Biblie Busting vs. Darwin Deconstructing

[Vene]

We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus).

Actually, the platypus does fit.  It's a perfect transitional between reptiles and mammals.

However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith.

Proven is too strong of a word.  Nothing in science is EVER proven.  It's all models, be it evolution, Newton's Laws, or pi bonds.  Every single one of these can be disproven.  Actually, there is a huge incentive to disprove theories.  That's what Einstein did.

It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.

Please don't get all post-modern with me when I can point to the evidence.  Especially when there are transitionals for every fucking system and when new species have been observed in both the lab and in nature₁[/url].

I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.

That's probably because the people doing the field work are the ones who are at the heart of science.

Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.

Especially when the theory of evolution is used, very successfully, to explain biological concepts and leads to medical techniques far beyond what was around before Darwin.

I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.

Now, I will agree that knowing the theory of evolution is useless to most people.  But, there are people that use it and use it very successfully.  Actually, there's a great example of when evolution was rejected and it completely fucked up a nation's agriculture.  It's called Lysenkoism and was employed by the USSR.


Not all ideas are created equal and evolution is a much stronger and more useful idea than any other explanation so far.

[LMNO]

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

[Vene]

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

But, I like talking about science.  It's one of the few things I know well.

[LMNO]

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

But, I like talking about science.  It's one of the few things I know well.

Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma.  It can get frustrating.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

But, I like talking about science.  It's one of the few things I know well.

Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma.  It can get frustrating.

I was talking about people that make conclusions. Not people that say "Here's the best model I've found thusfar", but the people that say "THIS IS TRUE!!!" Some scientists may fall in that area, but as I stated this seems most common among professors, students and philosophy majors... not biologists and anthropologists.

That is, I was talking about the OP, not science in general.

[LMNO]

Oh, really?

The OP talked about Creation Theory vs Evolution.

Not "people who conclude CT is better" vs "people who conclude Evol is better".

[BootyBay]

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

But, I like talking about science.  It's one of the few things I know well.

Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma.  It can get frustrating.

I was talking about people that make conclusions. Not people that say "Here's the best model I've found thusfar", but the people that say "THIS IS TRUE!!!" Some scientists may fall in that area, but as I stated this seems most common among professors, students and philosophy majors... not biologists and anthropologists.

That is, I was talking about the OP, not science in general.

Well, I hate to disappoint, but now I believe in evolution in its totality (more or less).  It's kinda hard for me to argue with a real biologist (kinda like the Karate Kid taking on Jackie Chan..), but I do want to say, I am the kind of person who (generally) accepts a new theory when it comes along IF it is "better" (more precise and useful).  Thx for all the input, guys. 

[BootyBay]

Any conclusion, seems to me (based on my current experiences), to require faith.

Evolution as a process appears to be a very useful model and we have very interesting fossils and experiments which, when stuck in this model, seem to fit. We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus). Evolution, in the world of science, appears to be the best scientific model for describing how species change over time.

However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith. It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.

I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.

This reminds me of people like "What the bleep do we know?" or people that read RAW and come away thinking that reality doesn't exist unless you're observing it. They have faith in a model, rather than seeing the model as a model. It MAY BE that the Copenhagen interpretation has some relation to reality, but to BELIEVE that such a relation IS TRUE, seems to require faith.

Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.

I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.

(forgive me if the mittens didn't work lol I'm still new!)

[Requia ☣]

Well, I hate to disappoint, but now I believe in evolution in its totality (more or less).  It's kinda hard for me to argue with a real biologist (kinda like the Karate Kid taking on Jackie Chan..), but I do want to say, I am the kind of person who (generally) accepts a new theory when it comes along IF it is "better" (more precise and useful).  Thx for all the input, guys. 

Don't believe things, think about them instead.

Also, this is totally not supposed to happen.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

For me, I tend to accept things in gradients. So, changes within a species, considering the available evidence seems to hit at about 99%... there's the 1% which says "I didn't see it and the guy who did might be a fruitcake". Changes from one species to another, I stick at about 95%, mostly cause species seems like a convenient made series of labels which we apply to patterns... versus what may actually just be one huge constantly changing series of life. Also, I put it at 95% because, there could be other reasons that we see what we see. All of life evolving from some random soup that got hit by lightning drops to about 65% mostly because I think there's not enough evidence and there are some competing models I like better (like panspermia). The entire universe coming from a big bang... I stick that about about 50% mostly because it seems idiotic to argue that it IS or ISN"T true and I imagine that we'll come up with something better.

And before that, well that's where I stick the biggest ? of all.

Now, compare that to the Genesis Young Earth model and I give it about .001%, mostly because it makes no real sense and there's plenty of data that doesn't fit. The Sumerian Enki myths... I stick at .002% mostly cause it would be cool if Enki were really an alien that came down and mucked about with monkey DNA and made humans.

The Alien trash dump theory, as discussed in Venus on the Half Shell, I give 99.999% likelihood to, since it combines all of the above and humans coming from an accidental trash heap explains so much.

[Iason Ouabache]

Any conclusion, seems to me (based on my current experiences), to require faith.

Evolution as a process appears to be a very useful model and we have very interesting fossils and experiments which, when stuck in this model, seem to fit. We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus). Evolution, in the world of science, appears to be the best scientific model for describing how species change over time.

However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith. It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.

I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.

This reminds me of people like "What the bleep do we know?" or people that read RAW and come away thinking that reality doesn't exist unless you're observing it. They have faith in a model, rather than seeing the model as a model. It MAY BE that the Copenhagen interpretation has some relation to reality, but to BELIEVE that such a relation IS TRUE, seems to require faith.

Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.

I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.

Vene covered most of the things I wanted to say especially about the platypus.  They sequenced some platypus DNA not too long ago and it showed that monotremes are good evidence of how mammals evolved from reptiles. Vene or I could point you to the study if you like.

I would like to point out though that you are equivocating about faith though.  In a religious context faith means "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  Or as Twain said, faith is "believing what you know ain't so."  It's a belief in something without evidence (or usually, in direct opposition to the evidence).  In a scienctific sense faith could mean "complete confidence" or "a strong trust".  I will admit to having a strong trust in the scientific method being the best way to learn things about the universe around us.  Because there is tangible evidence that the scientific method works. It produces solid objective and repeatable results and has a process for self-correction.  Religion can't say the same thing.

I will also point out that there is no way for evolution to be proven 100% wrong at this point.  For a scientific theory to replace evolution it would need to explain everything we already know.  A good example of this is how relativity superceded Newtonian physics.  Relativity didn't prove Newtonian physics completely wrong, just that it was wrong under certain conditions.

[Iason Ouabache]

For me, I tend to accept things in gradients. So, changes within a species, considering the available evidence seems to hit at about 99%... there's the 1% which says "I didn't see it and the guy who did might be a fruitcake". Changes from one species to another, I stick at about 95%, mostly cause species seems like a convenient made series of labels which we apply to patterns... versus what may actually just be one huge constantly changing series of life. Also, I put it at 95% because, there could be other reasons that we see what we see. All of life evolving from some random soup that got hit by lightning drops to about 65% mostly because I think there's not enough evidence and there are some competing models I like better (like panspermia). The entire universe coming from a big bang... I stick that about about 50% mostly because it seems idiotic to argue that it IS or ISN"T true and I imagine that we'll come up with something better.

And before that, well that's where I stick the biggest ? of all.

Now, compare that to the Genesis Young Earth model and I give it about .001%, mostly because it makes no real sense and there's plenty of data that doesn't fit. The Sumerian Enki myths... I stick at .002% mostly cause it would be cool if Enki were really an alien that came down and mucked about with monkey DNA and made humans.

The Alien trash dump theory, as discussed in Venus on the Half Shell, I give 99.999% likelihood to, since it combines all of the above and humans coming from an accidental trash heap explains so much.

I read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value attached to it.  It made me laugh more than it should have.

[Vene]

I read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value attached to it.  It made me laugh more than it should have.

[Thurnez Isa]

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

But, I like talking about science.  It's one of the few things I know well.

Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma.  It can get frustrating.

i repeat what LMNO said


don't worry Vene when i start school in september ill be willing to talk a ton of science
its earth science mind you with paleobiology
BUT IT STILL HAS BIOLOGY IN THE TITLE

[BootyBay]

For me, I tend to accept things in gradients. So, changes within a species, considering the available evidence seems to hit at about 99%... there's the 1% which says "I didn't see it and the guy who did might be a fruitcake". Changes from one species to another, I stick at about 95%, mostly cause species seems like a convenient made series of labels which we apply to patterns... versus what may actually just be one huge constantly changing series of life. Also, I put it at 95% because, there could be other reasons that we see what we see. All of life evolving from some random soup that got hit by lightning drops to about 65% mostly because I think there's not enough evidence and there are some competing models I like better (like panspermia). The entire universe coming from a big bang... I stick that about about 50% mostly because it seems idiotic to argue that it IS or ISN"T true and I imagine that we'll come up with something better.

And before that, well that's where I stick the biggest ? of all.

Now, compare that to the Genesis Young Earth model and I give it about .001%, mostly because it makes no real sense and there's plenty of data that doesn't fit. The Sumerian Enki myths... I stick at .002% mostly cause it would be cool if Enki were really an alien that came down and mucked about with monkey DNA and made humans.

The Alien trash dump theory, as discussed in Venus on the Half Shell, I give 99.999% likelihood to, since it combines all of the above and humans coming from an accidental trash heap explains so much.

I read a book recently (might have been Sagan) that suggested that every political speech and sermon had a P-value attached to it.  It made me laugh more than it should have.

Your comment has a P-value of 47!! (out of who knows)