Creationism vs. Realism
Nuri
I'm still quite not sure what all the bickering on these groups is all
about.
Creationists simply *believe* that a creator created the earth,
universe, reality as we know it.
This is opposed by the scientific community, albeit oppressed for some
time by the Catholic Church (heliocentricity).
Scientists have problems themselves though. The origins of our
universe are still ambiguous. The red shift alludes to an expanding
universe, and hence, a possible beginning to the universe, The Big
Bang. What was before the big bang?..nothing? Did the big bang even
exist? Is the elementary concept of "big bang" not enough to describe
the origins of our universe? What about a cyclic nature of the
universe ever expanding and contracting?
Scientists are trying to differentiate an endpoint of history
Creationists are assuming/believing that the endpoints are God (or
some divine beginning and a divine ending)
In a way creationism and evolution are linked, but not as directly as
creationists believe (imo):
we can assume the following:
there had to be a beginning (influx of energy to get the whole
universe going)
big bang and creationism both describe this influx.
Set these arguments aside, and simply revel in the universe's
simplicity, or its complexities (as your patience allows)
--II. HUMAN ORIGINS--
primordial soup theory vs. God's divine creation on the sixth day
again it seems that creationism provides a generalization, or at least
a preliminary brainstorming for how we came to walk the earth.
Miller & Urey showed that nucleic acids formed when the primary
elements were subject to an electric pulse.
Geologists think that the state of the earth was such that the
feasibility of lightning randomly striking primordial soup was fairly
good.
Religion and science both allude to the origins of man being in the
great seas and oceans of our world. Although referenced from a
non-canon, there was an "ocean of chaos" in the beginning, and God
created the light. These ideas are not specific to Christianity
though. The Hindu religion has the concept of drinking from a river,
the water of which makes the drinker forget his/her experiences on
earth, only to return to earth to accumulate more experiences. It is
not until the individual (soul) accumulates enough experiences that
the (soul) achieves Nirvana, returning to the soul of the world.
Ancient Greek mythology attributed various Gods to various bodies of
water, mountains, forests.
It's not difficult to see where these ideas come from. There's some
mysterious, calming connection humans have with the oceans.
Independant of whatever faith or scientific background you come from,
it's easy to appreciate the raw force of the ocean. The connection
almost feels (to me) like an ancient respect for the power of the
ocean, yet also comforting (again to me) like an ancient mother.
My point is very simple: the debate of Religion vs. Science (in any
respect), although not insignificant, is a tangent. Scientists will
still perform experiments and trudge onwards to a better understanding
of the universe we all live in, and Spiritualists will still strive
for spiritual perfection (whether it be acceptance into Heaven,
achieving Nirvana, etc.) There are also the very few that understand
the points of both and accept both.
Simply said:
we really don't know
it doesn't hurt to learn
it doesn't hurt to believe
just live your life the best you can
TomS
<f78d291f.01103...@posting.google.com>, lord...@hotmail.com
stated..."
>
>--I. INTRO--
>I'm still quite not sure what all the bickering on these groups is all
>about.
>
>Creationists simply *believe* that a creator created the earth,
>universe, reality as we know it.
Unfortunately, however, the so-called "creationists" won't tell
us what they mean by that. How can they expect us to believe in
something if they won't even tell us what it is?
Oh, yes, they do tell us what it is *not*. Mostly, "a creator
created" means "anything so long as it doesn't involve (macro)-
evolution".
And, yes, the "young earth creationists" tell us a little bit
more. That it happened in the last 10,000 years. And that the
God of the Bible is who did it. And, maybe, something about Noah's
Ark and the Flood.
My first exposure to creationism was when I listened to a
preacher on the radio, who devoted his whole sermon to somehow,
somewhere, sometime, something is wrong about evolution. I
thought that odd, so I listened next week. He continued on, just
going on after evolution. After a while, I began to wonder, what
kind of a religion, what kind of a church, this was, when the only
thing of importance was how evolution was wrong.
What is the theory of creationism?
Tom S.
CLSNOWYOWL
why we got here, just as evolution attempts to explain it all. The only
difference is although there are certain scientific biblical facts and
scientific evolutionary facts, the physical evidence is so limited, weatherworn
with time and the ages, hidden, or buried as to not be made available at the
moment.
Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet seen and yet
are manifest
Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered fossils
and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to reptiles
to apes and then humans, which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out as to
who is right and who is wrong). Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
or not He exists?
This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its meaning. Is life
simply a 3-d video game with the player actually in it in which you only get
one "man"? Does my screen read "game over" on the day I pass on? Or does life
mean something much more profoundly than that?
A creator is referred to often in the secular world as simply a higher power
which has many more numerous abilities than the limited abilities of a human to
perceive.
With Christianity, this all powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing God is what
can be best described as the Creator of the Universe, and is based on a
statement of faith in saying that there is A Great One who is greater than our
own abilities to perceive with our ordinary human senses but only through our
mind's eye and through our spiritual senses.
This is the best possible definition of a Creator.
The manifestations of the Creator in our midst is the great beauty we see
in some things of this world made by our creator.
We also see it in the collective talents of people.
We also see it in the one who has the heart of compassion and gives freely
to help others less fortunate.
These are some examples of what defines a Creator and a believer, but
what actually defines us as Christians is whether we live as Christ would want
us to, or if not Christian, whether we choose another path and live seperately
of Christ in a way that Christ would not want. In following God's ways, it is
our statement of faith to simply live for Him and not for ourselves alone. A
perfect definition of actual Christianity is found in Matthew chapter 25, verse
31-46 "The parable of the sheep and the goats":
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all of the angels with him, he
will sit on the throne in heavenly glory.
All the nations will begathered before him, and he will seperate the people one
from another, as a shepherd seperates the sheep from the goats.
He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my
father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation
of the world.
For I was Hungry and you gave me something to eat, thirsty and you gave me
drink, a stranger and you invited me in, naked and you clothed me, sick and you
looked after me, in prison and you visited me.
The righteous will answer saying to Him, when did we see you hungry and give
you something to eat, thirsty and give you something to drink, a stranger and
invite you in, naked and clothe you, sick and look after you, or in prison and
visit you?
The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the
least of these, by brethren, you have done it for me."
Then he will say to those on his left, "depart from me, you who are cursed,
into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
'For I was Hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, thirsty and you gave me no
drink, a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe
me, sick and you did not look after me, in prison and you did not visit me.
The righteous will answer saying to Him, when did we see you hungry and give
you nothing to eat, thirsty and give you nothing to drink, a stranger and not
invite you in, naked and not clothe you, sick and not look after you, or in
prison and not visit you?
The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of
the least of these, by brethren, you have not done it for me."
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righeous to eternal life.
The Bible also points out that "do not be afraid of that which can kill the
body; be more afraid of that which can kill the soul."
Certainly, in this life, we are fearful for our flesh, but we also need to have
a healthy respect for our spiritual well being also, if in the event we pass on
when we least expect to.
There is absolutely no intention of being a smart aleck here. The intention is
to help many people here to realize that regardless of our views (however we
agree or disagree with them) we are all human and we need to treat each other
with the same courtesy. Although you may have seen many of my postings which
preach the basic concepts of Christianity, I do my preaching with my deeds and
actions most of the time.
The purpose of Christianity is to prepare ourselves as God would want us to be
prepared for the challenges of this life and for the what lies ahead in the
life after this one. After all, I might not know exactly what is on the other
side of the door past the death and dying experience in this life, (although I
have been told there is a heaven and a hell for which I pray I make it to
heaven when I go) so I would prefer to be on God's side, so I have some kind of
a guide when my time comes as well as to live for God every day while I am
alive in this life. So, I come not judging you or trying to scare you, but with
a warning that God needs to be respected, too, because only He knows what's
really going on.
Charles Lucas
Subject: Re: Creationism vs. Realism
From: TomS TomS_...@newsguy.com
Date: 10/30/01 11:52 AM EST
Message-id: <9rmlq...@drn.newsguy.com>
David Mair
abiogenesis and the big bang theory (I'm not even sure if it is a scientific
theory-I don't know much about it because it had nothing to do with
evolution). Biological evolution describes a mechanism that produced the
diversity of life that we see, not where the first life came from.
Basically, you seem to have missed the point of the debate.
> Creationists simply *believe* that a creator created the earth,
> universe, reality as we know it.
That's fine and good until they try to put it into a science classroom,
where belief doesn't belong--evidence does.
> Simply said:
> we really don't know
> it doesn't hurt to learn
> it doesn't hurt to believe
> just live your life the best you can
The creationists would have us believe that it DOES hurt to learn,
especially if it is about evolution, because it will turn us into heathens
with no moral values (perhaps killing babies and having sex with everyone we
could).
Dave
Bill Hudson
>
> --I. INTRO--
> I'm still quite not sure what all the bickering on these groups is all
> about.
>
> Creationists simply *believe* that a creator created the earth,
> universe, reality as we know it.
This is a sweeping generalization. There are many forms of
'creationism', from the rather generic one you've outlined, all the way
to a strict biblical literalist 6-day creation 6000 years ago.
>
> This is opposed by the scientific community, albeit oppressed for some
> time by the Catholic Church (heliocentricity).
Incorrect. The 'scientific community' (in general) does not 'oppose'
your generic version of creationism above, they ignore it.
>
> Scientists have problems themselves though. The origins of our
> universe are still ambiguous. The red shift alludes to an expanding
> universe, and hence, a possible beginning to the universe, The Big
> Bang. What was before the big bang?..nothing? Did the big bang even
> exist? Is the elementary concept of "big bang" not enough to describe
> the origins of our universe? What about a cyclic nature of the
> universe ever expanding and contracting?
Although a cyclic universe is a possibility, I think the current
thinking is an expanding unverse ending in heat death.
>
> Scientists are trying to differentiate an endpoint of history
> Creationists are assuming/believing that the endpoints are God (or
> some divine beginning and a divine ending)
>
Thats fine. You can assume/believe whatever you'd like, as long as you
don't propose it as a scientific theory.
> In a way creationism and evolution are linked, but not as directly as
> creationists believe (imo):
many 'creationists' as well as many 'evolutionists' believe that the two
realms of thought are completely incompatable. Many others believe that
they are compatable in some manner or another.
>
> we can assume the following:
> there had to be a beginning (influx of energy to get the whole
> universe going)
Read up on QM, especially quantum fluctuations and field effects. As
mind-boggling as it seems, the universe may have 'caused' itself.
>
> big bang and creationism both describe this influx.
The 'big bang' does not describe an influx. Quite the opposite.
> Set these arguments aside, and simply revel in the universe's
> simplicity, or its complexities (as your patience allows)
>
> --II. HUMAN ORIGINS--
> primordial soup theory vs. God's divine creation on the sixth day
>
> again it seems that creationism provides a generalization, or at least
> a preliminary brainstorming for how we came to walk the earth.
>
> Miller & Urey showed that nucleic acids formed when the primary
> elements were subject to an electric pulse.
>
> Geologists think that the state of the earth was such that the
> feasibility of lightning randomly striking primordial soup was fairly
> good.
There is still much speculation in this area. It is generally assumed
that the first self-replicating molecules formed from complex organic
molecules. It is certainly *not* a universal assumption that those
complex organic molecules formed in a process similar to Miller & Urey's
experiments. That wasn't even a goal of Miller/Urey, rather their goal
was to show that basic elements + energy = organic molecules. Other
possibilities include conditions associated with hydrothermal vents
(geothermal energy), conditions associated with underwater caves and the
mixture of fresh/salt water and/or sulpher compounds (chemical energy),
or even that the molecules were prevalent in the early solar system and
were swept up by the gravitational field of the earth. I'm sure there
are other hypothesies as well. I can't tell you how likely any of these
are, or even which has the most supporters in the scientific community
today.
>
> Religion and science both allude to the origins of man being in the
> great seas and oceans of our world. Although referenced from a
> non-canon, there was an "ocean of chaos" in the beginning, and God
> created the light. These ideas are not specific to Christianity
> though. The Hindu religion has the concept of drinking from a river,
> the water of which makes the drinker forget his/her experiences on
> earth, only to return to earth to accumulate more experiences. It is
> not until the individual (soul) accumulates enough experiences that
> the (soul) achieves Nirvana, returning to the soul of the world.
> Ancient Greek mythology attributed various Gods to various bodies of
> water, mountains, forests.
>
> It's not difficult to see where these ideas come from. There's some
> mysterious, calming connection humans have with the oceans.
Seeing as we are all descendants of Devonian fish, I guess there is a
connection. OTOH, some people find the ocean frightening.
> Independant of whatever faith or scientific background you come from,
> it's easy to appreciate the raw force of the ocean. The connection
> almost feels (to me) like an ancient respect for the power of the
> ocean, yet also comforting (again to me) like an ancient mother.
>
> My point is very simple: the debate of Religion vs. Science (in any
> respect), although not insignificant, is a tangent. Scientists will
> still perform experiments and trudge onwards to a better understanding
> of the universe we all live in, and Spiritualists will still strive
> for spiritual perfection (whether it be acceptance into Heaven,
> achieving Nirvana, etc.) There are also the very few that understand
> the points of both and accept both.
I think you seriously miss the point.
The nature of the current debate is not over Science vs Religion, but
has rather moved into a more political ground, where the new
creationists (the Intelligent Design Creationists, etc.) seek to topple
the 'materialism' that science is built on, and replace it with their
own brand of spiritualism. That is fine *in Church*, but it has no
place in the Lab, nor in science class.
>
> Simply said:
> we really don't know
> it doesn't hurt to learn
> it doesn't hurt to believe
> just live your life the best you can
I'll live my life if they'll let me.
--
Bill
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and
the success of liberty." - President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address,
January 20, 1961
Dana Tweedy
CLSNOWYOWL <clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote in message
news:20011030132929...@mb-co.aol.com...
> A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of
how and
> why we got here, just as evolution attempts to explain it all.
Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the
diversity of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain it "all".
Science doesn't answer any questions of why things happened, just that they
did.
The only
> difference is although there are certain scientific biblical facts and
> scientific evolutionary facts, the physical evidence is so limited,
weatherworn
> with time and the ages, hidden, or buried as to not be made available at
the
> moment.
False dichotomy. There are not two kinds of "facts". Exactly what is a "
Scientific bibilical fact" ?? All science can do is study the evidence
that can be evaluated objectively, which supernatural beings don't tend to
use. The physical evidence available is not that limited. There is a lot
more evidence than you seem to be aware of. The earth speaks volumes to
those who are willing to listen.
>
> Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet seen and
yet
> are manifest
More correctly, belief in things that humans WANT to believe. The problem
happens when what one wants to believe doesn't match objective reality.
>
> Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered
fossils
> and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to
reptiles
> to apes and then humans,
Nice strawman. NO science makes any reference to any supernatural being.
The supernatural is beyond the pale of what science can study. It's also
not "somehow", but by a mechanism, mutation and natural selection. Also,
please note, there are a lot more than a "few scattered fossils", including
DNA evidence, comparitive anatomy, etc. Please get with the program.
which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
> from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out as
to
> who is right and who is wrong).
Oh Goody, Mixed metaphors!!
Well, let me put it this way, fossils ( and the other evidence ) are
snapshots in the cosmic film strip, when you put them together, in
chronologic order, the film can be run. We don't have all the frames, but we
can piece together a coherent idea of what happened, and guess what, Genesis
doesn't match the evidence. Science is the opposite of faith. It's the
belief only in things that CAN be seen, and measured, and analyzed.
Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
> or not He exists?
Nope, you have to take that on faith. Science isn't interested in proving
or not proving beings that cannot be objectively studied.
>
> This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its meaning. Is
life
> simply a 3-d video game with the player actually in it in which you only
get
> one "man"? Does my screen read "game over" on the day I pass on? Or does
life
> mean something much more profoundly than that?
That's philosophy, not science. We will all figure that out soon enough.
This debate is over wether or not science should be torpedoed because it
might offend some people's religious beliefs.
>
Snip of preaching.
BTW, What is the theory of Creation?
Dana Tweedy
CLSNOWYOWL
Date: 10/30/01 10:13 PM EST
Message-id: <9rnq9c$uteue$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>
CLSNOWYOWL <clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote in message
news:20011030132929...@mb-co.aol.com...
> A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of
how and
> why we got here, just as evolution attempts to explain it all.
[Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the
diversity of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain it "all".
Science doesn't answer any questions of why things happened, just that they
did.]
Creation is an attempt to explain how and why we got here to give us some
purpose for why we are here.
Science makes a very poor substitute for God, because of its finiteness,
whereas God is infinite.
The only
> difference is although there are certain scientific biblical facts and
> scientific evolutionary facts, the physical evidence is so limited,
weatherworn
> with time and the ages, hidden, or buried as to not be made available at
the
> moment.
[False dichotomy. There are not two kinds of "facts". Exactly what is a "
Scientific bibilical fact" ?? ]
A scientific biblical fact is a fact about the Bible that can be scientifically
proven. The existence of Noah's Ark is a great example and it has been proven.
[All science can do is study the evidence
that can be evaluated objectively, which supernatural beings don't tend to
use. The physical evidence available is not that limited. There is a lot
more evidence than you seem to be aware of. The earth speaks volumes to
those who are willing to listen.]
However, the evidence you find in the earth only shows a small part of how life
was and what life was back then. It still does not conclusively prove who
someone was 5,000 years ago, who knew whom, etc...
Noah's Ark definitely proves there was an actual event that was recorded by the
people who witnessed it. So, you have a writing (recording about) an event
detailing the very parts of the event that occurred, you have a signature on
the writing testifying to the events, and you have the ark. How could that be
deemed as inconclusive?
>
> Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet seen and
yet
> are manifest
[More correctly, belief in things that humans WANT to believe. The problem
happens when what one wants to believe doesn't match objective reality.]
Belief is a statement of faith by trust. distrust or dismissing a belief
because one doesn't believe is unbelief. I believe in science to some degree,
but I know how limited it is. Since the Good Lord is without limits, I place my
true trust in God. You can choose to believe what you like, but please do not
ask me to misplace my faith in God and sign up onto your camp, when I only
believe a small amount of what the process of evolution is. In addition to
that, the Bible was written and completed thousands of years ago. Today,
scientists preaching evolution are still looking for the pieces to attempt to
solve the puzzle about the origins of humans. So, the puzzle about the process
of evolution is still incomplete because we are still looking for the answers
that link one event to another in the science of evolution.
>
> Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered
fossils
> and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to
reptiles
> to apes and then humans,
[Nice strawman. NO science makes any reference to any supernatural being.]
Science doesn't dare because science is implying they know all the answers by
not acknowledging a Creator greater than humans. The root question is how did
the first man and woman on this earth get put here?
[The supernatural is beyond the pale of what science can study.]
There are some sciences that attempt to study the supernatural, but we won't
get into that.
[ It's also
not "somehow", but by a mechanism, mutation and natural selection. Also,
please note, there are a lot more than a "few scattered fossils", including
DNA evidence, comparitive anatomy, etc. Please get with the program.]
How does that explain every detailed account of the origins of all humankind?
Pieces of the puzzle are still pieces of the puzzle. When you disprove God and
science has all of the answers, then I'll be inclined to believe you.
[ which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
> from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out as
to
> who is right and who is wrong).
Oh Goody, Mixed metaphors!!
Well, let me put it this way, fossils ( and the other evidence ) are
snapshots in the cosmic film strip, when you put them together, in
chronologic order, the film can be run. We don't have all the frames, but we
can piece together a coherent idea of what happened, and guess what, Genesis
doesn't match the evidence. ]
Since you don't have all of the frames in the cosmic video filmstrip, how can
draw that definitive of a conclusion? Do we really know for sure?
[Science is the opposite of faith. It's the
belief only in things that CAN be seen, and measured, and analyzed.]
Pschology is a study of the mind and human behavior (including one's thoughts).
Many of these ideas in this science are verbal and intangible ones. Science
fudges on its own definition because we try to put a label on an idea that is
so intangible that humans cannot touch it with their ordinary senses. Yet,
science is labelled as clinical a definition as you have provided. It seems to
me that the definition of science has a double standard. of course, humans know
it is all open to interpretation.
Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
> or not He exists?
[Nope, you have to take that on faith. Science isn't interested in proving
or not proving beings that cannot be objectively studied.]
The whole debate has been upon proving that God exists, the enhancement of
human life or making life have meaning and now you say science has no interest.
Amazing.
>
> This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its meaning. Is
life
> simply a 3-d video game with the player actually in it in which you only
get
> one "man"? Does my screen read "game over" on the day I pass on? Or does
life
> mean something much more profoundly than that?
[That's philosophy, not science. We will all figure that out soon enough.]
I think we all find out as we travel down life's road and it is revealed to us
in our travels in life.
[This debate is over wether or not science should be torpedoed because it
might offend some people's religious beliefs.]
No, that is certainly not it. I didn't say science was not ever useful, but
useful in certain things.Science is also viewed as an excuse to disbelieve God
because science often becomes replaced as a god for the true God. Humans today
worship discoveries made in the name of science to get funding and do more
reasearch, etc.. to discover yet something else that may benefit humans.
However, in the process of the pursuit of life enhancing medicines, technology,
behaviors, foods, etc... we often lose perspective on even questioning whether
or not we believe in God. I wrote what I have written so we are all careful to
guard our hearts about what we really believe in or whether we allow other
things to cloud our perception about our faith.
In the early days of evolution, certaily, there was much debate over it
between the religious community and the scientific one and obviously that
debate is just as prominent today, more than 100 years later.
Thanks for your input.
Charles Lucas
Louann Miller
wrote:
>From: "Dana Tweedy" twe...@cvn.net
>CLSNOWYOWL <clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote in message
>news:20011030132929...@mb-co.aol.com...
>> A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of
>how and
>> why we got here, just as evolution attempts to explain it all.
>
>[Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the
>diversity of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain it "all".
>Science doesn't answer any questions of why things happened, just that they
>did.]
We get this one all the time, and the best answer seems to be "so
what?" The accusation is founded on a total misunderstanding of what
science is about.
It's not scientists who claim that evolutionary theory has the job of
providing people Purpose In Life, and that it somehow has failed if it
doesn't. Biologists don't expect the Meaning Of Life out of evolution
for the same reason that civil engineers don't expect the Meaning Of
Life out of the plans for a suspension bridge. All the engineer
expects out of those bridge blueprints is a bridge that stays up. He's
not a failure if he has to seek elsewhere for existential purpose.
Biologists work the same way. They aren't trying to Visualize the
Cosmic All, they're just trying to get the correct answers to factual
questions.
Side note: some scientists do find emotional and spiritual fulfillment
from doing their jobs well and discovering neat new things. This is no
more divine than anyone else who finds satisfaction in a job well
done. And no less so -- "all things done well to the glory of God" was
a goal to aspire to back when I was in Sunday School.
>Creation is an attempt to explain how and why we got here to give us some
>purpose for why we are here.
Unfortunately it's set up in terms of a series of statements of
purported fact which are not only falsifiable but falsified, in great
detail. None of which is our fault.
People who say things like "if the earth is older than 7000 years or
I'm related to chimps, God is a lie and the universe is evil" often
try to blame scientists for their dilemma. In fact, they're the ones
who've set the ground rules for what God is allowed to do to get them
to believe. There's nothing we can do for them -- and nothing we're
obliged to do for them, other than getting our facts straight. No more
than if they said "if elephants can't fly by flapping their ears, I'm
going to give up faith in God." The only reply at that point is
"sorry, elephants are what they are." If they choose to jettison their
faith, that's them doing it.
>Science makes a very poor substitute for God, because of its finiteness,
>whereas God is infinite.
See above.
Louann
J Forbes
>
> A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of how and
> why we got here, just as evolution attempts to explain it all. The only
> difference is although there are certain scientific biblical facts and
> scientific evolutionary facts, the physical evidence is so limited, weatherworn
> with time and the ages, hidden, or buried as to not be made available at the
> moment.
Actually, the physical evidence, combined with
logical thinking, leads to the conclusion that the
only creator is nature itself.
> Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet seen and yet
> are manifest
In other words, that which is imagined causing that
which we see.
> Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered fossils
> and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to reptiles
> to apes and then humans, which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
> from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out as to
> who is right and who is wrong). Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
> or not He exists?
God is a concept, it is something which exists as an
idea in people's minds. But the idea is old,
probably dating back to when humans or their
predecessors could first imagine such a thing.
Can God be carbon dated? No, because He is
imaginary. Only physical things can be carbon
dated.
> This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its meaning. Is life
> simply a 3-d video game with the player actually in it in which you only get
> one "man"? Does my screen read "game over" on the day I pass on? Or does life
> mean something much more profoundly than that?
We know for sure that we get this one life. All
else is speculation, without any evidence.
> A creator is referred to often in the secular world as simply a higher power
> which has many more numerous abilities than the limited abilities of a human to
> perceive.
>
> With Christianity, this all powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing God is what
> can be best described as the Creator of the Universe, and is based on a
> statement of faith in saying that there is A Great One who is greater than our
> own abilities to perceive with our ordinary human senses but only through our
> mind's eye and through our spiritual senses.
>
> This is the best possible definition of a Creator.
>
> The manifestations of the Creator in our midst is the great beauty we see
> in some things of this world made by our creator.
>
> We also see it in the collective talents of people.
>
> We also see it in the one who has the heart of compassion and gives freely
> to help others less fortunate.
So perhaps Christianity is a perspective, where you
can "see" that which is not there...and the human
mind is quite adept at this.
-snip biblical preaching-
> There is absolutely no intention of being a smart aleck here. The intention is
> to help many people here to realize that regardless of our views (however we
> agree or disagree with them) we are all human and we need to treat each other
> with the same courtesy. Although you may have seen many of my postings which
> preach the basic concepts of Christianity, I do my preaching with my deeds and
> actions most of the time.
And it is also important for folks to realize that
Christianity does not have any type of monopoly on
decent behavior...if you want to explore, study
Secular Humanism.
> The purpose of Christianity is to prepare ourselves as God would want us to be
> prepared for the challenges of this life and for the what lies ahead in the
> life after this one. After all, I might not know exactly what is on the other
> side of the door past the death and dying experience in this life, (although I
> have been told there is a heaven and a hell for which I pray I make it to
> heaven when I go) so I would prefer to be on God's side, so I have some kind of
> a guide when my time comes as well as to live for God every day while I am
> alive in this life. So, I come not judging you or trying to scare you, but with
> a warning that God needs to be respected, too, because only He knows what's
> really going on.
>
> Charles Lucas
Then again, since God is imaginary, He knows
nothing...and really deserves no respect. Folks who
believe in God deserve as much respect as anyone
else, but their belief in God does not deserve the
respect that valid ideas deserve.
-snip-
Jim
Nathan McKaskle
Good post there Louann, I don't think I could have said it anywhere near as
well.
Nathan McKaskle
Forbes was saying. Having a belief in a higher being, and even moreso
believing in an afterlife would seem to put less emphasis on the value of
life. For example, (I hate relating things to the recent events) if the
Islamic terrorists didn't believe they'd find themselves in heaven with 75
virgins they might not have been so ready to commit suicide, and might not
be so eager to end the lives of others. If there is no soul or afterlife
then life then becomes much more valuable just for the simple fact that once
you die that is it, and there is no more. And its not just recent events
that make an example of this, its all the wars of the past 7000 years. Just
a thought.
Bobby D. Bryant
<clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote:
> Science makes a very poor substitute for God, because of its
> finiteness, whereas God is infinite.
More is better? Why not believe in *lots* of infinite gods then?
However, the issue for scientists isn't what's a better substitute for
what, but rather what the evidence supports. That's why every
scientist not tainted with religion subscribes to the theory of
evolution.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
J Forbes
Yeah, that's what I've noticed too....thanks for
saying it!
Jim
Dana Tweedy
CLSNOWYOWL <clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote in message
> Subject: Re: Creationism vs. Realism
> From: "Dana Tweedy" twe...@cvn.net
> Date: 10/30/01 10:13 PM EST
> Message-id: <9rnq9c$uteue$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>
>
>
> CLSNOWYOWL <clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote in message
> news:20011030132929...@mb-co.aol.com...
> > A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of
> how and
> > why we got here, just as evolution attempts to explain it all.
>
> [Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the
> diversity of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain it "all".
> Science doesn't answer any questions of why things happened, just that
they
> did.]
>
> Creation is an attempt to explain how and why we got here to give us some
> purpose for why we are here.
Like many other creation myths in human history. Why should we treat it any
different from any other creation myth?
>
> Science makes a very poor substitute for God, because of its finiteness,
> whereas God is infinite.
Science is not interested in subsistuting for God. It's only interested in
aswering questions that can be answered.
>
> The only
> > difference is although there are certain scientific biblical facts and
> > scientific evolutionary facts, the physical evidence is so limited,
> weatherworn
> > with time and the ages, hidden, or buried as to not be made available at
> the
> > moment.
>
> [False dichotomy. There are not two kinds of "facts". Exactly what is a
"
> Scientific bibilical fact" ?? ]
>
> A scientific biblical fact is a fact about the Bible that can be
scientifically
> proven. The existence of Noah's Ark is a great example and it has been
proven.
Really? Do tell! Exactly when and were is Noah's Ark proven? If you are
referring to Robert Ballard's recent discoveries, you should know that all
he found is evidence there may have been a localized flood that gave rise to
various flood myths. The whole story, about the Ark, the animals, the 40
days, 40 nights of rain, flooding the whole earth etc, is definately NOT
proven. In fact it's entirely impossible under normal physical laws.
>
> [All science can do is study the evidence
> that can be evaluated objectively, which supernatural beings don't tend to
> use. The physical evidence available is not that limited. There is a lot
> more evidence than you seem to be aware of. The earth speaks volumes to
> those who are willing to listen.]
>
> However, the evidence you find in the earth only shows a small part of how
life
> was and what life was back then. It still does not conclusively prove who
> someone was 5,000 years ago, who knew whom, etc...
It's not supposed to.
>
> Noah's Ark definitely proves there was an actual event that was recorded
by the
> people who witnessed it. So, you have a writing (recording about) an event
> detailing the very parts of the event that occurred, you have a signature
on
> the writing testifying to the events, and you have the ark. How could that
be
> deemed as inconclusive?
There may have been a large local flood that gave rise to some flood myths,
that is possible. That the whole Noah story in the bible acutally happened
is not possible. So, if you have a writing that makes reference to an
entirely impossible event, then it's reasonable to see that writing as not
being scientifically accurate.
>
> >
> > Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet seen
and
> yet
> > are manifest
>
> [More correctly, belief in things that humans WANT to believe. The
problem
> happens when what one wants to believe doesn't match objective reality.]
>
> Belief is a statement of faith by trust. distrust or dismissing a belief
> because one doesn't believe is unbelief.
Uh,, yeah,, if you say so... What about dismissing evidence because it
doesn't match your belief?
I believe in science to some degree,
> but I know how limited it is. Since the Good Lord is without limits, I
place my
> true trust in God.
So when your trust in God bumps up against harsh reality, you dismiss
reality?
>You can choose to believe what you like, but please do not
> ask me to misplace my faith in God and sign up onto your camp, when I only
> believe a small amount of what the process of evolution is.
Frankly I don't care if you want to believe you are the Queen of the May.
Just don't try to pretend it's a scientific concept. BTW, one doesn't need
to give up faith in God to accept what the evidence shows.
In addition to
> that, the Bible was written and completed thousands of years ago. Today,
> scientists preaching evolution are still looking for the pieces to attempt
to
> solve the puzzle about the origins of humans. So, the puzzle about the
process
> of evolution is still incomplete because we are still looking for the
answers
> that link one event to another in the science of evolution.
Yes, the Bible was written a long time ago. That doesn't make it correct in
all details. Modern science will never have the final word on ANYTHING,
because science does not deal in absolute knowlege. It deals with what can
be intepeted from the current evidence. New evidence will always trump old
ideas. That is why scientists don't accept the Bible at face value. It
just doesn't match the evidence.
>
> >
> > Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered
> fossils
> > and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to
> reptiles
> > to apes and then humans,
>
> [Nice strawman. NO science makes any reference to any supernatural
being.]
>
> Science doesn't dare because science is implying they know all the answers
by
> not acknowledging a Creator greater than humans.
Scientists are always quick to point out they don't have all the answers.
They admit it publically. Science only can study those things that can be
objectively studied. Supernatural beings are not subject to objective
evidence, so science offically has no opinion on a Creator. Individual
scientists may acknowlege a creator, but understand that such a being is not
open to study.
The root question is how did
> the first man and woman on this earth get put here?
Why do you assume they were placed here like a potted plant ? Why is the
idea that humans are the product of a natural process so frightening to you?
>
> [The supernatural is beyond the pale of what science can study.]
>
> There are some sciences that attempt to study the supernatural, but we
won't
> get into that.
Some MAY claim to study the effect of supposed supernatural forces on
natural systems, but the supernatural itself cannot be studied by
definition. Science is the study of natural causes and natural effects.
The supernatural is simply out of bounds.
>
> [ It's also
> not "somehow", but by a mechanism, mutation and natural selection. Also,
> please note, there are a lot more than a "few scattered fossils",
including
> DNA evidence, comparitive anatomy, etc. Please get with the program.]
>
> How does that explain every detailed account of the origins of all
humankind?
Why do we need to explain every detailed account? We have a mechanism that
has been observed, we have the fossil evidence showing where we came from,
and we have genetic evidence showing the close relationship between humans
and chimps. We can reasonably conclude that humans are one species of life
on this planet, no more or less special than any other. What more do you
need to know
> Pieces of the puzzle are still pieces of the puzzle. When you disprove God
and
> science has all of the answers, then I'll be inclined to believe you.
Sigh,,, OK,, again, Science is not interested in disproving God. It's
looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions from that evidence. It's
always going to be an unfinished puzzle, that is not a failing of science.
We do have enough of the pieces to form a coherent picture, one that does
not match the picture that your particular religious belief paints. If that
disproves God to you, then it's a matter of your weakness of faith.
>
> [ which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
> > from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out
as
> to
> > who is right and who is wrong).
>
> Oh Goody, Mixed metaphors!!
>
> Well, let me put it this way, fossils ( and the other evidence ) are
> snapshots in the cosmic film strip, when you put them together, in
> chronologic order, the film can be run. We don't have all the frames, but
we
> can piece together a coherent idea of what happened, and guess what,
Genesis
> doesn't match the evidence. ]
>
> Since you don't have all of the frames in the cosmic video filmstrip, how
can
> draw that definitive of a conclusion? Do we really know for sure?
Because we have enough frames to draw a tentative conclusion. That is what
science does. All conclusions in science are tentative, always subject to
review as new evidence,, new "frames" or "puzzle pieces" if you will, are
gathered. Besides, you don't need the entire film to know the difference
between a Spagehtti Western and a Sci Fi flick. We have enough of the film
to know that the Genesis story doesn't fit the evidence.
>
> [Science is the opposite of faith. It's the
> belief only in things that CAN be seen, and measured, and analyzed.]
>
> Pschology is a study of the mind and human behavior (including one's
thoughts).
> Many of these ideas in this science are verbal and intangible ones.
Science
> fudges on its own definition because we try to put a label on an idea that
is
> so intangible that humans cannot touch it with their ordinary senses.
Human beings are natural beings. Psychology is not a "hard" science but is
an attempt to use the scientific method to study the human mind. You might
be interested to know that the current trends in psychology and psychiatry
is to study the biochemical reactions of the brain rather than the more inta
ngable ideas of the mind.
Yet,
> science is labelled as clinical a definition as you have provided. It
seems to
> me that the definition of science has a double standard. of course, humans
know
> it is all open to interpretation
If you don't like it, tough. Those are the rules. Science does not deal
with questions of the supernatural, nor does it allow supernatural causes
for natural events.
>
> Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
> > or not He exists?
>
> [Nope, you have to take that on faith. Science isn't interested in
proving
> or not proving beings that cannot be objectively studied.]
>
> The whole debate has been upon proving that God exists, the enhancement of
> human life or making life have meaning and now you say science has no
interest.
> Amazing.
Ok. listen closely. The "whole debate" is NOT, nor has it EVER been on
proving that God does or does not exist. Science is simply not interested
in pursuing questions that have no objective answers. Whatever meaning life
has is up to the individual to decide. You are wanting to argue theology in
a biology class. If you want an argument of the existance or non existance
of God, you are in the wrong venue.
>
> >
> > This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its meaning. Is
> life
> > simply a 3-d video game with the player actually in it in which you only
> get
> > one "man"? Does my screen read "game over" on the day I pass on? Or does
> life
> > mean something much more profoundly than that?
>
> [That's philosophy, not science. We will all figure that out soon
enough.]
>
> I think we all find out as we travel down life's road and it is revealed
to us
> in our travels in life.
Good for you. Your opinion is just that, your opinion.
>
> [This debate is over wether or not science should be torpedoed because it
> might offend some people's religious beliefs.]
>
> No, that is certainly not it. I didn't say science was not ever useful,
but
> useful in certain things.Science is also viewed as an excuse to disbelieve
God
That's your problem. Many scientists have no problem with beleving in God,
AND doing good science.
> because science often becomes replaced as a god for the true God. Humans
today
> worship discoveries made in the name of science to get funding and do more
> reasearch, etc.. to discover yet something else that may benefit humans.
Yeah, humans tend to be a bit self absorbed.
> However, in the process of the pursuit of life enhancing medicines,
technology,
> behaviors, foods, etc... we often lose perspective on even questioning
whether
> or not we believe in God.
I accept evolution, and I believe in God. Do you wan't to chuck all the
technological advances made possible by science?
I wrote what I have written so we are all careful to
> guard our hearts about what we really believe in or whether we allow other
> things to cloud our perception about our faith.
If an understanding of science makes you question your faith, then your
faith was not very strong in the first place.
>
> In the early days of evolution, certaily, there was much debate over
it
> between the religious community and the scientific one and obviously that
> debate is just as prominent today, more than 100 years later.
Except that the religious community's opinion about a scientific matter
holds absolutely no weight in a scientific forum.
>
Dana J. Tweedy
David Jensen
clsno...@aol.comjoe345 (CLSNOWYOWL) wrote in
<20011031165914...@mb-cl.aol.com>:
>A scientific biblical fact is a fact about the Bible that can be scientifically
>proven. The existence of Noah's Ark is a great example and it has been proven.
What has been proven?
(1) There was no universal flood during human history.
(2) An ark described in the Bible could not survive launch.
(3) The ark could not have held all species for a year.
(4) Genetic variation tells us that there was no such restriction on
populations.
(5) Certain Christians ignore all of those facts and falsely claim that
this powerful story was literally true, making other Christians
(including St. Augustine) cringe because they bring derision upon
Christianity.
...
>However, the evidence you find in the earth only shows a small part of how life
>was and what life was back then. It still does not conclusively prove who
>someone was 5,000 years ago, who knew whom, etc...
>
>Noah's Ark definitely proves there was an actual event that was recorded by the
>people who witnessed it. So, you have a writing (recording about) an event
>detailing the very parts of the event that occurred, you have a signature on
>the writing testifying to the events, and you have the ark. How could that be
>deemed as inconclusive?
Noah's Ark never happened. There is absolutely no evidence for it and
every bit of evidence related to the claim says that the Universal Flood
did not and could not have happened. I'm sorry that you cannot tell a
moral fable from history, but that is your problem, not mine, and not
God's.
...
>Belief is a statement of faith by trust. distrust or dismissing a belief
>because one doesn't believe is unbelief. I believe in science to some degree,
>but I know how limited it is. Since the Good Lord is without limits, I place my
>true trust in God. You can choose to believe what you like, but please do not
>ask me to misplace my faith in God and sign up onto your camp, when I only
>believe a small amount of what the process of evolution is. In addition to
>that, the Bible was written and completed thousands of years ago. Today,
>scientists preaching evolution are still looking for the pieces to attempt to
>solve the puzzle about the origins of humans. So, the puzzle about the process
>of evolution is still incomplete because we are still looking for the answers
>that link one event to another in the science of evolution.
But you are not believing in God--You are believing in yourself. You are
setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth. You are telling the world
what God has to be. You are claiming that He has mislead us with the
evidence of the earth. God does not have to be constrained by your
imagination.
...
>Science doesn't dare because science is implying they know all the answers by
>not acknowledging a Creator greater than humans. The root question is how did
>the first man and woman on this earth get put here?
You assume without evidence that they were put here. You are the one who
sets yourself up as chief arbiter.
>
>[The supernatural is beyond the pale of what science can study.]
>
>There are some sciences that attempt to study the supernatural, but we won't
>get into that.
Please, name them.
>How does that explain every detailed account of the origins of all humankind?
>Pieces of the puzzle are still pieces of the puzzle. When you disprove God and
>science has all of the answers, then I'll be inclined to believe you.
Please tell me where science claims to disprove God.
...
Jack Dominey
<snip>
> A scientific biblical fact is a fact about the Bible that can be
> scientifically proven. The existence of Noah's Ark is a great example and
> it has been proven.
No. Noah's Ark, as described in the Bible, does not now and almost
certainly never did exist. Please tell us the source of your claim,
including how your source determined their find was Noah's Ark, and
how you know the source is telling the truth.
<snip>
> Noah's Ark definitely proves there was an actual event that was recorded by the
> people who witnessed it. So, you have a writing (recording about) an event
> detailing the very parts of the event that occurred, you have a signature on
> the writing testifying to the events, and you have the ark. How could that be
> deemed as inconclusive?
Since there is no claim in Genesis that Noah or any of his sons wrote
the Flood account, I am interested in how you can say that the event
was recorded by the people who witnessed it. Please tell us who wrote
the description, where the "signature" is, and where the ark is.
Please also compare your claim above to this: I say that I flew to
work on the back of a small bird today. I can provide you a signed,
written account of the flight. I can also show you a small bird. By
your standard above, this is conclusive. If you reject my account on
the grounds of physical impossibility (a bird cannot carry a 160 lb.
human), then apply those same grounds to the story of the Ark (a
wooden ship as described cannot float).
Jack Dominey
jack(underscore)dominey(at)email(dot)com
Nathan McKaskle
"Jack Dominey" <elvon_l...@email.com> wrote in message
news:e5450afd.01110...@posting.google.com...
Ah but what if it were an African Swallow?
>
> Jack Dominey
> jack(underscore)dominey(at)email(dot)com
>
Marc Randolph
> > Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered
> fossils
> > and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to
> reptiles
> > to apes and then humans,
>
> [Nice strawman. NO science makes any reference to any supernatural being.]
>
> Science doesn't dare because science is implying they know all the answers by
> not acknowledging a Creator greater than humans.
I think you are making a blind statement here. Do you have anything
to back up the assertion that science somehow implies all the answers
are known?
If anything, most people that deal with science go out of their way to
make sure that they do NOT imply they know everything. If you take
the many things they know and the few remaining things they don't, you
have the theory of evolution. (see the puzzle reference below on why
this is possible)
> The root question is how did
> the first man and woman on this earth get put here?
*YOUR* root question may be that, but science already knows the
answer. We evolved. You can ignore that fact until the day your body
gets recycled in the earth, but you ignoring or not believing it
doesn't make it less true.
Note that I'm not saying science can explain everything. Science
can't explain the first moments of the universe (yet). They're
working on a better and better understanding every day though.
> [ It's also
> not "somehow", but by a mechanism, mutation and natural selection. Also,
> please note, there are a lot more than a "few scattered fossils", including
> DNA evidence, comparitive anatomy, etc. Please get with the program.]
>
> How does that explain every detailed account of the origins of all humankind?
> Pieces of the puzzle are still pieces of the puzzle.
> When you disprove God and
Which God would like proof of? Or are you going to say that your God
is the only true God? All you have to do is open your eyes a little
to see how many world wide definitions of God there are to start
wondering if any of them could possibly be true.
BTW, it is not the role of science to disprove God or anything else.
Science simply deals with facts. Facts you choose to ignore.
> science has all of the answers, then I'll be inclined to believe you.
I feel sorry for you. You don't do ANYTHING until you have ALL the
answers? You are going to miss out a large part of life waiting for
THE DEFINITIVE answer.
Hmmm... so basicly you're saying you want proof before you're going
to believe in evolution? Why don't you ask for proof of God before
you believe? If you don't, you have a double standard.
> [ which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
> > from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out as
> to
> > who is right and who is wrong).
>
> Oh Goody, Mixed metaphors!!
>
> Well, let me put it this way, fossils ( and the other evidence ) are
> snapshots in the cosmic film strip, when you put them together, in
> chronologic order, the film can be run. We don't have all the frames, but we
> can piece together a coherent idea of what happened, and guess what, Genesis
> doesn't match the evidence. ]
>
> Since you don't have all of the frames in the cosmic video filmstrip, how can
> draw that definitive of a conclusion? Do we really know for sure?
Are you telling me that when you have a 1000 piece jig-saw puzzle, you
don't know what the picture on the puzzle when you have 900 pieces in
place? It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Marc
--
If an evolutionist was building a wall that required 100 bricks and
the delivery person broke 10 of them, a creationist is someone that
would throw up their hands at the pile of bricks saying, "You can't
build a wall because you have some broken bricks." An evolutionist
goes back to the store and buys a 10 more bricks.
Dana Tweedy
Nathan McKaskle <zil...@zillien.com> wrote in message
news:3be1b8f8$0$13459$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net...
>
snip
> >
> > Please also compare your claim above to this: I say that I flew to
> > work on the back of a small bird today. I can provide you a signed,
> > written account of the flight. I can also show you a small bird. By
> > your standard above, this is conclusive. If you reject my account on
> > the grounds of physical impossibility (a bird cannot carry a 160 lb.
> > human), then apply those same grounds to the story of the Ark (a
> > wooden ship as described cannot float).
>
> Ah but what if it were an African Swallow?
But African Swallows are non migratory.
Dana J. Tweedy
mvp54609
> > Please also compare your claim above to this: I say that I flew to
> > work on the back of a small bird today. I can provide you a signed,
> > written account of the flight. I can also show you a small bird. By
> > your standard above, this is conclusive. If you reject my account on
> > the grounds of physical impossibility (a bird cannot carry a 160 lb.
> > human), then apply those same grounds to the story of the Ark (a
> > wooden ship as described cannot float).
>
> Ah but what if it were an African Swallow?
GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European
swallow, that's my point.
GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that...
Nathan McKaskle
"mvp54609" <mvp5...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:6b5bdb08.01110...@posting.google.com...
LOL, why is quoting that movie more funny than watching it sometimes?
Jack Dominey
> news:e5450afd.01110...@posting.google.com...
> > Please also compare your claim above to this: I say that I flew to
> > work on the back of a small bird today. I can provide you a signed,
> > written account of the flight. I can also show you a small bird. By
> > your standard above, this is conclusive. If you reject my account on
> > the grounds of physical impossibility (a bird cannot carry a 160 lb.
> > human), then apply those same grounds to the story of the Ark (a
> > wooden ship as described cannot float).
> Ah but what if it were an African Swallow?
Only works for coconuts.
Jack Dominey
jack(underscore)dominey(at)email(dot)com
Pat James
(in message <3be08e1e$0$13460$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net>):
Ah... not necessarily. For example, you might want to check out _Samurai_,
Sabro Saki and Martin Caidin, and _Zero!_ by Caidin and another Jap naval
aviator whose name I forget. (My copy of both were... 'borrowed' and I may
have to send out some ninjas to get them back, so I don't have the ISBNs)
Saki was the highest-scoring Japanese ace to survive the war; 66 kills, plus
three in China. Six of his wartime victories came while escorting kamikazes
to Okinawa, when he was blind in one eye and was flying for the first time in
two years. (It didn't help that he was flying an old, obsolencent aircraft
while the opposition were flying brand new machines specifically designed
around his machines weaknesses...) Those books had a few interesting things
to say about the mindset of the Imperial Japanese Navy's aviators in general
and those who flew for the Special Attack Units in particular. It wasn't all
'Ten thousand years for the emperor!' by a long way.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
C. Thompson
>
> A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of how and
> why we got here,
Goody. You are welcome to it. Just keep it out of my child's
classroom.
>just as evolution attempts to explain it all.
Blech. Evolution does not explain art, or engineering, or philosophy,
even though artists and engineers and philosophers all claim to be
competent to explain or attack evolutionary theory.
>The only
> difference is although there are certain scientific biblical facts
Facts? Factoids? Fables? If facts, name them and back them up.
> and
> scientific evolutionary facts,
Got one right!
>the physical evidence is so limited,
abundant
>weatherworn
amazingly well-preserved
> with time and the ages, hidden,
being discovered every day
>or buried as to not be made available at the
> moment.
>
> Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet seen and yet
> are manifest
(Buzzer sounds. Oxymoron alert!)
>
> Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few scattered fossils
tens of thousands is a few?
> and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a one celled organism to reptiles
If I saw that leap- ameoba to alligator- I would believe in your
creator.
> to apes and then humans, which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
Blech. You don't understand the evidence, so to you it must be magic-
excuse, me, faith.
> from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us out as to
> who is right and who is wrong). Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
> or not He exists?
No. We would use K-Ar on god.
>
> This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its meaning.
No it isn't.
Is life
> simply a 3-d video game with the player actually in it in which you only get
> one "man"? Does my screen read "game over" on the day I pass on?
Yes.
Or does life
> mean something much more profoundly than that?
Only if you make it so, while you live.
>
> A creator is referred to often in the secular world as simply a higher power
> which has many more numerous abilities than the limited abilities of a human to
> perceive.
Kinda like a Pentium III over a 486 huh?
>
> With Christianity, this all powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing God is what
> can be best described as the Creator of the Universe, and is based on a
> statement of faith in saying that there is A Great One who is greater than our
> own abilities to perceive with our ordinary human senses but only through our
> mind's eye and through our spiritual senses.
So where is the science in Creation science?
You know, what you never seem to realize is that biologists, geologists,
cosmologists, what have you, could not give a fig what you want to
believe. If you want to believe the moon is cheese, go right ahead.
But look at this:
>In following God's ways, it is
> our statement of faith to simply live for Him and not for ourselves alone.
Statement of faith. You are welcome to your faith. Why do you feel you
have the right, or in some cases the moral imperative, to indictrinate
MY children with YOUR faith. Keep it in your homes, your heads, and
your churches, and out of public schools!
>
> Charles Lucas
>
Chris
--
Remove the obvious spam-gagger when replying please.
C. Thompson
>
> Noah's Ark definitely proves there was an actual event that was recorded by the
> people who witnessed it. So, you have a writing (recording about) an event
> detailing the very parts of the event that occurred, you have a signature on
> the writing testifying to the events, and you have the ark. How could that be
> deemed as inconclusive?
>
People who witnessed it? Who wrote about it? Noah? Most everyone else
is supposed to have died. Are you telling me they found the Captain's
Log of the ark (Captain's log, day 22: rain. The cheetah ate the
rabbits. damn.) How was Noah's penmanship?
TomS
stated..."
>
>CLSNOWYOWL wrote:
>>
>>A story of creation is often looked at as simply another explanation of how and
>> why we got here,
>
>Goody. You are welcome to it. Just keep it out of my child's
>classroom.
One of my fervent wishes, aside from someone telling us just
how "A story of creation ... [is] another explanation of how and
why we got here" ...
That is, when somebody tells us about creation, I would hope
(without holding my breath) that they don't skip out on the "how
and why". That they don't tell us "the
ways of the Lord are not our ways", so that "how and why" are
*not* part of the so-called "explanation". I have no problem
with someone saying that "we don't know how and why the Lord
operates". I just wish that they would be consistent about this,
and not try to have it both ways, as an explanation of "how and
why", and also "I don't know the how and why".
Anyway, apart from that, I wish that these so-called
"creationists" would remember that "how our bodies got here"
is explained by developmental biology. Unless they are
"scientific storkists", they accept the idea that there is a
random mixing of genes from our parents, plus, perhaps, some
random mutations, and then development according to the laws
of biochemistry, resulting in birth and growth to maturity.
Tom S.
Andrew Glasgow
"C. Thompson" <rockw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
s/rabbits/unicorns/
HTH, HAND. ^_^
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Andrew Glasgow
clsno...@aol.comjoe345 (CLSNOWYOWL) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Creationism vs. Realism From: "Dana Tweedy"
> twe...@cvn.net Date: 10/30/01 10:13 PM EST Message-id:
> <9rnq9c$uteue$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>
>
>
> > CLSNOWYOWL <clsno...@aol.comjoe345> wrote in message
> > news:20011030132929...@mb-co.aol.com...
> > > A story of creation is often looked at as simply another
> > > explanation of how and why we got here, just as evolution attempts
> > > to explain it all.
> >
> > Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain
> > the diversity of life on earth. It does not attempt to explain it
> > "all". Science doesn't answer any questions of why things happened,
> > just that they did.
>
> Creation is an attempt to explain how and why we got here to give us
> some purpose for why we are here.
Religion does this. The difference is that while religion can assert
that something has such-and-such a Purpose, science doesn't venture into
teleology at all.
> Science makes a very poor substitute for God, because of its
> finiteness, whereas God is infinite.
If you want to find purpose for your life, religion may be a good place
to find it. But religon that makes statements which are counterfactual,
i.e. that are evidently false based on observations by our senses, is
baseless superstition.
Truth cannot contradict truth. If a statement by a religion, no matter
how much you believe in it, contradicts the evidence of the senses, it
is false. It *has* to be false, or take as false until new evidence
suggests otherwise, or the very concept of objective reality that can be
examined through our senses becomes meaningless.
Likewise, scientists should refrain from saying that evolution, or
physics, or some other branch of science has "disproven God" or
"disproven religion". It has done no such thing.
> > > The only difference is although there are certain scientific
> > > biblical facts and scientific evolutionary facts, the physical
> > > evidence is so limited, weatherworn with time and the ages, hidden,
> > > or buried as to not be made available at the moment.
> >
> > False dichotomy. There are not two kinds of "facts". Exactly what
> > is a " Scientific bibilical fact" ??
>
> A scientific biblical fact is a fact about the Bible that can be
> scientifically proven. The existence of Noah's Ark is a great example
> and it has been proven.
You are incorrect. Noah's ark has not been proven to exist, and could
not have existed for the purpose described in the bible, because it
would have been simultaneously too big to survive even a day on the
water, and too small to hold two of every species.
> > All science can do is study the evidence that can be evaluated
> > objectively, which supernatural beings don't tend to use. The
> > physical evidence available is not that limited. There is a lot more
> > evidence than you seem to be aware of. The earth speaks volumes to
> > those who are willing to listen.
>
> However, the evidence you find in the earth only shows a small part
> of how life was and what life was back then. It still does not
> conclusively prove who someone was 5,000 years ago, who knew whom,
> etc...
Of course not. We can never know that kind of thing. We have to deal
with what we can know.
> Noah's Ark definitely proves there was an actual event that was
> recorded by the people who witnessed it.
Do you mean the story of the Ark, or the constant bullshit about people
finding the ark on Mt. Ararat?
> So, you have a writing (recording about) an event detailing the very
> parts of the event that occurred,
A writing which describes impossible events.
> you have a signature on the writing
What? There's a signature on the Bible? Funny, I can't find anything
of the sort. Just an assertion within the bible that it is the one true
word of god, which is standard for nearly all religious scriptures. The
Quran says the same thing -- why aren't you Muslim if self-referential
proclamation of truth is enough for you to take it as divine writ?
> testifying to the events, and you have the ark. How could that be
> deemed as inconclusive?
We do not have the ark.
> > > Creation is a statement of the Christian faith- of things not yet
> > > seen and yet are manifest
> >
> > More correctly, belief in things that humans WANT to believe. The
> > problem happens when what one wants to believe doesn't match
> > objective reality.
>
> Belief is a statement of faith by trust. distrust or dismissing a
> belief because one doesn't believe is unbelief. I believe in science
> to some degree, but I know how limited it is. Since the Good Lord is
> without limits, I place my true trust in God. You can choose to
> believe what you like, but please do not ask me to misplace my faith
> in God and sign up onto your camp, when I only believe a small amount
> of what the process of evolution is. In addition to that, the Bible
> was written and completed thousands of years ago. Today, scientists
> preaching evolution are still looking for the pieces to attempt to
> solve the puzzle about the origins of humans. So, the puzzle about
> the process of evolution is still incomplete because we are still
> looking for the answers that link one event to another in the science
> of evolution.
Science is limited only by the limits of reality and our senses.
Why do you assume that God would want us to refrain from using our
senses? To refrain from making the obvious inferences from physical
reality?
> > > Evolution makes no reference to a creator, but just to a few
> > > scattered fossils and remainsto tell us we somehow evolved from a
> > > one celled organism to reptiles to apes and then humans,
> >
> > Nice strawman. NO science makes any reference to any supernatural
> > being.
>
> Science doesn't dare because science is implying they know all the
> answers by not acknowledging a Creator greater than humans.
Science is doing no such thing. Acknowledging a creator would require
them to say that they know that such a creator exists. We have no
evidence of this, therefore we can do no such thing.
"It was the work of God" does not appear in scientific papers because we
have no need of that hypothesis. "God did it" is semantically equal to
"I dunno".
> The root question is how did the first man and woman on this earth
> get put here?
Objection, your honor, begging the question. The above statement
*assumes* that there was an outside entity responsible: "get put here".
There is no evidence for such an entity.
> > The supernatural is beyond the pale of what science can study.
>
> There are some sciences that attempt to study the supernatural, but
> we won't get into that.
It depends on what you mean by supernatural. They may be applying
scientific techniques to phenomena which have in the past been thought
of as "supernatural", i.e. reports of ghosts or of life-after-death.
> > It's also not "somehow", but by a mechanism, mutation and natural
> > selection. Also, please note, there are a lot more than a "few
> > scattered fossils", including DNA evidence, comparitive anatomy, etc.
> > Please get with the program.
>
> How does that explain every detailed account of the origins of all
> humankind? Pieces of the puzzle are still pieces of the puzzle. When
> you disprove God and science has all of the answers, then I'll be
> inclined to believe you.
That will never happen. God as a concept is beyond science.
The reason we have detailed accounts of evolution is that when you have
a puzzle with some pieces missing, you can use the content of the pieces
you have to infer what the missing pieces must have been like.
> > > which also is making a statement of faith (as the film
> > > from the cosmic video camera hasn't actually been shown to prove us
> > > out as to who is right and who is wrong).
> >
> > Oh Goody, Mixed metaphors!!
> >
> > Well, let me put it this way, fossils ( and the other evidence ) are
> > snapshots in the cosmic film strip, when you put them together, in
> > chronologic order, the film can be run. We don't have all the frames,
> > but we can piece together a coherent idea of what happened, and guess
> > what, Genesis doesn't match the evidence.
>
> Since you don't have all of the frames in the cosmic video filmstrip,
> how can draw that definitive of a conclusion? Do we really know for
> sure?
Again, you can infer from the frames that we do have, based on the
principle that between two frames, the content of the frames was
intermediate between the former and the latter.
If one frame of a movie shows a guy threatening another with a knife,
and the next complete frame you have shows the second guy lying in a
pool of blood and the first guy running away, you reasonably infer that
the missing frames show the first guy stabbing the second. You don't
infer that the second guy had an alien pop out of his chest, or was
smoten by Gethsemane, or anything like that.
> > Science is the opposite of faith. It's the belief only in things
> > that CAN be seen, and measured, and analyzed.
>
> Pschology is a study of the mind and human behavior (including one's
> thoughts). Many of these ideas in this science are verbal and
> intangible ones. Science fudges on its own definition because we try
> to put a label on an idea that is so intangible that humans cannot
> touch it with their ordinary senses. Yet, science is labelled as
> clinical a definition as you have provided. It seems to me that the
> definition of science has a double standard. of course, humans know
> it is all open to interpretation.
Psychology is based on observation and measurement. We observe that
people with a particular set of character traits tend to do
such-and-such in response to a certain stimulus. We hypothesize that
there is a causal connection, and look for ways to test this. There is
nothing intangible about this.
> > > Can God be radio carbon dated to prove whether
> > > or not He exists?
> >
> > Nope, you have to take that on faith. Science isn't interested in
> > proving or not proving beings that cannot be objectively studied.
>
> The whole debate has been upon proving that God exists, the
> enhancement of human life or making life have meaning and now you say
> science has no interest. Amazing.
Nope. It has no interest because it can't measure god, it can't find
God and ask him questions in a way that others can be certain that the
one who says he's speaking to God isn't just talking to himself, it
can't find any evidence that impacts in any way the question of whether
or not God exists.
Finding "meaning" in life is not a scientific concern.
In the words of Mark Isaak, another regular here, "It's your life.
What do you want it to mean?"
> > > This debate is like pondering the definition of life and its
> > > meaning. Is life simply a 3-d video game with the player actually
> > > in it in which you only get one "man"? Does my screen read "game
> > > over" on the day I pass on? Or does life mean something much more
> > > profoundly than that?
> >
> > That's philosophy, not science. We will all figure that out soon
> > enough.
>
> I think we all find out as we travel down life's road and it is
> revealed to us in our travels in life.
Nope, you find out when you die.
"There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no
evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will _know_. So why
worry?" -- L. Long
> > This debate is over wether or not science should be torpedoed
> > because it might offend some people's religious beliefs.
>
> No, that is certainly not it. I didn't say science was not ever
> useful, but useful in certain things.Science is also viewed as an
> excuse to disbelieve God because science often becomes replaced as a
> god for the true God. Humans today worship discoveries made in the
> name of science to get funding and do more reasearch, etc.. to
> discover yet something else that may benefit humans. However, in the
> process of the pursuit of life enhancing medicines, technology,
> behaviors, foods, etc... we often lose perspective on even
> questioning whether or not we believe in God. I wrote what I have
> written so we are all careful to guard our hearts about what we
> really believe in or whether we allow other things to cloud our
> perception about our faith.
Translation: Yes, that is what the debate is over, and I am of the
opinion that it should be torpedoed.
Andrew Glasgow
mvp5...@qwest.net (mvp54609) wrote:
There's really no need to quote something that we all have (or should
have) memorized. ^_^
DreamCatcher
evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists? Can
you provide them with it? What if they say to you if they can't
scientificaly prove through taste,touch,smell or feel then it must not
exist? They have no evidense therefore cannot accept your theory. You
wouldn't blame them would you? I mean after all their senses tell them
otherwise. Their conclusion may be that you're out of your mind. But guess
what, you're not, I assume this of course :) What if the blind person asks
you, if color does exist then what made color? For that matter why should a
blind man believe that all mankind isn't blind and that those who claim that
they can see, whatever that is, are full of it? They have
no,none,zippo,zero,egg of ANY proof that color exists, but they believe it
does nonetheless. They don't understand what it is, but they know that
whatever it is, it's real.
You mentioned "Science is limited only by the limits of reality and our
senses." Our reality is much more different than that of a blind, mute or
deaf person and therefore not as relatively limited. Could you possibly
imagine another reality which our physical senses cannot detect? As in the
example of the blind person?
"Andrew Glasgow" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-CE...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
C. Thompson
That still does not answer the penmanship question!
Chris
H,R.Gruemm
> What proof do you provide a Blind man that color exists? What physical
> evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
> theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
> the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists? Can
> you provide them with it?
Yes.
I'd give them the same kind proofs which have been used that radio
waves, X-rays, neutrinos etc. exist. None of which can be
"tasted,touched,smelled or felt".
What if they say to you if they can't
> scientificaly prove through then it must not
> exist? They have no evidense therefore cannot accept your theory.
Silly. They have evidence, like we have evidence for radio waves.
You
> wouldn't blame them would you? I mean after all their senses tell them
> otherwise. Their conclusion may be that you're out of your mind. But guess
> what, you're not, I assume this of course :) What if the blind person asks
> you, if color does exist then what made color? For that matter why should a
> blind man believe that all mankind isn't blind and that those who claim that
> they can see, whatever that is, are full of it? They have
> no,none,zippo,zero,egg of ANY proof that color exists, but they believe it
> does nonetheless. They don't understand what it is, but they know that
> whatever it is, it's real.
> You mentioned "Science is limited only by the limits of reality and our
> senses." Our reality is much more different than that of a blind, mute or
> deaf person and therefore not as relatively limited.
Not at all. Reality does not have to be directly perceived.
>Could you possibly
> imagine another reality which our physical senses cannot detect? As in the
> example of the blind person?
False analogy. We are in *exactly the same position* as the blind
person when it comes to radio waves - yet we have detected them.
The "blind man and color"-argument which you presented is dead. Any
attempt to raise it again would need necromantic powers - or just end
in the desecration of a corpse.
Regards,
HRG.
Derek Stevenson
news:VwpF7.173262$W8.55...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> What proof do you provide a Blind man that color exists?
The testimony of people who can demonstrate that they possess a sense he
does not.
Analogy with sound (variation in pitch, tone).
The difference in exterior and interior temperature of a black object
compared to a white one.
A spectrometer with an audible readout.
> What physical
> evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
> theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What
if
> the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists?
Can
> you provide them with it? What if they say to you if they can't
> scientificaly prove through taste,touch,smell or feel then it must not
> exist? They have no evidense therefore cannot accept your theory. You
> wouldn't blame them would you? I mean after all their senses tell them
> otherwise. Their conclusion may be that you're out of your mind. But guess
> what, you're not, I assume this of course :) What if the blind person asks
> you, if color does exist then what made color? For that matter why should
a
> blind man believe that all mankind isn't blind and that those who claim
that
> they can see, whatever that is, are full of it?
Are you aware of any blind people who proclaim such a belief?
> They have
> no,none,zippo,zero,egg of ANY proof that color exists, but they believe it
> does nonetheless. They don't understand what it is, but they know that
> whatever it is, it's real.
> You mentioned "Science is limited only by the limits of reality and our
> senses." Our reality is much more different than that of a blind, mute or
> deaf person and therefore not as relatively limited. Could you possibly
> imagine another reality which our physical senses cannot detect? As in the
> example of the blind person?
I wasn't aware that blind people are able to walk through walls, because
they are unable to see them.
If there *is* "another reality which our physical senses cannot detect", so
what? If it doesn't interact with this one, what difference does it make?
Matt Silberstein
> evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
> theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
> the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists? Can
> you provide them with it?
I can show this blind person that I can consistently tell the
difference between two items that seem the same to the blind. Write
one page with black ink, one with read, I can show that I can
recognize which pen wrote which text.
> What if they say to you if they can't
> scientificaly prove through taste,touch,smell or feel then it must not
> exist?
I would say they are wrong since I can make reliable reproducible
predictions based on my claimed sense of sight.
> They have no evidense therefore cannot accept your theory.
Sight is not a theory so I don't what theory you mean.
>You
> wouldn't blame them would you? I mean after all their senses tell them
> otherwise.
Here is a question for you. Do you know of any blind people who deny
that sight exists? Do you know of any blind people who are not
convinced that others have this sense they lack? Why do you think they
accept it?
> Their conclusion may be that you're out of your mind. But guess
> what, you're not, I assume this of course :) What if the blind person asks
> you, if color does exist then what made color? For that matter why should a
> blind man believe that all mankind isn't blind and that those who claim that
> they can see, whatever that is, are full of it?
Why should they? Good question, can you answer it? I mean, since they
do believe it they must have some reason. Maybe because sighted people
have reliable reproducable capabilities that the blind lack.
> They have
> no,none,zippo,zero,egg of ANY proof that color exists, but they believe it
> does nonetheless. They don't understand what it is, but they know that
> whatever it is, it's real.
Really? They believe this just on faith alone, no evidence at all?
Here is a lesson for you: just because you don't know something does
not mean no one does, just because you can't figure it out does not
mean that no one else can.
> You mentioned "Science is limited only by the limits of reality and our
> senses." Our reality is much more different than that of a blind, mute or
> deaf person and therefore not as relatively limited. Could you possibly
> imagine another reality which our physical senses cannot detect? As in the
> example of the blind person?
All you have to do is show a reliable reproducible ability to predict
things that I can't predict. Can you do this? (The predictions must be
testible, telling me I will go to hell is not testible at the moment.)
DreamCatcher
world?
Can you see the results of radio waves and how they affect your world? If
you can say yes to both questions I'd like an explanation as to how exactly
a blind man can see the results or the affects of color in their world. You
can clearly see the affects of all that you have mentioned. Otherwise if you
couldn't then you can't even say that radio waves exist can you? Someone can
throw something at you when you weren't looking, you don't know who threw or
what it was they threw, but you know definately that something hit you. You
felt the affects. What or how exactly can a blind man even fathom in any way
shape or form what color is? What affects does he or she atleast have to
give them even a sense that color exists? Zero!
"H,R.Gruemm" <psych...@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.01110...@posting.google.com...
DreamCatcher
yourself are probably not willing to accept as such from testimonies of
those that demonstrate that the their exists a spiritual world beyond human
senses.
All the examples you mentioned do not show or provide, in any stretch of
even a child's imagination, proof to a blind person that color exists. Can
we at least agree that color is strictly a visual stimulus? Color cannot be
tasted, hmm this tastes kind of yellow, It cannot be smelled, smells like
blue to me, cannot be felt, feels like green, or heard, hey it sounds like
an violet.
"Are you aware of any blind people who proclaim such a belief?" My point in
the paragraph was to illustrate how legitimate a blind person would be to
express such. Not that they do.
"I wasn't aware that blind people are able to walk through walls, because
they are unable to see them." No, lest you be led astray, they can't walk
through walls but they still can't see the wall, let alone tell you what
color it is.
"If there *is* "another reality which our physical senses cannot detect", so
what? If it doesn't interact with this one, what difference does it make?"
What difference does it make if a blind man can't see color? Nothing really
except they'll also never be able to see the faces of their children,
grandchildren, a sunset, a waterfall, a starlit sky, a Renoir, their
beautiful spouse, or the smiles of loved ones. Of course for them it makes
no real difference but to those who can see or even believe, it does.
"Derek Stevenson" <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:tudppdb...@news.supernews.com...
Eric J. Korpela
DreamCatcher <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Can a blind man see the results of color? Or how color affects his or her
>world?
Any blind man who lives in a city with traffic lights had better understand
how color affects the world.
>What or how exactly can a blind man even fathom in any way
>shape or form what color is? What affects does he or she atleast have to
>give them even a sense that color exists? Zero!
A blind man could build a scientific instrument to detect color.
The output of that instrument would lead even a blind man to conclude that
color exists. His understanding of color might differ from your perception
of color. His understanding of color might even be more correct than
your perception. After all, sighted people didn't start to understand
color until they started building instruments to explore the properties
of light.
Eric
--
Eric Korpela | An object at rest can never be
kor...@ssl.berkeley.edu | stopped.
<a href="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/~korpela">Click for home page.</a>
DreamCatcher
the blind mans senses as taste,touch,smell or feeling. Well touch and
feeling are the same. I meant to say hearing. My apologies.
Robert
"DreamCatcher" <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%NFF7.174356$W8.56...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
DreamCatcher
color until they started building instruments to explore the properties
was in "seeing". The fact that blind people cannot see anything but in most
respects can use their other senses to know the world around them ;whether
they can touch it,hear it,taste it, smell it they can in no wise tell you
the color of what it is that there other four senses tell them. You and I on
the other hand can. And you and I will have an impossible task of proving to
them what color is let alone help them understand that it exists. Because
with their relative limitations their is no other way of knowing unless they
can see. Why that seems to be so incomprehensible to some THAT I don't
understand. We like to talk about facts, well those are the facts, blind
people cannot see and therefore cannot see color.
How can you detect color unless you can see it? Everything has color and
even if the instrument gave the blind man specific buzz sounds for each
color he/she still doesn't know what color is. I said this in a previous
post but color is strictly a visual stimulus. Unless this instrument causes
the blind person to "see" it will prove useless in helping the blind to know
what color is let alone understand it.
Robert
"Eric J. Korpela" <kor...@ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:9s7ei2$143s$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
DreamCatcher
that sight exists? Do you know of any blind people who are not
convinced that others have this sense they lack? Why do you think they
accept it?"
your neighbors, everyone told you that they were from Mars but you were from
Venus. Is the reality of something being told to you all your growing years
beyond your understanding of how people come to accept anything? The blind
person lives in a world of the seeing. Why on earth would they be convinced
otherwise? Answer me this, do they know what sight is? Or for that matter
the lack thereof?
All they know is that this thing people call seeing is something they don't
have but they don't have a clue what exactly it is. Go ahead and ask a blind
person. "Do you know what sight is?" They'll tell you they don't know what
it is, except that they know they don't have it, whatever it is. How do you
know what a steak tastes like? By the descriptions of others? Or what Bach's
music sounds like, through the writtings of a friend describing it to you?
Trust me, she's beautifull, but how do you know unless you "see" her for
yourself? What is it that is beyond your comprehension that the blind cannot
see, and therefore cannot see color but accept it because living in a world
where they are the minority they are constantly "hearing" about what it is
to see since they were children?
If you couldn't taste but people assured you that the steak you are eating
is Fantastic, you'd go around telling everyone that this steak is superb.
But you'll never really know that, will you? You only know about it because
"others" tell you so. Nevertheless for purposes of this argument you can
legitimately say, I don't believe you unless I taste it myself. I want more
proof than just you "saying" so. Otherwise I cannot accept it. But here is
the clincher. What if the tables were reversed? What if those who can see
were the minority and the blind were the majority. THEN how easy do you
think it would be for those few who can see to convince the vast majority
about sight, let alone color and it's existance? They'd most likely be
considered insane.
"Why should they? Good question, can you answer it? I mean, since they
do believe it they must have some reason. Maybe because sighted people
have reliable reproducable capabilities that the blind lack." Re-read above
paragraph.
"Really? They believe this just on faith alone, no evidence at all?
Here is a lesson for you: just because you don't know something does
not mean no one does, just because you can't figure it out does not
mean that no one else can." Yes REALLY! And here is a lesson for you, just
because you are not aware of the facts doesn't mean they don't exist. Are
you going to tell me, as a man of science, that a blind person may figure
out what color is without being able to see? Now why would you think that?
Going to Hell is and never will be,speaking only of myself, an issue to be
made. I'm not here to try to save anyone. Not here to preach. I am simply
taking an example and showing how some things are beyond the senses of man.
And as you say, just because you can't figure it out does not mean that no
one else can. Perhaps through just relying on our five senses we can't
figure it out, but it doesn't mean someone else can't who is willing to
sense beyond them.
Robert
"Matt Silberstein" <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:76998029.01110...@posting.google.com...
Andrew Glasgow
"DreamCatcher" <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I have to correct myself for not mentioning hearing. A few times I described
> the blind mans senses as taste,touch,smell or feeling. Well touch and
> feeling are the same. I meant to say hearing. My apologies.
Not really. There are a number of distinct senses that fall under the
common names "touch" and "feeling". Cold and heat are separate senses
(meaning that they have separate receptors for the sensation), as is
pain, and proprioperception (sp?) -- the sense of where your appendages
are in relation to yourself based on the position of joints -- the sense
that allows you to touch your nose with your eyes closed.
Derek Stevenson
It's going to be a lot easier to carry on this dialogue if you learn to use
your newsreader properly. Usenet convention is for the replies to go *under*
the quoted text, preferably interpolated with the material you're responding
to.
> "The testimony of people who can demonstrate that they possess a sense he
> does not." Interesting that you are expressing a form of "proof" that you
> yourself are probably not willing to accept as such from testimonies of
> those that demonstrate that the their exists a spiritual world beyond
human
> senses.
In most cases, the "testimonies of those that demonstrate that the their
[sic] exists a spiritual world beyond human senses" have almost nothing in
common with one another. Any consistency between them is almost invariably
attributable to common and very much material causes.
The people testifying to the blind man about their experiences of sight are
going to be considerably more consistent in their accounts.
> All the examples you mentioned do not show or provide, in any stretch of
> even a child's imagination, proof to a blind person that color exists.
A reasonable blind person will take them as evidence that it is possible for
other people to perceive the world in ways that he or she does not.
Dogs can hear and smell things that humans cannot. Is it usual for us to
deny the existence of those sounds and scents just because we cannot
perceive them?
> Can we at least agree that color is strictly a visual stimulus?
No. Color is a function of the wavelengths of light reflected or absorbed by
an object. An object's temperature will be affected by the way it reflects
or absorbs energy. So color is, in principle, at least, also perceptible by
touch.
And since color in paints and other coatings is produced by their chemical
composition, color can also (again, in principle) be detected by taste or
smell.
> Color cannot be
> tasted, hmm this tastes kind of yellow, It cannot be smelled, smells like
> blue to me, cannot be felt, feels like green, or heard, hey it sounds like
> an violet.
Get thee to a dictionary and look up "synesthesia".
> "Are you aware of any blind people who proclaim such a belief?" My point
in
> the paragraph was to illustrate how legitimate a blind person would be to
> express such. Not that they do.
If none do, then perhaps it isn't as "legitimate" a claim as you want it to
be. Clearly, it *isn't* rational for the blind to proclaim that sight
doesn't exist. They're well aware that it does (and that the design of
buildings and objects often takes that for granted).
> "I wasn't aware that blind people are able to walk through walls, because
> they are unable to see them." No, lest you be led astray, they can't walk
> through walls but they still can't see the wall, let alone tell you what
> color it is.
You asked, "Could you possibly imagine another reality which our physical
senses cannot detect? As in the example of the blind person?" (See, this is
why it's important to quote properly -- or do you feel it helps to have your
previous statements tucked neatly away out of sight.) There's my answer --
no. If our physical senses cannot detect it, it has no effect on reality,
and for all practical purposes is not "real".
Your analogy of the blind person is a poor one, because blind people are
affected by walls even if they can't see them.
> "If there *is* "another reality which our physical senses cannot detect",
so
> what? If it doesn't interact with this one, what difference does it
make?"
> What difference does it make if a blind man can't see color? Nothing
really
> except they'll also never be able to see the faces of their children,
> grandchildren, a sunset, a waterfall, a starlit sky, a Renoir, their
> beautiful spouse, or the smiles of loved ones. Of course for them it makes
> no real difference but to those who can see or even believe, it does.
I can't see infra-red or ultraviolet. I can't hear tones as high as those a
dog can hear, or as low as the infrasonics elephants use to communicate. I
can't smell or taste things the way a cat does.
So what? I'm quite capable of experiencing joy and beauty within the range
of what I *am* able to perceive, as is anyone.
Nathan McKaskle
> we at least agree that color is strictly a visual stimulus?
No. Color is a result of light hitting a substance, and that substance only
absorbs photons with a certain wavelength, the rest are reflected. Our
atmosphere filters out all but blue light in the spectrum. Light is
composed of several wavelengths which can be easily be detected w/o visual
stimulus. The RGB receptors in the human eye can only detect a small range
of those wavelengths, the rest must be detected with a spectrometer of some
kind. Just as other species such as Dogs can detect ultra high and ultra
low frequencies in sound, many species can detect ultra high frequencies in
light. If you'll go up to the top of the list of headers in this group
you'll find a link to a PBS transcript that further explains vision and how
many ways a species can interpret it.
A blind man can know that color exists merely because light exists, I know
many blind people that can detect changes in light, dark or bright. Can
they comprehend what color is? Well of course, in a way, color is merely an
interpretation by our visual cortex (the visual center of the brain), how
it's interpreted is similar throughout the human species, therefore it is
known what is blue to you and I. However what if we were to run into another
species that we can communicate with that argues that they see blue
differently than you and I? How we see color may not be the same as others,
not every species uses the standard RGB receptors nor do they interpret what
they see the same way as we do.
Geordi LaForge on a Star Trek episode last night on TNT, uses a device that
reads the light spectrum in a way that can be transmitted to his visual
cortex and understood by him to a large degree. They managed to somehow tie
his visor into the main screen on the bridge. Picard, shocked by what he
saw, asks how he could possibly understand all the seemingly garbled
information that showed up on the screen, how he could make out Data from
anyone else in the away team. He said it was simple, and made an analogy to
the fact that we can hear a lot of voices in a room and yet we are able to
single out just one, it is a process of the brain's interpretation, not a
function of the ear or eye. While a fictional story, you can see how this
can explain vision and color.
Matt Silberstein
First off, ANAICT the material in "" is mine. I strongly suggest you
get some real posting software, Free Agent (www.forteinc.com) works
well. Your system is better than those who ignore quoting, but it is
hard to read and people will get confused. (Now I see you don't quote
consistently. I have reformated the material to normal quoting. Please
do this yourself next time.)
[unmarked snip by DC here.]
>> "Here is a question for you. Do you know of any blind people who
deny
>> that sight exists? Do you know of any blind people who are not
>> convinced that others have this sense they lack? Why do you think
they
>> accept it?"
> Let us just suppose that all your life since you were a child your parents,
> your neighbors, everyone told you that they were from Mars but you were from
> Venus. Is the reality of something being told to you all your growing years
> beyond your understanding of how people come to accept anything? The blind
> person lives in a world of the seeing. Why on earth would they be convinced
> otherwise? Answer me this, do they know what sight is? Or for that matter
> the lack thereof?
You have, it seems, decided to change the subject. If there are real
differences between being born on Mars vs. Venus then it can be shown.
If you point is just that somethings in the past will be unknowable, I
agree. I happen to see it as an obvious point, but I agree.
> All they know is that this thing people call seeing is something they don't
> have but they don't have a clue what exactly it is. Go ahead and ask a blind
> person. "Do you know what sight is?" They'll tell you they don't know what
> it is, except that they know they don't have it, whatever it is.
They do agree, however, that sight exists and is real and has
consequences. Your original question has been answered.
> How do you
> know what a steak tastes like? By the descriptions of others? Or what Bach's
> music sounds like, through the writtings of a friend describing it to you?
> Trust me, she's beautifull, but how do you know unless you "see" her for
> yourself? What is it that is beyond your comprehension that the blind cannot
> see, and therefore cannot see color but accept it because living in a world
> where they are the minority they are constantly "hearing" about what it is
> to see since they were children?
Do you have a point with this?
> If you couldn't taste but people assured you that the steak you are eating
> is Fantastic, you'd go around telling everyone that this steak is superb.
These are personal judgements, of course you find disagreement. You
and I can disagree on whether a color is "pretty", but we would agree
on its wavelength.
> But you'll never really know that, will you? You only know about it because
> "others" tell you so. Nevertheless for purposes of this argument you can
> legitimately say, I don't believe you unless I taste it myself. I want more
> proof than just you "saying" so. Otherwise I cannot accept it. But here is
> the clincher. What if the tables were reversed? What if those who can see
> were the minority and the blind were the majority. THEN how easy do you
> think it would be for those few who can see to convince the vast majority
> about sight, let alone color and it's existance? They'd most likely be
> considered insane.
I have already answered this. Ignoring the answer does not make it go
away. I assume you recently read the H.G. Wells story and thought it
was profound. It is a good story, but I disagree with him. If I have
sight and you don't I can show you my sense is real. My sense has
testable qualities.
>> "Why should they? Good question, can you answer it? I mean, since
they
>> do believe it they must have some reason. Maybe because sighted
people
>> have reliable reproducable capabilities that the blind lack."
Re-read above
> paragraph.
>
> "Really? They believe this just on faith alone, no evidence at all?
No, this I know from *evidence*. Not faith, reliable reproducable
capabilities. That is not a statement of faith, that is evidence. I
can make reproducible testable predictions that a blind person can't
make. I can consistently distinguish things in the world in a way they
can't distinguish. Do you have some sense that lets you do this, a
sense that I lack? If so, make those predictions or describe the test.
>> Here is a lesson for you: just because you don't know something
does
>> not mean no one does, just because you can't figure it out does not
>> mean that no one else can."
> Yes REALLY! And here is a lesson for you, just
> because you are not aware of the facts doesn't mean they don't exist. Are
> you going to tell me, as a man of science, that a blind person may figure
> out what color is without being able to see? Now why would you think that?
I have said that blind people do accept that sight exists. I have said
that a sighted person can produce evidence of the sense. Whether or
not this mean that the blind will "know" about color is a different
issue.
> Going to Hell is and never will be,speaking only of myself, an issue to be
> made. I'm not here to try to save anyone. Not here to preach. I am simply
> taking an example and showing how some things are beyond the senses of man.
Except that you have not done so. Could something be beyond our senses
(both direct and indirect)? Sure, but such would be pretty much
irrelevant, wouldn't it. If such a thing has no affect on anything we
do and anything we touch, then it really does not matter much.
> And as you say, just because you can't figure it out does not mean that no
> one else can. Perhaps through just relying on our five senses we can't
> figure it out, but it doesn't mean someone else can't who is willing to
> sense beyond them.
And why should I accept your word for this mysterious indetectable
power?
Eric J. Korpela
DreamCatcher <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>How can you detect color unless you can see it? Everything has color and
>even if the instrument gave the blind man specific buzz sounds for each
>color he/she still doesn't know what color is.
What do you think color is? Is color the differential response of cells
in the human eye? Is the scattering/absorption properties of a material that
is color? Or is it a property of the scattered light? A blind person can
understand all of these things without the direct perception. A radio
receiver turns modulations of radio waves into sound. That is not direct
perception of radio waves. Do you think we are incapable of understanding
what a radio wave is because we don't have a dish antenna on our foreheads?
>I said this in a previous
>post but color is strictly a visual stimulus. Unless this instrument causes
>the blind person to "see" it will prove useless in helping the blind to know
>what color is let alone understand it.
I think you've got it backwards. Someone who just percieves color, but has
no understanding of what causes the perception is the one who has no idea
what color is. A sighted man who does not understand color might see that
the grass is green and think nothing of it. The blind man who understand
color, but does not percieve it, upon discovering that grass is green might
be able to figure out why it is green.
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message
<_fGF7.174410$W8.56...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>):
Please note: comments attributed to DreamCatcher, which appear in
quotes are Derek Stevenson's...
> "The testimony of people who can demonstrate that they possess a sense he
> does not." Interesting that you are expressing a form of "proof" that you
> yourself are probably not willing to accept as such from testimonies of
> those that demonstrate that the their exists a spiritual world beyond human
> senses.
There is consistency (note: 'consistent' does not equate to 'the
same') in reports from almost all other observers. [many males are
red/green colurblind, for example]
That is _not_ the case with the 'spiritual world'.
Some profoundly blind people lost their sight after having perceived
colour previously.
Some profoundly blind people regain their sight [though, these days,
in our society, that's usually before they have memories... such as
my wife]
There are gradations between 'profoundly' blind and 'perfectly'
sighted. I'm not sure the same applies with sight into the spiritual
world, perhaps you could tell me, since you have the 'sight'?
My wife, for example can only make out vague shapes and coulurs,
when not wearing specs. With specs she is 'legally' blind.
When such gradations exist it's fairly easy to make them plain to
people who are at either end of the spectrum.
> All the examples you mentioned do not show or provide, in any stretch of
> even a child's imagination, proof to a blind person that color exists. Can
Really? Mind if I ask my ('only' legally) blind wife about her
friends with no eyes from the blind school? I think she may be a
better authority.
"Oh, a black guide dog, aren't they usually golden labradors?"
"I like the pink, you have a lovely home"; "Thanks, people tell me
it's nice"
"Your daughter has lovely black hair"
"You can't go out like that, the colours don't match" [What, you
think blind people don't have sighted partners?]
"It's the red house on... oh, sorry"
"Does your dog know which colour is which, or just the position of
the lights?"
"Why do _you_ have a television?" "sighted friends who like footy"
He used to do judo (coloured belts), but I don't know what level he
achieved... [AIUI he prepresented the State at student level,
likewise in weightlifting. Oh, he was also into show-jumping (horses
and gates and stuff) for a while]
....
How many times in a life do you think the average blind person hears
reference to colour?
> we at least agree that color is strictly a visual stimulus? Color cannot be
> tasted, hmm this tastes kind of yellow, It cannot be smelled, smells like
> blue to me, cannot be felt, feels like green, or heard, hey it sounds like
> an violet.
Colour, by the time it reaches the brain (which is what tells you
that blue is blue, etc), is only an electrical signal. Why can't we
stimulate the optic nerve?
<paste, from DreamCatcher, previously, for context. quote-depth
indicators added>
>> For that matter why should a blind man believe that all mankind
>> isn't blind and that those who claim that they can see, whatever
>> that is, are full of it?
</paste>
> "Are you aware of any blind people who proclaim such a belief?" My point in
> the paragraph was to illustrate how legitimate a blind person would be to
> express such. Not that they do.
Try the guy above. Lost his eyes to cancer at age 6. He knows
perfectly well what colour is, and can vouch for its existence to
other profoundly blind people 'less fortunate' than he.
Or they could ask children, who are less likely to be (able to be)
conspiring against the man in the dark glasses, with the dog. "What
colour is this?"
> "I wasn't aware that blind people are able to walk through walls, because
> they are unable to see them." No, lest you be led astray, they can't walk
> through walls but they still can't see the wall, let alone tell you what
> color it is.
I'm sure Phil's memory isn't that bad. Many people tell him his dog
is black, and his walls pink. Including his daughters. Who are a bit
too young to be using guile to that degree (and since they have lost
an eye each (cancer again) treat their blind parents - his wife is
partially sighted - with great respect...)
> "If there *is* "another reality which our physical senses cannot detect", so
> what? If it doesn't interact with this one, what difference does it make?"
> What difference does it make if a blind man can't see color? Nothing really
> except they'll also never be able to see the faces of their children,
> grandchildren, a sunset, a waterfall, a starlit sky, a Renoir, their
> beautiful spouse, or the smiles of loved ones. Of course for them it makes
> no real difference but to those who can see or even believe, it does.
In other words 'quite a bit'.
What a spineless response. I thought faith was meant to strengthen
the True Christian?
Now, please start telling this ex-christian, exactly what faith is
like, won't you. And all the benefits of being able to use it to
'see' the spiritual world. And I'll tell Phil he can't remember the
colour of grass. And that missing out on seeing his daughters, while
they can still see him, is "nothing really'.
Should I sing _All things bright and beautiful_ to him as well?
[snip previous - please learn how to use your software]
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Frank J
"Nuri" <lord...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f78d291f.01103...@posting.google.com...
> --I. INTRO--
> I'm still quite not sure what all the bickering on these groups is all
> about.
>
> Creationists simply *believe* that a creator created the earth,
> universe, reality as we know it.
>
> This is opposed by the scientific community, albeit oppressed for some
> time by the Catholic Church (heliocentricity).
>
> Scientists have problems themselves though. The origins of our
> universe are still ambiguous. The red shift alludes to an expanding
> universe, and hence, a possible beginning to the universe, The Big
> Bang. What was before the big bang?..nothing? Did the big bang even
> exist? Is the elementary concept of "big bang" not enough to describe
> the origins of our universe? What about a cyclic nature of the
> universe ever expanding and contracting?
>
> Scientists are trying to differentiate an endpoint of history
> Creationists are assuming/believing that the endpoints are God (or
> some divine beginning and a divine ending)
>
> In a way creationism and evolution are linked, but not as directly as
> creationists believe (imo):
>
> we can assume the following:
> there had to be a beginning (influx of energy to get the whole
> universe going)
>
> big bang and creationism both describe this influx.
> Set these arguments aside, and simply revel in the universe's
> simplicity, or its complexities (as your patience allows)
>
> --II. HUMAN ORIGINS--
> primordial soup theory vs. God's divine creation on the sixth day
>
> again it seems that creationism provides a generalization, or at least
> a preliminary brainstorming for how we came to walk the earth.
>
> Miller & Urey showed that nucleic acids formed when the primary
> elements were subject to an electric pulse.
>
> Geologists think that the state of the earth was such that the
> feasibility of lightning randomly striking primordial soup was fairly
> good.
>
> Religion and science both allude to the origins of man being in the
> great seas and oceans of our world. Although referenced from a
> non-canon, there was an "ocean of chaos" in the beginning, and God
> created the light. These ideas are not specific to Christianity
> though. The Hindu religion has the concept of drinking from a river,
> the water of which makes the drinker forget his/her experiences on
> earth, only to return to earth to accumulate more experiences. It is
> not until the individual (soul) accumulates enough experiences that
> the (soul) achieves Nirvana, returning to the soul of the world.
> Ancient Greek mythology attributed various Gods to various bodies of
> water, mountains, forests.
>
> It's not difficult to see where these ideas come from. There's some
> mysterious, calming connection humans have with the oceans.
> Independant of whatever faith or scientific background you come from,
> it's easy to appreciate the raw force of the ocean. The connection
> almost feels (to me) like an ancient respect for the power of the
> ocean, yet also comforting (again to me) like an ancient mother.
>
> My point is very simple: the debate of Religion vs. Science (in any
> respect), although not insignificant, is a tangent. Scientists will
> still perform experiments and trudge onwards to a better understanding
> of the universe we all live in, and Spiritualists will still strive
> for spiritual perfection (whether it be acceptance into Heaven,
> achieving Nirvana, etc.) There are also the very few that understand
> the points of both and accept both.
>
> Simply said:
> we really don't know
> it doesn't hurt to learn
> it doesn't hurt to believe
> just live your life the best you can
>
From the other replies and from the wealth of information available from the
talk origins archive, you will notice that "creationism" does not mean
either belief in creation or evidence of creation. It is nothing but a
collection of mutually contradictory pseudoscientific arguments.
CLSNOWYOWL
Date: 11/5/01 0:33 AM EST
Message-id: <VwpF7.173262$W8.55...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
[What proof do you provide a Blind man that color exists?]
You can do it through the blind person's sense of touch. What physical
evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists?
I saw a TV show that gave a perfect literal example of it. one sighted person
"showed" another blind person colors through his sense of touch. The sighted
person talked about Blue and red. He froze one potato and placed another potato
on moderate heat and heated it.
He gave each potato to the blind person and the blind person held a hot and a
cold potato in each hand. The blind person then talked about the hot potato
being hot. The sighted person answered., "That's like the color red."
The blind person commented on the cold potato freezing to touch. The sighted
person said, "This is what blue is like."
[What if they say to you if they can't
scientificaly prove through taste,touch,smell or feel then it must not
exist? They have no evidense therefore cannot accept your theory.]
You can tell someone it is there, but ultimately they have the choice to trust
you and trust your sight, just as you have to learn to trust the person who
lacks it.
In that, a relationship develops that goes beyond science. Here, the mind
allows you to make choices about what to believe and what not to.
[You
wouldn't blame them would you? I mean after all their senses tell them
otherwise. Their conclusion may be that you're out of your mind. But guess
what, you're not, I assume this of course :) What if the blind person asks
you, if color does exist then what made color? For that matter why should a
blind man believe that all mankind isn't blind and that those who claim that
they can see, whatever that is, are full of it? They have
no,none,zippo,zero,egg of ANY proof that color exists, but they believe it
does nonetheless. They don't understand what it is, but they know that
whatever it is, it's real.
You mentioned "Science is limited only by the limits of reality and our
senses." Our reality is much more different than that of a blind, mute or
deaf person and therefore not as relatively limited. Could you possibly
imagine another reality which our physical senses cannot detect? As in the
example of the blind person?]
Blind people exist to function without sight, but they must trust the sighted
world and the sighted world must in turn trust them. when I do a kind act for
you out of kindness in christ and tell you that Christ exists for no other
earthly purpose than to make sure to spend some time with you, so you can hear
the word so that you can make the choice for christ so you can make it to
heaven, why would you not want to trust me or any true christian for the purest
of motives a true Christian has?
Again, just as the blind man has to trust me for my statement that I live in a
world of color and that TV's have color and black and white images as do
photos, then is it conceivable that a person can be trusted for making the
statement that Christ has risen? If it were not true, we after all, would not
have Christmas and Easter all over the world. read proverbs 3:5.- "Trust the
Lord will all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding." For that, I
lean to God.
June Cabourne
> Can a blind man see the results of color? Or how color affects his or her
> world?
> Can you see the results of radio waves and how they affect your world? If
> you can say yes to both questions I'd like an explanation as to how exactly
> a blind man can see the results or the affects of color in their world. You
> can clearly see the affects of all that you have mentioned. Otherwise if you
> couldn't then you can't even say that radio waves exist can you? Someone can
> throw something at you when you weren't looking, you don't know who threw or
> what it was they threw, but you know definately that something hit you. You
> felt the affects. What or how exactly can a blind man even fathom in any way
> shape or form what color is? What affects does he or she atleast have to
> give them even a sense that color exists? Zero!
If a piece of material is painted half black & half white and set out
into the sun, it can be demonstrated to someone who is blind that the
darker surface will get warmer, faster than the lighter surface.
Although the blind man cannot see, a detectable difference can be shown
to him between two colors.
If it doesn't already exist, an instrument could be made that gives an
audible signal..even spoken words...to identify different colors on
objects (someone in a previous post already mentioned this). This is
another way that the blind man can perceive colors.
There are many other ways to The point is that colors are a natural
phenomenon possessing properties that _can_ be repeatedly demonstrated
even to someone who cannot detect them through sight.
No one, AFAIK, has been able to show similar properties (repeatable,
detectable) for supernatural phenomena.
June Cabourne
> "After all, sighted people didn't start to understand
> color until they started building instruments to explore the properties
> of light." The point was never one of "understanding" anything. The point
> was in "seeing". The fact that blind people cannot see anything but in most
> respects can use their other senses to know the world around them ;whether
> they can touch it,hear it,taste it, smell it they can in no wise tell you
> the color of what it is that there other four senses tell them. You and I on
> the other hand can. And you and I will have an impossible task of proving to
> them what color is let alone help them understand that it exists. Because
> with their relative limitations their is no other way of knowing unless they
> can see. Why that seems to be so incomprehensible to some THAT I don't
> understand. We like to talk about facts, well those are the facts, blind
> people cannot see and therefore cannot see color.
>
> How can you detect color unless you can see it? Everything has color and
> even if the instrument gave the blind man specific buzz sounds for each
> color he/she still doesn't know what color is. I said this in a previous
> post but color is strictly a visual stimulus. Unless this instrument causes
> the blind person to "see" it will prove useless in helping the blind to know
> what color is let alone understand it.
>
> Robert
I think I understand your point...if we do not have the senses to detect
something, we may not be capable of understanding it and/or there may be
phenomena which we do not/cannot detect. Ergo we cannot categorically
rule out the reality of all phenomena that we cannot yet detect.
But I think you are missing the scientific point of view that other
posters have tried to relay. *Much* of scientific data is not detectable
by our five senses. We use optical & radio telescopes, optical &
electron microscopes, seismographs, satelites, radioactive decay, etc.
We use our technology to explore the universe beyond what can be seen,
smelled, felt, heard or tasted
TxNetGuy
You can do it through the blind person's sense of touch. What physical
evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists?
>>
That is absurd. Take me for an example, I am profoundly deaf since birth. At
the age of 26, I got implanted with a cochlear implant which is a device that
stimulates the nerves. It provides useful hearing.
The new sense of hearing that I've gained with the implant is nothing like what
I "imagined." It wasn't like "feeling the vibration." I literally felt "sounds"
in my head. It seems so odd to me at first.
The fact remains is that a totally blind person simply cannot "sense" colors
and a totally deaf person simply cannot "sense" sounds.
The movie, "Love At First Sight" proves that a blind man cannot describe colors
or shapes at all despite his ability to form shapes in his mind with his touch.
As for blind proving that colors exist with an instruments, we have already
proved the existence of invisible wavelengths but it doesn't mean that we can
"sense" them.
Colors and temperatures are totally different fields. There's no way you can
"touch" colors and "see" temperatures.
-jeff
Louann Miller
>You can do it through the blind person's sense of touch. What physical
>evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
>theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
>the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists?
>That is absurd. Take me for an example, I am profoundly deaf since birth. At
>the age of 26, I got implanted with a cochlear implant which is a device that
>stimulates the nerves. It provides useful hearing.
>
>The new sense of hearing that I've gained with the implant is nothing like what
>I "imagined." It wasn't like "feeling the vibration." I literally felt "sounds"
>in my head. It seems so odd to me at first.
Have any other deaf people given you a hard time for selling out?
Another question -- if you had it to do over, would you like to have
had the implant as a toddler if the technology had been available?
Louann
TxNetGuy
Have any other deaf people given you a hard time for selling out?
>>
They were initially opposed to my decision but ironically, eight friends of
mine got implanted after I got the implant.
>>
Another question -- if you had it to do over, would you like to have
had the implant as a toddler if the technology had been available?
>>
Definitely, given the fact that a toddler's brain is very plastic and the
nerves are still young.
-jeff
Louann Miller
How good are the implants, btw? Do you just get directional sounds, or
can you distinguish speech and music and so forth?
Louann, curious but harmless.
TxNetGuy
How good are the implants, btw? Do you just get directional sounds, or
can you distinguish speech and music and so forth?
>>
Unfortunately, the performance of CI varies on everyone. Some do so well that
they're passed as "hearing" and some don't do well at all.
As in my case, I do really well as a prelingually deaf adult. I do distinguish
speech and music well, and I even can hear speech in many songs. I can
comprehend some speech which is unheard of in the old days of CI technology.
As for directional sounds, directional sounds are possible only with bilaterial
hearing. You cannot get directional sounds with one ear or one implant. There
are a few cases of people with bilaterial implants (two implants in both ears)
and they do get directional sounds.
-jeff
DreamCatcher
explain within the texts above. Quote:(emphasis mine)"The new sense of
hearing that I've gained with the implant is NOTHING like what I "imagined."
Exactly. The same goes for a blind person who "THINKS" they understand what
color is but can never really know until they can see it for themselves.
But I've gathered from the responses I've gotten that apperantly there are
those who think the blind can see color let alone see at all. This too is
absurd.
Robert
"TxNetGuy" <txne...@aol.comnospm> wrote in message
news:20011107142258...@mb-dh.aol.com...
DreamCatcher
posters have tried to relay. *Much* of scientific data is not detectable
by our five senses. We use optical & radio telescopes, optical &
We use our technology to explore the universe beyond what can be seen,
smelled, felt, heard or tasted"
Yes, and by those instruments we can clearly determine certain things about
our world. Does this mean that the instruments we have today or tomorrow
can and will detect all there is to detect? For example, if color existed
and we were ALL blind, what kind of instrument would we have to design to
help us detect color short of something that helps us see it? We can prove
things by the use of these instruments but we cannot prove all things by
them or even know of things that they have yet or perhaps may never detect.
And so we find ourselves in one sense in the shoes of a blind man, limited
by our 5 senses and the instruments we use to detect beyond them. But as the
blind may think of color as some abstract thing so too is the possibility of
something beyond what our senses and instruments reveal to us.
Even still, we need our 5 senses to interpret what information is being
relayed to us through these instruments, correct? I mean what good does the
information revealed do me if even using the most powerful electron
microscope I can't see what I am looking at because I'm blind. Not to say
that the information that the microscope reveals is of no use per se. But
you can't interpret it. So again you have a situation where the use of the
instruments are limited by the senses we have to determine the information
they relay.
So how do we then determine the existence of some things that we can't see?
By the "effects" or even "potential" effects they have? Yes and no. I can't
see gravity but the effects of it are obvious. I can't see microwaves but
the effects of it are obvious. But how does this relate to a blind man who
can't see color, when in their world they can't determine the effects of
color let alone see color? It doesn't. I understand the scientific view,
but the use of instruments to detect beyond our 5 senses is not a comparable
one to those who are blind, who cannot even detect color with any instrument
other than one that helps them see. Let me break this down simply.
1)Blind people cannot see.
2)By virtue of their blindness they cannot see color.
3)They are lacking 1 sense of 5.
4)They need this sense to determine certain things, namely color.
5)Instruments short of helping the blind see cannot help the blind know what
color is.
6)Color is a VISUAL stimulus. (Some have a strange problem with that
statement. What does color stimulate when you look at it then? Your nose?
Your taste buds? Your hearing? Your touch? If some can't accept even that
simple truth then there lies part of the problem.)
What does all this mean? It means that blind people accept what they hear
about color and it's existence by FAITH or Belief! NOT by any PROOF in any
way shape or form , even through the use of ANY instruments (short of one
that can help them see)!
But some will have us believe that:
1)The blind can See
2)The blind can See color
3)The blind can Use instruments that don't help them see color but through
it they can know what color is.
4)The blind Don't need to see in able to know what color is or even detect
color.
5)Color is NOT a visual stimulus.
What we do agree, at least in part is, that the blind lack 1 sense from 5
even though some here say they can see without it.
You at least understand my position, in part, of the matter.
Robert
"June Cabourne" <mc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1f2f5mx.ow6m0cbzlp8gN%mc...@earthlink.net...
June Cabourne
my new newsreader. Please disregard this one :-(
june
June Cabourne
you better than I could. I have a new newsreader and inadvertently sent
2 half finished posts out instead of cancelling them.
But since it's a done deal, I'll dive in :)
I can intellectually grasp the position you layed out, but I do not
agree with it. Yours is a metaphysical topic and not appropriate for
scientific pursuits. Science *cannot* investigate supernatural phenomena
or entities or unknowable senses/properties. Therefore it does not
benefit science in any way to take such phenomena or entities or senses
into consideration.
The blind man is not a good analogy for your position. As others have
pointed out, the blind man *can* experience color. There is abundant
evidence from sighted people that color exists and many methods for the
blind man to understand what color is.
Even if we postulate a sentient race that does not have sight as we know
it but *is* investigating the natural world, this race should eventually
discover electromagnetic waves, which include all frequencies that we
call color along with radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. These are
REAL things and can be investigated.
June
ps: my new newsreader was posting with the wrong email address. I hope I
have it fixed with this post!
DreamCatcher <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<big snip of previous posts>
Derek Stevenson
> Thank you for clarifying that FACT! Which is what I've been trying to
> explain within the texts above. Quote:(emphasis mine)"The new sense of
> hearing that I've gained with the implant is NOTHING like what I
"imagined."
> Exactly. The same goes for a blind person who "THINKS" they understand
what
> color is but can never really know until they can see it for themselves.
> But I've gathered from the responses I've gotten that apperantly there are
> those who think the blind can see color let alone see at all. This too is
> absurd.
And what I gather from your response is that there's a lot of truth in the
old saying that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
No one here is claiming that someone completely blind from birth can have
the same experience of color as someone with normal sight. However, it has
been pointed out that it *is* possible to introduce the blind to the
*concept* of color, to explain it by analogy, and to demonstrate to the
blind person's satisfaction that this phenomenon exists, even if it is one
that the blind person cannot personally experience. You started off, you'll
remember, claiming that it's impossible to convince the blind that color
even exists.
And yes, many blind people *can* see, and can even see color. Vision
impairment is a spectrum, and there are very few people who are completely
blind in the "can't tell a coal mine at midnight from a sunny meadow" sense.
Stanley Friesen
>Yes, and by those instruments we can clearly determine certain things about
>our world. Does this mean that the instruments we have today or tomorrow
>can and will detect all there is to detect? For example, if color existed
>and we were ALL blind, what kind of instrument would we have to design to
>help us detect color short of something that helps us see it?
Something that converts it into a mode we can sense: touch or sound or
electrical fields. After all that is fundamentally how we use
instruments to view muons or hyperons (subatomic particles).
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Derek Stevenson
> Yes, and by those instruments we can clearly determine certain things
about
> our world. Does this mean that the instruments we have today or tomorrow
> can and will detect all there is to detect?
Probably not.
Do the instruments we have today and will have tomorrow detect enough of
what there is to detect to give us confidence that our ideas about the way
the universe works are fairly reliable?
Yes.
Does the inability of our instruments to detect all there is to detect give
us reason to assert the existence of whatever unevidenced entity our
imaginations happen to brew up and to squeeze it into the gaps in our range
of detectability?
I wouldn't recommend that. We've tried it before (e.g., being unable to
determine the nature of the Sun, we decided that it must be some kind of
divine being driving a fiery chariot across the sky), only to find that our
increased knowledge caused the gaps to close in.
> For example, if color existed
> and we were ALL blind, what kind of instrument would we have to design to
> help us detect color short of something that helps us see it?
Something that help us *hear* it.
Guess what. We *are* blind to most of the color in the universe. Our eyes
can detect only an exceedingly narrow portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum. At the same time, they're fairly crude at distinguishing very
slight variations in color.
The differences in wavelength that we call "color" exist throughout the
length of that spectrum. We use a device that detects similar differences in
wavelengths in another part of the spectrum, and converts them into sounds.
It's called a "radio". Perhaps you've heard of it.
> We can prove
> things by the use of these instruments but we cannot prove all things by
> them or even know of things that they have yet or perhaps may never
detect.
No. We can "prove" nothing by the use of these instruments. Proof is for
mathematics and alcohol.
> And so we find ourselves in one sense in the shoes of a blind man, limited
> by our 5 senses and the instruments we use to detect beyond them. But as
the
> blind may think of color as some abstract thing so too is the possibility
of
> something beyond what our senses and instruments reveal to us.
And so too is the possibility that what we think is "something beyond what
our senses and instruments reveal to us" is merely a product of our
imaginations.
> Even still, we need our 5 senses to interpret what information is being
> relayed to us through these instruments, correct? I mean what good does
the
> information revealed do me if even using the most powerful electron
> microscope I can't see what I am looking at because I'm blind. Not to say
> that the information that the microscope reveals is of no use per se. But
> you can't interpret it. So again you have a situation where the use of the
> instruments are limited by the senses we have to determine the information
> they relay.
The purpose of these instruments is to convert information that our physical
senses can't detect into information that they can, yes. If we'd never
evolved sight, our electron microscopes might be designed to provide us with
tactile information instead.
So what?
> So how do we then determine the existence of some things that we can't
see?
> By the "effects" or even "potential" effects they have? Yes and no. I
can't
> see gravity but the effects of it are obvious. I can't see microwaves but
> the effects of it are obvious. But how does this relate to a blind man who
> can't see color, when in their world they can't determine the effects of
> color let alone see color?
A great many blind people are entirely capable of determining the effects of
color without being able to see it. How do you think they manage to cross a
busy street without getting killed?
> It doesn't. I understand the scientific view,
> but the use of instruments to detect beyond our 5 senses is not a
comparable
> one to those who are blind, who cannot even detect color with any
instrument
> other than one that helps them see.
Not true. The blind are perfectly capable of detecting color, even if they
are using an instrument that does not help them to see. We are all blind to
radio waves. Nevertheless, we can detect modulations in the frequency and
amplitude (color) of these waves simply by turning on a radio and *hearing*
them.
(If you're going to continue trying to make your point, you need to think
more clearly about the terminology you use, and be very careful about your
use of words such as "see", "detect" and "perceive". They are not
equivalent.)
> Let me break this down simply.
>
> 1)Blind people cannot see.
Many can. If you're limiting your simile to those who are *completely*
blind, you should say so.
> 2)By virtue of their blindness they cannot see color.
See above.
> 3)They are lacking 1 sense of 5.
And the rest of us are lacking 17 out of 22, or N-5 out of whatever
arbitrary N conceivable means of perception one could propose. We manage all
the same.
> 4)They need this sense to determine certain things, namely color.
No, they don't. If they have been completely blind from birth, they cannot
perceive, experience or understand color in the same way as a sighted
person. But as has been pointed out to you in this thread, there is no
shortage of ways by which they can *determine* color.
> 5)Instruments short of helping the blind see cannot help the blind know
what
> color is.
Depending on what you mean by "what color is". While it can't help them to
understand a sighted person's *experience* of color, a blind (completely
blind from birth) person is certainly capable of understanding "what color
is" by analogy to the senses that person *does* possess.
> 6)Color is a VISUAL stimulus. (Some have a strange problem with that
> statement. What does color stimulate when you look at it then? Your nose?
> Your taste buds? Your hearing? Your touch? If some can't accept even that
> simple truth then there lies part of the problem.)
Color is what we call certain perceptible differences in the frequencies of
electromagnetic radiation that we are able to perceive visually. Comparable
differences exist throughout that spectrum which we perceive in other ways
(e.g., mediated through instruments that allow us to perceive them as
sounds).
> What does all this mean? It means that blind people accept what they hear
> about color and it's existence by FAITH or Belief!
Just as we accept *anything* about the universe that we don't perceive
directly through our own physical senses. So?
> NOT by any PROOF in any
> way shape or form , even through the use of ANY instruments (short of one
> that can help them see)!
> But some will have us believe that:
> 1)The blind can See
Most can, unless you're using a restricted definition of "blind".
> 2)The blind can See color
Many of those who can see, can see color. Many of those who can't, remember
it.
> 3)The blind can Use instruments that don't help them see color but through
> it they can know what color is.
Yes. You can "know what color is" without being able to experience it
visually. I know what radio waves are, even though I can't see them.
> 4)The blind Don't need to see in able to know what color is or even detect
> color.
Correct. It's not necessary to be able to see to know what color is or to
detect color.
Those who have been completely blind from birth cannot perceive color and
cannot experience it in the same way the sighted can, but that's not what
you've been saying (although it may of course be what you *meant*).
> 5)Color is NOT a visual stimulus.
It doesn't have to be, no.
> What we do agree, at least in part is, that the blind lack 1 sense from 5
For certain definitions of "blind"
> even though some here say they can see without it.
No. Nobody has said that.
> You at least understand my position, in part, of the matter.
Sort of, but I've had to read between the lines to get to it. You need to be
more careful with your terminology.
June
why haven't you gotten another implant?
june
TxNetGuy
why haven't you gotten another implant?
>>
I wish! Money is the reason. Each implant costs around $40,000.
-jeff
DreamCatcher
somewhat wet, partially wet, not that dry? Or does it insinuate that not
everything that is wet starts off as wet? Or some things that are wet get
dry therefore is it REALLY wet? Should I include the adjective word
"completely" to describe how wet I mean? If I were to tell you that the
ground is "dry", do you ponder the deep meaning of that word? Does he mean
it's not as wet as usual or it's somewhat dry, and the ground he mentioned
is it sand, soil, rock, plastic? Is this the usual aerobic course of mental
exercises that those who post go through? Will a Webster definition of any
word mentioned suffice to clarify my position? Or my *Meaning*?
"Truth cannot contradict truth. If a statement by a religion, no matter how
much you believe in it, contradicts the evidence of the SENSES(emphasis
mine), it is false. It *has* to be false, or take as false until new
evidence suggests otherwise, or the very concept of objective reality that
can be examined through our senses becomes meaningless."
The above quote is what prompted my posting. I never said its impossible to
"convince" the blind that color exists. It's quite obvious that they are
"convinced" that "it" does. What is also obvious is that they do not know
what "it" is or means or looks like. I see that there is some confusion
caused when I use terms like "exists" and "is". My apologies for any
confusion. So that it is clear, my meaning is that blind people can not know
that color "exists" short of being able to see it for themselves. They may
be able through instruments "distinguish" between red and blue via a beep,
bong or ding. Or via some specific vibrations to indicate those differences
of color but it still does not show them that color exists or what red looks
like or what blue looks like or what any other color looks like. If in an
instant they were able to see ,and you flashed a blue card in front of them
,they will not know what color it is you are showing but at least they will
see first hand the color blue. Nevertheless they accept that color exists
BUT not by the "evidence of the senses." For they are lacking the very sense
that would clearly show it to them.
I asked the question, what proof do you provide a blind man that color
exists? Here's the quoted answer: "The testimony of people who can
demonstrate that they possess a sense he does not." and "In most cases, the
"testimonies of those that demonstrate that the their [sic] exists a
spiritual world beyond human senses" have almost nothing in common with one
another. Any consistency between them is almost invariably attributable to
common and very much material causes. The people testifying to the blind
man about their experiences of sight are going to be considerably more
consistent in their accounts." What inconsistency are you referring to
exactly? From what I hear they all testify that their exists a God or
Creator that created the whole of the universe and everything in it. You can
argue about the specifics of separate beliefs but that's not analogous to
what we're talking about. It seems that all the religions of the world are
consistent with at least the belief that God exists and that *is* analogous
to what we're talking about. Second, how exactly can you demonstrate this
sense of sight to someone who doesn't have it? Again, all the buzz sounds
and vibrations in the world are not going to demonstrate to the blind that
you can see color or prove it exists or show them what color looks like or
is or whatever word you want to use to make sense of my profound and
mystifying meaning. They have to take your word for it that color exists and
that you can see it. Whatever seeing is or means to them. And when I speak
of Blind, I mean "as" blind as your very eyes being removed from your
sockets, buried 30 feet in a hidden cave underground in the darkest recesses
of planet Neptune beyond any reach of sunlight ,blind! It should have been
obvious what I meant when I spoke of blind people. Especially when referring
to those who "can't" see, yes "completely" unable to see.
Robert
"Derek Stevenson" <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:tul5n43...@news.supernews.com...
Nick Keighley
> I see that there is some confusion caused when I use terms like "exists"
> and "is".
perhaps you use them in an odd fashion?
> I never said its impossible to "convince" the blind that color exists. It's
> quite obvious that they are "convinced" that "it" does.
> So that it is clear, my meaning is that blind people can not know
> that color "exists" short of being able to see it for themselves.
> They may be able through instruments "distinguish" between red and blue via
> a beep, bong or ding. Or via some specific vibrations to indicate those
> differences of color but it still does not show them that color exists...
I find these statements contradictory.
Try this: does ultra-violet exist? Insects act as if they can see it.
--
Nick Keighley
Derek Stevenson
> When someone says something is "wet" do they usually mean, half wet,
> somewhat wet, partially wet, not that dry?
They can mean any of those things. "Wet" and "dry", like "blind", are not
binary conditions.
> Or does it insinuate that not
> everything that is wet starts off as wet? Or some things that are wet get
> dry therefore is it REALLY wet? Should I include the adjective word
> "completely" to describe how wet I mean? If I were to tell you that the
> ground is "dry", do you ponder the deep meaning of that word? Does he mean
> it's not as wet as usual or it's somewhat dry, and the ground he mentioned
> is it sand, soil, rock, plastic? Is this the usual aerobic
"aerobic"?
> course of mental
> exercises that those who post go through?
Most people (those who are worth reading, at any rate) think about the words
they are using and what the people reading will think that they mean by
them, yes. There are certainly exceptions, of course.
> Will a Webster definition of any
> word mentioned suffice to clarify my position? Or my *Meaning*?
No. The only person who can clarify your position or your meaning is *you*.
This whole business of quibbling over the definition of "blind" is just a
tangent, really, but it illustrates an important point -- because of the
words you have chosen to use, many of the things you have said in this
thread are confusing, silly or flat-out wrong. Now, that could mean that
your *ideas* are confusing, silly or flat-out wrong, or it may be simply
that you've been expressing them poorly. Only you can show which is the
case.
> "Truth cannot contradict truth. If a statement by a religion, no matter
how
> much you believe in it, contradicts the evidence of the SENSES(emphasis
> mine), it is false. It *has* to be false, or take as false until new
> evidence suggests otherwise, or the very concept of objective reality that
> can be examined through our senses becomes meaningless."
>
> The above quote is what prompted my posting. I never said its impossible
to
> "convince" the blind that color exists.
No, you didn't -- and if I've insinuated that you said *that*, I apologize.
However, you did imply that it is impossible to *demonstrate* or to *prove*
the existence of color to those who are completely blind and have been so
from birth. (And having previously gone and made a big issue of this, I will
now stipulate that for the rest of this message, this is the group I'm
referring to when I say "blind".)
From your original post on this thread:
<quote>
What proof do you provide a Blind man that color exists? What physical
evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists? Can
you provide them with it? What if they say to you if they can't
scientificaly prove through taste,touch,smell or feel then it must not
exist? They have no evidense therefore cannot accept your theory.
<end quote>
As I and others have explained, it *is* possible to:
- provide evidence of color
- convey that evidence through a blind person's other senses
- provide the blind with "proof" that color exists
- "prove" the existence of color through taste, touch, smell or feel.
> It's quite obvious that they are "convinced" that "it" does.
Why the quotes?
> What is also obvious is that they do not know
> what "it" is
No, that is not at all obvious. There are any number of blind people who can
define and explain the phenomenon of color. I would not be at all surprised
to learn that there are blind physicists who can go on at great length about
color and wavelengths of light, or blind neurologists who can describe what
goes on in the brain when it recognizes color.
> or means
No, again. There are many blind people who can tell you what the word
"color" means. Dictionaries are published in Braille, you know.
> or looks like.
This, however, is accurate. No, a totally-blind-from-birth person probably
cannot explain what color "looks like".
(On the other hand -- I wonder if it would be possible to stimulate the
brain of a blind person to produce the experience of "seeing" color. He or
she might not be able to report that that's what was happening, having no
experience of seeing color to compare it to, but it should still be
possible. Does anyone know of anything in the literature to support this?)
> I see that there is some confusion
> caused when I use terms like "exists" and "is". My apologies for any
> confusion. So that it is clear, my meaning is that blind people can not
know
> that color "exists" short of being able to see it for themselves.
That is not clear at all. By any meaningful definition of the terms, the
blind *can* know that color exists, just as the sighted can know that any
number of phenomena exist despite the fact that they cannot directly
perceive them.
You need to think harder about what it is you are trying to say here.
> They may
> be able through instruments "distinguish" between red and blue via a beep,
> bong or ding. Or via some specific vibrations to indicate those
differences
> of color but it still does not show them that color exists
It certainly does. Unless they are extremely cynical, it indicates to them
that a difference exists in the qualities of the objects being tested, even
though their senses are unable to detect it without outside assistance.
Similarly, humans are unable to directly detect modulations in the frequency
or amplitude of radio waves. Nevertheless, the operation of a radio
receiver, and and understanding of the physics involved, is generally
sufficient to show them that such modulations exist.
> or what red looks
> like or what blue looks like or what any other color looks like.
That's right. This is where you are actually correct, and it is presumably
the point you are trying to make. The blind do not and cannot know what
color "looks like", which is an entirely different matter from knowing
whether or not it exists.
> If in an
> instant they were able to see ,and you flashed a blue card in front of
them
> ,they will not know what color it is you are showing but at least they
will
> see first hand the color blue. Nevertheless they accept that color exists
> BUT not by the "evidence of the senses."
Nonsense. Of course their acceptance of the existence of color is based on
the evidence of the senses. What other evidence is there? They accept that
color exists because they hear sighted people describe it to them, or hear
the movement of traffic change as the color of the traffic lights changes,
or feel that the water in the white container is cooler than the water in
the black one.
> For they are lacking the very sense
> that would clearly show it to them.
They lack the sense that would allow them to perceive it directly, yes.
However, as in the case of atoms and radio waves, it is not necessary to be
able to directly perceive a phenomenon to accept its existence. The evidence
of the phenomenon's existence is still delivered through the senses,
however.
> I asked the question, what proof do you provide a blind man that color
> exists? Here's the quoted answer: "The testimony of people who can
> demonstrate that they possess a sense he does not." and "In most cases,
the
> "testimonies of those that demonstrate that the their [sic] exists a
> spiritual world beyond human senses" have almost nothing in common with
one
> another. Any consistency between them is almost invariably attributable to
> common and very much material causes. The people testifying to the blind
> man about their experiences of sight are going to be considerably more
> consistent in their accounts." What inconsistency are you referring to
> exactly? From what I hear they all testify that their exists a God or
> Creator that created the whole of the universe and everything in it.
You haven't heard enough, then. Buddhism, for one, does *not* "testify that
their [sic] exists a God or Creator that created the whole of the universe
and everything in it."
> You can
> argue about the specifics of separate beliefs but that's not analogous to
> what we're talking about.
It is *precisely* analogous to it. The religions of the world have, for the
past several thousand years, been unable to come to any kind of consensus
about whether a divine entity exists, its sex, whether it is singular or
plural, whether it is infinite or limited, what acts it has performed, its
attitude toward human beings, whose description of it is most accurate, what
form of worship it requires (if any), and so on.
On the other hand, if you ask a group of sighted people to describe the
picture on a card to a blind person, you will get near-unanimity that the
picture is a red square and not a blue triangle.
> It seems that all the religions of the world are
> consistent with at least the belief that God exists
No they aren't.
> and that *is* analogous
> to what we're talking about.
No, because even if such unanimity of opinion on the existence of God were
true, as soon as you attempt to provide any further information, that
unanimity breaks down completely. When it comes to color, on the other hand,
most sighted people will agree that an object is red or blue or whatever.
> Second, how exactly can you demonstrate this
> sense of sight to someone who doesn't have it?
Quite easily, as has been pointed out to you earlier in this thread.
> Again, all the buzz sounds
> and vibrations in the world are not going to demonstrate to the blind that
> you can see color
The fact that people change their behavior in response to color (e.g.
traffic lights) certainly *does* demonstrate that others can see color.
> or prove it exists
It is clearly possible to "prove" to the blind that color *does* exist.
(Show us a blind person who denies its existence.)
> or show them what color looks like
Ah. Now here, once again, we touch on the real issue. No, it is not possible
to show a blind person what color "looks like".
> or is
Any dictionary or physics text book will more than adequately explain to a
blind person what color is.
> or whatever word you want to use to make sense of my profound and
> mystifying meaning.
The words you use all have different meanings. You would have a lot less
difficulty if you thought about those meanings and chose the word(s) whose
meaning(s) come closest to the point you want to make.
> They have to take your word for it that color exists and
> that you can see it.
No, they do not. They can investigate for themselves whether there exists a
phenomenon that they cannot directly sense but which causes changes in the
behavior of people, animals and instruments.
> Whatever seeing is or means to them. And when I speak
> of Blind, I mean "as" blind as your very eyes being removed from your
> sockets, buried 30 feet in a hidden cave underground in the darkest
recesses
> of planet Neptune beyond any reach of sunlight ,blind! It should have
been
> obvious what I meant when I spoke of blind people.
Why? That's not how the word "blind" is used.
> Especially when referring
> to those who "can't" see, yes "completely" unable to see.
Why the quotes?
Stanley Friesen
>> 3)They are lacking 1 sense of 5.
>
>And the rest of us are lacking 17 out of 22, or N-5 out of whatever
>arbitrary N conceivable means of perception one could propose. We manage all
>the same.
There are at least several senses *known* to exist in other animals
which we humans lack: infrared (pit vipers), electric fields (most
electric fish), magnetic fields (various animals with intrinsic
direction sense), and so on.
However, we have instruments that convert these modes into ones we *can*
sense (e.g. MRI).
DreamCatcher
seeing person to another ( I assume) please tell me, What does color look
like?
Robert
"Derek Stevenson" <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:tunvsfi...@news.supernews.com...
John Wilkins
> I see you are quite the confused bunch. Let me ask you a question, from one
> seeing person to another ( I assume) please tell me, What does color look
> like?
>
This reminds me strongly of the qualia debate in philosophy. I commend
to you the essay by Thomas Nagel "What it is like to be a bat" which
you'll find conveniently in the anthology by Dennett and someone _The
Mind's I_ from about 15 years ago.
The issue whether a newly sighted person would see and recognise things
is known as the Molyneux Problem, and was considered by Locke and his
contemporaries. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online should
cover it - do a google search on Molyneux.
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 45 years
Andrew Glasgow
<Zz2H7.164271$3d2.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"DreamCatcher" <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I see you are quite the confused bunch. Let me ask you a question, from one
> seeing person to another ( I assume) please tell me, What does color look
> like?
>
> Robert
>
> "Derek Stevenson" <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:tunvsfi...@news.supernews.com...
<snip 268 lines of uncommented quoting>
Now, that's just ridiculous. You shouldn't quote such a huge post just
to add your one little comment on top. Hell, you shouldn't be
top-posting anyway. But at least snip.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Clot...@ieee.org
>>>
>You can do it through the blind person's sense of touch. What physical
>evidence to you give to him or her who cannot see to support your color
>theory? What senses can they use to believe you that it does exist? What if
>the blind person tells you that he/she demands proof that color exists?
>>>
>
>That is absurd. Take me for an example, I am profoundly deaf since birth. At
>the age of 26, I got implanted with a cochlear implant which is a device that
>stimulates the nerves. It provides useful hearing.
>
>The new sense of hearing that I've gained with the implant is nothing like what
>I "imagined." It wasn't like "feeling the vibration." I literally felt "sounds"
>in my head. It seems so odd to me at first.
>
>The fact remains is that a totally blind person simply cannot "sense" colors
>and a totally deaf person simply cannot "sense" sounds.
>
>The movie, "Love At First Sight" proves that a blind man cannot describe colors
>or shapes at all despite his ability to form shapes in his mind with his touch.
Movies prove no such thing.--Clothaire
Andrew Glasgow
txne...@aol.comnospm (TxNetGuy) wrote:
> The movie, "Love At First Sight" proves that a blind man cannot describe
> colors
> or shapes at all despite his ability to form shapes in his mind with his
> touch.
Right, and the movie "Titanic" proves that Jack Wossname really didn't
die in Ireland without ever setting foot on the Titanic, ne?
Eric J. Korpela
DreamCatcher <rlca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>seeing person to another ( I assume) please tell me, What does color look
>like?
It looks like exactly what it looks like. Red looks like red. You have no
evidence that my experience of the color red in any way matches your
experience. It doesn't matter. How color is experienced has no relevance
to what color is. Whether I see red, or my hand-held color detector emits
a 120 Hz tone, the information is the same.
Somehow you've gotten convinced that your perception of color is the
definition of color, rather than just being a statement the way your
brain and your sensory aparatii are wired.
Your sensory aparatus isn't even very good at the job. The tricolor sensors
you use can't even tell you whether that yellow you see is a combination of
red and green, or if it is a spectrally pure monochromatic yellow. My
hand-held color detector is better than that. It provides full spectral
analysis. The yellow pixel on my monitor, for example, is a combination
of a broad band green and a broad band red. There's hardly any true yellow
in it at all. It was cleverly designed to fool the human eye into seeing
a yellow color.
You and I have the same sensory aparatus. I build devices to improve my
ability to understand the universe. If you rely only on your flawed sensory
aparatus you're going to end up inventing fairy tales to explain the universe,
or, worse yet, believing in fairy tales told by others.
Drearash
snip>
>> The movie, "Love At First Sight" proves that a blind man cannot describe
>> colors
>> or shapes at all despite his ability to form shapes in his mind with his
>> touch.
>
>
>Right, and the movie "Titanic" proves that Jack Wossname really didn't
>die in Ireland without ever setting foot on the Titanic, ne?
>
Yup, and the Star Trek movies prove that Klingons are real.
>| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
>| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
>| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
>| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
>
-Von Smith "You are not thinking...you are merely being logical"
Andrew Glasgow
drea...@aol.com (Drearash) wrote:
> On 11 Nov, Andrew Glasgow wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> The movie, "Love At First Sight" proves that a blind man cannot describe
> >> colors
> >> or shapes at all despite his ability to form shapes in his mind with his
> >> touch.
> >
> >
> >Right, and the movie "Titanic" proves that Jack Wossname really didn't
> >die in Ireland without ever setting foot on the Titanic, ne?
> >
> Yup, and the Star Trek movies prove that Klingons are real.
They aren't? Then why do people bother learning Klingon, and even
translating Hamlet into it?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make |
| my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire |