Irony of the evolutionary belief

[McBell]

Would you say that recognizing a day considered in the Genesis account of creation could not be a 24-hour day for various reasons? One is that geological marks on the earth indicate it took far longer than a 24-hour day, or 6 24-hour days to make these. That's one. There are other reasons, but I'll stop there for now.

Personally I recognize that a day can be however long the Bible needs and or wants it to be.
Since it has no bearing outside the Bible...

 

[Left Coast]

Would you say that recognizing a day considered in the Genesis account of creation could not be a 24-hour day for various reasons? One is that geological marks on the earth indicate it took far longer than a 24-hour day, or 6 24-hour days to make these. That's one. There are other reasons, but I'll stop there for now.

Personally I don't think the Bible has anything to do with it. The Bible isn't a science book. But in the Christian tradition, there is a long history of interpreting those chapters non-literally. That's really a different topic though. My point was that we don't need to physically watch a process for millions of years to know that the process takes millions of years. That applies to both geological and biological processes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

Why would interpreting the evidence visible such as the red-shifted cosmic microwave background today not reveal what has happened in the past? And if that past is billions of years old, we should expect science to determine that empirically. And notice that observation in science (and elsewhere) means observing what is here now, not observing the past. The "you weren't there to see it" and "it's never been observed" arguments are irrelevant. We've never observed Pluto orbiting the sun even once, but we know it has in the past many times and barring catastrophic unforeseeable events, will continue to do so well into the future.

What the creationist who uses his own understanding as the measure of what is known or knowable seem to overlook is that he is rarely as informed as the scientists he criticizes and often not as informed as educated lay people, meaning that what he can't see or doesn't understand reflects on the limits of his knowledge, not on the limits of what is knowable.

Those of us who trust in the inspiration of the Bible do not need to watch science fiction films to know the changes that the earth has undergone over millions of years.

Psal. 46:2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,
Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,
3 Though its waters roar and foam over,
Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence.

That's typical Bible "science." Vague and not useful for explaining or predicting anything.

In fact, the biblical account of Gen. 1 has more scientific details than people may realize at first glance.

So what? It's full of scientific error, and as I just alluded, even the parts that aren't incorrect are so vague ("let there be light") that they say nothing and can't be used the way actual science can, say to predict eclipses or create computers. You can't do anything scientific with myths. Why? Because they're not science. They're not derived or confirmed empirically.

 

[cladking]

What the creationist who uses his own understanding as the measure of what is known or knowable seem to overlook is that he is rarely as informed as the scientists he criticizes and often not as informed as educated lay people, meaning that what he can't see or doesn't understand reflects on the limits of his knowledge, not on the limits of what is knowable.

Not that there's no truth here but if you don't want to believe anything that isn't true an overview understanding of science is NOT the way to go. In the 1860's surgeons believed washing their hands before an operation was a waste of time because the patients were bleeding to death. Meanwhile it is within the realm of possibility that a proper interpretation of the Bible reflects truth.

A proper interpretation of scientific knowledge or every experiment underlying modern models of Evolution might reflect no truth whatsoever. Meanwhile every passage in the Bible can be interpreted to be reflective of the reality of change in species if our models are wrong. I believe this is the very nature of science and religion; that science is ever changing on fundamental levels while religion is evolving to encompass more of human knowledge most of which has been obtained through science. There's a simple reason for this IMO; Most of the basis of religion as it applies to living things and consciousness was far far more advanced than our science.

If you want repeatability and usefulness then go with technology (not theory) and if you want accuracy and applicability go with religion (ancient writing)[render unto Caesar...]. If you want to make progress in science then leave all of your beliefs behind as you clamor up on the shoulders of giants.

 

[F1fan]

I can't say millions of years. I can't say billions or thousands.

We have experts in science, so we don't need your beliefs and lack of knowledge. When you reject experts, you prefer your flawed beliefs.

I can only say it obviously, in my view, took a looonnngg time. Again -- I do not KNOW the biological and physical mechanics that were in process and exactly how it happened (from the beginning).

Why not accept what experts report? Could it be that it conflicts with your religious beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the 1860's surgeons believed washing their hands before an operation was a waste of time

OK. Then later, they thought otherwise. That's how empiricism works. That's how science advances.

if you want accuracy and applicability go with religion. Most of the basis of religion as it applies to living things and consciousness was far far more advanced than our science.

I find no value there.

if you don't want to believe anything that isn't true an overview understanding of science is NOT the way to go.

I do, however, find value in empiricism. Every idea I possess that I consider knowledge was acquired that way. Every one.

A proper interpretation of scientific knowledge or every experiment underlying modern models of Evolution might reflect no truth whatsoever.

Knowledge cannot be acquired any way but experientially (empirically). Beliefs obtained otherwise have no practical value except perhaps to console and comfort.

 

[cladking]

I do, however, find value in empiricism. Every idea I possess that I consider knowledge was acquired that way. Every one.

Were that only true.

The reality is we all read and hear things we accept as being factual because they are based in experiment or knowledge. There was a time when even the quisling media could be trusted with reporting facts usually. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and to get there we have to have some familiarity with what they could see.

All true knowledge is experiential and a great deal can be found through deduction. An individual might perceive that they learned from books but if this were strictly true then complex tasks such as diagnoses would not get easier and results would not get more precise with experience and practice.

More importantly though is that "evidence" leads observers in the wrong direction. All evidence is interpreted in terms of one's existing models and beliefs and no two people share the same models and beliefs. Many means of interpreting sets of evidence (paradigms) are wrong and no amount of interpretation or reading more books is going to fix it. Just as everyone who ponders the fossil record will see slow change caused by survival of the fittest most who believe religion is always and necessarily wrong will not see that ancient writing and the Bible get the interpretation correctly.

Ironic isn't it?

 

[cladking]

OK. Then later, they thought otherwise. That's how empiricism works. That's how science advances.

So you are now simply assuming something entirely different than older beliefs. There will still be basic and fundamental shifts in scientific beliefs and interpretations in the future. Every current belief will be stood on its head given time.

I find no value there.

Human omniscience tells you to go with the science but somehow this omniscience has no clue as to the utter depth of its own ignorance.

We all seek a solid ground, a lifeline, or floating debris in the a vast sea of ignorance. There is none. We must embrace our ignorance and allow ourselves to be embraced by it. Just as neither science nor religion works for everyone ignorance won't either. But if we don't recognize the nature of the life in which we tread we will likely do more harm than good. I believe that if we put all our flotsam and jetsam together we can build a ship.

It will be far easier for every individual to leave the world a better place if everyone at least has the same definition of "better".

 

[F1fan]

Were that only true.

The reality is we all read and hear things we accept as being factual because they are based in experiment or knowledge.

And this system requires integrity and honesty, and this is why science has ethics and norms. We can trust experts in science, and when scientists break these rules they are exposed and face consequences.

You have contempt for science, ethics, and norms for strange, unrevealed reasons. But whatever they are this attitude of yours means your views and beliefs are corrupt and unrecognizable by the reasonable and educated.

There was a time when even the quisling media could be trusted with reporting facts usually. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and to get there we have to have some familiarity with what they could see.

There are still media outlets that can be trusted. Like with many lazy thinkers you lack the ability to discern which can be trusted. This really means you can't trust yourself, but dogmatists even lack that awareness due to laziness. Ethics and integrity requires a sophisticated thinking process, and more people lack the skill and interest, and default to the ease and emotional satisfaction of their sloppy beliefs.

All true knowledge is experiential and a great deal can be found through deduction. An individual might perceive that they learned from books but if this were strictly true then complex tasks such as diagnoses would not get easier and results would not get more precise with experience and practice.

Yet your views reveal you don't acept this. You reject what you want for the sake of defending irratonal beliefs.

More importantly though is that "evidence" leads observers in the wrong direction. All evidence is interpreted in terms of one's existing models and beliefs and no two people share the same models and beliefs. Many means of interpreting sets of evidence (paradigms) are wrong and no amount of interpretation or reading more books is going to fix it. Just as everyone who ponders the fossil record will see slow change caused by survival of the fittest most who believe religion is always and necessarily wrong will not see that ancient writing and the Bible get the interpretation correctly.

You claim all this without evidence. And experts in science know that when new data is found, or that a model no longer works, they will adjust. That is their job. Whatever your prejudice happens to be science always works towards a more correct understanding.

Ironic isn't it?

The one talent you have is creating irony.

 

[cladking]

You have contempt for science, ethics, and norms for strange, unrevealed reasons. But whatever they are this attitude of yours means your views and beliefs are corrupt and unrecognizable by the reasonable and educated.

Nonsense. Every time you say it it will still be nonsense.

And this system requires integrity and honesty, and this is why science has ethics and norms.

Irrelevant. Every single experiment shows people see only what they believe. This is a damn fact while darwinian Evolution is a belief.

We can trust experts in science, and when scientists break these rules they are exposed and face consequences.

We can trust experts in science to be homo omniscience, nothing more. They are not Gods who dictate reality.

You claim all this without evidence. And experts in science know that when new data is found, or that a model no longer works, they will adjust.

They see what they believe.

ONLY experiment can stop this.

This is a simple concept but people don't seem to be able to see how modern science works and what it means to be homo omniscience at the same time.

 

[F1fan]

Nonsense. Every time you say it it will still be nonsense.

What a shame you can't explain why you think it's nonsense. The nonsense is all yours.

Irrelevant. Every single experiment shows people see only what they believe. This is a damn fact while darwinian Evolution is a belief.

False, ethics and integrity is very relevant because these are what keeps the results valid. You have no use for ethics and integrity because you lack them. That is the lazy mind's preference.

And "Darwinian evolution" means nothing. It is an attempt to criticize evolution in 2023 by implying it is no more accurate than in 1865. More of your lazy and sloppy thinking.

We can trust experts in science to be homo omniscience, nothing more.

This is your nonsense phrasing, and irrelevant.

They are not Gods who dictate reality.

You seem to have assumed this job for yourself. In your own mind, of course, because you don't fool savvy thinkers.

They see what they believe.

Nice projection, as a lazy mind.

ONLY experiment can stop this.

What can stop your lazy thinking except yourself deciding that integrity is a virtue and has value? Nothing, not even experiments.

This is a simple concept but people don't seem to be able to see how modern science works and what it means to be homo omniscience at the same time.

Your blind spots are really one big blindness. You have a belief system that you can't acknowledge is what it is. This is common among theists.

 

[cladking]

What a shame you can't explain why you think it's nonsense. The nonsense is all yours.

Sure I can.

It's because I believe every single experiment applies to all things at all times. You want to ignore things like we each see what we believe and nothing else.

It's you who holds real science in very low esteem because real science is EXPEREIMENT; all experiment not just what we choose to see at any given time.

You think "science" is consensus, evidence, and Peers. You think it's statistics, facts, and knowledge. You think it is answers.

Science, real science, is exactly NONE of these things. Real science is experiment because only experiment gives us glimpses of reality that lies entirely outside of our belief systems. These belief systems have been shown to be "wrong" since the tower of babel and it matters not one whit if they are handed down by Popes or Peers.

Science has no meaning outside its metaphysics and things like "evidence" and "consensus" are extrametaphysical. They are more abstractions than reality.

 

[F1fan]

Sure I can.

It's because I believe every single experiment applies to all things at all times.

You lack ethics and integrity, why would I care what you believe? It is what you can demonstrate that matters. More of your laziness.

You want to ignore things like we each see what we believe and nothing else.

And this is lkaziness. We don;t have to believe what we observe. Experiments are designed to remove bias, and leave the results as highly accurate. Results in science that are well designed in accordance to the rules and ethics will have an insignificant level of versonal bias. You don't seem to have learned this 7th grade science. That is your problem and liability as a lazy thinker.

It's you who holds real science in very low esteem because real science is EXPEREIMENT; all experiment not just what we choose to see at any given time.

Oh, the peewee Herman excuse "I know you are, but what am I?"

You don't write statements that show you understand what experiemnts are.

You think "science" is consensus, evidence, and Peers. You think it's statistics, facts, and knowledge. You think it is answers.

I defer to the norm and standard that is the scientific method. It works. Your belief system is sloppy and lazy, thus irrelevant.

Science, real science, is exactly NONE of these things. Real science is experiment because only experiment gives us glimpses of reality that lies entirely outside of our belief systems. These belief systems have been shown to be "wrong" since the tower of babel and it matters not one whit if they are handed down by Popes or Peers.

Your contempt and misunderstanding is your liability, and a result of your laziness. It's like talking to a five year old.

Science has no meaning outside its metaphysics and things like "evidence" and "consensus" are extrametaphysical. They are more abstractions than reality.

Metaphysics is not reliable. It is psuedoscience and trash. That you bring it up shows more of the need to rely on belief rather than science, which is laziness. Belief is easy, knowledge is hard. You prefer the easy way, as lazy minds do.

 

[cladking]

And "Darwinian evolution" means nothing. It is an attempt to criticize evolution in 2023 by implying it is no more accuracy than in 1865. More of your lazy and sloppy thinking.

And you want me to type out "gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest" over and over again even though no matter what words I use you ignore all of them.

You seem to have assumed this job for yourself. In your own mind, of course, because you don't fool savvy thinkers.

I believe I have found a framework for reality. Rather than points on a spectrum like modern science or a hazy look at it with religion, I believe there is an actual framework here. Think of it like a giant jigsaw puzzle showing the big picture and I've located all the corner pieces and a few edge pieces. I don't know what's in the big picture but I know you don't either and religion's view of it is far too hazy to make out anything but the grossest details. I know there are better definitions for trying to understand the nature of life and how it changes.

What can stop your lazy thinking except yourself deciding that integrity is a value?

The nice thing about lazy thinking is you can do it more often without tiring. One can still exercise the mind in between long bouts of lazy thinking.

Your blind spots are really one big blindness. You have a belief system that you can't acknowledge is what it is. This is common among theists.

You are addressing something other than what I said. Science is experiment. Everything else is window dressing or trying to figure out a new experiment.

 

[cladking]

I defer to the norm and standard that is the scientific method. It works. Your belief system is sloppy and lazy, thus irrelevant.

Real scientists don't know a small fraction of what you do.

Metaphysics is not reliable.

And after 3000 times of defining "metaphysics" as the "basis of science" you've earned a spot on my ignore list.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

after 3000 times of defining "metaphysics" as the "basis of science"

That's not a definition. A definition ought to be a series of words that allows one to understand what a person means when he uses it and identify an item that meets the definition and one that doesn't. Thus a definition of woman (biological sense) ought to be something like an adult, female human.

If any of those words are unfamiliar or ambiguous, then they can be defined as well, and that definition substituted: Adult - the mature form of an organism; Female - the gender that produces ova; Human - a linguistic primate. Thus, a woman is the mature, ova producing primate that speaks.

Assuming that one doesn't need any of those words defined for him, he can now identify whether a particular thing is a woman or not. How about this book? Nope. It meets none of the criteria. How about this tree? Nope, not a primate. How about this infant girl or her father? Nope, but getting closer. How about her mother? Bingo.

Now look again at what you are calling a definition.

You want to ignore things like we each see what we believe and nothing else.

Because it's incorrect. You like to make claims like this, but all it takes is one falsifying experience to reject any claim - one instance of seeing something one believed was untrue and having his mind changed by evidence.

All evidence is interpreted in terms of one's existing models and beliefs and no two people share the same models and beliefs.

Yet somehow, most critical thinkers come to the same conclusions about any piece of evidence. You seem to believe that we all have a personal way of processing information.

Do you also believe that all opinions are equal and equally valid? That's Dunning-Kruger territory - the people unfamiliar with critical thought and empiricism, and its power to elicit useful and correct ideas (knowledge, truth). Since they are only aware of one way of coming to belief - the one I call faith, or holding unjustified belief, in this case, because one doesn't know about justified belief, they consider all opinions equally valid.

We all seek a solid ground, a lifeline, or floating debris in the a vast sea of ignorance. There is none. We must embrace our ignorance and allow ourselves to be embraced by it.

Yes, there are limits to our knowledge, yet we can still use that knowledge to make our lives and the world a better place. You spend a lot of time discussing what we don't know and seem to miss that there is much we do know that can be quite useful to know.

 

[cladking]

Yet somehow, most critical thinkers come to the same conclusions about any piece of evidence. You seem to believe that we all have a personal way of processing information.

[sigh]

Even the very best scientists (those with a great deal of experiential knowledge and clever enough to invent new experiment) have different models. It has nothing to do with how we think and each good scientist doesn't think exactly like other good scientists. All other specialists are more prone to think differently and good scientists are more prone to think alike.

Poor Yorick's thought can not be discerned. Nor will anyone in the future be able to tell the cause of change in species nor the gradualism by which they changed by pondering their skulls. You are merely imagining that others think like you because you parse their words to9 reflect your own beliefs.

Two year olds often answer every statement with "why?". How many iterations of answers to these question are there? A two year old knows it's all bull**** but somehow we all forget. Try asking people with whom you agree some time and you might be surprised to learn you don't really agree at all and if you do it's for wholly different reasons. "Reality" is an illusion we create. You can know this as a simple fact by simply acknowledging all men are a product of their place and time. Science really is making the world smaller so place plays less of a role but it's still a shared illusion. It's an illusion to the degree that most peoples' models go far beyond any supporting experiment. They ponder a skull and believe they know Shakespeare, Evolution, and God's will. You don't and you never will. Reality is far more complex than reductionistic science or religion.

The rest of your post is not up to your usual high standards and doesn't warrant comment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The rest of your post is not up to your usual high standards and doesn't warrant comment.

That's unfortunate that you think so, but it's also my position regarding your post. Only that one sentence I quoted was interesting to me enough to comment on. I really don't know what you are trying to tell me with the rest of it or why you want me know it.

You picked the least interesting (to me) part of my post to comment on. I also covered what a definition should be and why what you called a definition doesn't qualify as one, but you had no comment. You might have agreed with me, or if you don't, explained why you don't, but you found no value there.

And I broached the topic of falsification, which might have been of interest to you as well. Once again, you might have agreed with me, or if you didn't, explained why, but you found no value there, either.

Finally, the Dunning-Kruger material is very interesting to me apparently but not to you.

You seem to have no opinions about any of those three things that I find interesting and useful to consider.

 

[F1fan]

And you want me to type out "gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest" over and over again even though no matter what words I use you ignore all of them.

I want you to get science right, and that mans accepting what xperts in science report. That you have ongoing contempt for science and scientists is a negative against YOU. You are in the same catgory as creationists, and rational, well-educated people can't have a reasoned discussion with you due to your many errors of judgment.

I believe I have found a framework for reality.

Yet nothing you write suggests you have a rational and factual framework. Your beliefs are quite strange at best. You offer no understanding of established models in science that suggests you know anything valuable.

Rather than points on a spectrum like modern science or a hazy look at it with religion, I believe there is an actual framework here.

More of your belief, no factual explanation. We don;t care what you believe. You're a nobody. We only care what you present in the way of factual explanations that are accurate and work with what experts report.

Think of it like a giant jigsaw puzzle showing the big picture and I've located all the corner pieces and a few edge pieces. I don't know what's in the big picture but I know you don't either and religion's view of it is far too hazy to make out anything but the grossest details. I know there are better definitions for trying to understand the nature of life and how it changes.

Notice you talk around what you think you have figured out, but nothing about it. No facts, no tests in reality, no coherent explanation, no nothing.

The nice thing about lazy thinking is you can do it more often without tiring. One can still exercise the mind in between long bouts of lazy thinking.

Then post in the fiction area, because you are way out of your element.

You are addressing something other than what I said. Science is experiment. Everything else is window dressing or trying to figure out a new experiment.

More of your laziness. Do you not listen to anything others tell you?

Real scientists don't know a small fraction of what you do.

Right, they don't know what brand of toothpaste I use. Or what I had for dinner last night. But who cares?

Or did you mean something else that again you were too lazy to explain? But that's OK, what are the chances it would be correct or make sense?

And after 3000 times of defining "metaphysics" as the "basis of science" you've earned a spot on my ignore list.

And more excuses for being lazy. It's been explained to you your poor judgment in using bad definitions. You can't just make things up and play by your own set of rules where it comes to science and debate. If you can't win within the norms, then you should accept the failure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Those of us who trust in the inspiration of the Bible do not need to watch science fiction films to know the changes that the earth has undergone over millions of years.

Psal. 46:2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,
Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,
3 Though its waters roar and foam over,
Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence.

Cool. Go ahead and stick with your ancient vague story beliefs, and I'm going to go ahead and throw down with science, which has shown itself to be the "single most consistently reliable method we have for discerning the true nature of reality."
-Matt Dillahunty