I'm just a tad tired of the nonsense. The Theory of Evolution isn't just some wild guess that a few Biology geeks on the nutball fringe "believe in" as a substitute for religion. Evolution is established science. It forms the foundation of all biology and paleontology, all medical (and cosmetics) research, all animal husbandry, and all understanding of "How Things Work" in the world of life. It will even, eventually, allow us to deconstruct the life closest to the beginning, and find out how it all started. But for now, we can't do that, so we can't back Evolution into the Origin of Life question... not yet, anyway.
This is a science investigated constantly by thousands of the best minds in the biological and biochemical sciences. The science of genetics, for instance, until recently an arcane specialization in biology, has suddenly become one of the centers of evolutionary science (did you know, for instance, that about eight percent of our DNA is of viral origin?).
In a previous thread, I asked you to PLEASE go learn some science, because it's too HARD to argue by educating you from the bottom up. To that end I recommend you cruise around Science Daily's "Evolutionary Biology" if you'd like to actually LEARN a little about the subject and its ramifications. and perhaps discover why scientist look at you as if you're missing something when you try to simply dismiss the science. Truth is you just look and sound silly when you do that. And that's why you don't get good arguments from us. We're just nonplussed at your approach. You stand in front of Ph.D.s and lesser degrees (like mine) in a half-dozen pertinent disciplines, with your Bible-born certainty and your education in anything BUT science, or nothing at all, and tell us we don't know what we're talking about. And you wonder why we stammer. It's absurd.
The basic science IS settled. Evolution IS... and people are part of it. We haven't got all the details down yet, and we may never... but we're workin' on it anyway.  If you want to argue otherwise, you have to have some facts, some data, some UNDERSTANDING in hand.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 402
What did you think of The Who's performance last nite?
I always like the Who, ingrained in my psyche!
Roger had a bit of a sore throat, but overcame as usual.
Evolution (the fossile record) is what that theory explains.
Marilyn, those who have convinced you of its being false have misled you.
Electron theory and
Conventional flow theory
Marilyn:
Please note these are still called theories.
Without electron theory you would not have your computer to type your right wing talking point lies.
NotJustATheory.com
Else I suspect that there are many here reading this who will not invest a moment more of their efforts to shake you out of your delusion!
The other thing I'm getting tired of pointing out is that science uses the word "theory" in a different way from the way we do in ordinary conversation. A scientific theory is something that's been carefully tested through experiments and/or extensive data collection. In ordinary conversation a theory is an idea. Scientists would call that a conjecture, meaning something that hasn't been tested.
I wish science hadn't defined its technical terms that way. It allows for endless silly arguments based on a word with two meanings.
Religion, the "orthodox" variety, the exoteric and objective view, which way too much of it is, even though it claims otherwise, is also but a "theory" (of one kind or another) ... that is why in order to believe, one must have either great faith or just a supremely selfish view of being "better than" the non-believers.
The mentioned "religions" concentrate on the original "Alpha" beginnings and then step by step "advance" their supposed knowledge forward to the present as they portend the future even.
Science,on the "other hand", takes the present and looks backwards in order to understand how things turned out the way they did ... they most often do so by "analysis", the breaking down of natural structure into it's disparate parts ... often then recombining said parts into new substances. The new substances then go on the "market" and change futures.
Science is for the most part more no-nonsense by far than religion could ever be, because it is primarily "objective" in dealing with physicality as sensed by the 5 objective senses of the human ... it does not, and cannot, place subjectivity in the primary position ... as some religious views and natural spirituality may often do.
I do not know anything for sure with any absolute certainty, actually no one does even though some may claim so.
But through personal experience, I have had subjective experiences in what has been called issues of GOD, God, or god(s) ... thus I have a certain viewpoint, that is subjective, highly personal, and has become what I call natural (Generic, in that it has no institutionalized label brand) Spirituality.
In the gaining of such views and the powerful incentive that that gave me to investigate it further, I have looked deeply into fields of metaphysics and philosophy, areas more defined by epistemology and ontology ... the very basics of the way and whys of our thinking.
Thus when people mention "facts" (not truth) it must be understood that facts are but an origination, looking back, to be a form of hierarchical beliefs that were simply agreed upon by th originators for common ground reference for further discussion. Time and space most likely being early issues to name ... some people used one "measurement" and others used other measurements ... having different names and numbers and eventually requiring formulas to equate them.
The point I am attempting to make here is that different folks at different times use different concepts and systems of communication about what they believe to be their "reality" ...
Thus we have earth based scientific realities, past based religious realities (seemingly so) for "true believers" of great "faith", and in my case, a present reality, that is moment by moment spiritual, with a subjective priority ... I am here but not "from" here ...
I could say a whole lot more ... and may later ... but this is my beginning place of discussing these issues.
And of course, it is all just IMnsHO.
I absolutely agree, Marilyn. Anyone who doesn't recognize the wisdom in this amazing book, or set of books, is thereby impoverished. Hint: look while no one is watching, and get some help--consult a commentary or walk into a church office and demand to see an ordained minister--they will fall all over themselves to offer free help and guidance. You can't even get that at Wal-Mart.
Here are some online references I like to go to--sometimes several times a day.
The Bible - available in 20 translations, with concordances and commentaries
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary (the long version)
Bible Study Tools
Doable Evangelism!
Christian Classics Ethereal Library - Bible stuff, sacred music, lots of stuff
New Advent - the Catholic Encyclopedia - even for those of us who are Protestant, there is a lot of reference material here
You are expecting way too much. Sort of reminds me of Obama and his dealings with the Republicans. LOL
If you are not living a 'faith" based life you are an intellectual elitist.
They will actually respect your opinion more if you say it is because you have strong beliefs about something than if you provide verifiable evidence.
This is strange but true, they will even accept this as supportable from a known atheist.
"Feelings, emotions, beliefs are considered sufficient "evidence."
That is why they are so easily manipulated by the Republicans, and why Sarah is so popular.
I know there is a god and that She wants us to understand creation. That is why She enlightened Darwin and gave us good science teachers to explain it to us.
NotJustATheory.com
Else I suspect that there are many here reading this who will not invest a moment more of their efforts to shake you out of your delusion!
After getting almost 500 comments on your previous post, I don't blame you for taking the cheezy way out and trying to do it all over again with the same convoluted subject matter........
Nice ploy............
I thought the post was straight forward.
On that thread, in an answer to John Knight and Mark M, I had said that I would present some simple experiments that show that natural selection can result in increasing complexity. Both men then repeatedly asked me to follow through on this.
I then posted the following
"Take some living cells from the tissue of an animal, say a mouse or hamster. Put them in a Petri dish and cover them with a liquid medium containing food. Most of them will die, because thats not how cells usually live. If you put one million of these cells in the dish, maybe 10 or so will not die. They are the very rare variants that have undergone some mutations which make it possible for them to attach to the plastic of the dish and survive. This is an example of natural selection, similar to the effects of antibiotic resistance, that allows some bacteria to escape the killing effects of drugs. But it is not evolution.
Now, allow these 10 initial surviving cells to grow until they have covered the dish reaching a population of 1 million again. Now treat them all with a chemical called a mutagen that causes mutations at a high rate. Again many of the cells will die, since most mutations are toxic. Allow the survivors to grow. Now treat the cells with a poison that normally kills all cells. If you did this in the dish before you treated them with the mutagen, all the cells would die. (Remember these are animal cells, not bacteria, so they dont have some of the abilities that bacteria have to develop resistance). But in the dish treated with the mutagen, many cells (maybe 10 or so) survive.
These survivors have undergone a new mutation that allows them to resist the effects of the poison. Using continuous treatments of mutagen and selection, you can easily "breed" a population of cells that have gained a great deal of complexity compared to the origianl cells. And we can find exactly which genes were mutated in order to allow to that increase in complexity of function.
I know you are saying "yes, but that isnt making a new species, that is not the same as going from a fish to an amphibian" Correct. We cant do those experiments, because we dont know yet exactly which genes need to be mutated in which ways to go there. But progress is being made here also. In some cases we do know which genes, mutated in which ways lead to new species of yeast, molds and bacteria. Can we prove this is how it happened? No, but its pretty close.
Anyway, I said that I could tell you about some simple experiments that show how selection and mutation can lead to increase in complexity. And I have done these experiments many times, as have dozens of others. They work."
In response to this John Knight posted the following:
"Sy,
" . . and there is plenty of evidence that evolutions has occured, and can in fact be shown by experiment."
What a load of pure BS.
Nobody is arguing against "micro evolution}, or natural selection, dude, so your little examples are COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion. If you really understood the matter, I figure you'd know that . . . I begin to suspect you are a fraud because you offered that distraction . . .
PS~ "Using continuous treatments of mutagen and selection, you can easily "breed" a population of cells that have gained a great deal of complexity compared to the origianl cells."
A complete fabrication, as far as I an aware. And if you think some ditsy evolutionist declaring one cell "more complex" than another, means doodely squat, in terms of this discussion, you're sillier than I thought ; )
What you got to get, is the ADDITION of actual, NEW, beneficial genetic coding, before you can even begin to claim any scientist has seen ANY evidence of genuine evolution. You know, the thing that would have to have occurred billions of times throughout our biological progression, yet, has not been observed even a single time in all those experiments ; "
Mark M replied to my comment as follows:
"Hi Sy,
How is the experiment you described any different from my daughter baking a cake? By intelligently manipulating eggs and flour and sugar, etc. according to a pre-conceived recipe, she is able to produce a magnificent and delicious end product. Are you saying natural selection, of itself, can, in like manner, bake a cake?"
Chuck is of course right, that this is not controversial among any scientists. I went to school for 9 years to get my PhD in biochemistry, but you dont have to do that to understand the basic science. Gary has linked to a good source and there are plenty of others. And there are still some good textbooks that are worth looking into. Knowledge is power.
Remember the Dawkins v Gould question? Do you see what I mean?
(Gould thought that science and faith should be separated and neither one encroach on the other.)
The need to believe is compelling to the degree that, admittedly by many believers...the scientific basis for ANY concept is not to be considered if the science is in conflict with the faith...the religious belief. So are or can science and faith co exist? No they can't for MANY believers...about 40% of believers who attend church regularly DO NOT accept as valid the theory of evolution and this means that they do not understand what a scientific theory is and that they have formed a faith based opinion which is not open to further evaluation.
Those who propose that science and faith CAN co-exist must continuously struggle to rationalize beliefs which are in conflict with science....to make the beliefs fit the science. ID is a prime example. Those who dismiss the science as bunk haven't this struggle...they would rather live in a world of close ended beliefs. Rejection of science is no problem for them.
And those who propose that science and faith do not co-exist but can live separate existences are dismissing the reality of the unavoidable conflicts between the two.
Cena said..."More than one Christian can accept evoloution science and still believe that some special spark that makes them human is from a God/Creator. "...but it is not that simple. Science is not a matter of pick and choose beliefs. The Christian belief system is based on many more non scientifically sound concepts that just the issue of evolution....
meaning that faith based beliefs and science hold many other conflicts.
The basic pretext (pretext in my opinion) for the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this event did not happen, the Christian religion has no value or worth. (This is defined as such by many Christians and is included in the Catholic Cataclysm.)
The possibility of the resurrection of a dead person is in conflict with science and yet many claim to believe in science and in their faith based Christian doctrine. This doesn't work....it can't work and it is not a sound approach to science to try to make faith and science "fit".
I understand your point, and I agree that this is a difficult thing to reconcile. But I also think it can be done. I am not the only believing Christian who also maintains that scienitific progress, including understanding of evolution is part of God's plan. There is an organization called BioLogos, which is devoted to this idea, and I am hopeful, that you are wrong, and that faith and science can co-exist. Not as Gould said, in 2 different magesteria, but as one overall universal truth.
"Science cannot prove that something didn't happen, Slim. It can only say that there is no proof it happened, or that it has not been scientifically observed to ever happen."
No argument Aniko...I didn't say that science can prove that something did not happen. There is no proof that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen but there is evidence that it could not have happened. This is more specific than it has never been observed to have happened.
I guess for some fundamentalists, if doubt creeps in to any aspect of the bible, then the legitimacy of the whole thing is up for grabs.
I appreciate your comments and Sy's comments.
I am not religious.
I do know people who are religious, devout even, and are also quite enthusiastic about science, and accept evolution,
except for that one idea that a human is "special" in the time line of evolution.
I don't know how they reconcile the irreconcilable ideas, but they seem comfortable with their beliefs.
I don't challenge them unless they attack my disbelief.
Rarely done by what I call situational believers.
At least they believe in scientific discovery.
I am guessing that a kind of dissembling is required, but to me that is required to be religious, so no added burden to their thinking.
"Farmer Slim, I don't think religious people are conflicted by the resurrection story or any of Jesus' miracles;..."
From the Catholic Catechism...
III. THE MEANING AND SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION
651 "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."521 The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.
Baptists...
Baptists share many beliefs in common with other Christians including belief in one God, the human and divine nature of Jesus Christ, and the significance of his crucifixion and resurrection for salvation.
Christians in general.....
Death and resurrection of Jesus
Main articles: Crucifixion of Jesus and Resurrection of Jesus
Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15) and the most important event in human history. Among Christian beliefs, the death and resurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much of Christian doctrine and theology is based. According to the New Testament Jesus was crucified, died a physical death, was buried within a tomb, and rose from the dead three days later.
Conflicted? No they aren't but this is my point. They should be.
I understand your position.
I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, And I am not in conflict. I dont know if an ordinary human could rise from the dead, but even if he could or couldnt, it wouldnt be relevant, because I dont believe that the man we know as Jesus Christ was an ordinary human, but that He was the Son of God.
Now you will ask me if I believe in the miracle of Jesus (or even modern day miracles), and I would answer yes, because for me, what comes from God is miraculous. How do I reconcile this with my scientific training and background, and why am I not in conflict? Because I recognize that there are mysteries in the universe. Some of them are obvious, like quantum physics and negative time. Some are faith based, like the Trinity or the Resurrection. I like to solve mysteries, but I dont believe all mysteries can be solved.
The preponderance of the evidence is that it did happen, Mike.
How does science show that the resurrection "could not have happened", when by its definition, it would have meant the suspension of the laws that science studies? How do you show that no such suspension occurred?
I'm not arguing for the resurrection here--I hold no such belief--but for the epistemic structure of our knowledge versus ignorance. Let's do a thought experiment. Assume for a second, just for the sake argument, that God exists and he has set the laws of nature. He usually sits back and lets things run their course according to these settings, resulting in a universe with consistent laws that our science can study. But he sometimes intervenes and suspends one law or the other for a specific occasion. [End of assumptions.]
Would science be able to show this suspension? Perhaps, while it's happening... Would science be able to show it after the fact? Not likely. Would the fact that science can't show it prove it didn't happen? We agree it wouldn't. Would science be able to show that such a suspension is possible? No. Would science be able to show that it's impossible? I don't see how, Slim.
Slim,
How does science show that the resurrection "could not have happened", when by its definition, it would have meant the suspension of the laws that science studies? How do you show that no such suspension occurred?
That is why Aniko..."it would have meant the suspension of the laws that science studies". If we suspend the laws of nature...then we have no basis for further scientific inquiry ...anything goes. Your assumption does allow for that 'anything goes' but it is an assumption with no basis for being true.
Assume for a second, just for the sake argument, that all frogs can, at will, turn themselves invisible. This is a suspension of the laws of nature...but what the hell...let's assume. We can't see the frogs...they can't be seen...but they can do it because we ASSUME they can. Is this an assumption worthy of consideration?
But...Would science be able to show this suspension? Perhaps, while it's happening... Would science be able to show it after the fact? Not likely. Would the fact that science can't show it prove it didn't happen? We agree it wouldn't. Would science be able to show that such a suspension is possible? No. Would science be able to show that it's impossible? I don't see how, Aniko.
Slim: "There is no proof that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen but there is evidence that it could not have happened."
The preponderance of the evidence is that it did happen, Mike.
No it's not. There is no evidence.
I don't believe that Jesus actually existed either. He is a story, a myth and the same story and myth have been told many times before his.
"...I recognize that there are mysteries in the universe. Some of them are obvious, like quantum physics and negative time. Some are faith based, like the Trinity or the Resurrection. I like to solve mysteries, but I dont believe all mysteries can be solved. "
Your religion is an attempt to solve those mysteries Sy.
I'm an atheist, but I believe Jesus the person existed. For a time from which very few writings survived, it would be quite a conspiracy for a non-existent person to be mentioned in so many separate sources, not to mention his following that has grown to millions.
Your analogy with the frogs seems to agree that there could be things that are not demonstrable by science. (It's not a very good one it that it talks about all frogs having this ability--something we could expect to be able to observe sooner or later if we kept looking. That wouldn't be true for the claim that one special frog once turned invisible.) But since you agree about the logical possibility, your point must be that some possibilities--and you could have come up with sillier ones-- "are not worthy of consideration". But does the fact that some of them aren't prove that none of them are? And who gets to decide what's "worthy of consideration"? From what point of view? For what purpose? Is this a scientific or logical category? What is worthiness derived from?
> The fact remains that mutations can lead to increases in
>complexity by natural selection, which is the mechanism of evolution.
My understanding is that there are animals with larger DNA that
our human DNA, and many plants have far more chromosomes than
human beings. How are you defining complexity here?
As for a GOD, God or god(s), It or they, are nothing more to each of us than we think they are, we thus define our own concept of that ... or not.
There are no "laws of nature" ... other than, like facts, the ones we claim to be so ... and they, only for those so claiming as long as they believe so.
The fact, truth, or claims of any, one, millions, or billions, are only their claims ... all things are relative, relative to each other and to the total ... but as in eternity and infinity, no one knows the "end" of it.
Thus without a concept of GOD to relate it all to as a UNIversal Total, there is no real and absolute meaning to any of it.
Though I probably do not agree with everything Sy says, I would say that he has a healthy outlook concerning the "mystery" involved ... it is all a mystery when you get right down to the basics of it all ... no one here knows anything for absolute certainty ...
The closest to knowing of that is that there is none ... and the most basic "equation" or "formula" that defines that un-certainty, is the BET* as (+=-) where the "=" stands for the Spirit of GOD ... IMnsHO
And I defy any to "prove" me wrong. :-)
*Basic Equation of Truth.
I defy anyone to prove that's wrong ; )
With apologies to Anikó, I'll take the first question from your comment to her.
"If we suspend the laws of nature...then we have no basis for further scientific inquiry..." Your statement reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science is always and forever subordinate to the (potentially inconvenient) truths of reality. One must, in effect, feel around for a description of what has occurred, to predict what may occur in the future (if one is graced with the occurrence of confirming future events), and to establish control over events based on past experience, and past experience only. The balance of your comment there is acquiescence to the points made in Anikó's comment.
Dave: "The preponderance of the evidence is that it did happen, Mike."
Mike: "No it's not. There is no evidence."
In part, we may have to visit the methods and findings of ancient studies, and at the same time, turn a skeptic's eye on unreliable sources. There is a ton of evidence in the written and archaeological history of the time. Scholarly research does not offer us our own choice about the existence, or the ministry, of Jesus. The evidence of His resurrection is documented in the reports of numerous witnesses, against which there are no credible detractors. Attempts to discredit the reports reflect a faltering attempt to prove a point that goes against the archaeological and documentary evidence. Many critiques of the historical record, if applied to ancient studies generally, would call into question the history of most of the figures of ancient times. The fact is that the historical Jesus is one of the most exhaustively-investigated figures in ancient history, and the details of his ministry have been carefully analyzed for many years. One can go into denial, at the peril of losing any claim to objectivity in this matter, or indeed in any issue of scientific investigation.
"Using continuous treatments of mutagen and selection, you can easily "breed" a population of cells that have gained a great deal of complexity compared to the origianl cells. And we can find exactly which genes were mutated in order to allow to that increase in complexity of function."
To my understanding, you are describing micro evolution, which virtually no one disputes. Essentially, the same sort of thing humans have been engaging in for thousands of years, breeding domestic plants and animals, to accentuate various characteristics . . You tossed in that stuff about gaining a "great deal of complexity", but . . . ???
I'm really not sure what to think now . . . You seem to be just assuming that this process could be carried on till anything at all was in that dish, and that's just assuming, not science.
"..., it would be quite a conspiracy for a non-existent person to be mentioned in so many separate sources, not to mention his following that has grown to millions."
How many separate sources Joan?...originally? And what would be a good source? A contemporary historian would, but no historians of the day wrote about Jesus. There is a forged (agreed to be a forgery by an overwhelming majority of scholars) reference in the writing of Josephus...who wasn't a true contemporary of the Jesus figure....he was born 37 years after the alleged death of Jesus. No first hand reports of the life and activities of Jesus are known to exist.
Wikipedia...The four canonical Gospels (most commonly estimated to have been written between the years 65 and 110 and the writings of Paul of the New Testament are among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life.
There is also the Gospel of the Hebrews...which as been judged to be of questionable authenticity.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts. read the entire article
"I'm not talking about ussuspending the laws of nature, Slim. I'm talking about acknowledging the logical possibility that they may be/may have been suspended."
Sure, there is a possibility that the laws of nature were suspended...but not a logical possibility. How would you argue the logic of this possibility? Would it be because we can't prove that it didn't happen?
Would it be because everything is possible that cannot be proved to not be possible?
How would you are the logic of assuming that the laws of nature can be/have been/may have been suspended?
"There is a ton of evidence in the written and archaeological history of the time."
What evidence from what time? When was the very first known account of Jesus written? Not one historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him.
"The evidence of His resurrection is documented in the reports of numerous witnesses, against which there are no credible detractors. "
What reports? Did any first hand witness write an account?
"The fact is that the historical Jesus is one of the most exhaustively-investigated figures in ancient history, and the details of his ministry have been carefully analyzed for many years."
True. And none of those investigations can even substantiate that there was even a town named Nazareth in the time of Jesus.
In your Feb 10, 2010, 7:49am EST comment you are attempting to turn an understanding of physics (or science) on its head, and unconvincingly so. Any scientific endeavor operates on a long list of assumptions, and one of them is that the laws of physics remain constant over a set of observations. That's an assumption, Mike, and the burden rests on the investigator to prove that it's true. The piece about what is logical can be dismissed immediately. Not only is a singularity known to have occurred at the inception of the universe, they are well-documented in other places even today, such as in black holes. I question your logic here.
Regarding history and archaeology, one thing an archaeological dig can do is potentially damage the credibility of a writer, by proving that a place or name that is mentioned either did not exist or is different in some way than described. There are hundreds of artifacts from the Holy Land and not one of them conflicts with biblical accounts. Some of them confirm things that were thought to have been reported wrongly. The validity of eyewitness accounts is far better for the life, death, and resurrected Jesus than for any other figure in ancient history. Although Paul did not meet Jesus during his earthly life, he met on at least two occasions with disciples who were eyewitnesses, one of those meetings between two to five years after the crucifixion. His written accounts square with the later written history. Your complaint about Nazareth is out of date. One of the latest digs to turn up information found some interesting things just a couple of months ago.
You are avoiding my questions...again...by criticizing what I am arguing.
"There are hundreds of artifacts from the Holy Land and not one of them conflicts with biblical accounts. "
Your point? The question should be..and is as I asked you..."do any of the hundreds of artifacts from the Holy Land support Biblical accounts?"
"Any scientific endeavor operates on a long list of assumptions, and one of them is that the laws of physics remain constant over a set of observations."
No...the assumption is that the laws of nature (physics) are constant, but that our understanding of those laws may vary as our knowledge evolves.
But the question at hand is of the suspension of the laws of nature as we understand them. Can these laws be suspended...temporarily put on hold, avoided? These would be called miracles. Are miracles possible? I don't think so. The very fact that an event CAN occur means that the laws of nature allow for that event.
Certainly...there can be argument about what is actually possible...miracle wise, but the if miracles CAN occur, then there is nothing that is not possible...it seems to me. So issue the boils down to what one believes. You Dave, believe things happened that I do not believe happened.
So...back to the question of assumptions. Even lacking proof that a god exists...you are willing to assume that one does.
"That's an assumption, Mike, and the burden rests on the investigator to prove that it's true." That's an assumption Dave, and the burden rests on the investigator to prove that it's true.
The same goes for the claims made in the Bible. The fact that "There are hundreds of artifacts from the Holy Land and not one of them conflicts with biblical accounts." offers no proof. This is true for claims of the resurrection. There are no first hand accounts Dave...are there? And even if there were...what would this really mean? There are first hand accounts of being abducted by aliens and spending time on board alien spacecraft. What does this prove? Nothing.
I read your "latest digs" article. This shows is that at some point in the past, there were people living at a location that was named Nazareth at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived OR that a group of people lived at a location that later came to be known as Nazareth. There is no proof that the location was named Nazareth at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.
So...if an event happens...it happens because it is allowed by the laws of nature. If the laws of nature do not allow for an event to happen...it can't....(not the laws of nature as we understand them...our knowledge is incomplete). In other words, there is no such thing as miracles...only events for which do not understand the reasons or have explanations for. In the case of resurrection from the dead...IF a resurrection is claimed to have occurred...either it did not occur or it did occur and we do not understand how it could have...but no suspension of the laws of nature would have occurred.
I do not believe that resurrection from the dead is possible. Many people believe that at some point in the future...we will be able to resurrect the dead. (I am not one of these people). If we are successful...we will have operated within the laws of nature....no miracles will have occurred.
I hate to see a discussion turn on different meanings of the same term.
I'll never forget the basic logic class I took in college where the instructor illustrated syllogisms with some silly examples. He presented a bunch of correct syllogisms with silly premises. A lot of the students argued with him. I'm not sure that he got through to all of them that his reasoning was correct according to the rules that govern syllogisms.
What took you so long? I have been wondering where you were. Anyway, your question, (also from Bruce, Hi Bruce) about complexity is a good one. Biological complexity is actually less related to what we can see regarding structures (like wings and lungs) that it is to function. There are some modern bacteria, and simple organisms like insects and fish that incredibly complex in the way they function, even if their bodies seem ordinary.
A single animal cell has a great deal of complexity, of course. But by inducing mutations as described in my experiment, a great number of increases in functional comlexity can be observed. Here are some examples. The cells can attach and grow on plastic. The can become literally immortal (There is a post on HeLa cells by Lloyd her on Gather), they can resist the effects of poisons, they can change shape. They can survive in an animal, and resist the attacks of immune cells, they can penetrate tissues, and survive in hostile environments. All of this is the result of genetic mutations, followed by natural selection.
We cant do the same experiment with animals for technical reasons (time and space related) but the results with cells can be extrapolated.
You comments about the inability to find physical evidence of the existence of Jesus reminds me of something. Oh yes, I remember, the claims of creationists that there is no physical evidence of the common ancestor of men and apes.
In both cases, this is not very convincing, and for the same reason. It is very difficult to find physical evidence for any specific event, person or thing from the past. We need to make inferences from what we do find. A figure like Christ would not have been expected to draw any attention from contemporary observers (and there were very few journalists at the time). He had a very small following for a very short period of time, and He was one of hundreds of preachers and rebels in a place and time that was on the brink of rebellion, warfare and destruction.
The most important miracle of Christ (in my view) was the conversion of Paul. It was he who spread the word and with Peter started the new faith.
Oh and btw, for Char et al, on the other side, the reason we have not found the definitive "missing link" (Although we keep getting closer) is that these animals were very rare (as were all hominids, including us) and it will take enormous luck to find skeleton.
A building described in John 5:2 as having five porticoes or "covered colonnades" that has been unearthed. It's in the hundreds, and I don't have source for you on all of them. But there's a couple for you.
Mike, I regret what I see as a misapprehension on your part about how scientific assumptions work. I'll think about it and try to come up with a better lesson on that piece.
Nazareth. Hmmm. There is demonstrably a first-century place in the current location of Nazareth. There is a place frequently referred to in ancient documents as "Nazareth," which was clearly located in the general vicinity of the current Nazareth. Is there a geocoding problem here? What is the discrepancy that concerns you, Mike?
"I was raised an atheist, so I know this might not make any sense to you." Did not know that, but it makes lots of sense to me. My parents did not raise me anything. Both grandmothers tried to raise me Christian and I resisted vigorously until scientific evidence convinced me that a creator exists. I even resisted what the evidence clearly showed, but more and more kept being shown to me, mostly by atheistic scientists.
But this part of the thread is getting more religious than I'd prefer. It's supposed to be a scientific discussion.
Are you equating the lack of physical evidence for a specific man and the lack of physical evidence of the common ancestor of men and apes as both being meaningful for the purpose if a discussion about the possible existence of a specific man? (by the way..slick little sarcastic insertion ..."reminds me of something. Oh yes, I remember")
"A figure like Christ would not have been expected to draw any attention from contemporary observers (and there were very few journalists at the time). He had a very small following for a very short period of time, and He was one of hundreds of preachers and rebels in a place and time that was on the brink of rebellion, warfare and destruction. "
I don't know Sy...I mean a resurrection from the dead would have been a big news event..it seems to me...even in the days of "volcanic eruptions equal pissed off gods".... even more so than walking on water and feeding a bunch of people... either the feeding of the 4000 or the feeding of the 5000 with five loaves of bread and two fish or seven loaves of bread and a few fish respectively. Or raising a man from the dead...or restoring a severed ear...or healing a blind person and a demonic boy and a few lepers...stopping a sea storm...you get the picture. Talk about drawing attention to one's self.
And yet...none of these feats are recorded for at least 40 or 50 years...probably much longer depending on when one believes the canonical gospels were written.
Yes...the conversion of Paul would be important...if it actually happened.
Regarding miracles, I actually agree with: ". . . no suspension of the laws of nature would have occurred." It does not require one, so I am constantly irritated by those who insist that a miracle is a suspension of the laws of nature. God never violates his laws, never!!!
Miracles involve mostly using the laws in ways we are not probably not capable of nor yet understand.
I don't want to get into too much religious debate on this thread, but regarding Jesus' resurrection, the actions/behavior of his follows after his death, according to non-biblical accounts are powerful evidence to me. The movement first diminished then sprang back with much vigor within the space of a few months. Some who claimed to be eyewitnesses immense endured torture and violent, painful deaths without retaliation. Not what I would have expected from persons preaching something that they know to be a lie. Especially when all they had to do to avoid it was simply to put a pinch of powder in the small flame in the arena.
I asked..'"The question should be..and is as I asked you...'do any of the hundreds of artifacts from the Holy Land support Biblical accounts?'"
Damn...I should have been specific...biblical accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus....or now that Sy has brought them up...his miracles (or I brought them up as a result of what Sy wrote) . It is simple to record things that have happened after they happened....it's called recorded history...but the recorded history of the day makes no reference to Jesus.
"Mike, I regret what I see as a misapprehension on your part about how scientific assumptions work. I'll think about it and try to come up with a better lesson on that piece."
I don't know what misapprehensions you are referring...but still a LESSON from Dave...!!! What an honor!
"....regarding Jesus' resurrection, the actions/behavior of his follows after his death, according to non-biblical accounts are powerful evidence to me. "
What non biblical accounts Dennis? ...what contemporary non biblical accountants?..you know... firsthand accounts.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Why anyone would believe this is the question. I think the stronger and more dangerous and perhaps helpful force is the ability of people to decide to believe the Bible or in the Gods or whatever else despite the clash with reason, logic and experience. The need for scared people, and we are all scared, to pretend that they have some measure of control in a chaotic and hostile universe.
The better way to control the world is through science, but science is still err to the fallibilities of reason that cause people to believe in religion and magic.
As I mentioned earlier, one brand of control is another's brand of oppression, and the whole thing gets dumped into religious wars.
Why can't everyone admit we do not know?
It was not so long ago that some scientists were advocating bleeding people, or other weird medical treatments. Early treatments for cancer or other diseases were not so great. Today the treatments for mental problems is mostly a chemical lobotomy in some cases.
Always in 100 years we will look back and wonder what were we thinking. I don't know why that is so hard to build into the way people look at things, we are not in an end state of existence that we know everything or have answers for everything.
Not so Slim ... it all depends upon relative perspective, the POV ...
If one were to have a very long cubic square that was curved into a circle by the joining of the ends ... and then place the POV within the center portion of any part of that square circled, the experience, or view, looking out at the proper angles would be of a square.
IMnsHO.
The 6th grade lecture routine has gotten very old. It is simply not rational to my mind, that you would fail to recognize by now that I am not in need of such pablum, and enter into a real dialog with me, if you really knew this discipline. I myself could make far better arguments for the credibility of some actual scientific evidence, which supports evolution theory, so this is getting to be a joke here . .
You have repeatedly fed this pack of snarling know-nothings, with grand declarations and absolutist pronouncements that belittles those actually attempting to discuss this, as though unaware of the negative impact on learning and understanding, that such authority based robotics encourages. As a man of science, it distresses me to see someone, especially a fellow Christian, promote such "me too" barbarism, and faith in the fleeting wisps of mere human wisdom.
As a man of God, it is certainly not appropriate for me to speak so to a fellow-servant, but to my mind, you have made it even more unacceptable to remain silent. This "science" is leading many millions into a comfortable disdain for actual reasoning and scientific inquiry, I feel, and though I cannot stop, or even slow this gruesome mob fomentation, I will not keep quiet about it.
I urge you to step down a bit, and speak as a man, rather than an oracle of universal truth. You are forcing my hand . . .
Calm down brother. Im sorry if I come across as pedantic, but the problem is that I am, having been a professor for so long. Occupational hazard, Im afraid. My goals are the same as yours, and as you said we both serve the same Master. Our approaches, and our interpretations are very different, but I am a firm believer that all men and women of good will, which includes all the commenters on this post, are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Anyway, I see no reason to get upset at these discussions. We are all seeking the truth, and learning from each other. And that certainly includes me.
"Anyway, I see no reason to get upset at these discussions."
I do, and I told you why. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with differences in our views on these matters. It has to do with you praising and promoting the mindless mobbing and ridicule that has gone on here on these threads. It has to do with you reinforcing the ditsy notion, that to be scientific, is to believe whatever your told by "scientists", and to attack anyone that dares to question their authority.
I know another sort of science . . . Do you?
Of course there are logical contradictions (even though at the quantum level, even non-contradiction fails), but that's not what we were talking about here. We were talking about whether we know that what we observe as the "laws of nature" have never been "suspended". You agreed that we don't--we simply cannot show this. (Physicists admit that we don't know that the physical constants of our universe have always been the same, or if they're the same everywhere inside this universe--it's assumed that they are, so science can proceed.) This is the "logical" problem I'm talking about.
Now, if you want to disprove something by reducing it to a contradiction, you have to be careful that you're dealing with actual contradictions and not merely playing a semantic game. If you define miracles as the suspension of the laws of nature, and then define the laws of nature as those that allow everything that happens to happen, then of course they're never suspended and miracles don't happen. But you've only shown that things that don't happen don't happen--a tautology. You haven't shown that things that are completely unexpected and contrary to our usual experience don't happen. Jesus may still have walked on water or been resurrected--you just won't call it a miracle if it happened, because anything that happens is not a miracle. So what's the point? (As a reminder: this exchange started with your statement that "the possibility of the resurrection of a dead person is in conflict with science". That's what I'm arguing against, and my argument is that if something is outside of the scope of science, then it is not in conflict with science.)
I'll look up some and post later. The one I readily remember is "The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus", since I have the book at home. A small flame along with a supply of the powder was placed in the arena for the convenience of those Christians who would just have to simply take a pinch of the powder and sprinkle it in the flame to escape the horrible execution. Very very few did.
Dave A.,
"I'll look through my back issues of the Bethlehem Star and see if I can find any."
LOL :-D)
One will hear, "well, these (biblical) books weren't written until later" which obfuscates both the corroboration provided by Paul's almost immediate "reporting" on Jesus' death and resurrection, and the fact that a robust oral tradition--one that preserved the important elements of the message--was a fact of life in the first-century Middle East. Scrolls were expensive and hard to come by, especially in areas far away from urban centers; many couldn't read; and more importantly, there was a phenomenon sometimes dubbed "social memory" which served to preserve the texts through the group hearing, evaluating and even providing vociferous corrections of errors in an oral recitations. For example, see Richard A. Horsley, "Jesus in Context." By the time that "other ancient sources" got around to writing the history of Nero's torching or loosing dogs on Christians, one will hear in these threads that the reported presence of this sect "merely shows that there were Christians"--i.e., that it is now too late to say anything definitive about their beliefs. This is a shell game fed by ignorance--something that is frowned upon--when it comes to other topics.
There are scholarly sources that document much intensive research on the facts of Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and followers; but as I said earlier, there are plenty of poorly-constructed websites that will lead some of those--who otherwise claim a dispassionate rationality--far afield from the present historical (i.e., social science-based) state of knowledge of these issues.
* a few examples:
Andrew - crucified in a spread-eagled position
Bartholomew - flayed or skinned alive, then beheaded
James - beheaded
John the Baptist - beheaded
Judas Iscariot - hanged himself after betraying Jesus
Paul - beheaded
Peter - crucified, head-down
Simon the Zealot - hacked to death
Thomas - speared to death
Others martyred include James, son of Alphaeus, in Egypt; Jude (Thaddaeus), in Persia; Matthias, in Ethiopia; Philip, at Hieropolis.
Emperor Trajan’s letter to Pliny:
“No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that [he] is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the grounds of repentance.”
If you check, you will notice that very few Christians disavowed themselves of their faith.
Although this account occurred in the second century CE, it shows that those persons were so convinced of Jesus' resurrection that they chose death. Nobody dies for something they know is a lie.
If you check the well recorded atrocities of Nero against the Christians about the middle of the first Century, you will note that they willingly died horrible deaths for their faith. Many of those who died were those who saw Jesus after his resurrection.
Without evolution, nothing we know about biology, including medicine, makes any sense at all.
"Without evolution, nothing we know about biology, including medicine, makes any sense at all."
An often expressed notion, that I have never seen even a single clear example of . . Have you got one?
Our Zoology teacher gave us a choice and we told her not to bother teaching evolution.
Of note however is the face that no creation teaching was done.
Contrary to what was expected, we understood anatomy quite well, we were however lousy at taxonomy. Taxonomy is based on supposed evolutionary descent, so that was expected. :-D)
"I and many of the commentators here did the work. Spoon Feeding you has gotten tiresome"
Sure, you guys have become weary of declaring your vast knowledge and understanding . . . I feel for ya, yes man ; )
None of them has said that my reasoning is faulty, they just disagree with my interpretation of the evidence. I expect disagreements with interpretations; biologists do that constantly. Ask them if you doubt me.
Watch how Aniko debates. I have no rebuttal to the last comment.
Bruce,
"What is logical is not always true Dennis." I know that. I've said that many times. I have also admitted that Sy, Farmer Slim, and Chuck are all making logical conclusions based on the evidences. My contention is and has always been that there are often more than one logical conclusion. I have never insisted that mine is definitely correct.
There is also the use of primary evidence, ie. the way the universe behaves, not just cultural or traditional memes handed down in stories or books. No one would naturally come up with the idea of creationism, Adam and Eve, etc. on their own, but evolution can be perceived by the behavior of the universe.
Evolution could conceivably be wrong, but it will be wrong in the context of further knowledge and understanding, like Einstein proved Newton wrong ... it is not wrong in the sense that you die and see Allah instead of God in the afterlife, or that Jesus is more "magical" than Mohammed.
For many I think the religion thing boils down to magical thinking, they believe in a time when miracles occurred. Now that the world is so big and so much is in common it should be clear to most people that things happen in the context of the real material world.
That may be a huge loss, or "the" loss that subconsciously destroys human civilization, but all that means is that we used a cultural "trick" to program each other to behave well inside of our respective cultures and that we cannot "evolve" our minds enough to expand those cultures and see the real world of human behavior for what it is.
"Dennis, their can be more than one logical conclusion sure ... but only science offers a structure for resolving that and moving understanding forward."
Nonsense, people have been resolving amd understanding innumerable things since long before science was begun.
"Nevertheless . . (blah blah blah)", Sir; you spoke nonsense. It's just plain untrue that "only science offers a structure for resolving that and moving understanding forward". You are caught just spouting any old thing that pops into your head, sensible or not. Accusing me of such things, is just as reactive and unsubstantiated by anything you've presented.
Accuse away, don't bother me in the slightest/ In fact, it gives me ways to point out the irrationality of treating the imaginings of bone gazers as scientific observation. Same folly.
You may not see my point, of you may disagree, but you do not get to pass judgement on me or my ideas, but your moronic neverending quixotic blathering of nonsense, and not only to me, to what you have no answer for is only a fitting argument for an asskicking ... which is why I imagine you spend most your life on the Internet hiding.
Here....
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
Science doesn't use the word "theory" that way. A scientific theory is an explanation that has been carefully tested through experiments and/or extensive data collection designed to provide counter examples.
Being a fundamentalist of any religion does not allow for any change,
yet all the religious documents of all religions are full of contradictions and dilemas with no solution.
For example, if you are a fundamentalist, the earth is created and unchanged.
Then a volcano causes an island to disappear or somewhere else a volcano becomes a new mountain or a huge storm causes a city sized chunk of coasline to break and dissolve into the sea.
If the earth is a finished creation how are these dilemas of a changing earth resolved?
How is it that man can and does cause major changes by their activities and building and destructions and rebuildings.
Dams, river diversions, swamp draining, mountain top removals and all that human changing of a created and finished earth.
Theory: 1. A mental viewing; contemplation. 2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done. 4. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. (3. has to do with math)
There is an accepted definition of "scientific theory", you don't get to make up your own definition and expect acceptance.
I'll copy/paste this much from the article, but to truly understand, you must read all three definitions: "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. "
The word "theory" as used in science doesn't mean the same thing as it does in normal conversation. The definition Chuck quoted is a good description of the way science uses the word. It's a technical term with a specific meaning.
Sorry, not so, any opinion is as good as another to the person holding it. I use the word "perfect" differently at times than do most folks, that does not make me "wrong" when my intention is stated and covered by one of the stated dictionary definitions. It may make me wrong in the yes of another, but all such determinations are ultimately subjective.
IMnsHO.
Back to the subject, both theories are wrong. We did not evolve from monkeys and of course the Adam and Eve story is twisted. Humans populated the earth long before our records of history.
Oh, Dim-Aura-of-the-Sun: Of course I knew that shingles came from Chicken Pox, why would you think I didn't? Chicken Pox may also be involved in Parkinson's Disease? What has THAT to do with anything?
Why are we not dying of disease at some incredible rate? Like it or not - the answer is "Modern Medicine."
Why does the nworld population keep increasing? People having too many children, who now stay alive.
Why do you keep saying inane things? *crickets*
Sorry, but apparently you are not aware of the experimentation being done with human-pig hybrids that I posted - so much for modern science and genetic engineering.
According to Natural Selection most of us are born healthy and then all those diseases just happen to show up thus the reason for our survival up to this point.
Your "modern medicine" treats, it does not cure, if they did they would be out of business and quite a lucrative one at that.
You really need to stop time traveling back to 1953 and face the fact that your science is now obsolete and while you are at it look up the AMA and find out how it started.
Biology is the study of life not death.
Only through the Spirit, not in flesh? Because man was NOT meant to inhabit corruptable flesh, he was created for eternity; but after the fall, became mortal. Which is explained before the fact, "For in the day ye eat thereof (know), ye shall surely die."
Evolution of the kind you suggest would never bring the corruptable back to eternal! That is why!
I never read that . . . There was a "Tree of Life" mentioned, that apparently could render them immortal, but in the story, that is not available to them, after their rejection of God.
IMnsHO.
IMnsHO.
Just as one can't unscramble eggs and put them back into the egg shell, one also can't take DNA back a few thousands of years and do it over.
Oh yes, the big difference between theories and beliefs is that more research has been done on the theories. I still find it awesome that, despite all the research by all the best minds, there is so much we don't know about the way the world works.
This has been featured in 4 US and World News and Opinions.
The trouble is, their 'faith,' that 'head-in-the-sand' attitude is the sort that made people believe the world was flat and that we would all fall of if we went near the edge. They refuse to think out of the box, to try to understand beyond their own, safe little 'world.'
The difference between scientists and those into the evolution thing which has 'dinosaurs living with humans and the world is only 5,000 years old,' rubbish is that scientists test their theories and come to certain conclusions, a kind of truth, through logic and evidence. Those who are fool enough to believe in the other nonsense, the Adam & Eve stuff, the humans being placed on earth as if by magic, just 'know these things are the truth, cos it's written and they simply believe'.
They give too much respect to ideas which were in themselves formed by innocent, ill-educated people with little transport, little knowledge of the rest of the world. Don't forget, the Mediterranian means medi=middle, terra=earth; the middle of the earth. People living in the area thought this was all there was and, to them, it was.
Back in time, the church had too much power, too much political clout, which is where much of the early trouble came from, with the guilt, the inquisitions and so on.
Thank goodness for a few brave individuals who discovered things about evolution, biology, medicine, physics etc. Without a few thinkers and doers, we would never have discovered the things we have and know about today.
'The frog who lived in the well thought it a fine stretch of water.......until he saw the sea.'
Peace.
Of course they thought they were in the center of all that existed. So did everyone else. (Some people still manage to do this, if not physically, than ideologically.)
No they don't. You not only don't understand how science WORKS, you don't understand how scientists get PAID.
And enlarging upon that somewhat, the world view may be fine for many so far, but we are about to very physically voyage beyond this realm ... what will we find there that might change the way we now look at things ?
Even in this very day and age here on earth there are some relatively few small "communities" of people living in some deep jungle who have yet to have contact to any great degree with the rest of this world ... and not so many years ago there were many such isolated "tribes" ...
Can folks not see the relationship to this earth in the cosmic picture of relativity where we may well be but one isolated world tribe in the jungle of space as compared to other distant societies who may have yet to come across us ?
We have a very limited objective (physical) reality when it is realized that our 5 basic senses are so limited compared to what we have scientifically discovered as reality for other life forms and realms of being ... right here on earth.
Why would we think that other realities do not exist of different energy arrangements of time/space frequencies ? Some that may even have in their "lower" range of experience the ability to sense and "see" us where we cannot do the same concerning them ?
That is what our 6th sense allows us to do with the "spiritual (subjective) realm" of mind.
We should begin to envision that "Ocean" before we get thrust suddenly from the "well".
IMnsHO
1. Evolution is "only" a theory, not proven. This is a meaningless statement and betrays ignorance of the word theory in science
2. We didnt evolve from monkeys. Actually that one is correct, we didnt evolve from monkeys. Hominids (us) and monkeys and apes all evolved from an extinct common ancestor
3. Evolution is a religion, based on faith. No, it is science based on facts, observations and experiments
We have seen these errors over and over again. But Blind Lady Liberty has added a new one, which I guess, has recently appeared on the increasingly desparate (like John Knights answer to my experimental evidence) web sites. That modern research has diproved evolution. That is so wrong it is almost laughable. Just the opposite is true. Genetics and cell biology have provided massive amounts of data supporting natural selection and evolution.
So instead of changing, it is easier for them to keep trying to be right.
No matter how much must be ignored.
Pray tell, which is that ancestor? Has science definitively found it?
Would finding a fossil of the fabled missing link be as interesting or compelling as the results of DNA sequencing? Let's face it, the vast majority of things that have lived on earth didn't get fossilized. It's amazing we've learned as much from fossils as we have.
Why is that, Nippy? Exactly how are fossils formed anyhow?
-Mark
Actually there are several ways, in part depending on what's being fossilized. In general terms, organic material is replaced by inorganic material in a chemical exchange process. In essence, "bone becomes stone." For a more complete description that I found with a quick search thru Google, here's a link to "Citizendium: Fossilization:
Wouldn't it be nice if right before death every living thing went off to the Fossilization Chamber where they would be preserved for posterity? :)
Great self aggrandizing blathering . . Listing your grand proclamations with numbers and everything, surely impresses the gullible follower types to believe you know what the hell you're talking about. What a pathetic excuse for a man of science.
First of all, there is no “Theory of Evolution” just like there is no “Theory of Physics.” Evolution is a broad category and there have been many theories that have been proposed. Some of them have been shown to be more or less correct (in as much as Newton’s laws of physics are more or less correct, unless you are traveling near the speed of light).
Of course, just because the theories haven’t been proven perfect (we all knew aspirin was a great drug decades before we had a clue why it was a great drug) doesn’t mean the underlying general concept is incorrect. Newton’s notion of gravity was spot on even though his equations did not take into account those factors that are assumed in Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
Yes, it is wrong to simply dismiss science off hand, and people have a right to look at people funny who do so. But to equally act arrogant and flippant is as much anti-science as those who try to dismiss science. There are many theories of evolution and they attempt to paint a broad picture. Some are more proven than others. The key to it all is this simple fact. that the theories currently in effect are far superior to any other alternate theories that have been proposed by others and infinitely superior to the non theories proposed by those who wish to “discredit” evolution by, arrogance, snobbery and an absence of evidence.
Can you list some for us?
This new theory ... location, location, location.
"A new paper published in Zoologica Scripta argues that the distributions of the major primate groups are correlated with Mesozoic tectonic features and that their respective ranges are congruent with each evolving locally from a widespread ancestor on Pangea about 185 million years ago."
There is a really cute joke here as well, “Natural Selection” does in fact explain variation (and it’s the driving force behind most bacteria and viruses but it doesn’t explain the “Origin of Species.” Isolationism seems to explain the origins of species, especially in the evolution of man. Species evolution is not “gradual” but quantum; due in part to the nature of DNA, something Darwin did not know at the time.
Lamarck’s notion sneaks in the most interesting places. Argued at its most basic level, the environment changes traits which in turn are passed down to future generations, any notion where DNA is not stable from the moment of conception and impacts the stem cells used in reproduction are as much a shade of Lamarck as those theories that invoke the spirit of Darwin. There have been studies to suggest that viruses have had an enormous impact on our current DNA.
And yes, Chuck, I’ m not a biologist; I’m so old that in High School my frog was in black and white. (OK, I think it was a really poor specimen.) I’m a physics major with an astrophysics minor who went into computers and now gets stuck all day with stocks and bonds and futures and options and futures on options etc.
The National Center for Science Education, which describes itself as "the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out," conducted a survey of 1,000 individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science in which they asked respondents to select among three statements that had been included in an earlier Gallup Poll of the general public. (The choices were among humankind being created pretty much as-is, 10,000 years ago; evolution with God guiding the process; and evolution with God having no hand in the process.) 40% of the scientists chose the middle response, "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of Man." (And 5% chose the first, "as-is 10,000 years ago" response.)
On religious beliefs of scientists in general, a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press 2009 survey found that 51% of scientists believe in some form of deity or higher power. The percentage of believers is higher among younger scientists (66% in the 18-34 age group) and lower among scientists over 50 years old, although still over 40%.
I have seen, used for substitute of a verifiable fact an argument like this.
"I have seen this information written at hundreds of internet sites, so it must be correct."
The number of believers in something does not create it.
Well not unless it is all just "thought" anyway.
But never mind.
I guess I am asking you, if there are no facts to verify your belief, why pretend there are?
Or why continue to insist that opinions that you agree with are facts?
I scrolled through your comments on the thread, Cena, and it appears that you have a pretty well-fixed idea of what religious people are like and how they come up with their beliefs. Nevertheless, it was good of you to ask the questions (loaded though they are). In the first case, one's spiritual journey is personal and the facts that one awakens to are palpable and real; I could foolishly tell you that I know, for a fact, that you can ride a bike, and whether or not you had had the experience, it wouldn't be until you hopped on and figured it out for yourself that you'd have an unquestioning belief in that fact about yourself. In terms of your second question, I don't recall insisting that opinions are "facts." You'll have to show me where I've done that.
To you this is factual, yes?
In the first case, one's spiritual journey is personal and the facts that one awakens to are palpable and real;
To me it is not.
Yes, I have come to my own understanding of religious/spiritual people. Most of it is not mentioned in this thread, and is not important except to me.
Since like Ron W, I am a post-theist religious free zone, I do understand what it was/meant to be a believer.
Ok you are not showing/calling opinion as facts, but you are using numbers of opinions in agreement as a validation of your beliefs.
Re the validation of beliefs: no, I'm not offering what a slight minority of scientists said in answer to a survey as a validation of my beliefs. As I indicated earlier, I'm offering it as an interesting (merely interesting, I think you said) contrast to the general range of opinion I see in the thread, which consists of people who see little compatibility between God and evolution; much less, for those (including me) who find the science credible, an active role for God in evolution. That a sizable minority of scientists responded this way I find fascinating. I don't rely on that data, beyond that observation. I hope that clears things up.
I find your data interesting, since am in that 40%. I would also recommend (as I have before) The Language of God by Collins. Also check out a web site called Biologos, which has some great articles on science and faith.
This argument has been going on since the beginning of time - be it the big bang/ or God!
You have those who go one way, and those who go the other, and many in between.
I don't believe there will ever be 'proof' either way. I believe in the faith of my beliefs.
No one will ever change what I believe except myself and my own research.
I believe in the Bible - but not every little dot and verse and word. The Bible was put together by men, hence the lack of many female stories. The Bible tells us what the prophets and Jesus and his followers did / or didn't. It doesn't say much about the people who were just living their lives, feeding themselves, and doing day to day things. The Bible doesn't tell us what was going on in China, or Japan, or Africa, or the New World. It tells us what was going on in a small portion of the world.
There were many, many writings that never made it to the Bible - things those who were putting it together didn't believe. If you read the Catholic Bible there are 7 additional books there. If you read the Gnostic Bible, or The Lost Books of Eden, Or The Lost Books of the Bible, or the Koran, or the scrolls from the caves at the Dead Sea.... you will find many more stories. You will even find stories that more support the Big Bang theory.
But it is for each of us to search and seek and find what we believe in.
Until there is 'proof' - which is highly unlikely - we will still argue.
I don't argue, I listen and learn.
Thank you for another thought provoking post.
Oh, dear.
But apparently you had nothing against the rest I said.
Chuck said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is a literary construct... a fraud. I am not in conflict, no[r] can I ever be."
Here we can see that he's really much less amenable to research, fact-finding, and the mature ability to change his views in the face of new information, based on his statement. He has a litmus test--perhaps the word, "faith," and then he goes off. Please don't be concerned by that particular man behind the curtain.
Incidentally, I think that the apocryphal books are marked as "additional readings" in most Bibles. I.e., they are good stuff, but not part of the canon.
I like your comment. It's full of things to think about. Thanks, Sharon.
Trouble is whenever I participate such discussions I usually find myself arguing against the "Creationists" as well as the Evolutionists. The evidence that Chuck has presented on other threads has convinced me that God did not do it. The one who did it has displayed apparent limitations in abilities; all DNA and RNA, no other nucleic acids, several exact sequences repeated in unrelated species, similar anatomical features in different life forms etc. Sunaura just loves when I do that.
However, because the expected time lines differ very greatly from the observed time lines, this is one of the big reasons that I reject the evolution theory in its current form. For reasons I have already stated, my view is that Earth was seeded with an amazing variety of different forms of life, with hundreds of thousands or millions of species each, which have evolved to what we now see around us. Some have barely evolved at all. There was no one common ancestor of all life; there were millions.
Im happy that Chuck has made some progress in "converting" you to the right side of the issue. Im not sure though what you mean by the time lines. Do you mean the time required for life to begin?
Too many appeared in too short a space of time.
The other things are that the adjustments in the DNA, the additions and subtractions of whole and parts of chromosomes was none way too efficiently and precisely and with no errors. The modifications to get to the complexity were amazingly well done and "thought out". It involved the simultaneous developments of other tissues and structures from a wide variety of different cell types. For example, the skeleton was formed and muscles which attached to them; they also needed a nervous system and a complex blood supply. Everything was so well coordinated and precise. And it happened much too quickly. The engineering involved was the work of a genius!!!
Creationist are irritated with me for insisting that Jesus did it, not God.
DENNIS!!!! STOP THAT!!! WHEREINELL did they come from in the FIRST place? "Seeding the Earth" solves NOTHING!
The idea is not even of my originality. I read that in a review of a paper on abiogenesis. One of the eminent specialists suggested it. But he was referring to the elusive first ancestor. However, since the Cambrian Explosion reveals so many different types of life forms in such a short period of time, I drew the logical conclusion that there were several ancestors.
"How to discuss Creation with a Denier and win?" :)
Good point on the Explosion. Nobody has yet told me who the missing link is, the common ancestor all recognize MUST be there. It is, right in Genesis.
That's the book Im writing, only with a slightly different twist.
Dennis
The Cambrian explosion was fast. But it took about 2 billion years to go from single celled prokaryotes to multicelled organisms. What seems to determine whether evolution moves fast or slow is the environment. Explosions follow great extinctions (there have about 5 of those) because there is lots of room for new species to occupy vacant niches. When the niches are full, new organisms have a hard time competing.
I think at one time, Dennis and I were thinking of writing it together. I bet you would read that one, eh Char.
Any way, I have carefully and repeatedly examined the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory that you seem to be referring to and find it extremely difficult to accept that such extensive, detailed, well choreographed and coordinated modifications came about so quickly spontaneously. Each was very accurately achieved though they required an impressive amount of precision.
I doubt I'm qualified to write the "Opposition Response", either.
It is my own opinion that what you have presented here is simply a "concept," or a conjectural explanation, perhaps only resembling a scientific theory which may be somewhere in existence. Certainly nothing you have explored can be viewed as absolute certainty.
No other "theory" is accepted just because one can not think of an alternative. If you test the same thing over and over without introducing the possibility of another theory????yes, you might get the same results each time. Is the archaeologist field scientific, or not, because he can't tell us what he might uncover in the area of his next dig? Or, as evolutionists tell us ... they have seen tiny changes which, when given enough time will cause larger changes to take place. That is akin to saying that because I can jump an inch right now, that if given enough time...I will be able to jump from the east to the west coast. aaaahhh ~~~ now talk about sounding silly?
What is silly is how you "bully" your way with a belligerent attitude on any topic, or introduce yourself, as the one who knows everything about everything, and by golly, no one better question that. "Know it all's " are most annoying because of their arrogance, and seemingly thinking they can "frighten" people into accepting their "bull" as fact. And I am more than a tad bit tired of YOUR nonsense.
ReMine tells us, evolution simply adapted itself to the fossil sequence, because it could not predict it ... just to illustrate how human bias could affect radiometric dating.
Now, I must mime Chuck here, and say that anyone disagreeing with anything I have said just looks silly !!
So "Block" me. Then I won't see Your particular brand of ignorance in my threads any more.
I'm so glad you didn't disappoint, and used your usual "You're ignorant" response as opposed to responding to any part of the comment.
You just continue to provide more proof that even "rocks" can read and write, so long as they can use the same ole' worn out phrases. Just using "ignorance" each time doesn't speak to the issue of how you arrived at your consensus of my, or others brand of ignorance, or what constitutes a particular "brand of ignorance." Just more examples of your unearned arrogance and 'know it all' attitude. My point was that I don't think you do know it all. You have proven that, over and over.
I am a charitable person, and question things I see written that I don't agree with. I just don't see "blocking" as an intelligent reaction over a disputed point. How would one ever get opposing or different views to consider? However, I do understand that as being your natural reaction.
But, as Chuck has said, it makes no sense to try to argue with a scientific theory, when you dont understand the basic concepts and data that have gone into making it. I understand genetics and evolution very well, but I dont understand climate science, so even though I have been snow bound all week, I am not about to argue against the theory of global warming.
(Ooops. Pretend I didnt say that. I dont want to get into a whole nother argument)
Whatever, wherever, however, there was a beginning. From nothing, came something "material", touchable. That essence cannot be found, and science is so infantile as not being able to address it, so it postulates. Nothing more, yet arrogance arises in these suppositions.
Karen: bravo.
We know from Einstein's work that we can establish an equivalency between matter and energy, but it goes further: in the first few hundred thousand years of creation, it was so dense and hot that there was no way for matter to organize in the sense that we think of it today. Some of the particles that scientists at CERN are looking for are thought to have existed at some point there, and maybe only in a few other types of places in the universe, such as black holes.
"that give the effect of solid"
What I know about subatomic particles, Karen, tells me that these forces do, in fact, make things "hard" to the touch. Sometimes I hear people go on about how solids are made up mostly of empty space. All that says, in reality, is that the nuclei of atoms (and the bonds in compounds) are really hard. They resist displacement so successfully that we think of the compounds that we run our fingers across as "really hard." Quantum mechanics is kind of a multi-tasking science, in that we are asked to think of any substance as consisting of either particles, or sort of centroids of energy fields, both at the same time.
Karen, a lot of quantum bowling balls are flying about right now, and no one quite knows how to label them. That's why CERN is trying to illuminate some more chunks of interesting stuff, to confirm some of the cocktail napkin doodling that has been going on since the demise of the SSC accelerator at Wachahatchie, Texas. There is still significant work going on in my stomping grounds at Batavia, Illinois, at FNAL (Fermilab), but the scene is shifting to Geneva, Switzerland and CERN. I love this stuff, but I'd better take a breath.
HERE: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977941919
"Most interesting was the discussion of the theory of gravity."
That interests me too . . but, for a different reason. What we call the "theory of gravity", is NOT an explanation of the phenomenon we can observe. It offers no explanation at all as to WHY objects of mass are attracted to one another, just aspects of how that that attraction will manifest. We still don't know with any certainty why they attract, nor why the consistency manifests. It just does.
Science works that way. It ignores the why questions. The IT buzz phrase for this kind of behavior is "working as designed."
Science is about explanation and prediction of natural phenomena. It doesn't do such a bad job of it.