Leftist, No Doubt, Run Amok.

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 3 2004, 06:37 PM

Ray,

You're setting up an impossible standard of proof. If the only acceptable "proof" that something has happened is that the person to be convinced has actually seen it happen, then Scott Peterson should be a free man.

Since every human enterprise is fallible to some degree, we have to use fallible standards of proof. In civil law, a thing is considered proven when we are convinced that it is more likely than not to have happened. In criminal law, since the stakes are generally higher, guilt is considered proven when there is no reasonable (as opposed to speculative) doubt that it exists. (It is, I suppose, possible that all the patchouli-soaked leftists who used to howl through their psychosis-inducing pot smoke about Mumia Abu Jamal being framed were actually right, and that even though he was found sitting on the curb a few feet from a murdered police officer with his smoking gun a couple of feet away, and was witnessed shooting the man by approximately half of Philadelphia, it was really a Matrix-induced illusion orchestrated by The Man to send a fearless freedom fighter up the river, but again, the word is "reasonable.")

In science, a theory can be considered proven when it appears more likely than not to be true. The evidences of evolution in the fossil record and in existing biology require some truly epic contortions to explain away. Why do some people have remnants of tails, for example? I suppose we could posit that God just has a sense of humor and likes making sitting down on hard surfaces miserable for some people, but that seems less likely than that there are some genes left over from long-ago ancestors who had real tails.

Maybe, notwithstanding that evolution appears more likely than not to have occurred, things actually did happen in some other, apparently less plausible way. When additional light and knowledge is obtained to lead towards other conclusions, then honest scientists will abandon the theory of evolution and adopt the more likely conclusion. (Many more scientists, being less than honest, will not; scientists are human and don't always follow the supposed rules of the scientific method as rigorously as they should.)

In the interim, conclusions that are drawn from the theory of evolution can be used for practical purposes, such as in medical research involving genetics and in conservation. "By their fruits shall ye know them," as it were. Even if the theory of evolution is actually an imperfect understanding of the true facts, it explains observed phenomena precisely enough that it can be used in practice. Similarly, Newton's theories of gravitation and kinetics aren't actually, perfectly accurate; under extreme conditions, Einstein's updated theory of gravitation can be observed. But for centuries, under the conditions most often encountered, Newton's explanation worked, and still does, in much the same way that I can operate a computer well enough without knowing the precise details of why things work the way they do.

PD,

Perhaps you don't see that we're in agreement on this, except for you stating that I am "setting up an impossible standard of proof". Don't you know yet that I support Faith as a form of proof? Yet at the same time, Faith is not the same as having an absolute knowledge about God. Or in other words, though I say that I know God now, I will know Him better when I see and know Him better. For now I see through a glass darkly, but someday I will see Him face to face.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ray,

I understood you to be saying that a person couldn't consider evolution "proven," unless he'd actually seen it operating (which would require him to be a gazillion years old and able to see the whole world all at once.) In other words, I understood you to be using "proof" as "that which gives absolute knowledge." Sorry if I misunderstood.

Alma 32 does take a fascinating, scientific-style approach to obtaining religious truth. The one difference is that it's inherently personal, and gaining knowledge by that method requires a course of humility and personal experience that is impossible to do for anyone but the experimenter himself. The problem is that even if you do everything Alma 32 prescribes, and don't get the promised confirmation, that isn't considered to disprove anything, as a purely scientific experiment would be disproven if its results couldn't be replicated (like Pons' and Fleischman's "discovery" of cold fusion at the University of Utah.) If I don't get the promised confirmation, the believer will tell me I'm doing it wrong -- that I don't have an honest heart, or pure intent, or a desire to believe, or whatever, or that I've actually received an answer but can't or won't hear it. (I've heard it all, having experienced this particular problem myself.)

A purely scientific experiment, on the other hand, generally won't have this problem. If my high school chemistry teacher states that if you place zinc in hydrochloric acid, it will give off a flammable gas, whose presence will be established by a loud *poof* when you place a match under the test tube placed over the acid, I can do the experiment myself. If I do the experiment wrong, the teacher can literally hold my hand and ensure to both of us that I'm doing it right. The mistakes I can make in such an experiment will be observable by an outsider -- maybe I'm not holding the test tube properly and lose the gas produced, or maybe I've accidentally dropped the zinc into water instead of acid. An error in performing the Alma 32 experiment, on the other hand, will not be so readily apparent. What can the bishop say to an outwardly obedient youth who's trying the Alma 32 and Moroni 10 experiments as best as he can (as he says), other than, "there must be something wrong with you that I don't know about"?

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 6 2004, 01:11 PM

Ray,

I understood you to be saying that a person couldn't consider evolution "proven," unless he'd actually seen it operating (which would require him to be a gazillion years old and able to see the whole world all at once.)  In other words, I understood you to be using "proof" as "that which gives absolute knowledge."  Sorry if I misunderstood.

Alma 32 does take a fascinating, scientific-style approach to obtaining religious truth.  The one difference is that it's inherently personal, and gaining knowledge by that method requires a course of humility and personal experience that is impossible to do for anyone but the experimenter himself.  The problem is that even if you do everything Alma 32 prescribes, and don't get the promised confirmation, that isn't considered to disprove anything, as a purely scientific experiment would be disproven if its results couldn't be replicated (like Pons' and Fleischman's "discovery" of cold fusion at the University of Utah.)  If I don't get the promised confirmation, the believer will tell me I'm doing it wrong -- that I don't have an honest heart, or pure intent, or a desire to believe, or whatever, or that I've actually received an answer but can't or won't hear it.  (I've heard it all, having experienced this particular problem myself.) 

A purely scientific experiment, on the other hand, generally won't have this problem.  If my high school chemistry teacher states that if you place zinc in hydrochloric acid, it will give off a flammable gas, whose presence will be established by a loud *poof* when you place a match under the test tube placed over the acid, I can do the experiment myself.  If I do the experiment wrong, the teacher can literally hold my hand and ensure to both of us that I'm doing it right.  The mistakes I can make in such an experiment will be observable by an outsider -- maybe I'm not holding the test tube properly and lose the gas produced, or maybe I've accidentally dropped the zinc into water instead of acid.  An error in performing the Alma 32 experiment, on the other hand, will not be so readily apparent.  What can the bishop say to an outwardly obedient youth who's trying the Alma 32 and Moroni 10 experiments as best as he can (as he says), other than, "there must be something wrong with you that I don't know about"?

On the issue of evolution, I meant that someone who accepts the theory of evolution without obtaining proof that evolution is true is relying upon the assurance of other people who believe that evolution is true, based on how other people interpret the evidence. And as I was also saying, even if you look at the same evidence, you could interpret that evidence to support something other than evolution. And I’m speaking about macroevolution specifically.

On the issue of receiving a testimony, all I can say is that I know the experiment described in Alma 32 works. What else would you expect me to say to that? I’m assuming you already know that I’m not being paid for my testimony and that if I knew that these things were not true I would not believe them. And the fact that there are other people who say that they know these things makes it clear that I’m not the only one who has obtained this proof.

Btw, the other experiment you described is also based on certain conditions, just as all experiments are. For instance, you must use “real” zinc and hydrochloric acid. Or in other words, using iron and carbonated water won't give you the same effect…even if you really believe you’re using zinc and hydrochloric acid.

p.s. One more thing. I once heard someone say that people who are born and raised in the covenant, in good families with good instruction, sometimes have a more difficult time feeling the power of the Holy Ghost because they often take it for granted, because they’ve never known what it’s like to live without it. And according to that person, that’s usually the reason why “converts” can sense it more easily, because until they were baptized into the church they did never have it... at least not to the point that they knew what it was. I think that makes a lot of sense, and may account for why I can sense it more easily than some other people. I didn’t join the Church until I was 28 years old, and I was hungry for righteousness at that time. And then I became inactive, and I noticed what it felt like to lose it and then regain it again as I became active again. Heh, not that I'm recommending becoming inactive. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 6 2004, 10:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 6 2004, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Dec 3 2004, 10:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 03:14 PM

Snow,

Whether you realize it or not, you are making false judgments against me, and even though I forgive you, my Lord will be holding you accountable unless you repent.

Oh bite me Ray. Here we are having a discussion and I am belittling and ridiculing you and your opinion because it, to me, is whack, and you go off and pull some self-rigtheous phoney-baloney mallarky that your god will punish me.

Doesn't that strike you as abnormally suckey?

I think the only thing that is "sucky" is that you are trying to justify "belittling and ridiculing" me instead of offering an apology.

When I disagree with someone I try to share my understanding in the spirit of love. And if I see that I have offended someone, I apologize and continue to try to explain my thoughts while making it known that I wasn't trying to be offensive. And if that doesn't work, I walk away and leave it in God's hands.

Goodbye, Snow.

Are you really saying that I have hurt your feeling Ray? I suppose it's possible but I hardly intend to make you feel bad. I am not offended by anything you do or say.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 6 2004, 11:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 6 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 5 2004, 12:44 PM

Evolution starts with accepted premises (that everything evolves) and accepts only those facts and ideas that support that theory.

Wrong again, Ray. The theory of evolution started with objective observations of fact----changes in organisms through time as observed in the layers of the earth, the variations in physical characteristics that occur as species (like Galapagos finches and South American finches) after they are separated for long periods of time etc and etc. AND then a theory was developed to explain these obvious facts--Evolution. The reason scientists support the idea that living things have evolved over time is because the only credible facts to come forth since the initial theory support the theory.

The idea that everything was created in one big "zap", 6000 years ago is not a scientific theory because there never was any evidence to start with or that stands up under present day scientific scrutiny. Creationism is religion for that reason. It started as an assumption that has no evidence in fact---that some unprovable entity zaped the world into existance 6000 years ago. Theories start with facts. Religion stasrts with assumptions.

Are you trying to tell me that the scientific proof supporting the reality of the “Big Bang” supports evolution ONLY? What prevents me from claiming that God caused the big bang? It’s the same proof but a different theory, and there are all kinds of theories to support any view I can imagine.

Ray--First, you don't seem to know the defintion of theory, as used in science. You stasrt with EVIDENCE, and move on to formulate a THEORY to explain the exivence, and if the THEORY is valid, it will enable you to PREDICT the outcome of other experiments.

Your idea of a theory is simple a GUESS, starting with no evidence at all. And when I say evidence, I mean something that can be MEASURED and yields data that others can duplicate.

The idea of God is NOT a scientific theory for that very reason. There is no MEASURED quantities, there is no data collected that others can duplicate or even scrutinize.

Second, as to the Big Bang theory: The evidence came BEFORE the theory. Galaxies were observed, measurements were made, data was gathered--THEN the theory was formulated. The idea that God caused the Big Bang, may be a religious tenant, but it is not scientific, because it is nothing more than a GUESS--a hypothesis, if you want to give it a scientific ring.

[Cal]

Snow--try to focus now (there's the talking down you requested ), compare "makes you sound ridiculous" and "you are a _______". You may not see the differnece, but I do. One is qualified catorization, it describes the content of the communication; the other is an offensive label directed at the person, not the content. Perhaps the catorization is offensive too. Then I apologize.