Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
 45 online now: PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 43 visitors) Newest Member: Ashles Post Volume: Total: 882,039 Year: 13,787/23,288 Month: 305/412 Week: 0/92 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Creation/Evolution Miscellany

# Relevance of origins to modern science

Author Topic:   Relevance of origins to modern science
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 46 of 124 (707318) 09-26-2013 10:18 AM Reply to: Message 42 by Ra3MaN09-26-2013 4:38 AM

 - Why are all galaxies not spinning in the same direction (conserved momentum)? - "we are working on it..."

Nobody's working on it. There's nothing to work on. Conservation of angular momentum does not require all galaxies (or any system) to spin in the same direction, it requires that the total angular momentum not change in the absence of outside influences (and I'm not sure it even applies to the Universe as described by general relativity). Have you calculated the total angular momentum of the Universe at different points in time and found a disparity?

 - How can distance be measured in light years when the speed of light is subject to gravity... etc.?

Again nobody's working on that. The speed of light measured in any frame is a constant and not subject to gravity. The direction of light is subject to gravity.

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:38 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003

 Message 47 of 124 (707320) 09-26-2013 10:26 AM Reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN09-26-2013 4:57 AM

 Is inference upon inference really empirical science, ...

Yes, when uncountable numbers of independent inferences agree.

 or just making jigsaw puzzle pieces fit?

Nobody's forcing any puzzle pieces to fit, we're just putting the puzzle together in the only way that fits. Is that a problem?

 This message is a reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 (3)
 Message 48 of 124 (707323) 09-26-2013 11:06 AM Reply to: Message 41 by Ra3MaN09-26-2013 4:17 AM

 I made a joke, I apologize, I thought you didn't care about other people.

I forgive you.

 I was wrong to Judge. I was more referring to his disregard for other people regarding their beliefs.

Well, look at the context:

quote:
 Well, do you know how baby animals come to exist? They are offspring of their parent animals. Animals come from animals. If you follow then lines backwards, you're going to funnel up into the tree back to a common ancestors of whatever two animals you're looking at.There's no other way for animals to get here except from other animals so it only makes sense that if you go back far enough then they're all related. How else could it be?

I guess that may be true. If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people?

Yeah but.... fuck 'em.

Challenging the beliefs held by people should in no way whatsoever get in the way of science trying to answer any questions. To even stiffle scientific progress in the slightest bit because of trying to be sensitive towards people's beliefs is utterly ridiculous and should be avoided at all cost.

So yeah, fuck 'em. Stay out of the way and let science progress.

 This could include anyone, even his superiors even a Catholic god.

Truth is true and nothing should stand in its way.

 Technically he is disregarding anyone how has opposing beliefs.

Unless those beliefs have empirical evidence for them, then yes, from a scientific perspective I think they should be totally disregarded. Otherwise, while they may be interesting to hear or think about, they'll only get in the way and slow us down.

 profanity is a simple substitute for a well thought out challenge/insult in my opinion.

There's nothing wrong with profanity and it can get a point across quite effectively.

 I guess this is a separate topic, but in terms of evolution, who does man answer to?

Man answers to man. Scientifically, that's the only way we have any evidence for whatsoever.

 A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like. Also, concepts, such as Abioigenises is a pivotal point in chemical history and yet it is seemingly impossible to assess without guessing variables to a large degree, even using inference upon inference is tricky. wouldn't you say?

Tricky? Sure. That's why it takes years and years of study to figure things out.

But you know what? It works. I mean, here we are, like, 14,000 kilometers away from each other and we're directly communicating almost instantly. This wonderful technology we have is based on that tricky inference upon inference that you're berating. For Christ's sake, there's people orbiting the planet in a space station right now... and its based on that tricky inference upon inference.

There's no reason to think that, because it challenges your beliefs, that other aspect of scientific research might be totally wrong.

You should have your beliefs challenged. And when they don't hold up to scrutiny, and when they have evidence against them, you should change them.

The truth is true. Disregarding it because you believe something else is a terrible folly.

 This message is a reply to: Message 41 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:17 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 49 of 124 (707324) 09-26-2013 11:08 AM Reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN09-26-2013 4:57 AM

 Yes, you are definitely correct, but how far back can we really know? How many people were falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on evidence. I have to say, since better forensics that number is less but these cases are weeks or years old as opposed to millions and billions, with high error margins.

Well, "how far back" is the wrong question. I'm far more certain of the ceratopsians than I am of what I ate for lunch on Monday, because I have no evidence on the latter point except my memory, which is unreliable. The fact that the ceratopsians lived longer ago than last Monday is neither here nor there.

What we have to do is look at the quality of the evidence. So, for example, we know that human memory, and mine in particular, is unreliable. So all the extant evidence that I ate a cheese sandwich on Monday (my memory) is only about 75% trustworthy. On the other hand, it seems to be 100% true that you don't get a skeleton without there having been a living creature that it's a skeleton of, hence my confidence that there were once living ceratopsians. The existence of bones is therefore very good quality evidence.

You mention wrongful convictions. Overwhelmingly, when you look at how these happened, they were based on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously hopelessly unreliable. We know that that is poor-quality evidence. Unfortunately, when I say "we" I am not necessarily including the average jury.

 I can believe that. The fact: found a skeleton in layers of sediment. When it walked the earth is an inference, how it died is an inference, how it lived is an inference. what is more, all these are based on other inference, such as varve inference, ice layer inference, radioactive isotope degradation inference, etc...

Well, some historical inferences are more certain than others. It depends on the certainty of the principles on which the inferences are based.

Again: it is apparently 100% true that you don't get a skeleton without there having once been a living creature. That is such a certain regularity in nature that we are completely entitled to infer the living creature from the bones. Or to take another example, it is apparently 100% true that if an animal has broad flat blunt teeth well-adapted for grinding, it's a vegetarian. So we infer that Triceratops was vegetarian, and we are well-justified in doing so.

 Is inference upon inference really empirical science, or just making jigsaw puzzle pieces fit?

Yes, that's empirical science. Inference on inference, that's really what it's all about.

For example, every time we know how an apple came into existence, we find that it grew on a tree. We therefore infer a general rule that apples grow on trees. So then when I see a particular apple in a supermarket, even though I wasn't there to see it grow, I infer from this general rule that that particular apple grew on a tree (a historical inference). I infer the past history of the apple, I infer the tree, I infer the blossom, I infer the ripening of the fruit. It's an inference piled on an inference, but is it wrong? Is it unscientific?

If that sort of thing wasn't legitimate, then science would be impossible. Indeed, everyday life would be impossible and everyday events would be incomprehensible.

 I will try to get to your other posts, you are really wise.... I am learning a lot from you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 (1)
 Message 50 of 124 (707328) 09-26-2013 11:41 AM Reply to: Message 41 by Ra3MaN09-26-2013 4:17 AM

 I was wrong to Judge. I was more referring to his disregard for other people regarding their beliefs. This could include anyone, even his superiors even a Catholic god. Technically he is disregarding anyone how has opposing beliefs. profanity is a simple substitute for a well thought out challenge/insult in my opinion.

Well, I think he's explained himself very well. And he's right. Crude, but right. You can't suppress the truth just because it might upset someone. There are (still) people who believe on religious grounds that the Earth is flat. Does that mean that we should shut up about the evidence that it's an oblate spheroid? No, let us rather say along with Catholic Scientist: "Fuck 'em". We don't have to be mean to them, we don't have to call them names, and we don't have to say to their faces: "Fuck you". And yet we shouldn't have to keep quiet about what shape the Earth is just to protect their delicate sensibilities. If a true thing is true, then we should say it, even though this demonstrates "disregard for other people regarding their beliefs".

 I guess this is a separate topic, but in terms of evolution, who does man answer to? private message me....

OK.

 This message is a reply to: Message 41 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:17 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-26-2013 12:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18822
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9

 (1)
 Message 51 of 124 (707340) 09-26-2013 12:15 PM Reply to: Message 42 by Ra3MaN09-26-2013 4:38 AM

 Ra3MaN writes: "we are working on it...."

When we stop working on it, that's when you should start worrying. Remember the goober who wanted to close the U.S. Patent Office a century or so ago because there was nothing left to be invented?

 Ra3MaN writes:how much of my questions can really be answered?

When you start getting pat answers to your questions, that's when you should start worrying. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:38 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 52 of 124 (707344) 09-26-2013 12:31 PM Reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate09-26-2013 11:41 AM

 No, let us rather say along with Catholic Scientist: "Fuck 'em". We don't have to be mean to them, we don't have to call them names, and we don't have to say to their faces: "Fuck you". And yet we shouldn't have to keep quiet about what shape the Earth is just to protect their delicate sensibilities.

That's exactly what I meant.

I didn't mean that we should say "Fuck them!", like they're assholes. Like: Fuck those jerks!

I meant it like: "Meh, *shrugs*, fuck 'em.

Like this:

In response to: "But your research is challenging people's beliefs"

Let "bowling" = "continue to do science"

 This message is a reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2013 11:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Ra3MaN
Member (Idle past 2520 days)
Posts: 31
From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: 09-23-2013

 (2)
 Message 53 of 124 (707403) 09-27-2013 3:18 AM

Thanks for all the comments, I can't answer every single one... But I understand what you all are getting at.

I can't say that I will give up on my beliefs just yet. I will however try to test what I believe. The name of the game is scrutiny... I think this arguments here will definitely make me better in the lab too.

I see that Science as well as origin studies are still developing, so i will keep my mind open to the notions presented here...

 Replies to this message: Message 54 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2013 4:39 AM Ra3MaN has responded Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-27-2013 8:14 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010

 (1)
 Message 54 of 124 (707408) 09-27-2013 4:39 AM Reply to: Message 53 by Ra3MaN09-27-2013 3:18 AM

I'm not too sure why you wrote this:

 Ra3MaN writes:I can't say that I will give up on my beliefs just yet. I will however try to test what I believe. The name of the game is scrutiny... I think this arguments here will definitely make me better in the lab too.
Are you under the impression that you have to give up your religious beliefs when accepting scientific theories? Is that what you mean by it? Is it your opinion that you can be either religious, or accept scientic theories? Not both?

If you do; you don't have to feel that way.

Did you get your information from creationist websites? Don't.

From my experience, a very, very large percentage (more than half) of the scientists in our country are religious (mostly Christian, but with a smaller number of Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs). Yet, they accept scientific theories such as the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang, etc.

The very, very small percentage of religious scientists who reject those theories (I've personally only met one of them in this country in my entire life) who reject those theories do it because of very fundamentalist Churches imported from the US.

The mainline Christian Churches either accept those theories or have not officially expressed any opinion on it.

It's OK to be a Christian or Muslim and accept scientific theories. You don't have to choose.

 This message is a reply to: Message 53 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 3:18 AM Ra3MaN has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Pressie has responded

Ra3MaN
Member (Idle past 2520 days)
Posts: 31
From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: 09-23-2013

 Message 55 of 124 (707410) 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Reply to: Message 54 by Pressie09-27-2013 4:39 AM

 Are you under the impression that you have to give up your religious beliefs when accepting scientific theories?

Yes. How can you support the argument that a Creator did it, as well as the argument that nothing did it? I think this is an entirely new topic though...

 It's OK to be a Christian or Muslim and accept scientific theories. You don't have to choose

I am in science, and I have molecular biology background. I can only say that I can't hold both views in equality, I tend to believe the one and test the other with extreme prejudice. What you believe will be reflected by how you live.

Edited by Ra3MaN, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 54 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2013 4:39 AM Pressie has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2013 6:53 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded Message 57 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2013 6:58 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded Message 59 by Percy, posted 09-27-2013 8:32 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded Message 60 by jar, posted 09-27-2013 9:12 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010

 Message 56 of 124 (707413) 09-27-2013 6:53 AM Reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN09-27-2013 5:04 AM

 Ra3Man writes:Yes.
I'm not too sure why a false dichotomy impresses you so much at all.

 Ra3Man writes: How can you support the argument that a Creator did it,...
It doesn't seem as if those many religious scientists have a problem with accepting the theory of evolution , the Big Bang, etc. and a creator.

 Ra3Man writes:... as well as the argument that nothing did it?
I've never, ever seen any scientist making the argument that 'nothing did it'.

The closest to it was Hawking in 'A Universe from Nothing'. However, he defined what he meant with 'nothing'. And it had nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 Ra3Man writes:... I think this is an entirely new topic though...
Yes, but what you wrote in the initial topic didn't make any sense.

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010

 Message 57 of 124 (707414) 09-27-2013 6:58 AM Reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN09-27-2013 5:04 AM

 Ra3Man writes:I can only say that I can't hold both views in equality,....
It doesn't seem to bother all those scientists who do that too much.

 Ra3Man writes: I tend to believe the one and test the other with extreme prejudice.
Scientific theories are not believed, they are accepted. It seems as if you are confusing the words' belief' and 'accept'. They're not the same.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2

 Message 58 of 124 (707418) 09-27-2013 8:14 AM Reply to: Message 53 by Ra3MaN09-27-2013 3:18 AM

 Ra3MaN writes:I can't say that I will give up on my beliefs just yet.

You mean religious beliefs? No one expects you to give up your religious beliefs. But the origin of life and the age of the Earth have nothing to do with your relationship with God. You can understand the story the evidence tells us without changing your spirituality.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 53 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 3:18 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2013 11:12 AM Percy has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19880
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2

 Message 59 of 124 (707420) 09-27-2013 8:32 AM Reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN09-27-2013 5:04 AM

 Ra3MaN writes:What you believe will be reflected by how you live.

How would accepting that, for example, the Earth is ancient affect the way you live your life? However in the world could scientific theories based only upon cold, hard facts affect your morality? Are you afraid that if the Earth is ancient then the Bible is wrong and so is its morality?

If there were truly a connection between religious belief and morality then atheists would be the worst criminals on the planet, but atheists commit fewer crimes than almost any other group.

 I am in science,...

You're in science and you're arguing the "If no one was there how could you ever know" point of view? Seriously?

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1

 Message 60 of 124 (707425) 09-27-2013 9:12 AM Reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN09-27-2013 5:04 AM

The false dichotomy is thinking you must give up your faith.
I am a Christian, raised in a Christian family, educated in a Christian school and I am active in my faith, have helped found new parishes, helped physically build new churches, taught adult and youth Sunday school and currently webmaster for about a half dozen Christian churches yet have no problems between my faith and what we have learned in science.

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was the person that initially proposed the Big Bang theory. He found no conflict between his faith and that theory.

I was introduced to Darwin in class at an Episcopal church introduction to biology and evolution class and in Sacred Studies class. Neither the biology teacher or the priest teaching Sacred Studies had any problem with the Theory of Evolution.

Is there any reason that God, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen could not use the very tools He created?

Remember, if God really is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then it is the Universe that God actually wrote, not the Bible.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-27-2013 5:04 AM Ra3MaN has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)