BF2S Forums A Conversation between a Darwinist and a Creationist

herrr_smity wrote:

Spark wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

are you stoned

Are you? Or are you just trolling?

well i have heard these rumors going around that, there is this black substance coming out of the earth, in the middle east.
and apparently its made up of decayed animals and plants that lived there millions of years ago. but keep in mind that its just a rumors

What's your point? Fossils actually give us information to WHAT lived there, WHEN it lived there and WHAT it was. That doesn't.

From what I understand, ALL science is theory, because it is open to change.  Science generally improves with time, whereas religion usually remains constant -- until a group decides to break away and form their own reinterpretation of events.

In general, I would argue science is superior to religion in terms of practical application and analytical observation.  Religion is mostly used for emotional purposes that have little connection to analytical processes (except for psychoanalytical ones, technically).

Because of all this, religion and science are somewhat a matter of apples to oranges.  Where I think religion errs is when people try to take everything so literally in a text.  Anyone who treats the Bible (or any other religious text) as something to be taken literally word-for-word must not be very knowledgable about the process by which these texts evolve through time.  Such people must also not be aware that most religions began as an oral tradition, so there is much room for change to occur between the first oration of a story and the first transcription of it.

Essentially, I trust science more than religion because it is based less on emotion and more on logic.

While it is true that the concept of something being a "fact" is somewhat faith-based, it differs from religion because it is easily demonstrable.  Electricity and gravity come to mind.  You can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

By the same token, you can't prove the existence of evolution, but it certainly makes more sense than the belief that the world was made in 6 days.  Whether or not a god started evolution is up for debate, but evolution itself is currently the most logical assumption we have as to how life developed on Earth.

However, it is very likely that the theory of evolution will evolve over time (no pun intended).

RAIMIUS wrote:

Topal makes some excellent logical points.  However, the theory of evolution is exactly that, a THEORY.  He makes a good number of scientific and logical arguments, but throws them all out the window in his first post! 

Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.

Uh, you're wrong... if your thinking that:

Evolution is a theory.
or
That gravity is a theory.

Both are FACT, they happen, for REAL in this reality (evolution has been documented to happen in my lifetime; it is a pure-fact). Your assumptions you hold in-your-mind, about these things that happen factually in this reality, are not fact, is pure error & misconception.

You're confused over semantics or maybe applying ideas inappropriately, your error in logic has lead you to believe (or convince yourself) that because there are theories surrounding them to explain the FACT that they are, they happen & how they happen - has confused you into holding an erroneous belief; assumption; conception; etc & whatever. Stop being confused, OK, explaining gravity is a theory, explaining the complexity of the process of Evolution is a theory. Get it. They are facts of Nature, with theories attempting to explain the how & why.

P.S. You're correct in thinking there are GAPS, in understanding, but this is, more or less, universal - and applies to ALL human understanding, all knowledge, all science.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 20:13:34)

topal63 wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Topal makes some excellent logical points.  However, the theory of evolution is exactly that, a THEORY.  He makes a good number of scientific and logical arguments, but throws them all out the window in his first post! 

Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.

Uh, your wrong... if your thinking that:

Evolution is a theory.
or
That gravity is a theory.

Both are FACT, they happen, for REAL in this reality (evolution has been documented to happen in my lifetime; it is a pure-fact). Your assumptions you hold in-your-mind, about these things that happen factually in this reality, are not fact, is pure error & misconception.

You're confused over semantics or maybe applying ideas inappropriately, your error in logic has lead you to believe (or convince yourself) that because there are theories surrounding them to explain the FACT that they are, they happen & how they happen - has confused you into holding an erroneous belief; assumption; conception; etc & whatever. Stop being confused, OK, explaining gravity is a theory, explaining the complexity of the process of Evolution is a theory. Get it. They are facts of Nature, with theories attempting to explain the how & why.

All hail the master of logic.

Spark wrote:

Since this has turned into an epistemology debate, can someone give me a reasonable explanation on the difference between, TO KNOW (NOT the classical JTB definition),  TO THINK, TO BELIEVE and TO HAVE AN OPINION ON.

I am not ignoring this... I am trying to think of way to explain it, what is wrong with the Platonic form of old, T.O.K., and generally other older epistomologies. It has to due with quite a few things: generalizations by induction (& pattern recognition), semantics in philosophy (word meaning origins & use), what was learned in the fields of A.I. & natural learning & more even. So I need some time to think about how to explain it.

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Topal makes some excellent logical points.  However, the theory of evolution is exactly that, a THEORY.  He makes a good number of scientific and logical arguments, but throws them all out the window in his first post! 

Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.

Uh, you're wrong... if your thinking that:

Evolution is a theory.
or
That gravity is a theory.

Both are FACT, they happen, for REAL in this reality (**evolution has been documented to happen in my lifetime; it is a pure-fact). Your assumptions you hold in-your-mind, about these things that happen factually in this reality, are not fact, is pure error & misconception.

You're confused over semantics or maybe applying ideas inappropriately, your error in logic has lead you to believe (or convince yourself) that because there are theories surrounding them to explain the FACT that they are, they happen & how they happen - has confused you into holding an erroneous belief; assumption; conception; etc & whatever. Stop being confused, OK, explaining gravity is a theory, explaining the complexity of the process of Evolution is a theory. Get it. They are facts of Nature, with theories attempting to explain the how & why.

P.S. You're correct in thinking there are GAPS, in understanding, but this is, more or less, universal - and applies to ALL human understanding, all knowledge, all science.

Newton's theory of gravitation was originally a theory. It has of course reached the point of conclusiveness that allows us to call it a fact. Evolution was a theory, but with todays modern technology it is becoming more and more accepted as a fact. The only thing that separates theory and fact is the level of agreement. I am speaking more to the mentality and understanding that humans require for acceptance. What is will always be, what we understand is constantly changing.

So very true... but that is the difference between seeing a process happen in nature and then trying to explain it. We are experiencing reality - and we are trying to explain reality. Reality is more or less consistent over time, our theories of explanation - are subject to refinement/expansion/etc... over time, as our GAPS in understanding get filled in.

Also classical physics is still a reasonable model for predicting the behavior of Earth-bound phenomenon, this is also a measure of science's usefulness: predictability. You can still use the old (pre-relativity) formulas to predict with detailed-accuracy most of things you experience on a daily basis (Earth-bound). Relativity is an expansion of an idea/an increase in the accuracy of science's predictability of natural phenomenon.

**It has factually been documented to have happened. This part is the odd part, I somewhat lay blame on the science community, where is a great science popularizer like Carl Sagan nowadays, for example, getting the word out about the reality of it?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 21:47:45)

righthandfork wrote:

I don’t know much about physics, but it seems people are missing some very fundamental points. From what I understand the THEORY of gravity works great when you are dealing small scale like the solar system, BUT DOES NOT WORK well when you are dealing with the expanding nature of the universe itself, that is what Einstein’s theories were used to correct.  In fact, Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to find one theory that could incorporate gravity and relativity, but never found it, so unless Topal63 knows something Einstein didn't, the Theory of gravity is still in need of revision.

Doesn't change the fact - that gravity is - and happens - and that you can hold a ball in your hand, reach out, let go and it will fall to the Earth.

Gravity is also a label for the fact that it happens. Not just a label for the theory - that is a measure of science's predictability & explanatory power. Also I am actually very well aware of what is not FACT about the theory of relativity - what is model - even meta-physical. Parts of it are pure mental construct with absolutely no proof whatsoever. But still that does not change the fact that gravity is; ... nor; the other part we are discussing; that evolution is.

__________________

Also you continue to think that science & logic is being leveled at you like an insult. I am not doing so; nor do I feel that way. I am utterly open to the concept of transcendent reality or transcendent God. But I am almost certainly an atheist to all mythological traditions as being something you can accept at face value - literally.

Examples:

Religion is based on the concept that something exists beyond the physical world and that humans have the mental capacity to comprehend more than just the sensory information around them.  Since the majority of this forum’s members do not accept this premise, it puts me at a great disadvantage in a debate.

Error - this is not unique to religious people. People of no faith theorize about transcendent realities as well  even scientists (see string theory; or the many worlds interpretation)!

righthandfork wrote:

... if ... everyone believed we are living in a dream world and that the existence of anything outside of our minds cannot be proven.

There is nothing wrong with this idea, but it has nothing to do with your own thread (or threads). If you suggest a mythological tradition (as all religious traditions are rooted in at least one or many) is equivalent to science; you are comparing things that simply should not be compared. And this example is a meta-physical extension of reality... this should not be compared to practical knowledge either. It's like comparing a painting or sculpture to an assembly diagram for a computer. Or like comparing a ritual-dance to a person walking to work.

righthandfork wrote:

The academic environment in the Western U.S. is much more open to the idea that there are many different world views and they don’t have to be labeled as “not conforming to physical evidence and therefore invalid.”

This is a personal problem, or a theological problem, or an inertia problem for institutions & traditions, that requires adaption to change. The transcendent worldview is not-invalid... but it is up to those practitioners of a "faith", or you, to figure out how to adapt your worldview to the increases in understanding gained by the scientific method. It is a boon; a gift.

righthandfork wrote:

The academic environment in the Western U.S. is much more open to the idea that there are many different world views and they don’t have to be labeled as “not conforming to physical evidence and therefore invalid.”  Maybe it is because we have a large population of Native Americans.  I’m sure most of you would say the Hopis are ignorant and stupid.  They are a desert agrarian society that depend on rain for their very survival.  They believe that spirits live on the San Francisco peaks in Arizona called “Kachinas” and control the rain.  So the Hopis’ entire way of life is centered around trying to please these spirits.  They have elaborate ceremonies and rituals for this purpose.  But the point is people around here, especially those in the academic community, do not see them as backward or irrational.  Why? Not because we are all into new age philosophy and acceptance for the differences around us—but because as crazy as all this sounds—what I have just described actually works!  For thousands of years Hopis and their Anasazi ancestors have been able to survive in this most hostile of climates.   So however foolish it may sound, it has assured their survival.  Sometimes I wonder if science will assure our survival or just destroy us all.   Only time will tell, but historically speaking, the Hopis' track record is better than ours.

Pure opinion, that you assume about me or others on this forum.

Many cultures have the same intuitive knowledge of the world encoded into there traditions & myths. But then again you would thinks so - wouldn't you? It can't be all that advantageous to a peoples or a community, living off the land, to plant at the wrong time of the year, or harvest to early, or loose the seed of the next generation of crops. That tribe would not survive for very long now would it. But even a logical idea like this - is not an insult to the tradition - unless you are perceiving it that way.

righthandfork wrote:

... At least you tried.  That's better than the typical name calling .

Some yes, but not all, also if you are called ignorant and you are - this is not an insult. Everyone is ignorant to some degree about many things; and everyone is ignorant to the whole-truth of what reality is.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-08 06:35:09)

I googled  " defies laws of physics "  http://www.google.com/search?q=defies+l … =firefox-a




This was first up.

topal63 wrote:

Doesn't change the fact - that gravity is - and happens - and that you can hold a ball in your hand, reach out, let go and it will fall to the Earth.

Saying if you drop a ball it will fall to the ground is a fact.  Saying if you drop a ball it will fall to ground because of gravity is a theory.  Really, it's not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

righthandfork wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Doesn't change the fact - that gravity is - and happens - and that you can hold a ball in your hand, reach out, let go and it will fall to the Earth.

Saying if you drop a ball it will fall to the ground is a fact.  Saying if you drop a ball it will fall to ground because of gravity is a theory.  Really, it's not as complicated as you are trying to make it.

The opposite - it is uncomplicated. Also that is another error... please stop.

Saying if you drop a ball it will fall to ground because of gravity (measurable attraction, that can be repeated over, and over, and over, and has always occurred in the same manner over, and over, and over) is fact. The theory is the accuracy of the math; the model (or paradigm); the how, why & when. It is a FACT that it happens and that - that attraction is something you can directly experience.

As I already said.

Gravity is a word it is also a label for the fact that it happens. It is not just a label for the theory part - that is a measure of science's predictability & explanatory power. Also I am actually very well aware of what is not FACT about the theory of relativity - what is model - even meta-physical. Parts of it are pure mental construct with absolutely no proof whatsoever. But still that does not change the fact that gravity is; ... nor that evolution is ...

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 21:55:41)

righthandfork, you are way in the hell too smart for this forum, and that includes me.

I am not completely sure this goes with what you are arguing, but I do have a question for the likes of Topal and Ken-jennings.

Have you ever dug a fossil out of the ground?  Have you personally dated any earthly matter?  Please tell me, how do you know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Because everyone tells you so, and you have read it in books?  No, because it is FACT (Always typing FACT in caps is getting annoying by the way Topal).  By definition, accepting something as true that you have never personally experienced is "faith."  I don't give a shit how great your sources are.

(Before some dim-whit flames me, I am not arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.)

Last edited by weamo8 (2007-04-07 21:54:49)

weamo8 wrote:

righthandfork, you are way in the hell too smart for this forum, and that includes me.

I am not completely sure this goes with what you are arguing, but I do have a question for the likes of Topal and Ken-jennings.

(1) Have you ever dug a fossil out of the ground?  (2)Have you personally dated any earthly matter?  Please tell me, how do you know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Because everyone tells you so, and you have read it in books?  No, because it is FACT (Always typing FACT in caps is getting annoying by the way Topal).  By definition, accepting something as true that you have never personally experienced is "faith."  I don't give a shit how great your sources are.

(Before some dim-whit flames me, I am not arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.)

1.) Yes I have... many actually.
2.) Yes I have... and if you would like to go to a University and do such yourself personally - please proceed thereto & enjoy. It is not that complicated a process/experiment to repeat.

And irregardless of me doing something personally, or another doing it, that does not change anything. What is it your trying to deny? Or imply anyway?

If someone else does an experiment and you don't - then it is 2nd hand knowledge, and not direct experience - so what. The FACT is that scientists do not rely upon the "WORD" & good-"FAITH" of another scientist, they have to be able to repeat the experiment/duplicate the process - or else invalidate it.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-07 22:05:53)

weamo8 wrote:

righthandfork, you are way in the hell too smart for this forum, and that includes me.

I am not completely sure this goes with what you are arguing, but I do have a question for the likes of Topal and Ken-jennings.

Have you ever dug a fossil out of the ground?  Have you personally dated any earthly matter?  Please tell me, how do you know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Because everyone tells you so, and you have read it in books?  No, because it is FACT (Always typing FACT in caps is getting annoying by the way Topal).  By definition, accepting something as true that you have never personally experienced is "faith."  I don't give a shit how great your sources are.

(Before some dim-whit flames me, I am not arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.)

righthandfork smart? That's a laugh. While he may be capable enough to grasp a few philosophical concepts (like the idea that trusting another's observations can be construed as a type of faith, in so far as trust is faith), he's far from "too smart for these forums."

The primary argument against creationism is the lack of observed evidence. It is a belief based wholly in the theoretical, hypothetical, and philosophical. Most people have a hard time basing their everyday choices off of something unobserved when given another option.

So, to adress your question, yes, I personally have faith, or trust, in those who claim to have observed that the earth is older than 6000 years. However, I also know that I could share their documented observations if I wanted to, which is the defining line between scientific trust and religious faith.

P.S. I warn you, I'll win in a war of semantics, I have practice.

Last edited by jonsimon (2007-04-07 22:06:41)