The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

Faith is poorly evidenced belief.

I said the scriptures define faith very clearly. Are you suggesting I should abandon that definition for yours? I might do just that if you can tell my what is your authority for making such a claim? But if I'm going to do that, you better have a pretty good authority. If it's just what you think, which I think is probably the case, I'll pass

 

[rrobs]

No, faith is not clearly defined in the scriptures. And you really have no clue what others know of Christianity. I have generally found that those that think the various churches are wrong tend to have their own personal version of Christianity that is too odd for anyone else to follow. Last of all don't accuse others of your sins.

When people say that you know nothing of evolution it is because they are giving you the benefit of the doubt.

OK

 

[Subduction Zone]

I might say you demonstrate a general ignorance of the scriptures, but what an unprofitable way to carry on an adult conversation. I swear, the more I stay here, the more I begin to feel like a 5th grader. I better be careful.

I suppose the mistakes are getting smaller and smaller. But, by how much? Are we 5% or 95% of the way to discovering the true nature of things? How would you know?

No, I probably disagree with your interpretation is all when it comes to the Bible.

To say "how much" you would have to define a metric first if you want a numerical response.

 

[rrobs]

Science actively tries to prove itself wrong, that's how it works. It's an investigational modality.

What, exactly, do you mean when you say most science has been proven wrong? Can you give some examples, other than outright fraud, and untested speculation? Are you talking about hypothesis testing, non-scientific fads like phrenology, speculative hypotheses like phlogiston, or intentional frauds like Piltdown man?

Major scientific principles have been pretty well established. Hypotheses continue to be generated and tested -- and falsified -- at the peripheries of our knowledge.

Religion has been around for millennia, and has not advanced our understanding of the world a jot or tittle. Religion discourages investigation and hypothesis testing. It's not an investigational modality.

Religion is faith-based conventionalism. It's not based in reason, logic or critical analysis. It's emotion.

This is getting boring.

There, now you can make one more claim that I'm avoiding the subject out ignorance. Woe is me!

 

[rrobs]

No, I probably disagree with your interpretation is all when it comes to the Bible.

The scriptures claim they interpret themselves. Therefore I have none of my own.

To say "how much" you would have to define a metric first if you want a numerical response.

A percentage is not a metric?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scriptures claim they interpret themselves. Therefore I have none of my own.

The Bible makes all sorts of ridiculous claims. Part of understanding it properly involves knowing that it cannot be read literally. A literalistic interpretation of the Bible is the fastest road to atheism if one can reason rationally.

A percentage is not a metric?

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is getting boring.

There, now you can make one more claim that I'm avoiding the subject out ignorance. Woe is me!

Here is a revolutionary idea. You could try to learn.

 

[wellwisher]

Science makes use of sensory verification when dealing with the details of reality. As useful as this approach is, this approach does not allow science to fully address all phenomena in nature.

For example, say I had a dream and I decided to relate the details of my dream. We have all had dreams to know that dreams can and do occur. However, there is no way to verify the details of any given dream, from the outside, using sensory verification.

Even if I was completely honest and accurate these details cannot be proven by the scientific method, nor could anyone reproduce my dream in the lab. Even if I was telling the truth, the truth will need to be denied as not verifiable by science. One would need to have faith that I am an honest investigator relating data to my colleagues. This is an example of a type of phenomena that is real, but is only subject to individual verification, but not group verification via science. Science has to deny it based on its philosophy.

Dreams are the tip of the iceberg, in terms of a wide range mind phenomena that are not fully verifiable using the scientific method. The areas of science that deal with these things are called soft science, since it does require a degree of faith and empathy beyond sensory verification. The Psychologist has to have faith in the patient telling then the truth, with the doctor looking for cues to verify the truth, so they can collect needed data.

When the philosophy of science was developed, the founding fathers consciously made the choice to factor out all affects that were not verifiable by the senses. They limited science to direct sensory verification. For example, If we all were in the woods at night and heard a noise, and each person interprets the sound in a different way, science will only deal with what we all hear; noise. The rest is not addressed unless added sensory evidence is supplied.

Even though consciousness is the most important tool of science, there is no consensus definition for consciousness by science. The reason is although we can individually observe the phenomena of consciousness from the inside of our minds, others cannot verify another person's first hand data with external sensory input. There is no way to form a consensus definition using the scientific method.

The problem this creates for science, is the main tool of science is human consciousness. If we cannot define it using science, then how do we know if this main tool of science is properly calibrated? There could be bias, that we assume is the zero point, without being able to verify using science.

 

[cladking]

Maybe consider subscribing to "Scientific American", and I'll just leave it at that because so much of the above makes no sense in reality.

IOW, "whatever".

How ironic that Scientific American made perfect sense up until the mid-'80's and so far as I know has made none since. Back in the day they reported experiment, justification, and interpretation. There was even observation and a smattering of metaphysics. Now days it's mostly disjointed and speculation. Of course the educational system failed so almost everything has deteriorated. Editors can't tell fact from fancy or find someone who can. We are rushing headlong toward Tower of Babel 2.0

Maybe people should turn to their bible for guidance. At least people familiar with the ten commandments might not try to grow rich wasting resources and stealing from their customers. No doubt at least one of these commandments can be interpreted to mean you shouldn't put sodium tripolyphosphate in the food. Maybe "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

 

[cladking]

Choir? A rather childish retort in my estimation. In any case, if you had considered the post to which I was replying, it might make more sense to you. I was told that my studies in college of evolution in the 60s was grossly outdated, inferring that now we have it all figured out.

Exactly!!!

People for 4000 years have looked back 50 years and said that the people were bumpkins but NOW everything is finally known. Homo Omnisciencis. Every human who has lived for the last 4000 years has had it all figured out or knew somebody who did.

 

[cladking]

Science makes use of sensory verification when dealing with the details of reality. As useful as this approach is, this approach does not allow science to fully address all phenomena in nature.

For example, say I had a dream and I decided to relate the details of my dream. We have all had dreams to know that dreams can and do occur. However, there is no way to verify the details of any given dream, from the outside, using sensory verification.

Even if I was completely honest and accurate these details cannot be proven by the scientific method, nor could anyone reproduce my dream in the lab. Even if I was telling the truth, the truth will need to be denied as not verifiable by science. One would need to have faith that I am an honest investigator relating data to my colleagues. This is an example of a type of phenomena that is real, but is only subject to individual verification, but not group verification via science. Science has to deny it based on its philosophy.

Dreams are the tip of the iceberg, in terms of a wide range mind phenomena that are not fully verifiable using the scientific method. The areas of science that deal with these things are called soft science, since it does require a degree of faith and empathy beyond sensory verification. The Psychologist has to have faith in the patient telling then the truth, with the doctor looking for cues to verify the truth, so they can collect needed data.

Actually many people can have any dream they want and the day will come in the not distant future that dreams and memories of them are reproducible in the lab.

Senses have nothing to do with real science beyond reading instruments and the like. Even "observation" has nothing to do with sight. "Sight" is merely one of the tools used to make some observations.

Looking and seeing is NOT SCIENCE and "soft science" for the main part is not science.

When the philosophy of science was developed, the founding fathers consciously made the choice to factor out all affects that were not verifiable by the senses. They limited science to direct sensory verification.

NO! Absolutely not. Senses are irrelevant to theory and experiment. Senses were intentionally eliminated from the scientific method because senses are always deceiving. We see and experience ONLY what we expect.

Even though consciousness is the most important tool of science, there is no consensus definition for consciousness by science. The reason is although we can individually observe the phenomena of consciousness from the inside of our minds, others cannot verify another person's first hand data with external sensory input. There is no way to form a consensus definition using the scientific method.

A scientific tool that is undefined is not science. Scientists are a tool and they are often wrong or misapplied.

"Consensus" is wholly irrelevant to theory. "Egyptology" calls itself a science and the Peers aren't even allowed access to the infrared data!!! How can "consensus" define theory? Experiment defines theory" and all else is politics and Look and See Science.

 

[columbus]

Exactly!!!

People for 4000 years have looked back 50 years and said that the people were bumpkins but NOW everything is finally known. Homo Omnisciencis. Every human who has lived for the last 4000 years has had it all figured out or knew somebody who did.

No, quite the opposite.
One big thing you'll learn from science is that the more you know the more you realize how much more there is to learn.
Tom

 

[metis]

How ironic that Scientific American made perfect sense up until the mid-'80's and so far as I know has made none since. Back in the day they reported experiment, justification, and interpretation. There was even observation and a smattering of metaphysics. Now days it's mostly disjointed and speculation. Of course the educational system failed so almost everything has deteriorated. Editors can't tell fact from fancy or find someone who can. We are rushing headlong toward Tower of Babel 2.0

As one who has had an on/off again subscription since the late 1960's, you really don't know what you're talking about on this as well. Their use of the "scientific method" and "peer review" has not changed.

Maybe people should turn to their bible for guidance.

Some of us do, but the Bible is not a science book-- it's a book of faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, quite the opposite.
One big thing you'll learn from science is that the more you know the more you realize how much more there is to learn.
Tom

I think that many of the deniers here follow the fallacious line of reasoning that if one does not know everything that one cannot know anything. Science advances more by what we learn is wrong than what we learn is right. It is a long process of elimination. People tend to resent it when their own personal myths join the growing junk heap of ideas that have been shown to be incorrect.

 

[Valjean]

I'm unaware of when the scriptures were proven wrong. Seems like it'd be as hard to prove that as the THEORY of evolution.

What evidence would you accept as 'proof' that the bible's wrong?
Much of the geology, physics, history and biology in the bible has been pretty well discredited or is unfounded.

The THEORY of evolution is at least as well evidenced as the heliocentric, round-earth, or germ THEORIES.
I suspect you don't understand the concept of "proof" or the term "theory."

 

[Valjean]

I was told that my studies in college of evolution in the 60s was grossly outdated, inferring that now we have it all figured out.

It implies no such thing. It's simply a claim that we know a great deal more about the mechanisms than we did half a century ago.
The basic, underlying concepts still stand.

 

[Valjean]

You have no way of knowing that the scientific mistakes are getting smaller and smaller. Only time can tell if that is the case or not. I would imagine the folks in the age of enlightenment thought they had it all figured out.

As scientific thought grows, more and more 'mistaken' theorems will be proposed, but the whole point of science is to winnow out the mistakes. It's what science does. It's why science has been so successful at improving our knowledge and technology.

Folks during the Age of Enlightenment were only just beginning to apply scientific methodology to problems. Look how far and fast our knowledge has increased since we began using science.

There is no way of knowing that for certain. It is only an inference.

Apparently you're unaware of the evidence that led scientists to that opinion.
There are ways of researching these things without actually being there watching.

I thought I did, but maybe not. Help me out.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

You are free to believe Mark Twain, but I'll pass. Faith is clearly defined in the scriptures and it doesn't agree with Twain. It is actually exactly what I said it means. It is very clear and unambiguous. You should at least check it out for yourself before making any judgments.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1.
Is this the clear, unambiguous definition you refer to? It's very poetic, to be sure, but it's hardly clear.
Faith usually refers to poorly evidenced belief.

It's funny that I've been accused over and over of talking about something, i.e. evolution, of which I know less than nothing. And yet, with one or two exceptions, the only thing my accusers know of the scriptures is what they've heard from the churches. Suffice it to say, they are more steeped in tradition than actual truth. Of course, you'd have to begin researching it yourself with an open mind to see that. Maybe someday you will do just that. It'd be the best move you ever made.

What aspects of scripture do you think we've got wrong?

 

[Valjean]

I said the scriptures define faith very clearly. Are you suggesting I should abandon that definition for yours? I might do just that if you can tell my what is your authority for making such a claim? But if I'm going to do that, you better have a pretty good authority. If it's just what you think, which I think is probably the case, I'll pass

English is my native tongue.

Try substituting the biblical definition for the word when you see it in general reading and see how that works out.
Poorly evidenced belief is how the word is commonly used. Better evidenced belief is knowledge. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, as new evidence comes to light the knowledge may change.

When the philosophy of science was developed, the founding fathers consciously made the choice to factor out all affects that were not verifiable by the senses. They limited science to direct sensory verification. For example, If we all were in the woods at night and heard a noise, and each person interprets the sound in a different way, science will only deal with what we all hear; noise. The rest is not addressed unless added sensory evidence is supplied.

Direct sensory verification is not needed. Most of our knowledge is indirect.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly!!!

People for 4000 years have looked back 50 years and said that the people were bumpkins but NOW everything is finally known. Homo Omnisciencis. Every human who has lived for the last 4000 years has had it all figured out or knew somebody who did.

Most humans never had empirical evidence for their beliefs, nor did they look for it. They just accepted the mythology they were taught. Progress was slow and slipshod.

Scientific knowledge is a new thing. Only recently has scientific methodology been applied to problems and questions. We no longer rely on authority, age or tradition for epistemic support.

 

[McBell]

I'm unaware ...

Thus the real issue has been revealed...

Choir? A rather childish retort in my estimation.

It is true non the less.

In any case, if you had considered the post to which I was replying, it might make more sense to you. I was told that my studies in college of evolution in the 60s was grossly outdated, inferring that now we have it all figured out.

I did consider the post you replied to.
That you decided to create a strawman in order to reply is a you problem.