The assumptions behind evolution?

[Laika]

One should simply describe how things are chosen in the universe, creationism is the correct terminology, the correct basic theory. Evolution theory does not describe how things are chosen in the universe.

What about the theory that God is a watch maker? That he makes all the components, puts it together and then winds up the watch and sets it in motion. That way creation and evolution would be compatible; but admittedly, it wouldn't be creation as in Genesis.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What about the theory that God is a watch maker? That he makes all the components, puts it together and then winds up the watch and sets it in motion. That way creation and evolution would be compatible; but admittedly, it wouldn't be creation as in Genesis.

Evolution is compatible with creationism in principle, but evolution is not creationism.

Again the issue of concern here is the validation of subjectivity, the concern for science is secondary. It is required to directly refer to decisions to validate subjectivity, therefore creationism is the theory of interest.

 

[Laika]

For me, I would say science is primary because I rely on my sense data, and my sense data can only tell me about the material world. I acknowledge that there is an inner world in the mind, which is vast and feels infinite but I think of it as 'only' my mind, not necessarily access to god.

Is that inner world of the mind what you mean by subjectivity? Why would that be primary?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For me, I would say science is primary because I rely on my sense data, and my sense data can only tell me about the material world. I acknowledge that there is an inner world in the mind, which is vast and feels infinite but I think of it as 'only' my mind, not necessarily access to god.

Is that inner world of the mind what you mean by subjectivity? Why would that be primary?

....I suggest you actually read what I wrote before, accurately reflect what I say. Did I not say 10 times to you already that it is a matter of opinion what it is the chooses? Do you want me to say it 20 more times?

Now you are again confusing fantasy with the subjective domain. Objects in fantasy are just like objects in the physical world, they are chosen, they do not choose.

 

[Laika]

....I suggest you actually read what I wrote before, accurately reflect what I say. Did I not say 10 times to you already that it is a matter of opinion what it is the chooses? Do you want me to say it 20 more times?

Now you are again confusing fantasy with the subjective domain. Objects in fantasy are just like objects in the physical world, they are chosen, they do not choose.

Is your position similar to that of Bishop George Berkeley? This is not someone I know well, or can claim to fully understand but I have heard his ideas being cited a couple of times in Marxist Philosophy. Here's the introduction from Wikipedia:

George Berkeley (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753), also known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne), was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers, and as a result cannot exist without being perceived. Berkeley is also known for his critique of abstraction, an important premise in his argument for immaterialism.

George Berkeley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know he used the theory of subjective idealism, that reality is the product of the mind, to defend the existence of god. I think his argument roughly was that if reality is the product of the mind- then all individual consciousness and reality must ultimately come from the same mind; the mind of god. This sounds similar to what you're saying because "Objects in fantasy are just like objects in the physical world, they are chosen, they do not choose." If that is you're argument I can see why you would believe that the universe is ultimately the product of God's choices in creation; belief in god, creation and the mind comes before scientific theories of evolution.

Otherwise, I am quite lost. It would seem to be the central difference to understanding why on the one hand I believe in evolution (because I think it is objective and determined) whereas you (appear) to believe in creation (because you think it is subjective and the result of choice and free will and therefore freedom). But I don't know what you mean by "subjectivity" and that is where your proof for creationism comes from.

What you're saying is very alien to me as I have always taken Science for granted and therefore believe that I cannot choose to reject what I hold to be "facts". I do not believe it is possible for me to choose facts. I can choose an interpretation of those facts, but not the facts themselves. You seem to be arguing that it is possible to do precisely that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Otherwise, I am quite lost.

You don't have to understand much of anything because it is just a procedure, you have to correctly follow the procedure.

If a decision is made between x and y and x is chosen, then the question "what made the decision turn out x instead of y?", can only be answered by making a new decision between p and q, related to the original decision. If then p is chosen, then the opinion is that p made the decision turn out x instead of y.

That explains how forming an opinion works. It is the basic logical structure of all subjectivity, like saying what is beautiful, but also belief in God.

So it means that being forced to a conclusion in matters of opinion, forced by evidence, or forced by a tyrant, produces a logical error. An opinion is only logically valid if 1. the conclusion is chosen, 2. the conclusion is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

You have to try to be exact, just like with all other knowledge, it doesn't work with some kind of impressionist take on things. For example, you can define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, or define it in terms of making a future the present or not. It's unclear which is more fundamental, but it obviously matters which one is correct.

 

[Laika]

You don't have to understand much of anything because it is just a procedure, you have to correctly follow the procedure.

If a decision is made between x and y and x is chosen, then the question "what made the decision turn out x instead of y?", can only be answered by making a new decision between p and q, related to the original decision. If then p is chosen, then the opinion is that p made the decision turn out x instead of y.

That explains how forming an opinion works. It is the basic logical structure of all subjectivity, like saying what is beautiful, but also belief in God.

So it means that being forced to a conclusion in matters of opinion, forced by evidence, or forced by a tyrant, produces a logical error. An opinion is only logically valid if 1. the conclusion is chosen, 2. the conclusion is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

You have to try to be exact, just like with all other knowledge, it doesn't work with some kind of impressionist take on things. For example, you can define choosing in terms of making one of alternative futures the present, or define it in terms of making a future the present or not. It's unclear which is more fundamental, but it obviously matters which one is correct.

Ok, that makes much more sense. many thanks.

Just so I understand...

i) Do you think evolution is an opinion?

ii) Do you feel that science is forcing you to a conclusion by evidence and therefore denying you choice?

iii) Do you choose creationism because it isn't deterministic and therefore you retain your capacity for choice?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ok, that makes much more sense. many thanks.

Just so I understand...

i) Do you think evolution is an opinion?

ii) Do you feel that science is forcing you to a conclusion by evidence and therefore denying you choice?

iii) Do you choose creationism because it isn't deterministic and therefore you retain your capacity for choice?

Evolution is proposed as a fact, and contains many verified facts.

However there is a big problem with natural selection theory, in that it uses emotive terminology, which is really more suitable for matters of opinion. Differential reproductive "succes", "beneficial"mutations, which provide an "advantage". Most professional biologists are confused by the terminology of natural selection theory, which is shown by their opposition to creationism, but also in other ways, that they have no clear understanding where the line is between fact and opinion. That line is between what chooses and what is chosen, the first is a matter of opinion, the second a matter of fact. When biologists propose that organisms "like" to survive, as fact, then either this is false social darwinism, or we have to interpret it metaphorically. Like or dislike is properly a matter of opinion, and is properly no part of any science.

Aside from that many proposed facts in evolution theory may be false. And I think the timeline is generally false. Also the scientific merit of evolution theory is exaggerated, the theory does not describe origins, only creationism can describe origins. And organisms are chosen in the DNA world, as a whole.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a model of what is evidenced. Facts are always about chosen things. The rules for obtaining a fact are totally different from the rules for arriving at an opinion.

Validating subjectivity is something you do before you can begin to do science. A social-darwinist is the anti-thesis of a scientist IMO.

 

[Laika]

Evolution is proposed as a fact, and contains many verified facts.

However there is a big problem with natural selection theory, in that it uses emotive terminology, which is really more suitable for matters of opinion. Differential reproductive "succes", "beneficial"mutations, which provide an "advantage". Most professional biologists are confused by the terminology of natural selection theory, which is shown by their opposition to creationism, but also in other ways, that they have no clear understanding where the line is between fact and opinion. That line is between what chooses and what is chosen, the first is a matter of opinion, the second a matter of fact. When biologists propose that organisms "like" to survive, as fact, then either this is false social darwinism, or we have to interpret it metaphorically. Like or dislike is properly a matter of opinion, and is properly no part of any science.

Aside from that many proposed facts in evolution theory may be false. And I think the timeline is generally false. Also the scientific merit of evolution theory is exaggerated, the theory does not describe origins, only creationism can describe origins. And organisms are chosen in the DNA world, as a whole.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a model of what is evidenced. Facts are always about chosen things. The rules for obtaining a fact are totally different from the rules for arriving at an opinion.

Validating subjectivity is something you do before you can begin to do science. A social-darwinist is the anti-thesis of a scientist IMO.

If evolution were not posed in such emotive terms (which do imply a moral evaluation), would you be more open to it?

I think the idea that something is 'true' or 'false', is problematic. In science, rarely if ever can anything be said to be absolutely 'true'. Usually, 'Truth' is a matter of degrees of certainty based on an assessment of the evidence available and is therefore open to some criticism. How far is debatable depending on the method you're using for establishing it is true. If you want to discuss the evidence, you're more than welcome to. I'm better at social sciences to be honest, but I will none the less try as I'll probably learn something in the process anyways.

[I'm going to be offline for a bit so my response will be delayed].

 

[AllanV]

Clearly then, the items were not blood cells or blood cells are able to last longer that was thought in the past. It will be interesting to see which it turn out to be.

Polystrate fossils "problems" were solve with conventional geology more than 100 years ago using very basic principles.

(with thanks to Talk Origins)

In reading the article,it seems a choice had to be made as to whether there was a world wide flood or not as an explanation.
The idea of a flood is out of the question and therefore anything is better than that.

Mount ST. Helen is an example of recent layering placed very rapidly. Local observation showed this but geologists insisted it was wrong and dated samples showing the apparent age.

Many fossils have been shown with half eaten fish protruding from the mouth, also a fossil half way through a birth. Something has happened very quickly and set up the exact chemicals to preserve such.

 

[Parsimony]

In reading the article,it seems a choice had to be made as to whether there was a world wide flood or not as an explanation.
The idea of a flood is out of the question and therefore anything is better than that.

Mount ST. Helen is an example of recent layering placed very rapidly. Local observation showed this but geologists insisted it was wrong and dated samples showing the apparent age.

Many fossils have been shown with half eaten fish protruding from the mouth, also a fossil half way through a birth. Something has happened very quickly and set up the exact chemicals to preserve such.

Yes, deposition can happen very rapidly. It doesn't always happen rapidly, though.

 

[gnostic]

What about the theory that God is a watch maker? That he makes all the components, puts it together and then winds up the watch and sets it in motion.

I have never like the watchmaker analogy, because it is very limited and restrictive, because it doesn't take into account of real watchmaker do.

For one, you can meet and talk to the watchmaker, in person...something that you couldn't do with a god.

And a real watchmaker would have learn his trade from his predecessor, like that of master and apprentice. And his predecessor would have learn from another master watchmaker. So unless there were generations of gods, it would sort of throw the whole MONOtheism out the proverbial window.

That way creation and evolution would be compatible; but admittedly, it wouldn't be creation as in Genesis.

That's right. You might as well as ditch or cut out Genesis 1 & 2.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If evolution were not posed in such emotive terms (which do imply a moral evaluation), would you be more open to it?

I think the idea that something is 'true' or 'false', is problematic. In science, rarely if ever can anything be said to be absolutely 'true'. Usually, 'Truth' is a matter of degrees of certainty based on an assessment of the evidence available and is therefore open to some criticism. How far is debatable depending on the method you're using for establishing it is true. If you want to discuss the evidence, you're more than welcome to. I'm better at social sciences to be honest, but I will none the less try as I'll probably learn something in the process anyways.

[I'm going to be offline for a bit so my response will be delayed].

Not really interested in evolution, neither really that much interested in creation, only the validation of subjectivity is of direct interest to me.

 

[Laika]

Not really interested in evolution, neither really that much interested in creation, only the validation of subjectivity is of direct interest to me.

Science often gets presented as a monolithic all or nothing body of knowledge in the media, but the scientific method is much more open. Scientists often have to make guesses and work on hunches before they can test something out so subjectivity plays a role of sorts.

many thanks for explaining this to me. It was nice to hear a different point of view.

 

[shawn001]

No it is criticism of your points. All you have done is taken mechanics of evolution, changed adaptation to choice and called it a day. You failed to form any rebuttal. You just complain and whine about how people are out to get you and your idea. Using fictional ideas in support of your argument makes it illogical.

Link said study in which brain waves can be read and used to create an image of what I am actually looking at. Empty claims can be dismissed.

While he has so many things wrong this isn't one of them.

brain waves can be read and used to create an image of what I am actually looking at.

Scientists extract images directly from brain ~ Pink Tentacle

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There are a few things that are difficult to understand. Blood cells in soft tissue Of 26 million year old fossils. It was calculated that these should not exceed 100 thousand years.

Trees or logs without their foliage were found standing vertically through millions of years of sedimentary layers.

There are a number of unknowns but the basic concept is fairly easy to understand. But are you bringing into question these events or are you simply stating them as mysterious?

 

[gnostic]

Science often gets presented as a monolithic all or nothing body of knowledge in the media, but the scientific method is much more open. Scientists often have to make guesses and work on hunches before they can test something out so subjectivity plays a role of sorts.

many thanks for explaining this to me. It was nice to hear a different point of view.

Subjectivity, always exist, even when scientist is writing up his hypothesis. But if the tests or evidences meet with the requirements of proposed hypothesis' prediction(s), then we have some degrees of objectivity. More objectivity come into play when the hypothesis

The true objectivity come from the data or results of the repeated tests or through empirical evidence-gathering. The hypothesis' conclusion should be based on these observable results.

Only when the scientific method and peer review are completed with all conclusive results of successful hypothesis, then can the hypothesis be refined and revised to the status of "scientific theory".

(Editor's note: I had accidentally press the "save changes" button. Sorry.)

 

[Ouroboros]

To John C. Sanford who gave the easily understood talk that answered some of the critics.
I will find his videos hopefully.

I see.

Since we have the DNA from Neanderthals, and they've been compared, why hasn't there been any confirmation about this so called loss of genes? It should be easy to prove him right or wrong, but is there a test that has confirmed this yet?

I have a mechanical engineering background with electricity and electronics. Biology isn't my subject but animals on a small holding have been breed and gardening is undertaken of course.

I have a science degree from 30 years ago, and went back to school for a second degree a few years ago.

 

[Ouroboros]

There are a few things that are difficult to understand. Blood cells in soft tissue Of 26 million year old fossils. It was calculated that these should not exceed 100 thousand years.

Problem one, C14 method doesn't extend beyond 50-60,000 years, so for it to show 100,000 years is obviously wrong. Secondly, it's imperative to maintain a very high standard when doing these tests. Some million tests have been done over the years, and no other one is showing such ridiculous result. The explanation is most likely misuse of the machine (not using with operating parameters) or polluted sample.

Trees or logs without their foliage were found standing vertically through millions of years of sedimentary layers.

It's extremely rare, and in those cases it's obvious that the tree penetrated the layers. The answer is often very simple if one uses his brain.

 

[Ouroboros]

The people were killing, stealing, the children were misbehaving, there were bad parents and probably wife swapping. Sounds a bit like today.
Something had to be done because they were in a precarious situation. If someone rocks the overloaded life raft and will not stop, what is to be done.

There are other ways to solve those problems than to drown children, babies, and pregnant women. Is abortion okay when God does it?