[Mherim]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

Whatever else is the purpose of the theory of evolution? Have I missed something?

The ToE is an explanation for how living entities exploit biological processes to tend towards local optima in their environments and relevant ecosystems.

The origin of life is outwith the scope of the theory, just like it is outwith the scope of the Theory of Gravity.

[Gem Windcaster]

Mherim, on Jan 5 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

Whatever else is the purpose of the theory of evolution? Have I missed something?

The ToE is an explanation for how living entities exploit biological processes to tend towards local optima in their environments and relevant ecosystems.

The origin of life is outwith the scope of the theory, just like it is outwith the scope of the Theory of Gravity.

Hah! Okay. That doesn't exactly include the unofficial purpose of the theory, but okay. Since everybody has been screaming at me that the bible couldn't never coexists with a theory like this, because they have different views of how life was created, I think this official scope of the theory is interesting indeed. Maybe my philosophical stance has been colored by the numerous attacks in the bible in this juncture. So...
1. If this is the actual scope of the theory, how does it conflict with the bible?
2. Why does some feel that creationism is needed?
3. How the heck did a belief in a God become adverse to this theory?

Again, it seems we are skipping a step or two when we discuss this.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

I was oversimplifying, and I have explained why.

No, you were conflating. Your "explanation" doesn't change that.

Gem said:

Explanation is not the same as proof. I hope you don't mean that Explanation is not the same as proof.

And now you're trying to detract by changing the subject. No one said anything about proof.

Gem said:

And no, it doesn't have to provide answers to everything, but it should be expected to have at least an idea of the very thing it is supposed to explain. Whatever else is the purpose of the theory of evolution? Have I missed something?

Still haven't read the link on abiogenesis, have you? Evolution explains evolution. Not the origin of life. You're conflating the two because of your religion, and because of your lack of understanding of the subjects at hand.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

I was oversimplifying, and I have explained why.

No, you were conflating. Your "explanation" doesn't change that.

Marking words, are we? I was making a mess, deliberately, use whatever words you like.

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

Gem said:

Explanation is not the same as proof. I hope you don't mean that Explanation is not the same as proof.

And now you're trying to detract by changing the subject. No one said anything about proof.

Err...I am pretty sure for example Cold Iron would disagree with you. He definitely gave the impression that the theory is proven. Or I misunderstood him.

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

Gem said:

And no, it doesn't have to provide answers to everything, but it should be expected to have at least an idea of the very thing it is supposed to explain. Whatever else is the purpose of the theory of evolution? Have I missed something?

Still haven't read the link on abiogenesis, have you? Evolution explains evolution. Not the origin of life. You're conflating the two because of your religion, and because of your lack of understanding of the subjects at hand.

Now you're the one conflating my opinion with my faith. And please refer to my answer post to Mherim. If the theory of evolution doesn't dabble in the life of this planet, then how did this topic even begin? Now I definitely feel like I am missing something.

[Terez]

Gem said:

Since everybody has been screaming at me that the bible couldn't never coexists with a theory like this, because they have different views of how life was created

It's simple - the Bible says that god created man and animals all within a couple of days of each other. The theory of evolution contradicts that without attempting to explain where life comes from.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

Gem said:

Since everybody has been screaming at me that the bible couldn't never coexists with a theory like this, because they have different views of how life was created

It's simple - the Bible says that god created man and animals all within a couple of days of each other. The theory of evolution contradicts that without attempting to explain where life comes from.

Ah, but does the bible really say that? Simplification! Although yes, I see your point. Gaah, I'm happy we cleared up that part.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I am pretty sure for example Cold Iron would disagree with you. He definitely gave the impression that the theory is proven. Or I misunderstood him.

The fact that evolution occurs is observable fact. You were still trying to change the subject, though, because I didn't say anything about that, and CI's post was quite a while back.

[Terez]

Gem said:

Now you're the one conflating my opinion with my faith.

If you can find even one biologist that is not religious that doesn't believe in evolution, I will be impressed. Hell, I'd be impressed if you found a non-scientist that is not religious but does not believe in evolution.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I am pretty sure for example Cold Iron would disagree with you. He definitely gave the impression that the theory is proven. Or I misunderstood him.

The fact that evolution occurs is observable fact. You were still trying to change the subject, though, because I didn't say anything about that, and CI's post was quite a while back.

Umm, we discussed this a while back I think. I don't recall you guys ever showing me a satisfactory proof that the theory of evolution actually happened (imo you couldn't either). However I do remember you giving an example of evolutionary mechanisms from present day. Which doesn't prove a thing in itself. But I digress. We have different views of what conclusions you can draw from that data. Hmm, maybe I should translate it into symbolic logic for you - I haven't been using that knowledge in years now - it should be a fun challenge.


Edit:

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

Gem said:

Now you're the one conflating my opinion with my faith.

If you can find even one biologist that is not religious that doesn't believe in evolution, I will be impressed. Hell, I'd be impressed if you found a non-scientist that is not religious but does not believe in evolution.

Right on it hun, I am hoping to get some sources in the coming weeks. Btw, that avatar of yours is really freaking me out.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 04 January 2009 - 11:45 PM

[Terez]

Gem said:

I don't recall you guys ever showing me a satisfactory proof that the theory of evolution actually happened (imo you couldn't either).

To refresh your memory, it was DM that last said that evolution is fact (on the last page, for me), but he did not say that the Theory of Evolution is proven. What he said is true.

Gem said:

We have different views of what conclusions you can draw from that data.

You keep saying that, and now you've demonstrated that your lack of knowledge on the subject makes your opinion essentially worthless.

Gem said:

Right on it hun, I am hoping to get some sources in the coming weeks.

Have fun trying. You're deluding yourself if you think your religion isn't the sole reason for your opinion.

Gem said:

Btw, that avatar of yours is really freaking me out. tongue.gif

That's what it's supposed to do. Blame Bubba. Or Illy...

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I am pretty sure for example Cold Iron would disagree with you. He definitely gave the impression that the theory is proven. Or I misunderstood him.

The fact that evolution occurs is observable fact. You were still trying to change the subject, though, because I didn't say anything about that, and CI's post was quite a while back.

Umm, we discussed this a while back I think. I don't recall you guys ever showing me a satisfactory proof that the theory of evolution actually happened (imo you couldn't either). However I do remember you giving an example of evolutionary mechanisms from present day. Which doesn't prove a thing in itself.

What, from your point of view, would constitute evidence for the Theory of Evolution?

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

Gem said:

I don't recall you guys ever showing me a satisfactory proof that the theory of evolution actually happened (imo you couldn't either).

To refresh your memory, it was DM that last said that evolution is fact (on the last page, for me), but he did not say that the Theory of Evolution is proven. What he said is true.

Right, but some seems to think that constitutes as a proof.

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

Gem said:

We have different views of what conclusions you can draw from that data.

You keep saying that, and now you've demonstrated that your lack of knowledge on the subject makes your opinion essentially worthless.

I've never said I was an expert. However I am still entitled to an opinion. Also, my impression is that anyone not agreeing with you displays a lack of knowledge from your view point. As for my confusion about the 'scope' of the theory of evolution - I have made no secret of that I build my opinions on a larger philosophical scope that includes unofficial definitions and much reading between the lines. You might disagree with that way of looking at science, but it doesn't mean I lack essential pieces of knowledge. That said, I don't know everything, but neither do you. Also, if we would build this thread solely on knowledge, many of you would not be able to even comment on the bible, much less be considered having worthy opinions, according your way of seeing it.

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

Gem said:

Right on it hun, I am hoping to get some sources in the coming weeks.

Have fun trying. You're deluding yourself if you think your religion isn't the sole reason for your opinion.

I am anything but deluded, friend. But think that, if it gives you comfort.

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

Gem said:

Btw, that avatar of yours is really freaking me out. tongue.gif

That's what it's supposed to do. Blame Bubba. Or Illy...

I blame Brood! (duh!)

Gwynn ap Nudd, on Jan 5 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I am pretty sure for example Cold Iron would disagree with you. He definitely gave the impression that the theory is proven. Or I misunderstood him.

The fact that evolution occurs is observable fact. You were still trying to change the subject, though, because I didn't say anything about that, and CI's post was quite a while back.

Umm, we discussed this a while back I think. I don't recall you guys ever showing me a satisfactory proof that the theory of evolution actually happened (imo you couldn't either). However I do remember you giving an example of evolutionary mechanisms from present day. Which doesn't prove a thing in itself.

What, from your point of view, would constitute evidence for the Theory of Evolution?

It would require actual documentation of evolution over millions of years that already have taken place. Or alternatively, documentation of evolution taking place over the next millions of years.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 05 January 2009 - 12:58 AM

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Gwynn ap Nudd, on Jan 5 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 5 2009, 12:37 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 4 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

I am pretty sure for example Cold Iron would disagree with you. He definitely gave the impression that the theory is proven. Or I misunderstood him.

The fact that evolution occurs is observable fact. You were still trying to change the subject, though, because I didn't say anything about that, and CI's post was quite a while back.

Umm, we discussed this a while back I think. I don't recall you guys ever showing me a satisfactory proof that the theory of evolution actually happened (imo you couldn't either). However I do remember you giving an example of evolutionary mechanisms from present day. Which doesn't prove a thing in itself.

What, from your point of view, would constitute evidence for the Theory of Evolution?

It would require actual documentation of evolution over millions of years that already have taken place. Or alternatively, documentation of evolution taking place over the next millions of years.

Could you be a little more specific? Obviously, nobody can give you any evidence of what will happen over the next million years, so that's out. The best anyone can do in terms of that sort of scope is the fossil record. Would a series of fossils showing how one lineage evolved and speciated over time suffice? If not, what exactly are you looking for?

[Gem Windcaster]

Gwynn ap Nudd, on Jan 5 2009, 02:37 AM, said:

Could you be a little more specific? Obviously, nobody can give you any evidence of what will happen over the next million years, so that's out. The best anyone can do in terms of that sort of scope is the fossil record. Would a series of fossils showing how one lineage evolved and speciated over time suffice? If not, what exactly are you looking for?

To be honest I am not sure if that would be enough, because it depends on what it shows. A proof in my eyes would be data similar to setting up a video camera that would record over millions of years, actually showing the different species evolve. I guess actually having dna samples would be a start. But as it is now, there's too little knowledge of how the evolution part would even work, and how it effects a species. The way I see it, the current theory produces more questions than answers.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 05 January 2009 - 02:14 AM

[Darts]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 03:13 AM, said:

The way I see it, the current theory produces more questions than answers.

Does that mean the theory is wrong? Pretty much any new theory presents new problems, and figuring out the answers to those is what makes science evolve...

Now if you don't beleive in evolution this argument is totaly nonvalid and you'll probably find a better one in a holy book
edit: might have gotten the qoutes mixed up here...

This post has been edited by Darts: 05 January 2009 - 02:24 AM

[Illuyankas]

Well, I have no idea if it's been posted here before - can't remember, it's been too long since I read the earlier pages - but it's too good not to add it again, here is the website for what's described in this report, about a twenty year experiment involving E. coli populations of which one group evolved the ability to metabolise citrate around the 31,500th generation. I'm sure it's old news to most of you in this thread but I had forgotten it until recently, so enjoy it again.

[Gem Windcaster]

Illuyankas, on Jan 5 2009, 03:23 AM, said:

Well, I have no idea if it's been posted here before - can't remember, it's been too long since I read the earlier pages - but it's too good not to add it again, here is the website for what's described in this report, about a twenty year experiment involving E. coli populations of which one group evolved the ability to metabolise citrate around the 31,500th generation. I'm sure it's old news to most of you in this thread but I had forgotten it until recently, so enjoy it again.

Thank you for the link, but if I remember correctly this is what DM was talking about earlier in the thread.

[Illuyankas]

OK, I'll go back and see what objections you had to this then, er, then.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

I did not call anyone retarded. I said 'life comes from a rock' sounds retarded. It seems you agree that it does sound retarded? Why don't you say that instead, and tell me that isn't what evolution is about? That's all I waited for actually.

I thought that's what I did?

The problem here, I think, is not your level of understanding of the science but the level with which you associate it's authority. Example:

Gem Windcaster, on Jan 5 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

Illuyankas, on Jan 4 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Besides, wasn't the biblical Adam made from mud?

Your point being? I have never denied this fact, nor do I wish to. I would indeed have a problem if I did wish to deny it - or possibly if I wanted to claim it was reasonable or even proven.

Your desire is to challenge science rather than the bible, because you hold the bible on a higher authority, and when you perceive a clash between the two, you wish to make it clear that you champion the bible. However, in your urgency to defend your faith what you have failed to address is the true difference. If I may, your problem seems not to be the actual mechanism by which life arose, but the cause. What you truly find ridiculous is not the scientific theories but the falsely perceived threat to the presence of an ultimate prime mover.

It is important to understand that science, whether evolutionary biology, organic and inorganic chemistry, cosmological and quantum mechanical physics or any other discipline does not seek to challenge the existence of god. It is easy to think that it does, but allow me to attempt to debunk the possible causes for this false impression.

1. Many things that have been classically and traditionally attributed to god now have scientific explanation. This causes significant problems because it seems to cause a juxtaposition between science and the bible, and leaves people with the impression that the truth can only be in either one or the other. However, as I've already stated, there are many passages of the bible that are traditionally and dogmatically accepted as allegory and it is easy to see for yourself (some examples of rhetorical allegory: Ps 80:8-19; Eccl 12:3-7; Jn 10:1-16; Eph 6:11-17. I also recommend perusing the wiki page on biblical hermeneutics for other types of allegorical interpretation.) So if some of the bible is accepted as allegorical, why not the parts that contradict with modern science? What is especially literal about those parts?

2. Many atheists use science as a basis from which to attack religion. To this I simply say: these people (*cough*Dawkins*cough*) are as biased and intent on pushing an agenda as those who use religion as a basis from which to attack science. The only scientific realm where spirituality is even relevant is anthropology and social sciences, and in this context it is still unconcerned with the actual validity of the beliefs held, but rather their causes and effects.

3. Many atheists look down on the religious as unenlightened, unintelligent and uninformed. This one actually amuses me and it really just comes down to attitude. It's most often those who are ignorant and uninformed themselves that are guilty of this and are simply attempting to hide their self-perceived inadequacies. If you are sufficiently informed about both religion and science, you will see no grounds in either from which to look down upon the other, and those who do will cease to bother you.

4. Many religious leaders warn of the dangers and inaccuracies of science. See 2 and 3 from the opposite perspective.

In summary there need be no conflict between the authority of god and the authority of science. Science is no-one's lord, there is no reason to pay it homage. You can choose to believe whatever you like about the sciences (and that includes believing them when they're right) and still give your heart to the lord.

PS: Much action since i wrote this post, long day at work...

[Shinrei]

That.... was a great post, CI.

Hugs and imaginary rep from Shin!