QI Facts
-
Don't get tangled up in the analogy. There are many physical processes that work the same way. Example #1: Day 1: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 2: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 3: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and dissolve it. Day 4: I can add a table spoon of salt into the cup of water and it doesn't dissolve anymore because of saturation. Now a fruit fly might live to be 2 days old and if he were a good scientist he'd claim that two table spoons may be dissolved in a cup of water over a two day period. He'd be correct. Other fruit flies could test his claim, they could observe it repeatedly. If he were a frothing at the mouth evolutionist bot he'd claim that you could dissolve table spoons of salt into a single glass of water every day for 16 billion years. He'd pick on the other fruit flies for not believing that this process could go on the same way forever. He'd be wrong. Example #2: When it came to sending a man to the moon we had the best scientists in the world working on the problem. They did lots of maths, lots of physics, and lots of hard thinking but they didn't send a man to the moon until they did what? The didn't send a man to the moon until a monkey went up first. The reason they didn't send a man up first because despite the best minds in the world working on it they were unwilling to risk a human life until all the theory had been observed - repeatedly. Because when it comes right on down to it there is no replacement for actually observing something. Conclusion If you've got some observable, repeatable, falsifiable stuff you'd like to sell me as science I'm buying; however, I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, cannot be repeated, and is not falsifiable - I mean he can talk about it, but when he calls it 'science' I just laugh.
MehGerbil wrote:
I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, ...
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
MehGerbil wrote:
... cannot be repeated, ...
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
MehGerbil wrote:
... is not falsifiable
A common misconception.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php[^]
There are numerous ways in which evolutionary theory can be tested and, if found wanting, would have to be rejected. Here are just a few:
- Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
- Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
- Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
-
Quote:
Or are you claiming that evolution happens in animals, but not in humans because we're special?
Sure. Why not? We also have DNA in common with tomatoes. So? Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything. That is one theory. Another "theory" is that we were created by the same creator. Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support. So, why does science favor one over the other?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything.
Go back far enough, and we did.
RyanDev wrote:
Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support.
Really? Where's the scientific evidence to support a creator?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Exactly. You can get a bunch of 'scientists' in the room declaring that the earth's atmosphere was X,Y, & Z 100 million years ago - calling anyone who disagrees an ignorant moron - until you bring a time machine into the room and offer to send someone back without a gas mask. Suddenly everyone is interested in running a few 'tests' first.
-
Quote:
No offence was intended.
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
Quote:
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that faith often overrides rationality.
Well, since faith is believing in something you can't see, which is true, then yes, I can see how you can say this. However, keeping religion out of this, what is irrational about believing in a creator? Follow me here. I believe I can safely assume that you would agree that it is not plausible that humans are the most advanced species in all of space and time. And when you consider the vastness of space and time then most plausibly there are species more advanced than humans. So, what is irrational about believing in a creator, or in believing that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
Quote:
The people who walked out believed that Bill's claim that the moon reflects light from the Sun contradicts the quoted passage from Genesis.
Like I said, if they believe that then they don't even understand the Bible. It seems odd that they would believe it the way the story was written. I still say there has to be more to it.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
It was intended to be a humorous reference to the fact that some people believe in the literal truth of every word of a book written thousands of years ago. Judging by your response, it obviously didn't work.
RyanDev wrote:
what is irrational about believing ... that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
So, keeping religion out of it, your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off? But then how did life develop for the creators? Was there evolution on their planet, or were they in turn created by another advanced race? How far back do you go? Is it turtles all the way down[^]? Or are you proposing some actor external to the universe to start it all off? In which case, we're back to religion again.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
Sharing DNA does not mean we evolved from a common anything.
Go back far enough, and we did.
RyanDev wrote:
Both have the same exact amount of evidence to support.
Really? Where's the scientific evidence to support a creator?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
Go back far enough, and we did.
OK. But again, it's just a theory. There is also a theory that we were all created by the same creator which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that aliens baked us in an oven which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that we are all software programs which is why our DNA is similar. The point is there are lots of theories that are supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Go back far enough, and we did.
OK. But again, it's just a theory. There is also a theory that we were all created by the same creator which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that aliens baked us in an oven which is why our DNA is similar. There is also a theory that we are all software programs which is why our DNA is similar. The point is there are lots of theories that are supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
Referring to the Bible as a "magic" book is not trying to be offensive?
It was intended to be a humorous reference to the fact that some people believe in the literal truth of every word of a book written thousands of years ago. Judging by your response, it obviously didn't work.
RyanDev wrote:
what is irrational about believing ... that something is advanced enough to create the world and place life on it?
So, keeping religion out of it, your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off? But then how did life develop for the creators? Was there evolution on their planet, or were they in turn created by another advanced race? How far back do you go? Is it turtles all the way down[^]? Or are you proposing some actor external to the universe to start it all off? In which case, we're back to religion again.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Quote:
It was intended to be a humorous reference
Fair enough.
Quote:
your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
No, but that is an option. So, is that irrational?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
I've no time for some pinhead going on and on about something he didn't see happen, ...
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
MehGerbil wrote:
... cannot be repeated, ...
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
MehGerbil wrote:
... is not falsifiable
A common misconception.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/falsifiable.php[^]
There are numerous ways in which evolutionary theory can be tested and, if found wanting, would have to be rejected. Here are just a few:
- Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
- Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion.
- Modern DNA sequencing technology has provided a rigorous test of evolution, far beyond the wildest dreams of Charles Darwin. In particular, comparison of DNA sequences between organisms can be used as a measure of relatedness, and can further be used to actually construct the most likely "family tree" hierarchical relationship between a set of organisms. Such analyses have been done, and the results so far dramatically confirm the family tree that had been earlier constructed solely based on comparisons of body structure and biochemistry.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
We might not be able to 'see' the bonds but we can see the result in a repeatable, observable, and falsifiable manner. The salient point (giggle) is that we can observe it in real time.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
True, but then if we had a time machine I could take you back to ancient Palestine and we could witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ together. I'd say both of our claims there are equivalent since neither will ever happen. As for the list of quotes you Googled, they are all easily answered; however, I don't care to get into a Google quote war. (For example, the first quote by Darwin would be countered by the development of punctuated equilibrium. See: Do it quick.[^] Instead of a quote war I'd like to cut to the chase and point out that you're no longer arguing based upon something you actually understand. You are now appealing to your priests to answer for you even though you have a paper thin understanding of the claims they are making. None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it. In short, there is next to no difference between your approach to the truth and that of a 5 year old sitting in Sunday School. Both the 5 year old and yourself are pointing to the truth givers (Sunday School Teacher, Richard Dawkins) and having that authority figure answer for you. It ain't a good way to live.
-
RyanDev wrote:
supported by the one piece of evidence, common DNA
Common DNA is a good start, but it's far from the only evidence supporting common descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
True. My point is there is not enough evidence to rule out all other theories leaving evolution as the lone standing theory. Therefore, it remains just a theory. In an alternate universe, perhaps the common "rationality" there has science believing we were all baked by aliens. Just as a baker makes donuts, cakes, pies, etc, a large variety of items but with commonalities, perhaps their logic says that is the theory that makes most sense. Evolution makes the most sense to the most number of scientists and that is the only reason it is "accepted" as being true, even though it can't be proven. Then again Obama was voted in by the majority and look how well that went. :) Great, now you really got me violating Lounge rules and I was behaving so well.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
It was intended to be a humorous reference
Fair enough.
Quote:
your argument is that life started somewhere else, developed advanced technology, created a planet, seeded that planet with fully-formed and unchanging creatures, planted just enough evidence to suggest that life had developed on that planet, and then buggered off?
No, but that is an option. So, is that irrational?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
So, is that irrational?
It seems somewhat unlikely. I'll accept the possibility that the basic building-blocks for life could have arrived on comets, but aliens depositing fully-formed humans on the planet is a step too far for me.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
It's not the fact that scientist call it a theory (Which is is, otherwise it would be called the law of evolution; on a side not, I love watching a adamant evolutionist state, "Well it's pretty much a law" but that will be addressed later. It's not the holes in the theory (personally I think evolution is a pretty good theory as for what we have going) My problem with evolution, is that fundamentalist bigots are usually on the wrong side. Sure I expect the christian right to by fairly opposed but I have yet to meet an evolutionist who is wiling to concede that it is just a theory and they go to name calling fast. No offense DD but calling people stupid because they don't agree with you is bigotry [but only because of my limited vocabulary], (Yes, yes, I know it is pretty much a law) So my fundamental believe is not in evolution but that evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
So my fundamental believe is not in evolution but that evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
You "believe"? God gave you a brain. Stop being religious, and use what has been given.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
We already know what it's goal is; survival of the most well-adapted beings. Since it requires elimination, one can safely say that humans have stopped evolving. We're close to being a real "homo sapiens sapiens" (an arrogant human) by taking matter (or genes) into our own hands. ..and we also know how well that goes :-\
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Can we directly observe chemical bonds forming? If not, would that prevent us from developing and exploiting chemistry?
We might not be able to 'see' the bonds but we can see the result in a repeatable, observable, and falsifiable manner. The salient point (giggle) is that we can observe it in real time.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Only due to time constraints. Give the right people a lab and funding for a few billion years, and the process could almost certainly be repeated.
True, but then if we had a time machine I could take you back to ancient Palestine and we could witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ together. I'd say both of our claims there are equivalent since neither will ever happen. As for the list of quotes you Googled, they are all easily answered; however, I don't care to get into a Google quote war. (For example, the first quote by Darwin would be countered by the development of punctuated equilibrium. See: Do it quick.[^] Instead of a quote war I'd like to cut to the chase and point out that you're no longer arguing based upon something you actually understand. You are now appealing to your priests to answer for you even though you have a paper thin understanding of the claims they are making. None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it. In short, there is next to no difference between your approach to the truth and that of a 5 year old sitting in Sunday School. Both the 5 year old and yourself are pointing to the truth givers (Sunday School Teacher, Richard Dawkins) and having that authority figure answer for you. It ain't a good way to live.
MehGerbil wrote:
None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it.
Given the vast caucus of human knowledge, the days when one person could fully understand everything are long gone. Since we can't personally know, understand, and test every scientific theory, we have to take someone's word for it. The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else! The child sitting in Sunday School is taking the word of a teacher, who is taking the word of a priest, who was taking the word of their priest, etc., going back thousands of years. The "evidence" to support their claims is never available for public scrutiny, and cannot be subjected to scientific examination. They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous. There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
So my fundamental believe is not in evolution but that evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
You "believe"? God gave you a brain. Stop being religious, and use what has been given.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
evolution fits into a larger puzzle and that only time will tell which it is.
We already know what it's goal is; survival of the most well-adapted beings. Since it requires elimination, one can safely say that humans have stopped evolving. We're close to being a real "homo sapiens sapiens" (an arrogant human) by taking matter (or genes) into our own hands. ..and we also know how well that goes :-\
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Nice, an ad hominem attack and a suggestion that I was making a religious argument. More fuel to my point that the evolutionist are just as bad as the creationists.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
-
MehGerbil wrote:
None of these things are things you've tested for yourself - you don't understand the science - you're taking someone else's word for it.
Given the vast caucus of human knowledge, the days when one person could fully understand everything are long gone. Since we can't personally know, understand, and test every scientific theory, we have to take someone's word for it. The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else! The child sitting in Sunday School is taking the word of a teacher, who is taking the word of a priest, who was taking the word of their priest, etc., going back thousands of years. The "evidence" to support their claims is never available for public scrutiny, and cannot be subjected to scientific examination. They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous. There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
There's a world of difference between those two positions. It's a shame you can't see that.
In 1950 the consensus among the scientists of the world was that homosexuality was a mental illness. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association didn't declassify it as a mental illness until 1973. So in 1950 if you were to make the claim that homosexuality was natural I could use your own words in response:
Richard Deeming wrote:
The difference is, I am taking the word of a large group of respected scientists who have specialized in this field, on the understanding that the evidence is available and can be examined by anyone with sufficient knowledge, and that the scientists themselves are actively trying to disprove their own theories. After all, you don't get a Nobel prize for agreeing with everyone else!
If that quote doesn't work for the status of homosexuality in 1950 than it doesn't hold for evolutionary theory in 2013 either. This can be cited for a dozen 'facts' which the scientific community agreed upon which later turned out to be false. I've illustrated beyond doubt that scientific consensus really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not something is true.
Richard Deeming wrote:
They are actively discouraged from questioning the claims, because to do so is blasphemous.
You mean, like the Sunday School teacher might log onto a technology forum and talk about how stupid other people are with what they believe? Go question evolution and see what you get called.
-
You cannot show me the evolution of man from apes - it cannot be repeated. I'm sorry, but I only believe things that I can observe. I'm just a scientist that way.
-
People who do real science know the importance of the repeatability of an experiment. When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry if we'd of done science the way the average evolutionist does science I would have literally been thrown in jail. Funny, but when you get a pharmaceutical company on the line for a billion dollar line of drugs science becomes the 'observable', 'repeatable', 'falsifiable' kind of science. However, when some geek is blowing smoke about something that supposedly happened 500 million years ago nobody cares that it isn't observable, isn't repeatable, and isn't falsifiable - because truth be told, it doesn't matter.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
You cannot show me the evolution of man from apes - it cannot be repeated.
Obviously not given that is not it went anyways.
-
S Houghtelin wrote:
You don't believe what I believe, therefore you are stupid.
If someone claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, would you respect their right to believe something that you don't, or would you laugh at them for being stupid? If someone tried to pass a law asserting that π is exactly 3.2, would you accept their belief, or laugh them out of court[^]? Unfortunately, most people who refuse to "believe" in evolution do so not because they have a better theory, but because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. And that's fine, until they start trying to claim that their religious beliefs have as much scientific credibility as evolution, and should be given equal billing in science lessons.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
And that's fine, until they start trying to claim that their religious beliefs have as much scientific credibility as evolution, and should be given equal billing in science lessons.
The problem however is that scientists, almost universally, fail to respond correctly and instead deny the belief at all. Which does nothing but display their ignorance of science itself. Those that attempt to prove, scientifically, that the world began 6000 years ago are probably doomed to failure. Those that accept, as a belief, that the world began 6000 years ago and understand the assumptions that one makes for a belief system can go on to have a long career as a evolutionary scientist and risk only ridicule from their scientific peers who do not in fact understand science.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
When I worked in the pharmaceutical industry
However probably not the best candidate when attempting to justify the scientific method.
I only use my experience there to illustrate the contrast between the sort of science that must occur when someone is going to inject themselves with a drug vs. the kind of science that occurs when someone is waxing nostalgic about unobserved, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable events of 1 billion years ago. People get really picky about what is and what is not science when lives are on the line.
-
Quote:
1 + 1 = 3
Quote:
π is exactly 3.2
The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
The difference is those are not theories. The analogy isn't quite accurate.
It is in fact basically correct as an analogy. For the first case, "1 + 1 = 3" one need do nothing more than recognize that one is mostly talking about term definition. I can in fact define "+" to be something else. For the second that is just politics and is in fact stupid because it was put forth by a politician and not a mathematician. One might as well say that politicians have the right to dictate what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom based on what others think I should be doing...oh wait...they do that don't they?
