Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

You seem to be overvaluing direct observation, and discounting indirect observation.

There is ample evidence in the fossil record. Not to the extent you seem to want, but that's not the standard used by science.

Your evidentiary standard basically invalidates any form of history.

You misunderstand Polonius. I am not saying that there is no proof for the theory of evolution. I am not saying what proof there is in its favour is invalid.
No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.

And I think I'm right on that score. I mean, there are a multitude of different ways right here and now, that I could prove to myself that the earth orbits the sun, from mapping the stars, to getting into a spaceship to go and watching it happen. Evolution? Not quite so many.

Then your point is... what, exactly? That some things are more complicated to show then others?

To requote:-

No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.

Also, not for nothing, but it actually took hundreds of years for evidence to mount that heliocentrism is correct.

In fact, you, as a direct observer, have a better chance of finding evidence for evolution than for heliocentrism.

So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?

 Ketara wrote:

No, what I am saying is that there is not as nearly as much proof to support the theory of evolution as there is the fact that the earth orbits the sun. Which was the original analogy that I responded to.

I guess it depends how you count evidence, but the amount of evidence for a theory doesn't matter nearly as much as the evidence in opposition. Which for both is just about zero.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?

Well. I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact, but as I've said several times throughout, I was just responding to a bad analogy. So more or less.

I'm not entirely sure why people keep trying to tell me I'm religious, or telling me what I really mean is that evolution is incorrect.

 Ketara wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?

Well. I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact, but as I've said several times throughout, I was just responding to a bad analogy. So more or less.

I'm not entirely sure why people keep trying to tell me I'm religious, or telling me what I really mean is that evolution is incorrect.

It did look like you were arguing against evolution in a few places.

It's because "young people today".

I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact

Everything in science is always a theory. The theory of gravity is still a theory, it's not the fact of gravity.
It's very likely that the theory that the earth orbits the sun is correct, almost certain even, but there's always a chance that we've misunderstood orbital mechanics.

It's the same way with evolution. There's a small chance that science has it wrong, but it's not at all likely that evolution isn't a real thing that happens.
.

 Ketara wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Not quite. There is a certain logic to the whole, 'God created everything' aspect, it simply requires acceptance of the fact that we do not completely understand the laws of space and time as currently exist. The fact of which is more or less supported by current scientific observation of sub-atomic particles.

Yet by saying that we are making the huge assumption that we some how know there is some kind of deity that created everything.

I never said that we had to assume he existed. Rather that saying 'God does not exist' is not the safe logical assertion that Peregrine claimed it was.

As things stand, we watch matter do all sorts of crazy things. We cannot physically detect gravity. There are many physics puzzles yet to be solved. The only current assertion that is logically feasible is, 'Under our current understanding of physics, God does not exist'. But knowing that our current understanding of physics is far from complete, that becomes something of a pointless statement.

I'm going to preface this block of text by saying what follows isn't necessarily a response, but a comment spawned by reading the above.

the problem here is that god needs to be a self-aware being that transcends time and space. We've reached the point of understanding where in order for such a thing to be true, the laws of physics could not be as we have discovered them. Once the universe was set in motion, everything else that spawned from it was the product of chance and consequence. If, say, we don't understand something, and we blame the mechanism that makes it work on God, that's not an answer--that's hubris. If in a moment of ignorance you invoke God to make your solution work, you are proposing a solution, a solution that implies nobody look further because what ever it is that's there cannot be further understood. Such a conclusion has been made time and again throughout history by the religious, including Isaac Newton.
He couldn't work out why the orbit of the planets was so stable because his solutions revealed a decay that resulted in stellar chaos, and instead of admitting that he was missing something, he chose to blame God for the stability of the and setting everything right again. We have since discovered that the orbit of the planets is fare more stable than Newton imagined. Had he admitted to a lack of understanding, it might have taken less than the approximate 200 years for the understanding of the motions of the bodies in our solar system to have developed further.
Biology is applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied Physics. It's not that god can or can't be proven, it's that he simply isn't a part of the system, and god can be reduced to a social construct for controlling people. If god were to have been such a certainty, why would he have undertaking to reveal himself in two--or three--different ways (ala christianity, judaism and islam)?. Why then too is it that the aboriginese in australia and the micronesians, don't have the same appreciation for the bible or some permutation of it that can be recognized as being of the same source? Why is there no narrative from any part of america that resembles the old testament? (I recall encountering a christian leaflet, insidiously and subversively disguised in native north american prose and folk-lore, and I remember being incredibly infuriated: these people have suffered enough without adding to the cultural trauma by insidiously corroding their cultural history, but, that's an aside, and because I apparently like the sound of my own voice can't bring myself to omit) Why is it that pagan european systems of belief fail to share that same similarity? If there really is a god, and the being actively chose to reveal itself in such a way as to cause humanity to tear into itself, then that's not the sign of any benevolent creator, but a malign and warped entity seeking cruel amusement. This interpretation however is also inconsistent, because of a lack of consistent behaviour. This being the case, we are back to where I started, asserting that if god exists, then that existence is as a schizophrenic, or a construct propagated throughout social history.
We can explain how we arrived at today fairly accurately. There are many many gaps, but the gaps are shrinking and we are becoming more certain of the solutions we have proposed for filling the gaps. Science is a graveyard of old and abandoned ideas? Yes, so what? Metaphysics and religion aren't? I wonder how many primordial creators were forgotten by virtue of the fact that the civilization or faith that conceived of it was wiped off of the earth before the idea could be passed to the next generation. True, we don't know what originated the universe, but blaming it on God is not an answer. Whether or not the existence of God is supported by physics, chemistry or biology is irrelevant. Sentience/self-awareness is dependent on bio-chemisty (so far.... we have not as yet discovered any robot overlords, and while I grant it would be possible to create a sentient and self-aware machine, attempts to do so have been met with failure). God doesn't fit into that picture of sentience, though he fits very nicely into metaphysical discussion. Any position that metaphysics bears relevance on the study of the natural world is absurd. The day I see another species on this planet engaging in a metaphysical discussion, having a faith resembling the Judeochristian basis and having arrived there independently, then I'm willing to consider the existence of such a being as advocated by western religion.

well... ... .... ...and that's my lunch break. Back to work.

I'm not sure how you can accept microevolution and not accept macroevolution.

Leave something evolving a small amount enough generations and then compare it with the thing it started out as and you will have two very different things...

That is just 100 years.

That's still a dog, not the missing man-dog link!

Quit testing our faith with science great satan!

 djones520 wrote:


That is just 100 years.

Er...dog's just in a different stance.

EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...

 Ketara wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
So all of that was because there is a discrepancy in the amount of evidence for the two theories, not because you have any disagreement with either of them?

Well. I'm not sure the earth orbiting the sun is a theory so much as a fact, but as I've said several times throughout, I was just responding to a bad analogy. So more or less.

I'm not entirely sure why people keep trying to tell me I'm religious, or telling me what I really mean is that evolution is incorrect.

It isn't a bad analogy and nothing you have said supports your claim. You have ignored the massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution and what evidence you haven't ignored you have diminished by claiming "it's not good enough." Using terrible evidence to prove the heliocentric theory (man has seen the earth orbit the sun when they went into space?) while dismissing evolution is just a "theory" does nothing but prove your lack of understanding science.

Evolution is a theory and a fact.

 Ketara wrote:

Incorrect. The theory of evolution would not be adapted. It would be the theory of evolution being disproved, and replaced with another theory, namely that of an alien space station causing mutations instead of it randomly and naturally occurring (The Theory of Alien mutation?).

Regardless, the point originally made was that we can currently and empirically measure/watch the earth orbiting the sun. Chaps have gone up in spacecraft to see it happen, and orbital telescopes track their own movement and that of Earth. Whereas evolution remains a 'theory'.

Removing large chunks of my post doesn't mean they never existed, I pointed out that your assertion was flawed by using the exact same example, the alien construct in orbit of Venus. Our observations of stellar movements are no more reliable than any other scientific observations in the context you put forward; an external entity manipulating the process being observed. And again, I explained why the Theory of Evolution would not necessarily be disproved by the revelation you proposed; it would depend on what observations currently explained by Evolution or other Theories were being manipulated.

It's the difference between the theory of gravity, and me walking along the pavement on a daily basis without falling off the world. On the first count, there is the possibility of another theory supplanting the theory of gravity. Discounting matrix style explanations, me walking along the pavement will continue to be me walking along the pavement, regardless of updates in scientific theory. Likewise, the earth will continue orbiting the sun regardless of changes in theories of astrophysics.

In other words, I was pointing out a bad analogy. Evolution is not 'as much of a fact as the earth orbiting the sun'.

It is, because the difference you claim exists doesn't. We can observe Evolution directly, with our own eyes, and have done on countless occasions. We can observe it in the short term in mammalian species including ourselves, and other macro organisms; and we can observe it in the long term using rodents and micro organisms like bacteria and viruses. Those processes we have observed will continue happening in exactly the same way the Earth revolves around the sun, and the Theory of Evolution, while like all scientific Theories in that it is not "truth" per se, has had every bit as much effort and rigor devoted to its creation and refinement as the other "big name" Theories. We're talking about the work of tens of thousands of scientists over the course of more than a century, all of them contributing to a Theory which has not merely survived but been vindicated and reinforced by subsequent discoveries in multiple fields, from Genetics to Paleontology. Evolution underpins vast swathes of modern Medicine, it informs work in every aspect of Biological research.

I don't understand why people have such a problem with Evolution in this regard; Newtonian Physics was amended and then supplanted by first Special and then General Relativity, and then again by Quantum Mechanics, and may be once again by String Theory or Brane Theory or M-Theory, yet there are no serious organised calls for "Biblical Physics" to be taught in schools, there's no widespread questioning of the integrity of Physicists, nobody refuses to accept analogies which compare the Standard Model to other equally well-established scientific concepts.

Polonius: I'll concede that it was probably an unhelpful remark, but I assure you I have a solid grasp of the concept, and it is applicable; the religious scientist knows that observed reality often challenges and even outright refutes his religious beliefs, the various "faith needs no evidence", "God was just a guiding hand, the process itself is valid and correct", are the mental gymnastics they require to alleviate the discomfort of the dissonance.

Your personal brand of religion sounds very accommodating and inoffensive, it's not something I feel any need to argue against or challenge, but that we presently live in a secular context which allows for individuals to select their beliefs a la carte doesn't undermine my point that, until very recently, core aspects of the world's major religions revolved around mystical and mythical explanations of phenomena which are now explained via the scientific method, and this has led to the religions and their deities becoming narrower in scope, at least outwith their literalist and fanatical elements. You may not consider God's infinite micromanagement of every aspect of reality, or everyday phenomena being manifestations of God's will or emotional state as being core aspects of God or of faith, but those religions did.

I still say that if I were a supreme being, and began the cycle of life on a planet of my creation, the capability to evolve and adapt would be among the very first things I would instill in my creations.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I still say that if I were a supreme being, and began the cycle of life on a planet of my creation, the capability to evolve and adapt would be among the very first things I would instill in my creations.

Life has been adapting and evolving since the beginning. Bacteria in a petri dish will adapt and evolve, eventually mutating into entire new species.

It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered. And when it was discovered, iirc it was rather uncontroveraial until its implications on humanity's origina were sensationalised in public.

This then begs the question, why was the idea of one type of turtle evolving into another type of turtle accepted, when the thought of our own species having evolved from a form of ape was regarded with such revultion? I think within that question lies the answer to the idea of god... And whether or not you think that humanity is nothing more than its genetic code.

xruslanx wrote:

It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered.

Huh?

well, does something really exist if it has not been observed to exist? Don't we define existance as being that which we can perceive?

xruslanx wrote:
well, does something really exist if it has not been observed to exist? Don't we define existance as being that which we can perceive?

That is heading toward solopsism more then any practical definition of reality. There are all sorts of things we can't perceive that we know exist, such as gravity, atoms, bacteria, and Ryan Seacrest.

Now I know I've had my disagreements here, but have we reached the "if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound" level now?

xruslanx wrote:
It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered.

Huh?

And when it was discovered, iirc it was rather uncontroveraial until its implications on humanity's origina were sensationalised in public.

The idea of descent with modification has roots in antiquity: Greek, Roman, Chinese, and medieval Islamic scholars all proposed that animals could descend from other animals.

This then begs the question, why was the idea of one type of turtle evolving into another type of turtle accepted, when the thought of our own species having evolved from a form of ape was regarded with such revultion? I think within that question lies the answer to the idea of god... And whether or not you think that humanity is nothing more than its genetic code.

Because traditional Christian teachings place man in a unique position in relation to animals because we were created in God's own image, unlike animals who created for man to have dominion over (Genesis 1:26-27). Counter that with the idea that man is just the product of billions or years of evolution and it is easy to why people are revolted by it; they were taught that God made them "special."

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


That is just 100 years.

Er...dog's just in a different stance.

EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...

Actually the first one looks more like an American Staffordshire Terrier.A.K.A Pit bull.

A bull terrier is the Spuds Mcenzy dog



And what was pointed out...even if they were the same breed of dog, that would only be an indication of microevolution.

And also before the chorus of "All it takes is time" crowd starts up again..I know that this is partly the difference, but there is also the issue that microevolution is observable/indisputable, while macro is not observable. Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.

GG

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
It is also debateable whether or not evolution actually existed before it was discovered.

Huh?

And when it was discovered, iirc it was rather uncontroveraial until its implications on humanity's origina were sensationalised in public.

The idea of descent with modification has roots in antiquity: Greek, Roman, Chinese, and medieval Islamic scholars all proposed that animals could descend from other animals.

This then begs the question, why was the idea of one type of turtle evolving into another type of turtle accepted, when the thought of our own species having evolved from a form of ape was regarded with such revultion? I think within that question lies the answer to the idea of god... And whether or not you think that humanity is nothing more than its genetic code.

Because traditional Christian teachings place man in a unique position in relation to animals because we were created in God's own image, unlike animals who created for man to have dominion over (Genesis 1:26-27). Counter that with the idea that man is just the product of billions or years of evolution and it is easy to why people are revolted by it; they were taught that God made them "special."

So you think that humanity is no different than other animals? You don't think our capacity to learn and understand and debate places us above the rest of creation?

I think that a view of humanity as being different from and superior to animals is fairly widespread. Certainly many islamic schools in the uk teach creationism, far more than christian schools do, and a belief in evolution is very low in many religious countries. It is very obliously not a freak medieval christian accident.

 generalgrog wrote:
while macro is not observable.

Only because creationists define "observable" as "happening in a lab under controlled conditions" and dismiss all of the other evidence that existing species diverged from a common ancestor, and then dismiss any proposed lab examples as "just microevolution". In reality the division between micro and macro is completely arbitrary, the mechanics are exactly the same. You can't accept one without accepting the other.

Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.

That's like saying you have to accept that 1+1=2. The earth is indisputably billions of years old, end of discussion. Objecting to that age is in the same category as the crazy guy on the corner screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.

 Peregrine wrote:
Objecting to that age is in the same category as the crazy guy on the corner screaming about black helicopters and mind control in the chemtrails.

Well then why do I keep hearing rotor noises at night and voting for Clive Palmer?

And for the record I agree that the whole not-accepting-old-earth thing is pretty nuts, even by the standards of a lot of the current world.

 motyak wrote:
Well then why do I keep hearing rotor noises at night and voting for Clive Palmer?

Oh, don't worry, the black helicopters and chemtrails are real. It's just not rational to believe in them.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


That is just 100 years.

Er...dog's just in a different stance.

EDIT: Actually, one looks like a bull terrier and the newer pick is a boxer...

Actually the first one looks more like an American Staffordshire Terrier.A.K.A Pit bull.

A bull terrier is the Spuds Mcenzy dog



And what was pointed out...even if they were the same breed of dog, that would only be an indication of microevolution.

And also before the chorus of "All it takes is time" crowd starts up again..I know that this is partly the difference, but there is also the issue that microevolution is observable/indisputable, while macro is not observable. Also you have to accept old earth..I.E. millions of years to accept macro. not everyone does accept this.

GG

You are aware that dormant genes from previous evolutionary forms have been found in animal dna, right? Macro evolution is an undesputable fact now.

xruslanx wrote:

So you think that humanity is no different than other animals? You don't think our capacity to learn and understand and debate places us above the rest of creation?

Perhaps from the sentimentality of placing higher value upon our own kind, and from the novelty of the fact that we're the only species on Earth to have reached such a level (although this could be a necessity of competition for our specific niche, we did, after all, end up killing the gak out of the neanderthals), but outside from that, not really.
Our evolution into what we are today arose more from circumstance than anything else. Our unique adaptations over eons of evolution served to turn us into the dominant species, but that doesn't make them inherently special.

I think that a view of humanity as being different from and superior to animals is fairly widespread. Certainly many islamic schools in the uk teach creationism, far more than christian schools do, and a belief in evolution is very low in many religious countries. It is very obliously not a freak medieval christian accident.

That doesn't make it any less wrong.

do you not measure success or acheivement then? You don't believe in advancement or any superiority of one thing over another?

If you do, then by what criteria do you use?