JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 11:47 am
Rosborne, you are right to say that science has no interest in the question of the existence of God or supernatural entities of any kind. It's focus is on the natural world, on what is empirically discernible, at least in principle.
But earlier I read you to suggest that science functions without underlying "metaphysical" (?) assumptions or presuppositions (e.g., "science is designed to tell us things about the natural world without our assumptions and cherished beliefs getting in the way").

I agree with your statements as I understand you to have meant them, but I must pick a bit. Science is certainly not an anti-foundationalist operation. It simply does not continuously re-examine or make explicit its philosophical foundations; that is left to the philosophers of science. Your assertion that science simply looks at the natural world, and offers explanations for things in a natural way..." is loaded with metaphysical presuppositions. I'm sure you know that. And I agree that science's "naturalness" is so if by that we merely mean that it does not use supernatural technology to achieve its goals.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 11:57 am
rosborne-I dont have my resources here (Im in Jonesport) and its too slow to search. The scientific method. Do a search on Francisco Redi (check my spelling, Im dangerous).
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 02:20 pm
I just heard on the radio of the discovery of a "missing link". I didn't get to listen to the repor,t but it was about the transition from Lizard (dinosaurs) to birds.
But it occured to me that the creationists' days are numbered. As the scientific study of the evolutionary process moves forward, as it undoubtedly will, more and more evidence and gaps will be filled to the chagrin of the static ideologes of fundamentalist creationism.
But I guess that even if or when the picture of evolution has been completed, the creationists will fall back on some absurdity, like Satan has placed all that evidence before us in order to delude us into Hell.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 02:22 pm
Why, all that Satan crap just pisses me off. I've spent a lifetime tryin' to run that boy to ground, so i can sell him my soul for a pretty penny, and retire. I am angry and disillusioned, let me tell you ! ! !
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 09:52 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Your assertion that science simply looks at the natural world, and offers explanations for things in a natural way..." is loaded with metaphysical presuppositions.


Hi JL, nice to hear from you as always. Smile

Given the type of posts we've been seeing on this thread, do you think that i'm better off keeping my answers as simple as possible, or should I undertake a discussion of science as it relates to various philosophies and metaphysics?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 10:25 pm
Farmerman:

Quote:
...In 1688, Italian naturalist Francisco Redi set out to test the idea with decaying meat in two containers: one open to the air, the other sealed. The open container meat eventually became infested with maggots. And when critics insisted that it was the sealing of the second container that kept spontaneous generation from occurring, Redi did the test with an open container and one covered with cheesecloth, through which air could circulate (he suspected what we now know, that flies were the actual source of the maggots), and the cheesecloth-covered sample produced no maggots. However, even as certain aspects of spontaneous generation became recognized as wrong, when germs were first discovered it was first thought that they were a spontaneous product of sick tissues, rather than independent-living organisms that reproduced in the body.

It was a long road from that basic test to today's scientific method, but some of the approach Redi used persists: modern science is about testing suspected explanations of one's observations, which can be made directly through one's own personal senses or indirectly through instruments or second-hand from someone else's direct observations. An explanation for one or more observations is properly called a hypothesis. A hypothesis should produce testable predictions or it isn't much use scientifically, and the tests are most reliably done under controlled conditions....


Source
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 11:17 pm
Rosborne, I can't give you advice on simple writling. My posts are often so obscure that I have to work to understand them after some time. I think you should write in a style that comes natural to you and let us adapt.
JL
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 02:38 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Farmerman:

Quote:
...In 1688, Italian naturalist Francisco Redi set out to test the idea with decaying meat in two containers: one open to the air, the other sealed. The open container meat eventually became infested with maggots. And when critics insisted that it was the sealing of the second container that kept spontaneous generation from occurring, Redi did the test with an open container and one covered with cheesecloth, through which air could circulate (he suspected what we now know, that flies were the actual source of the maggots), and the cheesecloth-covered sample produced no maggots. However, even as certain aspects of spontaneous generation became recognized as wrong, when germs were first discovered it was first thought that they were a spontaneous product of sick tissues, rather than independent-living organisms that reproduced in the body.

It was a long road from that basic test to today's scientific method, but some of the approach Redi used persists: modern science is about testing suspected explanations of one's observations, which can be made directly through one's own personal senses or indirectly through instruments or second-hand from someone else's direct observations. An explanation for one or more observations is properly called a hypothesis. A hypothesis should produce testable predictions or it isn't much use scientifically, and the tests are most reliably done under controlled conditions....


Source


So we learn from all of this that maggots don't spontaneously come out of nothing? Then where did they come out of? Lets trace this back... Smile

I am going to ramble again... Smile

I will say that the premise of my reply here is that: all humans evolved from rocks... I know this sounds very foolish... Absolutely everyone who I have told this too has openly laughed at me and called me a bit crazy... But after I talk to them and explain it they are skeptical right up until the point that they finally "see" something that they did not perceive before...

We are taught to think of ourselves as separate from this physical world because science has made an error in judgment. They have told us that matter is dumb and has no spirit... We have believed them because we "see" aspirin works... that apples do fall to the earth and that the earth does encircle the sun so all else that science says is taken as a given...

Deep in the human brain there is electricity. The brain is like a lightning storm going on especially when a human is thinking. Between the nerves in the brain where cells exchange current as if they were machines a thought is transferred... Computers work the exact same way with exactly the same chemistry just human chemistry is more advanced.

To me what I get from quantum theories is that they have found that atoms exhibit both wave and particle properties. This is exactly how the brain works with this electrical light being produced and connecting memories and data from the optic nerve and displaying them in the mind with concrete holographic images.

When you take this process of what constitutes a simple thought... an electrical exchange and a particle of information... then the entire physical world is capable of "intelligence". So not only are rocks "alive" but all things are made of atoms which are alive too and function in reality... Atoms are the fundamental messenger that transfers the thoughts in our own brains... We also have an atomic clock (obviously a direct result of atoms over time) built into a gland under the brain and we are made of rocks minerals and mostly water...

All biology is made from chemistry and atomic particles. We would not exist if we did not have this chemistry. The thought would not exist if there were no atoms to convey it... Atoms are alive because they are the fundamental structure of a thought measured in waves.

So we go backwards in time... From humans to primates to some sort of cat or dog... hehe, till we were such a simple life form that the cell itself was primitive and was possibly rigid like that of a plant or a close ancestor...rigid to emulate rocks a more near relative... These plants/biology/chemistry were not very complex and fertilization is a result of atomic influence of duality over time...

As we go back further these plants were like a mold or virus... these viruses grew out of sludge and volcanic heat that fused the chemicals together into every variety of chemical composition possible... Comets were very plentiful and were depositing water on the earth which with the suns heat made subtle atmospheric changes... The chemicals that the earth kept mixing and spewing out of volcanoes had complex interaction. Chemistry has some wonderful properties... chemistry has symmetry and magnetism... chemistry has it's own physics apart from atomic physics yet they have the same symmetry. Physics and chemistry have light fundamental to both...

So this is what happened the atomic creates the molecular... Atmospheric dust and magnetism and energy from the earth arranged the chemicals into unique patterns and shapes. Suddenly the chemicals began to react to the atomic "life" within them. This life can be defined as gravity, magnetism, light, or even animation or the tendencies and possibilities of the atom became the same possibilities and tendencies of chemistry till chemistry began to observe through the atoms within... The atom itself is a window into another dimension, an observer of multiple realities. The atom certainly has animated features that are constantly in some sort of state of perpetuation. It is this perpetuation that is the simplest form of life. This perpetuation is what we feel in our hearts when we think about time and mortality.

So the atoms had a particular strength on the chemistry in the young earth because there was much more heat and there was less atmosphere so there were constant tumultuous events happening. The moon came and hit the earth started a dichotomy with the sun this also added to the the atoms ability to affect molecular chemistry over millions of years. The sun is like a giant image of the atom within. Just like our mind is like an atom too encircled by thought and issues of life's tendencies.

I firmly believe it is the (zero) "O" symbol that signifies much of how we evolved and the effect of Pi on the atom. This is what a sphere is an observer from 360 degrees of possibility... We think of the atom as a small sphere being encircled by smaller spheres. So we have this idea that all of life is made of these small spheres being orbited by smaller spheres. These physics work their way up until they become large planets. But if the atom is made of two independent "things", like possibility and tendency then this would explain evolution. That the planets and suns were formed by the particle aspect of the atom but the biology of the universe was created by the wave aspect atom...

Atoms are what pull mass together into earths and suns. It is the pi within atoms that creates a void that gives every atom it's attractiveness. When many atoms attract together they collectively open the void. A sun in an equilibrium between two possibilities.

This takes us to an endless void full of no solid matter or complex elements only an infinity of simple hydrogen atoms heavily scattered throughout the cosmos. These simple atoms made of possibility and an architecture that it will repeat and repeat until it has evolved into the same infinity of shape and form that it came from...

I will say one thing I think that "all" forms of life (including rocks) were directly made by the atom... But as we see the atom passed off its characters and resides both within a organism and outside. Does the atom pass off a perfect circle when it "reproduces" or is it slightly imperfect?

In conclusion can anyone say that rocks are not alive when rocks and biology are both made of the same thing? Even a dead person is alive... not one particle of matter is destroyed when a person dies...

So I feel connected to my world now and not separate like science has taught me all of my life... I now have a watchful eye for what the earth can teach me and I see more of God within me now... but I know that God is outside of me too... Two places at the same time... Just like the atom... God is possible...
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 05:13 am
JLNobody wrote:
Rosborne, I can't give you advice on simple writling. My posts are often so obscure that I have to work to understand them after some time. I think you should write in a style that comes natural to you and let us adapt.
JL


Hi JL, actually, my question was rhetorical. Smile
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 05:24 am
RexRed wrote:
I will say that the premise of my reply here is that: all humans evolved from rocks... I know this sounds very foolish... Absolutely everyone who I have told this too has openly laughed at me and called me a bit crazy...


In a Grand sense, Biological evolution resulted from stellar evolution which resulted from cosmic evolution. But if this is what you mean by "humans evolved from rocks", then it would be more accurate to say that humans and rocks have a common ancestor (not that one evolved from the other). The common ancestor would be stars, which produced most of the atoms which compose both us, and rocks.

Ultimately, everything has a common ancestor with everything else. The One common ancestor being the Universe itself. But this is rather obvious.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 02:15 pm
Yes, Rosborne, just as it is correct to note that humans are not evolved from monkeys, but that both are evolved from a common ancestor.
RexRed, I do not say that we are evolved from rocks since that implies a linear relation or descent that I do not sense. I prefer to say (and this need not be truer, only my personal preference) that I and all rocks (as well as everything else) are "ultimately" of the same nature: we are, in effect, one.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 03:05 pm
JLNobody wrote:
I prefer to say (and this need not be truer, only my personal preference) that I and all rocks (as well as everything else) are "ultimately" of the same nature: we are, in effect, one.


Master Po would probably have told Grasshopper the same thing Smile
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 03:07 pm
That's probably where I got it. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 05:42 pm
An interesting side note is that Master Khan would probably have told "student Caine" the same thing also.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2005 06:00 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
I will say that the premise of my reply here is that: all humans evolved from rocks... I know this sounds very foolish... Absolutely everyone who I have told this too has openly laughed at me and called me a bit crazy...


In a Grand sense, Biological evolution resulted from stellar evolution which resulted from cosmic evolution. But if this is what you mean by "humans evolved from rocks", then it would be more accurate to say that humans and rocks have a common ancestor (not that one evolved from the other). The common ancestor would be stars, which produced most of the atoms which compose both us, and rocks.

Ultimately, everything has a common ancestor with everything else. The One common ancestor being the Universe itself. But this is rather obvious.


If it was that obvious we would not be having this conversation...
Smile

Your rather succinct answer to my long post was needless to say enlightening. I do not see why life had to have come from the universe and could not have come from our own earth sun and moon atoms etc... Life is the result of matter in an unobstructed balance. I can surmise that the materials that make up the earth could have come from outside of our solar system. How much of the matter in our solar system is actually from our sun?

I think the earth in it's unique place in this universe is a life factory in itself...

Also I doubt that anyone will will seriously challenge me on the subject as to if rocks are alive but do they have a soul and a spirit? That is another question... I think rocks have a soul and I am not sure yet about spirit...

Does spirit have to come from outside of ourselves? Possibly... Life likely comes from the earth and sun but does the spirit come from within creation or from outside of creation? (born again) If spirit come from outside of creation than this would certainly present a quandary for science.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2005 10:28 pm
Farmerman Wrote
Quote:
Did you know that Cheerios only have one side?
I thought they had an inside and an outside. Will the circle be unbroken? (Yup still lurking when I have the time, but that is all relative.) Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 06:14 am
Hmmm...I always kinda figured I was a little more different than rocks...you learn something everyday. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 06:16 am
Thunder, I had you down as bit of an igneous git. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 06:23 am
I have you down as a huge poo-poo head!!
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 07:02 am
Agreed! Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 83
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 04:20:12