When did I say anything about a scientist?
I don't get it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old...
- Thread starter Mengy
- Start date
- Status
FlyingTeacup
Member
just to chip in a bit,
science doesn't try to prove anything imo. I know it sounds contradictory. But what science really tries to do is to provide a understanding of the natural world. The hypothesised principles are then 'proved' through observation, experiments, analytical solutions and/or computer simulations. As such, very often, you would see evolving understand of how our universe works.
We can't observe god, we can't measure god, i'm not sure how one could analytically model god. Religion, on the other hand, demands your absolute belief. To some scientists, that is one huge intellectual hypocrisy.
science doesn't try to prove anything imo. I know it sounds contradictory. But what science really tries to do is to provide a understanding of the natural world. The hypothesised principles are then 'proved' through observation, experiments, analytical solutions and/or computer simulations. As such, very often, you would see evolving understand of how our universe works.
We can't observe god, we can't measure god, i'm not sure how one could analytically model god. Religion, on the other hand, demands your absolute belief. To some scientists, that is one huge intellectual hypocrisy.
This is a dance we dance regularly JGS - the ability of Scientists to give weight to Abiogenesis. This is all I really care about. All I really want from you. The opportunity to debate this.
Let me ask you one question as a precursor - do you think if Scientists successfully replicate a chemical beginning to a full bodied single celled organisms in a lab - that it gives validity to the theory that's how we came about? Especially if the cell looks extremely similar to what we see around us? I already suspect what you're going to say in response, but I want to see if I am wrong.
Science can be used to look at all of those things. Our brains exist and might be measured, along with ideas of things that don't exist. The ideas exist.
What if we find life in subsurface oceans on moons in out very own solar system, do we start looking into it again?
If it's life as we know it, there'd be every chance that it came out through a similar process.
What if we find life in subsurface oceans on moons in out very own solar system, do we start looking into it again?
If it's life as we know it, there'd be every chance that it came out through a similar process.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I'm curious, why do you think it can't? Are you saying science will never be able to explain the origins of life on Earth, even life outside the Earth? Why would you think this is completely impossible?
Or are you saying that science shouldn't try to address how life got here because it doesn't have the right to?
Your original statement was quite loaded. Still, I haven't seen any single person here post that science can prove/disprove god. I've seen people say that many things in holy books contradict science therefore it's likely that these books aren't written/inspired by god(s). But that's a totally different thing.
I don't think oyu'll get anything else that "IT JUST CAN'T".
I'm guessing that the real answer is "fuck I hope it doesn't."
To me there is a hell of a lot more things to love and value in a gf/wife/partner than their skepticism like kindness and loyalty. If that's a deal breaker for some then fair enough. If not then I wouldn't let it trouble you too much. It's worth noting that you're probably not going to agree on absolutely everything no matter what.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
Mengy said:
Well I am content and happy with my absolute lack of knowledge of ballet, car engines, the Green Bay Packers and a whole number of other topics. Is this a willful lack of intellectual ambition mixed with a conscious decision to ignore evidence?
Now I agree with you that people SHOULD be interested in science. I also think people SHOULD be interested in politics, history, and a whole lot of other fields that most people consider incredibly dull and irrelevant but what can you do? You can't force people to be interested in something. It's just a differing set of priorities.
Your gf does take it a step farther in being actively skeptical and dismissive of something that she has no knowledge of. That I don't understand.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Car engines are actually metal cages for the gnomes who make it work. Another explanation is that they burn fuel to create power through a thermodynamic process.
A person with a lack of intellectual ambition mixed with a conscious decision to ignore evidence would say "Okay, must be gnomes, then." There's a significant difference between not caring and purposefully filling in the gaps in your knowledge with bullshit.
Edit: It's actually worse than that. A person with those qualities just wouldn't care; to believe that gnomes make cars move you have to be brainwashed into accepting it.
Gorgon
Member
LOVE:
Love is perfectly within the realm of Biology. You need to study more Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Behavioural Ecology, Behavioural Genetics, brain Biochemistry and Neurobiology.
Origin of Life goes without comments.
Liver is very nutrient rich and so it's normal people like it. We can also digest and metabolize it's products very well. Some people don't like it (among other things), whcih has genetic basis, like the bad taste of green cabadge which is related to a specific gene in us that makes it taste bitter to some people.
On Faith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
We don't have all the answers yet, but these topics are certainly within the grasp of Science.
Also, I fail to see why some people answered that science doesn't try to answer "those things". As long as it can be researched, Science tries to answer everything.
Gorgon
Member
That's pretty much what ID is about. Come up with fallacious statistical arguments for the impossibility of Life arising without a designer and then whishing for what you wish.
Well someone who truly doesn't care won't give a shit either way and they'll go along with whatever they hear from a trusted source.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
That's different. If they truly didn't care they would either a) not care about the explanation and file it under "don't give a shit" or b) change their mind the first time someone else with equal credibility gave them a conflicting answer.
What it really comes down to, though, is that a person doesn't arrive at a firmly held belief because it's just the easiest answer. Look at the OP's girlfriend. If it were actually the case that she just didn't care and it was the easiest explanation, the OP telling her that her belief was flawed and here's the evidence for it would result in her going, "oh okay, whatever."
Instead, she continues to hold on to her belief. That's very much different from genuine ignorance, that's willful stupidity.
Youre' reading too much into my original statement.
I have stated on many occasions that there is a disconeect between those who champion science and those who are indeed scientists. Many who champion science don't have a clue what they're talking about and so they attempt to use science to back up their lame points.
regarding tru blue scientists, no scientist is a master of all anyway (I believe the word is omniscient), so even if there is a rare scientist out there on the boards, they still aren't equipped to know their field and the religious one. It's irrational for them to think so.
Agreed although I get why people don't get the relationship. Most couples of this type can't possibly be talking about it this much can they? I've never dated an atheist (I think) so I wouldn't know.J-Rod said:
I'm saying that science can't help address it because they think it's a scientific endeavor. It's not because it's not the real scientific beginning of life. God may not be it, but their view of how it came to be isn't either. It's the best option in absence of God which science can't consider.Mengy said:
Because of how they view life origins (Which isn't even important), I don't think science should necessarily stop trying because that's what science does when they think it's a scientific endeavor. In fact, I will be interested to see if they can come up with life. However, they will never be able to verify it's start based on their assumptions.
I personally don't think they should teach it as science. It's not any closer to a fact than God existing. Fortunately the concept of what they think is involved is so simplistic it's easy to ignore.
I know that sounded good in your head, but how does arguing for and against entire organizations not caring about the matter affect anything again?BladeoftheImmortal said:
If you just want to state your opinion, please do so, but it's silly to say religious belief is stupid because it's not science.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
CornBurrito
Member
I never get what your beef with abiogenesis is.
I mean I could see if you took the position of "there isn't substantial evidence for leading theories, so I don't believe in it yet."
But you seem to take the position that science will never be able to answer that question, despite the fact that there are some pretty comprehensive theories out right now.
edit:
Are you confusing how and why?
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Wait, JGS: Is your issue with theories for abiogenesis due to the concept that, even if we come up with a fantastic mechanism to explain how it could happen we'll never be able to say for a fact that it was the case?
I can see that, but it doesn't justify your utter dismissal of even the search for a theory.
I can see that, but it doesn't justify your utter dismissal of even the search for a theory.
There's loads of professional scientists on GAF. Again, I've never seen anyone claim than science can (or even should) explain everything. Everyone is aware that the metaphysical, by definition, can't be adressed by science. You're the one interpreting people's comments as "omg they try to disprove god with their science". You're self-misleaded (misled? whatevs).
Unless you're stuck in the 60's, we've gone quite a long way past the Miller experiment. There are perfectly valid, tested explanations out there showing that at the very least many components of a cell can spontaneously assemble and that several also show rudimentary characteristics of a living cell's biochemistry. I'd like to know how you're so sure that "their view of how it came to be" is completely wrong. And no, it's not because it's trying to replace a goddidit argument with a completely random explanation just because. Scientists don't do god of the gaps arguments, and are fully admitting that it's the best explanation so far.
Thankfully not everyone reasons like this, otherwise we'd still be living in caves.
It does, by a fucking green light-year. We got it, you think it's BS (even though you quite clearly haven't read anything about it) but stop presenting your personal and religious-based opinion as a fact.
CornBurrito
Member
And he tends to get really really really mad when it is brought up.
I'm almost convinced abiogenesists walked into his village and killed everyone. Then the top scientist said to him "today is the day you lost everyone, but for me it is just Tuesday" and stormed off.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Most supporters of science don't think religion is stupid, they just don't see religion as having any scientific evidence to support it's claims. Especially when said claims go against theories that have ample amounts of scientific data to support the them, while the religious theories have absolutely zero scientific evidence to support them.
It's like if you see a new red Subaru Impreza at a dealer. You can see it is red, you can take a picture of it and see that it is still red in the picture. You can get 1000 other people to look at the car and verify that it is indeed red in color. You can ask the dealer "what color is this car" and they could tell you that it is red. But if the dealer sticker on the window says that the Impreza is in fact blue in color, well, what color is the car in reality then? Do you go with what your own observations, and the observations of a thousand other people, tells you? Or do you believe what the sticker says, simply because you saw it in writing?
Religion versus science almost always boils down to that exact same example applied to any number of topics. Scientific theories, data and evidence vs. something written in a book a long time ago. If someone believed that the red car was in fact blue, would they be correct or wrong, no matter how much they believed it was so?
Sanky Panky
Banned
I'm guessing he means that based on experimentation, there is no known "fantastic mechanism" that can spark life from matter. The roadblock are always... the laws of nature.
To OP why don't you two just breakup? I'm assuming she's a christian and she wants a long term relationship and will probably want to raise the kids that way as well. And really, if your looking for sex and she's being pure, your not getting any.
Soooooo why are you dating this chick if you have major differences in worldview? Short-term your not getting anything (assuming that's what you want) long-term it's not going to pretty. Just breakup with her man. Be better for both of you
Soooooo why are you dating this chick if you have major differences in worldview? Short-term your not getting anything (assuming that's what you want) long-term it's not going to pretty. Just breakup with her man. Be better for both of you
PjotrStroganov
Member
Still, she watches tv, uses the internet and what not. All those things are possible because of science and those activities in themselves confirm that proven theories on which those technologies are based are right.
We've gotten pretty goddamn close. Why shouldn't it be possible?
Ghost_Protocol
Member
Lol. Scientists are and have been experimenting with that for a while now. Look up the Miller Urey experiment.
Well I learned that there are some religious gay people from watching RuPaul's Drag Race, so that comment does not surprise me.
As for OP, DUMP HER! That may be the foundation that you soon to be ex needs to go through to help her question her upbringing.
Sanky Panky
Banned
If your definition of "pretty goddam close" is a few amino acids, then nah, that's not close at all.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Sanky Panky has already exposed in this thread the scientific cabal behind radiometric dating, and now he's disproving the myth that is abiogenesis? Someone nominate this man for the Nobel.
The argument concerned the reconciliation between the God presented in the Bible and the God supposedly acting today (not between the OT and NT). This discussion is really off topic and is better suited for the theism vs. atheism thread, but my point is only that everybody should evaluate religion with the same unbiased open mind that is necessary to carry out all methods of discernment.
Ignorance is bliss.
Raist, gimme a rundown of what's going down. Is is basically 'Sanky Panky 2: Ignore Scientific Evidence Harder'?
Sanky Panky
Banned
Please educate us. How far (or how close) have they gotten?
You got it all wrong buddy, it's "Focus on the Observable Evidence vs Assumptions Harder"
ACH1LL3US
Member
QFT
I posted this many pages ago.
OP: You come in here and tell all of us how you feel BUT have you told her?
I feel the same way as her on this and there isn't ANYTHING you can do to change her mind, either love her for who she is (this includes her beliefs) or go your separate ways.
You need to see things to believe them, as you know that is has nothing to do with Faith. Faith is believing without seeing. I hope all works out for both of you.
A bunch of people here seem convinced than our knowledge about abiogenesis is limited to the Miller-Urey experiment. Bless them.
Protocell experimentation has gotten pretty far (protocells behaving very 'life-like'), observed instances of RNA occurring naturally, phosphorus being replaced with arsenic challenged some fundamental ideas about the rigidness of life/DNA.
I think an important point of contention with you on this subject is your inability to bend on what 'life' constitutes, or more importantly, your definition remaining binary - as opposed to sliding scale (ie, on a scale from 1 to 7, a diamond is a 1, a protocell a 4 or 5, and yeast 7).
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Oh she knows exactly what I believe and how I feel, and she respects me for it too. I don't really debate her to change her mind, I just try to comprehend why she refuses to even consider that science might be right and her church might have mislead her. It's the willing reluctance to not believe proven observations and evidence that perplexes me.
Blackvette, so you also believe in a young Earth? Do you mind if I ask you why you believe so? Is it simply because the Bible says so and you believe the Bible over everything else, or do you have other reasons? You can answer me in a PM if you don't feel comfortable doing so in the thread.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Notice that all of those are nowhere near the complexity needed to attain life. They are not even proper precursors to the mechanism of life, as we understand it today, which leads you to claim the following:
There is no point in "bending" what we understand as "life" because what we know as life today is what the theory has been attempting to explain since the beginning. It's its own admission that they can't explain what they originally intended to, so they have to reformulate what it is they want to explain (even if we know full well the mechanisms of life we are trying to explain). It's that jump from 5 to 6 that is the reason for the theory even existing.
Nowhere near? That's a vague statement, if you could give a simple definition of life, and then tell me why these things are nowhere near that definition, I'd appreciate it.
And you act as though scientist, by trying to answer a question, never realize that the question they are asking is wrong in the first place - you're learned Sanky, why can't this be the case here? Why is the definition of life sacred?
ACH1LL3US
Member
Good questions.
I personally don't care how old the earth is. I have read the New Testament, and currently reading through the Old Testament ( at the book of Job). If the Bible was the only book I had , I could not extrapolate from it how old the earth is.
Any theories on how old the Earth is in regards to the Bible hinges on the fact that when God created Earth that each day of the 7 days was 24 hrs each. It does not explain this in the Bible.
I hope I don't come off as demonstrative. I would ask you girlfriend where in the Bible she came to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 yrs old?? Those conclusions that she was taught came from humans, the same humans that make mistakes just like she argues against Science. Fact is noone knows how old the earth is. It could change in 20-30yrs , who knows!
I personally think God told us what is most important in life and that is the salvation through his one and only Son.
Everything else, how old the earth, when did Dinosaurs roam the earth etc.. is VERY fascinating but its not vital to life and is not the meaning to life.
If someone asked me how old the earth is , I would tell them I don't know. I can't ascertain it from the Bible and although Science would has some good theories I have feeling they could be off too.
Remember Science can be wrong, there was a time when everyone believed the Earth was flat
I know that feel OP, I'm dating a religious girl, but thankfully she almost never brings it up/it doesn't impact our relationship all that much. She doesn't view the world through a crazy lens, so that's good. We have a few heated debates at times but hey, can't always get along. The fact that something silly (to me) like religion is one of our main arguing points I should consider myself lucky. Again, she was brought up/raised that way and I have tried to get her to question her beliefs or look into them further but it's a slow process, if not a crawl, lol.
Just keep trying to get her to question/think about/contemplate often, even if she seems unreceptive. You don't necessarily have to convert her (sounds like there's almost no chance of that) but at least getting her to agree or acknowledge on SOME logical points might make your life easier
.
Just keep trying to get her to question/think about/contemplate often, even if she seems unreceptive. You don't necessarily have to convert her (sounds like there's almost no chance of that) but at least getting her to agree or acknowledge on SOME logical points might make your life easier
.
ACH1LL3US
Member
I know that feel OP, I'm dating a religious girl, but thankfully she almost never brings it up/it doesn't impact our relationship all that much. She doesn't view the world through a crazy lens, so that's good. We have a few heated debates at times but hey, can't always get along. The fact that something silly (to me) like religion is one of our main arguing points I should consider myself lucky. Again, she was brought up/raised that way and I have tried to get her to question her beliefs or look into them further but it's a slow process, if not a crawl, lol.
Just keep trying to get her to question/think about/contemplate often, even if she seems unreceptive. You don't necessarily have to convert her (sounds like there's almost no chance of that) but at least getting her to agree or acknowledge on SOME logical points might make your life easier
The thing is he is saying he isn't trying to change her beliefs, he isn't trying to "convert" her. More then likely its going to end bad if you try to change someone, at least from my experiences
Anyone that believes that the earth if 6000 years old or that evolution is a theory and not true, is a dumb ass.
I will not return to this thread because I do not see the point in trying to argue with people with whom logic is as foreign a concept as reading a book that doesn't involve colouring.
I will not return to this thread because I do not see the point in trying to argue with people with whom logic is as foreign a concept as reading a book that doesn't involve colouring.
Sanky Panky
Banned
I guess for the sake of debate, it would be interesting to explore ideas of what life is. The definition is not sacred, but it is based on the simple idea of birth, growth, reproduction (via transmitting genetic information), and death. This is what we know as life.
Chemical compounds splitting in two, a piece of genetic information, amino acids created in a lab, etc, are not even close to approaching this. It takes huge extrapolations, an appeal to probability and time, and lack of alternatives to stick to the idea that they are precursors to life as we know it.
Because even before the argument her mind is preset to not adopt your reasoning. Its not important if they are raised like that, or they are conspiracy theorists or something along those lines. Also one of the main counter arguments will be that its not their view stance that is the problem but yours.
That is why the best advice is, if you cant handle it, break up before its to late.
ACH1LL3US
Member
Yea, I want to just say that my Church never taught me how old the Earth is. To me, its just a bumch of people TRYING to take the words in the Bible and trying to use them to prove their point. As far as I can read it I never was able to decipher how old the Earth is from what I have read of the Bible.
Also, again I have to agree, if you can't deal with this with her, move on. You won't be able to change her anymore then she can change you
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Good questions.
I personally don't care how old the earth is. I have read the New Testament, and currently reading through the Old Testament ( at the book of Job). If the Bible was the only book I had , I could not extrapolate from it how old the earth is.
Any theories on how old the Earth is in regards to the Bible hinges on the fact that when God created Earth that each day of the 7 days was 24 hrs each. It does not explain this in the Bible.
I hope I don't come off as demonstrative. I would ask you girlfriend where in the Bible she came to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 yrs old?? Those conclusions that she was taught came from humans, the same humans that make mistakes just like she argues against Science. Fact is noone knows how old the earth is. It could change in 20-30yrs , who knows!
I personally think God told us what is most important in life and that is the salvation through his one and only Son.
Everything else, how old the earth, when did Dinosaurs roam the earth etc.. is VERY fascinating but its not vital to life and is not the meaning to life.
If someone asked me how old the earth is , I would tell them I don't know. I can't ascertain it from the Bible and although Science would has some good theories I have feeling they could be off too.
Remember Science can be wrong, there was a time when everyone believed the Earth was flat
You sound just like my gf! Mostly the same reasons and all, except she is a little more confident that what her church has taught her is correct (the 6000 year old Earth for example). I suppose it's really just a matter of intellectual / scientific curiosity more or less. Thanks for the honest response.
I know that feel OP, I'm dating a religious girl, but thankfully she almost never brings it up/it doesn't impact our relationship all that much. She doesn't view the world through a crazy lens, so that's good. We have a few heated debates at times but hey, can't always get along. The fact that something silly (to me) like religion is one of our main arguing points I should consider myself lucky. Again, she was brought up/raised that way and I have tried to get her to question her beliefs or look into them further but it's a slow process, if not a crawl, lol.
Just keep trying to get her to question/think about/contemplate often, even if she seems unreceptive. You don't necessarily have to convert her (sounds like there's almost no chance of that) but at least getting her to agree or acknowledge on SOME logical points might make your life easier
Eh, her beliefs don't make my life any more difficult. I suppose it's just my drive to understand things that has me trying to understand her stance on the whole "science is bunk" angle. Sounds like you and I are kind of in the same boat though. Good luck to you windz!
- Status