Printable View
Nick, I addressed your puerile notion that anything is faith if it's something we're not 100% absolutely certain about. There's no such thing as this kind of certainty. Talking about faith as it applies to empirical evidential inquiry is is self-defeating, and is only done by people desperate to denigrate the scientific perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Regards,
Istvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
:lol: If you believe that, then you have a very limited grasp of biology. Emotion has nothing to do with species diversity? I don't mean to be rude, but that's very silly. EVERYTHING relating to life is the result of natural selection. Both emotion and species diversity are obvious examples. Natural selection acting on emotion leads to species diversity, allowing complex organisms to even exist in the first place. "Feelings count for nothing?" That's a laugh. Without emotion (fear to remind us to flee from predators, happiness to tell us that something is good for us, sexual desire to incite procreation, etc.) there would be no complex organisms, and therefore very little species diversity. Feelings are really ALL that matter. Feelings are what drive the scientist to ask questions in the first place. They're also what get us out of bed in the morning.
This is just my opinion, but you seem to be ignorantly biased against anything that you percieve as "non-scientific." You might want to try to get over that. This same stupid mindset drove the eugenicists, and also the behaviorists. Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).
I don't think Nick needs the help, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
self-defeating?
The word "faith" would probably appear as a great insult if a combative approach were one's main habit in these matters, but that is by no means the only reasonable perspective from which to see the word, or approach the discussion. I think someone interested in promoting the scientific perspective might arguably be considered appropriately forthcoming if they went ahead and used the word "faith" in reference to the smidgen of uncertainty that we naturally overcome, when availing ourselves of both common sense and the scientific method. After all, it is something (whatever you call it) that a Creationist, et al. is likely to point to--and getting defensive about terminology looks like weakness. Why not spend one's energy explaining the difference between science and Creationism while addressing this supposed stumbling-block (in the minds of the religious-minded), instead of pointing at honest and respectful discourse as if it were some rhetorical gaffe that might cost us the game?
I don't want to overstate the case--no doubt, some religious arguers are equally combative, and might reflexively equate the common sense "faith" in how gravity makes the dropped apple fall every time, with the faith in an untestable and contradiction-riddled story from millenia ago. But talking around the issue, or instead using some word like "assumption" is no way to win the point.
Straw man alert!Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
This is a completely different point than the one I was disputing. I never said that the emotions of modern humans don't derive from our evolutionary heritage. Of course they do. And everyone has feelings, as I said: we feel strongly about our families and the subjects that inspire us.
What I was saying is that how we feel about explanations for natural phenomena is totally irrelevant. Does the heliocentric theory of the structure of our solar system seem to de-emphasize our importance in the universe, by reducing Earth to a watery rock orbiting the Sun? Too bad. Does evolution by natural selection downgrade the importance of Homo Sap by making him a late arrival to the scene, just another fortuitous accident in the scheme of things? That's too bad too.
These theories are well supported by evidence, and how we feel about them is of no consequence.
Since you called me ignorant, closed-minded, and a crypto-Nazi here, I feel justified in saying that you could use a more thorough education in the history and philosophy of science. You might benefit from actually understanding the basis of empirical evidential inquiry instead of just winging it.Quote:
This is just my opinion, but you seem to be ignorantly biased against anything that you percieve as "non-scientific." You might want to try to get over that. This same stupid mindset drove the eugenicists, and also the behaviorists. Historically, steadfast closed mindedness has really set science back (not to mention the human species as a whole).
Regards,
Istvan
Just a quick note.
This is a thread about evolution, a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it, so let's keep our own emotions in check.
:)
that's called begging the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
purpose of thread: finding out the "hard science" behind evolution
your premise: evolution is a subject with overwhelming hard science behind it.
your conclusion: let's keep our emotions in check, shall we?
Or, it was just a reminder to the other posters to keep the discussion civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
This:
...and....Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
...if there are questions of the science, we can answer them rationally and emotionlessly as the answers are there.
;)
I thank Billl for his comments Re your above response to me. I'm sorry that you missed the point I made about the need of science to accept certain basic terms "on faith." Billl apparently got my point, and I'm sure others did as well. Calling my notion puerile doesn't relly help your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
You seem to think that I am anti-science. That's not the case. I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology and medicine. I consider myself to be a scientist. I'm not a "bench researcher," but I've been working for over 20 years as a physician, and have even published peer-reviewed clinical research in my areas of specialization.
As a scientist, I understand that there are limits to what we can "prove" by rational argument. Anyone who has studied mathematics knows, for example, that we must begin our logical arguments with unproven (and unprovable) "postulates." These are usually very basic ideas, such as "number" (0, 1, 2, 3, etc), physical quantities ("mass," "space," "time"), operations (+/x), associational rules (commutivity/distributitivity), and various sorts of "relationship identities" (greater than, less than, equal, not equal), time-related identities (before, during, and after), and finally, the idea of causation, i.e. that "A causes B," or at least that "A is associated with B." These postulates are things that we agree to accept "on faith." We accept them on faith because we must, because we have to begin somewhere. Why stop at these fundamental "unprovable" postulates? We stop there because we our ability to "think" can go no further. That's the way our minds work.
Nick,
If you actually were a scientist, you wouldn't make such a big deal out of our inability to prove something. Nothing is truly ever proven in scientific endeavor. We merely formulate theories to explain observations: the strength of a theory depends on how much subsequent testing fails to disconfirm the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
And I stick by my claim that the type of faith involved in the assumptions of scientific inquiry is completely different from the type of faith involved in religious belief. It isn't a matter of degree, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Your argument seems to rest on the fact that the word faith can be used to describe both, and that's a woefully inadequate basis on which to equate them.
Regards,
Istvan
Historically, it's been just the opposite. Limiting the amount of variables to those which can be empirically verified is what makes up methodological naturalism, the very basis of contemporary scientific inquiry. Pasteur didn't create a revolution in biology by letting his imagination run free and theorizing about magic beings or mystery forces. He set up experiments to test his theory that there is a material cause for fermentation and putrefaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
By all means, if you'd like to list the amount of scientific advances that have been made through postulating religious and magical concepts as the basis for natural phenomena, I eagerly await your response.
Regards,
Istvan
I'm reading this fascinating book right now: The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit by Melvin Konner. I haven't read much of it yet, which is to say I've only gotten as far as chapter 2--Adaptation. I'll come back with more on the subject; in the meantime, I highly recommend it.
Regards,Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Nick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
:lol: I wasn't talking about religion, you goof. Try to keep up: you said that when it comes to species diversity, feelings count for nothing. With that in mind, re-read my post and try again.
On second thought, don't. Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I've schooled enough pseudo-scientist bullies in my short lifetime, and like The Atheist said, this thread is about evolution. I've already made my thoughts on that subject clear.
Sorry, but my last response to Babba was incorrectly formatted. I should have used multiquote. My response was embedded in the large passage that appears as a quotation field.
Also, I regret that the discussion about faith and reason has strayed from the main topic of this thread, which is evolution. Let's get back on subject.:redface:
Since you either didn't read my response to you here or are trying to ignore it, maybe it's you who needs to keep up. Thanks again for the personal insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Yes, obviously you've "schooled" plenty of people with the careful attention you pay to the details of a debate. This is why you continue to misrepresent my position on how relevant feelings are to the subject of assessing the validity of a scientific construct such as the evolution of species by natural selection.Quote:
On second thought, don't. Arguing with you is a waste of my time. I've schooled enough pseudo-scientist bullies in my short lifetime, and like The Atheist said, this thread is about evolution. I've already made my thoughts on that subject clear.
Whether this misrepresentation is deliberate or not, it seems you're not inclined to engage with what people are actually saying. Please read a book like Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher or Tower of Babel: Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock if you want to develop a working knowledge of what science and species evolution truly are and aren't.
Regards,
Istvan
Saying it again and again doesn't make it true, Nick. Scientific endeavor doesn't involve faith, it employs a completely different approach to knowledge (and to the unknown) than religious belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Empirical evidential inquiry works in an inductive, cumulative fashion to give us a certain statistical reliability to the theories whose validity we affirm. Nothing is ever proved, and we're never certain. A person with this perspective realizes that additional information can change or even refute what he currently believes.
Religious belief is merely certainty for free. It makes people affirm the validity of claims that are often times nonsensical, and to do so enough times so that the believer finally stops doubting it. A person with this perspective only recognizes new information that seems to confirm what he already believes, and ignores anything that may change or refute it.
Regards,
Istvan
Keeping civil - fine. I agree with you. But the above isn't quite what you originally said. You said evolution has hard evidence behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
(I want to post more, but I'm about to jump into finals at college. I'll post more over break...:lol: I just don't know when I've had enough, do I?)
It does. The post you quoted was just about keeping an interesting and informative thread on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
Good luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
:D
I have not read the twelve pages of post before this but I have a pretty good idea of how the discussion went because I have been there before. I [B]used to be a creationist. First of all evolution happens...I cannot deny this fact. It is just as clear to me as pouring vinegar on baking soda. I have done a lot of study (informal as it is) on this subject.
If you throw your bias away and study a little biology you will realize that life is simply chemistry. The argument that life formed then...therefore it should be forming now is a fallacy. The conditions on earth are much different now than they were then. Therefore life will not come into existence now. Even if anything evolved toward life were formed it would be eaten by the life the is already here.
You would also know that bacteria (in rare cases) even exchange genetic material. Bacteria have sex!
Life does not evolve from one form to another as in white to gray to black. It can evolve from white to black. It does not move in a straight line from simple to more complex in all cases. It is selected because it "fits" in its environment. Being more complex or less complex is not considered. Evolution does not think.
If you are a creationist...just open your eyes...what about Australia? How did the animals move all over the world and "adapt" so quickly? How did they get from place to place?
So here's a question: let's say you take some metallic ore (iron, copper, zinc, etc.) and pile it up in some dusty corner of the universe and let it sit about a gazillion years: would it eventually evolve into a Swiss watch?
Answer: no.
Why? Two reasons: (1) the Laws of Thermodynamics wherin the energy of a body tends towards less and never more; wherein there is no 100% energy-efficient chemical reaction; wherein you can't evolve up without energy input; wherein everything devolves down, energy of a body is 'lost' in chemical exchange (i.e., transformed into other matter) and (2) without information input (i.e., design) nothing can be built up.
This is the fallacy devised originally (I think) by Lecomte du Nouy . And it rests in the assumption that pure chance is the guiding factor and that atoms can fit together in any fashion at all. We don't depend on chance alone, but on chance guided by the laws of nature.
In the 1920s a biologist named Haldane suggested that since coal was of plant origin, and plants obtain their carbon dioxide from the air, there must have been much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before life evolved on earth.
Furthermore, the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by the same reactions that absorb the carbon dioxide and places it in the plant tissue.
In the primordial atmosphere there would be no oxygen in the air and no ozone either. It follows then, that the ultraviolet radiation from the sun (much stronger than today because of lack of ozone) would serve to combine molecules of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water into more and more complex compounds that would, finally, develop the attributes of life.
The energy is supplied by the sun. And chemical reactions happen all the time.
Your thermodynamics argument is moot... and nonsensical.
No, metals turn into computers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
It's jars of peanut butter that become watches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altheskeptic
Then the universe is not in fact cooling and expanding?
In any case, those who believe everything evolved from nothing really want to b e l i e v e it.
That's their belief system.
Oh, I'd go a step further and say we have faith in evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
I have to admit, it gets very hard at times.
This is nonsense, Sebas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
1) This is a misrepresentation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While it is true that the net entropy of the universe is ever increasing, however looking specifically within a closed system this is clearly not the case. When you have an external energy source like the sun, the entropy on Earth can be decreased locally despite the fact that the universe as a whole is doomed to fall apart. Snowflakes form spontaneously, as do crystal formations. Complex organics within a reducing environment, with external energy sources, will form more complex molecules. This was proven experimentally through the Urey-Miller experiments to be possible with amino acids.
2) This is just an outright baseless claim. As mentioned before, snowflakes form complex unique structures spontaneously. Moreover, "information input" is an entirely meaningless construction of ID proponents that is ill-defined and essentially nonsense.
Edit: Also, this is addressing hypotheses of abiogenesis not evolution. The Theory of Evolution addresses how living things change over time, not where living things come from.
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
(Still waiting for that watch to evolve...)
If your mind is not too closed yet, you might want to read the following thread (it's less than one page) where the evidence for evolution as well as the terminology is addressed: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=54322Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
I think that it is fair enough to speak of life forming on earth from non-life.
But it is not like watchmaking. Stanley Lloyd Miller (a young student) was encouraged by a chemist (Harold Clayton Urey) to perform an experiment using a primordial atmosphere proposed by a Soviet biologist whose last name was Oparin. The supposed atmosphere consisted of ammonia, methane, and water vapor, and hydrogen.
He began with a sterile mixture of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen. He then used an electric discharge as an energy source, and that represented a tiny version of the sun.
He circulated the mixture past the discharge for a week and then analyzed it. The original mixture had turned pink on the first day, and by the end of the week one sixth of the methane with which Miller had started had been turned into more complex molecules. Among those molecules were glycine and alanine, the two simplest amino acids that occur in proteins.
In the years that followed that experiment, other experiments were conducted, with variations in starting materials and energy sources. Guess what???
More complicated molecules, sometimes identical to those to those in living tissue, and sometimes merely related to them were formed "spontaneously" in this manner , although calculations of the simplistic Lecomte du Nouy type would have given their formation nearly no chance whatsoever.
It is also impressive that all the changes produced in the lab ...BY CHANCE COLLISIONS OF MOLECULES...AND CHANCE ABSORPTIONS OF ENERGY... (guided always by the laws of nature) seemed to move in the direction of life ...as we know it now.
I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by altheskeptic
Viruses & prions aren't "alive" by any yardstick, yet they replicate as though they were alive.
The problem is using anthropocentric terms in connection with different arrangements of matter.
Things fall apart; things do not fall together.
Things move from order to chaos; things do not move from chaos to order.
Order requires two things: energy and information.
Information requires intellingence.
Intelligence requires being.
Wherefrom does this synthesis come? Did you spin it? Was there a being or life before all else? Do mean a being means a living being? We cannot infer this, except by imagination
That's the point: Scientism is a belief system wherein scientists are the priests (wisdom givers) and the laboratory is the temple.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If humankind could find its own way via its science, how come in the 21st Century the world is in such a gawd-awful mess?--and certain to get worse?--indeed, devolving from civility into neoprimitivism?
Surely science will lead us...
Yeah, right.
Simple entropy law of thermodynamics: the energy of a body tends towards less; things fall apart; things move from order to chaos.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
He was being sarcastic, presumably because after 13 pages of 'discussion' people still make claims about thermodynamics!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
If you'd actually read the stuff that's presented to you, you'd change your mind or AT LEAST stop misrepresenting evolution in your arguments. Or just keep ignoring everything, your choice.
One more thing: If my own further comments here become increasingly cynical or sarcastic, blame human ignorance and indoctrination.
No, it is, at the moment, given the information that we possess, the most sensible system. Creationism and intelligent design, in the face of the fossile findings and the rather coherent theory of evolution, are not sensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
One of the ways we can evaluate the progress of theories is by how they explain something with more clarity than their predecessors. Christianity doesn't explain dinossaurs or how human population came from a single pair of humans. Evolution explains more, so it's more reasonable and deserves more credit.
Until a better system comes along.
Do you have any idea how silly this argument is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
Have you ever boiled water, or heated anything. Clearly it is possible to raise the energy within a closed system with an external energy source. This is reflective of a seriously superficial understanding of thermodynamics.
Once again, you misunderstand how thermodynamics applies to events within a localized closed system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
The notion that order requires "information," which I would love to see a definition of, is particularly ridiculous.
http://www.ndt-educational.org/images/FOGAZZI-77.jpg
This is a calcium phosphate crystal, they form spontaneously in alkaline urine, into elongated pyramid like ordered structures.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/s...lecrystals.jpg
These are snowflakes, they also form spontaneously without "information," and are highly ordered structures.
Your assumptions are patently false.
Even my eight-year old knows this is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
We do a very simple scientific experiment where we boil a cup of water, then add and dissolve sugar until no more can be dissolved. This makes a really cool syrupy mixture which is called a "saturated solution". It is so saturated with sugar that not even another grain will dissolve in it.
We then pour that into a glass jug and hang a piece of string from a pencil into the mixture.
We leave it for a few days and lo and behold, things not only fall together, they join together, just as OP's snowflakes did.
Beautiful cyrstals of sugar form on the string. These are, of course, 100% edible, being pure sugar.
Science you can eat.
Isn't that excellent how science mirrors religion in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
The big difference, of course, is that instead of a preacher standing at the front and talking, anyone and everyone can conduct their own experiments to confirm what the preachers [scientists] say!
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
One is that there are 6 billion theists and a couple of million scientists on the planet.
The second is, what mess? Compared to what time in earth's history is the present earth more of a mess then?
All of human history prior to the last 100 years was a lot more of a mess than now - no medicine, constant war, enormous poverty. Right now, we an amazing array of medicine that can cure or at least aid almost any disease; wars are still around, but appear to be being fought by a few volunteers from each side and poverty, while not fixed, is a much lower percentage of human existence than it's ever been.
During the past 100 years, most of it was taken up by Depression, World Wars and the Cold War, so I can't really consider those times better than these?
Please do explain!
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
Please read the above and get back to me. When was the last witch executed? When did the last polio epidemic occur? Are you living in the same world as the rest of us? I wouldn't claim the world is perfect by any means, but it's a hell of a lot "better" than it's ever been before.
As opposed to where religion led us? (nice segue back into the thread, though!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
I agree with The Atheist in this.. i mean i never thought i could agree with him in anything.. But it seems i do now. !
Yes ! Science has don't alot .. and how you Sbas .. compare between before and now.. Yes there is a little wars.. but nothing compared to before where there was no rules and world wars. !!!
Besides as The Atheist mentioned MEDICINE for God sake .. being a nurse.. trust me when you go to the hosptial .. you will know how it changed alot.. how many people are saved because new technicians of surgeries , treatments.. and so on...
Sceince has enlighted many dark ages .. And no doubt that things are BETTER .
However .. there always has to be a point where i would find to disagree with the Atheit?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
AS OPPOSED YO WHERE RELIGION LED US ????????:confused:
I mean .. i don't know if you know this but ISLAM AND SCIENCE stands hand in hand ....
In the Holy Quran .. it always insists on learning and inventing and creating new technologies.
I mean who was the man who put the first concepts of Chemistry .. a muslim scholar named Jaber Bin Hayyan ..
The use of lenses and all that about how light travels and mirror law.. all was done Ibn Al Haithem ..
The first man who tried flying .. wasn't the Wright Brothers.. hundered years before they comeinto being - a muslim Scientist; Abbas Bin Firnas .. did it.
Europeans and Ameircan Scholars .. know all that.. and they had put their principals based on their results and they had added to that and invented alot of inventions - Many books in arabic were translated to Spanish and Italian .. to spread the knowledge back then ...
However, nowadays we don't hear much about Arab scientist or muslims scholars.. they are way back as compared to the technologies of nowadays that are made by the western.
http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/
Anyway that is not the subject... what i want to say is that.. I don't know about Christianity or Buddhisim - but Islam advices and emphasizes on the importance of science and that its the way of pride and success.
Yes, Arabic civilisation was at one point the most developed in history when Europe was still in the dark ages and we owe much to it for perserving many classic works of science. Europe moved away from religious fundamentalism, whereas tha Arabs were sadly engulfed by it. People like Melmoth apparently would like for us to go back to those times, though, when mental illness was explained by witchcraft, bubonic plagues were cured with prayers, and women didn't have rights.
These evolution discussions always go the same way. Lets bring in religion. Well...I have had that stuff shoved down my throat all my life. In my country it is Christianity. If I don't believe it...I go to hell. The Muslim tells me the same thing...if I am not a Muslim...I go to hell.
The creation "scientist" comes in and states that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and a worldwide flood took place about 4,000 years ago. They also come up with "evidence" to support this.
A Muslim will let you believe all the science you want...as long as you believe in their Holy Book.
All religions (practically) claim to be religions of peace. The whole time they are hell bent on killing the infidel, punishing the sinner, and making the rules. The infidel being someone that doesn't believe the same way they do.
Die for me...and live forever!!!
Lets keep it about evolution shall we?
I used to be a creationist...But I took a look at the science, and came up with one question.
What about Australia?
A muslim don't force others to believe in their Holy Book .. and if u hear other than that.. then its wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by altheskeptic
I hell don't care of you agree with me or not.. and i don't expect you to believe in what i believe in .. .. but respect it Yes !
There are many Christians and Hindu and people who believe in all sort of things that live in all the Arab Gulf countries.. no one was ever forced on anything.. and no one ever recieved and racism in any kind.. and no one ever fought then or hurt them.. In fact they live in equality and they have great jobs and high positions and doing well..
Muslims don't say that you Mike should go to hell.. While Jane goes to heaven .. but as for Jack he goes to hell.. !!!!
If you are having this silly idea .. then i guess you don't know anything.. and all you go is just judge people without knowing them.. or withouth finding out the truth ..
And for your knowledge .. there are many great Arab inventors NOWADAYS who don't know anything about their holy book- and they may hardly pray .. Yet they are muslims and they are inventor..
Our Holy book may giude us to the right path .. but i don't deny that science is science.. But it don't mean that everyone has to believe in it by force.. its up to u .. if u accept ir or not.. !
You know what !!!
Just lets stick to evolution part !