Positive Atheism

[theVOID]

Because good reliable science has shown us that this is how our solar system came to be! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_a...lar_System

In view of the fact that you sound so authoritative in making such a statement I must ask: On what basis have you concluded that science cited on the wiki article is "good" and "reliable"? Did you carry out the science? Did you read all the articles cited? Even if you read them, did you understand them?

Given that you have admitted to not understanding any more than basic physics and that the kind of science in that article probably involves quite advanced physics, I would guess that you did not carry out the science, you did not even read all the articles cited, and even if you read them, you did not understand them (other than possibly the conclusions made). If I am correct, then I doubt you are qualified to make the statement that the science is "good" and "reliable". If that is true then at best you seem qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it. Now I do not think there is anything wrong with that if that is the case. In fact, I think that is where most of us are on most issues. But I do think if that is the case, i.e., that you are only really qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it, you should be honest about it and say so instead of portraying yourself as some sort of authority on such issues.

Eilonnwy trusts the Scientific method, not the fine details and equations of the science it's self - as a Layman in a particular field that is the best anyone can do because we can't be experts in everything. Also, considering the methodology of science is so damn effective there is no reason not to trust it, for example the specific theory of general relativity used to calculate astrophysics such as the formation of solar systems is directly responsible for the fact that all Satellite systems work at all, if the science behind the conclusion were not accurate then GPS systems, Television broadcasting etc would simply not be possible, in fact the results from scientific studies are so vast it's simply overwhelming evidence in favor of the effectiveness of the underline methodology.

I can assure you that the science behind the conclusion is extremely sound and the Wiki article is well referenced and completely up to date, as is always the case with scientific articles on wikipedia - Scientists HATE misinformation, meaning they will immediately correct any apparent mistakes and always properly reference any point they make.

[Eilonnwy]

I didn't say that you specifically stated that. I said that that is what it "sounds" like you are saying. If you were not really saying that I was giving you the opportunity to clarify. Maybe you need to read these posts more carefully.

I believe I've been quite clear.

You might want to go back and read what I said again or quote me because I do not think I said that I simply dismiss or ignore evidence. I may very well not accept it with reasons but that is quite different from dismissing or ignoring.

You have stated, quite clearly, that you do not accept evidence that contradicts the Bible because you have decided it's true. That is dismissing/ignoring evidence as far as I'm concerned. If you say you don't accept something because you have contradictory evidence that you feel better supports your position, that's great. But all you have is a book that is not evidence in any demonstrable way about the origins of life. It's 100% wrong and demonstrably so.

You say that as if there is only ever one possible conclusion given a body of evidence. That is seldom the case, especially when one is considering historical science as it pertains to origins where conclusions are always made based on evidence and some assumptions/presuppositions because history is not repeatable or testable in the same way as is done in operational science.

You're assuming I mean that there is 1 possible conclusion, which I have not said. I have said that your conclusion should be based on evidence, I'm not specifically stating what the conclusion should be. (There are many things in science that are controversial based on the evidence, but guess what, evolution is not one of them!) When you make statements that you don't accept evidence if it contradicts the Bible, then you are not doing that. There's no if ands or buts there, you have a premise that you have accepted uncritically and will ignore and accept evidence as long as it fits your world view. That's not honest inquiry.

And assumptions/presuppositions when we are talking about historical science as it pertains to origins.

I don't even know what you're talking about here? Are you trying to say science is prone to the same dogmatic principles of religion? Because that is hardly the case. Science is the most adaptive, the most willing to change based on better evidence. What we know of origins is based on good reliable scientific inquiry.

I think the question applies equally well to you.

Nice try, but no. I'm quite willing to change my mind if the right amount of evidence is there. Yes, I'm an atheist, however I haven't decided that I won't accept good reliable, scientifically tested evidence if it fucks with my world view. I can tell you exactly what it would take for me to change deeply held beliefs, and I have. I go where the evidence leads me.

In view of the fact that you sound so authoritative in making such a statement I must ask: On what basis have you concluded that science cited on the wiki article is "good" and "reliable"? Did you carry out the science? Did you read all the articles cited? Even if you read them, did you understand them?

Given that you have admitted to not understanding any more than basic physics and that the kind of science in that article probably involves quite advanced physics, I would guess that you did not carry out the science, you did not even read all the articles cited, and even if you read them, you did not understand them (other than possibly the conclusions made). If I am correct, then I doubt you are qualified to make the statement that the science is "good" and "reliable". If that is true then at best you seem qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it. Now I do not think there is anything wrong with that if that is the case. In fact, I think that is where most of us are on most issues. But I do think if that is the case, i.e., that you are only really qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it, you should be honest about it and say so instead of portraying yourself as some sort of authority on such issues.

TheVoid responded to this sufficiently, I have nothing to add.

[rjh4 is back]

Eilonnwy trusts the Scientific method, not the fine details and equations of the science it's self - as a Layman in a particular field that is the best anyone can do because we can't be experts in everything.

I understand and agree, which should be clear from my last post.

Also, considering the methodology of science is so damn effective there is no reason not to trust it, for example the specific theory of general relativity used to calculate astrophysics such as the formation of solar systems is directly responsible for the fact that all Satellite systems work at all, if the science behind the conclusion were not accurate then GPS systems, Television broadcasting etc would simply not be possible, in fact the results from scientific studies are so vast it's simply overwhelming evidence in favor of the effectiveness of the underline methodology.

I agree that the methodology of science is very effective and that one can certainly trust it. Your examples of GPS systems and Television broadcasting are right on point as is all the operational science that we use and observe every day.

But there seems to be a big difference between things like GPS systems and the formation of our solar system as presented in the wiki article. While both may be based on the theory of general relativity and applications of it, the former (GPS systems) is something we can observe in the here and now. It is testable and repeatable. In contrast, applying that same science to the formation of our solar system is taking that same science and extrapolating it back to the unobservable (the impossibility of observing the formation of our solar system should be self evident, unless I am somehow mistaken) and unrepeatable (we cannot duplicate the formation of our solar system) past. It seems to me that to do so and come up with the conclusion that this is how our solar system formed (i.e., that which the wiki article said), one still needs to apply at least two unprovable principles: 1) uniformitarianism (i.e., the key to the past is the present or what we observe today came to be through processes that still are occurring) and 2) materialism (matter/energy are the only thing we deal with, i.e., no supernatural). These uniformitarian and materialistic principles are the assumptions/presuppositions I was talking about in my last post.

Am I correct here, theVoid?

I can assure you that the science behind the conclusion is extremely sound and the Wiki article is well referenced and completely up to date, as is always the case with scientific articles on wikipedia - Scientists HATE misinformation, meaning they will immediately correct any apparent mistakes and always properly reference any point they make.

I really do not doubt what you say here. In other words, I really do not question the science behind the conclusion, I question the uniformitarian and materialistic principles used to extrapolate the science into the past as it relates to origins.

[theVOID]

I agree that the methodology of science is very effective and that one can certainly trust it. Your examples of GPS systems and Television broadcasting are right on point as is all the operational science that we use and observe every day.

But there seems to be a big difference between things like GPS systems and the formation of our solar system as presented in the wiki article.

The exact same stringent mathematics that makes the GPS systems work, that lead to atomic power, particle accelerators, keeping satellites in fixed orbit, lead to a useful understanding of time and space etc is the same mathematics used to describe the observations made of many many solar systems throughout the galaxy of all ages, shapes, sizes and energies. It is without a question the most accurate way of looking at how our solar system formed, and sorry if it offends, but your so called revelations are utterly silly in comparison.

While both may be based on the theory of general relativity and applications of it, the former (GPS systems) is something we can observe in the here and now. It is testable and repeatable. In contrast, applying that same science to the formation of our solar system is taking that same science and extrapolating it back to the unobservable (the impossibility of observing the formation of our solar system should be self evident, unless I am somehow mistaken) and unrepeatable (we cannot duplicate the formation of our solar system) past. It seems to me that to do so and come up with the conclusion that this is how our solar system formed (i.e., that which the wiki article said), one still needs to apply at least two unprovable principles: 1) uniformitarianism (i.e., the key to the past is the present or what we observe today came to be through processes that still are occurring) and 2) materialism (matter/energy are the only thing we deal with, i.e., no supernatural). These uniformitarian and materialistic principles are the assumptions/presuppositions I was talking about in my last post.

Am I correct here, theVoid?

1) You are forgetting that there are millions and millions of solar systems out there for us to look at, in all stages of development and under all kinds of conditions - we can see how they behave from birth till death by looking out to space, not only that, but when it is all described mathematically it is all self-confirming, that is too say it in the vast majority of cases it confirmed the current perception as extremely accurate and just added more credence to the theory of relativity. But that's not the best part about science, the best cases are the ones that don't add up, because they are the ones that lead to more research and more understanding, despite the fact they are comparatively very rare.

2) 'supernatural' conclusions do not help us understand anything at all. Remember that if something has an effect on the universe in any way it is detectable scientifically by inference and therefore testable - if it doesn't have an effect on the universe then it's irrelevant.

I can assure you that the science behind the conclusion is extremely sound and the Wiki article is well referenced and completely up to date, as is always the case with scientific articles on wikipedia - Scientists HATE misinformation, meaning they will immediately correct any apparent mistakes and always properly reference any point they make.

I really do not doubt what you say here. In other words, I really do not question the science behind the conclusion, I question the uniformitarian and materialistic principles used to extrapolate the science into the past as it relates to origins.

You want to reevaluate this statement after reading my response above? I'd be interested to see what you think after some new information on the process.

[rjh4 is back]

How long does it take for a solar system to develop, Void?

[Tiberius]

How long does it take for a solar system to develop, Void?

That's irrelevant.

The point theVOID was making is that there are millions of Solar Systems we can look at, and they are all in different stages of formation. To use a metaphor, if you were investigating a crime, and had a CCTV tape that was 48 hours in duration, nobody would expect you to watch the entire 48 hours to see the crime develop. Instead, you would watch sections (every 10 minutes) until you could determine what lead up to the crime taking place.

If solar systems rapidly went through changes, I would agree that it is impossible for us to understand them. The thing is, solar systems slowly develop over millions of years. They are in different stages of development for long periods of time, thus allowing us to observe multiple solar systems in different stages of development.

[Eilonnwy]

To use a metaphor, if you were investigating a crime, and had a CCTV tape that was 48 hours in duration, nobody would expect you to watch the entire 48 hours to see the crime develop. Instead, you would watch sections (every 10 minutes) until you could determine what lead up to the crime taking place.

To take the analogy even further, when you come to the crime scene of a murder, you investigate with good science to come to a conclusion of who committed the crime. We convict people of murder when there are even no witnesses because science has made the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm going to assume here that we all mostly accept the court system and conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would you be willing trust one aspect of science that can, essentially, "look into the past" and not another, especially when the science on the other is better?

When we take pictures of the sky and use long exposure techniques to view other galaxies, they are essentially looking into the past. The light takes so long to reach us, that viewing it is like a time machine. We are viewing other galaxies as they were billions of years ago. We can actually see the past. . And as Adrian stated, we can see solar systems and galaxies all in different stages in their formation.

It's absolutely astounding and beautiful. It fills me with awe, and that awe is something no ancient book full of such vulgar atrocities could ever match.

[rjh4 is back]

How long does it take for a solar system to develop, Void?

That's irrelevant.

If it takes millions of years for a solar system to form and we have only been able to observe any one of them for a relatively short time (100 years or so??), there is not that much change to make much of a conclusion on any one. So it is relevant to our observations of any one solar system.

The point theVOID was making is that there are millions of Solar Systems we can look at, and they are all in different stages of formation. To use a metaphor, if you were investigating a crime, and had a CCTV tape that was 48 hours in duration, nobody would expect you to watch the entire 48 hours to see the crime develop. Instead, you would watch sections (every 10 minutes) until you could determine what lead up to the crime taking place.

If solar systems rapidly went through changes, I would agree that it is impossible for us to understand them. The thing is, solar systems slowly develop over millions of years. They are in different stages of development for long periods of time, thus allowing us to observe multiple solar systems in different stages of development.

So how do we know that each of these millions of solar systems that we can observe are in different stages of the same kind of development? If we have only had a chance to observe each individual solar system for a relatively short period of time, as above, how can one be sure that is actually what we are observing? Don't you have to assume this? Then doesn't the whole line of reasoning result in either circular reasoning or begging the question?

In other words, one questions how solar systems are formed. We can observe millions of solar systems out there but each one only for a relatively short period of time. So how do we use this information from millions of solar systems to answer the question of how solar systems are formed? Let's assume then that each of these solar systems is in a different stage of the same kind of development. We can now use this and model how solar systems are formed. We can now compare this model with what we observe and the model fits (no big surprise).

So maybe I am missing something. Please tell me where I am going wrong?

Also, I would like to know where all these millions of solar systems are documented along with all the data (types of data and measurements) for each of these. Note, I would just like to look at all that information. Did the information from all these millions of solar systems go into the model of how solar systems are formed?

Note, I admit I am just a layman relative to this issue so all these questions are not rhetorical. I really would like to hear the answers.

I would also like to know what Void's credentials are relative to this if he is willing to share. (It sure sounds like he knows what he is talking about (that is intended to be taken at face value and is not intended as sarcastic).) I personally only have a B.S. in Chemical Engineering so I admit I have a lot that I can learn in this area.

[Eilonnwy]

So maybe I am missing something. Please tell me where I am going wrong?

You are arguing from ignorance. You can't imagine how we could make claims about the past because you assume that in order to make empirical claims, we have to be able to observe it happening. As stated above, that's not the case in a murder. It's also not the case with the Universe.

For example, Pluto was discovered in the 1930s, yet we know Pluto takes about 247 Earth years to orbit the sun. Since we have known about the existence of Pluto, it has not made a complete orbit of the sun, so we have not observed this. Yet, we can make the claim that it orbits the sun.

Also, I would like to know where all these millions of solar systems are documented along with all the data (types of data and measurements) for each of these. Note, I would just like to look at all that information. Did the information from all these millions of solar systems go into the model of how solar systems are formed?

Note, I admit I am just a layman relative to this issue so all these questions are not rhetorical. I really would like to hear the answers.

Go to your local bookstore and look in the astronomy section and have at it. Wikipedia is also well sourced in it's articles when it comes to the sciences, so explore those sources. Honestly, just read some science books not published by the Discovery institute but by accredited scientists.

[rjh4 is back]

So maybe I am missing something. Please tell me where I am going wrong?

You are arguing from ignorance.

I wasn't arguing from ignorance. I was asking questions while acknowledging my lack of knowledge about the subject. If you cannot answer the questions I asked, just say so.

Your analogies of murder and Pluto are simply not on point as there are distinctions that can be made. For example, with murder, the time frames we talk about are miniscule relative to the time frames alleged for solar system formation. With Pluto, I can certainly see that over the 70+ years that we have known of its existance, we could have documented its speed and position/trajectory and from that reasonably concluded that it orbits the sun. This also is a far cry from what Void was talking about.

Also, I would like to know where all these millions of solar systems are documented along with all the data (types of data and measurements) for each of these. Note, I would just like to look at all that information. Did the information from all these millions of solar systems go into the model of how solar systems are formed?

Note, I admit I am just a layman relative to this issue so all these questions are not rhetorical. I really would like to hear the answers.

Go to your local bookstore and look in the astronomy section and have at it. Wikipedia is also well sourced in it's articles when it comes to the sciences, so explore those sources. Honestly, just read some science books not published by the Discovery institute but by accredited scientists.

I could do that...but since Void certainly appears to be an authority on the subject, I figured I would ask and hopefully he would answer so as to reduce the amount of time it would take for me to find the answer on my own. I don't see what is wrong with that.