veracity of evolution

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86556 wrote:

But as for now they refuse to acknowledge the deeper aspects of life and the human being, which means that I merely glance at what they have to say out of curiosity and balk at teaching it as fact. I see evolution as the ballgame in the other field which is taking place while I am watching the big game in this other field..

Yes, science denies this and they are quite satisfied with it. They are proud o fit. That is fine with me.

The problem is when they try to force their belief system on me. Even Einstein embraced the notion of a mysterious order:

[INDENT] "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." [/INDENT]

I am, obviously, in your camp, and I have chosen to explore that mysterious order which is beyond the physical.

Rich

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

KJ I do not deliberately attempt to put words in anyones mouth or try to spin anything they say. Why would I? I am not going to win some prize for establishing dominance in this discussion.

Would you like me to quote all the posts where you HAVE done so?

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

It is this 'process' that I am saying is the secret behind the whole idea of consciousness . . . (bold mine) [./color]

And there, is the source of the whole problem, Pathfinder. Your understanding of consciousness, of mind, is inaccurate, and upon that inaccuracy, you have build a theology of sorts.

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

Now let us continue, First of all, old hebrewish idea????

Yes, believe it or not, your concept which you have pushed in a number of threads and on your blog, fit very well with the Old Testament model of life force being given to humans and animals, and upon death, going back to YHWH who gave it in the first place--even if you are not religious in that sense, your model fits that one very closely !

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

I again ask you,,,,emerges from where?

Again, I tell you, from the matter of the earth !!

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

It cannot be simnply bioplogical when there was no biology prior to it being alive, the biology all comes after the fact does it not. What is the bioligical process of an unalive thing before it is alive?

The reason you assert such is because you most obviously do not have enough educational background in the field. Like I told you before, Pathfinder, it's just potassium...that's all...just an ordinary, plain ole ion...pump some into muscle tissue and see what happens. It's just this earth-bound material that makes the difference. What is vitamin C, anyway? Zinc? Vitamins D, B 12, E, A? What's the big deal with sodium that it should give rise to thought? ( and trust me, you cannot have thought without a brain...for crying out loud !!) Your proposition is hoplessly flawed.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86565 wrote:

Yes, science denies this and they are quite satisfied with it.

Wait a sec, science is, well, science. Scientists try to understand, and never stop exploring this wonderful thing we call earth. Scientist are philosophers who do more than just talk about life. They put their thoughts in to action.

But, of course all people can be a bit narrow-minded sometimes. Even scientists.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;86567 wrote:

Again, I tell you, from the matter of the earth !!

For clarification purposes. Is the above statement a Theory (if so, which one), fact, hypothesis, complete speculation, a Belief?

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

The concept (or theory if you prefer, but not fact) of evolution is not confined to biology. The universe evolves as well. Evolution is a process. In many respects evolution resembles chaos (non linear, dynamic, complex systems) with the development of spontaneous order, new properties and strange attractors).

Pathfinder has a point in asserting that mind or properties of mind (or spirit if you must) must have evolved slowly gradually over time and there must be an evolutionary path of that development that can be speculated upon.

It does make for a confusing discussion when some are working on cosmology, some on biology, some on consciousness and others on the difference between scientific facts, theories and still others on seeing purpose in evolutionary process.

Many theists accept the theory of evolution. They merely view evolution as a mechanism of creation.
Martin Luther King said "the arc of history is long but it tends towards justice"
A corollary Is the arc of time is long but it tends toward order, complexity, life, mind and experience.

Creation is a ongoing process not a completed act.
Perpetual perishing and rebirth, incorporating elements of the past and choosing from among the possibilites of the future. Evolution is that process but to see it as blind and indifferent versus struggling and suffereing towards purpose is a metaphysical and spiritual not a scientific question.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86570 wrote:

For clarification purposes. Is the above statement a Theory (if so, which one), fact, hypothesis, complete speculation, a Belief?

Rich

I do not believe for a second that you are asking a real question !! You tell me why it would not be anything other than fact !

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 12:59 AM ----------

prothero;86572 wrote:

Pathfinder has a point in asserting that mind or properties of mind (or spirit if you must) must have evolved slowly gradually over time and there must be an evolutionary path of that development that can be speculated upon.

Yes, I agree fully, he does have a point . . . however, so doe the person who claims that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, you are going to go to hell, and suffer for the rest of eternity. (which, if you haven't thought about it, has not end at all !!) Having a point, in the raw, as it were, need not mean anything other than having an opinion, a point of view, or something to say. Having a valid point, would surely be a different thing.

Pathfinder is mistaken, of course, because he does not understand brain, and thus mind, elements. That's all.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Now you see Kaseijin, you have done it again, and if I follow up on this you will once again claim that I am putting words in your mouth. How am I to discuss with you what you think, when every time you make an announcement I am not supposed to make a response to it.

First of all if you wish to reopen that wound and counter every post I made in response to what it seemed you were saying I will be glad to go there with you. I dropped that respectfully because you asked me to do so in a PM saying that what you wrote was not actually what you meant and I took you at your word. I will stand by my line of questioning should you choose to go there.

Secondly, there is probably no reason to do that because I am now going to do exactly the same thing and question what you have just said here anyways.

Are you now suggesting that life comes from the matter of the earth? Is that what you just said, or is there again some misinterpretation here between two languages.

And did you, or did you not, just declare that you have finally, after all the great minds of the ages have failed to do so, discovered the secret of life, and that you are now publicly declaring that the secret of life is potassium.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your declarations here but that is what it seems to be saying:

That the mystery behind that 'process' that instills life into a non living form is potassium?

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 11:05 AM ----------

prothero;86572 wrote:

The concept (or theory if you prefer, but not fact) of evolution is not confined to biology. The universe evolves as well. Evolution is a process. In many respects evolution resembles chaos (non linear, dynamic, complex systems) with the development of spontaneous order, new properties and strange attractors).....
Pathfinder has a point in asserting that mind or properties of mind (or spirit if you must) must have evolved slowly gradually over time and there must be an evolutionary path of that development that can be speculated upon.....
Creation is a ongoing process not a completed act.
Perpetual perishing and rebirth, incorporating elements of the past and choosing from among the possibilites of the future. Evolution is that process but to see it as blind and indifferent versus struggling and suffereing towards purpose is a metaphysical and spiritual not a scientific question.

I agree to a degree Prothero.

Evolution is far more than the mutation of biological forms, and I suppose that it goes into the very life force of a human.

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 11:09 AM ----------

KaseiJin;86573 wrote:

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 12:59 AM ----------

Yes, I agree fully, he does have a point . . .

Pathfinder is mistaken, of course, because he does not understand brain, and thus mind, elements. That's all.

Correct KJ, I do not understand all the biological dynamics of the brain, however I fully understand that the biology of life does not answer all of the questions regarding the mystery of life. The only difference between you and I is that you think you have all the answers simply because you have stopped looking any farther, and refuse to respond to any deeper questions. You have actually adopted the notion that life comes from potassium, and you can believe that if you want, but please do not compare my understanding as some lack of understanding just because I do not believe that life comes from potassium.

0 Replies

@Lily,

Lily;86568 wrote:

Wait a sec, science is, well, science. Scientists try to understand, and never stop exploring this wonderful thing we call earth. Scientist are philosophers who do more than just talk about life. They put their thoughts in to action.

But, of course all people can be a bit narrow-minded sometimes. Even scientists.

Hi Lily,

I think it is a bit stronger than this. Scientists have to survive like everyone else. And that means make a living. If a scientist comes out in writing or verbally and questions certain dogma within the community, they will come under instant ridicule and probably lose any position that they might have. This is the nature of any belief system.

If you read through the history of scientific discoveries, or ever get involved with the profession, I believe that you will be able to observe this phenomenon. Einstein had no problem discussing God, since by that age his position in the scientific community was assured. Other people may not be in a similar position.

Just observe how scientists in this group act. For you, this may be OK. For me, it sounds like a lot of pressure to believe as they do or else you are a quack. That is precisely the pressure that anyone who disagrees with their dogma will be subjected to.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 12:08 PM ----------

KaseiJin;86573 wrote:

I do not believe for a second that you are asking a real question !! You tell me why it would not be anything other than fact !

And do you consider facts provable and repeatable? If so, can I see the reference to the proof. If not, can you please define fact for me?

To be clear, I believe you are saying as a fact that: Life emerges from matter.

Thanks.

Rich

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

My argument with Oden from the start has been that evolution is not a proven fact as he likes to declare it

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Gould wrote:
[INDENT]In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.[/INDENT]

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

it is not my imgaination that life emerges instantaneously into a form and brings it to life where a milisecond before that it was not alive.

I again ask you,,,,emerges from where?

life emerges from living processes in the same way that Mozilla Firefox emerges from things like this

http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/compsci/spotlight/vlsi/large_image.gif

Pathfinder;86545 wrote:

This is why science is not able to use their great minds to look outside of the microscope at the real world the little glass square actually resides in. And this is why many of the things that spiritual philosophers can entertain and ponder, are beyomnd your ability to even consider. it is the difference between looking at what is under the microscopes ability to detect, and what is beyond the magnification ability of the scope. You can see no further because you dont ewven want to try. We can see further because we are more curious aboyt the unanswered questions that you do want to ask.

jesus christ you are arrogant

Pathfinder;86541 wrote:

emergent from what oden? Thats my point. Life emerges from what?

see above

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86587 wrote:

life emerges from living processes in the same way that Mozilla Firefox emerges from things like this

This is different from KJ's fact.

He is saying as fact that life emerges "from the matter from the earth."

You are saying that "life emerges from living processes".

Which one is the fact?

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86584 wrote:

Hi Lily,

I think it is a bit stronger than this. Scientists have to survive like everyone else. And that means make a living. If a scientist comes out in writing or verbally and questions certain dogma within the community, they will come under instant ridicule and probably lose any position that they might have. This is the nature of any belief system

rich this is bull****

there are of course people like Lehigh biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who teaches within mere kilometers of my home, and believes intelligent design. he's still there even though nobody else on the biology or indeed the entire science faculty agrees with him as far as I know

even if people who totally flew in the face of reason like him were dismissed from their posts (hello they've got tenure), they'd still have even more lucrative opportunities with creationist think-tanks and new age quack publishing and the like. do you see Deepak Chopra, for example, begging for change? hell no he drives a Lexus. there's a sucker born every minute and plenty of room for quacks and hucksters to bilk people out of their money

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 01:26 PM ----------

richrf;86593 wrote:

This is different from KJ's fact.

He is saying as fact that life emerges "from the matter from the earth."

You are saying that "life emerges from living processes".

Which one is the fact?

Rich

they're the same. living processes are intrinsically bound up in the properties of matter: the way proteins fold, how lipid bilayer membranes allow osmosis, the essentially binary nature of DNA, and so on

I can't speak for KaseiJin but I am virtually certain he would agree

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86595 wrote:

they're the same. living processes are intrinsically bound up in the properties of matter: the way proteins fold, how lipid bilayer membranes allow osmosis, the essentially binary nature of DNA, and so on

I can't speak for KaseiJin but I am virtually certain he would agree

I'll wait for KaseiJin answer, since I would think that matter is defined differently than living processes.

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Oden,

two points, you say that life emerges from living processes. Hmmm, milk comes from a milk carton too.

Arrogant ? NO way friend. I am the exact opposite actually. I do not declare anything as fact.

Ya know Oden, right now on the television the President of the most powerful country on the planet is in a place giving a eulogoy for another very powerful man, and they are talking about Jesus Christ openly.

There literally millions of people tagging along with this process that believe every word that is being said about their belief around death and what has ahppened to the life that was recently Ted Kennedy. His lifeless body lays there in a casket. No life is in it . It is void of life.

Were we to look at this from your point of view, we would say that because there is a very large portion of the population that accepts the christian afterlife as fact, than it is more than likely, given the grand mountain of believers, a fact of life rather than a theory or hypothesis.

I suggest that the number of followers a theory has is not what we should use to determine its credibility as you seem to continue to suggest. It really doesnt matter what the ratio of believers is within the scientific communtiy compared to disbelievers. What matters is how valid the arguments are.

Oden you said something to the affect "the way proteins fold, how lipid bilayer membranes allow osmosis, the essentially binary nature of DNA, and so on..."

Can you tell us how these things are able to take place. What you are doing is talking about the lowest forms of actyion and reaction, but you are not delving deep enough into the WHY and HOW that these things are even able to fold and blend in the first place. You say the milk comes from the carton, but you dont say the millk got there in the first place. All you ever do is say what is there. you only ever talk about the biologoical actions taking place AFTER they have been established, but you never address the HOW or Where they came from in the first place.

You boilogists talk as though you are discussing the whole story, but you are really leaving out the first and final chapter and just discussing evrything in between.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

richrf;86600 wrote:

I'll wait for KaseiJin answer, since I would think that matter is defined differently than living processes.

Rich

yeah you would but then again you are so confused about biology I'm surprised you figured out how to have a kid

Pathfinder;86601 wrote:

two points, you say that life emerges from living processes. Hmmm, milk comes from a milk carton too

I hope you're going somewhere with this non sequitur analogy

Pathfinder;86601 wrote:

Arrogant ? NO way friend. I am the exact opposite actually. I do not declare anything as fact

you are declaring as fact that evolution is not a fact in the face of a mountain of evidence including direct observation of it happening

(that's arrogant)

Pathfinder;86601 wrote:

Were we to look at this from your point of view, we would say that because there is a very large portion of the population that accepts the christian afterlife as fact

in what country?

Pathfinder;86601 wrote:

I suggest that the number of followers a theory has is not what we should use to determine its credibility as you seem to continue to suggest. It really doesnt matter what the ratio of believers is within the scientific communtiy compared to disbelievers

it does, because they're the experts. people in general are not

Pathfinder;86601 wrote:

What matters is how valid the arguments are.

ultimately, yes. and the arguments in favor of evolution are the soundest. that's why virtually every biologist in the world adheres to them

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

not every biologist agrees! Are their arguments valid or not?

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86611 wrote:

not every biologist agrees!

a very, very tiny minority disagrees

Pathfinder;86611 wrote:

Are their arguments valid or not?

no they aren't, they're completely full of ****

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86613 wrote:

a very, very tiny minority disagrees

no they aren't, they're completely full of ****

I rest my case!:whistling:

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

YOU dig up a convincing argument against evolution

you know, one that doesn't involve an atomic physicist from the 50's speaking way out of his field and dismissing evolution with ridicule that smacks of McCarthyism

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

richrf;86558 wrote:

I am not talking about gravity or anything. I am talking about evolution and I agree with you:

evolution... well, the theory may be incorrect. It may be wildly incorrect.

I am in total agreement with you. So, let us be satisfied that we have reached some agreement.

No, I do not think we are in agreement. I think you are latching on to a single statement, taking out of context.

Evolution may be incorrect, and I may be a being living on another planet with super advanced technology who likes to talks to pathetic humans online. That might be the case.

I bring up gravity because I doubt you would write gravity off as speculation as you do evolution. Well - do you consider the theory of gravity just speculation? And if you do not, then there is no reason for your to simultaneously consider evolution just speculation.

richrf;86558 wrote:

I think there is a BIG difference between the evidence available for each of these theories, and I am able to differentiate between the different uses of Theory though it seems like scientists, for expedience sake throws everything in the same bucket. I am a bit more careful in my choice of words.

It seems? Based on what? Scientists are not typically nonchalant about their work. Why you would assume that the scientific community is so lax, when every shred of information points to their rigorous attention to detail, is beyond me.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86558 wrote:

For me, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are theories. Darwin's Evolutionary ideas for me, is in a totally different bucket.

Evolutionary biology and the theory of evolution are not "Darwin's Evolutionary ideas". If you think so, then you've missed 150 years of amassed research. Given your literacy with quantum mechanics, and the fact that you were attributing to Bohr work that he didn't even do and dismissing the people who actually did it, I'm yet less confident about the exhaustiveness with which you have evaluated the opus of evolutionary science. Amazing how authoritatively people can seem about things they are totally ignorant about and disinterested in.

2 Replies

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know