Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 10:13 AM
28 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,634 Year: 3,671/19,786 Month: 666/1,087 Week: 35/221 Day: 6/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Darwin's Greatest Mistake?
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 24 (108396)
05-15-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
05-15-2004 11:45 AM


Re: would they?
Very good point Ned. And unfortunately, you may well be right.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 05-15-2004 11:45 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 24 (108397)
05-15-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
05-15-2004 11:45 AM


Where is beauty then?
quote:

If you have a friend who is a theoretical physicist and you wish to upset him or her, you simply say to them, 'That latest theory of yours looks rather ugly and contrived to me'. They will be very upset, because you are saying to them 'It doesn't have that indispensable character of mathematical beauty'. When we use mathematics in that way, as a key to unlock the secrets of the universe, something very peculiar is happening. You see - what is mathematics? Mathematics is the free exploration of the human mind. Our mathematical friends sit in their studies, and out of their heads they dream up the beautiful patterns of mathematics. If mathematics is not your subject, just think of mathematics as being a pattern-creating, pattern-analyzing subject. What I'm saying is that some of the most beautiful patterns thought up by the mathematicians are found actually to occur in the structure of the physical world around us. In other words, there is some deep-seated relationship between the reason within (the rationality of our minds - in this case mathematics) and the reason without (the rational order and structure of the physical world around us). The two fit together like a glove. If you stop to think about it, I think you'll see that is a rather significant fact about the world. It's a fact about the world that the mathematicians, in their very modest way of speaking, would describe as non-trivial. Non-trivial is a mathematical word meaning highly significant! Not only does it strike me as significant, but it also struck Einstein that way, which is perhaps more interesting. Einstein once said, "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". Why are our minds so perfectly shaped to understand the deep patterns of the world around us?

If you at once deny mathematical proof AND beauty sure you have materialism but is that going to be anything but regress for science it self. At best it approaches the unconditioned in a different way but the question was IF ascent would be better than descent not the other way around. There is ugly art and pretty art but there can only be one nature of science. I do not think that this world is simply spittle bugs' guts because I think Russsel misjudged Cantor. But that's me. see also http://www.polkinghorne.org/ where this quote was taken from "religion in an age of science"
Yes there is room for economics to alter this opnion of/from Einstein by use of macrothermodynamics but I hope we all here will get to understand that before some new economic sector makes EvC obsolete then.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 10:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 05-15-2004 11:45 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 24 (108399)
05-15-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
05-15-2004 11:48 AM


Re: Progress?
You would be wrong in my understanding for Will Provine used FAR MORE EMOTION to maintain his position before me than Henry Morris. I do not have any sense of John Morris however. Marjore Green and I agreed evolutionarily together that Will was scientifically (perhaps not historically in some sense) wrong.

Ok then, NO THE TITLE has nothing to do with it (unless you believe also in Darwin's right angle of a seed capsule in his power of motion in plants.). This being the internet, I can imagine Rhain latching on to that! The concept is not Darwins as you know. I personally liked Kant's version pretty much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 05-15-2004 11:48 AM jar has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 19 of 24 (125669)
07-19-2004 12:07 PM


that requires a misconceived assumption that descent translates automatically to deminished, declined, lessen, worse.

descendants? those who follow after you?

on another note.
the ascent of stan. textbook hippie man.


  
Bushido
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 24 (128073)
07-27-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-15-2004 10:51 AM


Faith is on Both Sides of the Double Edged Sword
I am, in fact, a Christian. But unlike most Christians i beleive that secular resources need to be studied in depth. I try to read as much as i can from Christian scientists and secular scientists, but i question EVERYTHING I read. I find Darwin, Malthus and Lineas' theories to be very intriguing. But don't take everything you read as undeniable truth. God gave us a mind, so we must use it to our full extent. QUESTION EVERYTHING!

quote:
They are insecure and threatened, and go to rediculous lengths, making all kinds of illogical assumptions, just to avoid being only Just Another Primate.

Now I, myself, am many things, but insecure and threatened I am not. You see, if everyone just studied each side of the argument equally, they would see that BOTH evolutionists and creationists have well backed scientific arguements which, in their purity, are not illogical assumptions. Likewise, BOTH evolutionists and creationists have to depend on their own faith to a certain extent.
Science has only taught us so much. Creationists must rely on their applications of scientific fact and their faith that God, the Creator, created something from nothing. Evolutionists, as well, depend on their interpretation of scientific fact applied to their theory, but also must require a certain amount of faith within their belefief evolution (chance) has created something out of nothing. I think it takes as much faith after looking at the mathematical probability of a fluxuation causing subatomic particles to collide and BANG! life is created as it does to beleive that an omnipotent being said SNAP! life is created. As the Creator is God to the theistic, chance is god to the atheistic.
Let's face it. Science has not yet proven evolution to be undeniably true, just like the creationist theory has not been proven undeniable true through science.
Both sides of this arguement require a degree of faith. It is impossible to beleive in either theory without this.

quote:
They couch their arguments in terms of being anti-evolution, but under it all, I believe their real point is that they do not want to be just another APE.

Now a TRUE Christian, one who strives too be Christ-like, would truly be offened at this statement since a true Christian seeks a life of humility. Being associated ancestraly with any primate would be to high of a position of purity since apes rarely kill each other or abort their own children which human beings seem so able and willing to do. Unfortunately, not all who CLAIM to be Christian exhibit this humble quality. So, I would have to say that your above statement is partially correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-15-2004 10:51 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 3:25 PM Bushido has not yet responded
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2004 4:41 PM Bushido has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 4:55 PM Bushido has not yet responded

  
Gastric ReFlux
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 24 (128078)
07-27-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
05-14-2004 12:32 PM


No, there would still be opposition because of how evolutionary theory is in direct contradiction of a literal interpretation of the Bible. The literalists could likely be even more dismayed by the word "Ascent."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 05-14-2004 12:32 PM jar has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8839
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 24 (128114)
07-27-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Bushido
07-27-2004 12:17 PM


Re: Faith is on Both Sides of the Double Edged Sword
they would see that BOTH evolutionists and creationists have well backed scientific arguements which, in their purity, are not illogical assumptions

It isn't appropriate in this thread -- the topic is "Darwin's Greatest Mistake" -- but I would like you to propse a thread on the creationists well-backed scientific arguements. Haven't seen them yet.

Both sides of this arguement require a degree of faith. It is impossible to beleive in either theory without this.

This is yet another interesting topic to propose. I'd love to see the list of things that must be taken of faith by the biologists.
If this:

but also must require a certain amount of faith within their belefief evolution (chance) has created something out of nothing.

is an example you have it very wrong. That is not a belief of biolgists involved with the evolution. Biological evolution is not a theory about chance creating something out of nothing. All that tells me is that you are discussing something without knowing enough about it.

Separately from that, the mechanisms of biological evolution have been shown, conclusively, to be capable of "creating" the kinds of patterns necessary for and shown to be in biologically evolved things. Again, you can't discuss things you know little about.

BTW, welcome to the forum. You'll find people reasonably hospitable (or else) as long as you are but you will not find people overly gentle if you haven't thought things through and can't back up what you say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Bushido, posted 07-27-2004 12:17 PM Bushido has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 24 (128136)
07-27-2004 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Bushido
07-27-2004 12:17 PM


Both sides of this arguement require a degree of faith.

The reason this isn't true is because you don't understand how scientists believe things.

As scientists, we don't believe that evolution is true. We believe that it is the most accurate explanation for the history of life on earth, subject to revision in the light of new data.

Scientists don't have "faith" in their theories because science is not the search for truth, though many, including you, are under the misapprehension that it is.

Science is nothing but the search for the most accurate model. Truth is not necessarily accessable to the human mind, this is a philosophical reality that's been known for decades.

So, there's no faith in science. It doesn't take faith to accept evolution because science has demonstrated that it's the most accurate explanation for the history of life on earth that we know of. "Proof" is not something that happens in science; proof is for algebra and alcohol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Bushido, posted 07-27-2004 12:17 PM Bushido has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 24 (128139)
07-27-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Bushido
07-27-2004 12:17 PM


Re: Faith is on Both Sides of the Double Edged Sword
quote:
I mean evos have had millions and millions of man-hours put into their theory, so I cannot hope to compete,

Just a quick comment, and then back to the topic. The evidence that science bases it's theories on are objective in nature. You don't have to take anyone's word on anything, you can go measure it yourself. Just as I have faith in a book that lists the height of the Empire State Building at such and such a height. Why would someone lie about it when anyone can measure it themselves? The theories that science constructs are potentially falsifiable, also. The theories state what kind of evidence would refute the theory, and this evidence is potentially measurable and observable. Contrast this with creationism that bases it's theory on the subjective nature of spiritual revelation. This is something that can not be reliable measured or observed. It does take faith, but entirely different types of faith; tentative faith and blind faith.

quote:
Let's face it. Science has not yet proven evolution to be undeniably true, just like the creationist theory has not been proven undeniable true through science.

Nothing in science is absolutely true, but somethings are absolutely false. You can prove a negative, but never a positive. A literal interpretation of Genesis has been shown to be false by the evidence, not by evolution. Once a theory is falsified (see geocentrism) it is no longer part of science.

quote:
Now a TRUE Christian, one who strives too be Christ-like, would truly be offened at this statement since a true Christian seeks a life of humility.

And in their supposed humility they think that their interpretation of the Bible trumps the evidence in God's creation. This is far from being humble, telling God how he created instead of letting God tell them through his creation.

As to the topic, what do you think Darwin's biggest mistake was? I think he didn't fully understand the exact mechanisms of inheritance, and so some of his ideas on the forces behind natural selection were a little off. Also, in subsequent books he also talked about the inferiority of some human races as compared to the superiority of some human races. He took his biological theories and tried to transfer them into sociological theories, a big mistake. Scientific theories suffer inaccuracy when they are misapplied, as is the case of pushing the laws of thermodynamics into the realm of information.

Another mistake is that he probably should have waited a little longer for more evidence to come forward (such as transitional fossils and the mechanisms behind heredity). Other than that, he did a bang up job, and in a few ways got lucky that a few of his ideas were correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Bushido, posted 07-27-2004 12:17 PM Bushido has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019