|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2008 : 07:45:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
Many words have been written about the differences between evolution and Christianity. But in many ways the ideas of evolution parallel that of Christianity. For example both Evolution and Christianity have transformation as a central theme. For Christianity it is the transformation of the inner person and for evolution it the change of the outer person. While the two focus on different things they are both still talking about changing what we are.
|
You speak of Evolution as if it is a philosphy dreamt up, just like Christianity. This however is just patently wrong.
The Theory of Biological Evolution is a description of what reality is.
Christianity is a religion based on myths.
Edited to add: Any similarities are purely coincidental.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/12/2008 07:47:01 |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 07:49:22 [Permalink]
|
| We think sequentially and in a linear straight line from one observation to the next |
Mostly. But maybe that is because nature and the world is sequential and in a linear straight line.
Also; the human mind has encountered other types of phenomenon (at the quantum level for example) and, while at least personally it 'feels' instinctively wrong; the human mind was able to adapt and to comprehend this realities.
Also; these phenomenons do only appear at a widely different scale than the one we are concerned here and do not have any visible bearing on the ToE.
Finally; please read this Wiki article on Punctuated equilibrium. You sound unfamiliar with the concept. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 08:12:12 [Permalink]
|
Are our minds capable of interpreting observations of the real world correctly? |
Sounds like you've been reading too much Kuhn. At some point, perhaps we can't. It certainly is a possibility, but I personally don't view it as very likely. However, the real answer to your question is "yes, at least close enough". Over the past few hundred years, we have seen a striking correlation between human knowledge about the real world and technology. This technology depends on both our knowledge and the properties of the real world itself. If the two were far off from each other at all, the technology simply would work. I wouldn't have been able to buy 5 microSD cards, each smaller than a penny in all 3 dimensions and able to hold 1GB of data, for $20. It was a damn good deal.
Technology shows, beyond any reasonable and most forms of unreasonable doubt, that our knowledge is accurate.
| Quantum mechanics shows us that nature is discontinuous. An electron can exist around an atom only in certain places and the space between these places is forever empty. In space electrons pop in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere. |
However, this discontinuities are so remarkably small that in the end, to the human, they don't matter. What we are left with is something that is so nearly continuous that it would be rather absurd to think of it as anything but. We can send rockets to other planets on the assumption that they are continuous, and that's good enough for me. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 12:23:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Sounds like you've been reading too much Kuhn. |
Or not enough. Kuhn's point wasn't that all science is unreliable, but that seemed to be where no1nose wanted to go for a while.
Perhaps until he realized that such a destination invalidates his argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 13:05:47 [Permalink]
|
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind's image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 13:14:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind's image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. |
Just because some theories seem contra intuitive, does not mean all have to be. The evidence dictates the theories, contra intuitive or not. In some cases, like evolution, the theory deriving from the data really is relatively straightforward. That is no reason to discard it. In fact, my experience up to now is that most theories are kind of straightforward, only some are counter intuitive. Should we discard all straightforward theories from now on?
| It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. |
Nonsense. It is a theory like all others, following from the data. Unless show that it isn't, and you have no shown that, there is no reason to discard it. The more straightforward, the better.
| And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. |
Huh?
As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.
|
Au contraire, the more we know, the more relevant the theory of evolution becomes. It is at this point an intricate part of the development of new medicins, to take on example, and with the deciphering of the genome it becomes more and more relevant, because the number of possible applications increases the more we know about it. Your claim of irrelevancy only points out that you haven't been checking this stuff out. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 06/12/2008 13:23:27 |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 13:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Because the Theory of Evolution fits to well it must be wrong? I think your over thinking it.
And while quantum mechanics is a brain twister, it works at a different level of reality then the Theory of Evolution. Evolution does work down to the molecular level, but not the quantum. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 13:20:53 [Permalink]
|
Also, rereading the thread, it is obvious that no1nose thinks evolution is linear. While this is a very straightfoward idea, reality is more counter intuitive, if you like. Evolution does not proceed in a linear fashion with man as the end point.
Which immediately puts the claim to rest that evolution cannot be correct because it is too easy to understand for no1nose Since apparantly the theory of evolution is actually counter intuitive for no1nose. If it wasn't, he would have given a correct representation of it from the start. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 06/12/2008 13:22:58 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 13:32:04 [Permalink]
|
| Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind's image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process. |
Speak for yourself. No, it isn't easy to go above the 3rd dimension. It takes years of work and experience. It takes looking at things not based on "images" (geometry), but rather a more analytic view. You seem to have the same problem the Greeks had, you seem to view everything in terms of geometry.
But after a while, you just get used to it. A course or two in linear algebra, one in vectors, mutlivariable and then vector calculus, a year with rigorous analysis and differential forms. After all these hours of work, you start understanding this multi-dimensional weirdness. At least that's my experience.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean others don't.
[A mathematician and a physicist walk out from a talk on quantum physics]
Physicist: I have so much trouble trying to picture this stuff in 12 dimensions.
Mathematician: I just picture it in n-dimensions, and then set n to 12. |
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/12/2008 13:37:44 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 13:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by no1nose
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. |
But it is counterintuitive. Before Darwin, most people could only imagine a top-down theory of creation, where an intelligent superbeing consciously fashioned lifeforms. But evolution is a bottom-up theory where mindless processes are actually responsible for the vast diversity of life we see. It's exactly opposite of what most people expected.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/12/2008 13:49:04 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 14:02:30 [Permalink]
|
And; the reason why the theory of evolution has little trouble fitting our brain while the quantum theory does might just because we live in an universe at the same scale than the theory of evolution and that our brain evolved to work at this scale and in this kind of situation.
The quantum theory is very different and that is why it so counter-intuitive.
And, really, if you'd want to reject all scientific that are too straightforward for your tastes; we might end-up rejecting most of them, from the theory of gravity to the germ theory. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 19:10:46 [Permalink]
|
Actually, the reason no1nose finds evolution to be so easy is that he doesn't really know it, he only knows the creationist charicature of it. At least that the way it appears so far. no1nose hasn't expressed anything that might demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject he's attempting to criticize.
And as Ricky and others have discussed, once a person gets that deep understanding, a person doesn't really think about whether something is counter-intuitive or not. "This might seem counter-intuitive, but..." is a line from an introductory text or a PBS documentary.
Besides, here is what was intuitive to the authors of the Bible:Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.
— Genesis 30:37-42 That's right: simply by showing sticks with patterns on them to animals while they mated, Jacob could control the patterns of the offspring's coloration. (Note also the implicit acknowledgement of artificial selection - the selective breeding of strong or weak animals.)
And Leviticus 11:6 shows us where intuitive conclusions get us: since rabbits look like they're chewing a cud, God says rabbits chew their cud. (He also says that grasshoppers have four legs - go figure that one.)
no1nose also shoots his argument in its foot again. Clearly his argument makes perfect sense to him (it's intuitive), yet he's arguing that it's the counter-intuitive ideas that must be correct, meaning that his ideas aren't. Because no1nose's argument makes perfect sense, it must be dead wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 00:41:57 [Permalink]
|
Is this the same guy, I assume?
Orignally found here.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
no1nose
BANNED
50 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 01:36:26 [Permalink]
|
Is this the same guy, I assume?
Orignally found here. |
Hey thanks for the link. 
Please continue to rant on |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Darwin’s debt to Christianity
Topic Locked
