Common misconceptions

[SlyPokerDog]

Glass does not flow at room temperature as a high-viscosity liquid.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-Curtin-280 Although glass shares some molecular properties found in liquids, glass at room temperature is an "amorphous solid" that only begins to flow above the glass transition temperature,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-Halem-281 though the exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among theorists and scientists.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-NYTglass-282 Panes of stained glass windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used at the time. Normally the thick end of glass would be installed at the bottom of the frame, but it is also common to find old windows where the thicker end has been installed to the sides or the top.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-NYTglass-282 No such distortion is observed in other glass objects, such as sculptures or optical instruments, that are of similar or even greater age. One researcher estimated in 1998 that for glass to actually flow at room temperatures would take many times the age of the earth.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

How convenient! Lol

Well since you and I both agree that evolution exists, what are we arguing? Reading back, I see you defending that abiogenesis is more scientific than theistic concepts, which is tripping me out.

I don't know what we're arguing. I was trying to get you to tell me why you think creationism is based in science, but you still won't.

And yes, abiogenesis is a hypothesis based on observations using the scientific method. Creationism is not based on the scientific method. What is difficult to understand about that?

We come "full circle" with the argument. Do you or do you not think abiogenesis is more scientific than theistic views?

Yes. I've said it over and over again.

Same here! You were the one that think creation belief is unscientific, yet fully support abiogenesis as truly scientific.

And what started it all? You said "you must be able to observe it naturally". I guess it doesn't matter to the things you believe in huh?

Sigh. I didn't say that. I already refuted this point, but your response was that I was divulging from the argument.

Are you saying there is zero evidence that God exists?

Zero evidence using the scientific method, yes.

Simple, you said "philosophy isn't science"

It's not. The two fields may be related, but they are not the same.

 

[julius]

Ladies, you're both pretty and smart.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't know what we're arguing. I was trying to get you to tell me why you think creationism is based in science, but you still won't.

And yes, abiogenesis is a hypothesis based on observations using the scientific method. Creationism is not based on the scientific method. What is difficult to understand about that?



Yes. I've said it over and over again.




Sigh. I didn't say that. I already refuted this point, but your response was that I was divulging from the argument.




Zero evidence using the scientific method, yes.





It's not. The two fields may be related, but they are not the same.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
means of acquiring knowledge scientifically:the system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

Classical argument

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.

Eyewitness testimony

Billions of people can testify that they have felt the presence of God. Interview 1,000 people in each region, religion and culture. Document the similarities of each testimony. Draw a conclusion on the common ideology and retest accordingly.

Would you like more methods?

 

[MarAzul]

But only to us.

and then you dismiss us as anything special.

Well I suppose that is a warning. Too bad you can't identify your team.

 

[Minstrel]

Eyewitness testimony

Billions of people can testify that they have felt the presence of God. Interview 1,000 people in each region, religion and culture. Document the similarities of each testimony. Draw a conclusion on the common ideology and retest accordingly.

First of all, "feeling the presence of God" isn't eyewitness testimony. Even without being hyper-literal on the "eye" part, eyewitness testimony is based on the five senses, not the feels. Otherwise a murder trial could feature "eyewitness testimony" from a guy who "feels" that the defendant is guilty.

Second of all, what millions or billions believe is empirical evidence...of what they believe. It's not empirical evidence that what they believe is true. In other words, this is empirical evidence in anthropology. If your interest was in how many people believe in god and what their experience in religion was, all of that would be great empirical evidence. If your interest is in "does a god exist?" then it isn't empirical evidence, any more than polling 9/11 conspiracy theorists is empirical evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
means of acquiring knowledge scientifically:the system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

Classical argument

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.

Eyewitness testimony

Billions of people can testify that they have felt the presence of God. Interview 1,000 people in each region, religion and culture. Document the similarities of each testimony. Draw a conclusion on the common ideology and retest accordingly.

Would you like more methods?

Go ahead and post more methods, because that one was pretty weak. I'll just let you read what Minstrel posted because that is spot on. In short, emotions are not a reliable indicator of factual circumstances.

Also: the "classical argument" seems flawed. How do we know that the universe has a beginning? We can't see "before" the big bang, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a before. It just means that our observational tools aren't advanced enough. So we turn to philosophy.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

and then you dismiss us as anything special.

Well I suppose that is a warning. Too bad you can't identify your team.

A warning of what? Why do I need a team?

 

[magnifier661]

First of all, "feeling the presence of God" isn't eyewitness testimony. Even without being hyper-literal on the "eye" part, eyewitness testimony is based on the five senses, not the feels. Otherwise a murder trial could feature "eyewitness testimony" from a guy who "feels" that the defendant is guilty.

Second of all, what millions or billions believe is empirical evidence...of what they believe. It's not empirical evidence that what they believe is true. In other words, this is empirical evidence in anthropology. If your interest was in how many people believe in god and what their experience in religion was, all of that would be great empirical evidence. If your interest is in "does a god exist?" then it isn't empirical evidence, any more than polling 9/11 conspiracy theorists is empirical evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Interesting... So have you seen and read every "empirical" evidence that you believe? Have you tested it yourself?

If you had, you have a point. But the reality is, you are taking their word for it right?

We talk of court... Well if someone provides a written testimony on a court case, you can strike it because you don't have the ability to cross examine the witness.

And we talk of feeling... Well, psychology is a form of science. Many doctors use the emotions and feelings of their patients to diagnose them. So that isn't science?

 

[magnifier661]

Go ahead and post more methods, because that one was pretty weak. I'll just let you read what Minstrel posted because that is spot on. In short, emotions are not a reliable indicator of factual circumstances.

Also: the "classical argument" seems flawed. How do we know that the universe has a beginning? We can't see "before" the big bang, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a before. It just means that our observational tools aren't advanced enough. So we turn to philosophy.

I just responded to minstrel and I believe my response is good.

And we are debating "scientific method". I just clearly refuted your claim it has no method. It doesn't mean what is more "logical". You can kick and scream all you want, but you are clearly wrong.

 

[Minstrel]

Interesting... So have you seen and read every "empirical" evidence that you believe? Have you tested it yourself?

No, which is why I don't call myself a scientist.

And we talk of feeling... Well, psychology is a form of science. Many doctors use the emotions and feelings of their patients to diagnose them. So that isn't science?

It is. We can certainly investigate the psychology and neuroscience of believers. It's not scientific evidence of any gods, just like a headcount of believers isn't evidence of any gods, but it can be a scientific pursuit of its own.

 

[magnifier661]

No, which is why I don't call myself a scientist.

Then your guess is as good as mine then. If you or I haven't tested it, then we are just choosing what method we agree more with. This has nothing to do with theism has no scientific method.

It is. We can certainly investigate the psychology and neuroscience of believers. It's not scientific evidence of any gods, just like a headcount of believers isn't evidence of any gods, but it can be a scientific pursuit of its own.

But psychiatrist can still diagnose a patient through emotional testimony of their patients. They can make further testing after a diagnosis is made. So the mention all testimony is still evidence for the doctor to diagnose.

And your response is explaining that personal testimony is a form of scientific method.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in an increase in complexity. A population can evolve to become simpler, having a smaller genome, but biological devolution is a misnomer.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A common argument against evolution is that entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases over time, and thus evolution could not produce increased complexity. However, the law only applies to isolated systems,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-184 where no transfer of heat or matter between the system and its surroundings is allowed. The Earth is not an isolated system, as it absorbs and radiates the Sun's energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-185 Entropy must only increase in the universe as a whole.

 

[Minstrel]

If you or I haven't tested it, then we are just choosing what method we agree more with.

Absolutely. No one has said you can't prefer mysticism over the scientific method.

But psychiatrist can still diagnose a patient through emotional testimony of their patients. They can make further testing after a diagnosis is made. So the mention all testimony is still evidence for the doctor to diagnose.

Yes, they can certainly investigate the emotional content of their patients' beliefs. It doesn't say anything about the existence of gods, but it could be interesting.

 

[magnifier661]

Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A common argument against evolution is that entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases over time, and thus evolution could not produce increased complexity. However, the law only applies to isolated systems,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-184 where no transfer of heat or matter between the system and its surroundings is allowed. The Earth is not an isolated system, as it absorbs and radiates the Sun's energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-185 Entropy must only increase in the universe as a whole.

Evolution? Say what?!

 

[magnifier661]

Absolutely. No one has said you can't prefer mysticism over the scientific method.



Yes, they can certainly investigate the emotional content of their patients' beliefs. It doesn't say anything about the existence of gods, but it could be interesting.

I can 100% respect your opinion and choice. Your method of thinking is quality IMO.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Benjamin Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States instead of the bald eagle. While he did serve on a commission that tried to design a seal after the Declaration of Independence, his proposal was an image of Moses. His objections to the eagle as a national symbol and preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter in response to the Society of the Cincinnati's use of the former; he never expressed that sentiment publicly.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The signing of the United States Declaration of Independence did not occur on July 4, 1776. The final language of the document was approved by the Second Continental Congress on that date and it was printed and distributed on July 4 and 5,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-29 but the actual signing occurred on August 2, 1776.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

wtf Minstrel, how is it that you got the free pass from Mags by saying the same shit, but my "arguments" have "clearly" been defeated?

I think this may be the first time I've ever had a debate with Mags, is it always this... interesting?

 

[magnifier661]

wtf Minstrel, how is it that you got the free pass from Mags by saying the same shit, but my "arguments" have "clearly" been defeated?

I think this may be the first time I've ever had a debate with Mags, is it always this... interesting?

Because he knows how to debate. You should take notes

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Because he knows how to debate. You should take notes

lol

 

[Minstrel]

lol

Wait. Wait. Woah. Are you lol'ing at the idea that I know how to debate?

Don't make me bust out my high school debate team credentials on you. Because I would feel very sad admitting those credentials. So let's not even go there, alright tough guy?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Wait. Wait. Woah. Are you lol'ing at the idea that I know how to debate?

Don't make me bust out my high school debate team credentials on you. Because I would feel very sad admitting those credentials. So let's not even go there, alright tough guy?

I guess it probably gave you the ability to follow and interact with the craziest trains of thought. You tamed the beast with only a few sentences. I wrote paragraphs of well reasoned arguments and I just sank further into the madness.

 

[Minstrel]

I guess it probably gave you the ability to follow and interact with the craziest trains of thought. You tamed the beast with only a few sentences. I wrote paragraphs of well reasoned arguments and I just sank further into the madness.

You tried too hard, man.

Whole thing reeked of effort.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Vomiting was not a regular part of Roman dining customs. In ancient Rome, the architectural feature called a vomitorium was the entranceway through which crowds entered and exited a stadium, not a special room used for purging food during meals.

I wrote a song called "In The Vomitorium" when I was a kid, it was about throwing up at a party in front of everyone while they're all watching and laughing. "something, something, spitting, spewing, now you see what you've been chewing" is the only line I can remember...

 

[magnifier661]

I guess it probably gave you the ability to follow and interact with the craziest trains of thought. You tamed the beast with only a few sentences. I wrote paragraphs of well reasoned arguments and I just sank further into the madness.

I still love you though. (Fist pound)