A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 1 of 2
We're not really having this debate, are we?
I mean, someone tell me this is a sick joke. Like the torture debate, about whether or not it is morally wrong to pull off children's eyelids, pull their teeth and cut off their fingers and mutilate their genitals. Recently I was having a debate about genocide with a self-styled 'bleeding-heart liberal' who said 'whether or not it's okay depends on the situation.' No, it doesn't. It's never okay.
Here's another one: Evolution
Seriously. There is no question. 1+1=2 and it's not up to debate. There's two groups, those who have some understanding of the underlying math, how things work, and those who don't. There is no one who "believes in evolution" there are people who "understand evolution" It's not a belief, and it is completely not up to debate. It's not a speculation about what happened, it's a rolling juggernaut of everyday life that we all see all of the time, and to not see it is, sorry, to just not be very bright.
There is no debate about the fact that we are needlessly wasting the planets natural fossil fuel supply, which is more serious than the fact that there is also no debate about global warming. There is no debate about what causes AIDS and no debate about whether marijuana is harmful to a developing brain. There is no debate about whether smoking Marlboroughs causes cancer, and no debate about whether deforestation effects global rainfall and biodiversity.
Whether communism or capitalism produces a higher standard of living, is a debate, albeit it a pretty much settled one, but both sides would be actually able to present a case. No debate is when there are not two sides, there's all of the facts of the issue which support position A, and then a group of people who desparately want B to be true because it benefits them.
Seriously, all of you christians out there who don't support evolution because it conflicts with your belief system, you are in group B on that issue. Here's the solution. Go, read, study, learn. Ultimately you will be in group A. Since Jesus never got up and said "Specied did not evolve, they were all placed on Earth in their present form by Jehovah in 3436 BC," the revelation that in fact, evolution is a guiding principle of existance should not throw major shockwaves through your religion.
In fact, the creationist idea we now have was come up with by some random monk or cardinal at some point in the middle ages. There is no debate here guys. There is the informed and the uninformed. Go inform yourselves, and then join us over at the informed table, where we would gladly welcome you.
This is not a shut up and fall in line argument, it's a go get thee self to a library argument. There is no debate to fall in line to.
Picture this. A kid comes into your class, and he says he won't learn his times tables because he doesn't believe in math. What do you do? Do you sit there and debate with him about the historical proof of math? Then do you ask him to present his case that math is a bunch of squiggles which are written through humans by the hand of Satan? Then do you give both sides equal weight and consider arguments evenly, allow the chance that he can convince you of Satanic Squiggle Theory?
No, you don't, because it's not a debate. There is nothing to debate here. The kid says this because he doesn't know math. Ignorance and laziness are his guiding principles. So, people, wake up, learn. Natural selection. Come back when you get it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't disagree with any particular point here. Nor do I consider you an "enemy"--as a matter of fact, I usually enjoy your contribution to discussions. I understand that what you're asking for is for people to educate themselves, not to merely "fall in line". But seriously--how can this come off as anything but arrogant to the people who might disagree with you? Oh, I know, you don't care if they think you're arrogant, 'cause you're not: you're just better informed. But that's pretty well the definition of arrogance. DT, I really respect your thinking, because it is deep and it is thorough, and on most issues it is pretty open minded (or at least enough to recognize that one could examine the evidence and come to different conclusions, even if you disagree). But to simply start a thread listing things that are beyond debate--and to therefore advocate for there to be no discussion of them--is just an embarrassment to our board. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression means that people can believe and say any crazy thing they want--but that freedom doesn't entail that they'll be taken seriously. If people want to "debate" an issue that you think is closed, leave the thread. Or lay out your arguments. The worst that could happen is that you're ignored and you wind up leaving. But please, for the sake of the openness and freedom of these boards, don't degrade your fellow FFF'ers by consigning them to the level of base ignorant wretch if they should disagree to some particular point which you hold as settled beyond debate. Again, I don't disagree on any particular point that you raised; I want to make absolutely clear that that is not the reason for my post. I simply believe, whole-heartedly, that to silence opinion, even a foolish one, is to rob mankind of his greatest boon: the freedom to think as he will and express himself as he will. The silencing of expression is a slippery slope; I would not have this forum slide down it.
John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, expressed it best:
"...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opnion still more that those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Casual is right
its not that we're ingnorant and havent seen the 'facts' as you say; it is that we've seen these facts and are not sufficiently swayed by them; while that does not make our(creationist) view any more or less credible, it does make us more openminded for our willingness to contemplate a transcendence of life from this physical plane. i dont belittle people for disagreeing with my personal wordlview, because i realise that i do not encapsulate the sum of universal knowledge, and am willing to consider variables that exist beyond the measurable material world
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But you haven't seen 'the facts'. Until you take a lot of biochemistry and read the research, you're not even close to 'the facts'. A hand-waving gloss is neither honest nor fair.
For example, another poster on another thread keeps maintaining that you can't 'add' new DNA. This after I posted how indeed you can add 'new DNA', not only through repeats and insertions but also by incorporating whole viral genomes - that in fact most of human DNA IS viral DNA. (The current estimate is roughly 80%.) How is that not adding new DNA? Even the process of repeats and insertions of normal DNA causes a genetic change. (One common example - Down's syndrome, which is normal but extra genetic material cascading down through the entire development.)
Until you do the science you can't evaluate its state.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Casual is right
i dont belittle people for disagreeing with my personal wordlview,
Are the masons not people, 'cause you belittle them often enough. Are Satanists not people, because you also belittle them.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said, DT.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Casual,
You know I don't care about sounding arrogant, true. But you're still not getting it. There is no debate here. I have no points because all of evolution is the point. It's like a flat earth debate. If you had actually travelled around the world, the theoretical elements of the flat earth argument would have no meaning at all. What would you do? Spend all of your time constructing a theoretical argument to shoot down the flat earth argument? Or would you simply say "Sail west, and tell me what you see"
And this is my point. This is NOT a debate. Attempts to make it a debate are just some twisted form of trickery. There is not evidence stacked up on one side and also on the other. I'm trying to shake you and say: wake up, we're not folks who disagree, we're talking about hard cold fact which you didn't bother to study. We don't hold it against you, just study it, and come back to us, knowing that.
Here's the thing. If you knew evolution, and you said, this wasn't natural selection, but there was an engineer here, and I can show you this happening, then, *maybe*, you would have a debate. But to say 'your facts are real' is just a perposterous position. I actually think I can make a better creationist argument than I've seen here, but no amount of creation fact is going to undo the fundamental reality that evolution is an inescapable conclusion of the science of logic and statistics.
I'm not silencing opinion, I'm trying to redirect those who think that they have an opinion toward the correct path, which is that actually, they have a lack of knowledge, and rather than argue it out and essentially ask us to educate them, to go and study the subject.
Antimason
It's as I said, not a debate, not meaning I'm silencing opposition, I mean, a debate has certain characteristics. Intelligent design isn't a science, it's a mass hysteria masquerading as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a failure to accept reality. There's a whole bunch of debate left in evolution, including whether or not there's a hand of God, but reality isn't anywhere near the question of whether or not there is such a thing of evolution every bit as much as it is whether or not there is such a thing as math.
Edit:
Just so you get where I'm coming from: Here's a few other things that this debate would be like if it was a debate:
1. If you drop a nuclear bomb, it will cause life to spread rapidly at ground zero, within minutes of detonation, as opposed to the "firestorm theory."
2. materials which make up organic and inorganic matter are all made of a uniform substance called "god goo" as opposed to the "theory of chemistry."
Evolution is not a theory. Even if people say "theory of evolution." Even natural selection is not a theory. It's possible to say that random mutation is not the guiding principle in the natural selection of evolution, and there are people with that theory, that's a theory, and it opposes the other, and between them can be a debate. But unlike politics and social science, in the hard sciences, or physical sciences, someone is ultimately right, and someone else is wrong. You *can* have a debate about whether it is the radiation or the firestorm which will kill people when you drop a nuke on them, and two sides could present cases, and one could be right. But ultimately, probably one will be right in at least the majority of cases. But you don't have a debate if someone comes in and says "it won't kill people, it will make them healthier." That person just does not yet understand about what we are talking.
So, I re-iterate,
"Sail west, and tell me what you see"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
I actually think you have to read a fair amount, but I think that you don't have to get all that far into it before you realize that there is no debate here. Sure, you can do DNA experiments and prove that someone can add DNA to a live host, but you can also see or read about someone else doing the experiments, and with no reason to doubt it other than 'it's all a huge conspiracy' that every 9th grader is in on, you can accept it as possible. I think the intelligent apporoach is to accept the fact that the balance of evidence is learning toward until you have reason to suspect otherwise. This is not whatn the christians are doing. They've fallen into a common logical fallacy of "I want this to be true, so I will find any way on Earth to rationalize it."
This sort of thing fails when anyone tries it. The facts are whatever they are, regardless of what someone wants them to be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Are the masons not people, 'cause you belittle them often enough. Are Satanists not people, because you also belittle them.
you have a point... but at the same time, no one here admittedly subscribes to occult theology(that being the ancient 'pagan' mysteries of the old world). unless im wrong.. are their any luciferians out there? i dont go out of my way to try and debunk atheists, even if it were possible to prove a transcendant force exists... but because personally its none of my business
but i do object to occultism, because it has at its roots diception and secrecy, and seeks to establish a global government unbeknownst to the masses; that i do find objectionable
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason,
This is a thread jump, but the answer to what guides the creation of organic and inorganic matter out energy is also evolution by natural selection. It's not a biological evolution, but it follows the same principle. In addition, Chaos Theory helps describe that interaction. Chaos theory, like quantum mechanical theory, though speculative, is also not really theoretical. What the specific laws of Chaos and Fractal Geometry are is something we are only beginning to understand, but their existance is not in question.
The evolution 'debate' is not saying it's white not black, it's like say the thing which is either black or white doesn't exist. That's not like saying God doesn't exist, it's like saying religion doesn't exist. It's an absurd position, from any sane perspective.
I am someone who is certain about virtually nothing. I'm not even certain that socialism is unworkable, I just view the balance of evidence and say it's unworkable because it seems to universally fail in its purest form, and fails pretty often in hybrid forms. There are other ideas which fail less often. This doesn't mean more evidence wouldn't change my mind. But evolution is like math, chemistry, language, chaos, and music. I'm aware that they exist. I find it exceedingly unlikely that anything will come up to convince me that they do not exist.
You will have a better chance of convincing me that God exists, and that Jesus is actually his son, and that He has a place for me in heaven than you are of ever convincing me that there is no such thing as evolution. In fact, if you manage to prove #'s 1, 2 and 3, you still will have made little headway on evolution.
If you can put intelligent design into the framework of evolution somehow, you might have a chance, but you cannot deny its existance and expect educated intelligent people to be won over to you position. (But, if you do create some hybrid theory, as always, be wary of what you *want* to be true, because facts don't tend to bend to your wishes)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To be fair, facts are something that have yet to be disproven. They are not set in stone. They are used because they have been proven useful. The theory of evolution has proven pretty useful I think.
Competing theories can be a good thing, but creationism is not a competing theory. It isn't a theory at all. It uses no observable evidence.
What I don't understand is why such a desperate need to debunk evolution? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't Science and spirituality coexist? Aren't there plenty of scientists who are also Christians?
Wouldn't even those of you who are creationists agree that however God must have created the Earth, its way too complex for us to write it out? Couldn't you accept at least the possibility then that the Bible's Genesis is metaphor? A simple way of covering a vastly complex topic so as to get to the point?
Why is there such an insistance on ruling out evolution that you would go to such lengths as to outright ignore empirical evidence?
there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I honestly don't understand why we're giving it time of day.
Cartoon, a religious nut case that would happilly kill all non-believers starts a BS thread about how evolution is wrong because a physicist wrote the foreword for a book that has nothing to do with evolution (i.e. he flat out lies). Another one is started by a defacto troll (who gets on well with Cartoon, that should tell you something) and people are trying to talk to them in a sane and rational way.
Ignore them, ones a troll and the others too stupid to tie his own shoelaces, why bother?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you Cit, for expressing in just four plain sentences, more good sense than I have seen all day.
Bout time some of ya figured it out.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, I have only one or two things to pitch in here.
First, it's my understanding that evolution is indeed a theory. A theory is (in layman's terms) a explanation for a series of observed facts. Then, if there are further facts discovered (by experiment or observation or whatever) they either fit the existing theory, or cause the theory to change to fit the new sum total of the facts. Evolution has been tweaked and fiddled with since it's inception. So the original theory has been disproved, and the current theory will be disproved, and the theory which comes from the new facts will eventually be disproved, but always leading to a new, more complete theory. Extremely (perhaps overly) simplified, but my understanding of the process.
Second, we are not talking about ultimate reality here, only about our perceptions of reality. As I've said before, arguing about whether ID or Creationism or Evolution or Spontaneous Generation is "Truth" is like arguing about the constellations. Are Greek constellations or Chinese constellations real? The stars don't care one whit how we arrange them. It is patterns of perception we are choosing to adopt. The patterns we use to interpret our reality.
You appear to have decided that the scientific method is the best (or only?) way to form these patterns. For Western civilization, that works best 99.99% of the time, if not more. But it's not the only pattern that works.
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Normally, I would agree, but the problem is that people have made this into a debate, which itself is a tremendous corruption of the concept of debate.
Allow me to illustrate. We could have a debate about who was King of England in 1374. The Historinazis would say it was Edward III, but I choose to say it was Mickey Mouse. Hence, there is a debate. Now both sides can provide evidence, and be built up to equal levels and given equal weight. Ultimately, if I fail in my stubborn conviction that it was Mickey Mouse, by yielding no ground, I may instead decide to compromise, and eventually we may all agree that Mickey Mouse was at least Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for my concession than he was not actually King of England. If I have a large number of unquestioning followers, I may even get the rest of you to move from you position that it was Edward III in favor of Richard II.
If we allow this kind of corruption of the concept of debate, then suddenly there are no facts, and everything is simply a matter of opinion.
Which is not the case.
X number of people died in Iraq as the result of the US invasion. There is a truth out there, a fact, which we are seeking, it's not a matter of opinion. We may have different evidence and estimates based on those. People who are > half a million right now are looking pretty close. People < hundred thousand are looking not so close. But the guy who says "FIVE!" is nuts, as is the person who is sticking to their estimate of "ONE BILLION!" But ultimately, there is a right answer. Sure, a little grey area what is *because of* the war, but what is *in* Iraq, and what is *death* are not really up to debate, so somewhere there's a real number.
Whether Bush is morally justified is a matter of opinion. But while we have differing opinions on the total casualties, we all realize that there is a number, as the evidence rolls in, eventually someone is correct.
Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a label for an observed change. Natural selection is a theory that is pretty seriously proven. I don't think there is any room for debate.
DJ,
You're taking the soft argument here, the sort of thing that I think makes the democrats look weak and lose, ie the "We must win the war on terror" position of Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and HR Clinton. I think if the democrats said "There is no War on Terror" they'd be about 100% ahead of where they are now in earning the confidence of their own voters. This is basically why I bothered to make this post, because I think if we allow this kind of time wasting debate which is based on elaborately constructed misleading information, then we are essentially endorsing the idea that "the existance of evolution is an opinion which we choose to support" rather than reality, which is "evolution is a force of nature"
See, the democrats, from taking their weak position, have essentially validated the idea that "there is a war on terror" when in reality, war on terror is something Bush made up, and they go further to validate "war on terror is worth winning, hence, also, worth figthing."
Ergo, it's not always best to give the soft conflict-avoidance argument, because you may be allowing your opponent to redefine the rules in a way which does not conform to reality.
It's not that "the current models of evolution are carved in stone and will never be altered" I'm sure they will be altered. But this is a far cry from "evolution does not exist." Just like when Columbus said "the earth is 8000 miles around," didn't mesh with the final result of "the earth is 25000 miles around" but that alteration did not make the flat earth crowd any more right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
What I don't understand is why such a desperate need to debunk evolution? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't Science and spirituality coexist? Aren't there plenty of scientists who are also Christians?
certainly they do.. i dont think any creationist would argue that they exist seperately; but i think evolutionists hold scientific law supreme, and neglect what unseen force formed the law in the first place, which we have no way of knowing from our vantage point
Quote:
Wouldn't even those of you who are creationists agree that however God must have created the Earth, its way too complex for us to write it out? Couldn't you accept at least the possibility then that the Bible's Genesis is metaphor? A simple way of covering a vastly complex topic so as to get to the point?
well yah, but that should be obvious. when the bible says God spoke something into existence, that doesnt imply automatically that God has a tongue and voice box
Quote:
Why is there such an insistance on ruling out evolution that you would go to such lengths as to outright ignore empirical evidence?
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant
Quote:
there's no major collision of realities here if you don't try so hard to make one. After all, couldn't God have created man through evolution? Why would he be in such a hurry? Can't he sit it out a few billion years as the planet forms? Isn't there something more beautiful about that picture?
look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti: occultism= science?
If that's your opinion then you REALLY don't undertsand science!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you're trying to apply "evolution" to the entire universe then you're applying the word in a way that SCIENTISTS don't use! No wonder you're confused!
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
Yes, they do. Evolution is a statistical principle and it is used to describe how signals come out of noise. It can easily be used to describe the the nature of the universe, and frequently is done by scientists describing things like "the evolution of galaxies" or "the evolution of subatomic particles" and when they do so, it is not a misnomer. They are using the same principles of natural selection to guide their theories of creation. I happen to think they are correct. But whether they are or not, does not change the immutability of either the historical fact of the evolution of species, or the existance of the law of evolution as a statistical principle.
When it comes to galaxies, we really don't know. It's entirely possible that galaxies have actually existed forever, or at least far far longer than we think, and such static state theories are sometimes proposed and imho meet the existing data about as well as the expansionist theories. It's really anybody's guess.
Antimason.
Quote:
Antimason:
certainly they do.. i dont think any creationist would argue that they exist seperately; but i think evolutionists hold scientific law supreme, and neglect what unseen force formed the law in the first place, which we have no way of knowing from our vantage point
I think Christians and new age mystics alike greatly exaggerate what is unknown. It's not that we have a wild speculation about science. That's like saying there's a lot of speculation about the existance of language. I think it's pretty well known that language exists, not everything is really up to debate.
I agree, however, that scientists are often wrong, and often pig-headedly stubborn when they are wrong. Often they are even pigheadedly wrong about evolution.
Quote:
well yah, but that should be obvious. when the bible says God spoke something into existence, that doesnt imply automatically that God has a tongue and voice box
This is reasonable. But I think us on the evolution side run into a lot of folks who say "yeah, God literally spoke, becaue God is a man-like being because he made us in our image" (which imho sounds a little arrogant.)
Quote:
we arent ignoring it. it seems though with 'evolution', that we're taking one form of measurement, and applying it to everything in existence; which i am not willing to do yet. i acknowledge that evolution occurs, but i do not believe it is the primary law of the universe; i dont see how we could possibly measure or detect every variable neccessary to determine that evolution is thee fundemental universal constant
This is also a reasonable argument. I think this is not the argument we are typically presented with. The "evolution didn't happen" argument, I hope you'll grant is a denial.
Why evolution happened, and why it has taken us to this point, is, sure, by all means, open to debate. That evolution happened is a matter of historical record. Or, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
Quote:
look, its possible for us to fit evolution within a creationist worldview... but if you ask the athiests around here, an evolutionary worldview has no room for an intelligent creator
That's not so. It's the other way around. Christians, other than you, are asking us to throw out what really happened in exchange for an elaborately constructed fantasy, an idea to which we are naturally resistant.
Personally, I don't believe there is a creator and a design, because if there is such, it's beyond my perception, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, it's just a speculation. But saying that there is - is not the argument which is causing so much trouble. The argument "evolution didn't happen" is one of "this event didn't happen because it's inconvenient for me, it doesn't match my world view," which is also why, godwin aside, "holocaust didn't happen" is such a problem. I would agree, however, that europes new law which says essentially "you can't question the holocaust" is wrong. For instance
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now for a cogent answer...
Creating controversy about settled topics is a well-known rhetorical tactic. If I said (to use your example) 2+2=4 and that answer was not to someone's liking, he would then say "No it's not! 2+2=22!" and consistently refer to 2+2=4 as "the controversial equation", creating a controversy where none exists and generating a rabid (if small) following who would thereafter challenge math at every turn. After all, there IS the "Flat Earth Society"... SOME people are willing to believe the most damn-fool things imaginable.
What to do?
GENERALLY, I'd say "Ignore them". and create your own discussion. In real-life politics it's difficult because (for a variety of reasons) people tend to avoid serious and complex discussions. But it's not impossible. The Civil Rights movement, environmentalism, women's rights... even animal rights... were "created discussions". It was done before, it can be done again.
But this is a discussion board. People here have passionate views, and SOME people have true emotional problems... issues that drive their viewpoints that have nothing to do with rationality. So for that reason I don't care WHAT view people bring to the board.
I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.
THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT- the word "evolution" can be applied to many situations, but if you're talking about the "Theory of Evolution" there is only one application. "Natural selection" is not a general feature of cosmology, for example.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.
THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.
Hey SignyM, I keep forgetting. Are you the pot or the kettle?
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You know, BDNothi.. Nobody
Hey SignyM, I keep forgetting. Are you the pot or the kettle?
I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.
Go there at your peril.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT,
I thought about your post.
I agree, debating phony topics takes a lot of time and energy. To that extent it distracts from the larger goals.
OTOH, it's a dirty job that I feel someone MUST do. The problem with letting bogus assertions go unrefuted is two fold: 1) over time, by sheer repetition, they acquire credibility; and 2) if you don't refute them, you lose standing to reply to the things that matter.
Two real-world examples:
1) When I was going through university the radical Christian movement was just getting started (Campus Crusaders for Christ). I and pretty much everyone else blew them off as a small lunatic fringe. Which they were, but it didn't make them unimportant. Over time, by repetition, the message(s) has(have) acquired a substantial following. At this point it's too well established to do much about.
2) After 9/11 the democrats were running scared of Bush's 97% popularity. They did the political thing and went along - with the USPATRIOT Act, Iraq and everything else. By not speaking up then, they lost their credibility to speak up now.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.
Go there at your peril.
There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.
If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24439#394105
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BDN- I generally discuss issues. Occasionally I descend to lobbing hand-grenades. What about you? If you think I'm being hypocritical in the other thread, bring that up in detail there. Quote me, and we'll talk about it there. I love nothing better than a substantive discussion! Then we can let others gauge our debate style. How's that?
If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.
See you there.
PS
Quote:Feel free... contact Haken. He'll tell you what I already know.
There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BDN,
No I don't get notified. But please, feel free to contact Haken. You'll find out there is nothing to your insinuations. And when you do find out, I hope you have the balls to post your retraction AND an apology. My guess is you won't contact him. That's not your style. You do your work with insinuations, not with actual facts.
As to SignyM's 'hypocracy', I'd certainly like some quotes. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, you're just doing your standard smear job with your standard non-existant 'facts'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BDN- I generally discuss issues. Occasionally I descend to lobbing hand-grenades. What about you? If you think I'm being hypocritical in the other thread, bring that up in detail there. Quote me, and we'll talk about it there. I love nothing better than a substantive discussion! Then we can let others gauge our debate style. How's that?
See you there.
I enjoy a good debate as well and I did engage you at least once in that thread. I'm posting to you in this thread because after a couple of topic changes and some ad hominems to boot in the other thread, you posted the following in this thread.
Quote:
I DO, however, care HOW they debate. Misrepresenting what someone else has said, straw-man arguments, ad hominem... and the thing that drive me craziest: changing the topic to avoid conceding a point... THAT tells me that the person is not interested in a "discussion", they're just lobbing hand-grendades... and more interested in "winning" than in thinking together.
THOSE kinds of people should be frozen out.
And now to address this.
Quote:
Feel free... contact Haken. He'll tell you what I already know.
Some people will see a conspiracy in everything, whether it's there or not. I was simply wondering why Rue always deems it necessary to race to your defense. Perhaps Rue thinks you are unable to defend your own posts when they come under scrutiny.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I bumped up the other thread up so that you quote me in detail. I'll meet you there. Just to let you know, if you don't engage me in the discussion (after accusing me of hypocracy) you lose 10 cerdibility points out of 100. Keep doing that, and eventually you get to zero and I'll ignore you, because by then you will have proven yourself uninterested in rational discussion.
I'm posting to you in this thread because after a couple of topic changes and some ad hominems to boot in the other thread, you posted the following in this thread
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Rue always deems it necessary to race to your defense"
BDN - no, when I am on this board I respond to any kind of underhanded rhetorical attack posted by you and several others. It is YOU I concern myself with.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I totally disagree with the OP's point. Nothing is unassailable.
Signed,
A Lawyer
"When I write my memoirs, that sh!t'll be in there, guaranteed."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
S'wenyways DT,
I realize you're probably busy and that my reply to you got lost in the shuffle (above), but I was curious what you thought.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and BDN -
First you insinuate that I am SignyM -
"Rue - Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.
Then you weasel -
"I was simply wondering ..."
Oh, you mean you really weren't going to contact Haken to see if Signy and I are one and the same. So you really DO know we're not, right?
OK - I'll be waiting for that retraction AND apology.
The question is - do you have the balls?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, and BDN -
First you insinuate that I am SignyM -
"Rue - Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.
Then you weasel -
"I was simply wondering ..."
Oh, you mean you really weren't going to contact Haken to see if Signy and I are one and the same. So you really DO know we're not, right?
OK - I'll be waiting for that retraction AND apology.
The question is - do you have the balls?
I can honestly say that it never crossed my mind that you and SignyM were the same. You both have similar political views and a hate for Bush, but there are many differences between the two of you as well.
The quip about contacting Haken was my obviously far too subtle 'quit sticking your nose in other people's business' to you.
So neither apology nor retraction are needed in this case IMHO.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't think you had any. Thanks for confirming it.
And, YOU are my business.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And, YOU are my business.
Then get thee to the PN and child porn thread and give me what for.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
I went to a lecture about natural selection in cosmology a couple years back. it was real quite an eye opener, and seriously, there is such a thing. it's not the same as the biological evolution, but it follows similar logic to explain how energies compete, and how the dominant ones create dimensional interactions and ultimately subatomic particles.
I agree, evolution is selecting creationists for intellectual extinction.
Quote:
Hey SignyM, I keep forgetting. Are you the pot or the kettle?
Posting to stir stuff up.
Not to nitpick, but Signy is one of the moderate member of the forum.
Rue,
1) I think by arguing this point we validate their idea that evolution needs to match their theoretical argument with its own theoretical argument and win, as if there were no such thing as factual evidence, which is a corruption of the concept of debate. I think that if there was going to be a debate, we would have to open with "Oh yeah? Show us the Ark."
2) I'm certainly not the last word on the democrats, but you're theory sounds about right. Honestly, this sickness is infecting the GOP too, just not in as high %s. Unfortunately, it seems the dems are still running scared somewhat, with "let's win the war on terror" and "we were right to take out saddam" (sure, well we would have been right to take out saddam if it didn't kill 650,000 people, oh yeah that happened afterwords, which was why exactly? I'm still not clear on this. We fought a war, won, and then failed to negotiate with the other parties. Mind boggling.)
Anyway, Most often the thing the dems seem strongest on is raising taxes on the wealthy. Not being one of them, and not seeing it as a big job creator, I don't care that much, but I do think that the federal govt. has to show that it can spend money both *efficiently* and towards *something* worth having before raising federal revenue by any means is going to get a lot of support.
My gut feeling, IMHO, is that the dems should be reaching out to disaffected conservatives with a smaller govt. package and a more pro-business job creation plan, not because i think it's the right way to go, though i do, but because i think it would increase their voter base. The republicans have dropped the ball on sound fiscal policy. unfortunately I haven't seen a lot of good fiscal democrats, maybe one or two. Curiously, the formerly socialist greens have been putting up some people with more fiscally feasible plans and more libertarian govt. notions than the democrats. Normally I think the greens are hopelessly disorganized and internally corrupt (back in '04 their chair rigged their own primaries,) but still I tend to vote for the guy who says the right things, regardless, and at the moment that's looking like the green for senate, and i'm on the fence green or republican for congress.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, for any BDN that it may concern, IMHO, they aren't the same person. They may now each other offline, I don't know. They were here before I got here, but I try to judge where on the political spectrum to place them, and though I may be mistaken, I place Signy in the political center with Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs and Chrisisall, and some of the other folk on the forum. (frem, 7%, etc.)
Rue, I tend to think of as a lefty somewhere the Steven Colbert/Keith Olbermann area, Moderate left, still defaulting to pulling the blue level, but not having her own shrine to HR. Clinton.
Just been my sort of general impression. It's hard to place everyone on a one dimensional perspective, I'm not sure where you are, but I suspect you are somewhere on my side, as you seem to spend a fair amount of time trolling liberals.
Lately I find I find myself agreeing a lot with Geezer, Casual, Antimason and honestly, Pirate News. I think that the whole situation is a mess, which confuses the whole issue. The Bush/Clinton thing is like some political plague, and it's not particularly left or right. There's nothing particularly conservative about Bush, and I'm getting that there's nothing particularly liberal about Bill or Hillary Clinton. If we were to put this on some other scale, I guess it would begin to make more sense, but many such debates would also be pretty narrow (such as who do you think would make a good secretary of the treasury karl marx or adam smith? actually, either one would be a vast improvement over our current economic policy, but i of course would favor smith.)
Similarly, the war complicates things. I've gotten into a number of political arguments recently with people who seem to more or less take the position of "america is always wrong" which is just as unwieldy as "america is always right" the baffling one I just had was agains the position of "america was wrong to go into cambodia and wrong not to go into rwanda" which seems self-contradictory to me.
BTW, Madeline Albright veto'ed that rwanda resolution for those who care, but i have to assume that it was Clinton's decision. Still, Albright is on my list of most shady characters of the Clinton admin, along with Reno. Now that sounds sexist, but it just comes out that way, I think probably honest women don't know Bill Clinton. Anyway, I dug that up, thought I'd pass it along. I also hear she's baking cookies for terrorists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
BTW, for any BDN that it may concern, IMHO, they aren't the same person. They may now each other offline, I don't know. They were here before I got here, but I try to judge where on the political spectrum to place them, and though I may be mistaken, I place Signy in the political center with Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs and Chrisisall, and some of the other folk on the forum. (frem, 7%, etc.)
Rue, I tend to think of as a lefty somewhere the Steven Colbert/Keith Olbermann area, Moderate left, still defaulting to pulling the blue level, but not having her own shrine to HR. Clinton.
Just been my sort of general impression. It's hard to place everyone on a one dimensional perspective, I'm not sure where you are, but I suspect you are somewhere on my side, as you seem to spend a fair amount of time trolling liberals.
You need to catagorize the different Posters based on what you perceive to be their political leanings, that is how you like to work. I'm of the impression that catagorizing Posters is counter-productive. IMHO it leads to responses to the Poster rather than the post. Good non-partisan arguments are dismissed out of hand simply because of the name at the top of the post. I may spend a fair amount of time engaging (not trolling) those you consider liberals. I think it has more to do with personalities than politics though.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Casual,
You know I don't care about sounding arrogant, true. But you're still not getting it. There is no debate here. I have no points because all of evolution is the point. It's like a flat earth debate. If you had actually travelled around the world, the theoretical elements of the flat earth argument would have no meaning at all. What would you do? Spend all of your time constructing a theoretical argument to shoot down the flat earth argument? Or would you simply say "Sail west, and tell me what you see"
And this is my point. This is NOT a debate. Attempts to make it a debate are just some twisted form of trickery. There is not evidence stacked up on one side and also on the other. I'm trying to shake you and say: wake up, we're not folks who disagree, we're talking about hard cold fact which you didn't bother to study. We don't hold it against you, just study it, and come back to us, knowing that.
Here's the thing. If you knew evolution, and you said, this wasn't natural selection, but there was an engineer here, and I can show you this happening, then, *maybe*, you would have a debate. But to say 'your facts are real' is just a perposterous position. I actually think I can make a better creationist argument than I've seen here, but no amount of creation fact is going to undo the fundamental reality that evolution is an inescapable conclusion of the science of logic and statistics.
I'm not silencing opinion, I'm trying to redirect those who think that they have an opinion toward the correct path, which is that actually, they have a lack of knowledge, and rather than argue it out and essentially ask us to educate them, to go and study the subject.
DT, characteristic response of yours: calm, well-spoken, and relevant. Thanks for keeping the tone done. This could turn into a shouting match fast.
That said, I have to reiterate something I said above: I'm not contradicting any of the "closed cases" you mentioned above. I do not deny the increase in number and diversity of species owing to evolutionary activity; I don't deny that the earth is getting warmer; I don't advocate a flat earth; in fact, I wasn't trying to open any of the "closed cases" for discussion (and I think that if you take a fair look at my initial post, you'll see that that's the case). Please don't lump me into the group of folks who want to debate those things: I'm not one. My sole point was that I think it's a dangerous proposition to ever say, "this is fact, about which there can be no debating". That kind of thinking is antithetical to scientific progress. It was the "fact" of the static-eternal universe that led Einstein to introduce the "fudge factor" to his theory of relativity, a move that he later called the greatest mistake of his career. I'm not saying that the earth is flat; I'm not saying that the earth is 10,000 years old (which is obviously preposterous); I'm not saying that a world-wide deluge altered the geologic record (ridiculous). I am however arguing that it's never a good idea to simply say, "I won't talk about this, because it's beyond disproof." You're absolutely right: mountains of evidence over against dogmatism surely makes the evolution (or whatever other doctrine) the more reasonable view. But I would rather ignore those with whose opinions I disagree than begin to demarcate territory over which no discussion is allowed. That is what I am advocating, not the theories which you have so ably debunked.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh I get what they're doing, they're kind of trying to destroy Science and critical thought from within so to speak.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,
Normally, I would agree, but the problem is that people have made this into a debate, which itself is a tremendous corruption of the concept of debate.
Allow me to illustrate. We could have a debate about who was King of England in 1374. The Historinazis would say it was Edward III, but I choose to say it was Mickey Mouse. Hence, there is a debate. Now both sides can provide evidence, and be built up to equal levels and given equal weight. Ultimately, if I fail in my stubborn conviction that it was Mickey Mouse, by yielding no ground, I may instead decide to compromise, and eventually we may all agree that Mickey Mouse was at least Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for my concession than he was not actually King of England. If I have a large number of unquestioning followers, I may even get the rest of you to move from you position that it was Edward III in favor of Richard II.
But we let them put creationism on a scientific par with Evolution by not ignoring them.
You won't get a concession out of them, you won't get anything out of them by debating. They aren't interested in anything you have to say, the people trying to make this a "Creationism vs Evolution" aren't interested in debate or truth.
People like Cartoon are merely interested in forcing they're religion down everyones throat, they're interested in destroying science.
"He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason"
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you haven't seen 'the facts'. Until you take a lot of biochemistry and read the research, you're not even close to 'the facts'. A hand-waving gloss is neither honest nor fair.
For example, another poster on another thread keeps maintaining that you can't 'add' new DNA. This after I posted how indeed you can add 'new DNA', not only through repeats and insertions but also by incorporating whole viral genomes - that in fact most of human DNA IS viral DNA. (The current estimate is roughly 80%.) How is that not adding new DNA? Even the process of repeats and insertions of normal DNA causes a genetic change. (One common example - Down's syndrome, which is normal but extra genetic material cascading down through the entire development.)
Until you do the science you can't evaluate its state.
What that poster is typing is you can't add new data into a genome. I've said nothing about segments on a gene or adding DNA. In that, there is a huge difference and you know it. Evolution has as much of a scientific basis as believing in the Bermuda triangle, big foot, aliens, exorcisms, global warming, or oil being a fossil fuel. You have the right to believe in any of that baseless crap without questioning the proof all you want.Have fun....Well, it's true
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually it's very easy to add DNA to a DNA strand. Retro Viruses and Bacteria do it all the time.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
imma moderate ?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 
Someone's been wresting those 10ft tall Taliban reinforcements, methinks.
Anarchists are *not* moderates, by definition we're a form of extremists, and individually different from each other as well - I represent my variation of the belief in wanting to be left the hell alone, but don't take that for a moderate viewpoint, it is most certainly not.
Being a realist, I acknowledge some interferance is gonna happen regardless, and so my primary focus is limiting how much and how often, which might appear to be a moderate viewpoint, but that is a matter of scale of useful effectiveness rather than desire, for it would not bother me very much if our entire gov imploded and collapsed.
Moderate... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I refuse to treat people like you with civility. But SignyM has been nothing but patient, rational and honest with everyone. If you try to pick on him for his debate style, I guarantee you will lose whatever shreds of credibility you might have left.
Go there at your peril.
There must be something wrong with my computer. Every time I respond to SignyM, it send's you notification. Perhaps I should try to contact Haken.
If you can honestly go through the PN and child porn thread for instance and not find several examples of Signy's hypocricy, then it is your credibility that will be in question, not mine.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24439#394105
Posting to stir stuff up.
OK, went there, read it. Don't see any hipocracy. At least on SignyM's part.
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Something I found a while back which may help differeniate between fact and opinion is A Field Guide to Critical Thinking:
http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
But we let them put creationism on a scientific par with Evolution by not ignoring them.
we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground. in the bible it says that God layed the foundations of the heavens, but it doesnt bother to specificy beause it wasnt meant to be a collection of scientific jargon. it was meant to appeal spiritually to everday common people, and in that way i think Jesus' spiritual messages are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago; whereas scientific theories historically have come and gone like the seasons. sometimes, we're just holding out for better theories, thats all
Quote:
You won't get a concession out of them, you won't get anything out of them by debating. They aren't interested in anything you have to say, the people trying to make this a "Creationism vs Evolution" aren't interested in debate or truth.
like i said, all we are saying is that we may not have the whole story yet
Quote:
People like Cartoon are merely interested in forcing they're religion down everyones throat, they're interested in destroying science.
come on, destroy science? we are not a threat to you because we believe in a supreme intelligence(like a central processor); there are a lot of dimensions and planets and planes that we havent measured yet, we're just being cautious about what we state as ultimate truths. i feel obliged to consider what the ancients believed about our origins and see how it may all tie together with modern discoveries
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, yeah, the creationists are when they expect Intelligent Design and other Creation myths to be taught as a science along side a rigorously tested scientific theory, or frankly in the case of Evolution proven natural law.
Originally posted by antimason:
we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground. in the bible it says that God layed the foundations of the heavens, but it doesnt bother to specificy beause it wasnt meant to be a collection of scientific jargon. it was meant to appeal spiritually to everday common people, and in that way i think Jesus' spiritual messages are just as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago; whereas scientific theories historically have come and gone like the seasons. sometimes, we're just holding out for better theories, thats all
Because Evolution is a proven natural law. Survival of the fittest we see everyday, we know that species change, we know species adapt to new surroundings via survival of the fittest. We've used the Evolutionary mechanism artificially, you think those huge tasty black and white beasts are Cows? They are not, Cows are those skinny scrawny things you see holding up traffic in India. What we have is an animal that has been artificially bred by Humans deciding what characteristics were desirable, Humans deciding which animals were fittest and letting Evolution take over. Artificial Survival of the Fittest.
No Science and Religion don't have to be in conflict, but it's not Science causing this conflict. Some people are demanding that Creationism should be taught as a Science when it isn't a Science. Scientists aren't telling the Church that they should teach Quantum Mechanics at the pulpit. No one is telling anyone that preachers must give equal time to sermons preaching the non-existence of God.
So why is there a conflict? Because Science is attacking Religion? When was the last time you heard a Scientific theory for the non-existence of God? Science has nothing to do with God, neither does it want anything to do with God. Science isn't attacking any Religion in anyway, it's just doing what it does. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians WANT this conflict because some of these Fanatical Christians WANT absolute control. They want a war on Science and at the end of the day they want a return to the good old days of Dark Age Europe.
Quote:We are well aware that we don't have the story yet, but there's a big difference between knowing we don't have the whole story and saying "God did it, we can stop looking now" is valid Science.
like i said, all we are saying is that we may not have the whole story yet
But this is the fundamental difference between Religion and Science. Science recognises that it doesn't yet know, that's it's trying to find out and it's constantly refining it's view.
Religion says we're right you're wrong get over it. That's the end of the story.
Think about it. A Scientist has a theory, that theory doesn't fit the evidence it's abandoned. In religion they say "God moves in mysterious ways". That's fine for religion but it's not Science by any stretch of the Imagination, Science and Religion are not the same thing, Science is not a Religion.
Quote:Yes destroy Science, that's exactly what those on the Intelligent Design side want. I don't think all 'believers' want that, not even most, but the ones that want Intelligent Design taught as a Science, you bet.
come on, destroy science? we are not a threat to you because we believe in a supreme intelligence(like a central processor); there are a lot of dimensions and planets and planes that we havent measured yet, we're just being cautious about what we state as ultimate truths. i feel obliged to consider what the ancients believed about our origins and see how it may all tie together with modern discoveries
Think about it. We accept the Intelligent Design is on a Scientific par with Evolution. Intelligent Design being entirely based at it's very core on something that is unpro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ciizen wrote..."Because Evolution is a proven natural law. Survival of the fittest we see everyday, we know that species change, we know species adapt to new surroundings via survival of the fittest. We've used the Evolutionary mechanism artificially, you think those huge tasty black and white beasts are Cows? They are not, Cows are those skinny scrawny things you see holding up traffic in India. What we have is an animal that has been artificially bred by Humans deciding what characteristics were desirable, Humans deciding which animals were fittest and letting Evolution take over. Artificial Survival of the Fittest."
What you have so "citizenly-like" described as "the proven natural law of evolution" is in fact natural selection. Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all. It is one of those widespread fallacies attributed to having children taught bogus science(Global warming, evolution) by teachers with Liberal arts degrees. And aren't those cows..Well,..still cows. Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here. Yes, there are processes at work that makes one phenotype more visible than another at any given time. But to be here it had to be in the genome of a species to begin with. Yes, there was a study on the moth that's dominantly expressed light color was replaced by the darker phenotype because of natural selection. What you have to understand is that the dark phenotype was already present in the genome. It just became the dominantly expressed phenotype. No evolution was involved. In fact nothing has ever been proven to evolve.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess this is the argument fostered by someone with no grasp of science who was taught some new words to make their ignorance sound 'scientifical'.
Originally posted by kaneman:
What you have so "citizenly-like" described as "the proven natural law of evolution" is in fact natural selection. Natural selection does not support the theory of evolution at all. It is one of those widespread fallacies attributed to having children taught bogus science(Global warming, evolution) by teachers with Liberal arts degrees. And aren't those cows..Well,..still cows. Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here. Yes, there are processes at work that makes one phenotype more visible than another at any given time. But to be here it had to be in the genome of a species to begin with. Yes, there was a study on the moth that's dominantly expressed light color was replaced by the darker phenotype because of natural selection. What you have to understand is that the dark phenotype was already present in the genome. It just became the dominantly expressed phenotype. No evolution was involved. In fact nothing has ever been proven to evolve.
Now as amusing as it is watching someone with no grasp of science tell us that what scientists say is 'bogus science', Natural selection my dear fool is part of Darwinian Evolution. Micro Evolution, look it up because you've just said it exists and that it doesn't in the same sentence. I understand perfectly the difference between Macro and Micro Evolution, it appears that you do not.
Cat's dogs cows etc have always been here? Well this is interesting. So your clever scientific theory as to why they don't appear in the fossil record prior to dinosaurs is?
The big difference between you're view and Sciences is that Science tries to fit the theory to the evidence, you want the evidence to fit the theory. In Science when a theory doesn't fit the evidence the Theory is wrong (and not fitting the evidence is different to having pieces missing, BTW) in you're outlook when the evidence doesn't fit you're preconceived idea, the evidence is wrong.
It's strange how there's fossil records showing a clear progression from Apes to modern Humans, but because one link in the chain is missing people who have a vested interest in attacking science for personal gain say Evolution has been disproved. We've got 1-2-3- -6-7-8-9-10, but because 4 and 5 are currently missing you say that proves 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 9 don't exist and 10 has always been here.
There's a word for that, it's delusional, but don't worry Science has discovered cures for delusion that don't involve having the Daemons cast out with fire
.Now before you go on again about how there are no mechanisms to add data to a DNA chain you may want to read up on transposons and polyploidy (which interestingly enough is especially prevalent in plants which is why they have upwards of 100 Chromosomes where as Humans have 23).
But lets play a little game shall we, just for you to prove once and for all how right you are and how wrong you are.
Lets assume for a moment Evolution is just a theory. Now at the moment Evolution fits all the available evidence better than any other scientific theory. Now unfortunately I'm afraid the Scientific method requires you to come up with a better theory rather than merely saying "evidence is incomplete for that therefore it is wrong". So in order for you to prove yourself right and us wrong, scientifically so to speak, you have to supply us with a theory that fits the available data better than Macro and Micro Evolution.
You see until you can do that by telling us Evolution is wrong you're spouting crap and you have no credibility.
So, either your theory or your continued silence is to follow, yes?
Oh and before you accuse me of using the religious line, I'm not, I'm merely saying if you want to take on a scientif
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
citizen wrote:
Quote:
It's strange how there's fossil records showing a clear progression from Apes to modern Humans, but because one link in the chain is missing people who have a vested interest in attacking science for personal gain say Evolution has been disproved. We've got 1-2-3- -6-7-8-9-10, but because 4 and 5 are currently missing you say that proves 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 9 don't exist and 10 has always been here.
That's not even the worst of it, I'm afraid. Creationists and ID'ers are constantly moving the goalposts in that argument. You say, we have 1-2-3-4- -6-7-8-9-10, and they say, well, where is 5? A few years go by, a landslide or earthquake happens and new fossils are found that fill in 5.
They then proceed (instead of coming to grips with reality) to ask where 4.5 and 5.5 are then? Because those are really the missing links, so the theory should have them, right? You find 4.5 and 5.5 and they ask for 4.6 and 5.4. Because they'd be there, right? You can't win with these people; I don't see why you're still making the case.
Recently a fossil was found that bridged the gap between fins and legs (I want to say it involved a primitive crocodillian, but I'd have to look it up to be sure). The fundies critical of the find argued that it wasn't a real enough "bridge."
Meh, I'll look it up anyway, for those interested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1748005,00.html
You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water?" There should be one for Creationists.
You can lead a fundie to a library, but beating them over the head with books doesn't make them absorb the knowledge (but wouldn't it be fun if it did?).
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water?" There should be one for Creationists.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?
Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While science is not competing with religion it can in fact destroy it. The two can only exist together insofar as the human mind can believe two contradictory thoughts at the same time... which is a well-known human phenomenon. The basis for religion is "belief" in something that is not proven by... and in some cases is contradicted by... observable evidence. Many religions can be described as delusional because RELIGION IS NOT SELF CORRECTING. The touchstone for science is observation of the material world. THe method of science fosters self-correction.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citz wrote,
"Species adaption through survival of the fittest is a form of evolution, and has been soundly proven."
"Micro-Evolution is a fact. The sticking point is Macro-Evolution, and whether it takes place and/or the mechanisms behind it."
"Macro-Evolution being impossible? What they disproved one mechanism?"
Once again, Natural selection is not a form of evolution. When you understand that I will allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
How do you go from the whole "sticky" thingy to scientific fact, in regards to macro-evolution, in a week? Wash would be proud, Citz, you are like a leaf on the wind.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So BTW- where ARE those cat/ dog/ human fossils?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Everywhere. You can see them at your local farm. That's if they display their fossils.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Natural Selection was proposed by Darwin as the mechanism for species adaption ala-Micro-Evolution. There was no concept of Natural Selection via Survival of the Fittest until Darwin proposed it as part of his theory of Evolution. When you understand this very simple concept, stop lying and stop being a Troll, I'll allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by kaneman:
Citz wrote,
"Species adaption through survival of the fittest is a form of evolution, and has been soundly proven."
"Micro-Evolution is a fact. The sticking point is Macro-Evolution, and whether it takes place and/or the mechanisms behind it."
"Macro-Evolution being impossible? What they disproved one mechanism?"
Once again, Natural selection is not a form of evolution. When you understand that I will allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
How do you go from the whole "sticky" thingy to scientific fact, in regards to macro-evolution, in a week? Wash would be proud, Citz, you are like a leaf on the wind.
Now dear, Macro Evolution is a sticking point because unlike Micro Evolution it's mechanisms are not understood. But saying Macro-Evolution hasn't been shown to happen is like saying Gravity doesn't exist because we don't know how it works, i.e. idiotic. Maybe its actually intelligent falling:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Species changing, becoming different species over time, proven scientific fact. How it works, like Gravity, is not known.
The whether it takes place part is more specific to the scientific theories, I wasn't commentating on whether more complex species have appeared from less complex ones over millenia. Besides me saying one thing last week and a different thing this week doesn't mean science has changed over the week, merely that I've done more research, read up on the subject and come to a different understanding.
You know, understanding, that thing you can't do
.What's next on your bullshit triad? Continental Drift doesn't occur because you can't see it perhaps?
Oh and I notice that you're better Scientific theory to better fit the available evidence than evolution is not forth coming. You just spouted more bullshit instead, now do we remember what I said that meant?
Yes it means you're full of shit and don't know what you are talking about
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Casual,
Not lumping anyone in. Just saying, this debate serves nefarious ends. I don't object to holocaust questioning, the official story is full of unquestioned bogosity, but holocaust denial is stupid. My ancestors, and a lot of other people's, were killed in the holocaust, it's hard to deny a historical event. But there's a lot of quibbling to be done. I'm in favor of a debate *on* evolution. But not a debate on the *existance* of evolution. That's either a really dumb idea, or it's totally malicious. My strong suspicious is that it's totally malicious. We should not be drawn into a debate that was essentially created for radical revisionist purposes.
Back to the holocaust. If someone opens a debate to argue the pro-nazi version vs. the jew version, they might be maliciously trying to rewrite history to say "nazis were good decent caring people who never harmed anyone" which is nonsense, holocaust aside, they depopulated whole towns in europe during their military campaigns. But if someone raises a question of "the nazis didn't kill *these particular people*, but that was the soviets" then that's a different story, which turned out to be the case in th first polish camp.
So sure, an *unquestioning* evolution would be like a new religious dogma, but evolution does not need to question its own existance, only what evolved from what where and why, or how.
Evolution is history and statistics, it's not a strong parallel to cosmology. There's a hell of a lot of speculation left in cosmology. There's not a lot of wiggle room in the fossil record.
I think you may be missing the part where efforts to turn evolution into a debate are malicious.
Let me explain:
I read this piece a while back on Henry Regnery of Regnery Publishing, a right wing small press. The article was by a guy who had worked for him, and with him. He said Regnery had one secret which was his ability to create argument out of air. The strategy was to take a known fact, and create its antithesis as a position, and then set the two in opposition, creating a controversial debate. Then he would hope for one of two things: 1) a generally accepted compromise which was somewhere closer to his invented position than the accepted fact was, or 2) to force a wide popular schism and siphon off a small portion of the population into his extremist position.
This sort of this isn't honest and open debate, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's also a malicious rhetorical trick which makes debate out of knowns, and falsehood out of fact, and does so intentionally. I am very sure this is what is going on in this case.
This is not even in the same galaxy as Einstein. If there were a mountain of evidence threatening the supremacy of biological evolution as accepted science, then we would have a debate. This is what happened in every case of those old science theories. Intelligent design isn't a new theory of science with evidence. It's the old religious doctrine with a new set of shoes. ID'ers are the Einsteins, evolutionists are still the Einsteins. The truth is, that sadly, though most people now accept evolution on the face of it, because of the overwhelming evidence, their thinking is still pre-evolution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
You might win *this* debate that way, but you lose the concept of *debate*. There is a reason for the title of this thread, I think that the evolution so called debate and several like it are attempting to assault the concept of debate in much the way that Bush and Blair have assaulted the concept of process.
Cartoon isn't the problem, I think he's reasonably reasonable, he's just sounding off as what he perceives as my Kim Jong Il stance on debates. But I think he's missing the point. It's not about silencing debate, it's about stopping corruption before it's out of control.
Free speech is not about one person gets to say anything, and no one can countermand it. If it were, Pfizer would say "Vioxx cures AIDS, Acne and old age" and they would make a lot of money. If the creationists say "now we'll discuss these two competing sciences" I get to throw my surgeon generals warning in that says "these are not competing sciences, and there is no debate between them" If they want to go on and say "Now I will spout my religious dogma" there is nothing I can, or should, do to stop them. But when *all* parties are allowed to speak, not just the purveyors of the new information, everything gets properly identified as what it actually is, and the people are not mislead. Which is what this so-called debate about evolution is trying to do, to mislead the public.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaneman,
This seems like a silly argument on the genome. I think Rue understands the science here.
You can change a genome. I can change a genome, at least in theory. If I make a retrovirus than splices genes back into the system. Anyone can do it by exposing people to existing retroviruses, though not with any desireable results, and also, it's not a nice thing to do.
But, scientifically, it's all kinds of possible.
Edit: I see now that Citizen already said this
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mi di di da
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cartoon isn't reasonable. I indicated that some fanatical Christians want a war on Science, they want to destory science and freedom of speech in order to force Christianity on all, and go back to the good old dark ages, complete with stoning of heretics.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,
You might win *this* debate that way, but you lose the concept of *debate*. There is a reason for the title of this thread, I think that the evolution so called debate and several like it are attempting to assault the concept of debate in much the way that Bush and Blair have assaulted the concept of process.
Cartoon isn't the problem, I think he's reasonably reasonable, he's just sounding off as what he perceives as my Kim Jong Il stance on debates. But I think he's missing the point. It's not about silencing debate, it's about stopping corruption before it's out of control.
Free speech is not about one person gets to say anything, and no one can countermand it. If it were, Pfizer would say "Vioxx cures AIDS, Acne and old age" and they would make a lot of money. If the creationists say "now we'll discuss these two competing sciences" I get to throw my surgeon generals warning in that says "these are not competing sciences, and there is no debate between them" If they want to go on and say "Now I will spout my religious dogma" there is nothing I can, or should, do to stop them. But when *all* parties are allowed to speak, not just the purveyors of the new information, everything gets properly identified as what it actually is, and the people are not mislead. Which is what this so-called debate about evolution is trying to do, to mislead the public.
Cartoon is one of these Christians.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
In my book. I think you took issue with some of my right wing positions, at other times you come across as a right wing extremist, but generally speaking, I think there are basically two crowds, the partisans and moderates, and then there are hybrids of those.
Antimason,
Quote:
we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground.
Which sounds good, but sometimes compromise is what the fraud was about in the first place. If someone backs off from the position of "let's rape all the women" to "only the cute ones" that's not really a compromise.
If you want a better theory, place it within the conept of science, somewhere, in a way which fits with the dataset we all have to work with. If you don't, then stay out of science, call it religion, and present it as such. But recognize that religion doesn't cancel science anymore than it cancels history. If a religious group fails to believe in the existance of Rome, that doesn't mean there was never a Rome, or that anyone else should seek compromise of a middleground on the issue of Rome's existance.
Everyone
Quote:
Kaneman: Ciizen wrote...
Which is the problem. No offense, seriously, but the problem with this debate is that the scientific work of 150 years should not be forced to stand on Citizen's ability to argue the point. Which is why we shouldn't argue the point. Which is not to nitpick his arguments, just to say that you can't defeat evolution by defeating Citizen.
I'm sure Citizen puts a fair amount of time into his efforts to explain, and a fair amount of emotional investment, but this actually weakens the case. The record is the record, and can stand on itself. The constitution of the united states shouldn't have to stand on my ability to defend it, or anyone elses. If you choose to abandon it, just say so, if you choose to abandon science, just say so, but PLEASE, PEOPLE, recognize that this is a SCIENCE FICTION FORUM. This is not a community of creationists and theocrats, there are endless forums for that sort of thing, which are not here.
The basic premise of this show, which, yes, does deal with religion, is still science, and it deals with a world of scientific realities and possibilities, even when its biochemistry doesn't quite make sense. (Because the theory of biochemistry shouldn't have to stand on Joss Whedon's understanding of it)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Debate the debate, I didn't create another thread to debate the merits of evolution and it's equal counterpart, creationism.
For the record, dogs were not always here, dogs are a kind of cat. descended from cats. etc. Whales and dolphins are dogs, humans are monkeys, and monkeys are mice. Got a problem with that? prove me wrong. Until then, shut up and sit down.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kaneman,
This seems like a silly argument on the genome. I think Rue understands the science here.
You can change a genome. I can change a genome, at least in theory. If I make a retrovirus than splices genes back into the system. Anyone can do it by exposing people to existing retroviruses, though not with any desireable results, and also, it's not a nice thing to do.
But, scientifically, it's all kinds of possible.
Edit: I see now that Citizen already said this
Not if the earth is 100,000 yrs or 46 billion yrs old. It has been easily proven by statistics that it is impossible to go from nothing - one protein - one lipid - an organism that contains one gazillion of aft fore- mentioned parts . Never mind going from that to something that has even one chromosome(which "houses" thousands of genes"which are millions of proteins to create amino acids" to a poly-chromosomal organism that contains Gazillions of proteins that makes gazillion more amino acids that in turn makes a gazillion amino acids that work together to produce an organism that can debate this.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:WHOA!! That non-responsive answer deserves -10 credibility points!
So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?-Signy
Everywhere. You can see them at your local farm. That's if they display their fossils.- Kaneman
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In fact, maybe we should have some kind of scorekeeping... like in a formal debate. That would keep people like Kaneman from his trollish answers. or at least point them out. It seems like a person who loses more points than they earn should get ignored for a month, no matter WHAT they post.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not if the earth is 100,000 yrs or 46 billion yrs old. It has been easily proven by statistics that it is impossible to go from nothing - one protein - one lipid - an organism that contains one gazillion of aft fore- mentioned parts . Never mind going from that to something that has even one chromosome(which "houses" thousands of genes"which are millions of proteins to create amino acids" to a poly-chromosomal organism that contains Gazillions of proteins that makes gazillion more amino acids that in turn makes a gazillion amino acids that work together to produce an organism that can debate this.
Case in point. One would not want Kaneman's argument to stand on Kaneman. I read this twice and could not make hide nor hair our of it. I think this may well be the most illiterate post ever.
If you're saying that you can't go from a single molecule to a complex life form by random chance, you don't have to. Once you have a very simple life form, it starts exerting its will to cause more molecular interaction. To go from a simple molecule to a simple life form is far from impossible. Consider all the alien forms of life on earth: cellular organisms, ten unrelated families, plus viruses, mitochondria and prions.
Evolutionists say "oh, they all share a dna coding style and a membrane, they must be related" maybe, maybe not. There's a tremendous amount of congegation going on, after a million years or so, everyone would be using the optimum membrane, everyone would be using the common gene coding. Mitochondria don't use the common coding scheme, but then, they're not in a position to engage in conjugation, so it wouldn't apply.
It's like the eyeball question. Why do a human and an octupus have more or less the same eye? Discarding the idea that humans are related to an octopus, which has no real scientific basis to be so, Competing theories are that a) there's only one way to make an eye., which though possible, I suspect fails the reality test, since there are other types of eyes, or b) which I prefer, which is that some genetic editor transfered the genes of the eye from one ancestor of octupus to one ancestor of humans. But who knows for sure?
So, lots of ways to make life. Probably a wide variety before DNA came along, but dna made such a whopped of a life form that it ate everyone else. After all, if organisms from a million years ago are extinct and microorganisms from last year, than what chance would there be that a micro micro organism from 4 billion years ago never got turned into plankton chow?
Evolutions #1 winner:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
Not if the earth is 100,000 yrs or 46 billion yrs old. It has been easily proven by statistics that it is impossible to go from nothing - one protein - one lipid - an organism that contains one gazillion of aft fore- mentioned parts . Never mind going from that to something that has even one chromosome(which "houses" thousands of genes"which are millions of proteins to create amino acids" to a poly-chromosomal organism that contains Gazillions of proteins that makes gazillion more amino acids that in turn makes a gazillion amino acids that work together to produce an organism that can debate this.
Case in point. One would not want Kaneman's argument to stand on Kaneman. I read this twice and could not make hide nor hair our of it. I think this may well be the most illiterate post ever.
If you're saying that you can't go from a single molecule to a complex life form by random chance, you don't have to. Once you have a very simple life form, it starts exerting its will to cause more molecular interaction. To go from a simple molecule to a simple life form is far from impossible. Consider all the alien forms of life on earth: cellular organisms, ten unrelated families, plus viruses, mitochondria and prions.
Evolutionists say "oh, they all share a dna coding style and a membrane, they must be related" maybe, maybe not. There's a tremendous amount of congegation going on, after a million years or so, everyone would be using the optimum membrane, everyone would be using the common gene coding. Mitochondria don't use the common coding scheme, but then, they're not in a position to engage in conjugation, so it wouldn't apply.
It's like the eyeball question. Why do a human and an octupus have more or less the same eye? Discarding the idea that humans are related to an octopus, which has no real scientific basis to be so, Competing theories are that a) there's only one way to make an eye., which though possible, I suspect fails the reality test, since there are other types of eyes, or b) which I prefer, which is that some genetic editor transfered the genes of the eye from one ancestor of octupus to one ancestor of humans. But who knows for sure?
So, lots of ways to make life. Probably a wide variety before DNA came along, but dna made such a whopped of a life form that it ate everyone else. After all, if organisms from a million years ago are extinct and microorganisms from last year, than what chance would there be that a micro micro organism from 4 billion years ago never got turned into plankton chow?
Evolutions #1 winner:
Wrong again. What I am saying is you can not have a dendrealite turn into a a chromosome it has to be god!!!!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaneman- Evolution has been simulated on computer many times over. Starting with a very simple code with only a few instructions (eat bits and multiply) with RANDOM code changes tossed in to simulate mutations, entire ecologies - primary producers, parasites, predators, symbiots, scavengers/ recyclers - have emerged. In other words: macroevolution occurred. I suggest you give up on the whole "macroevolution couldn't occur because of statistics" approach because it HAS been demonstrated mathematically than it can and does occur.
Now, if you're like me you're thinking- AHA! The program was "seeded" with a bit of self-replicating code. In "real life" where did this bit of code come from? THe answer is- I don't know. I'm not enough of a biologist to lay out a credible starting point. The question surely occupies a fair number of Noble-prize caliber biologists. But I'm enough of a chemist to know that self-replication occurs in something as simple as crystal formation, prion replication, and nanotechnology. It doesn't even need to be "alive" to eat, self replicate, and seed other areas.
I think the problem is that you can't imagine 4 billion years. Four billion years is a f*ck of a long time for chemicals to interact. Also, when you say "statistics" let us know what branch or study of "statistics" it is that "proves" that life couldn't have evolved by chance.
---------------------------------
SO anyway- where ARE those cat/dog/human fossils?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
science is not really my field, so i stay away from the specifics of the evolution debate as best i can, but mainly because its not totally relevant to me. it doesnt lessen my appreciation, or curiosity, or understanding of how certain mechanisms work, i just 'believe' they were designed that way. i believe that the evolutions of species does occur, and i can imagine the universe came about in a similar process. the way i like to look at it is that its possible that the complexities of the physical universe may be governed by a higher 'brain' in another plane or dimension or something; and that this brain is God. i know there are some pretty intelligent astrophysicists and the like- who leave open the 'God' factor, so its not quite a dead concept, but maybe taking on a different context.
i realise that i am acting on 'faith' by favoring a concept that has no direct evidence, which i am not disputing(guilty as charged); i do think its an option though, and it allows me to leave open, as a wild card, the possibility that what we've alleged to be ancient mythology, may actually once have had some factual basis in reality. i know thats a leap for some, im not asking anyone to accept it, but it does feel relevant to me in the real world, given the progression of modern mans spiritual and religious archetypes and behavior; i think a lot has been covered up and removed from the public domain by the Vatican and other secret societies over time that illude to this, whether it literally happened or not.
i dont want to rule out that we could all be right, so thats where im at( and also why im prone to conspiracy theory.. )
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, when you say "statistics" let us know what branch or study of "statistics" it is that "proves" that life couldn't have evolved by chance.
Hi.
I can't speak for Kaneman, but there are several pages of material which deals with the "statistics" of evolution from Heeren's Show Me God (to which I've previously referred elsewhere). Naturally, I cannot quote them all here, but I will quote a brief segment from just one of the places where Heeren addresses this.As stated previously, in another thread, I recommend Heeren's book if you want a more complete picture (400 pages).
The following passage is from Heeren's "Show Me God" (pp 61-62)
Theorists are at a loss to explain how, even in a rich prebiotic soup filled with organic compounds, a sequence that creates the information necessary for life can be produced by any means where intelligence is not already involved. Using information theory, astrophysicist Edward Argyle calculated the probability that a simple organism arose on the early Earth by chance. Information theory measures information in "bits". A combination lock, for example, may contain 20 bits of information, representing about a million possible combinations.
Argyle concluded: "It would seem impossible for the prebiotic Earth to have generated more than about 200 bits of information, an amount that falls short of the 6 billion bits in E.coli [a species of bacteria] by a factor of 30,000."**
**When Argyle says that E.coli has an information content of 6 million bits, this means that it would require 10 to the 1,800,000th power of different possible cases or states for this to occur. We can get some sense of this number when we realize that scientists believe there to be 10 to the 80th power subatomic particles in the entire visible universe.
He also found that when he expanded the probability to include our entire galaxy (and assumed a billion earth-like planets), this combination of assumed pre-biotic soups still could not produce anything close to the amount of information in a simple virus.
(NASA astronomer) Michael Hart's calculations also demonstrate the difficulties in assuming abiogenesis as a common process. He wrote:
"The simplest known organism which is capable of independent existence includes about 100 different genes. For each of the 100 different specific genes to be formed spontaneously (in 10 billion years) the probability is (10 to the 30th power) to the 100th power = 10 to the 3,000th power. For them to be formed at the same time, and in close proximity, the probability is very much lower."
The result is that, for anyone who believes that the development of life is a truly random process, it appears unlikely, not only that life exists anywhere else in the universe at this moment, but that it will never ever exist anywhere else -- unless we are the ones who do the colonizing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think what these scientists may be failing to account for is that once there is even a small piece of self-replicating protein it will, by nature of being more efficient than a random process, simply overtake all of the random reactions that are occuring. And any cahnges that result in being more efficient will overtake the ones that are less efficient, and so on. The major flaw in their appraoch is that they seem to be applying "random chance" math to a process that is self-replicating and self-honing.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what these scientists may be failing to account for is that once there is even a small piece of self-replicating protein it will, by nature of being more efficient than a random process, simply overtake all of the random reactions that are occuring. And any cahnges that result in being more efficient will overtake the ones that are less efficient, and so on. The major flaw in their appraoch is that they seem to be applying "random chance" math to a process that is self-replicating and self-honing.
I don't know. I'm neither a biologist nor a mathematician.
But, from what I can understand of what I've read on the subject, for something to become "self-replicating" in the first place, it needs to have a basic "code" (enabling it to be so), which by its very nature, would have to be arrived at either by a) chance (which, according to the above quotation, along with several other similar examples throughout Heeren's work, seems to lie beyond the scope of mathematical probability), or by b) design.But, as I said, I'm neither a biologist nor a mathematician, so don't take my word for it. Check out the book. There's a lot more to it than the passage from which I've quoted. Whether or not you'll agree or disagree with its premises, I can't say. But, without reading all of it (in context), neither can anyone else.
I don't have the expertise to vouch for the scientific merit of the book, and they can easily have pulled the wool over my eyes. However, as I attempted to point out in the other thread -- there are those with far more credentials than any of us in here, who have endorsed the book. So, on that merit alone, it at least justifies a basic reading by anyone with an interest in the subject, one way or the other.
Thank you for the civil reply, btw.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason,
Or we all could be wrong. You're a smart guy, you should study this stuff. What's going on underneath all of the accepted science is truly bizarre. I haven't been led to the conclusion that there is one operational consciouness guiding it, but it's really far stranger than our society seems to think. We have an accepted science which worships occums razor, and so the version of events we learn is probably inaccurate in that it's oversimplified. I'm fairly sure that natural selection by random mutation, pretty much accepted, is not actually what's going on here. But it's a lot closer to whats going on than creationism. Which is all why I say, I'd be happy to have a debate *about* evolution.
But here's a tip to take with you, if you choose to take this journey. As with all things in life, I always say, whether religious or scientific, political or personal, always check you're baggage at the door. set aside your preconceptions of what you want to find, and try to find what's really there. It's already damn near impossible without your own predisposition getting in the way.
I certainly have the feeling that what's really going on is far stranger than either standard point of view.
Myself I tend to limit what I believe in to the bones of what *has* to be true, covered with the flesh of what is closest to the truth, with the skin of what is most probably true of the remaining evidence. I tend to eschew that which does not *need* to be true, until the evidence supports it, or the need is mandated by the other facts.
Evolution *must* be true, in order for logic itself to make sense, how it happened and why is, sure, still up to debate. As a scientific debate, the one who falls closest to the truth, where ever that may be, not where you would like it to be, but where it turns out to be, is bound to be the winner.
The existance of a designer, for me, don't have to be true. The nature of existence doesn't mandate it. Doesn't mean it's false, but I can't believe in something which might blind me to other truths if I have no necessity for it.
Cartoon,
This is pretty well understood, I laid out what I thought was the winning argument a couple of posts ago. An early pro-biotic soup would not create complex life forms, it would create simple self replicating molecules, and "sticky" compounds, which would enhance future interact. A soup made of these, would make a more advanced form, and so on until it evolved into something we would recognize as 'life.' Each generation would like ly consume the generation before it, and only oddities would remain. It pretty much reflects, imho, what we see. Being the only logical explanation with any statistical possibility of success, I feel pretty sure that's a decent approximation of what happened.
It doesn't need a code to replicate. Prions replicate without a code, they're the sort of thing which would fit the pattern of what we're talking about here.
But all of this misses a key logical fallacy in the argument: The creation science crowd is arriving at a conclusion that they were predisposed to arrive at, which almost completely invalidates anything they say. If someone sets out with the preconception that black people are dumber than white people, and set forth to prove this, any evidence presented outside of the accepted common evidence, and any conjecture drawn, will be entirely suspect. No one will be surprised when they arrive at the conclusion, because it will be the whole point of doing the study, to essentially rationalize a position they already had.
At best, the so called science of creationism is a paradigm of wishful thinking, and at worse, it's a deliberately malicious and divisive rhetorical trick with the probably goal of separating christians from the rest of society.
Finally, I think it's safe to say that you will never fing the smoking gun which proves evolution wrong on a scientific basis. I suspect Antimason is on a better path with the idea of evolution covers the how, but not the why.
It's been an interesting battle royale
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It took me a while to get to this thread.
This is just a 'me too' post.
There are MANY examples of self-replicating and self-assembling chemicals. And once they start to assemble/ replicate they use up raw materials which drives the reactions that create the raw materials to create even more raw materials (drives the chemical equilibrium forward).
Once that happens it takes over a random system.
One could say that life might even be inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rue:
One could say that life might even be inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.
Exactly!
I even would take the radical position that scientific data has sometimes been altered to disguise this fact. When I was studying the formation of the solar system I could find essentially zero concrete evidence to support the idea that the habitable surface of the earth was 4.6 billion years old, and the assumption had been thrown into every text to support the equally common conclusion that "life is an amazingly unlikely event." This, in turn, supported the conclusion "earth is unique" and "humans, as earth's dominant species, are unique" and "uniquely superior" which enforces, underhandedly, the idea "chosen by god, enacted by god, because it's either that or a huge coincidence, and you don't believe in huge coincidences, right?"
Furthermore, when I nitpick the big bang, it's that I see these common elements recur in science, which all share the common unscientific element that they seek to find a particular answer. ie. big bang = hand of god. The fundemental truth is going to be the one that is there even if your not trying to find it.
My own dabbling led me to this very conclusion, life is inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My own dabbling led me to this very conclusion, life is inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.
Me three. I would even argue that we're not the only planet in the universe(s) with life, and there are at least a few more (granted, not any real close to us, although it's a possibility).
But, that's just me, and my tangent thought.
::shrugs::
---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."
Trouble-Maker in the House!
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Me four!
Quote:Science is (pardon the word) bedeviled with assumptions that are deeply embedded in world view. And the more fundamental the assumptions are, the harder they are to root out. So European biologists, deeply steeped in capitalism, hierarchy, and paternalism looked at the whole animal kingdom as one giant struggle for male dominance. Humans, thinking that they are somehow supremely evolved, can't imagine that we MIGHT just be a tool of viral DNA. Cosmologists may be overlooking a much simpler answer in favor of the big bang.
Furthermore, when I nitpick the big bang, it's that I see these common elements recur in science, which all share the common unscientific element that they seek to find a particular answer. ie. big bang = hand of god. The fundamental truth is going to be the one that is there even if your not trying to find it.
That's why it try to question assumptions rather deeply, because they can really distort a view of reality.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I laid out what I thought was the winning argument a couple of posts ago. An early pro-biotic soup would not create complex life forms, it would create simple self replicating molecules,"
That is the most ridicules post I have ever read(outside of some of my own...when I'm joking just to watch the clenched as*holes on this board). How on earth do molecules reproduce? Sexually or Asexually? What a tool you are. Oh, and an Idiot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaneman, do you know what makes up DNA? They're basically strands of small nitrogen-containing molecules (nucleosides) zippered to another strand by hydrogen bonds (a very weak bond that occurs between molecules like alchohol and water) Only FIVE nucleosides make up all known DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and sometimes uracil) and even they're not terribly unique since adenine and guanine are based on one molecule (purine) and cytosine, uracil and thymine are based on another molecule (pyrimidine). Altho the eventual structure becomes complex because of repetition, the basic chemistry is fairly tame.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Kaneman, do you know what makes up DNA? They're basically strands of small nitrogen-containing molecules (nucleosides) zippered to another strand by hydrogen bonds (a very weak bond that occurs between molecules like alchohol and water) Only FIVE nucleosides make up all known DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and sometimes uracil) and even they're not terribly unique since adenine and guanine are based on one molecule (purine) and cytosine, uracil and thymine are based on another molecule (pyrimidine). Altho the eventual structure becomes complex because of repetition, the basic chemistry is fairly tame.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
And? They just decide to reproduce to do what? How?.....I have a Bio degree, I teach animals how to act like humans for a living...I don't get it...nor do you...you think you know, but you don't ...there must be a god(energy, alien)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since we humans are so afraid of death, I think the hardest thing to grasp is that life is - well - viral. Because the function of life is to take over non-living stuff and incorporate it, it outcompetes non-living random arrangements. Once life happens by accident, however it happens and in whatever form it takes, it will grow and swallow the non-living environment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They reproduce just because they can. One strand acts as a template for the other. Kind of like prions, or viruses. "Why" ("what for") is the wrong question because it pre-supposes a purpose, and it eventually gets either "Because I said so" or "God done it". I suppose the correct question is "how", and maybe other useful questions are "what", "when" and "where".
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Take your time Kaneman. I'm just about tapped out on biology and philosophy.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.
Why start now?
From what I've read, you haven't done any thinking so far in this thread; it'd be a wonder of wonders (and would probably make your brain happy) to get those neurons firing for once.
...well it's true.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MEEEOOOWWW! HISS!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That claimed bio major ... how could anyone with even the barest exposure to education be so ignorant? A 101 entry course should have cleared up a chunk of the obvious mental confusion. But for crying out loud, as it is with that blather bio majors everywhere are getting sullied by association. OUCH
One of my degrees is bio.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
They reproduce just because they can. Reality sucks.
Yes, granted. Things reproduce because they "can" -- i.e. have the "ability" to reproduce. But where does a non-living, non-reproducible, inorganic thing suddenly get an ability to reproduce and become a living, organic thing -- particularly in light of the above quote about the impossible odds of such a thing ever happening without previously having been designed/encoded to act that way?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're conflating two topic- "reproduction" and "life". In terms of reproduction, just because proteins are made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen instead of silicon, oxygen, hydrogen and (toss in your favorite chemicals here) doesn't make them different from other self-assembling molecules. Do you know what prions are, for example? They are proteins that create other proteins of the same form without the intervention of DNA, RNA and all that other stuff... protein crystals, if you will. Self-assembling, reproducing molecules which are fairly well-known in chemistry.
Yes, granted. Things reproduce because they "can" -- i.e. have the "ability" to reproduce. But where does a non-living, non-reproducible, inorganic thing suddenly get an ability to reproduce and become a living, organic thing -- particularly in light of the above quote about the impossible odds of such a thing ever happening without previously having been designed/encoded to act that way?
The OTHER issue is "life". I'm not enough of a biochemist to detail what "life" is, other than to say that the chemical reactions that power "life" depend on controlled transport of electrons that are released during oxidation (I think).
One more issue- you speak of this as happening "suddenly". I'm sure that nothing was "sudden".
--------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There used to be a definition of life about carrying out "life processes" (ingestion, digestion, inorporation, growth, respiration, reproduction) but viruses challenged the definition. Until they bond to a cell they don't do anything. They're just chemicals that self assemble into little crystals. By common usage they're now considered to be a form of life, but prions are now challenging the definition.
Google "what is life" to get a variety of answers.
My personal definition of life is that it uses environmental energy to create more of itself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Any scientific creation Intelligent Design theory is going to have a hole bigger than Evolution itself untill it can tell us where the Intelligent Designer came from. If a few missing links are tiny pinpricks letting out the water of credibillity in Evolution then the absence of evidence for an intelligent designer (and no the smile on a childs face isn't good enough) and the absence of any indication where this designer came from is a gaping blackhole which sucked all credibillity away from the 'theory' (myth) the moment it was created.
If a simple chemical can't spontaneously reproduce, how pray tell, did God spontaneously appear? If simple organic life can't spontaneously come into existance, how can the most awesome intelligence in the universe?
Sticky backplastic glue and glitter perhaps?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm with you, Causal. Not just on the principle of freedom of thought either. How many times in our history has the consensus of authorities decided that X was absolutely true beyond debate, only to be turned on its ear later?
Originally posted by Causal:
I simply believe, whole-heartedly, that to silence opinion, even a foolish one, is to rob mankind of his greatest boon: the freedom to think as he will and express himself as he will. The silencing of expression is a slippery slope; I would not have this forum slide down it.
For the sake of advancement, we have to allow debate on even ideas that we KNOW to be true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is spherical and not planar. We entertain debate on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not on the content of the subject matter. If someone argues that outside of Euclidian geometry, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, we consider it. If someone says, "you dumbass, 1 + 1 is obviously equal to 4" because his momma says so, we don't consider it.
And DT, evolution, or any other scientific theory, is NOT beyond debate, even amongst scientists. Evolution is a "theory" which means it is the best model we have to explain the data we have. But it is not "Truth." Microevolution is a very reproducible fact, but macroevolution is little more than elaborate speculation. It is speculation I happen to agree with, but let's not make it more than what it really is.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm with you, Causal. Not just on the principle of freedom of thought either. How many times in our history has the consensus of authorities decided that X was absolutely true beyond debate, only to be turned on its ear later?
For the sake of advancement, we have to allow debate on even ideas that we KNOW to be true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is spherical and not planar. We entertain debate on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not on the content of the subject matter. If someone argues that outside of Euclidian geometry, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, we consider it. If someone says, "you dumbass, 1 + 1 is obviously equal to 4" because his momma says so, we don't consider it.
And DT, evolution, or any other scientific theory, is NOT beyond debate, even amongst scientists. Evolution is a "theory" which means it is the best model we have to explain the data we have. But it is not "Truth." Microevolution is a very reproducible fact, but macroevolution is little more than elaborate speculation. It is speculation I happen to agree with, but let's not make it more than what it really is.
[ sincerity ]Wow. Good post, CTS! [ /sincerity ]
I was hoping someone would pick this strand up and run with it. I felt that I was being challenging enough just saying, "Whoa, hold on a moment"--and the fact that I was accused of supporting various crack-pot theories is plenty of evidence that I was not totally listened-to!
In all seriousness, though, I have to agree with respect to the notion that no scientific theory can ever be called true and declared as being beyond debate. Hubble was mocked for proposing his expanding universe--the static-eternal model eventually lost out, though, thanks to his red-shifted galaxies. And where is the plum-pudding model of the atom? These scientific theories were ultimately shown to be incompatible with the data, and were rejected in favor of theories that more closely conformed to the data.
Take for instance the theory the the solar system formed when a massive gas cloud collapsed in on itself. This certainly fits much of the data--for instance, why most planetary motion is counter-clockwise (including rotation and orbit of the planets): the cloud began spinning that way as it collapsed. It also explains the planets rotate in roughly the same orbital plane. But that doesn't mean that the scientific community has accepted it as beyond disputation. Certain data (like the axial tilt of Neptune or the backward rotation of Venus) doesn't fit that model. So the scientific community goes looking for data to explain these facts. Ultimately, they'll either find data to explain these anomalies within the current model, or they'll have to abandon the current model in favor of one that better fits the data.
The real strength of science (and, I would argue, all reasonable thinking) is that it holds it theories loosely, ready to modify or even abandon them if necessary. It is not scientific to say, "This is fact, and it is beyond debate." It could always be the case that the theories will have to change. To cling dogmatically to theories and to admit no debate or disputation is no better than the dogmatism of the religious believer; both believe they have arrived at objective truth (though by different means) and neither will brook any disagreement to that "truth". I suggest that responsible thinkers--the scientists and the faithful alike--would do well to hold their beliefs loosely, carefully considering all evidence so as not to play the fool if they are contradicted.
************************************************************************
Edited to add: I do agree with CTS and others on this board--if you're going to engage in debate, you'd better bring data--or at the very least, good arguments--to the table. Ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies are no good way to argue, on either side.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Myth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
granted, not any real close to us
I don't see why not. I nominate all four gas giants for starters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
didn't you see the sign?
:)
I know it might break my own rule, but this was humoroys.
Quote:
How on earth do molecules reproduce? Sexually or Asexually?
Sexuality is a highly advanced form of life. Even simple lifeforms don't have it. We're all sure that we don't know, but it's very unlikely that there was/is a major differentiation mechanism in proto-life or pseudo-life.
Kaneman isn't just a troll, he's not very bright. It's like sometimes when you argue the bible with christians and then realize they haven't even read the book.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.
7%:
Why start now?
ROFL
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME