Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 20 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 19 20
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: humanistdavid
Tutor, Your greatest greatest greatest grandparents were aliens? On what planet did they evolve?
No not aliens, Humanoid.
How many planets are there in the Universes that can support human evolution? Also the soul is not isolated to one dimension.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Scientists often scoff at each other's ideas, even in a mean-spirited way on occasion. But that doesn't necessarily mean they think the other guy is an idiot. My daughter is reading a debate between Gould and Morris right now in which they are ridiculing each other, but are also talking about they think the other guy should be nominated for a nobel prize. Each of these guys knows very well that the other guy actually understands the situation.

"there was no proof that directed evolution was impossible. A meaningless and unnecessary statement."
This is at the core of why evolution is real science and creationism is not. Evolution is falsifiable, but not falsified.
Moreover, numerous creationists assert like Curtis, that evolution is refuted by 1 and/or 2 laws of thermodynamics, probability, information theory, string theory, fossil record - and a number of other things. These statements are contrary to fact. Evolution is not refuted by any known scientific principle.

"You pointed out some things I could have said better and you were correct. I'm just trying to return the favor."
I appreciate that. The whole "scoffing" thing needs better explication than I have offered in either the previous post or this one.

The comment about "real scientists" is only superficially like the similar one made by Christians against their brothers. I thought I made this clear. If you look up bios on the creationists' own websites, you find that many of them have degrees from diploma mills, or degrees that are not in science. Many have published very few scientific papers.

YECs aren't alone. There used to be a list of "100 scientists who do not accept evolution" that was put out by the discovery institute. The list is up close to 1000 now, I think. But you look at the list and it includes vets, medical doctors, engineers, etc. I don't have a problem with vets and doctors or even engineers. Some few of them really ARE scientists - but one is not a scientist by virtue of simply having a degree in one of those areas or even practicing it.

Here's a video on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=channel_page



Again, I am not arguing that evolution is refuted by any known scientific principle. I am familiar with the creationist "logic". I've been checking in with them since Henry Morris got into it with both feet. I read all of his books. I'm always curious as to what they will conjure up next and once in a great while, it's kinda fun to deconstruct. Henry was a civil engineer. I have no beef with civil engineers. That was my major for a while and I worked for a municipality, as an engineering aide, while I was going to school. But Henry was in way over his head. And, I've been a fan of the late Stephen J. for a long time whether punctuated equilibria proves to be of any value or not. I emphasize I am not arguing with any of the points you offer up in defense of your statement. I am arguing with the statement. The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything. Why make such a statement? You, in fact, rejected a similar statement by your antagonist previous to your own. The most a lack of proof could help, in a pursuit of fact, would be to provide a little encouragement that at least you hadn't been proven wrong yet. You're wasting your time arguing evolution versus creation with me. I couldn't be more scientifically oriented. Even as a child, religious indoctrination was never attempted on me. My father saw to that.

Of course there are actual scientists in other branches. I never implied there weren't. In my branch, there are theorists, experimentalists, practitioners and even managers who all have the same degree. I consider the theorist and to some extent the experimentalist the scientist. I don't assign any more importance to one line than the others. When I became a manager, I ceased to be an experimentalist and became a manager with some knowledge of what he was managing. It's simply a matter of nomenclature. Take your pick. I prefer fresh ground dark roast coffee brewed in a French press. Maybe you prefer medium roast from a dripper. Maybe you don't like coffee. I have no argument there but I will argue that lack of proof is not proof. Using a flawed argument against a flawed argument leads to nothing but heightened tensions which leads to a squabble. Even among enlightened scientists, a squabble is not scientific.

But hey! Hope you had a happy solstice.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Evolution is a fact. Creationists grasp at anything they can to argue their point, even though they have no evidence.

People would rather believe than think because it's easier to just say 'god put us here and we can't understand god so that's enough for me.' It's the coward's way out.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
" The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything"
First, science is not about proof, but disproof (that's a by-product of falsificationism). Math uses proofs. I never said that the lack of proof of anything is a proof of anything.

However, more to the point in this case, creationists have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by probability. They have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by thermodynamics. Both of those arguments are false - and it is important to understand that they are false. I have not said that evolution is supported by either probability or thermodynamics. There are other strong evidences of evolution (fossil record, genetics, biostratigraphy, homology), but if, for example, evolution really were refuted by 2LOT, then we would have a serious quandary since the evidence clearly tells us one thing and accepted natural law clearly tells us something else. Fortunately, that's not the case. The creationists have misrepresented the second law and probability. This doesn't prove evolution - never said it did. However, scientists realize that neither evolution nor abiogenesis violates any known scientific law. It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus.



Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 12/23/08 02:16 PM.
D
dsafgdsg
Unregistered
dsafgdsg
Unregistered
D
Online Shops for you Low price! high-quality!! good prestige!!!

Hello! welcome to our website; www.shoes-trader.com

we can supply low price with high quality products.You can view our website for the details.
Thanks for your reading , pls email us if u have any questions about business .

We hope that will make a long&great business with you in future.
Your satisfactions,Our pursuit!

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
" The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything"
First, science is not about proof, but disproof (that's a by-product of falsificationism). Math uses proofs. I never said that the lack of proof of anything is a proof of anything.

However, more to the point in this case, creationists have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by probability. They have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by thermodynamics. Both of those arguments are false - and it is important to understand that they are false. I have not said that evolution is supported by either probability or thermodynamics. There are other strong evidences of evolution (fossil record, genetics, biostratigraphy, homology), but if, for example, evolution really were refuted by 2LOT, then we would have a serious quandary since the evidence clearly tells us one thing and accepted natural law clearly tells us something else. Fortunately, that's not the case. The creationists have misrepresented the second law and probability. This doesn't prove evolution - never said it did. However, scientists realize that neither evolution nor abiogenesis violates any known scientific law. It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus.


I'm at a dead end in this argument. It is not an argument of belief. I don't think there is much difference in our core beliefs. It's not an argument of proof. It is not an argument about disproofs. Not about falsification, methodology, not about creationists vs evolutionists, denial, god, Jesus, coke bottles lost in the jungle, etc, etc, etc.

Ours is an argument in semantics. In the way in which we use words, construct sentences. Face to face, it could include facial expression, tone of voice and body language. I don't believe any argument between the logical thinkers and the emotional thinkers will ever be solved with facts or theories or laws or hypothesis or rules. I do not believe that using logic to refute the statements of the emotional can ever bear fruit. I only argue with emotionalists when I tire of their constant yapping. I'm working on that.

You seem to be more Popperian and I'm more verificationist, although I have few arguments with Popper, if any. I simply wish we could rise above generalizations like "It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus." I'm guilty of it too but I actually believe generalizations and even minor flaws in logic are harmful to logical discourse whether it comes from me or someone else. In this case, my nitpicking led to nothing but us slinging stuff, back and forth, both of us already knew. I may be off on a wrong track here. Gotta think about it. Hell, if it were easy, it wouldn't be any fun. Think I'll spend some time with Kafka to cheer me up. :>) See ya later.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend


It happened without a conscious selector.
There is no such thing, only in wishful thinking.

"... invented a new form of probability.'
It's not necessary to invent a new form of probability. It's only necessary to understand that we don't know enough to derive the actual probabilities.

If enough is not known, this means scientific proof of creation is possible.

"I won't bother to even go into the complexity of proteins, amino acids, etc. that are required for successful adaptations,"
Because it is irrelevant. Successful adaptions already occur. Even ardent creationists admit this.

There are no proven adaptations of kind to another kind, e.g. fish to mammal, dog to cat. I exclude the fraudulent drawings in biology textbooks, and those who match a tiny fossil and proclaim, e.g. whales are related to antelopes. There are too many steps for this to happen.

"Multiple universes!"
That is one explanation.

It is the only one science has. Hence a designer is the obvious answer. Yet New Scientist Magazine proclaimed that the fine tuning is PROOF! of multiverses. Such is the way undirected evolution was "proven" and millions brainwashed.

"All who ask God to appear, ought to have lived 2,000 years ago, then they could draw their own conclusion. After all, some say there was no holocaust, only 50 years ago."
This is the kind of silly comparison I expect one who is a religious apologist to make.
The fact is, no one who did not live then can make any conclusion on what may not have happened.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Those who witnesses miracles 2,000 years ago believed, assuming there were miracles. This is my point, if you were not there, you can't KNOW what did not happen.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
The primary reason why Americans reject evolution in such numbers is that we collectively have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works. Moreover, we have a profoundly false view of the history and philosophy of science.

.

Also, our democratic ideals have imbued us with the bizarre notion that the opinions of anyone off the street are just as good as those of any scientist.

This assumes only Science has all answers


People who believe themselves to be "smart" and "well-educated" have deluded themselves into believing that they are eminently qualified to reject the collective, nearly unanimous informed opinions of 10s of thousands of the worlds very best scientists, in favor of the mindless rants of a very vocal minority who collectively constitute AT THE VERY BEST utter mediocrity in research.

Einstein was wrong, then right. So was Newton, in reverse. Best you can say is the 10s of thousands could also be proved wrong.

They believe that they have done sufficient research that they can make that call, but the fact is that none of them would even recognize real research.

When a well qualified such as Behe says cuts heal because of blood clotting, the detractors respond with PHD. gibberish. Everyone knows evolution COULD have happened without direction, and could is the favorite word of scientific atheists.


Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Some scientific atheists are sure, without a shred of scientific proof, that their grandmother was a rock. If this is not ignorance, what is it then?

But evolution, the undirected one, deals with the origin of species, not life. So the rock remains inanimate.




Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Atheists are stupid, that is what it illustrates.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
My comments were addressed to all.
Iztaci says
"I don't know if undirected evolution (UE) is possible"
Do you accept mathematical probability?

The explanation of those who believe in UE, i.e. "given enough time" is hardly scientific.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Fallible friend:
"There is no evidence that undirected evolution is impossible."
But atheists say there is no God because of the absence of scientific evidence.
My point was, and is, as in the 4 forces of cosmology, that it is impossible, and there are thousands of examples in biology as well. Maybe, maybe, one process such a renal function could have evolved without direction. But to accept undirected evolution, one must deny the interconnections of organs in the body. No need to expand on this.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Humanist says:
The world is not the center of the universe.
The sun will be at the center of the milky way on December 21, 2012. Wait for this!

Fish did evolve legs. Man did evolve from apes.

Point me to the proof. Seriously I ask, but not to frauds such a Haeckel.

By the way, the evolution of legs does not a mammal make. You've got to get many other processes right, and some simultaneously.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
" The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything"
First, science is not about proof, but disproof (that's a by-product of falsificationism). Math uses proofs. I never said that the lack of proof of anything is a proof of anything.

However, more to the point in this case, creationists have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by probability. They have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by thermodynamics. Both of those arguments are false - and it is important to understand that they are false. I have not said that evolution is supported by either probability or thermodynamics. There are other strong evidences of evolution (fossil record, genetics, biostratigraphy, homology), but if, for example, evolution really were refuted by 2LOT, then we would have a serious quandary since the evidence clearly tells us one thing and accepted natural law clearly tells us something else. Fortunately, that's not the case. The creationists have misrepresented the second law and probability. This doesn't prove evolution - never said it did. However, scientists realize that neither evolution nor abiogenesis violates any known scientific law. It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus.

Cosmological undirected evolution is disproved by the improbability of the 4 forces being present right after the big bang. How can you realistically reject what I say?

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: curtis mohommed
My comments were addressed to all.
Iztaci says
"I don't know if undirected evolution (UE) is possible"
Do you accept mathematical probability?

The explanation of those who believe in UE, i.e. "given enough time" is hardly scientific.


What possible difference could it make, to you, what I accept? You made your mindset known in the post directly above the one I'm quoting here. After reading your splattered scribbling just now, I have changed my mind. I do, now, believe that some individuals can, and do, evolve in a state of disorder. Or, simply exist in a state of permanent disorder. I think you reject evolution because you are unable to take part. I don't blame you. That would piss me off too.

Do I accept mathematical probability? Of course. I estimate the mathematical probability of your ever having a cogent thought to be 1 Divided by the Population of Planet Earth to .1.

Happy Holidays.

Last edited by Iztaci; 12/24/08 12:19 AM.

When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Curtis: "Cosmological undirected evolution is disproved by the improbability of the 4 forces being present right after the big bang. How can you realistically reject what I say? "
Please use the quote facility properly. You have me quoted as making that comment, when it was yours. Nor would I make such a statement when it is false.

Cosmological evolution is not biological evolution. The theories we have are much more questionable in CE than in BE. Creationists, because they are confused by actual science, have a strong tendency whenever they find a gap in understanding, of asserting that the lack of knowledge is proof that a creator is the only reasonable explanation. That is never a scientific approach to any question.

Nevertheless we have no basis for evaluating the probability of cosmological evolution. It's not surprising that creationists have jumped right in and started making mathematically and scientifically unjustified assertions. It's also not surprising that those who already have a strong disposition towards irrational beliefs are elated to find any justification that their beliefs are supported by "hard scientific facts."


A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A

The source of universe reality is the Infinite. The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Universal Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God. Causation in the physical world, self-consciousness in the intellectual world, and progressing selfhood in the spirit world, these realities, projected on a universal scale, combined in eternal relatedness, and experienced with perfection of quality and divinity of value, constitute the reality of the Supreme. But in an ever-changing universe the Original Personality of causation, intelligence, and spirit experience is changeless, absolute. All things, even in an eternal universe of limitless values and divine qualities, may, and oftentimes do, change, except the Absolutes and that which has attained the physical status, intellectual embrace, or spiritual identity which is absolute.
The highest level to which a finite creature can progress is the recognition of the Universal Father and the knowing of the Supreme. And even then such beings of finality and destiny go on experiencing change in the motions of the physical world and in its material phenomena. Likewise do they remain aware of selfhood progression in their continuing ascension of the spiritual universe and of growing consciousness in their deepening appreciation of, and response to, the intellectual cosmos.
Only in the perfection, harmony, and unanimity of will can the creature become as one with the Creator; and such a state of divinity is attained and maintained only by the creature's continuing to live in time and eternity by consistently conforming his finite personal will to the divine will of the Creator.
Always must the desire to do the Father's will be supreme in the soul and dominant over the mind of an ascending son of God.
A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality.
All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition.
Mindless causation cannot evolve the refined and complex from the crude and the simple, neither can spiritless experience evolve the divine characters of eternal survival from the material minds of the mortals of time.
The one attribute of the universe which so exclusively characterizes the infinite Deity is this unending creative bestowal of personality which can survive in progressive Deity attainment.
Personality is that cosmic endowment, that phase of universal reality, which can coexist with unlimited change and at the same time retain its identity in the very presence of all such changes, and forever afterward.
Life is an adaptation of the original cosmic causation to the demands and possibilities of universe situations, and it comes into being by the action of the Universal Mind and the activation of the spirit spark of the God who is spirit.
The meaning of life is its adaptability; the value of life is its progressability; even to the heights of God-consciousness.
Misadaptation of self-conscious life to the universe results in cosmic disharmony. Final divergence of personality will from the trend of the universes terminates in intellectual isolation, personality segregation. Loss of the indwelling spirit pilot supervenes in spiritual cessation of existence.
Intelligent and progressing life becomes then, in and of itself, an incontrovertible proof of the existence of a purposeful universe expressing the will of a divine Creator. And this life, in the aggregate, struggles toward higher values, having for its final goal the Universal Father.
Only in degree does man possess mind above the animal level aside from the higher and quasi-spiritual ministrations of intellect. Therefore animals (not having worship and wisdom) cannot experience superconsciousness, consciousness of consciousness. The animal mind is only conscious of the objective universe.
Knowledge is the sphere of the material or fact-discerning mind. Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect that is conscious of knowing God. Knowledge is demonstrable; truth is experienced. Knowledge is a possession of the mind; truth an experience of the soul, the progressing self. Knowledge is a function of the nonspiritual level; truth is a phase of the mind-spirit level of the universes. The eye of the material mind perceives a world of factual knowledge; the eye of the spiritualized intellect discerns a world of true values.
These two views, synchronized and harmonized, reveal the world of reality, wherein wisdom interprets the phenomena of the universe in terms of progressive personal experience.

Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected.
Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man's ascending universe path to Universal perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.
Evil is a relativity concept. It arises out of the observation of the imperfections which appear in the shadow cast by a finite universe of things and beings as such a cosmos obscures the living light of the universal expression of the eternal realities of the Infinite One.
Potential evil is inherent in the necessary incompleteness of the revelation of God as a time-space-limited expression of infinity and eternity. The fact of the partial in the presence of the complete constitutes relativity of reality, creates necessity for intellectual choosing, and establishes value levels of spirit recognition and response. The incomplete and finite concept of the Infinite which is held by the temporal and limited creature mind is, in and of itself, potential evil. But the augmenting error of unjustified deficiency in reasonable spiritual rectification of these originally inherent intellectual disharmonies and spiritual insufficiencies, is equivalent to the realization of actual evil.

All static, dead, concepts are potentially evil. The finite shadow of relative and living truth is continually moving. Static concepts invariably retard science, politics, society, and religion. Static concepts may represent a certain knowledge, but they are deficient in wisdom and devoid of truth. But do not permit the concept of relativity so to mislead you that you fail to recognize the co-ordination of the universe under the guidance of the cosmic mind, and its stabilized control by the energy and spirit of the Supreme.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Universal Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God."

Nothing in that post has any relation to science. Assertions are not facts.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
It has everything to do with science, and facts are only relative to perceptions that are not absolute but changing.

Page 6 of 20 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5