What is truth?

drachenspirit
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
What is truth?

Hmmm... I'm new to this site and I see a whole lot of information being put out there that is... well, opinion, or theory, or what have you and is stated quite frankly as if it's truth.

 I only skimmed the surface to be fair, but the the statements made about Science facts in the list of what God didn't do are out there. Please, point me to somewhere that shows the truth of those statements, and I don't mean a he said she said type of thing.  And differing from the theory of evolution? Apples and oranges isn't it?

 And then I saw links to Kent Hovind stuff. Interesting. Although I don't see eye to eye with the guy myself, I noticed that he was holding a globe demonstrating how a drop of water could cover the globe he held in his hand in theory. Doesn't anybody listen anymore? The video took what he said, ignored his plainly spoken mention of the globe reference he held and ran with the mantra that he openly stated that a drop of water could cover the whole earth.  That's sad. To get validity you need to show yourself as open and fair, not quick to misquote of smear. No wonder Kent Hovind's got such an audience

 This site is full of arguments from both sides where people hear a piece of this or a piece of that and run with it like it's fact.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
drachenspirit wrote:And

drachenspirit wrote:
And differing from the theory of evolution? Apples and oranges isn't it?

No idea what that means. First, evolution is the best explanation for what happens in the development of lifeforms. If you have a better one, then it must be a doozie, because evolution is one seriously tight explanation.

drachenspirit wrote:
I noticed that he was holding a globe demonstrating how a drop of water could cover the globe he held in his hand in theory. Doesn't anybody listen anymore?

Keep in mind that there are trained scientists here, who can look at statements like that and dismiss them as inconsistent with reality immediately. They can do so from a lifetime of study in chemistry or physics, and you may not be familiar with the same amount of information as they are.

drachenspirit wrote:
This site is full of arguments from both sides where people hear a piece of this or a piece of that and run with it like it's fact.

That's a fair criticism. Lots of posts are started, and it takes a while for the truth to come out, or misinformation to be corrected. If you stick around and read a bit more, you'll find that misinformation will get squashed eventually, regardless of the side its on.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The truth is that the

The truth is that the existence of God is not remotely proven or even provable, and the concept has serious logical difficulties, much more so than any of the statements in that list.

If Kent Hovind said what you described it is just further evidence of his ignorance.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
drachenspirit wrote:...

drachenspirit wrote:
... well, opinion, or theory, or what have you and is stated quite frankly as if it's truth.
drachenspirit wrote:
This site is full of arguments from both sides where people hear a piece of this or a piece of that and run with it like it's fact.

If I can add in my two cents: I suspect part of the issue in this line of reasoning is the implication of absolute truth/knowledge.

I think it was Nickolaj that made a great post about reasonable doubt vs absolute knowledge. I tried to find it but it was so long ago... anyway. The basic premise is that the goal of proving just about anything absolutely, is a waste of energy. Science has not proven that evolution is the only possibility, it has merely proven that, to date, the evidence is so solid and that competing ideas are so flimsy... it is "truth". They have developed the theory to the degree where there is no longer any reasonable doubt. By design, the scientific community goes to great lengths to debunk any hypothesis which come across its desk. If some kind of truly compelling, testable, falsifiable evidence comes in to play which debunks evolution, the scientific community would probably be elated. The guy(s) who found, tested, and presented this evidence would be bronzed and put in the Museum of Scientific Bad Asses.

BUT, the odds of this are so incredibly slim as to be considered non existant. Currently it is safe to assume that evolution is the truth of where we came from and developed into what we (life in general) are today.

If this is totally off topic and was, in fact, not implied in your post... ignore me and carry on Sticking out tongue

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome!drachenspirit

Welcome!

drachenspirit wrote:
Hmmm... I'm new to this site and I see a whole lot of information being put out there that is... well, opinion, or theory, or what have you and is stated quite frankly as if it's truth.

For example?

drachenspirit wrote:
I only skimmed the surface to be fair, but the the statements made about Science facts in the list of what God didn't do are out there. Please, point me to somewhere that shows the truth of those statements, and I don't mean a he said she said type of thing.

Read Kevin's post at the end of the thread.

drachenspirit wrote:
And differing from the theory of evolution? Apples and oranges isn't it?

I don't know what you're talking about. Expand on this.

drachenspirit wrote:

And then I saw links to Kent Hovind stuff. Interesting. Although I don't see eye to eye with the guy myself, I noticed that he was holding a globe demonstrating how a drop of water could cover the globe he held in his hand in theory. Doesn't anybody listen anymore? The video took what he said, ignored his plainly spoken mention of the globe reference he held and ran with the mantra that he openly stated that a drop of water could cover the whole earth.  That's sad. To get validity you need to show yourself as open and fair, not quick to misquote of smear. No wonder Kent Hovind's got such an audience

I just watched that video. There was a clip of Hovind's "lecture," in which he stated, "Say, come on, is it possible to cover the world with water? Well, theoretically, one drop of world will cover the water...One drop of water will cover the world." I cannot fathom how you could interpret that as "covering the globe he's holding in his hand with water." Try watching it again.

drachenspirit wrote:
This site is full of arguments from both sides where people hear a piece of this or a piece of that and run with it like it's fact.

What's your point? If you don't understand something, admit it. If you disagree on something, explain your position. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare