[cauthon]

I do agree with Gem.

[Gem Windcaster]

cauthon;352866 said:

I do agree with Gem.

Which part?

[Urb]

Gem Windcaster;352823 said:

Not even the most diligent scientist can ever hope to come up with a theory strong enough to prove the theory of evolution. But every scientist has to work with assumptions, faith if you will, and that is a lot of that stuff involved in the theory of evolution.

What is a scientific theory?
This has already been explained by Stone Monkey, but I'll try to make it even easier to understand.

A scientific theory is buildt to explain observations, and put them into context. One first thinks up the concept, and then puts it down on paper (with mathematics, diagrams, etc.). If there are observations that can not be explained by the theory (inconsistencies), one makes assumptions (take some things for granted) for the sole purpose of making the theory work (until a better theory comes along).

Assumption =/= Faith
Especially not in the context of this discussion.

What makes the theory of evolution (natural selection) so impressive, is that there are currently no inconsistencies. All observations made so far can be explained by the actual theory itself.

Now, allow me to draw a diagram just to let it sink in:

[Gem Windcaster]

Ah, but first off, Urb I never questioned that there are assumptions, in fact I even mention it in my post. Before I continue I just want to make sure you understand that I in no way want to question scientific thinking or belittle the worth of science. Quite the opposite in fact. I always tend to lean towards philosophical explanations, and I am aware of this, however that doesn't make my arguments less valid, just harder for you to accept. I can live with that.

Now, there are two objections I like to voice.
The observations related to the theory of evolution is extreme in many ways - which sets it apart from other scientific observations. The methods used for making said observations are quite extreme. And there are tons of obstacles not normally present in science.

Secondly, the concept of assumptions have problems that are related to exactly these observations, in the case of the theory we are talking about. In fact, the assumptions required are so many and so extreme that it borders, even cross over, to belief. If there was just one of these incredible assumptions, just a single one, it would still make the whole theory impossibly unprovable. Now that there are many (which I guess could be honed down to one), it doesn't really help.

The theory pushes scientific rules to its extremes, extending them to where it normally doesn't go. Most scientist will recognize this.

Defining reality is hard enough at it is, without having obstacles like time and space between yourself and the observation. We cannot observe the million of years go by, seeing the changes take place, there is no data to collect, no endless collecting of analyzable pieces.

What the theory call data are all artifacts, created with imagination and neat charts, explored with math and sprung from the amazing human mind that needs to bind together impressions to a pattern, a picture, an understandable conjuration.

Indeed, there are traces. But nothing binds them together, nothing chains them in beautiful harmony, at least nothing that science can explain(unextended science). So many questions. No wonder scientists need the theory. I can sympathize with that need on many levels. It's sad they can't recognize it for what it is, because there's no shame in the truth.

That there are no inconsistencies are not just a bad argument, it's simply not correct. It's a bad argument, because it points to the fact that the guidelines of science is stretched on behalf of this theory, because of the many obstacles it faces, which makes it possible for scientists to choose what to 'assume' and what to disregard (simply because there is so much to choose from). It's not correct because...well, it's a opinion, granted. If you draw a perfect circle, then accept everything within that circle and nothing else, of course you don't get any inconsistencies. Inconsistencies exist in 'normal' science, because science can only choose what to disregard up to a certain point, then it becomes impossible. The obstacles of the theory of evolution sets the bar for disregarding on a higher level, enabling an unreal, consistent image.

With that I am not saying that every observation and every assumption is unscientific. It's not at all what I am saying. It's a bit more complicated than that.

The assumptions required for this theory regards what cannot be observed, that which cannot be collected, and analyzed and seen. That is why faith has to be involved.
-----

I can understand why these statements of mine can be hard to stomach. Hey, I would probably not be able to stomach them either, if I were you. I can make them, because I am so used to having my own view of the world questioned at every turn, and I haven't run away from it - a few Christians do that, run away, which I find sad. I think it's the same kind of structure that makes some scientists run away from challenges like mine. Maybe.

I think the notion that science proves itself is ludicrous. Theories are needed exactly because there is no proof, and cannot be. But science is supposed to break all the boundaries of human limits, it's supposed to do anything, make anything, almost like a divine entity. Limits cannot be accepted. Wonderful charts, calculations and bindings of events are created and brought to this divinity, and sacrificed to its cause.
-----

Having studied philosophy and history of ideas, I sometimes find the passion that certain theories are defended with humorous. At least amusing. Science greatest strength and greatest weakness lies in the search for Truth. It's depressing to find oneself slowed down by the possibility that one might be wrong. And not just wrong, but horribly wrong. And not just that. Science is something you do, something you create. It is closely dependent on the mind of the scientist, but is seemingly relying on concepts and ideals that lie outside of the mind of the scientist.

science doesn't believe in the metaphysical Truth, but its core foundation is built on the same concept. It's a conflict that cannot be discarded with pretty charts and brilliant calculations. It can only be handled with awareness. So the conflict is denied, because no other methods than scientific ones are accepted.

Tough luck, huh?

[HoosierDaddy]

:cool:

Gem Windcaster;352928 said:

What the theory call data are all artifacts, created with imagination and neat charts, explored with math and sprung from the amazing human mind that needs to bind together impressions to a pattern, a picture, an understandable conjuration.

I'll just voice this statement which kind of puts a dent in your post. There is data. They are called fossils. Just because I didn't see that dinosaur die in the mud 35,000,000 years ago doesn't mean that it's fossil isn't right here before me carbon-dated to 35 million years ago.

By the way, what scientific rules are put to extremes? One genetic mutation, that slowly becomes the dominant gene and no longer the mutant strain due to natural selection through millions of years isn't an extreme step. It's a very tiny step that has been made a million times.

[anakronisM]

Cougar;352440 said:

:rolleyes:I'm unsure if you are trying to accuse me of trolling?

If this is what you mean; how is criticising a poorly thought out response from a gentleman who is talking outside his field of expertise and presenting unsubstantiated opinion as fact (the boy Kitts, not Doxa), trolling? Don't turn up and start flaming in the threads when your quotes are critiqued.

Now I remember why I steer clear of this discussion board.

It was clumsy of me to put trolls in there when i merely saw that stone monkey implied that I was one?

stone monkey;352332 said:

Creationism is fundamentally (if you excuse the pun) lacking as an argument a) it's unprovable it's an unnecessary complication.

Anyhow, I've been feeding the troll, which is never a good idea...

Never ment you cougar at any point, really clumsy way of expressing discontent over being called a troll by stone monkey.

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster;352823 said:

I don't think it's correct in any way to talk about proof in a scientific sense in this discussion. A theory is a theory is a theory...
As the rules of logic states, you can never prove anything to be true, you can only prove something to be false.

Not even the most diligent scientist can ever hope to come up with a theory strong enough to prove the theory of evolution. But every scientist has to work with assumptions, faith if you will, and that is a lot of that stuff involved in the theory of evolution.

Denying this fact will only lead to belittling science, and it's real capability of deducing truths about this universe.

One would think that scientists, the most renown heralds of logic and evidence, would recognize their own beliefs that they build their world on.

You cannot detach science from it's framework of objectiveness, in the name of science, and hope to uphold credibility.

I don't know all the theories and facts about the relevant studies, but I know the philosophy behind science. In the end of the day, when all theories have been studied, and charted, and rewritten, you need to make a decision what you yourself believe. No matter if your point of origin is logic, probability, trust in patterns, or simply a strong will, you will make a decision.

Deciding that all other points of origin of thought is false is as futile as claiming the sunlight for yourself. You should stand for your belief and your decision, but not without the self awareness about the relativity of thought.

Your right and wrong. Science cant prove its theories in a perfectly philisophical sense. However it can prove things. The laws of thermodynamic are not proven. However it can be proved and has been that for all specific cases experimented on that all things tend towards entropy, energy cant be created or destroyed. Now maybe somewhere somehow under sow conditions we dont know about the law is not true.

Look at it this way. You bake a cake go out and come back. The cake is gone, and your friend is in your kitchen with choclate icing on his lips. The cake is gone. This is a fact. The hypothesis is your friend ate it. The evidence is the choclate icing on the cake. Is this perfectly provable. No.

Evolution has happened this is a fact. Organisms exist today which were not around before. The method of evolution, the theory, is not provable.

[cauthon]

Quote

Organisms exist today which were not around before.

This can also indicate creation. Does the fossil report contradict the following statement? There is a creator and he created several species over time, such that their remains can be found in fossils.

I understand why science does not want or like to consider the possibility of a creator. After all, they want to explain things. And it is not possible to explain the existence of a creator. He or she or it would just 'be'. But science can also not renounce the possibility that a creator does in fact exist. It cannot even denounce the above statement. It decides to take the evidence and build a theory around it that does not require a creator. But that in itself does not make the theory true.

[Cause]

Before I even entertain such a notion I want to know. Are you agreeing that the statement is true or are you just using it to support your view. If its the first we can discuss it. If the second theirs no point in arguin since you dont even believe it in the first place.

Also again I will point out the fossil record is one part of many that support the theory

[Urb]

@Gem
You're missing the point. Science is not about proving anything. Science is a tool used to explain observations, and to use that in order to create new technology. There is no faith involved. A scientist is not trying to find the meaning of life. She/He is just trying to understand and exploit what she/he observes in nature. Philosophy is not science.

Also, by the definition of a scientific theory that I posted above, the theory of evolution has not encountered any observations that it could not explain.
No inconsistencies (no self-contradictory observations).

@Cauthon
Of course a creator could have made all kinds of species over time. God could have created the world, and then put humans there. God could have created the world, designing it so that humans eventually evolved from the original species that were. God could have created the whole universe, designing it so that eventually the earth would be created and humans would evolve. God could have done whatever you want. It still has nothing to do with science. Creationism is religion. The theory of evolution is science. Science has nothing to do with religion.

[Cougar]

cauthon;353223 said:

This can also indicate creation. Does the fossil report contradict the following statement? There is a creator and he created several species over time, such that their remains can be found in fossils. .

But this then indicates that god has either made mistakes, got bored with a species, or learned. If he has made mistakes and gets bored then he is flawed, if he is learning then he is neither perfect nor all-knowning. In which case he is not god but simply an otherworldy and/or extra-dimensional entity which has no more claim to god hood than a robot manufacturer or a computer programmer. I appreciate that this is an argument against religious concepts of god not a denial of creationism per se.

cauthon;353223 said:

I understand why science does not want or like to consider the possibility of a creator. After all, they want to explain things. And it is not possible to explain the existence of a creator..

If scientists had this view then they have done nothing more than replaced religious dogma with scientific dogma, and set science up as a modern god. Science would surely have no problem if it became apparent that we were created by the aforementioned entity, as this could be explained in terms of science.

The key point about science is that it has explained many things for which god is not responsible, but everytime it does religion and specifically in this case creationism moves the goal posts.

So science proves that Apollo doesn't drive his fiery chariot across the skys, religion decides that god created the solar system. Science proves that the sun doesn't go round the earth, religion (not all of them) change their minds. Science demonstrates that in all likelyhood evolution rather than pure creation has taken place, religion comes up with a whole host of reasons about god instructing the fish to grow arms etc, or simply ignores the available evidence.

[Aimless]

But guys, let's not forget that we scientifically minded folks aren't immune to dogmatic thinking either.

[Urb]

If you're talking about Newton and Aristotle explaining things with divine intervention, I have a hard time accepting that was actual science. For the life of me I can not think of any modern day scientific theory that uses divine intervention in any of it's assumptions.

[cauthon]

So why could a creator not have had a reason to spawn creatures that are now extinct? In your reasoning, he should have placed every atom at its perfect position. If you had the chance of 'knowing' the future, would it not be utterly boring if you knew everything? Maybe an creator can choose what he wants to 'know', or to talk about it in Foundation-speak, know the 'group'-result, not what every individual will do. I think that is one of the problems a lot of people seem to have with religion/gods, namely that the god/gods are omniscient/omnipotent yet the state of the world seems to contradict this. Could things not be as black/white? This brings us back to free will and the entire discussion behind that. Seemingly it is impossible that such a creator could allow its creatures to have a free will. Another possibility is that the earlier living creatures fulfilled a purpose (which we don't really know about (ok, so the trees produced oil ;-)) (FYI, I'm not one of them 6x24h creationists - in fact I don't like to be associated with the entire creationism movement that is now calling the shots in the US). And maybe a creator simply liked to see what happened rather than check the outcome, just as we like to read a book rather than skip to the last pages.

As for your other argument, if any religion would be 'right' in some sense, then it would not teach stuff that contradicts modern observations. Such as the earth being the center of the solar system/universe/multiverse.

It just seems to me that numerous points raised by one side can also be used by the other side and vice versa. So, in fact, I do agree with several points you made, I just think they are also applicable to my arguments. I am certainly not twisting them - at least I don't see it that way.

[Gothos]

well, all things considered, I think that the most important difference between science and religion is that religion is founded on certainty and dogma, while science thrives on doubt and speculation

(OT?)

[Obdigore]

Cauthon,

As I (and others) have said before, the theory of biological evolution does not, in any way, relate to how the universe and everything in it came to be.

God telling a fish to grow legs and stop breathing water is evolution, as that fish has adapted to a new environment.

Your point of a creator creating species then killing them off or mutating them until they are how he/she/it/them wants them is good. It could happen, but we have no proof of any kind as to how these species mutated besides evolution. There is nothing that has been found to prove evolution false, and so it is the accepted Theory.

Evolution =/= Big Bang, or any other universe creation thought.

[Morgoth]

I just want to point out that the existance of god is not the topic of this thread. Nor is the existance of god in any way relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution

stupid Obdi being quicker

[Cougar]

Morgoth;353410 said:

I just want to point out that the existance of god is not the topic of this thread. Nor is the existance of god in any way relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution

stupid Obdi being quicker

Dude it is entirely relevant to creationism though and the two are inextricably linked, if there is no god there is no creationsim, whether the god is the creator of the universe or an alien scientist is a moot point though I guess.

[HoosierDaddy]

cauthon;353400 said:

So why could a creator not have had a reason to spawn creatures that are now extinct? In your reasoning, he should have placed every atom at its perfect position. If you had the chance of 'knowing' the future, would it not be utterly boring if you knew everything? Maybe an creator can choose what he wants to 'know', or to talk about it in Foundation-speak, know the 'group'-result, not what every individual will do. I think that is one of the problems a lot of people seem to have with religion/gods, namely that the god/gods are omniscient/omnipotent yet the state of the world seems to contradict this. Could things not be as black/white? This brings us back to free will and the entire discussion behind that. Seemingly it is impossible that such a creator could allow its creatures to have a free will. Another possibility is that the earlier living creatures fulfilled a purpose (which we don't really know about (ok, so the trees produced oil ;-)) (FYI, I'm not one of them 6x24h creationists - in fact I don't like to be associated with the entire creationism movement that is now calling the shots in the US). And maybe a creator simply liked to see what happened rather than check the outcome, just as we like to read a book rather than skip to the last pages.

As for your other argument, if any religion would be 'right' in some sense, then it would not teach stuff that contradicts modern observations. Such as the earth being the center of the solar system/universe/multiverse.

It just seems to me that numerous points raised by one side can also be used by the other side and vice versa. So, in fact, I do agree with several points you made, I just think they are also applicable to my arguments. I am certainly not twisting them - at least I don't see it that way.

You do realize the "creator" you are discussing seems like a kid who does things for no reason at all other than he is bored, don't you?

"Hmmm. Let's make this. Ah, that's a stupid dinosaur. Let's kill them all. Fireballs!!!! Yay!"

[Gem Windcaster]

HoosierDaddy;352933 said:

:cool:
I'll just voice this statement which kind of puts a dent in your post. There is data. They are called fossils. Just because I didn't see that dinosaur die in the mud 35,000,000 years ago doesn't mean that it's fossil isn't right here before me carbon-dated to 35 million years ago.

By the way, what scientific rules are put to extremes? One genetic mutation, that slowly becomes the dominant gene and no longer the mutant strain due to natural selection through millions of years isn't an extreme step. It's a very tiny step that has been made a million times.

There is data, sure, but you can't observe what the theory says about those data. You cannot observe that tiny step being made a thousand times. You cannot observe if it have happened and will happen a thousand times, or to what end. You cannot observe the way it happens. You see the dots, then connect them in a way you think make sense. Some of us disagree about some of those connections. It's extreme because normally you don't have to connect dots that are so many and so much apart.

Cause;353212 said:

Your right and wrong. Science cant prove its theories in a perfectly philisophical sense. However it can prove things. The laws of thermodynamic are not proven. However it can be proved and has been that for all specific cases experimented on that all things tend towards entropy, energy cant be created or destroyed. Now maybe somewhere somehow under sow conditions we dont know about the law is not true.

But we can observe thermodynamic. Evlution cannot be observed in the same way. With obserable data, we can make tests, we can falsify, we can eliminate inconsistencies by way of testing, and further testing.

Cause;353212 said:

Look at it this way. You bake a cake go out and come back. The cake is gone, and your friend is in your kitchen with choclate icing on his lips. The cake is gone. This is a fact. The hypothesis is your friend ate it. The evidence is the choclate icing on the cake. Is this perfectly provable. No.

Evolution has happened this is a fact. Organisms exist today which were not around before. The method of evolution, the theory, is not provable.

Your example doesn't apply. We have experienced eating the cate ourselves, we know it can be done. We have even seen others eat the cake. We have not experienced evolution, we have not seen something evolve the way evolution states. New organisms may adapt, but to what end? What are the limits of adaptation? That organisms adapt doesn't mean they can ultimately be the building blocks of something greater than themselves. DNA certainly has some amount of range in which it 'moves', but the step evolution wants it to take cannot be proved unless a fish suddenly wake up as a monkey.

Urb;353306 said:

@Gem
You're missing the point. Science is not about proving anything. Science is a tool used to explain observations, and to use that in order to create new technology. There is no faith involved. A scientist is not trying to find the meaning of life. She/He is just trying to understand and exploit what she/he observes in nature. Philosophy is not science.

Wrong. You cannot detach philosophy from the rest of the world. Science is a philosophy. It is one of the great philosphical structures of society. Saying science is detachted from philosophy is like saying you are not a philosopher because you don't believe in philosophy. Science is built on certain philosophical ideas, and ideals. Philsosophy isn't just metaphysics, it's much more than that. Logic is a philosophy aswell. You should read up on Frege and Wittgenstein.

If science doesn't want to prove anything, how come so many says "evolution is proved"? Science proves things all the time, by testing things, it strives towards perfect truth, it is the very soul of science. It also dispoves a lot of things, which is what makes it move forward.

I dispute the fact that science doesn't search for the meaning of life. I say it does. It is in fact nothing wihtout the search for meaning. Science want answers because it wants meaning. Science want to explain, because it want the observation to mean something. It searches for patterns. For meaning.

Urb;353306 said:

Also, by the definition of a scientific theory that I posted above, the theory of evolution has not encountered any observations that it could not explain.
No inconsistencies (no self-contradictory observations).

The theory of evolution has not encountered any inconsistencies, because it has not encountered any observation at all. Connecting dots is not observing.