Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Peroxidation;62828869]Okay, this is ludicrous. Once again here's the definition of pseudoscience/pathological science: pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

    Science is not pseudoscience. Consequently metaphysics =/= science. Metaphysics is one of the most dangerous examples of pseudoscience there is. It cannot under any circumstances be considered scientific or as you put it "a higher level science" because it does not follow the scientific method. In fact, metaphysics and other fields of philosophy are characterized by their use as attempts to answer questions which cannot currently be answered empirically. Science on the other hand is the pursuit of answers and knowledge by using the scientific method and reproducible, empirical evidence.

    Therefore, no field of philosophy (including metaphysics) can ever be regarded as more important or be given higher priority than physics or any other field of science in any debate whatsoever. The simple fact is that science uses evidence, whereas philosophy uses conjecture.



    This made me laugh even harder than that last post of yours! Forgive my tone of superiority as I don't mean it that way but, I am far from being a lay person. You clearly fall under this category but as a chemical physicist I do not.

    I am familiar with the chaos theory and the Butterfly effect. You however are not, so please do not humiliate yourself further by attempting to lecture me about it - honestly, your interpretation of it as allowing time to flow backwards is laughable to say the least! The Butterfly effect is simply a metaphorical name given to the well known fact that small environmental factors are capable of having a large effect on systems as a whole. Here's an example: rolling a die. When you roll the die there are several tiny factors affecting it's trajectory, here's a simplified list:

    1) The direction of air flow around the die
    2) The atmospheric pressure around the die
    3) The material of the die (polar bond locations and strengths, as well as many other things all play a small part in how the die interacts with the air around it)
    4) The weight of the die
    5) The angle of the die
    6) The force exerted on the die when it was thrown
    7) The air composition around the die
    8) The surface areas of particles in contact with the die
    9) The air temperature around the die
    10) The height the die was thrown from

    As you can see, there's a lot of factors affecting it! This is why no matter how many times you roll the same die, the probability of it having the same trajectory is negligible. That is what's known as the butterfly effect.

    As I hope you have realized from this, the butterfly effect and chaos theory do not permit objects to travel backwards in time. In fact, going backwards in time is a physical impossibility as doing so would require speeds higher than the speed of light. A speed which it is physically impossible to exceed (or even reach for objects with mass). As you approach this speed you gain mass, meaning that you will continue accelerating, but will never reach the speed of light. You can therefore never go backwards in time.

    Quod erat demonstrandum.



    1) The Buddha is not considered a deity. I should know, I'm a Buddhist! In fact the "religion" of Buddhism is not actually a religion at all. It is a philosophy and a way of life, nothing more. This is why Buddhism is able to coexist with religions, it does not contradict any religious views.

    2) Since when was science and/or fact a democracy? Ideas are either right or wrong. There's is no grey area and no room for debate. Besides, the opinions of a few billion Homo Sapiens' are worth nothing in the grand scheme of things. Opinion has no effect on whether something is correct or not therefore whether the truth is outvoted or not is irrelevant.

    (Original post by john2054)
    I'm sorry if you are stuck with this debate up in your ivory tower [\QUOTE]

    Why be sorry? It's very comfortable up here.



    Of course it can! Morals are the result of logic and evolution, nothing more.

    We help people because in the end it benefits us, as the person we've helped will then be more inclined to help us should we ever need it. We also help people because it increases our species' chances of surviving hard times. We don't kill people without reason because doing so would hinder our species' survival. In addition to this it would only disadvantage ourselves most of the time so it is clearly more logical not to do it. We don't steal because again, it would disadvantage ourselves most of the time. I could go on like this for all morals but I think I've made my point.
    Please write more of these.

    I'm currently eyeing up Buddhism actually.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The human body cannot accept a blood transfusion from an ape, as the immune system would recognise it as foreign.

    How therefore could we have ever evolved?

    One species blood is only good for that species.

    And yes I am still harping on about it because its science.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)

    Of course it can! Morals are the result of logic and evolution, nothing more.

    We help people because in the end it benefits us, as the person we've helped will then be more inclined to help us should we ever need it. We also help people because it increases our species' chances of surviving hard times. We don't kill people without reason because doing so would hinder our species' survival. In addition to this it would only disadvantage ourselves most of the time so it is clearly more logical not to do it. We don't steal because again, it would disadvantage ourselves most of the time. I could go on like this for all morals but I think I've made my point.

    I disagree. I don't think you watch the news enough. People murder people just because they want to. There is no evolutionary higher gain to be found.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    The human body cannot accept a blood transfusion from an ape, as the immune system would recognise it as foreign.

    How therefore could we have ever evolved?

    One species blood is only good for that species.

    And yes I am still harping on about it because its science.
    You should pick your examples a bit more carefully in your ever-ridiculous quest against evolution. It is merely an example of how the different species have evolved away from the common ancestor in many ways.

    In fact, humans can receive tissue from animals - the pig is a good source of skin for grafts, for example, and there is hope that we can go on in the future to receive pig blood.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    The human body cannot accept a blood transfusion from an ape, as the immune system would recognise it as foreign.

    How therefore could we have ever evolved?

    One species blood is only good for that species.

    And yes I am still harping on about it because its science.
    ^^^ serious deficit of understanding, you have also not used your common sense. Before others provide you with research to the contrary, are there any biologists reading this thread that can contribute? I think it's best that those who have a focus on the field and therefore the greatest credibility reply to and quickly shut down arguments like the above!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    The human body cannot accept a blood transfusion from an ape, as the immune system would recognise it as foreign.

    How therefore could we have ever evolved?

    One species blood is only good for that species.

    And yes I am still harping on about it because its science.
    Interesting multiple opinions for you to read here;

    http://biology.stackexchange.com/que...the-difference
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)
    As God is Omnipotent and free from imperfections, it would be a flaw of His to be restricted by science. Science itself is flawed and ever-improving.
    New research contradicts claims of scientists from the past decades.
    “Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand.”
    ― Dan Brown
    Religious texts do a very efficient job in discrediting themselves without the help of science by contradicting their own teachings.

    Please not a Dan Brown quote.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    I don't actually believe in time, hence the universe is 'ageless' imho!
    Why not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Please not a Dan Brown quote.
    The ultimate scientific authority. :toofunny:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Pascal's Wager poses somewhat logical reasoning, if you're neckbeard enough
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xedar)
    Pascal's Wager poses somewhat logical reasoning, if you're neckbeard enough
    Until you come to consider that no self-respecting creator god would be fooled by such transparent prevarication.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xedar)
    Pascal's Wager poses somewhat logical reasoning, if you're neckbeard enough
    What if you pick the wrong god and you're just making the right one angrier and angrier...?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lehoe)
    What if you pick the wrong god and you're just making the right one angrier and angrier...?
    Easy, just use a larger decision matrix
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Religious texts do a very efficient job in discrediting themselves without the help of science by contradicting their own teachings.
    I cannot account for all religious books, however the Quran has proved itself to be true many times using science.
    It mentioned that the world was round (similar to an egg shape) 1400 years ago.
    It also describe the process of birth. There was no way of retrieving this information back then.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)
    I cannot account for all religious books, however the Quran has proved itself to be true many times using science.
    It mentioned that the world was round (similar to an egg shape) 1400 years ago.
    It also describe the process of birth. There was no way of retrieving this information back then.
    Quotation please!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Darwin himself, in his second edition of the Origin, had written in the conclusion:
    "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.— Chapter XIV: "Conclusions", page 428

    Theistic Evolution all the way !
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by koolgurl14)
    Darwin himself, in his second edition of the Origin, had written in the conclusion:
    "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.— Chapter XIV: "Conclusions", page 428

    Theistic Evolution all the way !
    But why????!!!!!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by koolgurl14)
    Darwin himself, in his second edition of the Origin, had written in the conclusion:
    "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.— Chapter XIV: "Conclusions", page 428

    Theistic Evolution all the way !
    Actually, it appears you have fundamentally misunderstood the quote. The usage of 'The creator' is very ambiguous and in no way points specifically to a God. The creator could mean the big bang or other such events.

    Also theistic evolution is an oxymoron. Theism is generally understood to be a belief in religious texts and teachings. These texts and teachings are adamant that we just 'came into being'; which is an impossibility. To say Darwin was theist is wrong. He was a religious man who only followed elements of the bible.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    But why????!!!!!!!
    Why what ... it just makes life easier, just search theistic evolution.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    Actually, it appears you have fundamentally misunderstood the quote. The usage of 'The creator' is very ambiguous and in no way points specifically to a God. The creator could mean the big bang or other such events.

    Also theistic evolution is an oxymoron. Theism is generally understood to be a belief in religious texts and teachings. These texts and teachings are adamant that we just 'came into being'; which is an impossibility. To say Darwin was theist is wrong. He was a religious man who only followed elements of the bible.
    Just like you said the creator could be anyone or anything and for today we all have the right to choose whoever it is wether you want it to be god jesus allah big bang.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.