I dont have time to search in google.com, but later I will, there are lots of links there about Kant, time, space, quantum, right, wrong, good, evil.... you will have a lot of fun.
Printable View
I dont have time to search in google.com, but later I will, there are lots of links there about Kant, time, space, quantum, right, wrong, good, evil.... you will have a lot of fun.
i cant believe some people believe the creation myth posed in the bible. not onlyis evolution a proven fact, but there are two creation stories at the start of genesis which would point at oral tradition and therefore it being just a story
Corpse,
You are assuming that believers will be reasonable. History shows that both impossibility and contradiction are no hindrance to them. I've even had a debate with some Christians who will simply answer that God can do anything. He can do the impossible and He can make contradictions truths. Now how can you possibly use reason with such people?
Exactly AP, when a person chooses to believe in particular religion means he/she (whether he/she realize it or not) in a way has become a unreasonable person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitaram
Wow!! I thought I was (LITERALLY) one of the few people in the world who had read Davies' book, "God and the New Physics!!!!" I own this book, originally bought it second hand for research on a novel I wrote. Never, ever, expected anyone else to have read it. Nor can I understand why anyone would.........but again, WOW! *you learn so much on this forum*
Here is something that might astound you even further baddad. I met Paul Davies at an Open University party here in the UK back in the 80's. He was lecturing at the University of Newcastle back then. I think God and the New Physics had just come out in paperback then. A fascinating guy from what I remember. (I've read the book too!)
AP
A.P. I own an old-and-getting-tattered hardcover of the book. And now my world is more complete.....the author and at least two other people have read that book!!!! I mean, it IS obscure isn't it ?
And..............I gotta go with Kiku here (and welcome back iwilkiku).....didn't Stephen Hawkins... *pauses....or was it Einstein* ....say that TIME is only a creation of man, a concept, a ruler, a means of measurement!
Ah! Paul Davies! One of my favourites. I've got his book, "How to Build a Time Machine", among many others, and I find him a very good writer.
I thought *I* said that. :D But you know, everything is relative, even time; no two persons have exactly the same time. It's not the Newtonian, established background that moves the same for everybody: no, time is relative, "everything is by comparison." Have you heard the one about the person walking down a street in a city, and asking a random person what the time is (seeing he has a watch)?Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
1st Person: What's the time, please?
2nd Person: I don't know; ask a philosopher, I'm only a scientist.
Hehe. Time, as in physical time, is interweaved with space, if you've heard of spacetime. As you travel through space, you travel through time. The way I understand it, the faster you move, the slower time goes for you in comparison to someone stationary. It won't be a big difference, but only noticeable in nanoseconds, but it still exists. The difference, I mean.
Time is elastic.
Miss Darcy.
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/time/mctaggart.html
http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html
Two links on McTaggart's concept of the unreality of time. He wrote a book in the 1920's called The Nature of Existence, in which he came up with his argument about time having the A, B and C series nature. Very difficult to summarise his ideas so anybody interested should go to these websites.
I did a google.com search on "kant is wrong" and came up with 308 hits.
Of course, I in no way mean to imply that Kant IS wrong about anything simply from the number of google.com hits returned. But such a search does uncover a lot of interesting reading; interesting at least for those who are motivated by a genuine intellectual curiosity.
As I quickly looked over some of this material, one thought in particular struck me. Kant saw refutation as the touchstone of error, and hence Kant labored to construct a philosophy which would be irrefutable. But can we assume that something is unquestionably true simply because it has yet to be refuted? Can we assume that it will never be refuted? Can we know that anything non-trivial is irrefutable?
The first four links are what I feel are most interesting (and one is written from the point of view of Islam)
Among the remainder of the links, there are some which look like interesting forums where one may post.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF6-02Carter.pdf
http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Chapter7.htm
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re14/L14r.html
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm
===================
http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives...ar00/0065.html
http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14...pic-topic-1842
-start-0.html
http://www.thymos.com/mind/lakoff2.html
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-3/chapter_xix.htm
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/p...m/tpm01-19.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_59473700
http://radicalacademy.com/adlerbriefing5.htm
http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/005681.shtml
http://www.pabst-publishers.com/Psyc...0/freeman3.htm
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...9176&start=25&
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...9176&start=25&
http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/KTS.html
http://www.friesian.com/space.htm
http://www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/SST/phil2.htm
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours...re13/L13r.html
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~hatfield/phil004gr4.html
http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/PhilosophyToday.htm
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-105218.html
Out of curiousity... Sitaram or others who have not voted: There is a poll attached to this thread and you haven't voted... Why/why not? If you are not sure, there is a "Don't know what to think" option as well...
I did not realize that you anticipated response from everyone. Since you mention me by name, and ask me point blank, I shall certainly give you the courtesy of an answer.
I am personally convinced that evolution is a scientific fact. I am convinced by documentaries which I see on the subject, and what I have heard scientists say.
I am not a scientist myself, nor a mathematician nor a physicist, so I cannot prove such things myself. So, it is pointless for anyone to debate with me personally whether evolution is a scientific fact. I know that certain fundamentalist preachers claim that God greated fossils to TEST the faithfulness of his flock.
I do try not to become embroiled in certain kinds of disputes with certain kinds of people, because I doubt that the dialogue will be profitable.
For example, if I debate with a fundamentalist, of any religion you please, (and I have done so on numerous occasions), we will go around in endless circles, and in the end they will still embrace exactlly the same fundamentalist beliefs.
I suppose there are a few people left in the world who are convinced that the earth is flat. If it is conceivable that such people would use the internet, and if you were to post a poll on "Earth: flat or round?" well, such people would offer endless circles of explanations of why the earth is flat, and how photos from the moon are a subtle conspiracy on the part of the government.
I was not anticipating a response from everyone personally but yours was the last post in the thread and I noticed that there were some people, who, despite posting numerous messages, have not voted in favour of one of the options available. As often, curiosity got the better of me.
Thank you for giving me the courtesy of an answer.
Sometimes, when I am bored, and there is not much forum activity, I read threads I might not normally look at, and if I see something interesting regarding, e.g., time, quantum, Kant, Paul Davies, ... that sort of thing, then I throw in a comment... the business about time coming into being with the big bang was what prompted me to post, but not the creation/evolution issue
I am intrigued by the question "How was Kant wrong, in light of more modern science and thinking", but then... we do not have a philosophy forum per se, and such a topic is certainly not literature, or poetry, or religion texts, though I guess it could go into the chat forum
I havn't posted a response because I only recently abjured Christianity and Creationism, I'm sure AP can remember some of our debates from ages past ;). But I havn't done any research on evolution for myself. So it's not that I "Don't know what to think" as the poll suggests, but that I merely havn't decided yet. In anycase I don't believe in biblical creation, but evolution in the sense that we went from fish to lizards to ... etc... until we became humans (I apologize for my increadibly ignorant and superficial analysis of evolution ;)) still seems a bit suspicious to me. perhaps in a couple years when I'm a bit more stable in my beliefs I'll dig this thread up and post a reply.
Where belief begins, there ends the true pursuit of knowledge.
The radiometric measuring of the years can be very inaccurate. It is based on an absolute, and not a KNOWN age...thus, scientist will only accept the date which fits their thinking.... after all, all scientists are biased. Could it not be 6000 years, rather than billions of years???
Violet, Radiometric dating is quite accurate when it comes to being millions as well as billions of years old. It only becomes inaccurate at thousands of years and really, that's only carbon dating, rather than radiometric, so yes their dating works only for larger dates, but the fact of the matter is: They still are accurate. If the world were only thousands of years old their measurements wouldn't work at all any of the time.
They work all the time when it comes to measuring the age of the Earth. Quite frankly, there isn't any evidence the world is only thousands of years old, no matter what tests you use. Unless you completley redefine how long a period of time is, there isn't any basis for such an argument. It's completely without basis.
Very well explained, Dyrwen. I rarely post in the 'Religious Text' forums, but felt a little confused about the nature of radiometrics. I did a little research, and then found your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Thanks. ;)
I think I read somewhere the other day that one of the scientific measuring satellites (the Hubble maybe?) had finally discovered the age of the Universe: 13.7 billion yrs old, give or take 1%.
You are correct in that age. NASA has a spiffy little explanation on that site of everything about the bang, including a picture of the universe itself back then. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
Goodday,
Please have patience with me because this is my first time, ok. I have not gone the book over, however, over the years of search my self conviction is that human being in this planet is first and foremost an evolved one and then creation took over, then evolution again. We are alien in our own right and a traveling space-specie. Why do you think we travel around our solar system and using the planet earth our spaceship! Thanks for your patience.
Heh, not much of a spaceship, considering we travel in an elliptical orbit around the sun only and have been for quite some time. Though you're correct in that sense, the Earth is a "spaceship" wherein the entire planet's species are inhabiting. Not sure what you mean by the whole evolved-created-evolved thing, but perhaps you'll expand on that. Suppose you might be a raelian or other alien-created-us subscriber, though I'd need your clarification on that much.
This is getting worse! *sigh* From monkeys to spaceships.... :brow:
God created this world with age. Could he not have put fossils and all the other stuff under land as well? When he created Adam an Eve, he created them full grown. Same for the sun, moons, stars and animals and trees and plants. It's only the 2nd generation that started young. Perhaps that could be the reason why "science contadicts" the Bible. Science claims that the earth is billions of years old. God made the world with age. So far, the same level. But even though God made the world with age, the world planet and universe itself is only thousands of years old. Shouldn't the earth evolve even more if it did evolve in the first place? Yet we see that the earth hasn't changed a bit, since the beginning of the world (beisde of course, the occurances of natural disasters). What if the world "evolved" itself into wrong? it could go crashing into all the other planets? But no, God created the universe, and has kept it in perfect time since.
Here's an article I found:
Quote:
Creationism is not "against" modern science! In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").
No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.
Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.
The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time).
The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". Atoms to people evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact.
There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
Adelheid,
Somebody hundreds of years ago, wrote a primitive account of how the Universe and everything in it began. You seem to be asking us to accept this account rather than the much-updated account given us by science, an account I might add that has plenty of experimental evidence to support it.
So should we really believe some old anonymously written document of what was then current thinking? or should we accept scientific current thinking?
You can use imagination to support any account of the origin of the Universe, and build into that account plenty of unsupportable ideas. Bertrand Russell pointed out your very argument back in the first half of the 20th C. He also added the curious fact that religious people only seem to use this inventive reasoning when they talk about the Universe's origins. How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.
That is untrue. I believe that everything happens for a reason. God Himself decided that that particular thing should happen, in a certain way. In the same way that God made the universe, He does everything for a reason. Everything happens because of HIM-GodQuote:
How come they don't use the same reasoning for whenever a car comes round the corner (maybe God just put it and its driver there at that very moment with the appearance of continuity through time); or whenever someone enters the room; or meeting up with a friend (after all God could have tampered with your memories). See, it makes the world a rather confusing place to use that inventive reasoning. And because those who promote it with regard to the origins of the Universe, do not seem to use it in everyday life, their arguments don't seem to have much force upon the rest of us.
Everything you say above can be applied to everything else, the car coming around the corner, someone entering the room, a meeting with a friend etc. They can all have reasons. They could all be created right now with historical evidence woven into their very fabric. Your argument supports God creating a false history to all of creation AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHETHER 4004BC OR YESTERDAY OR 10 SECONDS AGO. The fact that we cannot know the reasons behind God's doing this at any time is neither here nor there.
Untrue.Quote:
The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory
This belief is not contrary with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While life is a decrease in entropy, still, at that time when life has existed and evolved, the total rise of entropy in universe has been much greater, outweighing the small decrease in entropy of life.
Hi Dyrwen,
I am glad that you have regarded the planet earth a spaceship, that makes two of us in the same thinking. In response to your query, I would like to refer you to the book "The 12th Planet". It is intriquing to note that creationist and evolutionist could have come to same conclusion and settle their despute.
Some says the earth is 14 billion years old, others 12 billion. Whatever it is, you will note that activities relating to human existence only developed in the last thousands of years (if my memory serves me right about 200,000 years) and fast tracked in development very recently.
The billion of years that past was a force of evolution, in the very recent time something created the human specie, as we see it now in ourselves, from the available evolved specie/being during that period(some sort of cloning in our modern world). From thereon, we evolved as we go on evolving from hereon.
It is sci-fiction, but do you think alien from outer space more advance than our civilization created us from their own image from the recent past?
I'm just wondering Hilarion Zerrud, with your beliefs, are they part of a religion? And how did you come to believe it? Im just curious to know, because I have never heard of a belief like that before :)
Ai, it 'tis possible that aliens did create Earth, but whom created the Aliens? :D
Thanks for the headsup on the book, I'll look into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarion Zerrud
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe is 13.5-15billion years old. I see your thoughts on why human beings have only evolved and thought as they do this recently as being useful, though personally I feel that it has taken as long as it has because we've been evolving from lesser lifeforms since then and becoming more cognitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarion Zerrud
It is quite possible that aliens are able to go creating us in their image and reasonably more probable than the existence of a god doing the same, considering a lifeform in this universe doing the act of creation of mankind is more probable than a supernatural form of power from outside of our universe. I can't rule out the alien possibility, just as I can't rule out any other, though personally I prefer my own explanations more so, of course. Heh. When we get some evidence that aliens dropped down and cloned us from themselves, or when the prior human beings that had evolved are shown to somehow not be a different evolutionary pattern from homo sapiens, then I guess we'll have some insight into that. Hopefully someone'll come up with something, since conflicting evidence is always interesting to test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarion Zerrud
yes. 4.5 billion years. however if we consider the atom/particles that started the earth in its initial creation(big bang), can we safely say that earth is the same primordial matter with the universe?
what advanced discoveries in our modern age are actually retracing advances in the forgoten past. this is according to the book i referred you. learn how cloning of "adam" was perfomed as detailed in ancient writing long long long before the existence of the bible. then judge for your self.
Extra terrestrial beings did not create earth, neither our solar system nor universe. However, there are free-thinker individuals who would like to believe that superior beings from outer space created the first "adam".
hi molko,
because you are a friend i will share with you my spirit. religion: yes, I believe in the "Force" that created the universe. Some call him God, other Father or Allah, science would sometimes call it ENERGY. He is a Supernatural Being yet nobody sees or touches him. Belief: Religion is a belief when nurtured will become your faith. I have expressed myself in my belief.
Hey guys,
I can't say as much as I would like to say, because saying anything at the moment takes time, and time is...money. ;)
Just a few comments (not that you want to hear them but oh well):
I don't get why you don't like the spaceship analogy, Adelheid. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, any more than there is with man being evolved from more primordial forms of life. And, unlike evolution, it does not challenge belief in God. What's wrong with God creating a planet which moves, for heaven's sake? The only thing I can see is that there is no mention of any of this, no mention of black holes, millions of suns, big bangs, and other astronomical subjects in the Bible. But in that the Bible is wrong - the Earth orbits around the sun. The sun moves around the centre of the Milky Way. The Milky Way moves around the Universe. And the Universe...well that is as far as our knowledge can go. Until we figure out a way to get through a wormhole (two-ended black hole) without being spaghettified in the process and find another Universe.
Another thing I find fascinating. How can God control what happens and at the same time let free will exist?Quote:
That is untrue. I believe that everything happens for a reason. God Himself decided that that particular thing should happen, in a certain way. In the same way that God made the universe, He does everything for a reason. Everything happens because of HIM-God.
And a final comment, Zerrud, I find the idea of aliens creating life likewise fascinating. But I don't think there's need for aliens to come and create life...I find the theory (not really a theory?) of us coming from outer space more plausible. You know, comet lands, primitive cell in comet, primitive cell reproduces, etc. I'm not saying I believe in it - I don't. I haven't really done much thinking about where life itself - i.e. the very first living cells - has come from, but here's my two minutes of thinking about it: viruses can't really be classified as "alive", and yet they *are*. They are somewhere in between living and non-living. Therefore in some such state the first life may have been born, gradually tearing away from the world of the non-living.
That's my two cents for now. *Rattles donations box* Any other givers?
:D
Miss Darcy
The same matter, in a sense, yes. All the atoms of this universe are all 15 bya because we are all made of the same things from the past, in a sense. I am the same carbon atoms that popped into existence back then, though there is only 4% of the entire universe that is actually made out of atoms. The rest is 23% Cold Dark Matter and 73% Dark Energy, so that means that over 96% of the universe is undetectable in the laboratory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarion Zerrud
Personally I don't believe in an "Adam" of any sort, cloned or not, though I'll see what your book is about eventually. I find it more possible for the primordial building blocks of life on Earth to have helped life become what it is today over 4 billion years ago through abiogenesis of a sort. The RNA, DNA, amino acids started the chain reaction that began life on this planet, to me and many others. I think we've been evolving since then and don't really find the work of an alien race much needed, but we've each got our own ideas on that idea so far.
I happen to hate, well not hate but dislike a lot, the idea that some folks put forth of "energy" being the same type of force some describe as gods. A god is a supernatural being with conscious power, as far as I'm aware that's what most people define it as, and it isn't some natural force that merely exists to make the matter be balanced. We can detect energy and we can find energies in this world and others, yet the only way people are detecting "God" or "Allah" etc, is to believe in it, not to find it through scientific means. The energy that science detects and adheres to knowing about is rarely, if ever, the same type of energy new age types and religious folks of the world are believing in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarion Zerrud
Not to say what you believe is wrong, but it is not correct in a scientific sense or in a way that would make the energy of this universe correct. Study more relativity, less religion, and it makes a little more sense as to why I would contest such an idea about energy in the universe.
[QUOTE=Miss Darcy]Hey guys,
I don't get why you don't like the spaceship analogy, Adelheid. There's And a final comment, Zerrud, I find the idea of aliens creating life likewise fascinating. But I don't think there's need for aliens to come and create life...I find the theory (not really a theory?) of us coming from outer space more plausible. You know, comet lands, primitive cell in comet, primitive cell reproduces, etc. I'm not saying I believe in it - I don't. I haven't really done much thinking about where life itself - i.e. the very first living cells - has come from, but here's my two minutes of thinking about it: viruses can't really be classified as "alive", and yet they *are*. They are somewhere in between living and non-living. Therefore in some such state the first life may have been born, gradually tearing away from the world of the non-living.
Miss Darcy, you're a fine creature...aeons ago the universe had undergone a tumultous begining, however, this was also a way of finding order among the titans. Very gradually, immesureably, stars, planets, galaxies, milkyways were formed. However, harmony was never in their midst because gravitional influence and finding their path were their forever concern. In the aeons past, our solar system together with the revolving planets were formed undergoing this evolution of creation. The Earth as we know now was not yet created then.... and then the earth was created....Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud. I'll come back later.
Thank you for sharing you beliefs, Hilarion Zerrud. I find them fascinating :)