Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 145 of 216 (140319)
09-06-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 11:00 AM


placebo
If 2 million people all feel the same thing when searching for God, is that still subjective? If you say yes, then results from taking medication are subjective too.
It's called the placebo effect. Not only can it relieve pain, swelling, etc. it can result in life threatening anaphylatic shock. All from a sugar pill.
lfen
edited corrected a misspelled word
This message has been edited by lfen, 09-06-2004 11:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 11:00 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 149 of 216 (140330)
09-06-2004 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 10:57 AM


Schrafinator wrote in her post:
quote:
Right, the fact that we fall is cleary obvious that gravity exists under certain conditions. Doesn't matter what the theory says.
NO. The fact that we fall is only an observation. The theory behind this falling, that it is a side effect of a force that not only makes us fall off of bridges but also holds planets in orbit and influences the evolution of stars, is not apparent at all, and it took great minds, starting with Newton and continuing to the present day, to start to make sense of all of this. The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
riVeRraT replied:
quote:
The fact that we can simply call falling "gravity" is our privilege of growing up in a time when great minds have started to figure this out for us.
Wow, it took a great mind to figure out that we fall, thats a good one. Amazing, tell me more Mrs.Wizard.
It took great minds to see that the planets actually do not revolve around the earth. That is unless there were other great minds before that had previously figured that out, but we have no record of it.
rat,
What is the point of you misrepresenting what Schraf said? To wit, she clearly did not say it took great minds to figure out that we fall. You excerpted her comment in a way to misrepresent her statement. In context what she meant is clearly obvious. Physists are still working on the theory of gravity.
I get very impatient with the stupid rhetorical tricks used in apologetics. But scoring meaningless points by being sarcastic about something that you falsely attribute to your opponent is one of the most common contemporary tricks of creationists and evangelists. I of course can't stop you from doing it but you lose credibility everytime you do it.
I understand it's much easier to read creationist web sites and repeat pseudo science than it is to read books on science and try to understand the ongoing work. Read the sites you want,enjoy your faith, but if you want your arguments to be taken seriously here then you need to use logic and information, not cheap silly apologetic rhetoric especially using deceptive excerpting to create a false impression to showcase childish sarcasm.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 10:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:41 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 154 of 216 (140352)
09-06-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:03 PM


Nope.
Those effects can be, and are, tested by non-subjective methods, such as MRI's, blood tests, urine tests, blood pressure tests, etc.
Please explain placebo then.
Placebo can be tested by non-subjective methods. A placebo response is an actual bodily response affecting many of the variables measured in tests. The subjective factor in the placebo is that a patient's expectations effect their bodily response, rather than the substance in the pill, injection, medallion, or prayer.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:03 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 164 of 216 (140388)
09-06-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 1:41 PM


There have been several analogys presented to me, to make me accept evolution, all of them are sarcastic rhetoric. The only thing that will make me accept evolution, is the actual evidences, and I need to go study it more.
You are not, of course, required to accept the theory of evolution. I do suggest that at first it's more important to read a well written book on genetics and on cells. Understanding the role of genes in a cell, and then how reproduction, especially sexual reproduction varies the genes and how that affects populations will give you a background to understand (not necessarily accept) the arguments put forth in support of evolution.
The other thing might be a good book that has an overview of science done on the history of the earth, geology and paleontology.
I want to point out that there is a large amount of data in these fields, and there is a cross discipline support between them. The scientific appeal of the ToE is thus that it pulls together and explains a lot of findings. It is such a useful tool that at present it is indispensible for science. If and when it begins to fail to account for data sooner or later a new theory will emerge. That is how science functions. Theories are being tested with every advance. Newton's brilliant theories about motion broke down when scientist began examing velocities near the speed of light and eventually a new theory came out. It turns out that at the speeds we experience on earth the difference between Einstein's or Newton's theories are negligible and for most calculations Newton's formulas work fine. But science is self correcting. It doesn't claim an revealed truth that is true for all time, nor a final or complete truth.
Those holding philosophical or religious positions can use science in their arguments but that is a philosophical activity not scientific, although since there is a philosophy of science this can get fuzzy.
The other matters you addressed I'll just let drop, simply noting that a logical defense is most often preferable to sarcasm because it is more informative to those who read your post and less subject to misinterpretation.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 1:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:40 PM lfen has replied
 Message 174 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:30 PM lfen has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 170 of 216 (140420)
09-06-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
09-06-2004 2:40 PM


I was not being sarcastic when I brought up the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease to show the illogic of rejecting the ToE for the reasons rat gave
Schraf,
I didn't think you were being sarcastic, but I didn't want to pursue that further as it seems like it could bog down in conflicting interpretations that wouldn't be on topic. In saying that I wasn't implying a criticism of you. I was referring to RiverRAts sarcasm about gravity as not being that informative and had he been more discriptive about his perception that would have been more helpful.
What I'm getting weary of, and I've not been at this board very long, is the hackneyed criticisms of ToE gleaned from creationist websites. And I'm getting the sense that if someone hasn't a basic grasp of the fundamentals of genetics and cell function then they can't really grasp how the ToE works and the spurious criticisms will seem plausible to them. So I'm working with this idea of backing up from the ToE to genetics and seeing if that is a more hopeful approach. Don't know though. The other idea is too take pressure off in the sense that belief is not required but one can understand without believing, and so begin with understanding without feeling any requirement of changing beliefs.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 09-06-2004 2:40 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 09-07-2004 8:21 AM lfen has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 181 of 216 (140448)
09-06-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
09-06-2004 2:46 PM


fruits
The problem is all you've been seeing are the fruits.
Jar, you made me laugh {snicker}!
Actually, aside from a few annoying fundamentalist types attempting to convert me, my experience of christians is quite good. Some are friends, some are relatives, or members of the community helping people. I don't have a problem with christians, or jews, or muslims, or mormons, or quite a range of beliefs for that matter.
I'm more annoyed by the claims, philosophy and history which don't appeal to my sense of what is possible, logical, or sometimes even good.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 09-06-2004 2:46 PM jar has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 182 of 216 (140461)
09-06-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 5:23 PM


Ok, I admit I do not understand what you are saying here. Wouldn't your genome change should the populations change? Doesn't that make it not fixed? Why is evolution limited to populations only?
Riverrat,
Okay, this statement indicates to me that you really don't understand the basics of genetics, and if you don't understand genes and how they work ToE is going to be incomprehensible to you. We can't post books to this board and really it will take at least a small book or a couple of chapters in a text.
But I'll give a bit of an outline. Individuals develop from the divisions of one cell. The DNA in that cell replicates before dividing and it's "daughter cells" contain identical or near identical DNA. This is for the life of the individual. DNA is arranged as chromosomes and the chromosomes are paired. Looking at organisms that use an egg and sperm to create offspring each organism carries eggs and/or sperm which are cells having only 1 each of chromosomes instead of a pair.
An individual once matured contains millions of cells. Mutations in those cells might result in cancer or something but that ends with the individual and as they are already grown they aren't going to be changing much.
It's in the germ cells, the eggs and sperm that if a mutation occurs, say due to a cosmic ray altering one of the amino acids, then every cell thereafter [edit: this is assuming those cells result in a fertilized cell that develops into an adult] contains a copy of that mutation including that offspring's germ cells which will be inherited by its offspring. That is how mutations enter the general population. Only mutations in sperm and egg will do this.
Individuals develop but they don't evolve. Changes are passed on to offspring. I've simplified this and overlooked exceptions. The role of chromosomes, genes, DNA, RNA, in cell developement and division is something that is not hard to understand compared to say calculus but it will mean taking a few hours to read over and ponder the material in the book. There is fairly simply probilities involved.
Of course I find this subject interesting so reading about it fun for me, I would hope you would find it enjoyable also but everyone has there own tastes.
lfen
This message has been edited by lfen, 09-06-2004 06:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 5:23 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:30 PM lfen has replied
 Message 188 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:34 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 189 of 216 (140517)
09-06-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 8:30 PM


Well, you still need to spend a little time with a text. After the cell and division etc comes population genetics. A population will typically have a range of individuals. There are cases where the individuals are very similiar but usually there is a range and since a group of interbreeding individuals defines a population there will be differing genes in next generation's offspring.
If there are differnce in the reproduction rates of individuals that mix of the population will vary over time. But I don't want to write a textbook and I'm running out of time. But yes the population changes over time as different individuals die or fail to reproduce and others reproduce more.
Once you understand genetics you can then look at the arguments for evolution because mutations in the genes and the increase of those mutations in the population of the descendents is the hypothesized mechanism of evolution.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 12:34 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 190 of 216 (140518)
09-06-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by riVeRraT
09-06-2004 8:34 PM


I'd have to read the study. Bacteria are single cells and I forget what it's called but they will sometimes swap genetic material across their cell membranes and they divided very fast so they go through a lot of generations in a day so mutations can spread much faster.
On the other hand it's DNA that is being changed, mutated, in both bacteria and humans. All life uses DNA, well, except for some viruses that use RNA but that is still related to DNA.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2004 8:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 12:36 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 193 of 216 (140573)
09-07-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 12:36 AM


This is really where a good book, even text book with illustrations of the cell, and of DNA, etc will be so much better.
DNA is not used to construct proteins. Instead it's used to make an RNA copy, and it's been so long and I've not time to look up spellings and such, but ribonucleic acid is involved vs Deoxyribonucleic acid. At any rate RNA is used as the template on which amino acids are attached to build the chains of proteins that are used in the building and functioning of the body. I prefer the concept of a template to blueprint, the proteins are assembled on the RNA.
DNA is built of nucleic acids, and so is RNA, it's sort of a copy of the DNA that is taken out of the nucleus to where the proteins are assembled. Cells are just amazing little things all that they do on a molecular scale is incredible.
Public libraries or used books stores will have a range of books on this. Just look for a book on the cell and they will treat of this.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 12:36 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 194 of 216 (140574)
09-07-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 12:34 AM


Well, DNA is a long sequence of amino acids. Three sequences are used to uniquely specific one of the (22?) amino acids that are used to make the proteins in our bodies. Mutations can change one or more of the amino acids which changes the protein that would fit there. Now DNA has some self repairing features. But I don't know much about that. But if the mutation stands it's copied and thus inherited.
You've heard of the human genome project? As the genes are sequenced so we know the sequence of amino acids then we can compare the sequences between people, species, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "standing the test of time" but mutations are passed on and we can map them, so yes they endure because they are what make the changes.
lfen
This message has been edited by lfen, 09-07-2004 12:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 12:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 6:18 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 200 of 216 (140653)
09-07-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 6:18 AM


Well,then given mutations in DNA what is your understanding of and objection to ToE?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 6:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by happy_atheist, posted 09-07-2004 11:45 AM lfen has not replied
 Message 204 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 5:05 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 206 of 216 (140729)
09-07-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 5:05 PM


River,
The universe shows an incredible synergy. I am not an atheist, though I don't accept the documents of revealed religion.
First understand ToE and understand that it took place on earth and so there is geology to consider. Scientist working in the field and in the lab are pushing back the boundaries and they argue all the evidence that is what peer review is about. Evolution is a theory that ties together an immense amount of data, experiments and observations. If a creationist seizes on an anomaly that may bear investigating but it doesn call into scientific question ToE. Scientist are dealing with anomalous data every day.
Science deals with problems. It doesn't offer final for ever eternal truth. It is a process of continual exploration leading to more problems which on being solved lead to more. This appeals to certain temperments and is very frustrating to other who want a truth once and for all like my dear christian sister who says quite plainly she doesn't want to think about this stuff, but to take care of her family and believe that the church has the answers.
This is important to understand, the ToE is not being forced on the data nor is the ToE a theory designed to frustrate religion. It exists because right now it is scientifically the best explanation of all the date. Creationist have a religious agenda. Scientists have scientific agendas, and some scientist also have religious agendas, both theist and atheist. But the ToE itself is a scientific tool.
The astronomers, geologists, biologists working in their respective fields use the notion of lawful change to explain things. When it fails to do that new theories will be forth coming. If evolution is proved false it won't be by creationists taking potshots at it. The theory will be changed or replaced by scientist because it no longer works for them, and will be replaced with something that does. That is how science works.
Well, this is just my notion. ToE is good enough for now, exciting discoveries are being made,etc. I wait to see what the future brings.
lfen
edited a typo: go => do
This message has been edited by lfen, 09-07-2004 04:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 5:05 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 11:35 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 210 of 216 (140881)
09-08-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 11:45 PM


I just find it so hard to believe that a species can randomly mutate into something that has a better survivabilty rate by chance. then the mutations are successful, and hold out through natural selection.
A species doesn't mutate at all. Mutations occur to genes, mutation just means a change in the sequence of the bases of the DNA. This is where I've advised you to read up on population genetics. The monk Mendal in cross breeding peas was I believe (someone correct me if I'm mistaken) the first to study genetics.
A mutation in a gene changes it so that it doesn't create the protein it did before. Often that means the organism with the mutated gene dies. There are lots of bacteria, let's say this species will grow and divide every hour. Some of them will have genes that will be mutated in a way that is lethal. But in a large population of bacteria one of them may experience some sort of accidental mutation to the region the phage attaches to such that say the phage can't attach there (I don't know if that is what was found or not this is just an example). When it divides there are now 2 bacteria that won't be killed by phages. All around the phage are killing and infecting non resistant bacteria leaving more room and food for the resistant bacteria. They divide again and now there are 4, 8, 16 and doing the math pretty soon all the bacteria in the dish are resistant.
Now what if this had happened in a petri dish with no phage? well, the non resistant bacteria would thrive also. But really, it's time for you to find a good book on this, even maybe a tape or two from the library. I don't have a t.v. so I don't know what to recommend but I'm sure there are good science tapes on this. Books are better cause you can take your time and go back over the material as much as you need.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 11:45 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by riVeRraT, posted 09-08-2004 6:30 AM lfen has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 211 of 216 (140887)
09-08-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by riVeRraT
09-07-2004 11:35 PM


My work has gotten busier and I've not the free time I've had for awhile. I'm going to refer you to this thread where Hangdawg and I had some discussions recently. I think there was another thread of 2 we went into this stuff on but I'm discovering it's hard to go back and try to find out where I was saying stuff!
And I've run out of time tonight. I lost the forum again. Briefly but it's not something I will go over again here as I'm kind of written out on this topic for now, my interests are in the nondual teachings of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2004 11:35 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024