Wicknight wrote: Well put. An analogy that is often used on this forum and others on Boards.ie, (and was originally made by a famous scientists, so famous I can't remember his name ) was that science is like trying to figure out the rules of chess from just watching the game be played. So you can watch a pawn move up the board. After a while you notice it never moves to the sides, only forward. So you make a theory that a pawn can only move forward and you keep watching. This theory is supported by the evidence of you observing the game so you hold on to it as it appears good. But then after ages of watching game after game, you see that the pawn moves to the side and up to take a piece. You then update your theory to reflect this new observation, and continue on. Despite the fact that a theory on the game might have something down to a tee, and be 100% correct, at no point will anyone tell you that this is true or that you have learnt all the rules of the game. In essence you cannot ever prove your theories are correct, and it is illogical to claim that you can or have. Your theory might be "A castle will move only forward or sideways so long as no other piece is in the way". You might think that is 100% correct, until you see a player Castle, swapping his king and castle around. It would have been very foolish to say you had proved your original theory because you have just watched something that shows it was not in fact proved. Science is the process of building up models that we think accurately reflect the universe around us as best we can tell. While our models, or parts of our models, might reflect the universe very well (100% even), we will never know this, and as such we cannot say we have ever proven anything, because we can't tell what is or is not certain. Neo-darwin biological evolution theory modules the natural world around us as best as we can tell. It models what the evidence suggests as best as we can tell. Like all scientific theory it is not perfect, and we will never get it perfect. But based on the reading of the evidence, and the successful prediction of future evidence, it appears to be a very good model. Therefore saying "evolution is only a theory" shows more about the ignorance of the utterer to science than a negativity towards evolution.
o1s1n wrote: Fair play to you lot. Some nice in depth replies there. I'm coming from a background that's pretty steeped in religion, so I just thought I'd throw out some of the arguments people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint. I'm in no way linked to any of that, I hate it in fact, but always found their evolution arguments quite interesting. Obviously you've changed my opinion somewhat. I think lots more reading is probably in order.
o1s1n wrote: Oh no, don't get me wrong. I am in no way a theist. I don't believe in any deities at all. Although, I don't completely throw out the possibility that that there could be some higher consciousness or being that we're not yet able to understand. Therefore I wouldn't consider myself a proper atheist. I'm just simply looking for answers. Once I find them I'll then figure out what group i fit into Thanks for the book link anyway. I'll give it a look.
Tim Robbins wrote: I think the point about Kenneth Miller is that both theist and atheist commmunity accept evolution. It is really only hardcore fundamentalists or creationists that don't now. There's a of propaganda coming mainly the creationists in the US in my opinion that comes up with rhetoric like: 'evolution is only a theory' but as you can see when you dig through that statement you realise the ignorance of it.
o1s1n wrote: The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know. But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about? The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?
o1s1n wrote: The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know. But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about? The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse? It just seems like a hell of a lot of coincidences to all be put down to chance. But then again, there are billions of stars, billions of galexies. So who knows. Maybe that's all it was. Therefore I find it pointless to even attempt to go one way or the other as it usually ends up in a massive headache. I never said I wholeheartedly rejected evolution. All I said was I had some problems which prevented me from accepting it as something I believed myself. If I can have those problems ironed out, fair enough. Results of what I hear around me on a regular basis? Probably. Oh, sorry If I'm annoying anyone by going completely off topic. I'll shut up!
o1s1n wrote: Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.
SonOfPerdition wrote: You and the rest of us just happen to be alive at a point in time when a total solar eclispe is visible on earth. Its no sign of a creator .. its just good luck! Granted, the window of oppourtunity is quite large as the timescale of the moon causing solar eclipses is rather long compared to our puny lifecycles.
o1s1n wrote: Tim Robbins, I agree with you 100%. If there is some form of higher entity, it certainly isn't manifest in any religion on the planet today.
Tim Robbins wrote: Some atheists are treating this bloke like Jesus mark II, and think anything he touches turns to gold!
o1s1n wrote: See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd. I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!
Tim Robbins wrote: Yeah I can see where you are coming from. I fully accept evolution but I also find it mind boggling how some constants in the universe are of such a critical, exact and relevant value. They appear as if they were set so that life could evolve somewhere.
Tim Robbins wrote: I am one of the few atheists on this forum for example who isn't a Dawkins fan, I think some of his arguments are very poor.
o1s1n wrote: I do know what you're trying to say. It's an argument I'd use myself. right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!. Okay you're using four different variables there in a simplified way to get your point across. Probability wise, when you have billions of galaxies, it's going to happen at some point or another with only 4 variables. When you start adding extra variables, the probability reduces drastically. Who knows how many variables it would take to spark life. Even with billions of galaxies, there could be so many variables as to make the probability so minute it is impossible. Now, I was crap at maths and probability, so correct me if I'm wrong. lol
robindch wrote: BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?
o1s1n wrote: How could you possibly work that out without knowing all the different variables which are needed for a planet to spawn life?
robindch wrote: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009 BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?
The Atheist wrote: I'm inclined to agree. But if you haven't before, have a read about the Drake Equation. Very speculative but thought-provoking nonetheless.
Scofflaw wrote: As the planet-hunting search gets into swing
Zillah wrote: That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days?
Zillah wrote: That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days? Last I heard the two methods were the sun wobble caused by orbiting planets (needs big assed Jupiter type planets) and minor drop in star brightness at regular intervals as a planet intervenes between us and it, again, needs big ass planets and a very lucky orbit. This is going on half remembered documentaries from years ago, I assume theres better methods employed now?
