It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And that's exactly the limit of science and exactly the part that needs to change for real progress.
Originally posted by sirnex
When we're talking about scientific progress, we're not talk about inventing unobserved idea's and "rolling with it".
The scientific method is outdated. Like Einstein once said, "You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew". Science might have brought us forward in technology, but we are losing our humanity because of it. We want to see everything in a Newtonian way, which is simply falling apart nowadays. Science was needed in that time to create a sustainable way of living for humanity. Now we have that, but we are still following that path while it is not needed. What we need now, is something to bring humanity closer together. Without that, we might as well throw science away because otherwise we'll destroy ourselves.
Because it doesn't follow the scientific method and has already been admitted to be created as a new term for creationism by God. If you wish to argue ID by way of aliens from Tau Ceti, then we can argue something that is actually tangible and testable.
If you use physics and chemistry as an argument that it's valid, we can use logic or philosophy to support ID. But then again, the scientific method won't allow that. And that's exactly the point..
While abiogenesis hasn't been observed and is predicted for by the theory of evolution, the mechanics behind abiogenesis are sound, those being physics and chemistry. Some of the predicted outcomes of the theory has been observed to occur and does occur, so we can't just rule it out as there is some evidence in favor of it. Whereas ID lacks any such evidence in favor of it, instead it pokes holes in different theories or at the moment unknown processes.
I guess they never slept or ate or rested then.. In any case, what you're doing is pure speculation, and there is no real evidence for that.. Just like there was no evidence that the Sphinx was only 5000 years old.. They taught everyone it was, and recently, someone decided to actually measure it, and it was older than 11000 years old.. You might think this is an exception, but it's the rule.. They assume a lot of stuff and just go by it, and you think they have scientific evidence for it..
I disagree with your assertion that a stone would have to be placed ever 20 seconds. By my estimates, they would have had to place fourteen stone blocks per hour.
2500000
/
20 years
=
125000 blocks per year to be moved.
/
365 days out of the year to work
=
342 give or take, stone blocks per twenty four hour day
/
24 hours a day
=
14 stone blocks to move per hour.
Although my math could be wrong, not my strongest suite so if it is wrong can you please show me where I went wrong. I just don't see how they achieve this one block every two seconds claim.
Considering the sizable work force they had and that one man is capable of quickly and effortlessly moving well over nine tonnes alone, I think it's entirely possible for them to have achieved the goal.
let me ask you something first. Why do you want evidence for everything?
Do you have anything that has evidence for it that science has thrown out?
Why not? If it wasn't for that, science wouldn't have existed in the first place... It was all born from philosophy.. And ironically philosophy is not even "real" science today.. See how pathetic the world has actually gotten?
Why does the materialistic view have to change? Change to what? There is no evidence for anything else to work with here. You can't just make an unsubstantiated claim and leave it at that.
And that's exactly the limit of science and exactly the part that needs to change for real progress.
The scientific method is outdated. Like Einstein once said, "You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew". Science might have brought us forward in technology, but we are losing our humanity because of it. We want to see everything in a Newtonian way, which is simply falling apart nowadays. Science was needed in that time to create a sustainable way of living for humanity. Now we have that, but we are still following that path while it is not needed. What we need now, is something to bring humanity closer together. Without that, we might as well throw science away because otherwise we'll destroy ourselves.
If you use physics and chemistry as an argument that it's valid, we can use logic or philosophy to support ID. But then again, the scientific method won't allow that. And that's exactly the point..
I guess they never slept or ate or rested then.. In any case, what you're doing is pure speculation, and there is no real evidence for that.. Just like there was no evidence that the Sphinx was only 5000 years old.. They taught everyone it was, and recently, someone decided to actually measure it, and it was older than 11000 years old.. You might think this is an exception, but it's the rule.. They assume a lot of stuff and just go by it, and you think they have scientific evidence for it..
let me ask you something first. Why do you want evidence for everything?
Why not? If it wasn't for that, science wouldn't have existed in the first place... It was all born from philosophy.. And ironically philosophy is not even "real" science today.. See how pathetic the world has actually gotten?
No, it's not about inventing, it's about not throwing stuff away that has a foundation in logic.
Originally posted by sirnexSo we can just invent any unobserved thing without evidence and call it progress?
It has nothing to do with God. It has to do with children playing with stuff that's too dangerous for themselves.
I disagree that science will destroy us. With science people are forced to back up their claims leading to less infighting over who is more right compared to who with invented unobserved lack of evidence claims. At least that's my take on it. Personally I would rather not see any more fights over who's God is more real but with a scientific twist.
Here:
Physics and chemistry do allow for it, whereas logic doesn't inherently show us a designer. It's faulty logic to point at something whilst saying I have no clue how this could arise naturally ergo a designer created it. You show me the logic in that and I'll concede to your statement.
Well.. I can't find that right now, but Mystery of the Sphinx on Discovery Channel (you can find it on youtube if needed) is a good start..
Your right, it is pure speculation, but it's more realistic than the speculation you posted. They wouldn't need all 100,000 people working at once to move fourteen stones an hour. I also call into question this supposed new date for the sphinx, this is the first I have heard of this and if you can cite any peer reviewed sources for this new date i would appreciate it.
I wouldn't necessarily demand evidence but I would question your statement and approach it logically. Maybe you mean a toy cat, or maybe it's a metaphor, or, other options, and after that, I question you, to see if it's logical. If it's not logical, I refute it. Science is the other way around. They refute it if there's no evidence, even if it's logical.
Because I don't blindly believe everything. If there is no evidence for something claimed, then I have no reason to believe it to be true. If I told you I had a talking cat, would you just believe me without evidence or would you also demand evidence?
There's nothing to disagree there. It's a fact in history.
I disagree it was born from philosophy.
No, it's not about inventing, it's about not throwing stuff away that has a foundation in logic.
It has nothing to do with God. It has to do with children playing with stuff that's too dangerous for themselves.
Logic shows us a designer, science refuses to listen to logic and prefers to determine EVERYTHING in a systematic material way.
That's beginning to fade away with quantum physics, since there's no real difference between matter and energy.
Well.. I can't find that right now, but Mystery of the Sphinx on Discovery Channel (you can find it on youtube if needed) is a good start..
I wouldn't necessarily demand evidence but I would question your statement and approach it logically. Maybe you mean a toy cat, or maybe it's a metaphor, or, other options, and after that, I question you, to see if it's logical. If it's not logical, I refute it. Science is the other way around. They refute it if there's no evidence, even if it's logical.
There's nothing to disagree there. It's a fact in history.
I never said that either.
Originally posted by sirnex
Saying I don't know how X could occur naturally ergo it must have been designed is not logic.
Never mind this part.
Like what?
Then why does science want to go so badly with the assumption that there is no designer, if they both weigh the same? =)
Logic does not show us a designer. It is no more logical to assume a designer than it is to assume there was no designer nor to assume fifty-nine designers.
Lol.. Matter is energy and energy is matter.. Where did I go wrong??
If you think that is true, then there are many websites out there that will demystify QM for you.
Because talking is a human way of communicating. No other species talks, they might communicate in another way, but we wouldn't call it talking. Therefore a talking cat is not logical, assuming it's a real life organic cat.
Why would it not be logical to have a talking cat? I also disagree with your interpretation of science.
You want me to provide sources but do not give a reason why you disagree. Anyway, I know the origin of science was to seek knowledge. But nowadays it's more to seek power.. I don't know what kind of definition you want.. I'll give you this one.. Science is a set of branches that wants to seek infinite knowledge in every branch. This knowledge needs to be tested and needs to be supported by phyisical evidence, and if this is not possible, it can still be sustained if it has a basis in mathematics, or is supported by other branches. , But this does not necessarily mean that science seeks to unify all the branches, or that the support from other branches is based on scientific evidence itself.
I'm still going to have to disagree as well as ask for sources to these so called facts as well as a definition and example in your own words as to what science is.
I never said that either.
Never mind this part.
Then why does science want to go so badly with the assumption that there is no designer, if they both weigh the same? =)
Lol.. Matter is energy and energy is matter.. Where did I go wrong??
Because talking is a human way of communicating. No other species talks, they might communicate in another way, but we wouldn't call it talking. Therefore a talking cat is not logical, assuming it's a real life organic cat.
You want me to provide sources but do not give a reason why you disagree.
Anyway, I know the origin of science was to seek knowledge.
But nowadays it's more to seek power
Science is a set of branches that wants to seek infinite knowledge in every branch. This knowledge needs to be tested and needs to be supported by phyisical evidence, and if this is not possible, it can still be sustained if it has a basis in mathematics, or is supported by other branches. , But this does not necessarily mean that science seeks to unify all the branches, or that the support from other branches is based on scientific evidence itself.
Let's just say we don't have enough responsibility to handle the knowledge that we have now.
Originally posted by sirnex
OK, but I am genuinely curious.
Well, I think abiogenesis and possibly evolution have that assumption. Big Bang however, does not. Though I agree in its optimal form science would not take any side. But usually people begin to argue science vs religion and those two don't even have to close each other out..
I think you misunderstand science's stance on God or God like entities. From my understanding science doesn't inherently assume there is no God and there are plenty of scientists who are attempting to 'find' God through science. The reason God isn't inherently or explicitly viewed as absolutely true in the same light as religion is because there is no actual evidence for a God or fifty-nine Gods.
That is a possibility, yes.. One can also mimic the movements of a flying bird, that does not mean that that person is flying.
I disagree and I think you are anthropomorphizing semantically a species ability to exchange communication. There is also the possibility of mimicking sounds to appear as human speech.
Hm interesting.
Yes, it's an exercise to understand why you stated what you stated.
Without those two, science can not exist. Who do you think are the ones funding the science projects? Same reason why science is not what it's supposed to be (the seeking of knowledge).
I think your mixing science up with government and politics.
What's the view according to you? Today science is too branched imo.
Interesting view you have on science. Wrong, but interesting. Could possibly write up a novel around this idea. Start off with some scientific cult that obtained governmental control of sorts and just take off from there.
Let's just say we don't have enough responsibility to handle the knowledge that we have now.
Well, I think abiogenesis and possibly evolution have that assumption. Big Bang however, does not. Though I agree in its optimal form science would not take any side. But usually people begin to argue science vs religion and those two don't even have to close each other out..
That is a possibility, yes.. One can also mimic the movements of a flying bird, that does not mean that that person is flying.
Without those two, science can not exist. Who do you think are the ones funding the science projects? Same reason why science is not what it's supposed to be (the seeking of knowledge).
What's the view according to you? Today science is too branched imo.
In any case, ID is not viewed as science because it offers closure without physical evidence, and that's something that science usually does not want.. With or without the physical evidence, the closure is not acceptable..
Then the statement in question was just a pointless statement made for no apparent reason on your part?
My honest answer is, I don't know and that question applies to only closed systems and as I don't know of any closed systems I can't make any comment on where matter came from in our own universe.
No, you haven't.
This is what you have said on the matter. Those are not explanations, they are statements.
Actually you really cant prove otherwise, so yeah emm. ... There was no first cause, ITS INFINITY!!!
Ah picking and choosing, great aint it?
Oh and if you didint even know about the results on the sphinxs age, which is a pretty old revelation at this stage, then how can I take your knowledge of Egypt seriously, sphinx is the smoking gun in my opinion for an advanced ancient civilization.
I think this whole argument is fruitless... For one ID isn't considered science by many but that doesn't mean it may ruled out or be discovered in future endeavors.
Certain subjects can't be proven by science but that doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't exist. Take for instance we can say Julius caesar probably existed but we can never know what his weight or height were using the Scientific method.
We can't use science to go to the opposite ends of the Universe and rule out that life may or may not exist there but we can assume that it is possible. These two resist scientific scrutinization but they do have certain truths which currently lay outside the scientific field.
The same goes for ID. What if an ID created the laws and constants for the universe and let it evolve on its own.
The universe can be akin to a giant Quantum Computer.
Now let us say we create our own program on a Quantum Computer that is made to mimic our own universe. How would these beings we create know if they were created by an ID or not.
So this ultimately this leads us with certain questions that may never be answered in it whole(at least my current knowledge or science.).
This also leads us with the proposition that no being can ever rule out ID, or at least with current knowledge, it may be possible if a civilization were billions of years in knowledge and technological advancements. Even then it is questionable.
And why do people believe that if an ID exist that the universe would be any different. Why should it look any different then our own.
Lack of physical evidence doesn't dictate a truth. The lack of evidence of there being a certain galaxy at the other end of the Universe doesn't mean that there may not be one there.
Or let us use Mathematical truths, certain mathematics have no relation to the physical universe yet there truths still hold without the physical dependence.
I do admit that ID is currently not a physical science but certain truth can't be ruled out based on physical evidence.
So let us rule in favor based on what we prefer since ID can never be proven or disproven.
Originally posted by Vasaga
…Why not? If it wasn't for that, science wouldn't have existed in the first place... It was all born from philosophy.. And ironically philosophy is not even "real" science today.. See how pathetic the world has actually gotten?
Yeah, riiiiight. When you realize that all those great stories across every culture/religion - whom all share the similar stories, basically - were talking about the same thing.