Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 226 of 356 (466186)
05-13-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Rahvin
05-12-2008 6:31 PM


Here's the deal.
Rahvin writes:
If the "overwhelming evidence" but is a thorn in your side, start looking into it instead of looking into public opinion.
It is not any "overwhelming evidence" that is a thorn in my flesh, but the fact that people seem to keep attributing your comment to me. Sometimes it is seen as evidence for evolution, and at other times it is seen as evidence for the existence of God. This one statement really has created a lot of confusion. Maybe you should consider retracting it.
As for looking into the scientific evidence for evolution, I have been attempting to do that.
Rahvin writes:
You're confusing "does not affect" and "does not necessarily affect"
I don't see where I was confused.
Rahvin writes:
After all, man wrote the Bible...God wrote the world, right?
Actually, No!
God Wrote the Bible, and God Created the world.
You really give man way too much credit. I think that has been the problem from the beginning. Man has always wanted to be God.
Rahvin writes:
Evolution does not necessarily conflict with religious beliefs.
This statement is only true for those who have chosen to adapt their religious beliefs to agree with the Theory of Evolution as you stated you have by taking a non-literal view of the Bible.
Rahvin writes:
Look, Wumpini. Here's the deal.
Look, Rahvin. Here's the deal.
I am sure that you are totally convinced that all of the scientific conclusions that have been made in the field of biological evolution are true. However, look at the history of science, and the times they have had to completely change their view as a result of new evidence. If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of evolution that could completely change the view of what has happened in the past then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in the theory than the truth.
I agree with you completely that we should teach the observations of biological evolution in the present as fact. If scientists see the process of mutation and natural selection occurring in the world today then teach what they observe. However, to interpolate this data which is presently being observed millions of years into the past, and treat it as fact, is going beyond what it seems this field of science allows. I don't know where the line should be drawn. However, I believe it is a serious consideration since the faith of many people could possibly be compromised.
Rahvin writes:
If one's faith is so weak as to be broken by observations of the natural world that your deity is supposed to have Created in the first place, then perhaps it is best to question your beliefs.
Then teach the observations. No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Rahvin, posted 05-12-2008 6:31 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2008 1:30 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 3:34 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 231 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2008 5:24 PM Wumpini has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 227 of 356 (466193)
05-13-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Here's the deal.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
If the "overwhelming evidence" but is a thorn in your side, start looking into it instead of looking into public opinion.
It is not any "overwhelming evidence" that is a thorn in my flesh, but the fact that people seem to keep attributing your comment to me. Sometimes it is seen as evidence for evolution, and at other times it is seen as evidence for the existence of God. This one statement really has created a lot of confusion. Maybe you should consider retracting it.
I'm certainly not retracting my comment simply becasue people may be attributing my comment to you. It is a fact that there is overwhelming evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution.
As for looking into the scientific evidence for evolution, I have been attempting to do that.
That's good, but it certainyl doesn't appear to be the case when you never ask a single question or even make a single comment relating to any of the science. You've used a few words, sure, but that doesn't tell us much. So far your posts revolve around personal opinion surveys, which mean nothing.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
You're confusing "does not affect" and "does not necessarily affect"
I don't see where I was confused.
You're taking your interpretation of teh Bible as the only religion in existence. Many other religions have no problem with evolution. Many Christian denominations have no problem with evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not necessarily affect the religious beliefs of any given person. It only affects those whose religious beliefs contradict evolution, which includes Biblical literalists.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
After all, man wrote the Bible...God wrote the world, right?
Actually, No!
God Wrote the Bible, and God Created the world.
The Bible was not directly penned by any deity. Human beings picked up pens and wrote it down. Perhaps it was inspired by a deity as you believe, but there are far too many versions of the same texts that say very different things to say that all of them came from a single, consistent source.
However, if God created the Earth, the observable evidence should be considered His direct handiwork as opposed to working through proxies, should it not?
You really give man way too much credit. I think that has been the problem from the beginning. Man has always wanted to be God.
I don't want to be god. I'd just like to establish a view of the world that models reality with the greatest degree of accuracy possible.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Evolution does not necessarily conflict with religious beliefs.
This statement is only true for those who have chosen to adapt their religious beliefs to agree with the Theory of Evolution as you stated you have by taking a non-literal view of the Bible.
You're assuming that non-literalist interpretations of the Bible exist only becasue of evolution. This is not true. Many flavors of Christianity take the Bible as a more general guidebook and moral guide than a history book, and they have done this since before Darwin lived.
Many people alter their religious views to conform with science, as I did before I lost my faith altogether. Many other people don't need to, becasue their faith was already not tied to a literal interpretation of the Bible, but was rather tied to what they call a "personal relationship with God."
And then of course there are the non-Christian religious beliefs that have nothig to do with the Bible and have no problem with evolution.
Your assertion that evolution must necessarily conflict with religious views is incorrect. It only conflicts with certain specific beliefs, and not others.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Look, Wumpini. Here's the deal.
Look, Rahvin. Here's the deal.
I am sure that you are totally convinced that all of the scientific conclusions that have been made in the field of biological evolution are true.
Incorrect. I am "totally convinced" that the scientific conclusions that have been made thus far amount to the most accurate model of reality available given the evidence we currently have at hand. Given new evidence, I fully expect those conclusions to change, as they should - you can't maintain an accurate model if you refuse to acknowledge new evidence that proves your model is inaccurate in certain cases.
Of course, the Theory of Evolution has proven to be so accurate thus far with so much supporting evidence that I would consider it highly unlikely to be outright refuted. Modified slightly, of course, but not outright refuted. If someone were to prove the Theory of Evolution wrong, I would be most excited to learn about the more accurate model that replaces it, as I want to maintain the most accurate view of reality possible.
However, look at the history of science, and the times they have had to completely change their view as a result of new evidence. If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of evolution that could completely change the view of what has happened in the past then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in the theory than the truth.
"Impossible" is very different from "highly unlikely." Should this new data that completely changes the model the Theory of Evolution describes ever arrive, I will be both shocked and excited.
Only religion claims to know the "truth," Wumpini. Science claims to have an accurate model. There's a very large difference, and while you seem to think that changing your position based on new evidence is a flaw, I see it as the single greatest strength of the scientific method. Dogmatic religion got the human species nowhere for thousands of years. The scientific method revolutionalized the way we live and think in jsut a few hundred. I like being proven wrong, as it ensures my view is accurate.
I agree with you completely that we should teach the observations of biological evolution in the present as fact. If scientists see the process of mutation and natural selection occurring in the world today then teach what they observe. However, to interpolate this data which is presently being observed millions of years into the past, and treat it as fact, is going beyond what it seems this field of science allows. I don't know where the line should be drawn. However, I believe it is a serious consideration since the faith of many people could possibly be compromised.
Then you have failed to understand one of the basic keys of the scientific method.
Science does not stop at observation. We use our observations to make logical inferences that can be tested, such as "if human beings and apes shared a common ancestor as the Theory of Evolution suggests, then we should find significant genetic similarities in both species." This inference applies very far into the past, but is testable with evidence that is observable today. Of course, when we look at ape DNA and compare it to human DNA, the coding is so similar you can barely tell the difference - greater than 98% identical between humans and chimpanzees, for example.
Similarly, when we say that "The Earth is billions of years old," we are extrapolating that conclusion from evidence that is observable today. The statement is testable using direct, objective observations that you yourself could duplicate given the correct training and equipment (and sometimes not even that).
The claims of science that directly contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible are very well-tested using evidence that is observable today. The same method that tells us humans evolved over millions of years along with all of the rest of life on Earth also tells us that the force of gravity on Earth accellerates objects ar approximately 9.8m/s^2, that the Moon was once part of the Earth, and that all heavy elements are the result of the deaths of stars (meaning in a sense that we're all made of stardust, which is pretty cool I might add).
quote:
Rahvin writes:
If one's faith is so weak as to be broken by observations of the natural world that your deity is supposed to have Created in the first place, then perhaps it is best to question your beliefs.
Then teach the observations. No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
That is not an intelligent statement. What if we applied such reasoning to criminal law? Do we need a witness to convict all criminals, even if we have fingerprints, DNA, and a smoking gun with matching bullet in the victim? Direct observations are unnecessary, because you can use direct observations to make logical inferences, or what Sherlock Holmes would call deductive reasoning. The evidence we can observe can tell us a great deal about the events we did not observe.
It's elementary, my dear Wumpini.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 12:32 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 4:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 228 of 356 (466195)
05-13-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Wumpini
05-12-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Wumpini is a name
Hi, Wumpini.
Wumpini writes:
However, I would surely want us to be careful that we are not teaching something as proven which has not reached such an elevated status. This is especially true if it could affect an individual's faith.
I've had a hard time with this idea for a long time. I'm not so sure I agree that it's important to not affect people's faith.
First, because reality actually seems rather unconcerned with being nice. Cold, hard facts are called "cold, hard facts" for a reason. Whether or not little Billy likes it, two plus two equals four, and he'll always get a check mark on his paper if he puts "seven" instead, even if it hurts his feelings when he does.
Second, because what good is faith that isn't tested? Isn't that generally the whole idea behind faith? I don't think protecting people from things that will challenge their faith is good for them in the slightest. This, however, is the concept that aggravates me most about faith: I cannot fathom why God would care so much about faith--why not just show us some evidence and be done with it? But, it is this "faith" issue that has prevented the Christian religion from dying since the beginning. And faith that has not gone through the fire is just a foolish, unquestioning, blind and ignorant belief, anyway, and I can't come up with a single reason with people that stupid should merit any sort of reward from God.
So, I say we lump everything we can on the Christians: that'll certainly weed out the riffraff and strengthen the faith of the most faithful. My understanding is that this is God's way anyway: trial by fire.
Wumpini writes:
I can assure you that what you said was not stupid.
It actually turned out to be just that: stupid. I had read a whole lot on Bible history, but it was all in books written by Mormons for Mormons, and it kind of glazed over some issues. But, Mormons do like to point out all the times it has been translated, retranslated, copied, lost, burned, compiled, etc. It's easy for me to shrug and say, "oh well, the Bible seems to have messed up in some places," because that's generally what Mormons believe, anyway.
Anyway, after I came back to EvC the next day and found about four replies telling me that my concept was wrong, I looked it up. A quick Google search was all I needed to see that the idea about the 4 Gospels being independent witnesses was no longer being seriously considered by literary and historical experts. So, being a non-expert in biblical history, I stepped back and let the people who knew what they were talking about... know what they were talking about. If they're wrong, they're the ones that are going to figure that out, not me. All I could add to it is my own opinion.
That's the way it should work in all academic fields: if you don't know anything, don't try to challenge the people who do, unless it's only for the sake of your own understanding. Of all the creationists on this website, I think you've done the best job of this (granted, you seem to not have definitively placed yourself as a creationist, though).
Wumpini writes:
Remember that you should not discard something you believe to be true only because those who appear to be intellectuals argue against it.
This is another interesting thing about science: "beliefs" are not supposed to be a part of it. When you start having beliefs, you lose objectivity, and you end up fighting against whatever new ideas come along just because they're changing everything. However, it's tough for many of the older generation of scientists to see the ideas that they had used to revolutionize their respective fields in their way go obsolete as new data comes up. Those pre-genomics and pre-proteomics guys must really feel like their entire life's work has been almost completely discredited. So, if such people fight against new ideas, they either destroy the new idea, or make it stronger by their failure to disprove it.
I'm just starting my doctoral program now. But, someday in the distant future, when I'm old and have been doing science for thirty or forty years, I'll probably get to see some young, new scientists completely replace my formerly revolutionary scientific work with something even better. And, I may even try to fight against it, but I hope I'll have the intelligence to recognize and embrace the next big thing that comes around the pike. After all, that's what makes science such a beautiful thing--it grows with us. To shelter anybody from this is just completely wrong.
But, back on topic, it wasn't the appearance of intellect that made me back down from that argument: it was the appearance of evidence, which the other people on that thread provided for me, and for which I found supporting documentation through my own literature search. I would love to believe that there are four separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus's ministry, but I don't have any evidence that this is so, so I will shrug and say nothing except "I believe in Jesus."
After all, if I'm really being honest with myself, that's the best I can really say, anyway. I think more Christians should be really honest with themselves, and let the experts know what they're talking about.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Wumpini, posted 05-12-2008 2:49 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 6:15 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 247 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 6:46 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 229 of 356 (466210)
05-13-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Here's the deal.
You really give man way too much credit. I think that has been the problem from the beginning. Man has always wanted to be God.
Yes, well, that's a sword that cuts both ways. A non-believer in the divine authorship of the Bible might suggest that it is you who do men too much honor by hailing their writings as divine.
However, look at the history of science, and the times they have had to completely change their view as a result of new evidence.
* sigh *
If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of evolution that could completely change the view of what has happened in the past then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in the theory than the truth.
"If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of pig studies that could completely change the view of whether pigs have wings then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in their dogma of non-flying pigs than the truth."
Strictly speaking, a scientist shouldn't use the word "impossible" like that. Would you settle for "profoundly unlikely"?
. However, to interpolate this data which is presently being observed millions of years into the past, and treat it as fact, is going beyond what it seems this field of science allows.
If it seems that way to you, I think you have some reading to do.
Science can go beyond the unseen, and it must. Has anyone ever seen an electron? No, but we've made observations consistent with the theory that electrons exist, and what's more, we need that theory to make sense of the observed phenomena.
Then teach the observations. No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
However, we can make present-day observations that are correctly predicted by our theories about what happened millions of years ago, and, again, we need those theories to make sense of the observations.
Observations without theories make no sense and lead nowhere.
Would you like kids in chemistry class to just learn a list of chemical reactions that go and that don't go, without learning about the periodic table and covalent bonding and ionic bonding and electrons and all the other stuff you can't actually watch?
Moreover, your suggestion would make for strange lesson plans.
---
Teacher: "Coelacanths are closer genetically to giraffes than herrings."
Student: "Why? I mean, they look more like herrings."
Teacher: "I'm not allowed to tell you. But I'd like you to remember it until you meet someone who is."
Student: "But isn't that really weird?"
Teacher: "No, it's exactly what we should expect ... according to a theory I'm not allowed to refer to."
Student: "But I want to understand!"
Teacher: "Then you should have gone to a private school."
---
The observations that support evolution, without evolution, are a jumbled inexplicable mess. That, in a sense, is why they are evidence for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 12:32 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 236 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 8:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 230 of 356 (466221)
05-13-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rahvin
05-13-2008 1:30 PM


Re: Here's the deal.
Wumpini writes:
No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
Rahvin writes:
That is not an intelligent statement.
Why? Were you there?
Rahvin writes:
I like being proven wrong, as it ensures my view is accurate.
That is an interesting statement.
I think maybe it is time for me to end this discussion. It seems to have reached a point of diminishing returns.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2008 1:30 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2008 6:28 PM Wumpini has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 231 of 356 (466223)
05-13-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Here's the deal.
No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
I have. I've seen light from 3C273. It left there two billion years ago.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 12:32 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 232 of 356 (466229)
05-13-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Blue Jay
05-13-2008 1:41 PM


Biblical Inspiration
Bluejay writes:
Cold, hard facts are called "cold, hard facts" for a reason. Whether or not little Billy likes it, two plus two equals four, and he'll always get a check mark on his paper if he puts "seven" instead, even if it hurts his feelings when he does.
Isn't there a difference between 2+2=4, and 3.5 billion years ago this organism turned into that organism? One seems like cold hard facts, and the other seems like supposition.
Bluejay writes:
So, being a non-expert in biblical history,
You need to understand that there are different theories related to the Synoptic Gospels, and you are most likely hearing only one view on this website, and that view probably leaves out inspiration. Even though scholars have been aware of the similarities between these gospels for over 1800 years, it has only been recently that these new hypotheses have been presented. Here is a quote from the book of a University Bible Professor (RC Foster) titled, "Studies in the Life of Christ: Introduction and Early Ministry." This book was written in 1966.
quote:
The real basis for the whole present trend in Biblical study is not any flood of light from new facts, but simply the application of the theory of evolution to the facts and problems of the Bible. The theory of evolution is the accepted basis of measurement for the “intellectuals" of this generation and everywhere is seen the blind and ruthless rejection or alteration of the facts in order to fit the preconceived hypothesis.
Bluejay writes:
I would love to believe that there are four separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus's ministry, but I don't have any evidence that this is so, so I will shrug and say nothing except "I believe in Jesus."
Then, believe the Word of God when He says "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16).

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Blue Jay, posted 05-13-2008 1:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Coragyps, posted 05-13-2008 9:16 PM Wumpini has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 233 of 356 (466231)
05-13-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 4:48 PM


Re: Here's the deal.
quote:
Wumpini writes:
No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
Rahvin writes:
That is not an intelligent statement.
Why? Were you there?
I explained why it is not an intelligent statement in the words immediately proceding the ones you quoted. Did you fail to read them?
quote:
I said:
That is not an intelligent statement. What if we applied such reasoning to criminal law? Do we need a witness to convict all criminals, even if we have fingerprints, DNA, and a smoking gun with matching bullet in the victim? Direct observations are unnecessary, because you can use direct observations to make logical inferences, or what Sherlock Holmes would call deductive reasoning. The evidence we can observe can tell us a great deal about the events we did not observe.
You claim that we should only teach that which we directly observe, but your logic would have us throw out all of criminal justice, as well.
It's a fact that events leave evidence behind, Wumpini. You and I leave fingerprints, but the Earth leaves evidence of what came before as well. The evidence we base our theories on, as well as the evidence we test those theories with, is observable, but it tells us a great deal about what we did not directly observe.
I think maybe it is time for me to end this discussion. It seems to have reached a point of diminishing returns.
If you disagree that deductive reasoning based on observable evidence is a valid method of deciphering unobserved events, then there's a reason we're reaching diminishing returns, Wumpini.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 4:48 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 7:38 PM Rahvin has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 234 of 356 (466233)
05-13-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2008 3:34 PM


A jumbled up mess
DA writes:
* sigh *
The feeling is mutual. But, I do like the poster.
DA writes:
Strictly speaking, a scientist shouldn't use the word "impossible" like that. Would you settle for "profoundly unlikely"?
I would say it is profoundly unlikely that pigs are going to fly.
I have been trying to understand the way scientists use different words to help me communicate with them. Especially, words like fact and theory.
DA writes:
The observations that support evolution, without evolution, are a jumbled inexplicable mess. That, in a sense, is why they are evidence for it.
I am trying to study that now.
I have been reading a middle school textbook on evolution which I kind of like even though it probably isn't very accurate. It is only about 100 pages long and mostly pictures (pretty cool pictures) so it is easy to read.
I have a college textbook I found on evolution but it is a lot longer with more words (big words like transcriptase), and it has less pictures. So if I start using big words about evolution, they are probably coming out of this book. I read the first chapter, and then went back to my little book. I consider that progress.
I am having a little difficulty in my mind understanding how all of these different eras, and ages, and index fossils came into being. I may have to go look in my big book to figure it out. It kind of seems like that jumbled up mess you are talking about.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 11:29 PM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 235 of 356 (466236)
05-13-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rahvin
05-13-2008 6:28 PM


Facts and Theories
Rahvin writes:
It's a fact that events leave evidence behind, Wumpini. You and I leave fingerprints, but the Earth leaves evidence of what came before as well. The evidence we base our theories on, as well as the evidence we test those theories with, is observable, but it tells us a great deal about what we did not directly observe.
If you disagree that deductive reasoning based on observable evidence is a valid method of deciphering unobserved events ...
I agree that we should use deductive reasoning. I am not arguing that there is no evidence. This evidence can be observed and tell us something about the past. All I have been trying to say is that the conclusions that are made could be wrong. The evidence is all circumstantial.
It is the same in a criminal investigation. All of the evidence could point towards someone being guilty, and that person is innocent. Even evidence in a criminal investigation becomes colder and more difficult to follow after a period of time. Would it not be the same in this situation? We are talking about billions of years. Any conclusions made on evidence that is that old would seem to be questionable to me. Since you cannot repeat the event, it does not appear that there is any method to test these conclusions.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2008 6:28 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2008 8:51 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2008 9:49 AM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 236 of 356 (466237)
05-13-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2008 3:34 PM


What am I missing in this comparison?
DA writes:
Science can go beyond the unseen, and it must. Has anyone ever seen an electron? No, but we've made observations consistent with the theory that electrons exist, and what's more, we need that theory to make sense of the observed phenomena.
I am not sure that I understand the comparison between the observation of the effect of an electron in the present, and the inability to observe an evolutionary event in the past.
The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present.
The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time.
Am I missing something here?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Blue Jay, posted 05-13-2008 8:36 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2008 10:12 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 11:57 PM Wumpini has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 237 of 356 (466239)
05-13-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 8:03 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
Wumpini writes:
The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present.
The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time.
It's simple: we can't observe the event, but we can see the effect. For example, the fossil record shows a trend of increasing complexity since the Cambrian desposits, and this complexity seems to be cumulative and not chaotic. We don't actually see evolution happening, but we see the results of evolution happening, which results are the variation between animals, time periods and geographical regions.

I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 8:03 PM Wumpini has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 238 of 356 (466240)
05-13-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 7:38 PM


Re: Facts and Theories
I agree that we should use deductive reasoning. I am not arguing that there is no evidence. This evidence can be observed and tell us something about the past. All I have been trying to say is that the conclusions that are made could be wrong.
And that possibility is acknowledged in science. It is incredibly important to understand that the goal of science is not to understand "truth," but to develop an understanding of the processes of the natural world that models reality as accurately as possible. We may never "dead-on," but as our theories continue to develop and are modified and fleshed out by additional evidence as our capabilities improve, our accuracy continues to improve.
Evolution, as one example, has demonstrated a very, very high degree of accuracy when its predictions are compared to the natural world. Its accuracy is on the level of that demonstrated by the Theory of Gravity - they have both proven to be so accurate thus far that it is highly unlikely that either will be proven to be so far off as to be thrown out in favor of a new theory.
The evidence is all circumstantial.
No, it's really not. "Circumstancial" refers to "evidence that is dependant on circumstances," and none of teh evidence surrounding evolution fit that definition. I think you mean weak, but then, you still haven't finished reading up on what evolution actually is, have you.
Doesn't that mean it's a bit premature for you to be criticizing the evidence for evolution when you don't even know what it is yet?
It is the same in a criminal investigation. All of the evidence could point towards someone being guilty, and that person is innocent. Even evidence in a criminal investigation becomes colder and more difficult to follow after a period of time. Would it not be the same in this situation? We are talking about billions of years. Any conclusions made on evidence that is that old would seem to be questionable to me. Since you cannot repeat the event, it does not appear that there is any method to test these conclusions.
Some of teh events are repeating right now, this very second. We can directly observe stars in various stages of their lifecycles, and peice together the entire picture even though we simply don't live long enough to watch an individual start form and die out. Sedimentary layers that are deposited annually are being deposited right now, every year, while we watch - and the new layers look exactly like the old layers - so once again, we can "repeat the event."
With evolution, we have directly observed new species arising from parent populations, species that no longer interbreed with their ancestors and are fundamentally different.
What, specifically, prevents the changes that we have observed from adding up to the diversity we currently see given millions of years for the small changes to add up? Do you have a reason aside from your personal, subjective beliefs? Or do you simply "know" that evolution is "weak" and so there must be something preventing the observed changes from adding up to the observed diversity?
It's not a huge leap, Wumpini.
If I start walking from New York, each individual step isn't going to be very different at all from the last. After a day of walking, I could be in a different town, even though it's still in the same general area as New York, likely has similar architecture, plant life, animal life, etc.
But if you give me a year of walking, I could wind up in Arizona. Each of those tiny individual steps that were almost indistinguishable from each other individually have added up to a massive difference; my surroundings look different, the plant and animal life are completely different, the architecture on the area is different, etc. Some similarities remain, but those small steps add up.
This is completely analogous to evolution. Each generation is a tiny step, involving just a few typically insignificant mutations that don't fundamentally change the organism compared to its parents, but over many generations those changes can add up to very, very large differences.
The fossil record is like a photo album of the walking trip. We don't get to see every step, but we get some good snapshots along the way, and they are found in the order that you would predict if you theorized that the journey started in New York and progressed to Arizona.
That is just some of the supporting evidence for the Theory of Evolution. It's not even the strongest, but when you find that older organisms (dated with a combination of various radiometric dating techniques, location in the geological records, and others) progress towards younger organisms in exactly the way that you would expect to find if the variety of life on Earth was caused by the evolutionary process over millions of years, it's pretty solid evidence that the evolutionary model is very accurate.
It's very, very different from "circumstantial" evidence, The conclusions are very easy to test, Wumpini. Untestable conclusions are not science - the scientific method requires an explanation of observed facts that makes testable predictions. unfalsifiable claims are the realm of religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 7:38 PM Wumpini has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 239 of 356 (466242)
05-13-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 6:15 PM


Re: Biblical Inspiration
The real basis for the whole present trend in Biblical study is not any flood of light from new facts, but simply the application of the theory of evolution to the facts and problems of the Bible.
Off-topic for this thread, but that statement is absolutely bizarre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 6:15 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 6:23 AM Coragyps has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 240 of 356 (466246)
05-13-2008 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 8:03 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present.
The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time.
Am I missing something here?
Yes. The evolution event can be repeated, the result will be evolution. Evolution can be repeatedly tested in the present as well.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
What are you expecting?
Enjoy.

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.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 8:03 PM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2008 11:35 PM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024