Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[Twizzle]

He's taken the lawn into his own hands there.

 

[T.G]

Simple Darwin

You see, 'theory' is the key word here. It's just a theory which hasn't been proven yet.



With all due respect, but your explanation of the Book of Genesis would seem
to entail a measure of oversimplicity. I might as well describe Darwin's theory
as "from goo to you by way of the zoo."

The difference being that when you simplify Darwin it is still true

 

[beorhthelm]

No, I'm not having a laugh... As I said, science can describe what electricity does and how it behaves.. but it doesnt actually know what it is. You say 'the movement of electrons'.

First.. what is an electron. No one has seen one, or even put a finger on one. According to quantum mechanics its actually impossible to actually say where and electron is . The best description of electrons now is that they are 'clouds of probability' you can predict where you think one might be.. thats about it. What people seem to miss is that Science is based on theories.. It is based on 'ideas' and 'constructs'.

well there's an awful lot of technology based on knowing precisely where electrons are, obviously someone does know. quantum theory says you cant know the position of an electron and its momentum, thats at all the same as what you've said. particles far smaller than electrons have been detected and measured. like with consciousness i see that you make a broad statement, then defend it by saying there's uncertain understanding n layers below that, therefore its not understood. i suppose its just another believe system, not to believe in science and its applications, on the basis that some questions are still open.

 

[Husty]

http://youtu.be/r4SLOr2icnY

I dont like JLS myself mate, I'm a bit old for that.

Seeing as you cant understand the written word, maybe you can watch a video... with your chips... but turn the sound down if its too complex, and put on some JLS

How have I missed this beauty all day? Oh dear that could've been a heck of an afternoon.

Since you're clearly very 'special' to come up with a post like that all I'm going to say is that perhaps it would be better for all of us if you go and take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[KneeOn]

The fact that I remain sceptical about one praticular theory doesn't mean that I am against
science per se. I only believe that God, as the Creator of the entire Universe, is the source
of all science (and might have used evolution as one of his tools of Creation, but whether we,
humans, evolved still remains unproven).



You are quite right about me being uneducated. Apart from having an MSc in Electronic
Engineering (I specialize in Digital Technics) and BA in English Literature, I have no other
education worth mentioning.

However, my atrociously low level of education doesn't change the fact that it is still not
proven beyond all doubt that humans evolved.

Errr... no. God created all things perfect according to your Bible. Creating a means for animals to change for the better via natural selection means they were not perfect to begin with.

Also there is no God.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Errr... no. God created all things perfect according to your Bible. Creating a means for animals to change for the better via natural selection means they were not perfect to begin with.

Also there is no God.

Doesn't evolution relate to adapting to the environment rather moving towards 'perfection'?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Errr... no. God created all things perfect according to your Bible. Creating a means for animals to change for the better via natural selection means they were not perfect to begin with.

Also there is no God.

Although the Bible might say that God created all things perfect, I think we all know one would have to be extremely naive to believe that... and I am talking as a person of faith. A perfect world would probably not have tectonic plates and earthquakes.

But having said that, the animals that change according to natural selection are changing to adapt to a changing world. maybe they were pretty well suited to what they were doing in the first place.

And as for the "there is no God" statement, prove it!

And before anyone asks me to prove that there IS a God, I know that I can't, which is why I would say "I believe there is a God", rather than There is a God".

 

[Dub-67]

How have I missed this beauty all day? Oh dear that could've been a heck of an afternoon.

Since you're clearly very 'special' to come up with a post like that all I'm going to say is that perhaps it would be better for all of us if you go and take a long walk off a short pier.

ahhaa haaa haaa haa haa haa haa haa cutting humour.. such sharp wit.

I take it you didnt watch/understand the video, by possibly one of the smartest people on earth, showing that science has no explanation for how consciousness and subjective experience occurs... as I said.

 

[Dub-67]

well there's an awful lot of technology based on knowing precisely where electrons are, obviously someone does know. quantum theory says you cant know the position of an electron and its momentum, thats at all the same as what you've said. particles far smaller than electrons have been detected and measured. like with consciousness i see that you make a broad statement, then defend it by saying there's uncertain understanding n layers below that, therefore its not understood. i suppose its just another believe system, not to believe in science and its applications, on the basis that some questions are still open.

you cant know its position and momentum, thats true, and seeing as electrons are never stationary, that means you can never know precisely where they are. The current scientific description 'clouds of probability' is the closet. Science makes predictions.. percentages.. these predictions work well enough to build very complex machines.

I find peoples unquestioning 'faith' in science as naive as other peoples unquestioning faith in religion. I personally dont 'believe' anything really. Your suggestion that to not believe anything is a belief system is a bit silly.
Some questions will remain unanswered by science... see David Chalmers. There is an explantory gap which can never be filled. How for example does something as immaterial as consciousness and subjective experience arise from matter? Science has no answer and will find no answer.

 

[beorhthelm]

Some questions will remain unanswered by science... see David Chalmers. There is an explantory gap which can never be filled. How for example does something as immaterial as consciousness and subjective experience arise from matter? Science has no answer and will find no answer.

i see... name keeps poping up. you've latched on to one persons view in one field, and applied to across all of science. becuase there is an "explanatroy gap" in consciousness, it doesnt mean you cant test to see that it exists and it most definately doesnt apply to electricity. i watched the youtube and its very interesting, he's a philosopher and one wouldnt apply his word to physics, just as one wouldnt expect Hawking to have the final word on philosophy of mind or language.

 

[Dub-67]

i see... name keeps poping up. you've latched on to one persons view in one field, and applied to across all of science. becuase there is an "explanatroy gap" in consciousness, it doesnt mean you cant test to see that it exists and it most definately doesnt apply to electricity. i watched the youtube and its very interesting, he's a philosopher and one wouldnt apply his word to physics, just as one wouldnt expect Hawking to have the final word on philosophy of mind or language.

Well fair point.. there were two conversations going on on this thread, and yes, my posts have blurred the two. The explanatory gap is most evident in dealing with consciousness, subjective awareness arising from biology, and that is all Chalmers concerns himself with thats true. However it does show that scientists sometimes 'seem' to promote a perspective where all things can be described using the scientific method, and that all there is is a material world, and everything in it emerges from that material world. Chalmers shows quiet clearly thats not the case.

Maybe bringing electricity into it blurs the issue. I used it as an example to show that science often describes things without really fully knowing what it is talking about. 'Gravity' would be another example.. We all think we 'know' what it is, and science can perfectly describe how it works. But no one really knows what it is.
"The force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass" but there is no real understanding of 'what' it is. The same goes for electricity.
"A form of energy resulting from the existence of charged particles "
and charged particles are;
"the quantity of unbalanced electricity in a body (either positive or negative) "
So you get a circular description.. with no real definition to tell you what it actually is.

The reason I linked this with the 'consciousness' argument, (maybe flunkily) is that because we view the world through our subjective awareness, we never see the world truly objectively, and that may be the reason why we cant see things as they truly are. Science is all about being objective, but does an objective universe actually exist? We certainly cant study it truly objectively.. as has been discovered when conducting quantum measurements, when it was discovered that the mere fact of watching or measuring changes the results. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Dub-67]

double post

 

[Mellotron]

And as for the "there is no God" statement, prove it!

And before anyone asks me to prove that there IS a God, I know that I can't, which is why I would say "I believe there is a God", rather than There is a God".

Quite. The burden of proof falls with anyone who tries to push their worldview onto others. I am a Christian, however I do not force my worldviews onto others, so there is no burden of proof for me.

 

[Chesney Christ]

"Gary Lineker is in a spot of bother....."

... becomes... people angrily arguing over the existence of God.

God Bless you NSC.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Quite. The burden of proof falls with anyone who tries to push their worldview onto others. I am a Christian, however I do not force my worldviews onto others, so there is no burden of proof for me.

This.

(as a non-christian)

 

[Dub-67]

"Gary Lineker is in a spot of bother....."

... becomes... people angrily arguing over the existence of God.

God Bless you NSC.

oh so Gary Lineker isnt God.. that explains how I got the wrong end of the stick

 

[father_and_son]

No, I'm not having a laugh... As I said, science can describe what electricity does and how it behaves.. but it doesnt actually know what it is. You say 'the movement of electrons'.

First.. what is an electron. No one has seen one, or even put a finger on one. According to quantum mechanics its actually impossible to actually say where and electron is . The best description of electrons now is that they are 'clouds of probability' you can predict where you think one might be.. thats about it. What people seem to miss is that Science is based on theories.. It is based on 'ideas' and 'constructs'.

You also say the 'movement of electrons' , well they dont actually move either. For example you might imagine that when you turn a light on that the electrons 'flow along it' like a river.. That is a 'construct' which enables us to picture what we think is going on.

Science has done a good job of convincing us that it understands all this, but actually it doesnt. It just describes events in its own language. To say what electricity is, you need to invoke other terms.. like its the flow of electrons.. I then ask 'what are electrons'. It turns out electrons are described as 'fundamental' , an electron is described by a wavefunction, which can be used to find a probability distribution for its detection or interaction. Notice the word 'probability' no fact.. just probability. They also say its 'negatively charged' but what does that actually mean? The understanding of the Universe is all a lot more murky that people generally believe.

Science DOES know what an electron is, even some of is subcomponents.... what you are getting confused by is the Uncertainty Principle. In layman's terms this DOES NOT mean I don't know where an electron is, it means that by observing where it is I have moved it and so its no longer there.

The problem is identical to a blind man trying to map everything in a room. He can only tell where everything is by touch. Each time he touches an object to sense where it is he actually moves it slightly. So the map drawn by the blind man of where everything is in the room is always inaccurate because the process of finding where things are has moved them.

Once science finds a way of "seeing" the electron without touching it (usually with a photon), then this problem goes away.

Just because YOU don't understand the science doesn't mean that no-one does. Science is a journey towards the truth, not the destination. Religion is pretending you know the truth and refusing to take the journey!

 

[Dub-67]

Science DOES know what an electron is, even some of is subcomponents.... what you are getting confused by is the Uncertainty Principle. In layman's terms this DOES NOT mean I don't know where an electron is, it means that by observing where it is I have moved it and so its no longer there.

The problem is identical to a blind man trying to map everything in a room. He can only tell where everything is by touch. Each time he touches an object to sense where it is he actually moves it slightly. So the map drawn by the blind man of where everything is in the room is always inaccurate because the process of finding where things are has moved them.

Once science finds a way of "seeing" the electron without touching it (usually with a photon), then this problem goes away.

Just because YOU don't understand the science doesn't mean that no-one does. Science is a journey towards the truth, not the destination. Religion is pretending you know the truth and refusing to take the journey!

First.. If you had read further in the thread, then you will see I am not defending religion.
Second, seeing as you obviously 'know', please tell me what an electron is. Without defining it in circular terms.
Maybe you could start by telling me whether an electron is a wave or a particle?

 

[Triggaaar]

Second, seeing as you obviously 'know', please tell me what an electron is. Without defining it in circular terms.

Please, without moving, explain why you're putting restrictions on his answer.

 

[Dub-67]

Please, without moving, explain why you're putting restrictions on his answer.

ahhh triggaaaaar... maybe you can tell me if an electron is a wave or particle then?

restrictions? nah.. I just want an answer not a ride on the magic roundabout.