Without the building blocks life couldn't have originated anywhere.
     
  11. Yazata

    Yazata Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +44
    Religion:
    agnostic with Buddhist tendencies
    The question is whether or not our scientific propositions of today are true. Do the things scientists say today about the natural world truly correspond to how the natural world really is?

    Put another way, will future science simply add to our present-day scientific beliefs, or will future science replace some/many/most of our current scientific beliefs with different understandings?

    Most of us would agree that science progresses over time. So how should we understand that? Is scientific progress merely a matter of successive additions to a constantly growing body of knowledge? Or does it sometimes entail the wholesale replacement of older and less-successful theories with newer and fundamentally different ones more consistent with the emerging evidence?

    It's a basic question in the history of science.

    It's an inductive argument: If most of the science of the past appears to have been mistaken in some way from the perspective of today, and if today will itself be the past from the perspective of the future, why shouldn't we conclude that most of the things that scientists believe today will be shown in the future to be false as well?

    I think that it's a pretty good argument and it receives a lot of attention from philosophers of science. That doesn't mean that I agree with the conclusions that are often drawn from it regarding scientific realism. But it isn't an occasion for abuse. It requires a better and more thoughtful response.

    gGBb
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,975
    Ratings:
    +252
    Religion:
    Animism
    Very relevant reply indeed :)

    gnostic said:
    This is all, a load of craps.
    Science is about we have learned, what we have discovered, and what we can make use of TODAY.
    Agreed :) But some debaters take it very personal and feel insulted if relevant critical questions are being asked into standing scientific thoughts and theories - and then they insult the asking persons with bad words and accusing them for "not knowing of the standing consensus in science".
     
  13. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,975
    Ratings:
    +252
    Religion:
    Animism
    Native said:
    One have to give you that: You´re excellent in repeating and citing consensus assumptions in cosmology - but obviously inhabile when it comes to independent and critical thinking and researching.

    You really could profit from the findings of the late astronomer, Halton Arp - Halton Arp - Wikipedia
    -------------
    Thanks for the pictures :)
    The questionable topic of "redshift" and measuring of cosmic distances is also discussed even in astronomical science today as shown in these articles:

    "The Hubble Constant Crisis"

    The Hubble constant: a mystery that keeps getting bigger

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/debate-universe-expansion-rate-hubble-constant-physics-crisis
     
  14. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    16,774
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    By conflating abiogenesis with evolution and assuming the quote of Aristotle is science. It isn't by any modern definition which is the definition to use. After all what tests did Aristotle use to demonstrate Fire, Water, Earth and Air before making the claim?

    Viewing the science of the present as primitive in the future is a given. For example space travel and colonization of the solar system will advance drastically from propulsion, recycling, robotics, structural engineering and so on. However as per the above it wont be seen as poorly as Aristotle's quote isn't science.
     
  15. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I agree Aristotle had no science but you are still assuming that science today is essentially correct and factual and the future will just smooth off the rough edges.

    I would expect revolutionary changes in all fields as science progresses. Things like our understanding of the speed of light will be seen as simplistic and our understanding of gravity will be seen as virtually nonexistent. Nothing is likely to be unaffected.
     
  16. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    16,774
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    No I am not. I already pointed out an a few example in which are only a few centuries away let alone during the reign of the God-Emperor and Imperium of Man.


    The comparison in the OP was based on a false elemental structure of Fire, Earth, Water and Air. For such a similar blunder now the atomic table would have to be falsified thus dropped.
     
  17. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    The elemental table is not going to undergo extensive revision. Our understanding of it will become greater and the relationships between ALL of the constituent parts will come into clearer focus but we're not likely to suddenly discover that O is really just Aristotle's "air". But this hardly means we there won't be revolutionary changes in our knowledge of what these elements are or how they came into being.
     
  18. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,485
    Ratings:
    +204
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I apologize if I am perpetuating a semantical argument but it appeared you were suggesting today's science is right and will stand the test of time and future experiments.
     
  19. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    16,774
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Sure. I would expect a few elements to be added to the table as we get off our rock.

    My space example is about revolutionary changes as the environment is hostile to the forms of life we would need.
     
  20. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    16,774
    Ratings:
    +3,811
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Nah I was just covering a scale comparison change to the OP. Keeping in mind that the atomic system covers many things we take for granted. Combustion engines for example. We would need a whole new system that explains why even the most basic actions occur.

    There has been major change such as QM which augmented the atomic system as an underlying level of reality. I expect changes like that in the near future. The scifi nerd in me screams to expect more but is tempered.
     
Loading...