Quick question on evolution

[In situ]

Seriously, I haven't got any better answers for how energy came into being than those who think God made it.

I have one. However, even though I find all this interesting to discuss, I still have a problem to see the connection with this and to the OP "honest" question about how naturalists reason about common ancestor.

What I do have, however, is the understanding that evolution is indisputable fact

Okay, but do you know why it is a fact?

an if God did in fact make the universe

I am, pretty sure a god did not, and would assert it as a fact that a god described according to the Christianity doctrines did not do it at all. Just like Zeus and Odin, that god has been refuted a long time ago. Still people keep believe in that god due to traditions. In my opinion that is just silly.

If a god exists, then that god is not describe correctly by any of the major religions doctrines. For instance the believe in a personal god is just nonsense and has no (objective) support in what we know about the physical reality (on all levels) and most Christan knows this as well - beside the real nutters....

he made the laws of physics to guide it;

See previous reply.

thus evolution technically CANT be mutually exclusive as opposed to creation when it's viewed from that angle - that God exists.

Well, if you just assume a lot of things, you can prove whatever you want to prove. What is your point? Do you have any factual observation to support your assumptions or is it just speculation from you side? In the latter case we can as well start to talk about the spaghetti monster then.....

 

[[serious]]

Creationism nonsense and semantics games. Common ancestor is a fact.

Creationist? Dude, are you even reading my posts?

 

[In situ]

Elitism stifles an open mind. For instance, hebrew has three terms for the word 'day', one can mean 'age'. Thus, the world made in seven 'ages'. That in itself blows a hole in your theory that a well studied creationist cannot be intelligent, and that such a model of creationism that takes this linguistic factor into account cannot coincide with evolution. Obviously you've not even considered the idea of creation, yet by the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so let me ask you, where did all the energy in the universe come from?

Who is to say that these seven 'ages' do not allow adequate time for physics to play their proverbial part in shaping the universe we live in? If God did indeed create the universe, he MUST have created the laws by which the universe is governed, thus to say God created the universe, but evolution is false, is to assume God did not create the universe with the laws of physics that exists today. THAT notion would be ignorant of science, however my assertions are not.

What are you talking about, do you even responded to what I wrote?

Don't be so quick to give merit to your own intelligence.

What does this has to do with anything? Did I mention my intelligence, did i mention the word at all? No. So what has your fascination with my intellgience to do with anything at all?

As a friendly advice, try aim your arguments at the claims made, not the person, because an ad hominem is not an argument at all.

However, despite you try, creationism has no arguments, it is just nonsense based on doctrines. It is nonsense because you need to denial all of science, everything we know, to be able to believe all that creationism nonsense. It make no sense, whatsoever. None of it it, and the sooner the common man on the street understand this, the better. Because creationism hurt our society it is anti-intellectual, because it denies what we already know, it is anti-knowledge because it wants to restrict what we can know; it is anti-human because it prevents us from understanding who we are, and it is anti-science because it denies all of it! This despite its claim not being this. This because creationisms is a fantasy at best and a lie at worst - all of it!

If we deny who we are, what we came from, then how can we understand our self and correct for our own faults and shortcomings if all we do is denying them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

No offense intended, but you are talking so vague about this that I almost get the impression you are not fully sure what you are talking about your self. Do you refer to the uncertainty principle? If so, 'accurate' is the word you are looking for not 'observable'. On the other hand when a measure of one thing get less accurate then other observables, connected via the uncertainty principle, has become more accurate, and physics knows this so they do no try to measure both at the same time with extreme precision. But there is nothing mystical or "mind boggling" with this (as some people sometimes try to make it). It is well understood why it happens, just in the same way that there is nothing mystical why things does not stay still in the air when we let go of them but falls to the ground; that is just how things are and we can explain it.

Yes, that is what I mean. Most of what I know about physics relates to chemistry.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Name one, please.

Einstein didn't agree with the basics of quantum mechanics, and when his calculations resulted in black holes having a singularity his conclusion was that black holes couldn't exist. Hey, he was human after all.

 

[In situ]

Creationist? Dude, are you even reading my posts?

Yes I do, and careful as well. Your first statement is derived from creationism nonsense, namely the statement that common ancestor is not a fact but only a "interpretation" of data. That is creationism nonsense propaganda if anything, or who else do you suggest came up with that claim?

This is an example of just how poisoning creationism is to the mind and knowledge. You cant even tell yourself what is creationism nonsense or not. I don't blame you, it happens to me as well. I believed that same nonsense to - for a while, until I checked the facts.

I don't know everything myself so sometimes I become fouled by some very slippery and sophisticated creationists claims. I was fouled by the claim that common ancestor is not an observed fact for some time. But then, when I spend some time trying to understand the argument behind macro evolution beyond the genus level I found out that common ancestor is an observed fact. It is a fact that grandpa was a fish, even thou we never seen him, for the very same, principal, reason it is a fact that Pluto orbits the sun despite nobody ever observed that happen either.

For instance, all talk about "historical science" is nonsense and is part of the creationistic propaganda packages to prevent people to understand that common ancestor is indeed an observed fact.

If we apply this "historical science" nonsense to Pluto, then it is no longer a fact that Pluto orbits the sun but an explanation that is open for interpretations, and that in turn implies that the whole theory of gravity is
not a fact but a speculation based on a "belief" about how celestial bodies traverse space.

The analog claim made by creationists is that celestial bodies, like Pluto can sometimes jump, for no specific reason, to other stars and start to orbit them. In other words, I would need to a) deny known knowledge and b) accept things that never been observed as fact in order to accept that something like "historical science" even exists. Does that make any sense to you? To me it does not, to me is is complete and utter nonsense.

"historical" science and other nonsense is the anti-science methodology creationism applies to the theory of evolution to undermine it as a scientific theory in the eyes of the general public. If you cannot see this, then you better learn to see that, otherwise you just help creationism to undermine science in general and the theory of evolution in particular.

But it does not stop there, whenever I spend time thinking about what claims made by creationisms implies, for instance criticism of uniformitarianism, then when I do so all their claims implies complete and utter nonsense. It implies nonsense because in order for me to believe what is claimed, I have to deny everything what I learned in science AND accept madness (similar to that celestial bodies can teleport them self, for no given reason at all, between starts) and that is why creationism is pure nonsense. All of it! Then I haven't even start to talk about all the dishonesty among the creationistic scientist, how they forge (read: falsify) experimental results and ignores incoherent result and cherry picks data and does everything they accuse mainstream scientist to do and then they have the guts to claim they are censored by main stream science all this only to maintain their own fantasy of a creations.

It is sicking to watch and listen to how the leaders of creationisms pollute the mind of innocent people and abuses their trust. It does not only hurt sceince, but religion as well in the end and creates a lot of people bitter to religion, when they realize they been lied to. That does not make things better because at the end of the day we all still need to live on the same planet.

 

[Dusty Bin]

While true it's wasted here.

 

[[serious]]

Ultimately, words have meanings. The most literal way of defining fact is as an observation. Something we directly see. Common descent is not something directly observable. Pretending it is doesn't actually help your case. I'm the first one to try and tie down creationists when they are getting quirrelly with definitions. I can't very well Ignore misuse of terms on my own side. Common descent is not an observation, so in the most literal sense of the word, it's not a fact. It's a model that explains all observable facts. It's the best model we have. It's the only rational model at all. But it's still a model subject to refinement to better fit new information. A good parallel would be the refinement of the model of the atom. The modern interpretation is no more a "fact" than the Bohr model was. Both are models progressively better explaining the observations of the atom.

 

[In situ]

Einstein didn't agree with the basics of quantum mechanics, and when his calculations resulted in black holes having a singularity his conclusion was that black holes couldn't exist. Hey, he was human after all.

My question was, which theory of him was changed, but okay if you cannot name the theory, then how was his theory changed and why did it need this change? Since you mention quantum theory, did for instance anyone change the postulate about the limit of speed in his theories and since you mention the discoveries of singularities, how did this affect his theories?

 

[PsychoSarah]

My question was, which theory of him was changed, but okay if you cannot name the theory, then how was his theory changed and why did it need this change? Since you mention quantum theory, did for instance anyone change the postulate about the limit of speed in his theories and since you mention the discoveries of singularities, how did this affect his theories?

Mostly it messes with general relativity theory. Einstein didn't agree with ideas such as dark matter, etc, which are necessary for his general relativity to work.

Physics are very much interconnected, you know, and toppling one is like pushing a domino, a lot of stuff falls down.

But gosh, why are you expecting perfection out of the poor guy?

 

[In situ]

I've been reading about dark matter ... and I think I might have clicked on something. ...

So you read a book and now you know it all...

Wouldn't it make sense ...

No it would not. Because you do not understand how scientists comes to a consensus nor did you care to learn the basic first, which is obvious from your remarks below and above, and because of that you will not understand why it does not make sense. And Frankly I feel so repulsed by you arrogant attitude towards physics that I don't even want to tell you why it does not make sense....

I think the dark matter idea is a case of scientists assuming something exists to fit their current indoctrinations.

You think to much and learn to little....and that makes you talk nonsense.

I should have been a physicist. I find myself so interested in this stuff in the last few years. In school I hated it.

So you know nothing about physics, yet you think yourself qualified to say experts are wrong, experts who actually, unlike you, spend years with academical education to learn what physics is about...

Do you know what respect towards knowledge means?

 

[In situ]

Yes, that is what I mean. Most of what I know about physics relates to chemistry.

Aha, then I think I might understand why you spoke in the terms you did. You mention earlier your niche was biology. What are your special interest in biology?

 

[In situ]

Ultimately, words have meanings. The most literal way of defining fact is as an observation.

Is it a fact, or not, that Pluto orbits the sun?

 

[dysert]

And I don't think you answered my question, but instead is using the the well known creationists "doge it" technique. Convenient isn't it, because then you do not need to challenges your own assumptions and beliefs... (and that is about how "honest" your OP was... )

I have not been using some "technique". And I have been challenging my own assumptions and beliefs for dozens of years. Why else would I be subjecting myself to the verbal abuse you and some of your ilk heap upon me in my quest for knowledge?

For me, learning is a process. What I've written in other posts depends on where I was in my learning process at the time. The same is true of the OP here. I honestly was wanting to know how evolutionists resolve the apparent paradox that exists with the "common ancestry" bit. Unfortunately, after over 200 posts I still don't know the answer. Who's doing the dodging?

You come across as aggressive, impatient, and paranoid... an insulting brute. You certainly fail in the aspect of trying to teach someone something. Not only that, but you and a few others have even managed to eliminate from me the thirst for knowledge I once had. I don't know the answer to the question I posed way back when, and now I don't even care. It was an honest inquiry. Whether you believe that or not is totally irrelevant.

 

[[serious]]

Is it a fact, or not, that Pluto orbits the sun?

Yes, that is a directly measurable fact.

 

[In situ]

Ultimately, words have meanings. The most literal way of defining fact is as an observation. Something we directly see. Common descent is not something directly observable. Pretending it is doesn't actually help your case. I'm the first one to try and tie down creationists when they are getting quirrelly with definitions. I can't very well Ignore misuse of terms on my own side. Common descent is not an observation, so in the most literal sense of the word, it's not a fact. It's a model that explains all observable facts. It's the best model we have. It's the only rational model at all. But it's still a model subject to refinement to better fit new information. A good parallel would be the refinement of the model of the atom. The modern interpretation is no more a "fact" than the Bohr model was. Both are models progressively better explaining the observations of the atom.

I don't think you really understand the implication of what you just written.

I claim that implied facts are fact. If you dispute this then you dispute the correctness of logic, which states that all theorems are true. Further more logic states that theorems (implications) does not tell us anything new, but only presents the postulate (or observable facts in our case) in a "more interesting way" or make the claims of the postulates more explicit.

Now, tell me,

a) is life a nested set?
b) can life be produced in some other way than we already know about?

If you answer is 'yes' to a) and 'no' to b) then common ancestor is an implied fact.

Because common ancestor is a implied fact, that is a a 'theorem' in the language of logic, then it follows, from well know principles of logic, that a) common ancestor is true and b) noting new was added to the facts (observations) that wasn't there before. From this follow that common ancestor is an observed fact because all facts it was derived from are observed facts.

Now, is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?

Yes it is a fact, for the very same reasons common ancestor is a fact....

Either you can argue that common ancestor is not a fact, but then, in the name of consistency, you should also argue that it is not a fact that Pluto orbits the sun. Such claims has sever consequences, because it means you are not sure, i.e. it is not a fact, and if you are not sure, you might a swell start believe that Pluto might suddenly fly away from the sun for no reason at all.... do you believe that? I do not think you do that, I think you believe Pluto has a stable orbits around the sun, don't you? So you say it is fact...

So how can you say that common ancestor is not a fact then? Well, logically, you cannot... why?

Well...

If you say that common ancestor is not a fact then you in effect reject the law of the excluded middle, that is you reject the deduction rule "there is NO third alternative". In other words you claim there exists a third alternative.... and what is that third alternative? Well, that is what the creationist always claimed it to be; spontaneous creation and "kinds". But I claim there is no such third alternative, because I do NOT reject law of the excluded middle and because of that i can say is a fact that common ancestor is a fact. But creationist denies the law of the excluded middle - and so do you as well if you say that common ancestor is not a fact.

I don't think you intended to say this because you accept common ancestors so I think you also accepts the law of the excluded middle. And that is a good thing to do, because that means that you suddenly can know a lot of things as facts! For instance that common ancestor is an observed fact. But if you reject the law of the excluded middle, as creationists does, then you reject a lot of knowledge, and that is why I am claiming creationism to be anti-knowledge; they deny knowledge by rejecting the excluded middle (when it suits them) as a valid rule of deduction.

When a creationists say "we cant know" on these grounds..... that is fine with me, and they have the right to do that..... if it wasn't for a small thing; creationist only reject the exuded middle when it suits their own arguments for the moment. What do we call somebody that does that... "dishonest", right?


To end this way to long reply:

Based on what you said, you seams to underestimate how sophisticated creationists argument actually are. Their argument is not based around facts etc but on deep philosophical issue about knowledge. It may look like it is an argument about observational and biology etc, but it isn't (because they cannot win such argument ever, because it would be to argument against facts), so instead it is about how we know what we know... and they use everything they ever can ever use in order to make it look like they are right.. but they are not, because they are inconsistent and twist things only to suit them for the moment, and keeps to rules only as long as it confirms to what they believe, just so they the next second can drop the rule they used if it does not fit them any more. This is what you need to understand about creationism and that is why it is nonsense. There is no intellectual honesty, whatsoever, with creationism. Problem is that it touches such deep philosophical issues that most people wont recognize them, and even if they do, not understand them full - not even I do that because sometimes when I try to understand their argument on the depth the intellectual madness contained within it drives mes me toward crazy..... I am serious, and I am not joking, when you think about their argument you can literally feel the madness engulf your mind and I cant deal with it. I have to stop and come back to it days later. It is pure madness....


NOTE: in the context of the text I have not explicitly written 'observable fact' where it should be, but just 'fact' because I was to lazy to write it out and because I do not make any distinction bewteen them (as explained why).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Aha, then I think I might understand why you spoke in the terms you did. You mention earlier your niche was biology. What are your special interest in biology?

Mostly in microbiology and genetics, I plan to go into medical research. Of course I also have a great deal of interest in biology as a whole. Additionally, botany is a hobby of mine.

 

[[serious]]

I don't think you really understand the implication of what you just written.

I claim that implied facts are fact. If you dispute this then you dispute the correctness of logic, which states that all theorems are true. Further more logic states that theorems (implications) does not tell us anything new, but only presents the postulate (or observable facts in our case) in a "more interesting way" or make the claims of the postulates more explicit.

Sure I accept formal logic.

Now, tell me,

a) is life a nested set?
b) can life be produced in some other way than we already know about?

If you answer is 'yes' to a) and 'no' to b) then common ancestor is an implied fact.

Sure, I agree with those statements. But let's state the argument you are proposing a little more explicitly. If common descent is true, then nested sets will exist. Now we can directly observe the nested sets, but can we flip it and say "nested sets exist, therefore common descent is true"?No. We can't. That is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it's affirming the consequent.

If you say that common ancestor is not a fact then you in effect reject the law of the excluded middle, that is you reject the deduction rule "there is NO third alternative". In other words you claim there exists a third alternative.... and what is that third alternative? Well, that is what the creationist always claimed it to be; spontaneous creation and "kinds". But I claim there is no such third alternative, because I do NOT reject law of the excluded middle and because of that i can say is a fact that common ancestor is a fact. But creationist denies the law of the excluded middle - and so do you as well if you say that common ancestor is not a fact.

The whole excluded middle means that any statement will be either true or false. Either A or !A will be true. However, you seem to be mashing that up with the fallacy of a false dichotomy, sometimes called the fallacy of the excluded middle. Lots of other options exist. An invisible pink unicorn could have made the universe with embedded age last tuesday. Pixies could be altering the data we collect via magic to trick us into thinking it indicates common descent. "Oh," you may say, "But common descent is the only rational, natural explanation we can think of!" Entirely true. I also cannot think of another natural explanation. Does my inability to imagine another way of explaining it prove that such an explanation cannot exist? Of course not. That is yet another fallacy, argument from incredulity.

I come from a science background. I'm used to treating things as either supported or unsupported. I'm used to thinking in terms of a hypothesis being disproven, but never proven. I'm comfortable saying the theory of gravity is not proven, but simply supported by overwhelming mountains of evidence. I'm equally comfortable addressing evolution as one of those "mountains and mountains of support" theories rather than trying to use stronger terms just because they sound better.

 

[Kylie]

This is an honest inquiry as I try to find out as much as I can about what evolutionists believe. I've come to learn that the ToE says that birds produce birds, fish produce fish, humans produce humans, etc. I've also come to learn that the ToE says we all came from a common ancestor. Assuming my understanding is correct, how do you reconcile those two statements? Thanks.

A diagram I used in another thread...

As you can see, at the bottom, purple produces purple, because you always have a purple coloured pixel next to a purple coloured pixel. Not the exact same shade of purple, but it's still purple. Over many pixels, tiny little changes add up to form a different colour. But each change is, by itself, not enough to call it a different colour.

And likewise, as amphibians evolved into reptiles, each offspring was the same species as its parent, just with a tiny change. This change was not enough to mean the offspring was a different species. After all, my daughter is different to me, but that doesn't mean she is a different species to me! But she is different nonetheless. As these differences add up, slowly and over many generations, eventually we will get to a point where we can say that my great great great.... grandchild is a different species, provided you have enough "greats" in there.

 

[Papias]

Yes, this is a very useful diagram.