Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Stuff It! (In a Box)

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian worries about not losing his rules stuff.


Featured Workbench Article

Taking the Spin Out of Magnetic Flight Stands

Can Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian solve the rotation problem with magnetic flight stands?


Featured Profile Article


47,747 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2009 6:44 a.m. PST

TJRAYMOND

Transplant creasjonist ides he and other creations have to science, all the tings you list as rules are actualy the rules of creations, and is the complete opisit of how science work.

Great scientific advances and knowlage has come when a scientist have proven them self wrong.
They had a hyposises and thought a lot of hard work they came to the conclution that what they thought was right was woring but in the prosses they found out something even better. As many scientits say, one of the best things that can happen to them is that they are proven wrong. for them it's exciting just becasue SCIENCE IS NOT DOGMATIC

Just becasue you as a creationist disregard evidence, have to belive dogma and twist the truth, dosn't mean everybody els have to act as dishonest as you.

And by the way calling scientist lazy is probebly one of the most libel things you can say.

RockyRusso06 Jun 2009 11:03 a.m. PST

Hi

False syllogism again. Actually, TJ, you use analogy with atomic theory without explaining the origin of the first atom and how that atom met another atom to make a molecule which, ultimately, leads to carbon compounds which leads to abiogenesis.

All need the same time scale, of course, that you dismiss from the abiogenesis idea.

So, again, you start with two more falsehoods to reach a third.

What I find interesting is that I have a lot of fundy friends in several different christian sects but they have all agreed to spout the same arguments, all of a sudden, on THIS subject.

So, who has your side right here, TJ, the Baptists, the 7th Day Adventists, the Mormons, the Jehova's witnesses?

They have all finally agreed on something, I think this might reduce traditional religious angst. A greater good.

Now, with the reading of genesis, they agree that evolution has it wrong without abiogenesis, can they now agree on Genesis? And Genesis has the sequence of creation out of order.

R

Daffy Doug06 Jun 2009 11:06 a.m. PST

Perhaps evolution and creation are both wrong, though it's hard to perceive a third alternative.

Try, "The universe is apparitional to those residing inside of it, but not to God who causes it."

britishlinescarlet207 Jun 2009 11:38 a.m. PST

Just came back from a weeks holiday.., glad things are progressing.

Pete

crhkrebs08 Jun 2009 5:12 a.m. PST

Ahh, Tj is back……. and with a new tactic/ruse.

Number 1 Rule of discussing evolutionary theory: "If evolution needs [whatever it needs – you fill in the blank] it has it!" The theory can never be wrong, even if the evidence says so.

Big words for someone who has shown us ZERO evidence that contradicts the theory. Someone who has shown us the severe limitations of his own scientific understanding: remember your "Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics" argument, TJ?

Rule 2: If the data and evidence support the theory in some way; good. If it doesn't then you simply deem it to be irrelevant!

No TJ. It is actually you who has difficulty establishing relevance between different topics. Look at your need to link abiogenesis and evolution. Even the scientists you bring up in your arguments do not feel the need to do this.

Rule 2A: It always helps to muddy the waters by throwing in some nonsense as well.

There's the Pot calling the Kettle black.

Rule 3: You formulate your theory first, then go and look for the evidence to back it up.

As is usual, you show a stunning ignorance of how science and history have occurred. I suggest you read Darwin and Wallace, especially about their interactions.

Rule 4: Make out that there is no or no sound alternative to your theory.

Science has never done this, in fact it is impossible to do this. Really sound alternatives survive by the evidence that supports them.

Rule 4A: Don't bother reading about any of the alternatives. Just be lazy and believe the standard, feel good evolutionary propaganda.

Maybe it is because the "alternatives" don't have the evidence, the controls and the experimentation to be able to submit the findings to a peer reviewed scientific publisher. ID websites don't count.

Why is evolution a "feel good" alternative? Surely a supernatural explanation, that creation was the product of a personal all loving God, is the real "feel good" choice.

Rule 5: Make out that any alternative to the theory is unscientific.

The alternatives ARE either scientific or they are not. We don't make them out to be anything. ID is still not scientific, by virtue of it's own failings!

Rule 6: Always be dogmatic that your theory is the preeminent theory and that any others pale into insignificance when compared to it.

The theory that survives the cold scientific scrutiny and best explains the evidence and observations becomes the preeminent theory. That is how science works. Nothing dogmatic about it. The others "pale into significance" next to it by the absence of supporting facts and observances.

Rule 7: If struggling, twist their words.

Pot…..Kettle…….black

Rule 8: Lump the foggy areas of your theory in with other well known and proven theories in the hope that they will appear comparable with them.

This was done for your own elucidation. I see we failed once more. Evolution IS one of these "well known and proven theories", and is comparable with the theories of Gravitation, Heliocentrism, Atomism, thank you.

Rule 9: And of course, reject any and all supernatural explanations even before you start.

But we are discussing Science, TJ, and supernatural explanations are outside the realm of Science, are they not?

And it is not, "…..even before you start". Surely, you are of the understanding to know that supernatural explanations were THE de facto explanations for all events and natural occurrences throughout human history. That began to change when some brave men and women began to observe nature, use their reasoning skills and began to think for themselves, in apposition to what the priests and shamen had to say.

Rule 10: If you can't attack the argument; attack the man.

We don't have to do that:

1) The "man's" attempt at constructive argument and scientific discourse is enough of an indictment on him already.

2) The "man" steadily refuses to advance a viable alternative himself, in spite of repeated requests to do so. It is clear that the "man" has no real "argument", and is not interested in fruitful debate.

Ralph

crhkrebs08 Jun 2009 5:43 a.m. PST

Perhaps evolution and creation are both wrong, though it's hard to perceive a third alternative.

Try, "The universe is apparitional to those residing inside of it, but not to God who causes it."


Boy there is some sloppy reasoning here. Evolution and creation both describe different phenomenon and shouldn't be treated as the same thing. So, in the above example, there are actually four alternatives.

1) A divinely inspired abiogenesis that produces non changing, non evolving lifeforms. This is a viewpoint held by many religious fundamentalists. I would suspect TJ is in this group.

2) A divinely inspired abiogenesis that produces changeable, evolving lifeforms. This happens to be the viewpoint of my old Genetics Professor, and I would suspect, many religious scientists. You can probably place Darwin and Wallace here too.

3) A non divinely inspired chemical abiogenesis that produces non changing, non evolving lifeforms. I don't know anyone that holds this viewpoint. I think the situation on Earth argues against this alternative, but this might hold true elsewhere.

4) A non divinely inspired chemical abiogenesis that produces changeable, evolving lifeforms. This is the viewpoint held by myself, and I suspect, many others.

You can see that a God inspired creationism pertains to examples #1 and #2. Evolution pertains to examples #2 and #4. Therefore, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive. They are both not necessary for each other to exist.

Ralph

Daffy Doug08 Jun 2009 7:29 a.m. PST

A non divinely inspired chemical abiogenesis that produces changeable, evolving lifeforms. This is the viewpoint held by myself, and I suspect, many others.

As TJ pointed out a long ways back there, NO evidence whatsoever (so far) supports lifeless matter combining to produce the first living cell.

It doesn't look like science is going to be able to replicate any conditions deemed to be equatable with this earth's lifeless stage, and come up with a non manipulative life from lifelessness….

Daffy Doug08 Jun 2009 7:35 a.m. PST

Ralph, you missed the point of the universe as apparitional: simply, empirical science can only study empirical facts: the metaphysical remains forever outside of empirical science's purview. What you call "divine", and dismiss with science, can be Existence itself: and all of THIS is merely what is caused by that Existence, which remains forever inscrutable, yet undeniably does Exist. I hold this view, in the expectation that empirical science, in looking for a scientific proof of how life came from lifeless matter, is pursuing the ultimate Questing Beast and will never catch it. And failing, will defacto "prove God" as the only remaining, possible explanation that covers all the bases. I'm already "there", and I can wait….

crhkrebs08 Jun 2009 9:01 a.m. PST

Hi Doug,

As TJ pointed out a long ways back there, NO evidence whatsoever (so far) supports lifeless matter combining to produce the first living cell.

I wouldn't go that far and I wouldn't pay too much attention to what TJ says. There is in fact quite a bit of interesting science being done, and there have been interesting findings in the last 50 years since Miller's initial experiments. Look it up yourself.

It doesn't look like science is going to be able to replicate any conditions deemed to be equatable with this earth's lifeless stage, and come up with a non manipulative life from lifelessness…

What makes you believe that?

Ralph, you missed the point of the universe as apparitional: simply, empirical science can only study empirical facts: the metaphysical remains forever outside of empirical science's purview.

No, you miss the point. We ARE talking science here.

What you call "divine", and dismiss with science, can be Existence itself: and all of THIS is merely what is caused by that Existence, which remains forever inscrutable, yet undeniably does Exist.

I'm sorry, I dismissed what? Where?

I hold this view, in the expectation that empirical science, in looking for a scientific proof of how life came from lifeless matter, is pursuing the ultimate Questing Beast and will never catch it.

Well, then you are only in a long line of people who, over the years, presented their "Questing Beasts" as something that Science could never address, and were subsequently proven wrong. My belief is that the mechanisms for a pure "chemical abiogenesis" will be elucidated within my lifetime, or that of my children.

I'm already "there", and I can wait….

I'm happy for you.

Ralph

RockyRusso08 Jun 2009 11:25 a.m. PST

Hi

Add in, that neither abiogenesis or god like spark can be used to prove or disprove evolution! As this is all about Darwin and evolutin, not "prime movers"…as TJ accuses the evolutionists, this is trying to cover the unprovable with a larger "truth".

As a matter of logic, if one dismisses evolution based on an unprovable abiogenesis theory, there are several, then so is evolution based on an GOD. If science is required to "prove" which spark, should not the ID "prove" which version of god?

Rocky

Last Hussar08 Jun 2009 6:26 p.m. PST

Doug – I think in their calmer moments no one would say evolution disproves a god. What they will say is it disproves a literal reading of religeous texts. It thus calls into question any claim of inerrancy. What is happening is exasperation at literalists who attack anything that contradicts their beliefs. There are people who GENUINELY believe in a geo-centric universe, based on their reading of the bible. Any helio centric solar system is rejected on the basis it contradicts Genesis, and all evidence is a conspiracy.

Look at it this way. There is a passage in the bible that decribes a circular pot at being 10 units in diameter, and 30 round. Now I am not one of those who laughs at the bible because of that- that is more likely to be a rounding error rather than divine call for Pi=3. However suppose your child's maths (deeply religeous) teacher took the view that the bible has decreed the ratio as being 3:1 ("the bible is inerrant, ergo there can not be a rounding error"), and taught that- I assume there would be an outcry.

Evolutionary scientists (and it appears that the US is the country in the west they have most problem in) are weary of constant attacks because what they have discovered doesn't match some-ones personal belief.

Darwin wasn't looking to overthrow established world view. He happened to spot and deduce something that showed species change over time. He delayed publication because he was troubled about where the path led, given it contradicted what he had been brought up to believe.

However to call modern biologist a 'Darwinist' is like calling a sub-atomic physicist a "Newtonian".

Daffy Doug09 Jun 2009 8:22 a.m. PST

It doesn't look like science is going to be able to replicate any conditions deemed to be equatable with this earth's lifeless stage, and come up with a non manipulative life from lifelessness…

What makes you believe that?

I have heard nothing to indicate that "science" has even begun to replicate a non manipulative environment where lifeless matter has any chance of "coming together" and winding up with a living cell.

I'm sorry, I dismissed what? Where?

We've talked around this before: you don't accept any possibility of metaphysical "stuff" being real if science can't study it. Or have I got a wrong impression from what I remember about your beliefs?

My belief is that the mechanisms for a pure "chemical abiogenesis" will be elucidated within my lifetime, or that of my children.

I will fall down before you knock me down with a feather, if that ever occurs.

Science cannot manipulate lifeless matter into producing a living cell, then claim that non manipulated lifeless matter on earth did the same thing….

Daffy Doug09 Jun 2009 8:44 a.m. PST

If science is required to "prove" which spark, should not the ID "prove" which version of god?

I don't see that connection at all. First of all, science isn't asked to prove a "spark"; the "spark" already exists to us and we are assuming that it originated on this earth SOMEHOW, because life abounds here where it is assumed that once there was no life. The Existence of the "spark" is not open to argument! What it actually is and how it got "here" are other topics for discussion. Same for evolution: we don't know how it became the law that governs how life forms evolve and adapt: the Existence of evolution is not arguable, since we can observe it working before our very eyes (just like life -- the "spark" -- works before our very eyes). But the fact we Exist, and evolution Exists, does not in any way approach proving "God", or rather, any version of defining "God". Our very Existence is evidence enough for me that this is Caused: but I haven't a clue what "God" is like as "Existence in the first place."

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP09 Jun 2009 8:46 a.m. PST

It isn't manipulating, it's pure chemistry nothing magical about it.

You find out how the proto earth was you replicate it and see what happens there are allready sevral competing hyposesys on how it could have happend. All of them shows promise.

It might even by they more then one is right, life might have happend more then once. We simply don't know enough to be sure yet.

What we do know is that ALL life that we have found use DNA and RNA. We know that we all come from a single ancestor, that dosn't mean that the commen ancestor was the first living cell, there might have been many early proto cells some might not even have used DNA they might have come to existance from a totaly diffrent place then the other.
One might have come from a special clay and had developed DNA, while another might have come from black smokers and dosn't use RNA or DNA at all.

Natural selection takes its course and after a few million or hunderds of million years only one line is still there the one based on DNA. and it is the line we come from.
There might even by some sort of life hidden somewere in the deep deep places of the earth that dosn't come from the same line as all the other animals, plants, fungi ect. come from. But so far we havn't found it, all known life have DNA and share atleast some DNA.

Daffy Doug09 Jun 2009 8:51 a.m. PST

What is happening is exasperation at literalists who attack anything that contradicts their beliefs.

I don't see TJ as a literalist, judging by the things he's said on this thread.

And literalists are a diminishing "breed": they never will entirely become extinct, but inerrency and literalism in biblical studies and religion are definitely on the wane these days.

Daffy Doug09 Jun 2009 9:02 a.m. PST

It isn't manipulating, it's pure chemistry nothing magical about it.

Finding out how the proto earth was, is the trick, though, I think. Once science has NO argument on that head, and can replicate life from lifelessness, only then will I accept that an apparent randomness, over time, could produce the living cell from "lifeless" matter. By then, however, I would expect further study to show that there is actually no such thing as "lifeless matter" at all; we just observe animated matter as "life", when in fact everything in Existence is alive. (There is an intriguing concept in the Book of Mormon regarding "obedience" to God's will: and people are compared to inanimate matter, and found wanting in our obedience by comparison; because "…the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God." But people disobey God all the time.)

crhkrebs09 Jun 2009 10:40 a.m. PST

Doug

I have heard nothing to indicate that "science" has even begun to replicate a non manipulative environment where lifeless matter has any chance of "coming together" and winding up with a living cell.

Ahh….. you have heard nothing……..then surely it doesn't exist. I would suggest you wander into the nearest University Science Library and read up on some of the current research. A living cell hasn't been made……..yet. But most of the building blocks have and the lipo-protein cell wall-like structures have also.

We understand a lot about the conditions of pre-biotic earth but more research is required. We know that many organic molecules are carried within meteorites that continually bombard and "seed" the Earth.

We are at the stage in abiogenesis similar to when Bohr and Einstein were discussing quantum physics in the early 20th century. Those who followed them could see where this would lead. You, of course, would have to see a mushroom cloud over Nagasaki before you would give their achievements any credence. Just like you would need to see a "living cell".

We've talked around this before: you don't accept any possibility of metaphysical "stuff" being real if science can't study it.

Yes Doug, we have been through this before and you still get this wrong. It's not, "Anything outside of Science doesn't exist!", as you seem to suggest. It is that we have no way of verifying, controlling, measuring and confirming anything that is metaphysical and therefore we have no ways of determining if or how the metaphysical interacts with the materialistic universe. So, if I say "magic invisible immaterial space pixies" run every facet of the Universe, who can say anything against that? It is meaningless to proceed along this line of thought.

But we are discussing Science, and are wholly in the material realm here. A theory has been formed that still best describes the amount of variability found on this planet, even after being over 100 years in the arena of ideas. Every new discovery in biology, paleontology, geology, etc., actually bolsters this theory.

Competing theories have also existed, and have proven themselves faulty and fallen by the wayside. The current theory that TJ adheres to is about 150 years older that the one I subscribe to. At that time, EVERYBODY believed it was the best theory. Today, only a small handful of scientists still feel that way.

Science cannot manipulate lifeless matter into producing a living cell, then claim that non manipulated lifeless matter on earth did the same thing….

Your use of "manipulate" makes this a meaningless statement. If scientists can accurately determine what pre-biotic conditions were, reproduce them in a laboratory, zap the mixture with electricity and then end up with an amino acid, I think that is a telling result. You may feel otherwise.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP09 Jun 2009 11:11 a.m. PST

The big hurdle in abiogenesis isn't the formation of the cell or protines.

It's DNA, DNA is to complicated to be in the first cells, WAY to complicated. RNA might be the answer hence the RNA world hypothesis, or it might be something totaly diffrent.
Dawkins explaned the problem in a video but I can't remember the exact stuff he said

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP09 Jun 2009 11:34 a.m. PST

I think I remember it now. you need something that can both store information and code protins.

While DNA is great at storeing information it needs RNA to code the protins.

This is a very complecated thing that would be to advanced for the first proto cells.

RNA might do the trick, it can store some information and it can code protines. It is also possible that there was a whole nother diffrent thing that does the same thing.
That will be able to store information and bring it to the next generation and code the protins to build cells.

RockyRusso09 Jun 2009 12:37 p.m. PST

Hi

Doug, what you don't see is that TJ repeatedly disproves the whole discussion BECAUSE of the inability to "prove" abiogenesis.

So, as it is TJ who is prolonging this dicussion, and the primary issue is abiogenesis, then THAT is the issue. Not yours? fine.

And MY point is that insisting on abiogenesis from US suggests that he has some provable alternative abiogeneis beyond "it happened" as you have.

In essence, he hasn't demonstrated HIS alternative at all, but demands we prove ours.

So, ya, he seems a literalist.

As I have a number of fundamentalists in my circle of people and within a week, all, with various levels of education have promoted this same problem, I am a little suspecious about how this happened.

rocky

britishlinescarlet209 Jun 2009 12:42 p.m. PST

Further to Gunfreak's comment :

link

Pete

crhkrebs10 Jun 2009 8:23 a.m. PST

And further to that some interesting links:

link

grisda.org/origins/20045.htm

link

Sorry, Doug, no living cells yet. Read only if interested.

Ralph

crhkrebs10 Jun 2009 10:22 a.m. PST

Some other interesting overviews pertaining to abiogenesis:

PDF link

read pages 354-355 from

link

Ralph

Daffy Doug10 Jun 2009 10:59 a.m. PST

It's not, "Anything outside of Science doesn't exist!", as you seem to suggest. It is that we have no way of verifying, controlling, measuring and confirming anything that is metaphysical and therefore we have no ways of determining if or how the metaphysical interacts with the materialistic universe.

Like Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. you seem wedded to the idea that the GROUP must decide what is real; i.e. a roomful of scientists must be able to take anything said by any individual in their group and test it and come back with the same proof before it can be entered into the pantheon of "real things". But that ignores/denies the individual initiative of subjective and imaginative thought: which, if you lot had your way, would never happen again, and if it had been that way in the past, much or most of our greatest leaps forward would never have occurred. You need to lighten (loosen) up and stop angsting so much over what people believe in. (Especially in the case of militant, "faith-promoting" scientific atheism: this latest idea that religion and religionists are bad and dangerous, must stop.)

So, if I say "magic invisible immaterial space pixies" run every facet of the Universe, who can say anything against that? It is meaningless to proceed along this line of thought.

If you were contending that these pixies are what cause Existence in the first place, you would have to prove that assertion.

But to say that Existence of everything has no cause, ergo no "God" is required, is in a reverse sense every bit as in need of proof (as something so specific as your space pixies) -- since we DO Exist unarguably.

To claim that "God", or "The Original Cause" is responsible for Existence answers the implicit Existence of such a Cause, but in no way tries to say how or why WE Exist: and to say that "God did it" does not demand that "which God" be shown, because Existence of the Universe is not something that needs proving! We can therefore know that an "Original Cause" is implicit in our unarguable Existence, and yet we may never know more than that….

Your use of "manipulate" makes this a meaningless statement. If scientists can accurately determine what pre-biotic conditions were, reproduce them in a laboratory, zap the mixture with electricity and then end up with an amino acid, I think that is a telling result. You may feel otherwise.

As I said, ALL scientists would have to concede that said-pre-biotic conditions are how the proto earth was (any disagreement would have to be founded on sound objections that have not been adequately answered, of course, not just irrational denial): this is mandatory before any such experiment would mean anything about defining chemical (random, thoughtless, Causeless) abiogenesis. Even at that point, the question then merely extends outward into the galaxy/universe: "where did the universe with its chemical compounds originate?"

RockyRusso10 Jun 2009 11:28 a.m. PST

Hi

Doug, my friend, you are wrong here, I assume you failed to write what you mean :"i.e. a roomful of scientists must be able to take anything said by any individual in their group and test it and come back with the same proof before it can be entered into the pantheon of "real things". But that ignores/denies the individual initiative of subjective and imaginative thought: which,…"

Actually the opposite is true. All those great leaps involved repeatability. If the phenomena doesn't repeat for everyone, not just the individual, it is meaningless.

In science, there are whole multitudes of great ideas that weren't repeatable. Recently, Cold Fusion, comes to mind. My wife, as you know, was friends with Fleischman and Pons and trusted their assertians. Got angry that I doubted, but the fact was that while "cold fusion" would have been a wonderful solution to clean energy, no one could make it work. Thus, nice idea, isn't real.

In medicine, there are a lot of results which are referred to as "anecdotal". These are things that DO happen, but are so rare as to not be part of mainstream medicine. An example is my genetic quirk, which my oldest shares, that we don't process caffeine properly. We don't get a stimulation from the stuff. But this happens to 3 people out of 100,000. Thus, knowing me, doesn't mean my doc can tell everyone, oh, drink that caffeine, it has no effect.

God may or may not exist. But unless there is some test that everyone can repeat, we have nothing.

Actually, this is held by the mormons. They talk about the bible "AS CORRECTLY TRANSLATED" is the word of god. But as a belief, they cannot demonstrate their view is objectively true. Everyone who reads the bible sees differnt versions. Everyone who translates from the older texts in aramaic, greek, hebrew and so on, still don't have an original written before the Babylonian captivity and cannot demonstrate that their one true translation is 1)actually the correct one, 2)the word of god.

Might be, as a matter of faith. But not science.

Rocky

Daffy Doug10 Jun 2009 5:53 p.m. PST

Actually the opposite is true. All those great leaps involved repeatability. If the phenomena doesn't repeat for everyone, not just the individual, it is meaningless.

Without resorting to citing examples, generally science has grown by rejecting superstition, in other words a dangerous, uphill, one-man battle for the genius against the consensus then extant. Others prove the theory years later. Science has grown apace as religious men have sought answers to explain Existence.

For years, atheism and theism agreed to disagree and not address each other or overlap. Only in the last couple of centuries has science gained some sort of upper-hand; and recently, especially in the last five years or more, the atheist element (the dominant part) has increasingly embarked on a determined campaign to suppress religion/superstition as something bad and dangerous: relegating all religious and metaphysical thought as no thought at all: only scientific (societal consensus) is valid "thought". It could be argued that someone like Dawkins has only thought deeply AGAINST religion, never in serious contemplation of it. This is a reverse narrowness of perspective, which seeks to invalidate intuitive exploration and replace it with group thought….

britishlinescarlet211 Jun 2009 4:36 a.m. PST

This is a reverse narrowness of perspective, which seeks to invalidate intuitive exploration and replace it with group thought….

I disagree…science is very much about intuitive exploration, but within a framework of empirical knowledge that can be validated. Metaphysics cannot be validated empirically and hence is not science but a varied form of philosophy.

Science is simply about understanding what is around us, it has no agenda. Now scientists themselves may have, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Pete

crhkrebs11 Jun 2009 11:01 a.m. PST

Doug:

It could be argued that someone like Dawkins has only thought deeply AGAINST religion, never in serious contemplation of it.

No offense Doug, but it is clear that you have not read one of his many books. Try one and then tell me Dawkins is bereft of serious contemplation.

Rocky:

An example is my genetic quirk, which my oldest shares, that we don't process caffeine properly. We don't get a stimulation from the stuff.

But, think of all the $$$ you save by not hanging around Starbucks!

Ralph

Daffy Doug11 Jun 2009 11:30 a.m. PST

science is very much about intuitive exploration, but within a framework of empirical knowledge that can be validated.

WITHIN the allowed scientific group, i.e. the non religious "thinkers". That's the trend I am talking about.

Science is simply about understanding what is around us, it has no agenda. Now scientists themselves may have, but that's a different kettle of fish.

How you can separate practical ideas from the people that implement them is something I would like to have anyone try.

In the old days, religionists proposed truth from the scriptures, and anyone claiming that truth was at variance with scripture was attacked by proponents of that religious/scriptural consensus. Scientists, being merely human, are going to attack a different way of thinking than that which they consider the only valid way: and lately, religious thinkers are derided as "irrational", ergo incapable of true scientific thought at all: because all such have their own agenda separate from science….

Daffy Doug11 Jun 2009 11:46 a.m. PST

Dawkins has only thought deeply AGAINST religion, never in serious contemplation of it.

No offense Doug, but it is clear that you have not read one of his many books. Try one and then tell me Dawkins is bereft of serious contemplation.

I am close to quoting word for word a local religious history professor interviewed on the radio just yesterday morning (BYU's "Thinking Aloud"): he recommended Dawkins' book (The God Delusion), and observed that the author had thought deeply and long about religion: but it seemed to him that Dawkins' thinking had been against religion, and he had never seriously contemplated religion positively. I forget the classical authors cited by said-professor, that Dawkins had apparently never read; or he wouldn't have said the things regarding religion the way that he did. The point being: not that Dawkins isn't a serious contemplator and very smart (he obviously is both), but that his contemplation is one-sided, AGAINST.

The professor posited that the new attack on religion and religionists is from the position of "believing science", not unlike the accusation that religionists operate from a position of belief and faith in their religious ideas. Scientists claim to not be doing this; yet in this thread recently you have expressed a belief that "pure, 'chemical abiogenesis'" will be proven in your lifetime or soon after: you BELIEVE in it that much, even before any evidence to show it. Leaving "God" out as the IDer just "tastes better" to you, I guess. Both "sides" are guilty of doing this….

britishlinescarlet211 Jun 2009 12:16 p.m. PST

religious thinkers are derided as "irrational", ergo incapable of true scientific thought at all

Because they are not following the "scientific" process. If they can supply testable evidence or posit a theory that can in some way be verified then it would be "scientific thought". If they cannot do this then it cannot be defined as science.

I have no problem with metaphysics, philosophy or religion but if they do not follow the scientific process what they suggest cannot be described as science, and unfortunately this appears to be exactly what IDers are trying to do.

Pete

britishlinescarlet211 Jun 2009 12:25 p.m. PST

WITHIN the allowed scientific group, i.e. the non religious "thinkers". That's the trend I am talking about.

Doug, you talk of a trend but to be honest, other than Dawkins I am unaware of any other prominent Athiest scientists (forgive my ignorance). Who do you refer to? I would be interested to know so that I can take that into account when reading their work

Pete

RockyRusso11 Jun 2009 12:29 p.m. PST

Hi

Doug, let me review Dawkins for you. I have listed, among other things, to a couple of his lectures and interviews.

And I think he is a crank and actually falls into the paradigm you assert above. The thing is that going with Dawkins individually and reasoning to the general, as you and apparently BYUI has, is your basic syllogism.

To synthesis. Dawkins was an ardent believer. Church of England if memory serves. Took a biology class, and the superficial basic evidence he saw crashed his faith.

In essence, basic biology is that Genesis has no basis in reality.

And like the old saying "there is no one more sanctimonious than a reformed Bleeped text" he decided to take it upon himself to promote a new orthodoxy.

HE is not a trend. The trend is that the religious went from being dominant in thought to a minority and are struggling just like Dawkins did!

If yuu need proof, it ain't faith!

In the 60s, a biology degree from BYU was considered a Joke, at the UofU we loved this, because they refused to teach evolution!

And, you know the story of my mormon friends when I took up archeology DEMANDING I prove the literal truth of the Book of Mormon.

Dawkins is an advocate, but doesn't represent mainstream anything.

In fact, this is where TJ and you have it right, he starts with premises as a matter of faith. he is the guy he complains about.

Rocky

Daffy Doug11 Jun 2009 2:39 p.m. PST

I have no problem with metaphysics, philosophy or religion but if they do not follow the scientific process what they suggest cannot be described as science, and unfortunately this appears to be exactly what IDers are trying to do.

Well stated, and true. IDers never should have started down the path of "religion is science": which they implied, even if they didn't state it that directly, the moment that they started trotting out archeology and other scientific evidence to "prove the Bible".

But boiled down to the nutshell: metaphysics is entirely separate from empirical sciences: which are the only sciences we know of, so far. But metaphysics is just as true as empirical science. When an INDIVIDUAL knows through their own experience that something intangible is true, no amount of scientific objection will ever change their mind: you may as well try and get them to deny that their heart is beating, their "experience" is that real and true. (This conflict of the consensus versus the individual "testator" of the metaphysical is very well illustrated by Jodie Foster's character in the film "Contact".)

Daffy Doug11 Jun 2009 2:45 p.m. PST

Pete and Rocky:

Vis-a-vis Dawkins, and Hitchens I presume, are the two names specifically mentioned by the BYU professor yesterday, when HE claimed to have noticed this resurgence of atheistic science directly attacking religion and religionists, especially in the last c. five years.

I don't read their stuff: but I do hear it bandied about a lot, especially in the last c. five years: so what he said he noticed resonated with me personally.

crhkrebs12 Jun 2009 8:17 a.m. PST

Hi Guys,

Christopher Hitchens is not a scientist. He is a journalist, and thereby is a good read. Sam Harris is also not a scientist and is also a good read.

Out of the "atheistic scientist" writers, the most popular are Richard Dawkins, Micheal Shermer, Steven Pinker, the late Stephan Jay Gould, and nominally Daniel C. Dennett, and Jonathan Miller. There are many others.

Ralph

crhkrebs12 Jun 2009 8:29 a.m. PST

Doug says:

When an INDIVIDUAL knows through their own experience that something intangible is true, no amount of scientific objection will ever change their mind:……..

Or, you could be mistaken or deluded. You should really read Shermer, as his field of expertise is how the human mind self-deludes itself.

Here is where we differ, fundamentally. Assume a large purple dragon is serenely floating above an intersection on a bright sunny day. He is invisible to everyone except one single, perplexed observer.

If Doug was the observer, he would think he is having an intangible, wondrous, metaphysical almost religious experience.

If I was the observer, I'd worry that I was having a psychotic episode.

I wonder what Occam's razor would make of that?

Without resorting to citing examples, generally science has grown by rejecting superstition,……….

No, Doug. Science has grown by doing good science. By observing and making hypotheses and theories to explain the observations and jettisoning the ones that can't be supported. That is how science grows.

I don't read their stuff: but I do hear it bandied about a lot,……..

Then, may I suggest, you do some reading.

Ralph

crhkrebs12 Jun 2009 8:45 a.m. PST

Doug, on a side note:

(This conflict of the consensus versus the individual "testator" of the metaphysical is very well illustrated by Jodie Foster's character in the film "Contact".)

Uhhhh………..you seem to forget the part where the assistant brings up the fact that there was 16 minutes of blank recording on the data recorder which supposedly only fell a few hundred feet within the machine. The James Woods character (an Inquisitorial type if I ever saw one) then suggests that that will all be "hushed" up.

So, your example actually contradicts your argument.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2009 9:13 a.m. PST

actualy it was 18hours not 16 minutes.

Dawkins and other vocal atheists are simply reacting to the the fact that ceritain religious sects are becoming more vocal and more fantatical.
When sevral million americans reject well founded scince becasue of a book writen by bronzeage people. Well that is a real problem and you should be vocal about that.

Daffy Doug12 Jun 2009 10:44 a.m. PST

Or, you could be mistaken or deluded. You should really read Shermer, as his field of expertise is how the human mind self-deludes itself.

Large purple dragons floating above rush hour traffic do not have any metaphysical significance and can be discarded as mere hallucination. Repeated exposure to said-dragon, accompanied with important information, which is self-validating, would change the context of the experience into a vision. Remember Dowd's pookah, Harvey, was NOT an hallucination (in the context of the story), but a very real -- albeit invisible to most eyes -- "alien" being with metaphysical powers.

Shouldn't the individual TEST his/her experience? In a similar way that science tests conclusions, the individual ought to question the experience before basing important decisions upon it. Consistency is vital. Yet even then, the individual cannot show the metaphysical truth for another person, only testify to its reality.

Once Dr Chumley saw Harvey himself, the question of reality was answered. Once Joseph Smith got three or more witnesses to testify that they had seen visions too, the question of reality got more complicated, rather than going away.

That I will combine a fantasy movie/stage play with the claims of a dogmatic, organized religion, might tell you a couple things about my perspective: theoretically, ANYTHING remains possible to individual experience, and it remains up to that individual what kind of significance to attach to such experiences: some people claim to believe in the pagan gods, or in Jedi powers, or a neo paganism, or in ancient words written down as scripture and prophecy, etc. They can get very passionate about these things. It follows, that if they are convinced, then they are easily duped OR onto something. You can't tell which, but of course, the problem isn't yours, it's their problem -- or knowledge/understanding….

Daffy Doug12 Jun 2009 10:50 a.m. PST

Dawkins and other vocal atheists are simply reacting to the the fact that ceritain religious sects are becoming more vocal and more fantatical.

Ah, who yelled loudest first, this round? The God Delusion is a 2006 publication; but Dawkins was vociferously vocal for years before that. So was he reacting to religious increased hype, or are religionists reacting to Dawkins, et al? Now they just scream at each other.

As the BYU prof said a couple of days ago, if you have a roomful of arguing people, it's an almost sure thing that the ones screaming the loudest are wrong. As both "sides" tend to get very loud, I believe that both are wrong….

Daffy Doug12 Jun 2009 10:59 a.m. PST

Heh, Dawkins is married to Lalla Ward, "the best Romana" in Dr Who (and a fetching "Bessy" in Crossed Swords): hehe, Dawkins just got more interesting to me….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP12 Jun 2009 11:11 a.m. PST

Dawkins and others became very vocal after the IDers stated to try and get into the school systems in america.

Yes Dawkins has never hidden his views but the kreationsts started the current "war" when they tried to force ID into the schools.

And when it came to the shouting match, the kreationst shouts, the biologist ans geoologist talk quite camely and resrved.
The creationists try to win by shouting more lies then biologist have time to disprove.

crhkrebs13 Jun 2009 4:58 a.m. PST

Doug

As the BYU prof said a couple of days ago, if you have a roomful of arguing people, it's an almost sure thing that the ones screaming the loudest are wrong.

No offense to your esteemed BYU professor, but that statement is a "feel good" platitude normally found in fortune cookies. Surely, the validity of any argument is based on reasoning, and independent of the volume.

For a good example of Dawkins' arguing style, go onto You-Tube and look for him being interviewed by a clearly doltish Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor. I think you will find Dawkins is not the "screaming" type.

Ah, who yelled loudest first, this round?

This round? The IDiots who started targeting various school boards around the US.

Remember Dowd's pookah, Harvey, was NOT an hallucination (in the context of the story), but a very real -- albeit invisible to most eyes -- "alien" being with metaphysical powers.

Hmmm…. good example….a clearly fictional play made into a fictional movie.

Of course Mohammed, in his cave on Mt. An-Nur, or Moses conversation with an incendiary shrub on Mt. Horeb (what is it about little hills that brings out the visions?) don't seem to follow your, "Repeated exposure to said-dragon, accompanied with important information, which is self-validating, would change the context of the experience into a vision."

I'm sorry Doug, I guess I'm not the Prophetic type. Repeated exposure to the floating dragon would indicate a more serious psychosis, and that I desperately need professional help. "Self-validating" is a very untrustworthy benchmark, by the way. In my training, I have spent some time with psychotic individuals. The one commonality between them is the absolute conviction that the hallucinations and delusions brought on by their disease are totally real.

Doug, this segue into the metaphysical world is interesting but let us now return to the gist of this thread. Evolution describes the "here and now" materialistic concept of the sprawling biodiversity found on this planet. It is a scientific theory much, much younger than the Theory of Creationism. As science began it's development, more and more evidence and observations would be collected and cataloged. This evidence seemed to validate Evolution and not Creationism. By today, the Theory of Evolution is so well supported that scientists consider it a "fact", just as other theories (Gravitational, Heliocentric, Atomic, etc, have been considered "facts"). These are all within the materialistic realm, and science and reason are our best tools to understand them.

That these scientific theories sometimes find themselves in conflict with organized and unorganized religions is a problem of the religions and NOT the science. Remember, there was a time when religion was an explanation for the physical AND the metaphysical. In the former case, it was a complete and utter failure, in the light of science. In the latter case, the difficulty with falsifying metaphysical experiences makes it difficult to assess.

Ralph

Daffy Doug13 Jun 2009 8:44 a.m. PST

Yes, difficult to assess by GROUPS of scientists: because metaphysical experience is solely an individual matter. But metaphysical reality is every bit as valid as empirical reality. And it isn't even in the majority of cases attributable to insanity. We go by "feelings" all, the, time. Even the most pragmatic of us makes final decisions based on our "gut." When you have a deadlock of the facts, it is your feelings which break that deadlock and allow you to act. So we have an empirical feeling based on a perception that originates metaphysically.

The origin of this planet and its Life isn't remotely understood: and won't be until we get off of it and out into the universe. But in the meanwhile, like our ancestors drawing ideas on cave walls, we can posit and argue away until it gets dull as dishwater, then go hunt and kill something….

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP13 Jun 2009 9:49 a.m. PST

We have a very good ide on the origins of the planet it self, we have idees that are less understood about the origen of life on it.

Daffy Doug13 Jun 2009 2:52 p.m. PST

Sure, the theory about how proto planetary masses form into suns and planets seems sound enough. But going further "back", what causes the appearance of matter in the first place? I've heard of theories positing that matter has been shown to appear in deep space where there was nothing before: I don't know how they determine this: but if that is correct, it sounds like evidence for either another stage of matter forming outside of our universe (Hawking's black holes, iirc, are matter from our universe going away to appear elsewhere, and we get the visa versa, with matter appearing here looking like black holes in some other universe): or an outside Cause making matter appear in our universe to renew it.

Out of that original mass of forming chemical matter, what accounts for the appearance of animate, living matter?…

crhkrebs14 Jun 2009 7:37 a.m. PST

Hi Doug,

Can't seem to leave the metaphysical world, huh? You'd be standing on shaky ground, otherwise?
;^)

But metaphysical reality is every bit as valid as empirical reality.

You say that like it is axiomatic. In reality, we do not KNOW that and we cannot KNOW that to be true. Metaphysics could be a fictional by-product of the way our brains process information. Again you would do well to read Shermer, a research Psychologist.

Speaking of odd brain processes, I'm having "deja vu" all over again. When you say:

We go by "feelings" all, the, time. Even the most pragmatic of us makes final decisions based on our "gut." When you have a deadlock of the facts, it is your feelings which break that deadlock and allow you to act. So we have an empirical feeling based on a perception that originates metaphysically.

You display a great degree of ignorance of current neuroscience. How you "feel" about the data your brain processes and your "gut feeling" is actually known. It all revolves around a wonderfully complex relationship centered on an synaptic inhibitor neurotransmitter called GABA (gamma-Amino-butyric acid). I'll let you look that up yourself.

Then, there is the action of a myriad of hormones. For instance I could inject you with a specific amount of nor-epinephrine. You will undergo temporary mood changes, behavioral and attitudinal changes and changes in your physiology that would be predictable and constant every time. Nothing metaphysical about it. Read up on these fields before you make sweeping statements about them.

I've heard of theories positing that matter has been shown to appear in deep space where there was nothing before: I don't know how they determine this: but if that is correct, it sounds like evidence for either another stage of matter forming outside of our universe (Hawking's black holes, iirc, are matter from our universe going away to appear elsewhere, and we get the visa versa, with matter appearing here looking like black holes in some other universe): or an outside Cause making matter appear in our universe to renew it.

I'll forgo the usual philosophical error you are prone to, stating that "nothing" can exist in outer space. Even empty space is "something".

I think it is safe to say that these are "theories" in the colloquial, conversational sense, and not in the scientific sense. It is very important to understand the distinction. I have heard Hawking hypothesize about the possibility of "white holes", which spews matter into our universe from…….God knows where! (Did you like that turn of phrase?) I think the scientists are allowed to idly speculate, just like the rest of us.

Out of that original mass of forming chemical matter, what accounts for the appearance of animate, living matter?…

If you followed this thread, I think you will see the answer is, "I don't know, no one really knows………….yet".

Allow me to speculate a little. Scientists are discovering that, under the right circumstances, certain types of inanimate matter seem to accumulate and self-aggregate into more complex forms. Some scientists (Steven Weinberg? and others) have stated that it is the nature of matter to form complexity. Once systems become complex enough, we recognize them from their unique behavior as "living".

Let's start with viruses. The are certainly animate, and they do have purpose. However, they seem to elude most of our criteria for life. Most people have the consensus that they are not alive, rather very small and effective bio-machines. Unlike inanimate objects, viruses are under the influence of, and the product of, evolution.

Up one level in complexity are the newly classified archeo-prokayotic bacteria or Archaea. These are animate and clearly alive. Same with the next stages, the Prokaryotes and the Eukaryotic cells.

What happens when we go one stage less complex than viruses? We have the prions. These are inanimate and lifeless, but still seem to have a purpose and direction. They are responsible for all the spongiform encephalopathies, such as "mad cow" disease.

The question isn't just, "Where did life begin?". It may be originating right now, under our noses, but do we have the proper criteria to recognize it? Where do we draw the line, Doug?

(Speculation mode off)

Ralph

RockyRusso14 Jun 2009 10:27 a.m. PST

Hi

Doug, you have fallin into a false syllogism again. Much like TJ, actually. "If you cannot explain everything, then there must be a god."

The premises you start with is false on its face, and the reasoning from such is flawed. Oddly, Ralph is doing the same thing!

In your case, there is no way to demonstrate these mysteries as either god or science. In Ralph's case there is no way to demonstrate that mood altering drugs weren't designed to be that way by…….god!

Where this all breaks down, is that the assertians of dark matter, string theory, high energy physice, more intertesting to you, how wing loading affects turning in an aircraft… all are repeatable without "faith". You observe, I observe. I show you the match, you run the numbers and get the same results.

Simple.

When you testify about TJs ideas on god, you or he cannot present me with the raw data, and have me "crunch" that data and get the same results. The issue with science is testing and repeatability.

I may FEEL that spirituality, that my dead loved ones still watch over me, but I cannot supply you with any "proof" except my testimony. That objective ability to test and repeat is on issue here. That I have handled actual pre-human remains and done the repeatable tests and get the same results every time is Science. It does not demonstrate that a "prime mover" isn't consciously designing it that way.

R

Daffy Doug14 Jun 2009 3:44 p.m. PST

Is it "still" a scientific law (or at least maxim) that there is no ex nihilo going on in the formation of the universe? There has to be something in order to reorganize/evolve another something: the energy has to come from something/somewhere.

When I demonstrate sapient thought and imagination, is science going to pursue the notion that this evolved out of non thought, nonsense and mere chemicals that possess no more than these?

You can't produce "God" through empirical science, if "God" remains outside of the purview of empirical detection. But Existence in the first place is not arguable; our sapience is not arguable; raw chemicals do not always Exist without some Cause; and finally, human sapience cannot evolve out of insensibility (chemical abiogenesis), or you have just proven ex nihilo….

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34