[Cold Iron]

cauthon, on 23 September 2009 - 08:40 AM, said:

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.

You are not incorrect, but you are using very poor examples to illustrate your point. As I said, the more we observe, measure, experiment, the more unlikely it is for a piece of evidence to pop up that contradicts the theory. Seriously, have a think about how much work has been done in this field. We're not talking about geocentricity here.

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

I know I have a bad habit of completely contradicting myself and claiming "THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID" when it clearly was, 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.

Fixed But relax your sphincters mods, this is going to be a nice post, promise.

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

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).

You've said there's no proof of evolution and when we show it to you, instead of discussing it or arguing against it's reliability, you instead argue against it's objectivity. You ignore the evidence and claim that regardless of how much we show you, it can never enough. Surely you can see how this is a tactic of someone who is not willing to accept the facts, which leaves us with no choice but to speculate about why you do this. If we are wrong, and it's not because of your religion, tell us why, because this is one hell of a mental jump.

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

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.

In principle I agree with this, but I think it is unfair of you to assume that anybody here is excluding other options. You simply haven't provided us with any, and nor has anybody else. When someone does, using the available evidence, I assure you, people will listen. But the probability that it will look markedly different to the current theory or able to be separated from the label "evolution" is low in the extreme. Indeed the whole "tree of life" structure of evolution is now being rewritten as we discover how much more significant horizontal gene transfer is over long time scales than vertical inheritance. Is this new evidence that radically changes our understanding and world view? You betcha. Is it still evolution? Of course it is. Evolution has been observed. Further observations just lead us to a more accurate definition of it's mechanics, it will not, I repeat will not lead to a scrapping of evolution in favour of another theory. It is not faith in evolution that tells me this, but logic, and reason in the sheer unlikelihood of it happening. When I run at that wall, I don't know I won't pull a Radical Larry and all my atoms will simultaneously quantum tunnel their way through, but I can still tell you with absolute confidence that it won't happen!

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

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 I agree with, although I wouldn't phrase it with such a negative tone - reason gives plenty of solid stuff, indeed the only solid stuff, but let me get back to agreeing with you. The human methods of understanding goes far beyond reason, and studying this facet of ourselves is really very important and is by necessity being left behind by modern scientific inquiry. It is also not being helped by those who would argue against science for the sake (wittingly or otherwise) of politics.

[Silencer]

Well, that's a good response, Gem.

The one thing I'd like to mention though, is the final quote that CI made from your post - "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."
Your words imply - note I'm checking for clarification - that while Reason does not give you much 'solid stuff' on the "Great Questions", faith does. To my mind, nothing gives you 'solid stuff' on the "Great Questions" - by which I assume we are referring to the origins of the life/universe, the nature of time, whatever. Am I correct in my assumption of your position?

[Adjutant Stormy~]

The problem lies on the divide between doctrines of science and faith.

A scientific notion becomes a theory. This theory is probably wrong. In fact, it's assumed to be wrong: that there's some contradictory evidence out there. With investigation upon investigation, evidence is gathered, which may or may not be in agreement with the theory. At this point the theory's validity is up for review. If it still describes, within error, the data, it's not wrong yet.

It takes a fantastic theory, a colossal triumph of science to really be considered "right," like Einstein's Relativity, and even THIS is given only a temporary pass.

Faith covers the things you cannot repeat. Coming in to being, dying, and the moment of creation (for now). These things cannot be repeated to gather evidence with which to propose a theory, and so all but the most imprudent of scientists don't. A notion of death, to the faithful, can be absolute and well defined, in spite of the inevitable mystery of the subject, because it is taken in a different light. It's the "don't worry about it" school of theory. It's right until proven otherwise. A tenet of faith is right until proven otherwise, but this unfortunately yields immense conflict when it actually is.

Where did animals come from? It used to be a question that we had no traction over, no ability to observe in repetition. And so, as a matter of tradition, the theological explanation was the only valid explanation. And we liked it that way. But as we widened our knowledge of biology, and there was more research being done, it became within the realm of possibility to disprove a given theory. Not to confirm, but to disprove, as is the method of Science. Darwin proposed such a theory. So did Lamarck, as did others. These theories were all probably wrong. However, given sufficient time and inordinate numbers of data points, we give Evolution the tentative pass. We think that it's "Right".

It's the doubt that's killing you.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 24 September 2009 - 07:19 AM

[stone monkey]

Insomnia seems to only make me terse. And this thread serves to make me cranky. In that vein...

Here's a handy tool. Pick your argument, read the refutation here: Index of Creationist Claims

And if you come up with one that isn't covered, call me...


Oh... And on Cauthon's argument that the Bible has endured; so has The Epic of Gilgamesh (I own a translated copy) and that's a far older document than the Bible; by at least a couple of milennia... I can't see signs of all that many people nowadays making claims that one's true, though.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 24 September 2009 - 11:35 PM

[Terez]

Slightly related....I noticed yesterday on Facebook that the Bible seems to always be the favorite book of people who don't actually read.

[Illuyankas]

stone monkey, on 24 September 2009 - 10:49 PM, said:

Oh... And on Cauthon's argument that the Bible has endured; so has The Epic of Gilgamesh (I own a translated copy) and that's a far older document than the Bible; by at least a couple of milennia... I can't see signs of all that many people nowadays making claims that one's true, though.

I wish they did, Gilgamesh > Jesus by far.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on 25 September 2009 - 12:31 PM, said:

Slightly related....I noticed yesterday on Facebook that the Bible seems to always be the favorite book of people who don't actually read.

In Australia it's usually To Kill a Mockingbird. Staple high school English novel that people remember because it's got a strange title. Unbelievable waste of time forcing a generation of Australians to study that book.

[Happy Cat]

Cold Iron, on 28 September 2009 - 06:05 AM, said:

Terez, on 25 September 2009 - 12:31 PM, said:

Slightly related....I noticed yesterday on Facebook that the Bible seems to always be the favorite book of people who don't actually read.

In Australia it's usually To Kill a Mockingbird. Staple high school English novel that people remember because it's got a strange title. Unbelievable waste of time forcing a generation of Australians to study that book.

@CI: To Kill a Mockingbird is a Pulitzer Prize winning novel by American author Harper Lee. writen in 1962. It is worth reading. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mocking/

Still somewhat off topic. (sorry)

Has any-one given any thought as to how would you write a creation story, much less explain life and existence when you have no knowledge of biology, physics, mathematics, meteorology, geology, etc., not mention the concept of zero? Where you yourself and your audience most likely never been more than five miles away from the spot where you were born. I would think the results would resemble the religious texts we have today.

For the best part of human history Science as we know has been a nonconcept. Human knowledge has been a long, slow, often deadly process of trial and error, and painstaking observation. It has been only in the last 600 years or so; has Science, the concept/practice as we know it has gained ground to explain ourselves and world around us.

Considering the role of religion in ancient civilization was to instruct, govern, and provide enlightenment, the religious texts have been as valid as anything else to explain existence.

As a person of faith I believe the "Spirit of God" dictated the Bible to authors of the texts the proper; however, the authors did not have the words or concepts to express word of god any better than they did. It worked for the audience of the time, but as we gain more knowledge using the tools of Science we people of faith;(I feel), must come to realize that this is another and better way to know and understand existence, life, creation, God, and how it was done. Intelligence is a gift God has given us; use it.

@ Terez, (or anyone else who might know): At one time you had provided a link to viewing the Dead Sea Scrolls. I saw it and ment to return to it but I can not find it. Could you provide that link again if possible? Thanks, I have always wanted to read them.

[Cold Iron]

Happy Cat, on 29 September 2009 - 03:00 AM, said:

Cold Iron, on 28 September 2009 - 06:05 AM, said:

Terez, on 25 September 2009 - 12:31 PM, said:

Slightly related....I noticed yesterday on Facebook that the Bible seems to always be the favorite book of people who don't actually read.

In Australia it's usually To Kill a Mockingbird. Staple high school English novel that people remember because it's got a strange title. Unbelievable waste of time forcing a generation of Australians to study that book.

@CI: To Kill a Mockingbird is a Pulitzer Prize winning novel by American author Harper Lee. writen in 1962. It is worth reading. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mocking/

Like every other Australian of my generation I read it in school. It's power was in illustrating the relationships between blacks and whites in the 1930s American south and was completely lost on children living half a world away 3 generations later with little to no previous knowledge of American history. I'm not saying it wasn't a great achievement and fully deserving of all it's accolades, just that it was a waste of time for us.

[stone monkey]

We're steering dangerously off topic here, but... I also read this in High School (It wasn't a set text for my English Lit group, but it was for others; and I rather wish we'd read this rather than Oliver Twist) and I found it incredibly relevant to my situation. Admittedly I was a black child who was growing up in a predominantly white country...

[Gem Windcaster]

Silencer, on 24 September 2009 - 06:20 AM, said:

Well, that's a good response, Gem.

The one thing I'd like to mention though, is the final quote that CI made from your post - "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."
Your words imply - note I'm checking for clarification - that while Reason does not give you much 'solid stuff' on the "Great Questions", faith does. To my mind, nothing gives you 'solid stuff' on the "Great Questions" - by which I assume we are referring to the origins of the life/universe, the nature of time, whatever. Am I correct in my assumption of your position?

Thanks Silencer.

Now to your question. What I was trying to say when I say that reason doesn't give much answers is that it's hard to put, by logic alone, any supposed answer above another; give a specific view priority over another. But we as human beings choose our own answers - some built on our life and some on choices we make. But by reason alone we cannot get to those answers, although we might build upon reason and hold reason as something holy and correct. By your statement I think you get what I am trying to say - your point is the point I am trying to make also. As I have been trying to show in this thread, many feel reason is something close to holy, that one shouldn't touch or criticize - and ofcourse people are entitled to this view. But at the same time ridicule religion, and sometimes even think that religious people are some sort of lower human beings, while themselves holding to such a strong conviction: this is something I find interesting and I certainly question it. (I am not pointing at anyone, you know who you are, and you know yourselves best).

However I believe one can question almost anything, as long as you know yourself, and know what you're doing, that no criticism is perfect.

As to my view on reason (which is slightly different than the concept logic, I at least make a slight distinction), I can understand why some would think I am crazy when I say that reason isn't everything. However, sometimes, it's not just that reason is seen as almost holy - but that it is misrepresented as something it is not. If I get the chance I might elaborate on that some day.


To people waiting for a response - I'll get to your posts eventually, just hang on.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 24 September 2009 - 12:28 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

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).

You've said there's no proof of evolution and when we show it to you, instead of discussing it or arguing against it's reliability, you instead argue against it's objectivity. You ignore the evidence and claim that regardless of how much we show you, it can never enough. Surely you can see how this is a tactic of someone who is not willing to accept the facts, which leaves us with no choice but to speculate about why you do this. If we are wrong, and it's not because of your religion, tell us why, because this is one hell of a mental jump.

Actually that is not much of a mental jump, friend. As I have tried to point out is that what by some is seen as proof, is through another person's eyes not proof at all, but subjectivity. Although I can understand the frustration when I question the very core of such a widely accepted theory, I must say that I am astonished how flippantly the word proof is used. Falling back on logic, there is no such thing as ultimate proof. In symbolic logic, where you strive to find truths through the system of statements, it is accepted that you cannot prove anything; that all you can do is disprove it. For example: you cannot prove that all swans are white, because that means that you have to find all swans and check if they're white - instead you try to falsify the theory by searching for a black swan. And if you don't find a black swan, you simply accept that for now, the theory holds. I think it's safe to assume that science is grounded squarely on this principle.
Since it's hard to even try to find the black swan in this situation - testing the theory of evolution - I believe we possibly never will be able to test the theory in a sufficient manner - what we have is instead guesswork. But hey, that is not that bad, as long as you accept it for what it is.
You see, I am not being flippant about the facts, I am in fact being very strict about evidence, and I stand by it completely.

Cold Iron, on 24 September 2009 - 12:28 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

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.

In principle I agree with this, but I think it is unfair of you to assume that anybody here is excluding other options. You simply haven't provided us with any, and nor has anybody else. When someone does, using the available evidence, I assure you, people will listen. But the probability that it will look markedly different to the current theory or able to be separated from the label "evolution" is low in the extreme. Indeed the whole "tree of life" structure of evolution is now being rewritten as we discover how much more significant horizontal gene transfer is over long time scales than vertical inheritance. Is this new evidence that radically changes our understanding and world view? You betcha. Is it still evolution? Of course it is. Evolution has been observed. Further observations just lead us to a more accurate definition of it's mechanics, it will not, I repeat will not lead to a scrapping of evolution in favour of another theory. It is not faith in evolution that tells me this, but logic, and reason in the sheer unlikelihood of it happening. When I run at that wall, I don't know I won't pull a Radical Larry and all my atoms will simultaneously quantum tunnel their way through, but I can still tell you with absolute confidence that it won't happen!

I don't follow your argument - are you saying that it is better to have a lousy theory than not a theory at all? And I am not even saying the theory is that lousy - it's not proven, but that is another story, as a theory it's kinda cute - and I think I am making distinctions between different parts of evolution that you aren't doing in your post there.
Secondly, why would I need to bring another theory to the table just because I question the existing one? That doesn't make any sense. If I said I knew some secret answers that you guys don't know, then I would imagine that you would want to know what I got, but I am even not saying that. If you point out that the coffee machine is broken, then you are not expected to show a non-broken coffee machine just to get people to accept what you're saying. That the function of the coffee machine isn't working properly should be enough. Maybe a halting allegory, but nevertheless...
Actually, could you elaborate on what you meant in that part, I would appreciate it.

Cold Iron, on 24 September 2009 - 12:28 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 23 September 2009 - 10:35 PM, said:

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 I agree with, although I wouldn't phrase it with such a negative tone - reason gives plenty of solid stuff, indeed the only solid stuff, but let me get back to agreeing with you. The human methods of understanding goes far beyond reason, and studying this facet of ourselves is really very important and is by necessity being left behind by modern scientific inquiry. It is also not being helped by those who would argue against science for the sake (wittingly or otherwise) of politics.

I didn't mean for it to have a negative tone - I was just making an observation. Or trying.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 05 October 2009 - 10:17 PM

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on 05 October 2009 - 10:12 PM, said:

Actually that is not much of a mental jump, friend. As I have tried to point out is that what by some is seen as proof, is through another person's eyes not proof at all, but subjectivity. Although I can understand the frustration when I question the very core of such a widely accepted theory, I must say that I am astonished how flippantly the word proof is used. Falling back on logic, there is no such thing as ultimate proof. In symbolic logic, where you strive to find truths through the system of statements, it is accepted that you cannot prove anything; that all you can do is disprove it. For example: you cannot prove that all swans are white, because that means that you have to find all swans and check if they're white - instead you try to falsify the theory by searching for a black swan. And if you don't find a black swan, you simply accept that for now, the theory holds. I think it's safe to assume that science is grounded squarely on this principle.
Since it's hard to even try to find the black swan in this situation - testing the theory of evolution - I believe we possibly never will be able to test the theory in a sufficient manner - what we have is instead guesswork. But hey, that is not that bad, as long as you accept it for what it is.
You see, I am not being flippant about the facts, I am in fact being very strict about evidence, and I stand by it completely.

And it is a complete and utter waste of our time, and your time. This is a discussion about a scientific theory, ignoring the theory, indeed refusing to discuss it on it's own merits and instead arguing the validity of proof in general is simply your attempt at justifying why you refuse to listen to any argument put forward. You are arguing semantics in a world that has long since settled the argument, common language allows for the technical exceptions, as I explained, proof in common language refers to sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, once I've run into the wall a few times, I've provided sufficient evidence against the theory that I vibrate through to say in common language that it is proven, regardless of the technical impossibility of doing so. In short there is no value in your argument, you are adding nothing, explaining nothing and all you are doing is deluding yourself, or allowing yourself to be deluded. It may be impossible to "prove" that my car will start when i turn the key but I am for damn sure not walking home from work tonight - and neither are you.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 06 October 2009 - 12:16 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 12:10 AM, said:

And it is a complete and utter waste of our time, and your time. This is a discussion about a scientific theory, ignoring the theory, indeed refusing to discuss it on it's own merits and instead arguing the validity of proof in general is simply your attempt at justifying why you refuse to listen to any argument put forward.

For frackens sake CI, people are here for different reasons, and the only delusion I hold is that I can partake in the discussion in any way I very well please. And I am discussing the theory's merits, I am saying there are more than one way to view the assumed evidence, I am saying the arguments put forward in no way proves anything, for the reasons I have already put forward. I can understand your frustration that I can dismiss big parts of the theory based on the validity of proof so easily, but that is hardly my fault. The theory is what it is, it's not that bulletproof, even though it's very pretty. Pretty doesn't go very far in my book unfortunately.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 12:10 AM, said:

You are arguing semantics in a world that has long since settled the argument, common language allows for the technical exceptions, as I explained, proof in common language refers to sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, once I've run into the wall a few times, I've provided sufficient evidence against the theory that I vibrate through to say in common language that it is proven, regardless of the technical impossibility of doing so.

Wow that is just one big pile of nothingness. I am in fact arguing the very opposite of semantics, since logic happens to be the opposite of normal language. I have no interest in any methods that is dismissing logic so utterly that you can call anything anything 'regardless of technical impossibility'. What the heck does that mean anyway. I thought you were saying that the theory was proven? Suddenly you don't need logic at all? What the heck?

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 12:10 AM, said:

In short there is no value in your argument, you are adding nothing, explaining nothing and all you are doing is deluding yourself, or allowing yourself to be deluded. It may be impossible to "prove" that my car will start when i turn the key but I am for damn sure not walking home from work tonight - and neither are you.

For crying to lout, CI, you are welcome to think whatever you want about my arguments, or that I am deluded or whatever. However, even if you can't prove that your car will start before you turn the key, all you have to do is turn the darned key, for crying out loud, to see if it will. But you pose the completely wrong question. This is so typical, and quite frankly exactly the kind of reasoning that is so common in this thread. The correct question would refer to whether or not you can falsify the statement that your car will start. And that's the easy part, since you simply have to try to start the freaking car.

It's not so easy to try to start a car that existed say, 5 million years ago, or whatever number you find convenient. You don't know how the car looked like, or how it worked, even less if it actually was a car, maybe it was a train, or even a plane. All you have is thousands little fragments that you may or may not manage to piece together correctly and the knowledge of how a car works today. You can build neat little models of the car, and how it fit into the plant life and what gas it liked and what the mechanics looked like back then and what tools they used. And you can imagine how the blur cars survived because the swamp they lived in was kinda bluish, and all the red painted cars died out because the evil mechanic came and disassembled them all, but he didn't touch the blue cars, because he was a sucker for blue in general, because his wife had blue skin, or whatever. So you think that because the special monkey wrench clearly is so much better than it was just a couple of years ago, and is in fact a much more efficient wrench and prettier too, it proves that the cars were in fact not cars once but bikes, or possibly scooters, it's kinda hard to know which. Efficient wrenches or no, it's just a too good a story to not believe in, because cars just don't plop out of the sky, especially not blue cars, or red or whatever color is nice. No, they need at least a couple of billion years to develop the taste for a particular gas and oil, and compatibility to a certain mechanic. We shouldn't even begin to talk about how the cars managed to master speech, and when they learned to change oil on themselves so they didn't need the mechanics anymore, and so they killed them all off, but only temporary, since mechanics are alive today, obviously. But I digress...

Sorry for the rant, I am kinda tired. At least I entertain myself, right?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 06 October 2009 - 02:17 AM

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 02:17 AM, said:

For frackens sake CI, people are here for different reasons, and the only delusion I hold is that I can partake in the discussion in any way I very well please. And I am discussing the theory's merits, I am saying there are more than one way to view the assumed evidence, I am saying the arguments put forward in no way proves anything, for the reasons I have already put forward. I can understand your frustration that I can dismiss big parts of the theory based on the validity of proof so easily, but that is hardly my fault. The theory is what it is, it's not that bulletproof, even though it's very pretty. Pretty doesn't go very far in my book unfortunately.

Nor does evidence apparently because in your book you can't prove anything. Denying provability in general is not discussing a theory's merits, there are more than one way to view evidence but the view that all evidence is irrelevant is not a view at all but a lack of view. You are not dismissing parts of a theory you are dismissing all theories. I'm sorry if I'm coming down strongly but surely you can see how frustrating it is to argue with someone who denies the very possibility of a resolution.

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 02:17 AM, said:

Wow that is just one big pile of nothingness. I am in fact arguing the very opposite of semantics, since logic happens to be the opposite of normal language. I have no interest in any methods that is dismissing logic so utterly that you can call anything anything 'regardless of technical impossibility'. What the heck does that mean anyway. I thought you were saying that the theory was proven? Suddenly you don't need logic at all? What the heck?

No, you're arguing about the meaning of the word proof, this is semantics. If you have no interest in using common language then I'm afraid an internet forum is not the right place for you. Nor is the field of biology. The theory is proven in the common language usage of the word. Since no scientific theory is formally provable there is little value in discussing formal language unless we are talking about abstract mathematics. I am not dismissing logic, I am applying it as far as it is relevant to reality. I would argue that it is you who is dismissing it as you will not draw the obvious logical conclusion.

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 02:17 AM, said:

For crying to lout, CI, you are welcome to think whatever you want about my arguments, or that I am deluded or whatever. However, even if you can't prove that your car will start before you turn the key, all you have to do is turn the darned key, for crying out loud, to see if it will. But you pose the completely wrong question. This is so typical, and quite frankly exactly the kind of reasoning that is so common in this thread. The correct question would refer to whether or not you can falsify the statement that your car will start. And that's the easy part, since you simply have to try to start the freaking car.

It's not so easy to try to start a car that existed say, 5 million years ago, or whatever number you find convenient. You don't know how the car looked like, or how it worked, even less if it actually was a car, maybe it was a train, or even a plane. All you have is thousands little fragments that you may or may not manage to piece together correctly and the knowledge of how a car works today. You can build neat little models of the car, and how it fit into the plant life and what gas it liked and what the mechanics looked like back then and what tools they used. And you can imagine how the blur cars survived because the swamp they lived in was kinda bluish, and all the red painted cars died out because the evil mechanic came and disassembled them all, but he didn't touch the blue cars, because he was a sucker for blue in general, because his wife had blue skin, or whatever. So you think that because the special monkey wrench clearly is so much better than it was just a couple of years ago, and is in fact a much more efficient wrench and prettier too, it proves that the cars were in fact not cars once but bikes, or possibly scooters, it's kinda hard to know which. Efficient wrenches or no, it's just a too good a story to not believe in, because cars just don't plop out of the sky, especially not blue cars, or red or whatever color is nice. No, they need at least a couple of billion years to develop the taste for a particular gas and oil, and compatibility to a certain mechanic. We shouldn't even begin to talk about how the cars managed to master speech, and when they learned to change oil on themselves so they didn't need the mechanics anymore, and so they killed them all off, but only temporary, since mechanics are alive today, obviously. But I digress...

Sorry for the rant, I am kinda tired. At least I entertain myself, right?

It seems you misunderstood my analogy. Science impacts our lives, regardless of the impossibility of formal proof. We invented the car, we drive the car, we certainly don't need a formal proof to tell us that the next time the spark plug fires the petroleum is going to ignite. For you to deny evolution based on the argument that it has not been formally proven is completely illogical, beyond ridiculous, and to me smacks of political manipulation.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 03:08 AM, said:

Nor does evidence apparently because in your book you can't prove anything. Denying provability in general is not discussing a theory's merits, there are more than one way to view evidence but the view that all evidence is irrelevant is not a view at all but a lack of view. You are not dismissing parts of a theory you are dismissing all theories. I'm sorry if I'm coming down strongly but surely you can see how frustrating it is to argue with someone who denies the very possibility of a resolution.

Yes, I know this is frustrating for you. You are correct more than you realize - in fact logic states that we can't really really prove anything. So when I say that the theory of evolution cannot be proven, I do technically mean other theories as well. How many though, I have no clue. Maybe it is in fact all theories, and if so, so be it. But you see, to accept any world, we have to go beyond logic, go beyond the uncertainty that is reason and believe in something. Even if we believe in nothing, that fits into the category. I may be denying the theory of evolution as a proven fact, but I am not denying it as a belief. You believe that your car will start every morning when you go to work, you believe that the elevator won't just disappear out of existence when you enter it, you believe that your work building will be where it was yesterday - all those things you cannot prove - and even so you live through your life believing in them.( I am using your own way to arguing proof here, even though it hurts.)

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 03:08 AM, said:

No, you're arguing about the meaning of the word proof, this is semantics. If you have no interest in using common language then I'm afraid an internet forum is not the right place for you. Nor is the field of biology. The theory is proven in the common language usage of the word. Since no scientific theory is formally provable there is little value in discussing formal language unless we are talking about abstract mathematics. I am not dismissing logic, I am applying it as far as it is relevant to reality. I would argue that it is you who is dismissing it as you will not draw the obvious logical conclusion.

Sorry, but I am not arguing the meaning of proof, I am giving you a very specific context, symbolic logic, and the purpose of symbolic logic is to determine the truth of statements in logic. Which by the way is the same system that science is built on. Scientific theories might be hard to prove formally, but there are different levels, and the ground rule is that you try to falsify it, to disprove it, and if a theory can't be tested, then it's not really valid at all - you have asked the wrong question so to speak. I am being hard on science, I know, but it is within my right to be,and that doesn't mean I am not using common language - nice strawmanning btw. I already agree that logic is relevant in reality only so far, which I have already stated numerous times. You on the other hand, are first stating that evolution is proven, then you say that evolution cannot be proven, that no theory can be proven, but at the same time you say that evolution is a proven truth because science is not built on logic anyway, and that logic is not reality. I am getting confused by your confusion. It is correct that logic does not encompass all of reality, that we build our lives beyond logic, as I have already said. I would think it is imperative to recognize this, and not say that you have the proven truth, when you actually don't.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 03:08 AM, said:

It seems you misunderstood my analogy. Science impacts our lives, regardless of the impossibility of formal proof. We invented the car, we drive the car, we certainly don't need a formal proof to tell us that the next time the spark plug fires the petroleum is going to ignite.

Exactly! Finally we agree on something. It's what I have been trying to point out - or part of it anyway - that we need belief and that reason is not everything.

Cold Iron, on 06 October 2009 - 03:08 AM, said:

For you to deny evolution based on the argument that it has not been formally proven is completely illogical, beyond ridiculous, and to me smacks of political manipulation.

Dude, all I am in fact saying is that it's not formally proven. I am glad you finally get what I am saying, well you sort of get it, since you still put alot of other stuff in there, but lets not be picky...
As I said, I don't deny the belief in evolution, I am denying that it is proven. Next step would be to try to falsify it, but yeah it's kinda hard to look for black swans in this situation.

[beru]

Gem Windcaster, on 06 October 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

in fact logic states that we can't really really prove anything. So when I say that the theory of evolution cannot be proven, I do technically mean other theories as well. How many though, I have no clue. Maybe it is in fact all theories, and if so, so be it.

this is the standing theory no theory can be proven, you can get the "right" answer as many times you wish but one wrong (with no elements that is not a part of the theory interfering) and the theory is proven false and myst be reevaluated fixed or discarded

[stone monkey]

@ Gem - You do seem to be saying that your problem with evolution is that proof is impossible (outside of the strictly mathematical arena, that is) and therefore the physical evidence that might be used for any kind of deductive or inductive proof is irrelevant.

Which would appear to be something of a stretch from your previous argument about observability...

In which case; is it only evolution you have this problem with? And, if so, why so? Surely all fields of science are equally worthless and as fatally flawed? They adhere to the same baseless and pointless scientific method as evolution does, after all; this foolish insistence that finding evidence that is predicted by one's theory should lead one to posit that that particular theory might have some bearing on the real world...

Should you not cease any reliance forthwith that you might have on the products of this house built on sand? They cannot be relied upon, as there can be no proof that they work...

Same goes for your personal experience actually; the evidence of your senses can't be relied upon as it's impossible to prove anything with it, even to yourself...

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

@ Gem - You do seem to be saying that your problem with evolution is that proof is impossible (outside of the strictly mathematical arena, that is) and therefore the physical evidence that might be used for any kind of deductive or inductive proof is irrelevant.

Which would appear to be something of a stretch from your previous argument about observability...

I am not saying it's irrelevant, no. I'm just saying it's not proof. My point though with bringing up the logic truth argument is to show the problem with stating something as proven scientifically. The problem does not lie so much in the physical evidence, as in the question put forward in relation to the evidence. On one level, yes, proof is impossible within the limits of science. Logic is a very strict sandbox that doesn't allow for flexibility. Fortunately for scientists, the world is not completely built on logic, but also belief.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

In which case; is it only evolution you have this problem with? And, if so, why so? Surely all fields of science are equally worthless and as fatally flawed?

It is true that logically nothing can be proven, and as such it applies to all theories. But that doesn't make science worthless. At the same time that I am being hard on science, I realize that the human mind is capable of wonderful things, and that our reality isn't bound by logic, or limited to only reason. I have already pointed out this.The motive I have for being hard on science is not to state that it is worthless, but to see it for what it is. To see, as it were, the truth - pardon my use of grand words.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

They adhere to the same baseless and pointless scientific method as evolution does, after all; this foolish insistence that finding evidence that is predicted by one's theory should lead one to posit that that particular theory might have some bearing on the real world...

Science is not baseless and pointless, I have never meant to give that impression. Supporting evidence however is not proof. Finding a white swan is not proof that all swans are white, only that this particular swan is white. That doesn't mean that there are black swans out there. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't feel excited about finding a white swan, because they are beautiful creatures. Furthermore the theory still holds, and of course one can be happy about that. But to deny that there might be black swans out there, just because it's painful, is it really such a good idea?

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

Should you not cease any reliance forthwith that you might have on the products of this house built on sand? They cannot be relied upon, as there can be no proof that they work...

I don't need proof to believe. As I have said before, we need belief, and we use it every day to build our world.

stone monkey, on 06 October 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

Same goes for your personal experience actually; the evidence of your senses can't be relied upon as it's impossible to prove anything with it, even to yourself...

Exactly! This is my point - I can live in this world because I believe in my senses, I believe in certain things around me, and other things I don't believe in. It is how I/you/we live.

Why is it so hard to admit you believe in something? Something that is important to you. Come on, just say it: you believe in something.

[stone monkey]

Everyone believes something. The question arises as to whether they have any valid justification for holding that particular belief and how much that belief resembles the real world; which itself can serve as justification for holding it. Points which are at the core of what we're discussing here and one which you have in no way addressed.

The world, btw, is not built of, or on, belief, it exists. What you choose to believe about it depends on what your threshold for proof is and/or how credulous you are. Unless you want to start doubting the physical existence of the universe, that is...