[cauthon]

Cause, on 18 September 2009 - 09:27 PM, said:

Also you don’t need a degree in science to see that the next number in the sequence 2-4-6-8...
Is 10! Extrapolation is a reasonable and often useful tool.

But this is where you might be wrong. Badly even :-)

The next number might also be 6. Or 12. Or 1, or 3, or ...

You have assumed that the row started with 2 (well, actually 0, but let's drop that detail). But that need not have been the case. Maybe you only found 2,4,6 and 8. But there's a bunch of other number that potentially might have preceded that part of the row.

Of the row states the differences between consecutive primes, the next number might have been 6.

Just saying ...

[Cold Iron]

You can't attack evolution with science if your alternative is worse science.

[stone monkey]

Well, I can't sleep... And I'm naturally crabby, so this argument bugs the hell out of me.

Cauthon's argument, like Cause's, is flawed. There doesn't have to be a sequence at all. The next number could be absolutely anything; it's undefined. But the analogy to Gem's (rather deeply flawed) argument is clear however. Further datum points would give us more of a clue as to whether there's a sequence at all and what that sequence might be. Gem would seem to be claiming (by analogy) that we could have an infinity of datum points and still not know whether there is a sequence because the very next one could disprove a particular sequence;in this she's technically (if rather trivially) correct. But the very fact that there would appear to be some kind of sequence means that we have a useful (if possibly minimally so) hypothesis to be going on with. What that sequence is, of course, is open to debate.

One point we can make make is that spontaneous creation by the deity, which we all know she's arguing for, hasn't been observed either. Which, from her argument about observability, makes it at least as unlikely a theory (in natural language terms, that is [and I'll get back to that]) as evolution. From the physical evidence, evolution looks like what happened; how it happened is up for discussion depending on which flavour of mechanism one prefers.

What does yank my chain is the way Gem continues to bandy about the word "theory." For someone who has a scientific education, she's remarkably free about using the word in its natural language definition. When she should know that, when used scientifically (i.e. theory of evolution, theory of gravity etc.), the word has a more stringent definition. This is, again, a deeply flawed argument. And one that could lead one to place her amongst very particular company as certain members of the religious community are also quite fond of it. A theory is not always just a "theory"; I really expected better...

And as for the Socratic dialogue; depressingly Gem, you've hit the nail on the head... You would just appear to have placed yourself as the wrong participant in your particular dialogue; I'm sure you think that you're in the place of your first speaker....

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 22 September 2009 - 03:54 AM

[Agraba]

Quote

The second law of thermodynamics is rightly the Second theory of thermodynamics. Philosophically speaking it’s impossible to prove anything. So it can’t be a law. That said in over a million observed experiments, reactions and tests it’s never been proved wrong. But it’s still just a theory.

Actually (sorry to nitpick here but) entropy is more a mathematical construct than an observable (even though you can "observe" it by observing other properties from which entropy can be calculated) so the second law of thermodynamics can (unlike most physics laws) be proven mathematically so it is absolute fact. Yes, it is based on "statistical" mechanics, and anything thermodynamic we observe in real life is based entirely on statistics, but entropy is a measure of how many quantum states "can" be occupied, not how many are occupied, so it is an absolute. But then again, the second law is, in my opinion, more of a kind of mathematical statement than a physics law (and mathematical statements are technically "proven", while for most physics laws, we can only gather "evidence").

Also,

Quote

When she should know that, when used scientifically (i.e. theory of evolution, theory of gravity etc.), the word has a more stringent definition.

Sorry, again, for being nitpicky but gravity is, as of now, not on entirely solid grounds. First, Newton was wrong (although we still use his calculations because they make a good "local" approximation) and Einstein's general relativity, while in some parts observationally sound, is at odds with quantum mechanics (experimentally sound). Currently, the nature of gravity is one of the most elusive things to us and still up for debate (our consensus still lies with general relativity and we'll stick with it until we can finally find a "theory of everything" to link the gravitational force to the other three). I guess gravity is still an okay analogy to evolution if you want to say that the end result (matter attracts matter) is quite clear, but if you want to argue that knowledge of the mechanism based on evidence is sound, then gravity isn't the right analogy.

Of course, biology not being my subject, I can't exactly make an argument defending the premise of evolution's mechanism based on evidence.

This post has been edited by Agraba: 22 September 2009 - 05:27 AM

[stone monkey]

If we're going to be totally nitpicky, absolutely nothing in science is on any kind of solid ground. The scientific method requires that all conclusions be tentative i.e. subject to alteration should a better (more accurately fitting the evidence and explicatory) theory come along. The issue with evolution is that the current best guess would appear to be a pretty good one. It dovetails with results from other fields and has made multiple predictions that have been confirmed.

Which is pretty much all one can ask from a scientific theory.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 22 September 2009 - 11:43 AM

[cauthon]

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

Well, I can't sleep... And I'm naturally crabby, so this argument bugs the hell out of me.

Cauthon's argument, like Cause's, is flawed. There doesn't have to be a sequence at all. The next number could be absolutely anything; it's undefined. But the analogy to Gem's (rather deeply flawed) argument is clear however. Further datum points would give us more of a clue as to whether there's a sequence at all and what that sequence might be. Gem would seem to be claiming (by analogy) that we could have an infinity of datum points and still not know whether there is a sequence because the very next one could disprove a particular sequence;in this she's technically (if rather trivially) correct. But the very fact that there would appear to be some kind of sequence means that we have a useful (if possibly minimally so) hypothesis to be going on with. What that sequence is, of course, is open to debate.

I was going a bit off topic, so I had not considered people taking it up like this.

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

One point we can make make is that spontaneous creation by the deity, which we all know she's arguing for, hasn't been observed either.

Correct ;-)

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

What does yank my chain is the way Gem continues to bandy about the word "theory." For someone who has a scientific education, she's remarkably free about using the word in its natural language definition. When she should know that, when used scientifically (i.e. theory of evolution, theory of gravity etc.), the word has a more stringent definition. This is, again, a deeply flawed argument. And one that could lead one to place her amongst very particular company as certain members of the religious community are also quite fond of it. A theory is not always just a "theory"; I really expected better...

The thing is, I guess is that a lot of people postulate a theory as fact. Those savvy enough know that it is not, the plebs however ... ah well. A theory is something that is supported by 'experiments' or findings, and is valid until 'evidence' shows otherwise. How would you define it?

[Epiph]

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

One point we can make make is that spontaneous creation by the deity, which we all know she's arguing for, hasn't been observed either.

At least in my conversations with her, Gem has never actually said that she believes that spontaneous creation by the deity is the mechanism which explains the diversity of life (though, admittedly, it seems to be the subtext). She has only argued (again, at least in my conversations with her) that she doesn't see evolution as having enough evidence and that there must be something else that explains it all. She doesn't have any suggestions about what this something else might be, however.

[cauthon]

Let me just take this a step further. If a deity created something in front of your nose, would you believe it? Consider this for a moment. When Jesus walked the planet, he performed miracles. People at that time did not deny that. But most of them did not listen to what he had to say. So, would it be relevant to your opinion and beliefs if a deity showed you? I seriously doubt that most people would change their opinion. Moreover, I suspect that a lot of people would think something along the lines of sufficiently advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic. And they would just keep believing what they already believe. What do you think?

[stone monkey]

The evidence for Christ's miracles is somewhat slim, even his chroniclers don't agree on them... Were I to witness (or see compelling evidence of) an unabiguously miraculous event, rather than one that was simply very unlikely, then I'd be compelled to reassess my worldview. They are a bit thin on the ground, though...

[Cold Iron]

cauthon, on 22 September 2009 - 02:27 PM, said:

The thing is, I guess is that a lot of people postulate a theory as fact. Those savvy enough know that it is not, the plebs however ... ah well. A theory is something that is supported by 'experiments' or findings, and is valid until 'evidence' shows otherwise. How would you define it?

As observation and experiment progress the likelihood of contradictory evidence popping up falls away completely. This is when it becomes perfectly legitimate to call a theory a fact.

All you need to do is read one book on the topic that illustrates the GIGANTIC QUIVERING MOUNTAIN of research, the work of ENTIRE CAREERS OF THOUSANDS OF RIDICULOUSLY HIGHLY EDUCATED PEOPLE to realise just how objectionable pathetic repugnant the theory vs. fact argument is.

NOTE: The bible does not count as a book on this topic.

[cauthon]

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 07:14 PM, said:

The evidence for Christ's miracles is somewhat slim, even his chroniclers don't agree on them... Were I to witness (or see compelling evidence of) an unabiguously miraculous event, rather than one that was simply very unlikely, then I'd be compelled to reassess my worldview. They are a bit thin on the ground, though...

I am not saying you should take those for granted -- that is completely up to you -- I am just asking what you would do if it happened in your presence.

[cauthon]

Cold Iron, on 22 September 2009 - 11:00 PM, said:

cauthon, on 22 September 2009 - 02:27 PM, said:

The thing is, I guess is that a lot of people postulate a theory as fact. Those savvy enough know that it is not, the plebs however ... ah well. A theory is something that is supported by 'experiments' or findings, and is valid until 'evidence' shows otherwise. How would you define it?

As observation and experiment progress the likelihood of contradictory evidence popping up falls away completely. This is when it becomes perfectly legitimate to call a theory a fact.

All you need to do is read one book on the topic that illustrates the GIGANTIC QUIVERING MOUNTAIN of research, the work of ENTIRE CAREERS OF THOUSANDS OF RIDICULOUSLY HIGHLY EDUCATED PEOPLE to realise just how objectionable pathetic repugnant the theory vs. fact argument is.

And this is why people are shaken when suddenly a piece of evidence pops up that destroys their world view. Consider the ideas people had when they still believed the earth was at the center of the solar system. Up to a certain point, the evidence still agreed with this, and complicated equations were brought forth to support this, e.g., on the movement of the planets. Until somebody, suddenly acquired the idea than, hey, maybe the sun is at the center. Now, you can argue that, well, yes, but they were wrong because they had no accurate data and no cool scientific gadgets and what not, but the point is, that up to the point where evidence was discovered, people (even scientists) really accepted a false theory and claimed it was fact. All I am saying is that any theory, unless there is proof in a mathematical sense, is prone to adaption or removal at some point. Most theories are getting simply refined, but some are discarded.

Note that I do understand why science leaves God out of the answer, but it seems to me that the evidence does not contradict creation. But then we'll go Occam's way again. I'd reverse the argument, given that there is an easy way to explain how we came to be, there's really no need for complicated theories. One assumption is sufficient :-)

Cold Iron, on 22 September 2009 - 11:00 PM, said:

NOTE: The bible does not count as a book on this topic.

I do agree with this.

[Silencer]

Epiph, on 22 September 2009 - 03:53 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

One point we can make make is that spontaneous creation by the deity, which we all know she's arguing for, hasn't been observed either.

At least in my conversations with her, Gem has never actually said that she believes that spontaneous creation by the deity is the mechanism which explains the diversity of life (though, admittedly, it seems to be the subtext). She has only argued (again, at least in my conversations with her) that she doesn't see evolution as having enough evidence and that there must be something else that explains it all. She doesn't have any suggestions about what this something else might be, however.

Except that she has stated previously in arguments on this board that she believes in God. Although she tends to then go on to say that we can't assume we know what she believes.

@Cauthon - If a deity performed a miracle in front of me, yes, I would damn well believe it. Same thing if I point at a tree, say "If God wants me to believe in him all he needs to do is strike that tree with lightning this instant" and it actually happens, I'd start believing. Though after I've done that once (which I have, in a debate) it ceases to be a relevant example as the probability of it happening naturally increases each time I do it, while God would have responded the first time if he existed.
As for Jesus, the only 'evidence' of his miracles comes, if I'm not mistaken, from the Bible...so you're taking people's reactions to them on the word of the same group that wants you to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that God exists. Hence, your argument that people did not heed what he was saying and doing is flawed, as we have only a small, most likely biased source to reference from.

[cauthon]

Silencer, on 23 September 2009 - 10:13 AM, said:

@Cauthon - If a deity performed a miracle in front of me, yes, I would damn well believe it. Same thing if I point at a tree, say "If God wants me to believe in him all he needs to do is strike that tree with lightning this instant" and it actually happens, I'd start believing. Though after I've done that once (which I have, in a debate) it ceases to be a relevant example as the probability of it happening naturally increases each time I do it, while God would have responded the first time if he existed.
As for Jesus, the only 'evidence' of his miracles comes, if I'm not mistaken, from the Bible...so you're taking people's reactions to them on the word of the same group that wants you to believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that God exists. Hence, your argument that people did not heed what he was saying and doing is flawed, as we have only a small, most likely biased source to reference from.

Pretty cool that you would believe. Have some brownie points ;-) I have not talked to a lot of people who admitted that. As for the other point, christians were severely prosecuted, and yet there are no texts found that deny any claims they made, afaik. OTOH, the bible endured, even before the church started to see it as a way to get people under their yoke and ... profit. So, yes the source may be biased, but it did survive, whereas the other potential sources are non-existent -- or to stay in the spirit of previous discussions, they have not been found yet ;-)

[Agraba]

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 11:32 AM, said:

If we're going to be totally nitpicky, absolutely nothing in science is on any kind of solid ground. The scientific method requires that all conclusions be tentative i.e. subject to alteration should a better (more accurately fitting the evidence and explicatory) theory come along. The issue with evolution is that the current best guess would appear to be a pretty good one. It dovetails with results from other fields and has made multiple predictions that have been confirmed.

Which is pretty much all one can ask from a scientific theory.

The reason I brought up gravity is because I just wanted to point out that even though Newton's arguments on matter propagating fields was extremely compelling (and it even had a strong mathematical basis), it still turned out to be wrong. I do believe in evolution, and not in creation, but I am helping out those who are arguing that despite all the compelling evidence for evolution, it might turn out that the current explanation isn't entirely correct. While scientists are supposed to completely disconnected with their study in terms of mentality, sometimes they just go a little conduction-crazy and make one too many inferences based on observation. That is what Newton did with his field theory.

Also, I should bring up the fact that even though two theories contradict each other (evolution, creation), that does not mean that one has to be false. For example, special relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other. SR states that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, and QM states that when you observe a value of a wavefunction that propagates all space, that wavefunction collapses in all space, which means that the information of its wavefunction is transmitted through all space immediately. There are also discrepancies between QM and GR. However, all are still currently accepted, and some people are trying to find a grand unifying theory. Granted, it may be a bad example because nobody's trying to find a grand unifying theory of creationism and evolution, since the former offers no indicating evidence thus far, but I'm just saying, if two theories are at odds it may be because neither are fully understood yet, but they can both still be true.

[Terez]

I wouldn't say that no one is working on a grand unifying theory of creation/evolution. Lots of religious folks have accepted the evidence for evolution, and they are reconsidering their specific religious beliefs based on that overwhelming evidence. But since creation is not a scientific theory, it's not quite the same.

This post has been edited by Terez: 23 September 2009 - 04:56 PM

[cauthon]

Terez, on 23 September 2009 - 04:56 PM, said:

I wouldn't say that no one is working on a grand unifying theory of creation/evolution. Lots of religious folks have accepted the evidence for evolution, and they are reconsidering their specific religious beliefs based on that overwhelming evidence. But since creation is not a scientific theory, it's not quite the same.

Have you been softening up? :-)

True, there are those who try to align evolution with the idea of a creator, stating he used evolution to bring about the various life forms. Still, they do not acknowledge that the first life began out of nowhere, and second, most if not all of those people tend to fail to recognize that (the translations of) their holy book(s) specifically state that God created blah, and that blah only begets blah.

[Epiph]

Silencer, on 23 September 2009 - 10:13 AM, said:

Epiph, on 22 September 2009 - 03:53 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 22 September 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

One point we can make make is that spontaneous creation by the deity, which we all know she's arguing for, hasn't been observed either.

At least in my conversations with her, Gem has never actually said that she believes that spontaneous creation by the deity is the mechanism which explains the diversity of life (though, admittedly, it seems to be the subtext). She has only argued (again, at least in my conversations with her) that she doesn't see evolution as having enough evidence and that there must be something else that explains it all. She doesn't have any suggestions about what this something else might be, however.

Except that she has stated previously in arguments on this board that she believes in God. Although she tends to then go on to say that we can't assume we know what she believes.

Belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that one thinks that the universe was created spontaneously by a deity...though it certainly points that way. And like I said, the subtext of her statements does lead me to believe that she believes in some sort of spontaneous creation. I just don't know that she's ever said OUTRIGHT that she believes that. I say all this to head off any future, "Don't tell me what I believe" arguments that may come this way.

[Gem Windcaster]

It's kind of fun to see oneself being mentioned in third person, and as flattered I am that you guys would probably need a whole other thread to delve into my postings, I am convinced I should try another strategy. Enough of the self indulging jokes. Anyway, there has been some complaining that I am posting gibberish, and that I am not trying to make myself understood. I know I have a bad habit of jumping ahead in discussions and train of thought, so will definitely try to rectify the situation and be as clear as I can be forthwith (<-is that a word?). So I am taking a huge step back, going back to the basics, as to see if I can make it clearer.

First a small note about the 'you can't assume what I believe' quote that some of you have mentioned. What I meant by that was that I feel you guys have preconceived notions about what I believe and how I build my worldview from the second my faith in God is stated. I have felt that you have put words in my mouth, and that you have built your interpretations of what I am saying on what you think Christians usually think (possibly based on people you have met throughout your life, I dunno). I feels like bashing your head against the wall when I try to explain what I mean, but instead is getting accused of not getting what I myself mean. Kind of like I have learned that a certain word means a certain thing, but instead it means something else. However I realize I haven't exactly been helpful, because of the mental jumps I make. So never mind. (oops that didn't become as short as I had hoped).

On to the main point. The issue seems to boil down to if I am accepting certain 'evidence' or not. Let me be really clear on this: I have never denied the 'evidence' of the theory of evolution isn't beautifully conceived, nor has it been my intention to say that objectively there isn't a chance that it is true. Objectively it could be.

My intention from the start have been to point out that there isn't only one way to view the 'evidence', and that Reason doesn't exclude other options. The fact that for some of you there isn't other options, isn't an argument; not to Reason. I am not saying there is anything wrong with believing in this particular option - I think we humans need having faith in something, especially when it comes to the great questions about the universe. My point throughout the whole debate has been that there's nothing wrong with acknowledging faith, nor that you need it.

Science only gets you so far, because it is built on reason, and Reason doesn't give you much solid stuff on the Great Questions. To paint your own faith on Science, and make it belong only to your point of view, is plain wrong. Science is Reason, but humanity is so much more than that.

This is the reason I don't agree with the creationist way of viewing the world. Because science isn't about faith, it's about reason. Faith might build on science, or build beyond it, but that is another story altogether.


Questions?

Edit: by creationist view I mean attempts to build science on top of their faith, as opposed to build their faith beyond science, or on top of it.

Edit2: To be clear: I do not claim there is any single piece of evidence/proof that I am correct in my faith. I do not build my scientific views on my faith. I do not think my faith is the answer to scientific answers. Science is science, faith is faith.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 23 September 2009 - 10:51 PM

[Terez]

cauthon, on 23 September 2009 - 07:16 PM, said:

Terez, on 23 September 2009 - 04:56 PM, said:

I wouldn't say that no one is working on a grand unifying theory of creation/evolution. Lots of religious folks have accepted the evidence for evolution, and they are reconsidering their specific religious beliefs based on that overwhelming evidence. But since creation is not a scientific theory, it's not quite the same.

Have you been softening up? :-)

No. Just saying.

cauthon said:

True, there are those who try to align evolution with the idea of a creator, stating he used evolution to bring about the various life forms. Still, they do not acknowledge that the first life began out of nowhere

Evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories.

cauthon said:

and second, most if not all of those people tend to fail to recognize that (the translations of) their holy book(s) specifically state that God created blah, and that blah only begets blah.

Well, they acknowledge that's what their holy books say - they've just come to take the holy books as being less than literal.

Biblical literalism wasn't all that prominent until the Protestant Reformation, and the Baptists didn't take it to the current extremes associated with the Religious Right until the 80's - at least, not officially. That's when they kicked all the liberals out of the SBC.

In fact, it was the protestants who first objected to Copernicanism, of which the Pope approved. Luther specifically objected to it on the basis of Biblical literalism. It wasn't until the counter-reformation that the Catholics jumped on the anti-Copernicanism bandwagon.