Evolution versus Creationism

[Birdjaguar]

Most breakthroughs are done through the rigorous testing of a theory proposed by someone who really stood out. 99% of the time, a really smart dude looks at the data, thinks of a theory, and then tests it enough to convince masses of other people to test it too.

Having access to a really smart dude (or even an all-knowing dude) would make science much easier.

So what if this really smart (or all knowing) dude presented a theory that either could not be tested or contradicted what was generally accepted? Do you then question his "smartitude"? Dismiss his theory until he proves it? or Question your assumptions?

It'd still be a hypothesis until tested, not a theory; An open mind can hold conflicting, but reasonable hypotheses. If validation of the original hypothesis required empirical data that couldn't be gotten with the current technology, then it'd remain a hypothesis. A null hypothesis version that produced contrary data might weaken or modify the original hypothesis, but people with open minds would still consider everything until there exists a theory that is strongly* validated.

It'd be a matter of pragmatic choice (e.g. test the easiest ones first? test the better funded ones first?) as to which of your pool of hypotheses to test, but fruitless to assume any are wrong without testing.

*some subjectivity there, there might be controversy, lack of consensus,etc.. on how well validated the theory was.

We saw that happen with both the Theory of Relativity and String Theory. Einstein was shown to be 'mostly correct' much after he proposed his theory. And we basically pat String Theorists on the head these days, until they give us something useful

You look for a way to test/contradict it.

I'd support the theory provided I actually know he his a fantastically smart/all-knowing dude. When someone says an all-knowing dude told them something, I don't question the judgment of the all-knowing dude, I question his existence and communication with who ever told me the yarn.

No way, we don't believe in relativity over string theory because we think Einstein was a pretty smart guy.

Well, that's not what I said, so I agree. My point was that having a smart dude involved makes science easier. If they give us theories that can be tested, then we'll not really believe them until the tests can be done. But if someone is smart or convincing enough, we'll often give them resources by which to conduct their tests.

I don't really think that has much bearing as to what Birdjag said.

El M's post about the value of a "really smart or all knowing dude" to science was interesting. I was fishing to see what parameters you all would place on such a person. Apparently being "smart and all knowing" is only relevant within the confines of science.

They'll be no coloring outside the lines please!
​

 

[kulade]

This is a pretty raging 9-page debate for a evolution-vs-creationism thread, considering there are neigh no creationists posting...

...Or perhaps this is a victory for scientific awareness?

 

[Aramazd]

El M's post about the value of a "really smart or all knowing dude" to science was interesting. I was fishing to see what parameters you all would place on such a person. Apparently being "smart and all knowing" is only relevant within the confines of science.

They'll be no coloring outside the lines please!
​

Even really smart dudes have to follow the rules for their ideas to be called science.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Even really smart dudes have to follow the rules for their ideas to be called science.

Yes, "science" needs those rules to function; people don't.

 

[classical_hero]

Well I generally do not have much time for such detailed arguments that are needed for such discussions. Also there are some other creationists on board, but they are generally in the playing sections and not the non civ areas, like this. So I have a conundrum for about how you can have a fossilised Octopus considering this.
Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

The body of an octopus is composed almost entirely of muscle and skin, and when an octopus dies, it quickly decays and liquefies into a slimy blob. After just a few days there will be nothing left at all. And that assumes that the fresh carcass is not consumed almost immediately by hungry scavengers. The result is that preservation of an octopus as a fossil is about as unlikely as finding a fossil sneeze, and none of the 200-300 species of octopus known today has ever been found in fossilized form. Until now, that is.
...perhaps the most remarkable thing about these fossils is that they exist at all.

Talk about exhibit 'A' for a fast burial and not millions of years needed to make fossils, in fact for this to happen it needs to be almost instantaneous We simply do not see such soft bodied creature

 

[peter grimes]

We simply do not see such soft bodied creature

But we do! That's just the point. If it were impossible, it wouldn't have happened. It is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. There are soft-bodied fossils found commonly, even in Australia

 

[Simple Simon]

Talk about exhibit 'A' for a fast burial and not millions of years needed to make fossils, in fact for this to happen it needs to be almost instantaneous We simply do not see such soft bodied creature

OK, where do I start?

Please explain how rapid burial and 'long time needed for fossilization' are contradictory?




(hint: burial /= fossilization)

 

[warpus]

Not God being a teacher-per-say, but more that he knows more than us and is trying to help us understand without just telling us the answer. I believe this life IS a test, and our "grade" is our judgement of our actions (based off of our faith).

Why should a test be based on faith?

"I have faith that the answer to this question is 42".
"Well, you're wrong. If you did your work, you would have realized that it was 52"
"Doh"

I'm just curious as to what experiments have been done to prove the big bang theory, or what experiments COULD be done to prove that.

This is your response to me talking about "falsifiability"? Do you even know what the term means? It means that you should be able to think up an experiment that might prove your theory WRONG. A scientific theory is only a scientific theory if it is falsifiable.

not that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory entirely, but science (IMO) still leaves big holes that scientists try to fill in. I believe a lot (if not all) can be "explained" by religion, on the basis of faith, and that science as it expands goes hand and hand with religion, but without the whole picture, it cannot be interpreted with 100% accuracy.

Why fill in gaps in our understanding with things that may or may not be right?

Why not just wait until we have figurered them out?

Just like when string theory was gaining popularity, different "versions" seemed to appear that contradicted each other, but in reality, each of those theorys was just a different way to look at the same picture.

So did physicists fill in the gaps in string theory with Buddhist dogma? or Hindu? Or Muslim?

Nope, they worked on the problem more and came up with some answers.

 

[Perfection]

I only assumed you were going to make the connection to the fact that I can only speak for my religion. Obviously my assumption was wrong.

I was only assuming that you meant what you siad and didn't apply wierd usages of words. Obviously my assumption was wrong. (I'll keep using it though because it's the olny way I can make headway)

yes, but this goes into the pre-existance and what we knew THERE. Given what we knew THERE and why we knew we HAD to come to Earth, I think MOST of us wouldn't have wanted to come here under the circumstance that we wouldn't have free agency. (that being a reference to the war in Heaven)

Not God being a teacher-per-say, but more that he knows more than us and is trying to help us understand without just telling us the answer. I believe this life IS a test, and our "grade" is our judgement of our actions (based off of our faith).

That metaphor of mine wasn't saying that "God is our teacher and we are literally his pupils"

So how does God teach us? What does good teach us? How does God test us? What the "grades" and why do they matter?

unfortunately, religion (in general) nor my religion can tell you everything we believe is based on science.

Not asking for science, just reason.

I'm just curious as to what experiments have been done to prove the big bang theory, or what experiments COULD be done to prove that.

Well Big Bang is believed because of the observed expansion of galaxies (Hubble's law), the morphologies of ancient galaxies, CMBR (Cosmic microwave background radiation, echoes of the bang) and a smattering of other facts.

People generally aren't trying to get more confirmatory evidence of the Big Bang itself, rather details, especially in the earliest moments, of which we know little.

and last time I checked, no two objects can exist in the same place at the same time. How then, can every single piece of mass in the universe exist in one infinitesimal spec?

Well, mass is energy, so it could be that it wasn't mass. There's a lot of quantum effects that make this seem plausible.

The bottom line is we don't know what happened then, we simply do not know what occurs at such fantastic energies.

not that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory entirely, but science (IMO) still leaves big holes that scientists try to fill in. I believe a lot (if not all) can be "explained" by religion, on the basis of faith, and that science as it expands goes hand and hand with religion, but without the whole picture, it cannot be interpreted with 100% accuracy.

Science has had holes before. Religious people attmpted to fill them with religion. Then science tfills in the holes, conflict ensues. Why do you presume that science wouldn't fill in these holes without religion?

Just like when string theory was gaining popularity, different "versions" seemed to appear that contradicted each other, but in reality, each of those theorys was just a different way to look at the same picture.

Has such a thing ever occurred before with religion and science in you view? If so when and how?

 

[Perfection]

Well I generally do not have much time for such detailed arguments that are needed for such discussions. Also there are some other creationists on board, but they are generally in the playing sections and not the non civ areas, like this. So I have a conundrum for about how you can have a fossilised Octopus considering this.
Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers -- The World's Least Likely Fossils?

Talk about exhibit 'A' for a fast burial and not millions of years needed to make fossils, in fact for this to happen it needs to be almost instantaneous We simply do not see such soft bodied creature

So what?

Evolution doesn't depend on how fast fossils are made.

 

[peter grimes]

I think he's implying that the Earth isn't nearly as old as the scientific evidence shows?

 

[Perfection]

A single fact that is both compatible with evolution and Creationism isn't a compelling argument.

(note I'm not saying it is compatible with Creationism, it might well not be, I'm just saying even if it is true, it's not at all compelling)

 

[suiraclaw]

Read the last 2 pages quickly.

My question: is there actually somebody here who thinks we should teach creationism in science classes?

Because I can at least understand somebody defending his belief of an unproven fact, but I can't imagine at all that somebody actually thinks the thing he believes blindly in is so superior that it should be thaught in courses about proven and verified facts...

 

[Aramazd]

Read the last 2 pages quickly.

My question: is there actually somebody here who thinks we should teach creationism in science classes?

Because I can at least understand somebody defending his belief of an unproven fact, but I can't imagine at all that somebody actually thinks the thing he believes blindly in is so superior that it should be thaught in courses about proven and verified facts...

On CFC? Maybe Classical Hero, but no one else off the top of my head. IRL, tons of people mostly in the Midwest or Southern US.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Read the last 2 pages quickly.

My question: is there actually somebody here who thinks we should teach creationism in science classes?

Because I can at least understand somebody defending his belief of an unproven fact, but I can't imagine at all that somebody actually thinks the thing he believes blindly in is so superior that it should be thaught in courses about proven and verified facts...

They fear for their faith and that of their children who they fear are at risk in a secular world.

 

[sanabas]

They fear for their faith and that of their children who they fear are at risk in a secular world.

But isn't it a sign that their faith is stronger if they maintain it despite apparent contradictions? After all, it's easy to believe stuff when it's the norm. Isn't a prevailing theme in a lot of religions that a great deal of crap that happens in the world is god testing someone's faith? If you've dismissed a source as unreliable, then why be afraid it will undermine your faith, or that of your children?

If it is a reliable source, if it's evidence I can see myself, then I'd expect it wouldn't throw up anything that completely contradicts my faith. If it does, then maybe my original interpretation was wrong. I don't see why that should be such a big deal, I'm not infallible, I've been wrong about all sorts of stuff, why should it be a problem if I decided some aspects of my faith were wrong?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

CH

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29757659/

Fuchs and his colleagues now have identified three new species of octopuses (Styletoctopus annae, Keuppia hyperbolaris and Keuppia levante) based on five specimens discovered in Cretaceous Period rocks in Lebanon. The specimens, described in the January 2009 issue of the journal Palaeontology, preserve the octopuses' eight arms with traces of muscles and rows of suckers. Even traces of the ink and internal gills are present in some specimens.

"The luck was that the corpse landed untouched on the sea floor," Fuchs told LiveScience. "The sea floor was free of oxygen and therefore free of scavengers. Both the anoxy [absence of oxygen] and a rapid sedimentation rate prevented decay."

Prior to this discovery only a single fossil species was known, and from fewer specimens than octopuses have legs, Fuchs said.

5 minutes of googeling.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, an octupus fossil heavily implies a fast burial. This is why there are gazillions of octopus fossils just lying around everywhere, see, because there was a huge burial event 6000 years ago. In fact, I can hardly dig a hole without hitting an octopus fossil, because of that huge burial event. They're very common in fossiled corals, mixed amongst the fossiled clownfish and fossilised sea anenomes, which were fast-buried all together.

What I don't understand is how the sea-birds are always able to avoid that fast burial, even though they live near amongst the corals. They must've outrun the burial event. I feel sad for the trilobytes, they were so slow, they always got buried way deeper than the octupus. I think the octupus used to bury the trilobytes beneath the corals, to protect them against the coming fast burial.

 

[GoodGame]

El Mach, all you need to do is get Boxxy to say that on YouTube, and I'll believe it!

I was actually googling 'major octopus burial' for a minute until I got the joke.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But isn't it a sign that their faith is stronger if they maintain it despite apparent contradictions? After all, it's easy to believe stuff when it's the norm. Isn't a prevailing theme in a lot of religions that a great deal of crap that happens in the world is god testing someone's faith? If you've dismissed a source as unreliable, then why be afraid it will undermine your faith, or that of your children?

If it is a reliable source, if it's evidence I can see myself, then I'd expect it wouldn't throw up anything that completely contradicts my faith. If it does, then maybe my original interpretation was wrong. I don't see why that should be such a big deal, I'm not infallible, I've been wrong about all sorts of stuff, why should it be a problem if I decided some aspects of my faith were wrong?

First and foremost we are all people and full of contradictions and conflicting emotions. A person may be secure in their belief, and still fear for their children being taken away through loss of similar faith. Young singles and couples can stand on the strength of their faith alone. It is harder with families. Your priorities change.

I don't think that most people measure their faith by what it stands against. Rather they measure it by how it stands with them and supports them in their daily lives. The "testing of faith" is a religious structure to help people weather difficult episodes in their life. Sports and politidal affiliations have similar mechanisms to keep people from leaving when times get tough. It is in the nature of most organizations or cultural groups as a way to retain membership. To raise a child in your christian faith and then have them go off to college and come home a Buddhist or atheist is a scary thing for many people. One way to prevent that is to have a strong social support ofr your faith (ie prayer in schools etc.)

Faith that is easily set aside is usually not particularly strong to begin with. Weak catholics can slide into the Church of England without to much trouble and vice versa. A strong faith fears loss of faith by other strong believers and friends or family who have developed their faith together.

You cannot approach faith rationally. It is not a rational thing. Once you have faith, then you can use reason in its light, but you cannot come to religious faith through reason.