Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 12:43 AM
22 online now:
edge (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Author Topic:   The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution
ringo
Member
Posts: 16613
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 271 of 300 (425571)
10-02-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Force
10-02-2007 6:08 PM


trossthree writes:

The idea of evolution started with an observation. If there was no observation of evolution, how could we even know of the idea of evolution?

Evolution is a property of living things. It would still happen even if there was no "idea" of evolution. If there never were any intelligent beings to have ideas, there would still be evolution.

However, a fact is not a fact unless a observation is made.

That sounds like the old tree-falls-in-the-forest koan. :)

You can semanticize all you want about what constitutes a "fact". What's important is that the phenomenon happens whether or not anybody observes it or has any ideas about it.

That's why the old creationist fallacy of "you weren't there" is so wrong. The events still happened and left traces that we can observe.

I do believe that the chemicals in fossils can bond with other chemicals which means chemicals can leave fossil evidence.

Yes, it's true that chemicals can leave traces of what happened in the past - e.g. banded iron formations. I just meant that we don't have the equivalent of fossil evidence for abiogenesis. It's easy enough to recognize a trilobite or T. Rex fossil. It's a little harder to trace the ancestry of an adenine molecule.

In some cases a theory can be considered a fact and in some cases there is a fact with a theory such as abiogenesis.

I think you're still missing it. A theory can be considered robust, reliable, useful, etc. but a theory and a fact are two different things.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 6:08 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 7:44 PM ringo has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 300 (425576)
10-02-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by ringo
10-02-2007 6:59 PM


Ringo,

Ringo writes:


Evolution is a property of living things. It would still happen even if there was no "idea" of evolution. If there never were any intelligent beings to have ideas, there would still be evolution.

If you believe in the dating methods then yes.

Ringo writes:

That sounds like the old tree-falls-in-the-forest koan.

You can semanticize all you want about what constitutes a "fact". What's important is that the phenomenon happens whether or not anybody observes it or has any ideas about it.

That's why the old creationist fallacy of "you weren't there" is so wrong. The events still happened and left traces that we can observe.

Sounds like Science to me =).

ringo writes:

I think you're still missing it. A theory can be considered robust, reliable, useful, etc. but a theory and a fact are two different things.

read post 182 by jar. =).

[qs=jar][i]Actually, there is a point reached where the confidence level is so high that use of the term FACT is acceptable. Certainly there is the possibility that new evidence might be found that will show that what was considered Fact is wrong. If that happens the term is no longer applicable. [/qs]

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=91&m=182#182 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=91&m=182#182">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=91&m=182#182


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 6:59 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 8:08 PM Force has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16613
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 273 of 300 (425579)
10-02-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Force
10-02-2007 7:44 PM


trossthree writes:

If you believe in the dating methods then yes.

First, it isn't "believe in", it's "accept". Accepting well-tested and documented methods is not "belief". It's just good thinking.

Second, if you don't accept the dating methods, you have no claim to understanding anything about science because they're intertwined with every aspect of science. You can't discard the methods or the dates without throwing all of science out the window.

We have a lot of dating threads here - including a particularly good one about correlations of different dating methods. By all means, take any doubts you have about dating methods over there.

Your quote from jar doesn't address what I said about facts and theories at all. He was saying, I think, that a fact is a fact because it tallies with other facts. For example, the age of the earth - 4.55 billion years, give or take - is a fact because every piece of evidence we have supports it. It isn't "proven", but it's a fact.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 7:44 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 8:21 PM ringo has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 300 (425582)
10-02-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by ringo
10-02-2007 8:08 PM


Ringo,

No that is not what he was saying, read the post he was replying to.

Edited by trossthree, : er


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 8:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 8:33 PM Force has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16613
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 275 of 300 (425586)
10-02-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Force
10-02-2007 8:21 PM


trossthree writes:

...read the post he was replying to....

I did. In Message 181, you said:

quote:
Even if we were 99.9999999999999999/100 sure that Abiogenesis occured we would still not have fact.

to which jar responded in Message 182:

quote:
Actually, there is a point reached where the confidence level is so high that use of the term FACT is acceptable.

We would call abiogenesis a fact long before we reached the 99.9999999999999999/100 threshold. As jar also said:

quote:
Certainly there is the possibility that new evidence might be found that will show that what was considered Fact is wrong. If that happens the term is no longer applicable.

which is why we can apply the term "fact" without a 100% confidence level being necessary.

And, as I have been saying, a fact and a theory are two different things. Nowhere does jar's post suggest otherwise.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 8:21 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 8:39 PM ringo has responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 300 (425587)
10-02-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by ringo
10-02-2007 8:33 PM


Ringo,

We actually talked in the chat room that is what he ment...

ttyl..

Edited by trossthree, : comment


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 8:33 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 8:48 PM Force has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16613
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 277 of 300 (425588)
10-02-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Force
10-02-2007 8:39 PM


trossthree writes:

We actually talked in the chat room that is what he ment...

We'll see when he gets back from his adventures. I'd be surprized if he disagrees (much) with me. And judging by your consistent/persistent misunderstandings in this thread.... :)


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 8:39 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Force, posted 10-03-2007 9:03 PM ringo has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 300 (425709)
10-03-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by ringo
10-02-2007 8:48 PM


Ringo,

Ok I am done debating whether or not you believe I understand what a fact is or what Science is, it all really does not matter. However, a better point that I have been trying to make is on this link below. My point is that our reality(life we understand) consists of certain principles and I think jar summed it up nicely in his first post on that thread below.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=55&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=55&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=55&m=1


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 10-02-2007 8:48 PM ringo has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 279 of 300 (425797)
10-04-2007 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Force
10-02-2007 4:20 PM


Sure the big bang, abiogenesis, and the toe are facts, so what.

I think we may have discovered the ultimate creationist argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Force, posted 10-02-2007 4:20 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Force, posted 10-04-2007 4:42 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Force
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 300 (425968)
10-04-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Dr Adequate
10-04-2007 2:48 AM


Dr Adequate,

I am not a creationist, LOL.

Edited by trossthree, : comm rem

Edited by trossthree, : ..

Edited by trossthree, : del


Thanks
trossthree
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-04-2007 2:48 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by obvious Child, posted 10-07-2007 6:56 PM Force has not yet responded

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 281 of 300 (426579)
10-07-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Force
10-04-2007 4:42 PM


quote:
Do you think the people of EVC like you? LOL....

Yes. I think they do.

And you sound like a creationist.

How is popularity even a relevant issue here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Force, posted 10-04-2007 4:42 PM Force has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 282 of 300 (426652)
10-08-2007 9:59 AM


What is a fact?
This thread is nearing its conclusion, so as grist for the mill of a possible successor thread I'd like to say a few brief things about facts.

When evolutionists say, "Evolution happened, that's a fact," if what they really mean is, "You can't question this, it's a fact," then they're using a fallacious debate tactic and should be called on it.

The word "fact" is just a shorthand way of saying that the supporting evidence is extremely strong. It's actually a very imprecise term, since everyone is free to interpret the degree of certainty that defines "fact" as occurring in a different place. It's a subjective decision. The word "fact" is ambiguous.

Everything in science is tentative, there is nothing we know with absolute certainty, and that includes our facts, even the best supported ones. Questioning facts is as valid as questioning hypothesis or theory, since it's really just a way of inquiring as to the supporting evidence. In other words, claiming that evolution happened is a fact does not relieve evolutionists from presenting the supporting evidence.

--Percy


  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 283 of 300 (427090)
10-09-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by CTD
09-21-2007 10:46 AM


Re: Fundymental misunderstandings
quote:
Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right?

Not quite. Yes, there is no real difference between an earthbound life-form or a fossil and a "missing link", given that it is actually missing, because all life-forms are links in the evolutionary chain. We have some pieces but we don't have others. A missing link (e.g. archaeopteryx) ceases to be missing once it is found. So, you see, in some sense we can never "have" a missing link or it just wouldn't be missing. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

A missing link doesn't mean a dog giving birth to a banana (and never has). It means something that we aren't yet aware of that's in between two things we ARE aware of whose discovery would help us describe the evolutionary chain more completely. So, yes, we have not found ALL the missing links, and most likely never will, but some of the missing links have become found and are thus no longer missing. But to simplify this situation as "we have never found a single missing link" is at best confusion and at worst deception.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by CTD, posted 09-21-2007 10:46 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 284 of 300 (427108)
10-09-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Jon
10-01-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Atheism as a Limited World View
Certainly there's middle ground?

Yeah, it's called agnosis: asserting that some or all things cannot be known beyond reasonable doubt but may or may not be true nonetheless. Atheists who claim this stance (wrt God) are called "weak atheists", though few atheists would claim to know with certainty there is/are no god(s).

Edited by bernerbits, : clarifying "this stance"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 11:20 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2007 10:25 PM bernerbits has responded
 Message 299 by AdminPD, posted 11-09-2007 5:31 AM bernerbits has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 285 of 300 (427118)
10-09-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jon
10-01-2007 10:49 PM


Relative Limited World Views
Being an atheist frees the mind to consider endless possibilities.

Does it, or does it merely place the mind into another [constricted] world view?
How is it possible that only after limiting your mind to 'not have a blind faith...' can you suddenly say that your mind is then unlimited?

What can be more limited than a world view based on falsehoods? The denial of reality and the clinging to mythologies? This has been amply demonstrated through history.

Is having to put your mind into the state of 'faithless' in order to achieve limitlessness itself a limit?
Is making 'faithlessness' a requirement for an unlimited mind not a limit itself?

One need not be an atheist, or even agnostic, so much as being one in search of truth -- with the understanding that such search may turn over any belief one holds, and that if that comes to pass, so be it.

It is the commitment to honest appraisal of the evidence that frees the mind from preconceptions, whether false or not. If they are true they will prove so, not because of belief, but because of fact.

Those committed to a religion beyond reason cannot make this leap, for they make their leap in the other direction.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:49 PM Jon has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
15161718
19
20Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019